I see some similarities here with your first post on strategies. I noted then that you can’t be good at three things if you are focused on 30. This piece makes me think even more that simplicity and focus are recipes for success and endurance. Really informative piece.
What, Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation didn't make the list?!
In all seriousness, the lessons you end the piece with all seem reasonable to me, but they also seem procedural. Could it be that we need to learn some substantive lessons as well--like do our initiatives focus on the right things, at the right scale or level of complexity?
Another thought is that it would be interesting to see a deep dive comparison between some more successful vs. less successful initiatives. Is there systematicity to the differences that policymakers can learn from?
Before I was DOGE'd, I was gearing up as the lead evaluator of the ADAPT Initiative. I think there's a lot of detail that is implied by this piece, but would maybe be helpful to extrapolate. For example, ADAPT was meant as a pilot to see if it could be scaled to other counties. But the pilot country was CHRONICALLY understaffed and faced bureaucratic gridlock. ADAPT was a "2D" initiative and though the embassy really tried, its own bureaucratic structures--as simple as incompatible IT infrastructure and comms systems between the 2 Ds--created unnecessary road blocks to effective and efficient collaboration. And ADAPT kept being overcome by events--more pressing and urgent priorities that required attention elsewhere. And they were being asked to tie this initiative into no less than SIX national strategies, making it in equal measure too narrow and too broad at the same time. I could go on and on.
We saw similar problems with GFA implementation. DC hasn't solved the problem of these initiatives being handed down to embassies who have to try their best to address them, while grappling with all the routine business things embassies deal with.
I am not sure why that was the experience — we provided funding to increase staffing (which was one of the benefits) and no one asked or needed them to incorporate it into six national strategies.
The root cause of all of this is a general lack of consensus around objectives, and I mean that at a much broader level than the agency level. The general public having weak commitments to even the buzzword level "prosperity, growth, reform, integration", makes every initiative fragile from the start, and before the formal start.
Why do initiatives launch with visits? Because their generalized commitment is so weak, it really is worth it to rush for your "moment" than to patiently build. It's hail mary's, big and small, to see if something sticks because so much is contingent on outside factors. Building a perfect program sounds great, but it's likely to be erased without any implementation due to lack of attention, or the wrong kind of attention, or just randomly as part of political erasure. In this environment, it's better to rush implementation when given an opportunity, and risk failure from that, then to wait until you're ready, and face the larger risk of silent erasure.
This would get a lot easier, with changes to public views. Unfortunately, it's more than little changes. It's rather easy to fool yourself that easy is just around the corner by polling for simple interest in a topic without considering related interest in preferences that are ineffective without context.
For example, you might have a high proportion agree with promoting prosperity. But one slice of that proportion will believe we can't improve things via meddling. Another slice will believe we can and should force our views quickly. Another will believe we can't afford any compromises, and should disengage at the slightest signal of imperfection.. usually corruption, but also incompetence.
In the end, the best path is one that threads a middle path. But the lack of general commitment to that, combined with the prevalence of applying preferences without context, makes that a bit like walking a tightrope that's under strong and irregular winds. It's hard enough to move in a domain that needs balance, it's harder yet when outside forces are forcing you to balance them as well, and even a temporary failure to do so ends the initiative.
A stronger commitment, with more flexibility, would transform this more into finding a path through a forest. Still a challenge, but one in which it's easier to stay focused on the goal, make appropriate adjustments and where progress can come progressively.
Excellent stuff. Procedural, yes. But procedural gets it done (in a longer lasting way at least) in Washington. I love the bit about starting on day 1; I wonder if there's a sub bullet there on building foundations and being ready for/finding the right political moment (eg a high level trip, a UNGA, etc.)? I'm also thinking about this recent op ed (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/29/opinion/usaid-ending.html) and thinking, in the context of this post, how critical the domestic messaging piece of this is. I imagine W's calls re PEPFAR would be easier if most (or at least some) Americans knew what it was.
I see some similarities here with your first post on strategies. I noted then that you can’t be good at three things if you are focused on 30. This piece makes me think even more that simplicity and focus are recipes for success and endurance. Really informative piece.
What, Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation didn't make the list?!
In all seriousness, the lessons you end the piece with all seem reasonable to me, but they also seem procedural. Could it be that we need to learn some substantive lessons as well--like do our initiatives focus on the right things, at the right scale or level of complexity?
Another thought is that it would be interesting to see a deep dive comparison between some more successful vs. less successful initiatives. Is there systematicity to the differences that policymakers can learn from?
I should have included Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation! Is it still active?
It still has a live page on the DOS website: https://www.state.gov/atlantic-partnership. But other than that, I don't actually know.
Before I was DOGE'd, I was gearing up as the lead evaluator of the ADAPT Initiative. I think there's a lot of detail that is implied by this piece, but would maybe be helpful to extrapolate. For example, ADAPT was meant as a pilot to see if it could be scaled to other counties. But the pilot country was CHRONICALLY understaffed and faced bureaucratic gridlock. ADAPT was a "2D" initiative and though the embassy really tried, its own bureaucratic structures--as simple as incompatible IT infrastructure and comms systems between the 2 Ds--created unnecessary road blocks to effective and efficient collaboration. And ADAPT kept being overcome by events--more pressing and urgent priorities that required attention elsewhere. And they were being asked to tie this initiative into no less than SIX national strategies, making it in equal measure too narrow and too broad at the same time. I could go on and on.
We saw similar problems with GFA implementation. DC hasn't solved the problem of these initiatives being handed down to embassies who have to try their best to address them, while grappling with all the routine business things embassies deal with.
I am not sure why that was the experience — we provided funding to increase staffing (which was one of the benefits) and no one asked or needed them to incorporate it into six national strategies.
The root cause of all of this is a general lack of consensus around objectives, and I mean that at a much broader level than the agency level. The general public having weak commitments to even the buzzword level "prosperity, growth, reform, integration", makes every initiative fragile from the start, and before the formal start.
Why do initiatives launch with visits? Because their generalized commitment is so weak, it really is worth it to rush for your "moment" than to patiently build. It's hail mary's, big and small, to see if something sticks because so much is contingent on outside factors. Building a perfect program sounds great, but it's likely to be erased without any implementation due to lack of attention, or the wrong kind of attention, or just randomly as part of political erasure. In this environment, it's better to rush implementation when given an opportunity, and risk failure from that, then to wait until you're ready, and face the larger risk of silent erasure.
This would get a lot easier, with changes to public views. Unfortunately, it's more than little changes. It's rather easy to fool yourself that easy is just around the corner by polling for simple interest in a topic without considering related interest in preferences that are ineffective without context.
For example, you might have a high proportion agree with promoting prosperity. But one slice of that proportion will believe we can't improve things via meddling. Another slice will believe we can and should force our views quickly. Another will believe we can't afford any compromises, and should disengage at the slightest signal of imperfection.. usually corruption, but also incompetence.
In the end, the best path is one that threads a middle path. But the lack of general commitment to that, combined with the prevalence of applying preferences without context, makes that a bit like walking a tightrope that's under strong and irregular winds. It's hard enough to move in a domain that needs balance, it's harder yet when outside forces are forcing you to balance them as well, and even a temporary failure to do so ends the initiative.
A stronger commitment, with more flexibility, would transform this more into finding a path through a forest. Still a challenge, but one in which it's easier to stay focused on the goal, make appropriate adjustments and where progress can come progressively.
Excellent stuff. Procedural, yes. But procedural gets it done (in a longer lasting way at least) in Washington. I love the bit about starting on day 1; I wonder if there's a sub bullet there on building foundations and being ready for/finding the right political moment (eg a high level trip, a UNGA, etc.)? I'm also thinking about this recent op ed (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/29/opinion/usaid-ending.html) and thinking, in the context of this post, how critical the domestic messaging piece of this is. I imagine W's calls re PEPFAR would be easier if most (or at least some) Americans knew what it was.
💯especially on the big ticket initiatives!