Rep. Michael McCaul threatens Blinken with contempt over Afghanistan dissent cables
WASHINGTON — The House Foreign Affairs Committee has threatened to hold Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt after he failed to turn over an unredacted copy of a July 2021 “dissent cable” in which 23 diplomats reportedly warned of the Taliban’s rapid advancement ahead of the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan, his office said Monday.
The committee, led by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), subpoenaed the four-page document on March 28 after the department repeatedly declined its requests to hand it over, along with other cables related to what US diplomats knew ahead of and immediately after the last American troops left Kabul on Aug. 30, 2021.
“That subpoena … must be complied with immediately,” McCaul told Blinken in a letter Friday. “Should you fail to comply, the committee is prepared to take the necessary steps to enforce its subpoena, including holding you in contempt of Congress and/or initiating a civil enforcement proceeding.”
At the time of the subpoena, State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said the department would “make the relevant information in the cable available,” but said releasing the full cable would violate the “cherished tradition” of dissent channels used as “a unique way for anyone in the department to speak truth to power as they see it without fear or favor.”
The department ultimately prepared and delivered a “roughly” one-page summation of the cable, along with a summary of the agency’s official response “that was just under one page in length,” McCaul said.
“The Department has confirmed that the original dissent cable totaled four pages in length, meaning that the summary represented a 75% reduction of the original cable,” he wrote. “The Department’s summaries and briefing are insufficient to satisfy the Committee’s need for the actual dissent cable and response.”
The cable reportedly “warned of rapid territorial gains by the Taliban and the subsequent collapse of Afghan security forces and offered recommendations on ways to mitigate the crisis and speed up an evacuation,” according to the committee. Details of the State Department response are unclear.
The contempt of Congress threat comes after State Department policy Planning staff deputy director Holly Holzer briefed the committee on the cable summary, noting it was “much more concise than the cable,” McCaul said.
“The department was unable to justify the magnitude of this size reduction,” McCaul wrote. “For example, while the department has stated that names and personally identifiable information were omitted from the summary, Ms. Holzer was unable to explain how such material could encompass close to three pages of missing content.”
In another instance, the department admitted the summaries “omitt[ed] certain details in the cable that are not germane to the committee’s articulated needs but that would, if disclosed, reveal information that risks disclosing the identity of the cable’s signatories,” McCaul said.
However, briefers could not “satisfactorily identify” what content had been left out in the provided summaries, nor “account for the significant reduction in length or explain what content it considered ‘germane’ or how it defined the committee’s ‘articulated needs,'” according to the Texas Republican’s letter.
“Even absent these concerns, it is inherently problematic for the department, which is the subject of the committee’s investigation, to be permitted to withhold key material evidence and substitute its own abbreviated characterizations of that evidence for the original documents,” McCaul said.
Aside from the short summary, McCaul said Holzer’s briefing itself was less than satisfactory, as she and two colleagues were “unable or unwilling to” provide even the most basic information — such as how many diplomats signed the cable — “and whether the dissent cable had been shared with the White House.”
“It strains credulity to believe that the official responsible for preparing the cable summary and briefing Congress on it would be unable to provide this information,” McCaul wrote. “This is particularly the case given the briefers’ statement that most dissent cables have only one or two signatories and that a large number of signatories is unusual.”
“The briefers’ inability to answer basic factual questions casts doubt on the summary’s sufficiency and reliability and strengthens the needs for the Committee to continue to seek access to the original documents called for in the subpoena,” he added.
To remedy the situation, the committee offered options to protect the identities of the dissenters, noting the State Department’s concerns that revealing the signatories’ names could discourage diplomats from filing future dissent cables, according to the letter.
The committee said it would agree to privately review the original dissent cable and official response with all names and identifying information redacted or view the unredacted documents behind closed doors with an agreement not to disclose any identifies.
Blinken now has until 6 p.m. May 11 to provide the information or “assert a privilege or other legal basis” to withhold the documents or face contempt of Congress proceedings, McCaul said.
