In the aftermath of Donald Trump's election victory, therapy and listening sessions for employees of the Department of State have prompted scrutiny from House Foreign Affairs Committee member Rep. Darrell Issa.

Issa has expressed concerns regarding federal employees receiving government-funded mental health support following what some apparently felt were disappointing presidential election results, as the Post Millennial reports.

A senior figure on the committee, Issa has officially requested a briefing from Department of State officials. He aims to address his concerns about these sessions, which he believes are politically motivated and an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

In a letter dated Nov. 19, Issa reached out to Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

He criticized the Department for what he perceived as "catering" to employees distressed by the electoral outcome, specifically noting that Kamala Harris was not elected.

This move by the State Department raises questions on both sides of the political aisle about the role of government-funded support in the federal workspace.

Issa's Concerns Over Taxpayer Expenditures

Issa's letter highlighted worries about the financial implications of these sessions. In his communication, he raised the point that it is "unacceptable" for taxpayer money to fund what he describes as "political counseling" following normal democratic processes within the United States.

He also emphasized the importance of ensuring foreign service staff can execute policies aligned with the administration's priorities, even if they differ from their personal political views. Issa suggested that individuals struggling with this might prefer positions in future Democratic administrations.

Issa called for full disclosure of how these sessions are funded, their frequency, location, and overall costs. His letter demands a detailed briefing by Nov. 22, a reflection of the urgency he places on this issue.

State Department's Stress Management Initiative

According to a report by the Washington Free Beacon, the State Department's Employee Consultation Services ran a stress management session on Nov. 8. Another was planned for Nov. 13. These sessions were part of a broader initiative to aid employees in managing "stress and uncertainty" during periods of change.

An internal email circulated within the department described these sessions as opportunities to learn valuable techniques for handling difficult transitions. The email encouraged employees to equip themselves with strategies to maintain well-being during tumultuous times.

Reactions within the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs

In addition to the Employee Consultation Services sessions, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs reportedly held a session titled a "cry session."

This meeting was attended by notable department figures, including Assistant Secretary of State Barbara Leaf and acting Undersecretary John Bass. The presence of high-ranking officials indicates the level of concern among staff about the election's implications.

Issa's critique, however, suggests that he believes these expressions of emotion and stress management efforts could undermine the nonpartisan ethos essential for federal employees.

He argues against what he perceives as a marked indulgence in political sentiment.

Balancing Employee Well-Being and Political Neutrality

Rep. Issa acknowledged the importance of mental health for foreign service personnel. However, he remains firm in his stance that political dissatisfaction should not drive government-sponsored mental health initiatives. The letter reflects a call for a balanced approach to employee support that respects political neutrality.

This story of post-election therapy sessions opens a broader conversation about mental health resources and their role in the professional environment, particularly in public service sectors. It also intensifies the debate over how such initiatives should be funded and their potential impact on the ability to adhere to public policies.

The implications of Issa's request for clarity and the related discussions highlight the complexities in managing employee welfare in a politically dynamic environment. As federal agencies navigate these challenges, they must also ensure adherence to democratic principles and fiscal responsibility.