The team of Secretary of State Antony Blinken faces increasing congressional pressure to release its analysis of the Chinese spy ballon shot down after it violated U.S. aviation space earlier this year.

Brad Sherman, a member the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a representative from California, stated during a hearing on Tuesday that “They had months to figure it out.” “And they didn’t tell you.” “And they haven’t even told me what the balloon was made of.”

Sherman’s questions revealed a bipartisan frustration with the silence surrounding the spy balloon since it was discovered, which caused a stir in U.S. China relations. Blinken’s representative for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Bureau, who was questioned by the senior Democrat, faced constant pressure from Republicans to defend the U.S. diplomatic stance towards China.

Young Kim, R-CA, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the Indo-Pacific said at the beginning of the hearing, “I’m worried about the trend that the State Department is not forthcoming with information regarding its engagements or actions taken directly by the PRC which affect U.S. National Security, such as spy balloons.” To compete effectively with China, it is important that the U.S. government communicates openly and across all branches of the government about the PRC’s threat, instead of prioritizing a fruitless relationship with our counterparts in Beijing.

In the days that followed its entry into U.S. Airspace, the balloon caused disruption as it attracted the attention of a Montana-based photographer and continued preoccupying U.S. officials on the ground and those who could observe its slow progression through American skies. Blinken was compelled to postpone a trip planned to meet the Chinese General Secretary Xi Jinping. He did not give an audience to Blinken again until last week.

Blinken said to NBC in late October, during his long-delayed trip to Beijing: “That chapter is closed.” “I don’t believe that the balloon was shot down. I think that one of its causes was that leadership didn’t know where it was, what it contained, and what was happening. “I think it was more embarrassing than intentional.”

This statement was criticized by Republican legislators who suggested that Blinken wanted to spare China further embarrassment as a condition for diplomatic talks.

Rep. Andy Barr, R-KY, asked at the hearing: “I’m perplexed about the Biden Administration’s obsession with high level dialogue with the CCP while Beijing is clearly increasing its hostility in spite of these talks.” “Did a Chinese official ever suggest or condition that the FBI would not release its findings on the spy balloon report if the Secretary’s visit to Beijing were rescheduled?”

Blinken’s deputy at the hearing did not provide a precise account of Chinese messages.

“We have never made any condition for the secretary to travel to Beijing,” said Assistant Secretary Daniel Kritenbrink. A career diplomat, Kritenbrink is the head of the State Department’s Was Asian and Pacific Affairs Bureau. “We made it clear that other senior officials would only be invited after the secretary’s visit.”

Barr criticized Blinken’s decision to declare the matter “closed” given the trajectory of the balloon. He said that spying by the CCP on our most sensitive sites would have no consequences for them. “The American public is outraged.”

Sherman implied, but in a more mild tone, that the Administration undermines the defense of its decision to delay the shooting down by failing to provide Congress with their analysis of debris.

He reminded Kritenbrink that “we deliberately did not shoot down the ballon over Alaska or Montana, because we wanted see everything on it.” “We allowed the balloons to fly over military bases. In an attempt to discover what was on the ballon, we did our best to ensure that it didn’t collect any additional information. “I look forward to working together with the full committee and subcommittee to get a confidential briefing about that.”

Sherman’s intervention made an impression. Kritenbrink replied, “Yes, Sir, and I would be happy to retract that.”