[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEFICIENT, ENFEEBLED, AND INEFFECTIVE:
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE BIDEN DMINISTRATION'S
FAR-LEFT PRIORITIES ON U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INTELLIGENCE
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 8, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-12
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-514 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Ranking Member
JOE WILSON, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
DARRELL ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee AMI BERA, California
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
ANDY BARRK, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
RONNY JACKSON, Texas TED LIEU, California
YOUNG KIM, California SARA JACOBS, California
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan Florida
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, GREG STANTON, Arizona
American Samoa JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey JIM COSTA, California
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York GABE AMO, Rhode Island
CORY MILLS, Florida KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KEITH SELF, Texas GEORGE LATIMER, New York
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr., Maryland
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania
James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INTELLIGENCE
CORY MILLS, Florida, Chairman
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida, Ranking
DARRELL ISSA, California Member
RONNY JACKSON, Texas SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida
Christy Kortokrax, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Chairman Cory Mills......................... 1
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Jared Moskowitz.............. 2
WITNESSES
Statement of Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow, The
Heritage Foundation............................................ 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Statement of James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal... 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
Statement of Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, Former Chief
Diversity and Inclusion Officer, U.S. Department of State...... 26
Prepared Statement............................................. 29
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 48
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 50
Hearing Attendance............................................... 51
Materials for the Record
McCaul, Meeks Applaud Passage of State Department Authorization
Act, submitted by Rep. Dean.................................... 52
Musk Said No One Has Died Since Aid Was Cut. That Isnt True,
submitted by Rep. Dean......................................... 54
The Atlantic, Advisers Shared on Signal, submitted by Rep. Dean.. 68
The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans,
submitted by Rep. Dean......................................... 96
Public Law 117-81 DEC 27, 2021, submitted by Rep. Dean........... 116
DEFICIENT, ENFEEBLED, AND INEFFECTIVE:
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE BIDEN DMINISTRATION'S
FAR-LEFT PRIORITIES ON U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
----------
Tuesday, April 8, 2025
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Subcommittee on Oversight & Intelligence
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cory Mills
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr.Mills. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence
will come to order.
Without objection, the chair may declare the subcommittee
in recess at any point.
The purpose of this hearing is to identify divisive
diversity, equity, and inclusion policies implemented under the
Biden administration that the State Department must reform to
meet ``America first'' foreign policy objectives. I now
recognize myself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CORY MILLS
Good afternoon, and welcome to the first hearing of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence in the 119th
Congress.
As we start the new Congress, I'm looking forward to
working with the colleagues to deliver real results for the
American people by advancing President Trump's ``America
first'' policies and agenda.
Over the next few months, through our State Department
reauthorization deliberations, this subcommittee will work to
identify areas of the secretary's office, or the S Bureau, that
must be reformed and reprogrammed to reorient the United States
as a leader on the world stage while ensuring that taxpayer
dollars are effectively used to bolster U.S. national security
efforts.
For far too long the State Department prioritized radical
liberal political ideologies and woke policies over advancing
diplomatic objectives that serve American interests and protect
the American people from our adversaries.
While the Biden administration was trying to figure out
what pronouns to use our adversaries grew stronger and more
emboldened.
China aggressively enforced unlawful territorial claims in
the South China Sea and has undermined the United States and
our allies at every turn.
Russia invaded Ukraine. North Korea ramped up its military
provocations. Iran advanced its nuclear weapons and ballistic
missile programs, empowering its proxies to now cause chaos
throughout the entire region of the Middle East.
Israel was attacked and global shipping routes in the Red
Sea was blocked. Over the last 4 years, among others the
American people watched these foreign policy failures unfold
and voted for real change and action on November 5th.
The American people gave President Trump and the
Republican-led Congress a mandate to reverse the damage and
restore common sense to our Federal Government.
Today this subcommittee will take its first step to deliver
on this mandate by examining the State Department's Office of
Diversity and Inclusion.
The Office of Diversity and Inclusion detrimentally
influenced operations across the State Department by making DEI
a core precept for promotion considerations within the ranks of
the Foreign Service, granting passport applicants the ability
to select X as a gender, and using taxpayer dollars to fund
numerous woke projects including commemorating Black
Consciousness Month with an event in which employees learned
about the inclusive Afro-Brazilian culture through music and
LGBTQI+ culture through vogue dance in Brazil. That was a
mouthful.
These policies corrupted the core mission of the State
Department and we must restore unity and fundamental American
principles to the department, eliminate wasteful spending, and
ensure that President Trump's executive orders are fully
implemented, not subverted by rebranding DEI-driven programs.
It is our duty to ensure that Americans become safer,
stronger, and more prosperous.
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the
subcommittee today and I look forward to productive discussions
on how we can enhance America's security through common sense
policies and responsible leaderships.
The chair will now recognize my good friend and Ranking
Member, the gentleman from Florida Representative Moskowitz,
for any statements he may have.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER JARED MOSKOWITZ
Good afternoon, and thank you to the witnesses for
testifying at today's hearing, the first Oversight and
Intelligence Subcommittee hearing for the 119th Congress, first
hearing as ranking member and it is also nice to be here with
my friend and colleague Chairman Mills from Florida. Florida
had a good day yesterday with the Gators' win.
I would like to spend a few minutes focusing on the title
of this hearing ``Deficient, Enfeebled and Ineffective.''
If I didn't know any better I thought we would be talking
about Trump's tariffs that were just put in place. In fact, if
you listen to Elon Musk talking about the architect of the
Trump tariff, the mastermind Peter Navarro, Elon calls him a
moron.
He calls him dumber than a sack of bricks. And then Elon
apologizes to the sack of bricks because he thought he offended
the sack of bricks by comparing them to Peter Navarro.
You know, I was looking forward to a meaningful discussion
of our current foreign policy discussion but the trend
continues in this Congress. We don't want to do any oversight
of the current administration or examination discussion even
though that is kind of the point of this subcommittee.
But instead we're focused on looking backward--Biden era
policies. So we're going to talk about DEI. News flash to my
colleagues across the aisle, you won, we lost. This was one of
the issues on the ballot. There's an EO has been signed. DEI
has ended. But, yet, we're still going to look backward.
Oddly enough, there were some of programs and objectives
that you rolled back that you also had in place during the
first Trump administration that promoted diversity and
inclusion.
You know, there's this movie ``Spaceballs.'' I'm a big fan
of this movie ``Spaceballs.'' There's a scene when Colonel
Sanders and Dark Helmet are talking, and Colonel Sanders says
to Dark Helmet--he says, ``You're looking at now, sir.
Everything that is happening now is happening now,'' and Dark
Helmet says, ``What happened to then?''
``We passed it.''
``When?''
``Just now. We're at now now.''
This is the present, Okay, and not a single one of my
colleagues want to talk about now. They want to talk about
then. They want to talk about the past.
Okay. What I want to know is when will then be now. Soon
perhaps?
Our witness today, Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley,
has experience on the ground in some of the most sensitive
regions of national interest and extensive involvement in our
national security apparatus.
I want to welcome her and the other witnesses here today.
The Ambassador, after her term to Malta, served as the chief
diversity inclusion officer at the State Department and I'm
sure she'll be able to provide more detailed insight into the
programs that the Trump administration has begun dismantling.
You know, one of the things I want to talk about and end
with here in my opener, Mr. Chairman, is that it is a
bipartisan objective, Democrats and Republicans, to talk about
what's happening with China.
We had a China Select Committee that was very bipartisan.
But my colleagues seem to be undermining that effort because of
what the freezing that has gone on with foreign aid.
Anyone who--any member who has traveled around the world
and met with world leaders, met with Ambassadors, knows every
time the United States removes a dollar from foreign aid, every
time we withdraw and create a vacuum, China is coming in and
has developed--and making more friends. The United States
having more leverage, having more influence.
We want to fight Belt and Road. Well, we can't withdraw. We
can't isolate. And what's been going on within the State
Department, what's been going on within the administration, is
absolutely against what we're trying to accomplish on China.
These tariffs that the President is putting in place on
China--the other piece to that is to isolate China from the
rest of the world at the same time. But we're not. We're
fueling other countries to turn to China, to run to China as we
withdraw our foreign aid.
``America first'' can't be America alone and that's where
we're headed with the current policies of the administration.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Like yourself I was also a bit confused. Whenever we talk
about deficient, enfeebled, and effective I thought we were
talking about Biden's entire administration over the last 4
years.
But I'll also remind our ranking member that in order to
understand the mistakes that was made in the past we have to
resurface and rehash these issues so that we can prevent them
from occurring in the future, not just continue to make the
same mistakes over and over because we didn't learn from them.
Other members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have our distinguished panel of witnesses
before us today on this very important topic.
Mr. Simon Hankinson--I apologize if I mess up anyone's
name--is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Mr. Hankinson has served as a Foreign Service Officer in the
State Department for over 20 years, and thank you for your
service.
Mr. James Rogers serves as a senior counsel for the America
First Legal. Prior to joining America First Legal, Mr. Rogers
was senior litigation counsel at the Solicitor General's Office
of the Arizona Attorney General's office.
Mr. Rogers also served as a Foreign Service Officer in the
State Department for 6 years. Thank you so much for being here.
Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley served as the chief
diversity and inclusion officer for the Department of State
under the Biden administration.
This chair--this committee recognizes the importance of the
issues before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with
us today.
Your full statements will be made part of the record and
I'll ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to 5 minutes
in order to allow members time for the questions.
I now recognize Mr. Hankinson for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SIMON HANKINSON
Mr. Hankinson. Thank you, Chairman Mills, Ranking Member
Moskowitz, members of the committee. The views I express in
this testimony are my own.
My only prayer for the future of diversity and inclusion is
that we invest in and nurture talent no matter what they look
like. That was actually ``Snow White'' actress Rachel Zegler--
and it's one thing I agree with her on--diversity is great when
it comes from fair competition and individual choice.
Equity should mean equal opportunity and equal treatment.
Inclusion is good when it's possible but in life, variables
beyond the control of organizations result in disparate
outcomes.
Critical Race Theory says disparate outcomes are caused by
unseen forces like structural bias or systemic racism, and for
proponents of this theory equity means ensuring equal outcomes.
So they rig the system to achieve it under labels like DEI.
But professions and skilled trades need standards. When I
go to the doctor I want one who got A's in biology. I want them
to have aced the MCAT and gone to a rigorous medical school.
When I get on a plane I want pilots who are selected
because they're good at math, spatial reasoning, and keeping
calm in a crisis.
When I call 911 I want them to send a police officer who
knows the law and can catch a criminal, or a fireman who can
lift an average person.
There are two ways to get diversity in selective
professions. You can educate everyone to a high standard and
let them compete or you can discriminate to get the sex and
race percentages you want, and in trying to make the U.S.
Foreign Service look like America the State Department chose
discrimination.
If you want the analysis, the data, the charts, I've
written several long reports which are available online. But
there's no systemic evidence of bias at the State Department
against favored minorities.
The sad truth is that the American education system is
failing to deliver a pipeline of potential recruits that is as
racially diverse as our country. Only 30 percent of eighth
grade students in the U.S. are proficient readers.
In 2023 not a single child tested proficient in math across
67 schools in the State of Illinois. In 2020 the Smithsonian
Museum wanted us to believe that hard work is the key to
success and work before you play were aspects of white culture.
That would have surprised my friend Taitusi(?) in Fiji, a
successful builder, and it would have been news to my friend
Kojo in Togo who gets up at dawn every day to run his coffee
farm.
I've lived 10 years in Africa, four in Asia, and 20 in
Europe. The values that make people succeed are the same the
world over. The reason our schools fail is because we let them.
Economist Roland Fryer's research on charter schools showed
that success is not about teacher pay or iPads or class sizes.
It's teacher feedback, data to guide instruction, tutoring,
increased instructional time, and high expectations.
So with strong families, homework, discipline, no phones in
the class, and high expectations we could fix our schools. That
would increase the talent pool. That would allow diversity to
occur naturally in competitive fields.
But instead, the State Department, like so many other
institutions, has decided to achieve its diversity goals by
lowering standards. Meanwhile, in our foreign policy, rather
than following its own joint strategic plan and concentrating
on the values at the heart of the American way of life, the
department has pursued a leftist agenda.
The Biden State Department's equity action plan contained
the word equity 113 times but equality appeared only seven
times.
Under former Secretary Blinken, the State Department
offered grants to promote transgenderism in India, drag
performances in Ecuador, LGBTQIA+ plus awareness in Botswana, a
gender and sexuality library in Lebanon, and DEI training for
police in Latin America.
Blinken's USAID promoted gender-affirming medical care,
although other developed countries have banned it for minors.
They conflated conversion therapy with any effort to help young
people accept reality, and at the United Nations U.S. diplomats
fought to replace sex with sexual orientation and gender
identity and women with women in all their diversity, which is
code for allowing men to self-identify into women's spaces and
compete against women in sports.
Woke ideology is dug in. Consultants are making millions
writing and advising about it. Institutions will resist or
rebrand. At NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab they kept their DEI chief
but renamed her from chief inclusion officer to chief of the
office of team excellence and employee success.
At California Institute of Technology they promoted their
assistant vice president for diversity, equity, inclusion, and
assessment to associate vice president for campus climate
engagement and success. New titles, same old jobs.
Discrimination is discrimination. Whether you call it
affirmative action or DEIA or belonging or engagement or
success or excellence, hiring people because of how they look
and not what they do is wrong and it's also illegal.
The State Department's guiding principles at home must be
equal opportunity, fair treatment, high expectations, and
accountability, and in foreign policy the focus must be on
enduring American values.
Thank you for inviting me today and I'm happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hankinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mills. Thank you so much, Mr. Hankinson.
At this point in time we'd like to recognize Mr. Rogers for
his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JAMES ROGERS
Mr. Rogers. Chairman Mills, Ranking Member Moskowitz, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to
testify.
I'll be summarizing my written testimony, first, to
acknowledge the positive. My testimony is about the Department
of State's failures under prior secretaries.
Things have already markedly improved Under Secretary Rubio
and I'm confident the problems I outlined can and will be
addressed under his leadership.
I served as a State Department Foreign Service officer for
6 years. My experience during President Trump's first term
shows that the department has an entrenched culture focused on
opposing him and punishing anyone who exposes this.
Shortly before my consular tour in Brazil in 2017 President
Trump rescinded Obama-era requirements focused on fast visa
interview speeds. Instead, he ordered the department to focus
on thoroughly vetting visa applicants.
However, the minister counselor for Consular Affairs for
Brazil Doug Koneff ignored these orders and imposed an even
more aggressive standard than what President Trump had
required--had rescinded.
My direct supervisors, Consular Chief David Franz and
Deputy Chief Kelly Kopcial, also directly disobeyed department
directives about slowing down the interview process to give
officers enough time to vet applicants.
I blew the whistle about this. The department investigated
and confirmed I was right. Soon after, apparently in
retaliation, Franz filled my employee evaluation with false
negative statements that led the department to deny me job
tenure and schedule me for separation.
While preparing a grievance against this I discovered the
same problems were happening worldwide and that more thorough
visa interviewing would likely decrease visa overstay rates by
50 to 75 percent.
This means that out of the 1.8 million visa overstays
during President Trump's first term malfeasance likely caused
900,000 to 1.4 million of them.
To put that in perspective, 10 U.S. states have populations
of less than 1.4 million. Thus, consular managers subverting
President Trump's policies managed to add an entire State
population's worth of illegal aliens in just 4 years.
The Department's Office of the Inspector General ignored my
complaint about this. The Office of Special Counsel also
rejected my complaint, incorrectly claiming that it was
secondhand information.
Yet, at the same time, the intelligence community's IG was
investigating secondhand allegation from Alexander Vindman that
formed the sole basis for the impeachment of President Trump.
I also submitted a complaint to the OSC for whistleblower
retaliation. But 7 months later, when my grievance was nearing
resolution, the attorney assigned to investigate my case had
never even started investigating.
Eventually, I won my grievance but the Department made the
process as painful and drawn out as possible and hobbled my
career in ways I will never recover from. It became clear I had
no future there so I left.
This experience shows that, first, department employees
believe they can disobey the President's lawful orders and they
often get away with it.
Second, the mechanisms designed to stop wrongdoing and
protect whistleblowers do not work. In my current role as
senior counsel at America First Legal we've discovered more
problems.
The department started assigning diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility scores to employees in 2022 and
using them to make tenure and promotion decisions.
Anecdotal evidence suggests these scores were used not just
as an Orwellian way of enforcing ideological conformity but
also as a pretext for discriminating against white males.
One department employee was reprimanded by a supervisor and
penalized in his DEI score because he declined to volunteer his
free time to help at an LGBT Pride festival outside of work
hours.
But the DEI hysteria did not stop there. When he applied
for onboard assignments he was almost always required to
describe his efforts to promote DEIA. Only the two posts that
did not see this information accepted his application for an
onboard assignment.
Thankfully, the new administration has eliminated these
DEIA scores. However, the bureaucracy continues to discriminate
against employees in other ways.
For example, a diplomatic security special agent has been
at the target of a nearly 5-year-long witch hunt because he
posted traditional Christian symbols and prayers to his
personal social media.
Department officials reacted to these innocuous posts with
baseless allegations that he was a white nationalist and a
right-wing Christian associated with violent extremism. This
agent has been selected for promotion three times over the last
5 years but the department refuses to promote him because of
the pending investigation.
This sort of pretextual attack driven by ideological
extremists within the department must stop. Those involved in
this weaponization of government must be held accountable.
These specific cases are emblematic of a more widespread
problem in the department's culture that festered during the
Biden years.
Through Freedom of Information Act requests, AFL has
uncovered diplomatic cables that detailed the extreme
ideological bias in Blinken-era department programs that sought
to indoctrinate--sought to indoctrinate citizens of other
countries into supporting divisive left-wing causes.
These Biden-era DEI programs spread unwanted divisive
leftist ideology to foreigners, driving resentment against our
country, making it harder to achieve legitimate foreign policy
goals that actually would improve Americans' lives.
President Trump's order removing DEIA from the government
is already having a positive effect. However, the department
should also retroactively reevaluate everyone denied promotions
from 2022 to 2025 without using DEIA scores and then give
promotions with back pay to those found worthy.
More generally, because there appears to be a persistent
pattern of bias in tenure and promotion decisions, employee
evaluation should exclude anything that might allow a reader to
infer an employee's race, sex, religion, or other protected
characteristics.
Additionally, to better protect whistleblowers there must
be reforms to the department's grievance system and how IGs and
OSC handle complaints, which I detailed in my written
testimony.
Thank you, and I welcome any questions from the
subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
I now recognize Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GINA ABERCROMBIE-WINSTANLEY
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Ranking Member, members of the subcommittee.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to join you here
today to address some of the misconceptions around diversity,
equity, inclusion, and accessibility as characterized in the
title of this hearing.
I come from a family of proud public servants. I have three
siblings--an older brother who served in the Army, a younger
one who is a submariner veteran, and a sister who is a retired
Navy captain.
But I'm the only one who faced a terrorist attack while
serving her country in the Middle East. During 30-plus years of
assignments in the State Department I stepped up to challenges
in Cairo, Jakarta, Baghdad, and the Gaza Strip.
Because of the stellar record and more, I was selected as
the first woman to lead a diplomatic mission in Saudi Arabia.
America got to show her best leaders come from all backgrounds.
So when called on to go to one of the most conservative
nations in the world, as a working mom with a young family I
was honored to go, and when terrorist threats required my
family's evacuation and separated us for 18 months I stayed.
My presence conveyed a powerful testimony about the rights,
capabilities, and patriotism of women without uttering a word.
Even so, the most challenging assignment that I took on in my
30-plus career--year career was to support my colleagues, all
of them, as chief diversity and inclusion officer for the
department--CDIO.
Why do the hard and too often misunderstood work to ensure
America's representatives represent the breadth and complexity
of our nation?
Well, as Secretary Rubio said at my first hearing as CDIO,
not only is our Nation's diversity our strength but if our
workforce doesn't reflect our population then it merits
inquiry.
So three reasons. We aim to create a system that ensures
the very best rise to the top. There's no difference in this
administration's stated goal of a merit-based society and the
goals of the DEIA effort that I oversaw at the State
Department, and we worked to address behavior that too often
led to EEO complaints.
Two, we wanted to save taxpayer money. It takes hundreds of
thousands of dollars to train and ship around the world highly
talented and highly trained representatives.
When talent leaves early and takes those skills with them
America loses. The Department has lost valuable talent,
perhaps, like the gentleman next to me, because they lost faith
in the system.
And three, we have to walk the talk. In order to remain a
great power America's word must be trusted. We've told the
world we believe in a level playing field and our history of
service and achievement, from Nobel Prize winner Ralph Bunche,
the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo code breakers, and Dr. Samer Attar
show the world what we are capable of.
And don't forget, the DEIA unit got its start under
President Trump and I thank him for that. President Biden
understood that we needed a larger effort to tackle well
embedded cronyism.
Common sense tells us to deal successfully with the world's
issues. It's not enough to tap a few viewpoints, a few
backgrounds, a few experiences. We need diplomats who can
connect and engage with the range of humanity.
Foreign Service officers advocate for America's priorities
at community centers--government buildings, yes, but factories,
remote border crossings, and farms and town squares.
Let me be clear. Every change we made, every effort we
undertook, every data point we gathered, was cleared by our
lawyers.
The Department of State has some of the finest and most
conservative lawyers in the government, and I can confidently
say that we followed the law and the intent of Congress.
There were no so-called DEIA hires and anyone who says
otherwise is misinformed. Our focus was to dismantle cronyism,
bring transparency, and build trust.
So let me talk about a few of the programs that we started.
Our method of assigning most diplomats is to have a bid list
where everybody can see what assignments are open. But in a key
position the deputy assistant secretary position was more
secretive.
Those positions weren't advertised or competed. You had to
be known to the assistant secretary or someone in the assistant
secretary's circle.
You had to have the right connections, be in the in crowd,
and because of this opacity only certain people even knew that
the position was open and available.
This cronyism was far from meritocracy and the Office of
Diversity and Inclusion led the efforts to ensure that these
positions, like others, were advertised and openly competed.
Is this something that the American people would want to
see turned back? This transparency, and I can tell you, the
first recipient of that DAS position under this new system was
a white male. He wasn't the only one but he was the first one
because inclusion means everyone.
Another priority was to bring transparency and fairness to
the assignments at a lower level. We brought strong business
practices to improve our selection processes. We brought in
standardized questions and panel interviews, something that
business has been using for years but the Department of State
had not.
One of my favorite changes was modeled on the U.S. military
culture, something I heard from my siblings all the time--we've
got your back.
My office worked with key stakeholders in the building and
our embassies abroad and host governments to put a stop to
widespread harassment and discriminatory treatment to some of
our diplomats from various agencies at embassies overseas.
Many reported being stopped, questioned, detained, even
harassed by government officials in a way that would be illegal
in the United States.
Sometimes the diplomats----
Mr. Mills. Madam Ambassador, your time is up.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. All right. You see I'm
excited about these programs.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mills. I am as well.
Thank you, Madam Ambassador.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
You know, I want to go over a couple of things that you
just made mention of. You talked about inclusivity means
everyone.
Can you tell me how doing an actual event which is only
tailored toward a certain gender or a certain sexual preference
or a certain racial bias is in some way inclusive of all as
opposed to just saying that everyone is welcome?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Mr. Chairman, when you say
doing a certain event are you talking about----
Mr. Mills. Let's just say, for example, LGBTQI event. Do
you think that's inclusive of every individual that they would
feel that that's something that they want to partake in?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. So I believe that it is a
learning experience for people who don't belong to that group.
That's why----
Mr. Mills. But, again, I'm asking--it's not about learning.
We do that a lot. I work in the Foreign Service as well.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. You said is it inclusive.
Mr. Mills. And I know for a fact that we learn about
cultures. We learn about regions.
We learn about the idea of not just cultural exchanges but
also what are some of the actual norms that you can actually
learn about that allows you to be a better diplomat so that you
can engage with them?
Because sometimes people are a little more vague and
ambiguous in how they say things but it's a cultural issue, not
they're trying to evade the question. So I understand that
portion of it.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay.
Mr. Mills. But what we're talking about is inclusivity
means everyone.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
Mr. Mills. So when you section off particular groups do you
think that it is inclusive when you're trying to tailor money
to only go toward those particular groups for particular
events?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. The point is to bring in
underrepresented groups. That is why, and we have the
statistics. GAO has done reports for many years that show we
have underrepresented groups in the Department of State.
Therefore, while we hire for merit only we do have to
recruit in a more focused fashion for different groups. People
are----
Mr. Mills. But don't you believe, though, that meritocracy
should be the only merit in which you're actually judged upon
or that you're graded upon?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
Mr. Mills. It shouldn't matter any other factor other than
who's the very best at being able to do a job, and I don't
think that--having served in the United States military for a
number of years I don't think once did I look to my left and
right and say, gosh, I sure hope that he knows his pronouns.
Hmm, gosh, I sure hope that he has this background and culture.
Gosh.
No. I said I hope that he's the absolute best war fighter
that we have who's standing to my left and right. That is the
only thing that I cared about as I fought with a gentleman who
was from Cambodia who lived in L.A., a man from Brooklyn, a man
from Lombard, Illinois, all of which the color of their skin
didn't matter.
We all wore green, and that actually matters more so than
any other diversity, equity, inclusion, which has been nothing
but a divisive tool.
But I will ask this. Can you please outline how much money
did the department allocate to fund the Office of Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion every fiscal year?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Every fiscal year. At the
beginning my first year our budget was about $2.2 million. By
the time I left it had grown to about $7 million and these
figures are--you probably have access to them already, of
course.
There were other programs throughout the building that
might have fallen under the rubric of what the Department of
State always used, which is recruit for diversity but we hire
for merit. There were no DEIA hires.
Mr. Mills. And can you just explain to me how did this
funding advance American interests overseas? How did this
funding support the actual toppling of the Iranian regime who
was brutally murdering and torturing people like Mahsa Amini?
How did this diversity, equity, and inclusion prevent the
Houthis from increasing attacks that disrupted 12 percent of
global trade, the unfreezing of assets that led to a
continuation of proxy funding?
How did DEI and the office within the State Department help
our overseas security and national security interests?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Sure, if I may.
Mr. Mills. Please.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. As I mentioned in my remarks
and as we all know from the 1960's our reputation matters.
That's how we build allies. That's how we build support.
Mr. Mills. And trust matters, right?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Mills. Trust. Our allies must trust that we're going to
be there, right?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Trust but that we are going
to----
Mr. Mills. Just like Biden showed trust when he withdrew us
from Afghanistan, abandoning so many of our SIV and others who
fought alongside us for 20-plus years for political reasons.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I believe that was a great harm
and I understand that that harm is continuing even now with the
SIVs, that they are not able----
Mr. Mills. That's correct.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley [continuing]. to come to the
United States now which is not good. But if I may answer the
question that you asked, our reputation of being a country
where merit counts, where if you work hard for you can achieve,
and that means all of us going and showing the world that all
of us are able to benefit from our hard work is important. It
does help our foreign policy.
Mr. Mills. Well, I agree that hard work matters, especially
as a person who grew up in a broken home where my dad spent 32
years in prison, my mom spent seven and a half years in prison.
It was riddled with drug addiction and other substance abuses.
Hard work is what matters. Hard work is what got me here
and why our socioeconomic background shouldn't define us as
individuals and we shouldn't, like, divisively try and identify
people by anything other than the best and the hardest working.
With that, I'd like to now recognize my ranking member Mr.
Moskowitz for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm actually going to go to Madeline Dean first for
questions if that's Okay.
Mr. Mills. Recognizing the gentlelady Madeline Dean.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member.
Thank you to all of you for coming to testify today before
this Subcommittee on Oversight Foreign Affairs Committee.
I'm touched by your comments there--your personal comments.
I don't know if you know this but a passion of mine is dealing
with learning more about addiction.
I have a son in recovery from opioid addiction 12 and a
half years. But we know too many people who don't have that
kind of outcome so I'd like to work with you on that.
Thank you.
I'm going to start with some words. Pete Buttigieg once
explained DEI as a set of opposites. The opposite of diversity
is uniformity, he said. The opposite of equity is inequity. The
opposite of inclusion is exclusion.
The values and principles of our country are not
uniformity, inequity, and exclusion. That's not the America I
know nor is it the America I will ever fight for.
Mr. Chair, is the committee aware of who is president of
the United States today?
Donald J. Trump. It's not Joseph R. Biden. This backward
look on a topic of DEI is such a misuse of our time. It's a
misuse of your time. The role of this Foreign Affairs Committee
in oversight is important.
Yet, Republicans have decided that relitigating the Biden
administration is a better use of our time. I disagree because
oversight is important. There are plenty of actions by the
current administration that warrant oversight. Here are just
three examples.
The illegal shuttering of USAID and the subsequent spread
of disease, death, and starvation of children deserves our
oversight and our attention.
Two, the national security advisor's irresponsible and
likely criminal use of Signal and apparently many, many times,
as well as Gmail, recklessly compromising our own national
security and a military operation as well as intelligence
officers and military personnel. Boy, that deserves
congressional Foreign Affairs oversight.
No. 3, the incompetent and incoherent use of massive
tariffs even on our allies, especially on our allies, deserves
congressional oversight. It is the largest tax hike on
Americans in peacetime since World War II.
We should be taking a look at the loss of $11 trillion in
11 weeks by this president who inherited an economy that was
the envy of our allies.
And while this president weaponizes tariffs against our
allies they continue to show respect to our country. They
continue to show respect to our country but the President does
not show respect for theirs.
Lithuanian leaders--think of this. You saw this. It was so
moving. Lithuanian leaders and citizens gathered to give our
four fallen American soldiers a dignified and honorable
farewell as they sent them here to the United States.
But where was the commander in chief? He canceled his
attendance at the dignified transfer of the four--the bodies of
four American soldiers who tragically died in Lithuania.
Well, after all he had a couple of golf games to go to, a
million-dollar-a-plate fundraiser for a PAC that supports him,
and I guess a few tchotchkes--Trump tchotchkes to sell along
the way.
Don't attend the return of our fallen heroes. Who exactly
was he raising the money for? I'm not really sure. Certainly
not the American people who are suffering massive losses in
their retirement, in their attempt to save money for their
kids' education, in their attempt to pay for everyday goods.
But here we are talking about DEI under the Biden
administration. Are you kidding me? This is a farce. I
apologize that you are here for this farce. You should not be.
As qualified as you are this is not what you should be
talking about with us. I regret the waste of your time, the
circus that this is. As you might imagine, I am utterly
outraged.
Today's hearing is unserious and unworthy of this
committee. It reflects poorly on those in this room who decided
to convene it and I want to be sure that is on the record.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back with the simple question who is
the president of the United States?
Mr. Mills. I think it's very obvious the American people
unanimously decided to elect President Donald J. Trump----
Ms. Dean. Unanimously decided?
Mr. Mills [continuing]. but I will remind the gentlelady
from Pennsylvania that all last Congress in the 118th all I
heard about was the Trump derangement syndrome, of Trump,
Trump, Trump.
But yet you want to talk about the four bodies. Let's talk
about when Joe Biden was checking his watch while they were
offloading what was his responsibility and his failure----
Ms. Dean. Ninety-six----
Mr. Mills [continuing]. on August 26th, 2021----
Ms. Dean. Ninety-six members----
Mr. Mills [continuing]. when we lost 13.
Ms. Dean. Ninety-six members have been returned. Donald
Trump was there for four.
Mr. Mills. Ms. Dean--Ms. Dean, I reclaim--Ms. Dean, your
time is over.
Ms. Dean. Unanimous consent to enter some documents in the
record.
Mr. Mills. Without objection, so ordered.
[Please refer to the Appendix for the documents mentioned
above:]
Ms. Dean. Let me just tell you what they are.
I'll enter into the record Fiscal Year 1922 NDAA which had
bipartisan support including Secretary Rubio who was an
original co-sponsor that explicitly endorsed promotion of DEI.
No. 2--oh, the Secretary said, quote, ``The Secretary shall
implement performance and advancement requirements that reward
and recognize the efforts of individual in senior positions and
supervisors in the department in fostering an inclusive
environment and cultivating talent consistent with the merit
system principles such as such participation in mentoring
programs or sponsorship initiatives, recruitment events, and
other similar opportunities.''
I'll also note for the record the bipartisan statement from
Representatives McCaul and Meeks in 2021 applauding the NDAA's
focus on strengthening management operations of the Defense,
Department of State by recruiting and retaining a diverse
workforce.
I'd also like to enter into the record two articles from
The Atlantic that I'm sure everyone here is familiar with
regarding the national security advisor's use of Signal. They
are by Jeffrey Goldberg.
No. 1 is Trump administration accidentally texted me war
plans, for the record. No. 2, here are the attack plans that
Trump advisors shared on Signal, and the final, Nick Kristoff,
New York Times talking about exactly the cost of shuttering
USAID, the millions around this world who will lose their
lives.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Mills. Okay. I appreciate it, Ms. Dean, but I will just
go ahead and say while you were mentioning Senator Rubio, now
Secretary Rubio, while you were mentioning Chairman McCaul, no
longer chairman of the Foreign Affairs, and Ranking Member
Meeks, I'll ask the question that you asked me to make it
easier. Who is the President of the United States right now?
Ms. Dean. Donald Trump.
Mr. Mills. At the directive of President Trump DEI is
something that we will be eliminating. But we will enter your
documents into the record and I genuinely look forward to
working with you on things like substance abuse and addiction
issues.
Ms. Dean. That too.
Mr. Mills. It's something that is not studied enough, as
well as for mental health, which is a key thing, and I will
point out and recognize a Marine, Carl Castillo, who just took
his life last week.
We definitely need to do more, and it's not just continuing
to issue out more pharmaceutical drugs----
Ms. Dean. No.
Mr. Mills [continuing]. for our service members.
Ms. Dean. I look forward to working with you on that.
Mr. Mills. Likewise.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mills. With that, I'd like to recognize at this time
the gentleman from Illinois Representative Schneider for 5
minutes.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
associate myself with the words of my colleague from
Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean.
The world's on fire. Russia is consolidating gains in
Ukraine. China is testing red lines in the Pacific. Iran
proxies are active across the Middle East and now, just
yesterday, the Trump administration announced he has opened
direct talks with Iran.
That's a major development, one with implications for the
regional stability, for nuclear proliferation, and for U.S.
deterrence. This subcommittee focused on oversight and
intelligence is precisely the place we should be asking about
these issues and asking tough questions.
What are the administration's objectives? What is the
intelligence shaping this approach? What are the risks? What
are our allies being told and how are they supporting us or
challenging us?
But we're not doing that today. In his opening remarks the
chair appeared to claim that it was DEI policies that was
responsible for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Hamas' invasion
of Israel, China's actions in the Indo-Pacific. I don't think
he believes that but that's what this hearing seems to imply.
I'll use my military language. I won't. I'm just going to
say we shouldn't be doing this. I was going to.
So we're holding a hearing instead to relegate the past
administration's diversity initiatives at the State Department
while Tehran and Moscow coordinate and Beijing expands its
influence.
What are we doing? We're attacking internal H.R. policies,
attacking them with some absurd--I have to say, absurd
arguments, gentlemen.
This is not serious foreign policy oversight. It's a
political sideshow and it's profound abdication of the
responsibility we hold in this committee as Members of
Congress.
To be clear, I don't defend every initiative of the
previous administration. I didn't then. I don't now. I raised
concerns publicly and privately.
But at least their efforts to broaden recruitment and
strengthen retention at the State Department were aimed at
building institutional capacity, strengthening America's
capacity to perform diplomacy and development around the world,
making our country more safe and more secure. That's more than
I can say for what we are doing today.
This hearing has nothing to do with confronting our
adversaries. It has nothing to do with securing American
leadership in a dangerous world.
It has everything to do with scoring short-term political
points and earning the favor of the gentleman at 1600
Pennsylvania.
At a time when our credibility, our alliances, and our
deterrence postage posture are on the line, we should be
focused on the hard work of oversight, asking hard, challenging
questions, reviewing classified assessments, holding this
administration accountable for the real decisions like was made
or at least announced yesterday.
Instead, this committee is looking inward, picking fights
with civil servants and dangerously wasting the moment. This
isn't leadership. This is abdication.
I want to pick up on something else that my colleague said.
She quoted former Secretary Buttigieg--diversity is
uniformity--and I'm going to argue that uniformity is a threat
to what we are or who we are trying to be as a nation and our
diplomacy.
And I'll ask any of the two gentlemen--I'll read a quote
and see if you share a concern I have about this. The quote is,
quote, ``The Department of State's specialists on Near East
were almost without exception unfriendly to the idea of a
Jewish State. Some thought the Arabs on account of their number
and because of the fact that they control such immense oil
resources should be appeased. Some among them were also
inclined to be anti-Semitic.''
I want to make plain that the President of the United
States and not the State Department is responsible for making
foreign policy.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Hankinson?
Mr. Hankinson. Absolutely, the President of the United
States is in charge of foreign policy.
Mr. Schneider. Mr. Rogers?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I agree that the President is in charge of
foreign policy.
Mr. Schneider. Ambassador, do you know who said that, by
any chance? It's a trick question.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I think I do know who said it
but I'll say no.
Mr. Schneider. It was President Truman. President Truman
was talking about the Arabists in the State Department because
at that time we had uniformity in our State Department,
uniformity in thinking, uniformity of experience, oftentimes
uniformity in education.
The reason we promote diversity in our diplomatic corps
from the most senior Ambassadors to the most junior foreign
officers is because we need their experience. We need their
perspective.
And if we go down a path where--it's not just merit. Merit
counts. It's imperative. But if we only say merit is the only
thing then we end up with a State Department that looked like
it did in the 1940's.
That's not what we want. We want a State Department that is
prepared for the challenges of the 2025s and the century ahead
with a rising China, a threatening Iran, and a threatening
Russia.
We need these diversity programs to bring in people with a
variety of perspectives, a variety of experiences, and a
variety of ideas, and so I resent the idea that we should all
be thinking alike or looking alike or following the same path.
We need to challenge each other.
Mr. Mills. Time is over.
Mr. Schneider. I yield back.
Mr. Mills. And I do appreciate a lot of your sentiments and
a lot of the comments. I agree with you. The President is
responsible for foreign policy and there is no debate on that
whatsoever.
President Biden is responsible for the increase in Iranian
aggression, for the defunding of many of the programs that were
working for Russia's continual focus whenever he wouldn't
actually authorize lethal aid.
It was President Trump who actually authorized lethal aid
for the Ukrainians. It was President Biden who actually
delisted the Houthi rebels that has disrupted 12 percent of
global trade.
Mr. Schneider. Are we extending time for debate?
Mr. Mills. And I'm happy to----
Mr. Schneider. Okay.
Mr. Mills [continuing]. because at the end of the day,
October 7th in Israel would not have occurred under President
Trump because there wouldn't have been $10 billion in unfrozen,
fungible assets or up--what is it now? One point seven billion
barrels per day under President Trump. It was a half million
barrels per day.
When you talk about the illicit oil and ghost ships that
are going. And, look, I'm happy to have foreign policy
discussions.
We can go as far back into the Ottoman Empire expansion
from Suleiman all the way up to 2011 when we talk about the
Arab Spring and uprisings. I spent 10-plus years----
Mr. Schneider. It's going to be a long hearing.
Mr. Mills. It'd be a long hearing.
But I spent over 10 years in the Middle East deployed in
multiple locations. Foreign policy I do care about.
What I also care about is the strength of the State
Department, the same way I care about the strength of the armed
services, which I know you do as well.
And when I talk about--and Mr. Hankinson said it correctly.
I don't care what my heart surgeon looks like. I care about
whether or not he or she is the best at what she does.
So when you say that if we only base it on merit that's a
mistake I disagree. I think having the best and the brightest,
regardless of what they look like is the only thing that should
matter.
Mr. Schneider. So I appreciate that. There was a time when
merit was defined as did you have an Ivy League education. To
get that Ivy League education you had to come from the prep
schools of the East Coast.
Having the experiences--if I had more time to talk to
witnesses I would ask the Ambassador why it's important that we
have people who can relate to the experiences and perspectives
of the nations we are sending them to represent our Nation.
Mr. Mills. And by the way, happy to give a second round of
questioning should you want to ask that.
Mr. Schneider. I'll wait. I'm here.
Mr. Mills. At this time I'd like to acknowledge my good
friend, our ranking member Representative Moskowitz.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in fairness to
the chairman, he is by himself here so he is pulling--he is
doing----
Mr. Mills. Yes, but the good thing is if there was nine of
you it might be a fair fight.
Mr. Moskowitz. Okay. He's pulling the duty of this whole
committee.
So, you know, and first let me say, Mr. Chairman, we
appreciate your service to the country and your continued
commitment to folks in the State Department and going to other
countries during times of need. I mean, you have been there.
What we're saying--many things we're saying is, like, look,
we didn't agree with the Biden administration on many things.
There were many things that we didn't agree and we had these
hearings already. These DEI hearings were occurring for 2 years
when you guys had the 118th.
But at least when we disagreed with the Biden
administration we were, like, able to say it. You can barely
find a Republican who's willing to come out and disagree with
the current administration, at least in the House.
I mean, a couple senators have come out and talked about
the tariffs. I barely can find a Republican to come out and
talk about the tariffs.
I mean, can you imagine if President Biden did anything
that caused the stock market to go down 7,000 points? I mean,
they would show, like, 500 pictures of different basements
trying to find out where President Biden is.
Okay. You know, there is a lot to talk about of what's
going on right now--a lot of talk about, right, and Republicans
should feel Okay to defend those things. If they believe in
them then they should be able to defend it.
But there's not a single committee--subcommittee or main
committee--talking about anything that is going on now. It's
all backward. It's all looking backward. I mean, you know, the
President came in and said, we're going to solve the Ukraine
war on day one.
That hasn't happened, right? That war still going on. In
fact, Putin is the one who just turned down a cease-fire,
right? We should be talking--we should be talking about that.
We had battle plans, attack plans--whichever adjective,
verb you want to use--leaked on Signal. We talk about trust
with our allies. I mean, that undermines trust with our allies.
We have tariffs. We're tariffing friend and foe alike--the
whole world. That undermines trust and credibility. And that
doesn't mean that there isn't bipartisan support to try to fix
supply chain.
As someone who was the emergency management director during
COVID our supply chain is broken. Democrats and Republicans in
the Trump administration and the Biden administration spent $8
trillion after COVID. Didn't fix anything in the supply chain.
And so, yes, we do need to figure out how to onshore some
of our manufacturing back but the execution of this is crazy.
I mean, that's why you're seeing people within the Trump
administration fighting with each other in this Peter Navarro-
Elon Musk stuff. You're seeing some of Trump's ardent
supporters--billionaires--coming out and attacking the
administration.
Everyone understands we got to onshore jobs but to tariff
the whole world at the same time to crash the stock market when
that was, clearly, going to be a repercussion these are things
we should be talking about. You know, there was a lot--and you
know how I like boards. I bring boards sometimes.
You know, when President Zelenskyy came to the White House,
right, about, you know, during--to talk about trying to bring
the conflict to an end we heard a lot about what he was
wearing. Oh my God, the precious Oval Office. He didn't wear a
suit.
I mean, here's a picture of Kid Rock in the Oval Office. He
looks like he's about to jump over 10 busses, Okay, when he's
done on the White House lawn.
Okay. So, like, give me a little bit of a break. OK, we can
put that down now, I think. I think that picture solves itself.
But, you know, what else are we talking about, right? Oh,
Canada, they're going to be the 51st State. I'd love to hear a
hearing on that, right, to figure out how many people want to
make that happen.
By the way, if Canada were to become the 51st State it'd be
the last time we had a Republican president. It'd be the last
time the Republicans ever controlled the U.S. House of
Representatives because between California and Canada you have
a lot more Democrats.
We heard that we're all going to vacation in Gaza. I mean,
are you guys excited to go vacation in the Riviera of the
Middle East. You know, we've been treating Canada and Greenland
for the first 3 months tougher than we were treating Iran.
I'm glad now that we're focused on Iran. I'm glad that
we're moving strategic resources there. It is an opportunity to
talk about Iran. But we've been tougher on Europe for the first
90 days than we were on Tehran.
And so these are--there are lots of things that we can be
talking about, Mr. Chairman, things that we haven't yet talked
about, things that Republicans should feel comfortable in
defending if they believe in them.
But we're going back to hearings we've already had, not
just in this committee but a number of committees, and so
that's why we're bringing it up, Mr. Chairman.
My time has elapsed and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Ranking Member. We will now go to a
second round of questions.
I will just State for the record that in order for us to
move forward as a nation we must understand the mistakes of the
past, and while this is just our first hearing I think it is
apropos for us to go through the past so that our next hearings
can focus on how do we actually resolve key issues.
But we did talk about oversight. The role of oversight is
also how taxpayer moneys, us as good stewards, are being
utilized and I think that we have seen where the offices of DEI
utilizing the $2 million and $7 million and $10 million and
continuing to go up in numbers could have been better spent on
things that we all care about--stopping the Iranian regime from
nuclear power and allowing it to be a democratically elected
free Iran.
Stopping Russia's aggression, making sure that its
territorial sovereignty--and stopping China's continuation of
its advancement toward a one nation unification toward Taiwan.
So I'm with you 100 percent and we all share that sentiment.
At this time I'll recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hankinson, can you please outline the impact that DEI
policies have had on recruitment and retention across the State
Department?
Mr. Hankinson. On recruitment we've essentially--we can
debate what the term DEI hire means but we have changed the way
in which people come in.
Instead of you have to pass the written, then you take the
oral, and then 10 percent of the people pass the oral. Now, you
don't have to pass the written. They'll dig into that bucket
with this holistic or whatever you want to call it, character
review, just like the universities do so that they can get the
right percentage.
Then they put them into the oral after they've gone through
this thing called a qualification evaluations panel which,
again, looks for personal essay, personal narrative, things
that they can find to boost the right percentages, and then
they pass 50 percent in the oral.
So it's changed. I would say it's rigged the system to
provide results that they want as opposed to just judge people
according to their abilities and merits. And so we've ended up
with--and I take the point about diversity of viewpoint.
I think it's very important. Unfortunately, we've reduced
the diversity of viewpoint and we very much have a more left-
wing State Department than we did back in the days of Truman
and even 20 years ago.
As far as morale, look, one side always wins when you rig a
system so I imagine they feel better, but the other side loses
and that's why as Americans it's always been so important that
we judge each other not according to those immutable
characteristics but by the things that are more important, and
I would say that has suffered in the past 5 years.
Mr. Mills. Thank you so much.
And this whole rebranding of DEI, Mr. Rogers and Mr.
Hankinson, in what ways could DEI initiatives continue under a
different name or office within the State Department?
Mr. Rogers. They can just--we've seen this happen in
multiple government agencies and private corporations. They
just change the job title of the person administering the
program.
They can rename existing programs but keep the same content
of the programs and the rules that are applied. They can, like
I said, change position titles and then they can put DEI
concept into other programs that you wouldn't know that they
had done it because, based on the name, you wouldn't be able to
see it.
This is a real persistent problem is that sort of attempt
to burrow it in and hide it in other places.
Mr. Mills. And what kind of protections, Mr. Hankinson, do
you think that we should implement to ensure that DEI
initiatives cannot just simply be rebranded under a different
name?
Mr. Hankinson. It'll be difficult because they're pretty
embedded and a lot of people believe in them and do very well
out of them.
But I think one thing is oversight about where the money
goes. The number I heard was more like $40 million over the
past two fiscal years spent on DEI and related programs because
you have to count things like paying a trainer $10,000 to come
and talk to people about microaggressions. So I think that
stuff has to go, the things that are divisive.
And then one suggestion that I have is to change the
recruitment and the promotion process so that you eliminate all
of the obvious factors that you can tell about somebody like
their sex and their race and so on, so that you can judge them
on how they did their job, how well they speak the language,
how many times they've been to the region, and so on.
Mr. Mills. And just for the record, do you feel that since
implementing the DEI office, or DEIA, that the State Department
has become more effective in their diplomacy efforts and in
securing U.S. national interests abroad?
Mr. Hankinson. I believe in metrics and I believe in proof
and, you know, the science--I don't see any metric by which you
can judge that we have gotten safer, more prosperous, or more
effective as diplomats as a result of spending this money and
I've seen some research that shows the exact opposite, that in
fact morale and distrust and in general a sense of well-being
among employees has gone slightly down.
Mr. Mills. Mr. James--Mr. Rogers, I'd love to hear your
response as well.
Mr. Rogers. You know, there's this saying politics stops at
the water's edge that was popularized after World War II, and
there's a reason for that. It's because when the department's--
not just the internal DEI programs.
It's this promotion like we talked about in my testimony--
the department's been promoting DEI ideas all over the world
and that doesn't make us safer because it's taking very
divisive, contentious political issues we don't even agree on
internally and trying to indoctrinate the rest of the world.
The Foreign Service shouldn't be a missionary force to
promote a certain ideology and that encourages resentment among
foreigners who don't accept the same cultural values.
There's this whole idea from President Wilson of self-
determination and that just completely disrespects that
principle that other countries should get to determine their
own path forward rather than us dictating it to them.
Mr. Mills. And, Madam Ambassador, I'd be happy to hear your
comments as well on whether or not you think that our U.S.
national security interests were advanced in areas in the
Middle East to help with stabilization as a result of the DEIA.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. I think they were
beginning to be strengthened because we were walking the talk
and there's a reason that businesses as well as others changed
the titles but continued to do the work.
That's because they know the value of the work. That's why
there are companies like Costco, like Coca Cola, like ELF, that
continue with these programs because they know that it's good
for their customers and it's good for their workers.
It's good management. If one of the programs I've listed
for you is one that you would like to see go away, adding
transparency and accountability--these are the things that we
were working on to make a more inclusive and accountable and
trusted organization and I would be surprised to hear my
colleagues suggest that there shouldn't be transparency in
assignments or promotions.
Mr. Mills. My time, unfortunately, has expired. But I
believe that rebranding and rechanging the name is just trying
to be tricky.
With that, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from
Illinois Mr. Schneider for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, and thank you for giving us the
chance to ask questions again.
Mr. Rogers, you talked about United States promoting ideals
or values. Should the United States be promoting democracy
around the world?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, it should promote democracy. But democracy
doesn't include promoting DEIA. Promoting----
Mr. Schneider. I'm just asking, should we promote--should
we should we be promoting anti-corruption around the world?
Mr. Rogers. Absolutely.
Mr. Schneider. Okay.
Mr. Hankinson, we've talked about as the State Department
has changed. What percent of the senior ranks in the State
Department are white?
Mr. Hankinson. I couldn't tell you exactly. I would say----
Mr. Schneider. If you were to guess, is it more or less
than 50 percent?
Mr. Hankinson. It's--of the senior ranks it's probably far
higher than 50 percent because they were recruited in the
1990's when the recruitment was not the same as it is today.
Mr. Schneider. Eighty-two point 4 percent.
So, you know, what's changed?
Mr. Hankinson. America's demography has changed. In 1990 it
was probably 80 percent European and 12 percent African
American, and the rest, you know, Hispanic and Asian. And now
the numbers of Hispanics are far higher, Asians are far higher,
and so you will see a change in the recruitment. Also women, I
believe, are now slightly over 50 percent of new recruits.
Mr. Schneider. Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, you've
served in the State Department for a long time. You've been a
diplomat around the world. I'm going to give you the rest of my
time.
Can you talk about why it is so important--two things, that
the people who travel across the world to represent our Nation
reflect who we are as a nation and why as people see that they
appreciate that the people who are in those countries have an
appreciation for the nuance and distinctiveness of each of
those countries?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely. Thank you, sir.
I know from my own personal experience the surprise when I
have walked into rooms representing the United States of
America, the reaction of me being part of the delegation. Oh,
you Americans you talk about this but you're actually doing it.
You're a U.S. diplomat, and it brings us credibility as a
Nation, a nation that has said for centuries that everybody can
come here and reach their full potential.
That is what DEIA is about, trying to level the playing
field so that people get as far as their abilities will take
them. That is the message that we've been giving the world and
we have to show that diversity to be taken seriously.
And people are watching us now as well because we did make
the case successfully about leveling that playing field. Again,
the Department of State recruits where all of our different
populations are the Nation, and we do live separately.
People say Sunday morning is the most segregated time of
the week in America. So we are in different places so we have
to recruit in different places, but we hire for merit. You have
to pass that written exam, until we made the changes, and
keeping in mind that the written exam was very similar to an
SAT test.
Those sorts of questions are not what determine whether
you're going to be a good diplomat. That's in the oral
assessment, the assessment when we're asking people
hypotheticals about situations that have happened with
diplomats.
That is where the rubber hits the road, and I've been an
assessor so I'm very familiar with all three sections of this
exam and the difference, and my colleagues will know this
because they've been through both. They know what that written
test is and they know what the oral test is.
So these are the things that help us get all of America
through the door and out to the world. Languages, first hand
experiences with different cultures, my ability to blend in the
streets of Cairo were what got my Arabic so good and my ability
to do negotiations in the vernacular, to do interpretations.
When Governor Sununu came to Egypt I was the one that was
his interpreter for meetings. Those are the sorts of things
that come because we have all Americans represented and the
world is watching us.
We cannot give up on this, and people will continue to do
it. They'll call it something else but it's good leadership.
It's good management to take care of all of your people,
not just the ones that remind you of you or that you have
something in common and went to the same school as you. Take
care of everybody. That's inclusion.
Mr. Schneider. And I'll add one thing with the writing
test.
I was an engineer undergraduate. Writing was not my
strength. I know that if I was going to get into a career and
succeed I had to learn to write, but if I could get in the door
I would have the chance to gain those skills and use my other
skills that come naturally to succeed.
That's why we have to balance how we evaluate people, not
with a standardized test but with evaluations of what do they
bring in the full package.
I yield back.
Mr. Mills. Thank you so much, Mr. Schneider.
I'll just point out the fact that there's a difference in
equity and equality, and the difference is is one believes in
equal opportunity. The other one believes in equal outcome, and
that is not merit.
And I will say one more time that it is important for us to
understand the history and our past mistakes in order to try
and advance and move forward to guarantee we have a stronger
diplomatic corps, to make sure that our armed forces have
everything they need, because none of our adversaries are
scared by the ideas that we can he/him, she/her, they/them or
out pronoun them as we walk on to the battlefields, whether
that be militarily, diplomatically or economically, and I can
tell you that the Ayatollah in Iran is not sitting there
worrying about our diversity, equity, and inclusion. They're
worried about the fact that this is the strongest nation on
Earth.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimoneys and the members for the questions. The members of
the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
witnesses and we will ask you to respond to these in writing.
Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to
submit these questions and extraneous materials for the record,
subject to the length and limitations.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]