Secretary of State Antony Blinken is facing backlash after reports surfaced that the State Department organized therapy sessions for employees distressed by President-elect Donald Trump‘s victory in the 2024 election. According to sources who spoke to The Washington Free Beacon, the Biden administration’s State Department hosted the sessions for its staff to help them cope with the emotional fallout from the election results raising concerns about professionalism and the Department’s competency.
An internal email sent out by the Department’s Bureau of Medical Services encouraged staff to attend a one-hour webinar on “managing stress during change.” The session offered “effective stress management techniques” to help participants navigate the uncertainty they felt in the wake of the election.
It then invited employees to join a discussion on how to handle their feelings about the outcome of the election. The focus of the session, according to the email, was to “provide tips and practical strategies for managing stress and maintaining your well-being.”
While the initiative was likely well-intentioned in its goal to support mental health, the idea of government workers receiving taxpayer-funded therapy to cope with a political defeat has sparked fierce criticism. Among the most vocal detractors is Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Issa called the sessions “unacceptable,” emphasizing that government employees should not expect to be “soothed” over the results of a democratic election, especially when their salaries are funded by American taxpayers.
Issa lambasted the State Department for tolerating what he described as a “personal meltdown” from its employees. In a letter to Blinken, Issa noted that the U.S. government champions free and fair elections around the world, and that it was “disturbing” to see U.S. government officials struggling to cope with the results of a legitimate, democratically held election. He went on to question the appropriateness of taxpayer-funded therapy sessions for civil servants who, according to Issa, should be able to handle political change without resorting to emotional support services.
“It is unacceptable that the Department accommodates this behavior and subsidizes it with taxpayer dollars,” Issa wrote. “The mental health of our foreign service personnel is important, but the Department has no obligation to indulge and promote the leftist political predilections of its employees and soothe their frayed nerves because of the good-faith votes of—and at the personal expense of—the American taxpayers.”
Issa’s letter raised broader concerns about the State Department’s ability to effectively carry out its duties in a time of political transition. Given the stark policy differences between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration, Issa questioned whether the personnel involved in these therapy sessions would be able to effectively implement the policy priorities of the new president.
“The mere fact that the Department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President Trump to pursue,” Issa wrote.
The idea that a portion of the U.S. government workforce may struggle with accepting a Trump victory—despite the fact that elections are a regular and democratic part of American life—raises questions about the professional competence and political neutrality of federal employees.
The controversy over these therapy sessions underscores a growing sense of frustration among conservatives who believe that the federal government has become too politicized, particularly in agencies like the State Department, which often take progressive stances on global issues. Critics argue that such therapy sessions are emblematic of a broader trend within the federal bureaucracy, where employees may prioritize their personal political beliefs over their professional duties to serve the American people impartially.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
State Department Hosted ‘Therapy Cry Sessions’ For Employees Following Trump Victory
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is facing backlash after reports surfaced that the State Department organized therapy sessions for employees distressed by President-elect Donald Trump‘s victory in the 2024 election. According to sources who spoke to The Washington Free Beacon, the Biden administration’s State Department hosted the sessions for its staff to help them cope with the emotional fallout from the election results raising concerns about professionalism and the Department’s competency.
An internal email sent out by the Department’s Bureau of Medical Services encouraged staff to attend a one-hour webinar on “managing stress during change.” The session offered “effective stress management techniques” to help participants navigate the uncertainty they felt in the wake of the election.
It then invited employees to join a discussion on how to handle their feelings about the outcome of the election. The focus of the session, according to the email, was to “provide tips and practical strategies for managing stress and maintaining your well-being.”
While the initiative was likely well-intentioned in its goal to support mental health, the idea of government workers receiving taxpayer-funded therapy to cope with a political defeat has sparked fierce criticism. Among the most vocal detractors is Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Issa called the sessions “unacceptable,” emphasizing that government employees should not expect to be “soothed” over the results of a democratic election, especially when their salaries are funded by American taxpayers.
Issa lambasted the State Department for tolerating what he described as a “personal meltdown” from its employees. In a letter to Blinken, Issa noted that the U.S. government champions free and fair elections around the world, and that it was “disturbing” to see U.S. government officials struggling to cope with the results of a legitimate, democratically held election. He went on to question the appropriateness of taxpayer-funded therapy sessions for civil servants who, according to Issa, should be able to handle political change without resorting to emotional support services.
“It is unacceptable that the Department accommodates this behavior and subsidizes it with taxpayer dollars,” Issa wrote. “The mental health of our foreign service personnel is important, but the Department has no obligation to indulge and promote the leftist political predilections of its employees and soothe their frayed nerves because of the good-faith votes of—and at the personal expense of—the American taxpayers.”
Issa’s letter raised broader concerns about the State Department’s ability to effectively carry out its duties in a time of political transition. Given the stark policy differences between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration, Issa questioned whether the personnel involved in these therapy sessions would be able to effectively implement the policy priorities of the new president.
“The mere fact that the Department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President Trump to pursue,” Issa wrote.
The idea that a portion of the U.S. government workforce may struggle with accepting a Trump victory—despite the fact that elections are a regular and democratic part of American life—raises questions about the professional competence and political neutrality of federal employees.
The controversy over these therapy sessions underscores a growing sense of frustration among conservatives who believe that the federal government has become too politicized, particularly in agencies like the State Department, which often take progressive stances on global issues. Critics argue that such therapy sessions are emblematic of a broader trend within the federal bureaucracy, where employees may prioritize their personal political beliefs over their professional duties to serve the American people impartially.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.