Thread by @S_R_Anders

Reports that Jared Kushner cut the U.S. Embassy out of the loop on his meetings with the Saudi government, even for security reasons, aren't just disturbing—they're also contrary to longstanding federal laws structuring U.S. diplomatic operations . . .
thedailybeast.com/embassy-staffe…

Federal law places executive branch employees under what is called "Chief of Mission" (or COM) authority when operating overseas.

This means they have to keep the COM informed of their activities and follow the COM's directives, especially re: security.
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req…

This helps ensure unity of mission, as it lets the COM make sure that all official U.S. activities are coordinated and not working at cross-purposes. It also allows the COM to keep D.C. informed of all relevant developments via official channels.

fam.state.gov/searchapps/vie…

Importantly, COM authority also ensures that all federal employees follow the directions of embassy regional security officers, who are most familiar with local security conditions and advise the COM on how best to ensure personnel safety.

Normally the COM is the U.S. ambassador to a given country.

Where there is no U.S. ambassador, as is currently the case in Saudi Arabia, COM authority is exercised by the charge d'affaires, who is usually the most senior career diplomat at post.

There are two statutory exceptions to COM authority: for Voice of America authorities and personnel under the authority of a military combatant commander.

Needless to say, neither applies to Kushner or his entourage.

The statute also makes clear that each COM executes these duties "[u]nder the direction of the President," who may carve out other exceptions.

But absent a directive from President Trump exempting Kushner's activity, it should be under COM authority.

Nor is this just a formality.

When there is a major security incident (like an attack or intelligence breach), the State Department is required to convene an Accountability Review Board (ARB) and report the results to Congress.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22…

ARBs always ask whose legal authority personnel involved in a given incident were acting under. And if the person responsible for overseeing the relevant activities is found to have fallen short of their duties, this can have major career consequences.

fam.state.gov/fam/12fam/12fa…

This means that, absent a presidential directive exempting Kushner from COM supervision, the charge d'affaires at Embassy Riyadh could be held responsible for security incidents he is involved in.

That's why I always advised COMs to clarify lines of responsibility in writing.

At a minimum, I think this means that the COM in Saudi Arabia is entitled—and may even have a responsibility—to request a presidential directive in writing if Kushner is to be exempted from COM requirements.

And if this doesn't come, then the COM is within his or her rights to insist that Kushner abide by standard COM procedures and keep the COM informed of all of his activities, including by bringing an Embassy representative on his meetings.

Realistically, I'm not surprised that the career diplomats currently running Embassy Riyadh are hesitant to make these demands of the White House—they're being put in an impossible position, and shouldn't have to put their careers in jeopardy by doing so.

But if Gen. Abizaid is confirmed as ambassador, he will be in a much stronger position. And he should insist that the Trump administration make clear—and respect—the contours of the authority it is giving to him.