Kevin Rudd’s resignation might be overdue, but his departure from diplomacy is a loss for foreign policy

To Kevin Rudd’s many critics, he should have quit as Australia’s Ambassador to the United States long before now.

According to them, it should and could have been on the morning after Donald Trump’s re-election when Mr Rudd, inexplicably, chose to release a statement drawing attention to the historical criticisms he had made of Mr Trump while in his job at Asia Society — the think tank where Mr Rudd is returning.

But Mr Rudd and Prime Minister Albanese dug in, setting up the White House showdown late last year, when Mr Trump was finally asked about Mr Rudd’s comments, while the former prime minister sat across from him.

When Mr Trump berated Mr Rudd live on television, saying he didn’t like him either and probably never would, it was the only dent in Anthony Albanese’s trip to the White House.

It didn’t cause material damage to the relationship and the policy issues Mr Rudd had been relentlessly working on, such as US-backed critical minerals mining projects in Australia and AUKUS.

But a blow-up was always likely given Mr Trump’s tempestuous nature and the warnings his MAGA acolytes had previously sent Mr Rudd’s way.

It presented Mr Rudd with another opportunity to hang up his hat. Yet, even after being humiliated on international television, Mr Albanese insisted there was nothing to see here and that Mr Rudd would continue another year.

On paper, the Prime Minister had reason to back him in. Mr Rudd ended up making excellent contacts in the White House.

Although not with the President himself, he forged relationships with the trio of power who sit just below Mr Trump’s apex of power, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Mr Rudd is also widely liked and admired by Republican and Democratic Members of Congress.

But why risk another barney with Mr Trump at all for the sake of 12 months? In the end, Mr Rudd, a China scholar whose book On Xi Jinping is widely cited, made the choice himself.

He will end his term in March and return to the Asia Society to become its President and head the think tank’s Centre for China Analysis.

For those, his resignation as Australia’s chief diplomat in DC might have been overdue, but his departure from diplomacy is a loss for Australia’s foreign policy, at a time when it is sorely needed.

He will do well, bombarding airwaves, op-ed pages and attending international security conferences, providing commentary on how the US and China can avoid their competition turning into conflict.

Freed from the muzzle Penny Wong’s department imposes on diplomats, regardless of their stature or prior experience, such as serving as prime minister, he may have an important thing or two to say about AUKUS, China and Australia’s preparedness to deal with the volatile world.

But Asia Society’s gain represents a lost opportunity for Australia.

Chaos and headlines have always followed Mr Rudd in every iteration of his political career. He is a polarising figure.

But love or loathe him, he is an intellect and a big vision guy, with a unique talent for translating complex policy into easy-to-understand language that everyone can understand.

He is also one of the country’s clearest thinkers, communicators and practitioners on security policy — an issue that rarely lights up the Prime Minister or animates the increasingly AWOL Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

Mr Albanese could have freed Mr Rudd from President Trump’s wrath a long time ago and given him a bespoke role as a National Security Envoy.

This would have enabled Mr Rudd to do much of the work he was already doing in his capacity as Ambassador, using his key relationships in the US, as well as his global network to value-add to Australia’s diplomatic efforts.

During his tenure as Ambassador, he also attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Munich Security Conference in Germany, and the London Defence Conference in the UK to put Australia’s case forward. These were not strictly the remit of a US-based diplomat. But he was filling a gap.

Australia is too often absent from these sorts of events, and in recent years, Mr Rudd has been the lone Australian voice in attendance. And these are not just gabfests.

As a middle power in the Indo-Pacific, these international fora provide vital opportunities for Australia’s case to be advocated. Unfortunately, they are often overlooked by too-busy or disinterested Cabinet Ministers who feel they don’t justify a long-haul endeavour.

It could also work the other way – Mr Rudd would have been able to inform Australians about the global security situation, which is changing by the week, if not day, these days.

It is Australia’s loss that he will no longer be applying his indefatigable work ethic. The eulogy Mr Albanese and Senator Wong gave at their press conference to announce Mr Rudd’s decision showed they know what they have lost.

He has little time to find a replacement following the shock announcement.

“The relationship that Kevin has had with members of the Trump Administration, whoever follows Kevin, if it’s as good as that, I’ll be pretty happy,” Mr Albanese said.

“So one of the things we’ll be looking for is someone with those personal skills as well as experience in foreign affairs.”

Mr Rudd’s successor has enormous shoes to fill.