Media Contact 202-226-8467

Washington, D.C. – House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations Chairman Chris Smith (R-NJ), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman Brian Mast (R-FL) sent a letter to the State Department’s DRL Acting Assistant Secretary Erin Barclay and Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Rashad Hussain following numerous unanswered inquires during the 117th Congress and continued noncompliance with various document requests pertaining to the department’s misguided decision to promote atheism overseas and whether this promotion is consistent with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

“In its June 8 letter, the Department states that DRL and the Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF) ‘do[] not provide funds to any organization with the aim of using such funds to promote or advance specific religious ideologies or beliefs.’ This statement, however, directly contradicts the language of the NOFO itself, which makes clear that the intent of the funded programs was to expand Atheists’ presence and influence in the relevant countries,” the lawmakers wrote. “Furthermore, even a cursory look into the operations and mantra of Humanists International (HI) calls the Department’s claim into question.”

The full text of the letter can be found here and below. 

Dear Acting Assistant Secretary Barclay and Ambassador-at-Large Hussain,

We write to once again ask why it is in America’s interest to promote Atheism overseas, and why the Department refuses to produce certain documents that shed light on that misguided decision.

Following numerous unanswered inquiries during the 117th Congress, the Committee sent letters to the Department earlier this year regarding the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Number SFOP0007977, entitled “Promoting and Defending Religious Freedom Inclusive of Atheist, Humanist, Non-Practicing and Non-Affiliated Individuals.” After nearly six months of silence, on June 8, 2023, the Department purported to explain the implementation of the NOFO but, in so doing, raised new questions. Then, on June 20, 2023, the Department finally produced a batch of documents related to the programs that were funded under the NOFO. This production, however, failed to answer many of the Committee’s previous questions and has brought to light additional concerns regarding the Department’s grant review process.

In its June 8 letter, the Department states that DRL and the Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF) “do[] not provide funds to any organization with the aim of using such funds to promote or advance specific religious ideologies or beliefs.” This statement, however, directly contradicts the language of the NOFO itself, which makes clear that the intent of the funded programs was to expand Atheists’ presence and influence in the relevant countries. Furthermore, even a cursory look into the operations and mantra of Humanists International (HI) calls the Department’s claim into question. On its website, HI requires all of its “member organizations” to pay dues and “support” the five objectives of HI, the first of which is “The Advancement of Humanism.” Thus, the implementing partner itself is publicly negating the Department’s claim of neutrality, by illustrating that DRL subgrantees have sectarian objectives.

Nor may the Department evade responsibility by claiming that a constitutional analysis is unwarranted, because humanism is not synonymous with religious belief. For over half a century, the courts have considered Humanism a “religion” protected under the Establishment Clause, and therefore held that Humanism may not be specifically promoted using aid money from the government. At least one section of HI’s Application for Federal Assistance expresses HI’s intent to violate that prohibition. Under “Objective 2” of its program proposal, HI states it will award sub-grants for “[o]rganizing events and seminars to promote the positive aspects of humanism and other ethical non-religious worldviews . . .” including Atheism. Thus, in the explicit words of the implementing partner, the goal of the Department funded program is promotion of the tenets of a single belief system.

In addition to promoting Humanism and Atheism overseas, HI also works closely with member organizations that engage in American litigation to promote Humanism domestically, often to the detriment of other religious creeds. These organizations include American Humanist Association (AHA), which shares a Washington, D.C. address with HI, and American Atheists. Far from advancing religious freedom, AHA often takes actions which are antithetical to the idea of religious freedom. HI’s close association with AHA speaks volumes about the true objectives of HI, and should be of grave concern to the Department.

The awarding of the DRL NOFO to HI reveals major flaws in the Department’s screening process for potential constitutional violations. The Department states that Establishment Clause concerns may be raised both “prior to the issuance of a grant agreement” and “during the implementation phase” of the grant. Evidently, though, “no such concerns were raised” regarding HI’s program proposal, leaving us perplexed.

The Department’s efforts to combat religious persecution abroad do not entitle the Department to promote particular religions using taxpayer funds.

With these concerns in mind, we ask you to address the following questions and comply with the following document requests:

  1. What specific caselaw was the basis for the Establishment Clause training slides provided by the Department in its June 20, 2023, letter? Are these the slides which Department employees relied upon in determining there were no Establishment Clause concerns with HI’s program?
    1. Did the Department previously base its training slides on the test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman? If so, have they modified their training in light of the Court’s recent abandonment of that test?
  2. Does the Department view Atheism and Humanism as religions?
    1. If so, why was it permitted for these religions to be specifically promoted in the program by HI, and why was this not raised as a concern in the proposal review process?
    2. If not, how does this comport with the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence?
  3. Does the Department investigate affiliations of implementing partners prior to awarding grants? If so, did the Department find the close affiliation of HI and AHA concerning?
  4. Does the Department view HI’s requirement that applicants for training “provide information about their humanist activism, their past and current affiliation with non-religious groups, and how they intend to use the skills acquired during the training sessions in the future” as consistent with the Establishment Clause and No Religious Test Clause? Please provide a legal justification in support of the answer.
  5. Provide all training materials from the training sessions organized in Kathmandu, Nepal during Q1 of 2023.23
  6. We remind you that you are still out of compliance with various documents requests made in the May 8, 2023, letter from this Committee. Our immediate priorities are as follows:
    1. Please provide all correspondence (emails, internal memoranda, calendar invites and attachments, Microsoft Teams chats) regarding DRL NOFO Number SFOP0007977 both before and after funding was granted to HI to implement the program.
    2. A copy of the current DRL/GP Operations Plan that shows how DRL NOFO Number SFOP0007977 relates to other DRL Global Programming activities.
    3. Please provide subgrantee documents, including but not limited to the award package and all deliberative documents provided to the grant officer (score sheets, independent government cost estimates, choice of instrument, scope of work, evaluation criteria, action memo, “do no harm” risk assessment).
    4. Please provide documents that HI provided to DRL that indicate how the NOFO funds were implemented in Nepal and Sri Lanka.
    5. Please explain what steps, if any, DRL took to monitor HI’s compliance with the Establishment Clause?
      1. Please provide the name(s) of the DRL personnel designated to monitor compliance with the Establishment Clause.
      2. Please provide all screening criteria applied to applicants responding to DRL NOFO.
      3. What criteria did DRL use to determine an applicant’s capacity and commitment to the cause of “promot[ing] and defend[ing] religious freedom inclusive of Atheist, Humanist, Non-Practicing and Non- Affiliated Individuals”?

Thank you for your assistance with this request for further information. We also reiterate our expectation for agency officials previously identified to sit for transcribed interviews and reserve the right use compulsory process in the event they fail to appear voluntarily. We look forward to your prompt reply.

###