State Department Hosted Therapy Sessions After Trump Win

The State Department is under fire after reports surfaced that it hosted therapy sessions to help employees cope with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory.

Congressman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sent a pointed letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken questioning the appropriateness and cost of these taxpayer-funded sessions.

The controversy stems from a report by the Washington Free Beacon, which revealed that after Trump’s election, the State Department allegedly organized sessions described by some as “cry sessions” and offered webinars on stress management.

An email from the agency invited employees to an “insightful webinar” to help manage “stress and uncertainty” during “challenging times.”

Issa sharply criticized the initiative, labeling it “disturbing” and questioning whether State Department employees could fulfill their duty to implement Trump’s foreign policy agenda.

“Nonpartisan government officials shouldn’t experience a personal meltdown over the result of a free and fair election,” Issa wrote. He added that employees unwilling to carry out the Trump administration’s policy priorities should consider resigning.

While Issa acknowledged the importance of mental health, he raised concerns about the potential misuse of taxpayer funds, asking for a detailed account of how many sessions were held, their cost, and any future plans for similar programs.

“This raises significant questions about the willingness of State Department personnel to implement the lawful policies chosen by the American people,” Issa argued. “The Trump administration had a mandate for wholesale change in the foreign policy arena.”

The State Department has yet to comment on the matter. Meanwhile, critics argue that such programs signal a lack of resilience among public servants, while supporters believe mental health initiatives are vital for ensuring employee well-being in high-pressure environments.

The debate underscores broader tensions about government neutrality and partisanship, as well as the evolving role of mental health support in the federal workforce. Whether such programs reflect responsible governance or overreach remains a divisive issue.