Foreign affairs federalism disunites messaging and angers other actors.

I. Cacophonous Foreign Affairs The case against state involvement in foreign affairs is easy to make. States are unqualified to act in the international arena because they lack the information and the expertise that comes from continued and sustained engagement in foreign matters. Because of their ignorance and inexperience, states are apt to anger allies and undermine the actions and priorities of the more expert federal political branches. Those untutored in foreign matters should not be suffered to hamper those more informed and skilled, however good the intentions of the former. Further, the international ventures of state officials run counter to popular expectations. Voters expect that local officials will stick to local matters and that federal officials--senators, representatives, presidents--will steer our nation's diplomacy. In sum, foreign affairs federalism, as it operates today, imposes substantial costs and renders the United States disunited before the world. Some scholars disagree with our diagnosis. A few of them claim that state intervention generates weighty benefits. Others suggest that the drawbacks of state freelancing are insignificant, or are manageable. We disagree. This Part highlights the drawbacks of state involvement in foreign affairs. It then maintains that the supposed benefits of many voices in foreign affairs are illusory.