Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The SHAPE Act and the Fight to Protect State Department Workers

News

The SHAPE Act and the Fight to Protect State Department Workers

A woman shows palm demonstrating protest

Getty Images

When the #MeToo movement erupted in 2017, it exposed sexual harassment across industries that had long been protected by their power. While early attention focused on the entertainment sector and corporate workplaces, the reckoning quickly spread to the federal government.

Within weeks, more than 200 women working in national security signed an open letter under the hashtag #MeTooNatSec, stating they had experienced sexual harassment or assault or knew colleagues who had. Many of those accounts pointed directly to the U.S. State Department.


The stories revealed a troubling pattern: misconduct by senior officials, inconsistent disciplinary outcomes, and reporting systems that survivors said felt opaque and unsafe.

Out of that moment emerged the State Harassment and Assault Prevention and Eradication Act, known as the SHAPE Act.

The bill was first introduced in the 116th Congress as H.R. 8465, following a major lobbying push by the advocacy nonprofit Inclusive America. The legislation sought to establish uniform, enforceable standards for preventing harassment within the State Department, addressing gaps in survivor support. It also aimed to curb retaliation and require greater transparency in how misconduct cases are handled. Despite its early momentum, it stalled amid broader legislative gridlock.

The conditions that inspired it, advocates say, never changed.

“The #MeToo movement gave people a voice,” said Mark Hanis, co-founder of Inclusive America, which is leading the bill’s current push. “Now, we are working to respond with policy changes.”

The SHAPE Act has since lost traction in the House, although Inclusive America and other supporters have continued to advocate for its reintroduction. Still, its goal is to fundamentally change how the State Department prevents and responds to harassment, discrimination, sexual assault, and retaliation.

At the center of the bill is a mandate requiring the Secretary of State to implement a comprehensive department-wide policy. That policy would cover prevention, training, reporting, investigations, victim support, and data collection.

One of the bill’s most significant provisions establishes an Office of Employee Advocacy, an independent resource designed to help employees navigate the reporting process.

That office would offer confidential guidance, optional legal representation, and access to a 24-hour hotline available worldwide; all of which are critical for a workforce often stationed abroad.

“For too long, survivors have been expected to figure everything out on their own,” Hanis said. “This office is about making sure that support is built into the system, [rather than] treated as an afterthought.”

Rachel Ledoux is a student at Simmons University studying political science and economics with a focus on public policy.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

Have you applied for the 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellowship? Click HERE to learn more about the program and how to apply!


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less