US lawmakers push to fire state department employees over ‘Trump therapy’
By Damsana Ranadhiran
As Donald Trump prepares for his second term as President of the United States, Republican lawmakers have zeroed in on a peculiar issue within the State Department-therapy sessions reportedly organized to help employees cope with the outcome of the recent election.
These sessions, viewed by some as emblematic of partisan fragility within the federal workforce, have sparked fierce criticism from GOP officials, who argue that such actions undermine the principles of nonpartisanship and professional duty in public service.
The uproar began after a report by the Washington Free Beacon revealed that the State Department held two sessions titled “Managing Stress During Change.” One of these sessions reportedly took place the Friday following Trump’s victory.
According to an anonymous source, these events were described as “cry sessions” for employees distressed by the election results.
In a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Representative Darrell Issa (R-California) lambasted the department, claiming it had indulged employees who were “personally devastated by the normal functioning of American democracy.”
Issa’s sharp critique centered on the notion that civil servants are expected to carry out their duties impartially, regardless of personal political leanings.
“It is disturbing,” Issa wrote, “that ostensibly nonpartisan government officials would suffer a personal meltdown over the results of a free and fair election.”
He argued that such behavior reflects poorly on the department’s ability to serve the interests of the American people.
Issa called for a thorough review of the therapy sessions and demanded answers about any other similar initiatives organized by the department.
In his view, federal employees unable to accept the electoral outcome should resign or wait for a political appointment under a future Democratic administration.
Issa’s concerns were echoed by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who did not mince words in his condemnation of the situation. Cruz stated that “our diplomacy is too important to be left to children” and insisted that any employee participating in such sessions should be terminated “on day one” of the Trump administration.
Cruz’s remarks reflect a growing frustration among Republicans who view these therapy sessions as a symbol of partisanship overtaking professionalism within federal agencies.
Adding fuel to the fire, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Trump’s pick to replace Antony Blinken as Secretary of State, has signaled his intent to restore the department’s focus on serving the electorate’s will.
Rubio’s confirmation is expected to sail through Congress, positioning him to enact immediate changes come January 20.
The controversy over “Trump therapy” sessions highlights a broader issue: the increasing politicization of federal institutions. Civil servants are expected to uphold a nonpartisan ethos, yet incidents like this suggest that political bias has permeated even the most critical government functions.
Critics argue that such bias not only erodes public trust but also hampers the ability of agencies like the State Department to effectively represent US interests abroad.
On the other hand, some employees and observers have defended the sessions, framing them as a response to the unique stresses of working in a polarized political climate.
They argue that offering support for mental health and stress management is a standard practice in many workplaces, regardless of political affiliation.
This divide underscores the challenge of balancing personal well-being with professional obligations, particularly in a high-stakes environment like the State Department.
However, the Republican response makes clear that any perceived partisanship within federal agencies will not be tolerated under the incoming administration.
This isn’t the first instance of post-election emotional support becoming a flashpoint for criticism. Following Trump’s initial victory in 2016, several left-leaning institutions and media outlets offered counseling to employees.
Notably, the UK-based Guardian newspaper provided free emotional support for its US staff, according to a memo reported by British blog Guido Fawkes.
At the time, such actions were derided by conservatives as an overreaction and indicative of ideological bias.
For Trump’s supporters, these incidents reinforce a narrative of liberal fragility and an inability to accept democratic outcomes.
They also highlight a perceived double standard: while conservatives are often criticized for being divisive, progressives are accused of weaponizing emotional distress to delegitimize opposing viewpoints.
The incoming administration’s stance on the “Trump therapy” issue could set the tone for broader reforms within the federal government.
By advocating for the dismissal of employees deemed unfit to serve under a Trump presidency, Republican lawmakers are signaling their intent to root out partisanship from key institutions.
Whether this approach will succeed in fostering greater neutrality within the civil service remains to be seen. Critics argue that such measures risk alienating skilled professionals and creating a chilling effect that discourages dissenting viewpoints.
Proponents, however, believe that accountability is necessary to ensure that public servants uphold their duty to the Constitution and the electorate.
For Rubio, the challenge will be striking a balance between maintaining institutional integrity and addressing concerns about partisanship.
His leadership will likely involve reassessing the culture of the State Department and implementing policies that prioritize professionalism over personal politics.
The “Trump therapy” controversy is emblematic of the deep political divides that continue to shape American governance.
As the nation braces for another Trump administration, the question of how federal institutions should navigate these divides will remain a contentious issue.
For now, the Republican demand for accountability sends a clear message: federal employees are expected to serve the interests of the American people, not their own political preferences.
Whether this stance will lead to meaningful reforms or further polarization within the civil service remains to be seen.
One thing is certain: the next four years will test the resilience and adaptability of America’s institutions like never before.
