Congressman John Moolenaar Chairman of the Select Committee on the CCP | Official Website
Chairman John Moolenaar, along with U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Joni Ernst, have brought to light new evidence regarding McKinsey & Company's involvement with the Chinese military and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The lawmakers assert that McKinsey did not disclose its consulting work for the Chinese government while continuing to secure contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), amounting to over $480 million since 2008.
The legislators have communicated these findings to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, urging them to assess whether McKinsey has complied with U.S. law and if it should remain eligible for DoD contracts. They highlighted that McKinsey's failure to disclose its work for China poses a potential threat to U.S. national security.
A significant point of contention is testimony given by McKinsey’s managing partner in 2024, stating under oath, "We’ve never worked with the Chinese Communist Party or the central government in China to the best of my knowledge." This statement is challenged by documents suggesting extensive work for China's five-year plans, which involved coordination with various levels of the Chinese government.
The lawmakers demand a briefing from Garland and Austin by December 1 regarding McKinsey's legal violations and its status as a DoD contractor. They cite examples from court filings where McKinsey acknowledged working with several state-owned enterprises in China that are linked to military activities.
McKinsey’s involvement includes consulting on China's five-year plans, collaborating on projects related to military technology development, and engaging with state-owned enterprises like COSCO Shipping Corporation Limited and China Communications Construction Company—both designated as military companies by U.S. authorities.
The lawmakers emphasize discrepancies between sworn testimonies provided by McKinsey representatives before Congress and documented evidence of their work in China. They argue this requires further investigation due to potential conflicts of interest concerning sensitive U.S. defense projects.
