Merit, Accountability, and Performance at State: Evaluating Promotion, and Placemen

The subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to provide an opportunity to examine how merit-based systems and management authorities can be applied to uphold high standards and ensure a mission-driven Foreign Service that serves America's interests abroad. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today we convene to examine the State Department's personnel management framework. We will assess how accountability, merit, and performance evaluation practices within the Foreign Service support or hinder the department's core mission of advancing American interests abroad. I want to thank our witness, Senior Bureau Official for the Bureau of Human Resources Sarah McKemey, for appearing before us today. The United States Foreign Service is one of our nation's most important strategic foreign policy assets. Foreign Service officers are on the front lines of diplomacy and serve in some of the most dangerous and complex environments around the world. They advance American strategic objectives, support U.S. citizens overseas, manage critical programs, and represent the United States and American values across the globe. Their work is indispensable. Mission effectiveness depends on more than just talent and dedication; it requires a system that rewards excellence, ensures accountability, and develops leadership. Critically, it must also align individual performance with national security priorities. If our personnel processes are misaligned or inconsistent, we risk diluting mission focus and weakening diplomatic efforts. This hearing provides an opportunity to review whether the State Department's current evaluation and accountability mechanisms are serving the needs of the service. Here, we will examine whether officials are equipped to deliver clear and objective evaluations, whether promotion core precepts reflect today's geopolitical realities, and whether the system can properly distinguish high performance from mediocrity. We will also consider whether underperformance is addressed in a timely and fair manner and whether leadership pathways are producing the senior officers our country requires. As lead at the Bureau of Human Resources, Ms. McKemey is uniquely positioned to provide insight into how career development policies are implemented across the service. Her experience overseeing personnel management, assignments, evaluations, and professional development will help inform Congress so that we can better support reforms that strengthen accountability while preserving the merit-based foundation of the Foreign Service. At a time of intensifying strategic competition, restoring and maintaining mission focus at the State Department is a national security imperative. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the department's personnel systems are structured to advance clear strategic objectives, promote leadership excellence, and uphold the highest standards of performance and integrity. This subcommittee is committed to ensuring that our diplomats are supported by a system that is fair, accountable, and aligned with America's priorities. Ms. McKemey, we look forward to your testimony and to a productive discussion about how we can reinforce accountability and strengthen strategic alignment within the Foreign Service. And with that, I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Sherman, for his opening statement.

I want to commend the majority for having brought us a government witness and also for focusing on how the State Department is run, not just regional but also the functional side of our subcommittee's work. But I do want to point out that we have not had a government witness to talk to us about Iran. And with all due respect to Ms. McKemey and the functioning, I think Iran is what's on people's minds now. I would hope that we would have a government witness to talk to us about the bombing of Iran when Congress reconvenes in about 10 days, and I would urge that upon the leadership of the committee. For a long time, the full committee had recently a full committee hearing on the need to promote our economic positions, and yet the State Department tends to recruit at diplomacy schools and rarely recruits MBAs. The State Department from the 1940s to the 1970s had a series of commissions and panels saying that this apartheid divide that the State Department has between the privileged Foreign Service and those who are civil service has not been explored, and the difference in benefits and promotions and protections are very different and they shouldn't be. We are told that this State Department believes in merit-base, and yet first you start with a fork on the road which basically invited those of your employees with the best prospects to make money in the private sector to leave, so you leave you lose the best people, at least in the view of the private sector. Then you go to RIFs, reductions in force, and you fire people based on what job they happen to have at the time rather than their capacity. And since in the State Department it's pretty much a lot of musical chairs, you may have somebody who was doing a great job at job A that you thought was very important job, but this particular month they're doing job B. Instead of retaining that person, you fired them, and whoever was doing that job A could have a terrible performance report, but they happen to be sitting in the chair that you liked at the time the music stopped. We the Republicans quite rightly say that we should run the government more like a business; a business recognizes that its employees are its most valuable assets, and we have decimated that valuable asset. One example is how the DOGE personnel cuts hit cybersecurity, and now they're working in Iran to see how they can attack America through cyberattacks. We are well defended by our military; we are not as well defended as we should be from cyberattacks. Certainly you try to maintain the morale of your workforce when you have your president saying that they're crooked people, they're dishonest people, you do not enhance a morale. That's why a recent American Foreign Service Association report said 98 percent of the Foreign Service regards has had low morale. We need to recruit the people who understand not just the language but the culture of the countries we work in. And the greatest advantage America has is that we are a combination of literally hundreds of different ethnicities and nationalities. And so we have lots of people who are native speakers and who understand the culture, and then we have a rule at the State Department that says, oh, if you're familiar with that country, you're not allowed to work in that country. To say that American citizens of this or that heritage might be loyal to the homeland of their grandparents is absurd, it is wrong, it is discriminatory, and it costs us because we have people who understand culture and language and instead we put somebody there who tried to learn the language at some school. Finally, I'll point out that only for a temporary time am I assigned to be the ranking member of two different subcommittees, this one and one over in Financial Services, and that is why I'm pleased that the gentleman from New York will be sitting in as temporary ranking member for much of this hearing. It's a very important hearing and I will be back, and I yield back.

I thank the gentleman from California. Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. We are pleased to have the Senior Bureau Official for the Bureau of Human Resources at the U.S. Department of State, Ms. Sarah McKemey, before us today. Your full statement will be made part of the record, and I'll ask you to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for member questions. I now recognize Ms. McKemey for an opening statement.

Chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding our efforts to improve merit, accountability, and performance standards in the Foreign Service. We are committed to shaping and managing a State Department workforce that is best prepared to deliver on the president's foreign policy agenda. Under President Trump's leadership and Secretary Rubio's direction, we're creating a Department of State workforce that is agile, merit-based, and laser-focused on delivering results. Every hiring decision, every promotion, every assignment must serve our national security objectives and make us safer, stronger, and more prosperous. Ensuring that the Department of State fully aligns with the president's America First agenda is my highest priority. Success of this mission rests on the combined efforts of Foreign Service employees, civil service employees, and locally employed staff, both domestically and around the world, leveraging their wide-ranging knowledge and expertise to advance the interests of the United States. This requires a personnel system that rewards merit and professionalism, the core mandate of the Foreign Service Act. We are undertaking comprehensive reforms across the entire Foreign Service personnel lifecycle, including recruitment, assignments, and performance management. These changes will promote better accountability, ensure high performers are appropriately recognized and rewarded, and put the right people in the right places to create a workforce capable of meeting today's complex geopolitical challenges. We're fully committed to aligning department hiring practices with the executive orders on reforming the federal hiring process and restoring merit and ensuring continued accountability in federal hiring. Our plan to recruit the best Foreign Service candidates includes reforms to the Foreign Service officer test and assessment that will better identify individuals who possess not only the necessary skills and knowledge but also the judgment and commitment to advance American interests. Consistent with OPM guidance and the executive order on federal hiring and restoring merit, Secretary Rubio approved changes to the Foreign Service officer test in June that modernized and aligned it with the president's America First agenda. This updated test was administered for the first time in October, and more than 5,000 candidates participated, roughly double the number of candidates in October 2024. Once we bring talented individuals into the department, we must ensure that they perform at the highest level and that performance evaluations promote responsibility and accountability. For Foreign Service employees, we are establishing clearer standards that link individual contributions to mission outcomes and national security priorities. The updated Foreign Service core precepts reflect the competencies determined to be the most critical to successful service throughout a Foreign Service career and in which Foreign Service members must demonstrate potential in order to advance. In addition, a supervisory goal has been added to make sure managers hold their subordinates accountable, and each precept now has a supervisory component. This will allow employees to benefit from meaningful feedback on their performance throughout the process, alongside required professional development and counseling sessions, allowing them to identify any areas for improvement and provide employees with actionable steps to improve when needed. We're also reviewing training and professional development programs to ensure all employees receive the preparation they need to excel in their roles, no matter the environment. The department is focused on implementing the highest standards in all training offerings, including during the initial Foreign Service orientation. Testing students on the material throughout the course reinforces their training, reveals gaps in understanding, ensures that they can apply their material to future positions, and ensures accountability. Similar testing to measure progress is included in most of the department long-term training courses. Merit and professionalism demand accountability, and we are committed to delivering it. We have strengthened our performance and disciplinary processes to ensure that employees who fail to meet performance standards or engage in misconduct face timely and appropriate consequences. This includes decisively addressing cases involving allegations of hostile work environment and unaddressed misconduct, behaviors that undermine both mission effectiveness and employee morale. When misconduct is substantiated by our investigations, we act decisively, taking appropriate timely disciplinary action consistent with applicable laws and regulations. The Foreign Service Act of 1980 has served as the foundation of our structure, administration, personnel systems, compensation, retirement, training, and labor-management relations for over four decades and continues to guide our work. As we align the department with President Trump and Secretary's priorities over building a robust dynamic workforce of the 21st century, additional reforms may be required. For example, we have identified several places within the Foreign Service Act where discriminatory DEI language related to recruitment and selection boards should be eliminated. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the committee on this and other efforts. I look forward to your questions and continued collaboration with the committee moving forward on workforce matters.

Thank you, Ms. McKemey.

Thank you, Ms. McKemey. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. The core precepts at State provide the guidelines to determine the tenure and promotion of foreign service officers. Currently, these competencies include fidelity, communication, leadership, management, and knowledge. State measures each of these competencies in candidates to rank them against each other and a selection board uses that standard to promote the officers at the top. Those that don't make the cut after enough time are let go. It's supposed to be a meticulous system that rewards only the best and brightest, a system that creates a gold standard for U.S. diplomacy. But in doing so, it gives great power to the selection boards, essentially putting people's careers and families in their hands. Any change to the core precepts can have a significant impact on our foreign service. Ms. McKemey, given some of the department's recent internal changes, what is the current process for negotiating core precepts?

Thank you, Chairman, for the question. The core precepts that we have currently, we have a lot of information available to employees to help guide them in writing their evaluations in order to reflect how they're achieving competencies in those precepts. We have advertised those on a website for all of our employees to access and we're doing continuous conversations with supervisors and the employees themselves in order to ensure that they understand expectations related to those precepts.

Okay. And is there that is a standard or formal procedure?

Yes, it is.

Okay. Right now, who are all the players involved in determining and negotiating the services core precepts both within the department and external?

Currently, the precepts are have been decided by it's a combination of individuals who are in department leadership and it's a reflection of what we believe would be held by the most qualified officers in order to have a fully successful career in the department.

And do promotion outcomes vary by cone or region post?

Yes, promotion outcomes vary by cone, both within the generalist cone and the specialist cone. It does not vary by post because we look at the foreign service globally.

And training is critical for foreign service officers as they represent our country abroad and operate in complex high-stakes environments where mistakes can have serious diplomatic, economic, or security consequences. Is there any mechanism in place to incentivize new trainings as part of the promotional process?

Yes, we incentivize training at every level and encourage people to participate in the training that we offer through the National Foreign Affairs Training Center.

How have the State Department's recent changes to the written foreign service officer test better align the test's parameters with the skills required to effectively serve as a foreign service officer?

What we have we've changed the test questions to focus more on relevant competencies, logic and reasoning. We've removed some of the parts of the test that required a more subjective review to make it more merit-based.

Personnel management at the foreign service is a merit-based approach. How is this approach enabled the State Department to effectively identify, reward, and advance those best qualified to serve in the foreign service?

We have recently updated our employee evaluation system for the foreign service. We have introduced several of the data-driven merit-based ways to kind of assess officers as they progress in their career. By doing so, it's we've removed some of the longer descriptive paragraphs and tried to narrow it down to more specific things driven by metrics to showcase how officers are performing.

And are there any characteristics of the merit-based personnel system that the State Department intends to reconsider or that we should pay special attention to as we go through this reauthorization process?

Not that I can think of, but I welcome your feedback if there's anything you'd like us to look at.

Okay. I yield back the remainder of my time. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Meeks from New York, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I've long supported the Rangel, Pickering, and Payne fellowships, which for years have helped recruit and retain talented Americans, particularly from historically underrepresented communities, into the State Department's workforce. These programs have enjoyed strong bipartisan support, including in the FY 26 National Defense Authorization Act. And I have my December 2005 letter that I'd like to enter into the record.

Without objection.

Thank you. Now, I got to tell you, I'm deeply concerned by the department's recent handling of these fellowships. The department dismissed the staff that who had administered these programs and required fellows to retake the foreign service officer's test despite them already passing it and altered the terms of the contracts that had already been offered to the participants. So, Ms. McKemey, I understand that the department is now, I guess, reviewing the future of these fellowships. Now, you know that these fellowships were created and established in law, correct? This is law that we have that is established. So, what exactly is being reviewed and when will that review be completed?

Thank you, ranking member, for your question. We have been reviewing the pipelines, but we the department intends to uphold all of our contractual obligations and bring in all the fellows that are currently in the pipeline.

So, and for fiscal year 26, the NDAA, so you're saying you will commit also to fully implement those fellowship programs as mandated also.

Yes, sir. We are looking at all of the fellowships that we are mandatorily required and we will continue to onboard them through the pipeline.

All right. So, what's the timeline for them to be into the the foreign service classes that that they have been accepted into?

I can tell you that we had approximately 30 onboarded in the September and January class. We're expecting, I think, over 25 coming up in our April class and we will continue to incorporate them in the future orientation classes.

And as I stated earlier, they had passed the test previously. Do they have to retake the test?

Yes, everyone that is on our register retook the the revised foreign service officer test and the intent was to assess everyone by the same instrument as they were ranked on the register.

And was there a need? I mean, they had passed the test that I guess our foreign service officers had passed for decades. So, what was the reason why they have to be retested when they had passed and qualified? I don't really understand that one.

As we're introducing the new test and bringing in people on the register who had scores from that new test, we wanted to create a balance and assess everyone on the register using the same metric, so we had everyone retake the new test.

And so, though you passed the test, I just and I really want to get to another question, but I'm stuck because I really don't understand because generally the contract you pass the test, you assigned to a certain class, and it just seems to me that you should be then put into that class, but then the individuals have to be retested. Is this now open to a broader I don't know, a broader number of people, a broader population, a broader as far as this test is concerned now?

No, sir. The way we order people on the register to be pulled into orientation classes based off of their score from their test. So, allowing them to retake the test gave them the chance to move either up...

So, let me just ask this then. This committee has repeatedly requested for information on how last year's reduction in force was conducted and the department's assessment of the expertise lost at taxpayer expense. We haven't received that information. And so, let me just ask real quickly, has the department conducted a damage assessment of the skills and expertise lost as a result of the reduction in force? And if so, can we get that information from you to the committee?

The department continues to operate and more agile and we will continue to execute on the Secretary and the President's mission.

So, have that assessment are you going to do an assessment?

The reorganization is still ongoing and I think we have we're still pending if there's information specifically that you're looking for, I'm happy to take that back.

Okay. Because I am and I know I'm out of time, but because what I am interested in is, for example, I know that there are, you know, people who were fluent in certain languages, Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, and they were separated during the RIF period. And so, I want to know how many fluent speakers of those languages remain in the department today. So, if you can get me that information, that would be really important. And professional proficiency in critical languages are really important. So, I'd love to have that information.

Okay.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you to the ranking member. I now recognize for five minutes the acting ranking member of the committee, Mr. Latimer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. McKemey. Want to ask a couple of questions related to this balance between professionalism, merit, and loyalty and ideological synchronization. Section 1128 of Public Law 108-136, 5 USC 7101, requires an annual survey called the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. The Office of Personnel Management announced last August 2025 that the 2025 survey would be canceled. Is that a correct statement to your knowledge? Okay. Now, having that type of a survey where you're speaking to the people within the agency and getting their opinions about what represents for them the right strategies and focus, was it a wise decision to cancel that survey in your opinion?

I we always hear we always get feedback from the workforce in our office and so we have a continual relationship with them.

And and that decision that by OPM, wasn't that directly in violation of the law? Because there's a law that requires that survey. It was first initiated in 2002 under the presidency of George W. Bush. Do you think that management should seek formal input from the workforce, the human capital, in a structured way aside from a happenstance way?

Yes sir, I think we I don't know the exact number but I know there are several surveys that go out every year to the workforce and I think there has been an effort to combine a few of those in order to streamline that.

And I think we'd be interested in seeing what those surveys are like so that we can make some judgment to see how it compares with the requirement that there be an FEVS survey on a regular basis. Are you familiar with the American Foreign Service Association survey they did a report on December 3rd of last year? Are you familiar with that report? Mr. Chairman I'd like to enter this into the record of the committee.

Without objection.

Thank you. The report surveyed and it's done by an external organization, Association of Foreign Service Employees not directly under government control but people with such experience 2,100 diplomats. They did a survey and the December 3rd report came out with some rather striking numbers I'm not sure if you're aware of them but if you have read the report maybe you are. This report said that 98 percent of the respondents reported that there was poor morale in the agency. Fifty-four percent of them cited that there was negative political influence at work. One-third of the respondents considered leaving the Foreign Service and 86 percent of the respondents said that the workforce changes that were implemented as of January 2025 I recognize you came in in December of 2025 but it reduced their ability to be effective. If you've read the report what kind of a commentary can you respond to in that?

Prior to being in this position I was in the Foreign Service myself for 10 years so I have a lot of friends who are in the workforce who are careers and from what I've heard for them a lot of them are very excited and looking forward to our introductions of accountability and other reforms and are eager to work in a department that's more agile and mission focused.

Do you believe that there should be a nonpartisan career Foreign Service or do you believe that the career service employees should be in sync partisanly in sync with a president's goals and objectives? You alluded to America First agenda.

The Foreign Service officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and enforce the administration's policies and they should continue to do that regardless of who is in power.

But does that mean then that if a person has a career in this field they may serve under different presidents with different ideologies? Does the the president of the moment and their agenda and ideology represent a requirement for the career professional to align to?

The president is the implementer of foreign policy and it is our mission to to bring that foreign policy to life.

Well I think the concern that many of us would have as I have the last few seconds of my time here is that merit and experience if it is supposed to be the top of the pyramid in all of these things can't be subordinate under an ideological commitment where someone says this is the agenda of leadership and we have to implement it. Mr. Chairman I yield back my two seconds.

Thank you Mr. Latimer. I now recognize the gentleman from Montana Mr. Zinke for five minutes.

Thank you. Pursuant to the conversation was DEI a consideration in hiring under President Biden?

Yes Congressman.

It was.

Yes.

And DEI being definition of DEI was it based on merit or was it based on gender, sex, position on on social issues?

Yes that's exactly right.

So what you're saying is this administration what we're doing now is being based hiring based on merit.

Yes sir. That is our goal is to look for the most qualified individuals who will perform well in the Foreign Service.

And the qualified individuals would be on character and background and experience and talent.

Yes sir exactly and leadership and management ability and communication.

Thank you. I yield.

I thank the gentleman from Montana. I now recognize Mr. Mfume for five minutes.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a subcommittee that meets here on a regular basis and we're always on that end so that's why I went down there but it made me realize that we need to knock this wall out but you are welcome to come down. Yeah no no no I'm okay. I'm okay. Ms. McKemey did I hear that you came over to the State Department or to your position I should say last year?

Yes sir in December.

In December okay and you've had a chance I assume to kind of do your own assessment of what's going on and what's not going on anything you want to share with the committee that you think is important for you in this new role to focus on in particular?

I think that we have an incredibly talented workforce. I think that we have a lot of experience and knowledge within the department and we in the Bureau of Human Resources are focused on moving them into the most critical positions for the administration so that they can do the things that they are best at doing.

Okay I want to come back to that. I you know our Foreign Service professionals carry out our nation's diplomatic efforts every year in every way they can. They work to free detained Americans overseas, assist families during evacuations and emergencies and to work with humanitarian causes for humanitarian reasons but also to make sure that our people are safe. I know this does not concern you but I'm hoping that the State Department is moving with great dispatch to get 1,800 Americans who are trapped in the Middle East back home. We met the three of us or the four of us in a briefing with the Secretary of State Mr. Rubio who talked about how charters, private charters, military flights and other things were being assembled including commercial flights to try to get that done. Now I know this has nothing to do with why we're here today but I just want to be on the record again because many of those persons live in districts of members of this Congress so it is important for all of us Democrats and Republicans to focus on that which is why we bring it up as often as we can in these last 72 hours. To do the work that they have to do employees at the State Department have to draw on the full range of American talent. Under the previous administration as was questioned a little while ago a diverse State Department workforce was prioritized because it improves diplomacy. A workforce drawn from various backgrounds creates greater cultural competency would you agree with that?

Yes sir.

And that sort of competency and that kind of various expertise builds trust with communities and our counterparts overseas would you agree with that?

Yes sir.

Okay and I'm talking about people who are skeptical of U.S. intentions when we've got a diverse workforce particularly in the Foreign Service interacting with them I just think we are able to do more to help further our missions but certainly to bring about the sort of trust that that is needed to take place. As the senior official responsible for overseeing the Bureau of Personnel and Training you're responsible for ensuring compliance with the law is that correct?

Yes.

Including the Foreign Service Act which mandates that the Foreign Service be representative of the American people is that right?

Yes sir.

I happen to believe that meritocracy and DEI can coexist. I don't think it's one or the other and when you look at that act and what it mandates it seems that it's easier to get to that point by not completely doing away with one or the other but to have them operating in such a way that they complement each other. Do you believe that the State Department as required by law should fulfill its mandate that we've just talked about in any special way or in no way at all or to allow someone else to be able to do that?

I think in terms of recruiting the right people into the Foreign Service what we've done is really emphasized people's qualifications as Congressman Zinke highlighted leadership capability, management expertise, regional knowledge and other things that would make them successful.

And assuming that hiring is based on merit as already required by law do you believe that a diverse and inclusive workforce is beneficial or harmful to carrying out American foreign policy?

I think within the State Department we have a wide range of people in the workforce from different backgrounds who represent different parts of the country and have different regional expertise and we've been able to use all of their qualifications to...

And I assume it's been beneficial.

Everyone's expertise has been beneficial in helping advance foreign policy.

Good. Okay my time is up thank you. I yield back Mr. Chair.

Thank you Mr. Mfume. I now recognize for a second round of questioning the gentleman from Montana Mr. Zinke for five minutes.

First of all thank you for serving. It's not easy but thank you for stepping up and I appreciate your service. So on recruiting is there an active engagement for military for former military folks that because they obviously some of them have a lot of experience I've dealt with the Foreign Service a lot sometimes it's helpful to have a background an institutional background of the military because the statement or the Department of War and Department of State work together a lot. So is there a program active recruiting young officers that may want to have a change of career let's say and they do a whatever their commitment is out of the academy they're young in the 26, 27 year range is there an active program to go out and try to find these guys?

Yes sir we have several people who are dedicated to recruiting veterans we also have the Veterans Fellowship to bring them into the pipeline.

Any any programs outreach in a former Congressman like 64 from Montana nothing like that?

You're absolutely welcome.

Okay thank you. And lastly if you could if you could look at your because you have a lot of things going on. What is your top priority and what you're currently focused on and what's your what's your biggest challenge? Top priority and your biggest challenge.

Sure I think my top priority would be encouraging high performers to be rewarded through promotion and other incentives. What we've been looking at doing is as we've said before is putting the right people in the right place to achieve the right mission. We have a lot of critical positions all over the world and what we'd like to do is just ensure that through these merit-based evaluations and other metrics that we're identifying them and moving them into positions that will have the biggest impact and push forward the administration's policies.

And your challenges?

I don't think...

Bureaucracy in general slow pace of government?

Yeah I think we're working through everything there's no challenge that's too big to overcome to make sure that we are able to achieve our mission.

And on foreign languages, how important is foreign languages? Because there's a lot of young college students are looking at a career in the Foreign Service and they what courses best prep me for that job? How important are foreign languages to the FSO?

Foreign languages are an incredibly beneficial asset, but it's not the only thing we look for. We have a really robust training facility that has trained thousands of Foreign Service officers on languages and other skills that they need depending on where they're posted. So although it is always great to have if you're coming in, it's not something that would that should discourage you from applying if you don't have it because we have the tools to train everyone.

And as my colleague has also mentioned, I would imagine on foreign soil sometimes you need a background that is consistent with that program. If you're if you have a background in Eastern European background, you grew up in that background might be helpful. Is that also part of your consideration to make sure we have a diversity of backgrounds appropriate to their position?

Yes, absolutely. It's definitely one thing that we consider, but similarly, we offer different regional training depending on where an officer is going to make sure that they understand the culture, the political environment, and other factors as they're going out to an assignment.

I appreciate that. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Zinke. I now recognize Mr. Latimer for five minutes.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, Ms. McKemey. In 2025, the State Department canceled long-standing and congressionally mandated internships, the Student Internship Program and the Foreign Service Internship Program. At that time, it was identified that the department is reviewing the internship program. We've lost a year of it. What specific review is involved with the program and what specific metrics has the department used to evaluate the program and what is its long-term status?

We have restarted the internship program this summer with both domestic and international interns who are currently being processed for onboarding. What we have been looking forward to continuing the internship program, we also have pathway interns that are throughout the department.

We'd be very interested in seeing the specifics about the reinstitution of the program so that we'd be aware of it. One more question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity a second time through. Back in December, the State Department announced a recall of 30 career ambassadors all across the globe, particularly in Africa. What's the status of those slots? Have they been replaced? Are they being replaced over what time frame? And what can you tell us about that situation?

We have restarted the chief of mission process seeking career candidates for chief of mission positions and that's for both foreign and civil service candidates that are the process is currently underway and we are hoping to put the right people into those positions upon further review of their qualifications.

And in the interim period of time, who has responsibility for these slots?

We have some incredibly qualified senior Foreign Service officers who are in leadership positions and we have our utmost confidence in those individuals in those places.

And the fact that there was a particularly high number of changes in Africa, does that make a statement at all about policy, about how the administration views that portion of the globe?

You know, the process for selecting the president's appointed chiefs of mission is a White House process and so I would defer to them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes. State Department data indicates that within the Foreign Service, the percentage of Foreign Service officers who successfully completed competed for promotion in 2025 ranged from 54.8 percent for those seeking promotion from FSO-4 to FSO-3 to 11.6 percent for those seeking promotion from FSO-2 to FSO-1. In your view, does this data reflect a competitive promotion process?

I believe so, yes, sir.

Typically, how many times will Foreign Service officers compete for promotion in a particular salary class before securing promotion?

I don't know the average number. I would if I had to guess, I would say maybe three or four times.

Okay. And how many fail to secure promotion altogether and are retired from service due to time in class restrictions?

I don't know that specific, sir, but we can provide...

Okay, if you can get us that information. How does the Bureau of Human Resources ensure that employee evaluation reports, EERs, are truly merit-based and not influenced by internal bias or favoritism?

With the new employee evaluation system that we've introduced, we have a lot of metrics and data-driven information. Supervisors are also held accountable to the way that they are reviewing and rating their employees so that if there is any kind of inflation in terms of their metrics, we're also able to talk to them about the way that they're assessing candidates to ensure a normal distribution throughout the workforce.

And what specific safeguards, which you just started to mention, exist to prevent inflation or homogenization of employee evaluation reports?

Given that we've now translated the system into a metric-based system, we're able to assess the numbers and that they're rating their employees and we're able to look at the feedback that they're providing and then have conversations with them if it's not within the normal distribution to ensure that we're also holding the managers accountable for performance.

Okay. And can you elaborate a little bit more on this new system that you have put in place?

The employee the EER system, we changed the form for the the main evaluation. We've also introduced a performance improvement plan for Foreign Service officers in order to identify areas where they may not be meeting the needs of the service and give the supervisors an opportunity to provide feedback and help them improve over a 30-day span combined with counseling sessions that are mandated throughout the rating cycle in order to help facilitate high performers in the year.

Okay. Well, Mr. Mfume, are you do you have any more questions on your end?

Yeah, I do. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. I will yield the balance of my time and I will recognize Mr. Mfume for five minutes.

Thank you again very, very much. Ms. McKemey, I'm going to say as my colleague on the other side said earlier, thank you for your service. Just coming here and sitting down three months after you got in this position takes a whole lot of will and a lot of gut, but also a lot of chutzpah because I get the sense that you're not trying to play games with us, but I also get the sense that you can't go too far because of guardrails that are already in place. So let me just do one quick thing here. I'm concerned about retention. I mean, and I know you must be coming into this position. And all this hearing has talked about how valuable our Foreign Service personnel are, and they are extremely valuable. So when I look at our current workforce, it concerns me that the American Foreign Service Association conducted their own survey of State Department employee morale last year and that among 2,100 survey respondents, 86 percent said that changes to the workforce have affected their ability to advance our diplomatic priorities. If you could comment on that for just a moment. That's a huge number and those priorities are priorities because they're just that, they're the things that mean the most to us.

From what I've seen, the reforms that we've impacted and the increase focus that we've put on accountability and merit has been received really well by the workforce. People are really excited about it. A lot of the changes in the EER system in particular were brought about by focus groups, suggestions made by career employees that were looking for a more transparent streamlined system so that they're able to focus on the mission.

Okay. 86 percent is a lot. And the percentages you just offered up are important, but where do you get those percentages from?

What percentages are you referring to?

You just said that an overwhelming percentage of employees seem to be essentially, my words, doing just well and are happy with the way things are going.

That is from we hear feedback from the workforce. One of the the benefits of the Bureau of Human Resources is we're in touch with the workforce, both foreign and civil service across the department.

Are you aware of the survey?

I am aware of the survey.

Okay. Another part of that survey said that 98 percent of the 2,100 who were surveyed, 98 percent reported poor morale. Were you aware of the survey?

I am aware of the survey, yes.

And does it trouble you that almost 100 percent are reporting poor morale?

From what I've seen from the workforce, the the morale is not poor.

Okay. And another percentage from that same poll conducted by the American Foreign Service Association, 33 percent, one-third of that 2,100 respondents said that they are considering leaving Foreign Service altogether. Your thoughts about that? And they may not have expressed that to you, but I'm saying this is how the survey went and these are findings.

My experience with the workforce has been generally very positive and people are very excited about the secretary's leadership and moving the mission forward.

How many have left the Foreign Service in the last year? Do you know that?

I think we started January 2025 about roughly 80,000 and we're currently close to 74,000.

Okay, so 16,000 have left?

Six.

6,000, excuse me, 6,000 have left in 12 months. Okay. What would be helpful for me, and again, I appreciate your willingness to be here and to be as straightforward as you can, but and I recognize the constraints that we don't have to talk about right now, but I would appreciate if you could communicate back to the chair and the ranking member so that through them I could see where things are right now, perhaps by June 30th. So that'll give us an 18-month window to look at in terms of the number of people, the 80,000 or so that you said were there when you got there and where things are on June 30th.

Okay.

And if you can't or choose not to, you can directly communicate that to my office.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you very much for being here. You can take your flak jacket off. It's all over.

Mr. Mfume, you spoke too soon. Mr. Sherman is on his way back. And so I will give him the opportunity to get back, but in the time that we are waiting, Ms. McKemey, is there anything else you would like to add to your testimony based on the questions that have been asked today or any thoughts that you would like to share with us?

No, just that in my time in this position I've seen that, like I said, the department is full of a lot of talent and a lot of experience and what we've been trying to do is just make sure that we are putting all these people in the right place in order to move the mission forward. And we look forward to continue to do that.

Appreciate that. We will give the ranking member a few moments to get back and then we will wrap up with his questions. He's the gruff one as you saw. I'll ask you some questions and do you know how many schools the State Department recruits at?

I don't know the specific number, sir.

Can I count on you to provide a list of the schools you recruit at and tell me how many of those are MBAs, or MBA schools?

We can look into that, sir.

Okay, well I'll count on you, can I count on you for an answer because often witnesses come here and they say they're going to get back to me with the information and they don't. Can I count on you to get me the information?

Yes, sir, to the best of our ability that we have that information.

Likewise, I'm going to ask you how many employees of the State Department have graduate degrees and how many of those graduate degrees are in business. So can I count on you for that information as well to the best of your ability?

Yes, sir, that data is self-reported. We did look into it yesterday after our...

I look forward to getting the information for the record. Why this apartheid system where you've got your civil service and your foreign service? Now I realize the foreign service are people who have agreed to be posted abroad, but you have certain jobs preferentially allocated. Why this separate system?

I believe this administration has really, as we've said, focused on merit and accountability regardless of what...

I know that's a good slogan, but couldn't that slogan be further advanced if you didn't have separate rules for civil service and foreign service? Is that something you've even looked at?

Yes, sir. We opened our chief of mission process recently. It's open to both civil and foreign service employees at the...

So those are foreign positions. Yes, sir. Those who sign up for civil service are primarily interested in positions here in the United States. Do you continue to have most of the best positions here in the United States reserved for the foreign service?

Not to my knowledge, no. I think we have great opportunities for both civil and foreign service.

But they are separate. Certain jobs can only be filled by a foreign service officer, not by a civil servant.

Some positions have been historically foreign service or coded to foreign service.

Are you looking at whether they should be or not?

Yeah, we have the ability to...

You'd think you'd want the best person in the job regardless. Yes, sir. Okay. So who's going to staff our foreign aid programs now that USAID has been abolished?

We have several employees throughout the department that are focused on foreign assistance. We now have the Undersecretary for Foreign Assistance, which has been...

Okay. Why is it that we have told certain employees you are not allowed to work on the region of the world your ancestors come from? These are people that have gone through a security clearance. These are people who are in many cases are native speakers of languages that we try to teach, and it's I've tried to learn a foreign language, you never really. Why don't we, why do we have prohibitions on people of certain ethnic backgrounds working on certain issues?

We previously had an assignment restrictions process, however in 2023 we stopped issuing new assignment restrictions, so...

You stopped, you mean so certain people got a letter before that that saying you will never work on East Asia because your ancestors come from East Asia and that letter is still binding but you haven't issued any new letters?

It was a condition for granting a security clearance, so I can't speak to the diplomatic security process there, however...

What portion of the State Department employees have this restriction that due to your ethnic background you're not allowed to work on certain issues?

We're no longer issuing these assignment...

But they, but you haven't cancelled the ones that were issued by your predecessor.

There is an appeal process for those who...

But only appeal, well, this administration cancelled everything Biden did that they didn't think was great. Why aren't you cancelling this?

We could look further into it if... Happy to take that back.

And again, why when you had to reduce your head count or chose to, did you not go through each person's file and see who was the best employee but instead just cancel certain those who happen to be in certain jobs? And I don't know whether the chair wants to get an oral answer to that or a written answer.

Sure. The reduction in force was a tailored effort to reduce redundant programs and make the department more effective, so the way that it was put into motion across the department was based off of the functions, the positions and not the people...

Rather than the quality of the people that were leaving. Okay.

The gentleman's time has expired. I thank Ms. McKemey for the valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for Ms. McKemey and we will ask that you respond to these in writing pursuant to committee rules. All members may have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to the length limitations. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.