As hostile intelligence services become more aggressive in their targeting of American diplomats, a new legislative push on Capitol Hill is aimed at sharpening the counterintelligence posture of those on the front lines.
On August 19, Congressman Mike Lawler (R-NY), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, introduced the Modernize Diplomatic Security Training Act. The bill seeks to update outdated requirements and improve counterintelligence (CI) training for Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agents assigned to high-threat overseas posts.
“The threats our diplomats face today are more sophisticated than they were even five years ago,” Lawler said in a statement. “Hostile foreign intelligence services are constantly adapting, and our security professionals must be a step ahead.”
The legislation is part of a broader effort to modernize the State Department’s posture toward emerging threats, especially in regions where diplomatic staff operate in contested or adversarial environments. Lawler’s role as Subcommittee Chair over the State Department’s Bureau of Management and Bureau of Counterterrorism gives him direct oversight of the personnel and policy structures affected by this reform.
A Long-Overdue Shift in CI Readiness
While the Diplomatic Security Service has long provided protective services and conducted security operations at U.S. embassies, the formalized CI training its agents receive has not kept pace with the evolving threat landscape. Many DSS agents are operating in regions rife with foreign intelligence activity, cyber-enabled surveillance, and complex social engineering campaigns.
Unlike military service members and intelligence professionals who are routinely exposed to adversary tradecraft and threat actor patterns, some diplomatic personnel receive only limited exposure to advanced CI methodologies before deploying to high-threat assignments. The Modernize Diplomatic Security Training Act aims to close that gap.
This shift comes at a time when embassies and consulates are increasingly viewed by adversaries as soft entry points for collecting U.S. intelligence. From Moscow to Caracas, American personnel have been followed, surveilled, and at times targeted with sophisticated influence or exploitation tactics. These risks don’t just endanger individuals — they compromise national policy and diplomatic leverage.
What the Bill Would Do
If passed, the legislation would mandate new standards for advanced CI training for DSS agents posted in designated high-threat environments. This likely includes instruction on surveillance detection, behavioral analysis, cyber hygiene, and detection of recruitment efforts by foreign intelligence services.
It also reinforces the growing recognition that counterintelligence is not a “nice to have” but a “must have” capability across U.S. diplomatic missions. As China, Russia, Iran, and others continue to deploy political warfare, espionage, and coercive influence abroad, frontline U.S. personnel must be equipped to defend against more than just kinetic threats.
For DSS agents, this means more than protecting facilities and principals. It means understanding how adversaries operate in the gray zone, and how even small lapses in situational awareness or tradecraft discipline can have strategic consequences.
Broader Implications for U.S. Security Strategy
Lawler’s proposal signals growing momentum behind a larger policy shift: re-centering counterintelligence as a core function of U.S. foreign engagement. CI must not only protect secrets but also preserve decision-making, safeguard influence, and secure long-term credibility. In diplomatic environments, that mission often falls to the men and women of the Diplomatic Security Service.
As Congress moves toward State Department reauthorization, the Modernize Diplomatic Security Training Act is expected to be considered alongside other reforms aimed at making American diplomacy more agile, adaptive, and secure.
Given the bipartisan interest in strengthening America’s global posture, especially in contested regions, the bill may find strong support across the aisle.
For the diplomatic corps — and for the CI professionals tasked with protecting them — this is more than a legislative update. It’s a signal that the mission is evolving, and the tools must evolve with it.
