Government Executive - All Content

CBP backs off border wall construction plans in Big Bend National Park

Ayden Runnels, The Texas Tribune — Sun, 10 May 2026 13:30:51 -0400

Plans to build portions of the border wall in Big Bend National Park are off after bipartisan backlash over the proposed construction, a top U.S. Customs and Border Patrol official told the Washington Examiner.

CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott said the Trump administration was no longer planning to construct the wall within the national park following pushback from residents, the Examiner reported this week.

“Big Bend National Park has some just, like, unbelievably huge granite cliffs. It would be kind of silly to put like a 30-foot border wall on top of a 90-foot granite cliff,” Scott said in an interview with the Examiner. “So what we’re trying to convey is that we are going to have meaningful border security in that entire area.”

Scott's comments only referenced the national park and did not detail whether CBP's withdrawal from wall construction also included the nearby Big Bend Ranch State Park or private property in the region.

CBP officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment about updated plans.

Instead of a wall, federal officials will pave roads along the border in the national park and make use of drones and other digital surveillance equipment, Scott said. News of the cancellation comes after weeks of upheaval in Texas as elected officials from both political parties and residents asserted that construction in the park would be a waste of resources.

In February, Trump administration officials waived over two dozen environmental laws to clear the way for a 150-mile-long border barrier through West Texas, including Big Bend National Park.

Then in early April, an interactive map on the CBP website showed the agency planned to instead install “virtual wall” technology in the region that would alert Border Patrol agents when people cross the border. CBP officials took down the map in late April, and it is not currently available on the agency’s website.

Local residents near Big Bend sued the Trump administration in mid-April, arguing that federal officials waived the regulations illegally in pursuit of the construction project.

Funds acquired through the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” President Donald Trump’s key spending package, direct CBP to construct a multifaceted barrier system, or a “Smart Wall,” across the southern border with Mexico. The proposed barriers would include bollard walls and patrol roads, as well as surveillance technology and floating buoys placed in the Rio Grande.

This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune.

]]>

Pentagon will ‘never again’ rely on a single AI provider, official says

Alexandra Kelley — Fri, 08 May 2026 16:27:35 -0400

Leadership at the Pentagon reiterated the agency’s commitment to diversifying its artificial intelligence service providers, with Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael taking the stage Thursday at an event in Washington, D.C., to stress that his department is never being “single-threaded with any one model.”

Speaking during the Special Competitive Studies Project’s AI+ Expo event, Michael said that the recent deals between eight leading AI developers and the Department of Defense are both a private sector statement of support for working with the government, as well as a step towards the Pentagon’s goal to diversify its tech stack with different providers.

“We were single-threaded on one vendor, one AI vendor at the Department of War, and to integrate into classified systems is not just putting your software on a public cloud and having it work,” Michael said, referring to his agency’s contract with Anthropic. “These are sophisticated, protective systems that take a lot of work to integrate on, so it wasn't like I could just turn on a few other models that easily. But never again we’ll be single-threaded with any one model.”

Michael continued to say that the new deals with Amazon Web Services, Google, Microsoft, NVIDIA, OpenAI, Reflection, Oracle and SpaceX are “a statement by the biggest tech companies in the world who are involved in the AI space … and have them say, ‘We support the Department of War, we support the U.S. government, and we support the… armed services for all lawful use cases.”

Michael’s comments come in the midst of an ongoing dispute between Anthropic and the Department of Defense following the company’s refusal to have its technology used in operations involving autonomous weaponry and American surveillance.

The fallout of that dispute resulted in the Pentagon designating Anthropic a supply chain risk and the White House ordering agencies to begin removing the company's products from their tech stacks. A judge put a hold on those actions in late March pending ongoing litigation over the government’s actions.

The release of Anthropic’s advanced cybersecurity-focused model, Mythos Preview, changed the discussion. Access to Mythos and its advanced capabilities for detecting cybersecurity flaws is tantalizing for the U.S. government, prompting internal drafts of policy plans that would enable some agencies to use Anthropic’s cutting-edge model.

Michael said that the advent of Mythos signals the forthcoming evolution of cyber-capable AI models.

“The Mythos moment is really a cyber moment, and it's: ‘How is the U.S. government going to deal with cyber?’” Michael said.

Major tech companies are responding to Michael’s drive to diversify the Pentagon’s vendor portfolio. Rand Waldron, the vice president of the Global Government Sector for Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, told Nextgov/FCW that Defense officials are asking cloud service providers like Oracle to prioritize interconnectedness in the effort to avoid vendor lock-in.

“From what I can see, the Department of War has some very savvy people who … don't want to go all in on one [model] because then six months later, they may need to go all in on another,” Waldron said.

He explained that there will likely be models that are more finely-tuned to particular use cases, such as code generation, data analytics, supply chain management or targeting in warfighter operations. One model from a single provider may not effectively serve each of these workflows.

“I don't believe that all those different use cases will end up being the exact same model at any given time,” Waldron said.

The Pentagon’s desire to expand the service offerings available for its workforce has precedent. Waldron said that DOD and the intelligence community have laid the foundation for a flexible approach to AI services acquisition, citing the creation of the Commercial Cloud Enterprise and Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability contracting vehicles as the blueprints for future contracting structure.

“It's not like they're trying to replace Anthropic with another model provider,” Waldron said. “They want to replace Anthropic with four model providers.”

]]>

A USDA cow scientist won an award for helping dairy farmers produce more milk. He’s worried about the future of government research under Trump

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 08 May 2026 16:17:14 -0400

Paul VanRaden grew up on a dairy farm, and his first job was to collect data about cows and send it to the federal government.

Over his 37-year career at the Agriculture Department, he analyzed data that farmers provided to researchers, just like he did as a teenager, in order to determine which of their cows had the best genetics to maximize milk production.

“My first and really only job for my entire career was analyzing the data for USDA that I had started collecting when I was 16,” VanRaden said.

The federal scientist was one of several civil servants who received this year’s Service to America medal from the Partnership for Public Service nonprofit. Winners were honored during a ceremony on Wednesday at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian; although, VanRaden opted not to attend, in part, so he could reduce his carbon footprint by not flying.

He, along with two of his USDA colleagues, was recognized for making the U.S. “more prosperous.” The other categories were safer, stronger and healthier.

During his time in government, VanRaden developed a genomic prediction methodology that has enabled farmers to better identify genetically superior calves for breeding. His research contributed to an increase in milk production since the 1980s despite a decrease in the number of dairy cows.

He said that federal data on U.S. cows is sought after by other countries.

“The whole world is using this technology driven by the data that USDA created over a century,” VanRaden said. “Well, the farmers created it, but USDA collected it into one giant database.”

In 2025, VanRaden left government under a planned retirement. He lamented, however, that many of the individuals who he trained to replace him either separated from the agency due to the Trump administration’s efforts to shrink the size of the civil service or are subject to relocation orders because of USDA’s push to move employees out of the Washington, D.C., area.

The Partnership this year honored fewer civil servants than usual for the Service to America program, which celebrated its 25th anniversary. Max Stier, the president and CEO of the organization, said that was largely because government officials did not express “the typical energy to recognize and celebrate federal employees’ achievements.”

“Agencies that typically submit dozens of nominations this year submitted none,” he said in a statement to Government Executive. “We felt that even though we could not identify as many honorees as in past years, it was important to show that dedicated federal employees are still doing important and impactful work in these challenging circumstances.”

There were approximately 140 nominees this year from 39 agencies. In comparison, there were more than 350 nominations across 65 agencies for the 2025 program. The Partnership for 2026 also removed a requirement that nominees be current federal employees when they are nominated.

VanRaden, likewise, argued that the Trump administration does not value public service.

“During 36 of my 37 years [at USDA] — who was in charge, which party was in charge of the government — really had no bearing on what we did. It was math and data analysis. Everybody seemed to understand that the taxpayers, by funding research, led to big, important breakthroughs. That’s what makes this country great,” he said. “The attitude now is that the government can't do anything, and only the billionaires and the private business — that's where all the glory is. But it wasn't that way for all the previous decades. People understood that paying taxes and getting free research back was a tremendous investment. I don't understand why they gave up on that idea.

]]>

Feds wary of skills-based hiring survey after 15 months of attacks

Erich Wagner — Fri, 08 May 2026 13:51:44 -0400

Some federal workers this week have expressed reluctance to participate in the Office of Personnel Management’s latest phase of a long-running bipartisan initiative, something experts say could mark an unintended consequence of the Trump administration’s campaign against federal workers it perceives as disloyal.

This week, OPM deployed its federal workforce competency initiative survey to roughly 550,000 employees. The questionnaire, which has previously been fielded both in 2021 and 2024, queries feds about the skillsets needed to perform their jobs, a key piece in the ongoing effort to shift away from degree- and qualification-based jobseeker evaluations and toward skills-based hiring, long a priority of both Republican and Democratic administrations.

But concern about the survey and fears of an ulterior motive quickly surfaced among feds. Multiple threads on Reddit asked what the survey was, and some wrote that they feared their responses would be used in furtherance of future reductions in force.

One Commerce Department employee told Government Executive that they received the survey invitation despite a lack of prior communication or education by their HR office. They said the administration’s co-opting of terms like “merit” and “accountability” as part of its messaging on federal layoffs and purging of diversity-related government offices has bred suspicion across the workforce.

"We all want more efficient government hiring and development, but ‘efficiency’ was cited as the justification for all of last year's senseless workforce actions,” they said. “It kind of feels like they burned the trust needed to get information from us because we don't know if it'll be a genuine attempt to improve civil service, or the first step in new automation and AI-dependent layoffs that will further degrade current capacity.”

An OPM spokesperson said Thursday that since deploying the survey this week, the agency has received 21,000 responses, a figure they expect to swell over time. The official sought to reassure feds that information collected will be used solely as part of the skills-based hiring push.

“OPM is continuing to work with agency HR offices to reinforce outreach and ensure employees understand the survey’s purpose,” they said. “This long-standing, bipartisan effort is focused solely on understanding the work federal employees perform, not evaluating individuals, and the data directly inform skills-based hiring, job design and workforce development. OPM is committed to transparency and building trust by clearly communicating how feedback I used and ensuring employees see how their input strengthens the federal workforce.”

Don Kettl, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland and former dean of its School of Public Policy, said the incident shows the downsides of the Trump administration’s adversarial stance toward its employees.

“Once the idea of merit becomes perceived as a code word for slashing federal jobs and the idea of accountability becomes a code word for engaging in purges according to the ideology of employees, the principles that have been there in the federal government’s human capital world for 140 years are now being distorted by the mixed messages coming out of the administration,” he said. “So someone can say, ‘We’re interested in merit, in building capacity and making the workforce more accountable,’ and on one hand that sounds right and in many cases is right. But from the point of view of the employees, it just sounds like a continuation of those threats. Oftentimes, the only sensible strategy then is not to do anything, so as to avoid sticking your head up.”

]]>

Inside the effort to connect Congress with the feds enacting its policies

Natalie Alms — Fri, 08 May 2026 13:30:33 -0400

Congress is flying blind on the effectiveness of the laws it creates.

That’s the thesis of a new project released last week by the POPVOX Foundation, a nonpartisan nonprofit, based on the input of 50 federal employees pushed out of their government jobs last year. The intent of this work was partly to gather insights on how policy implementation works in the executive branch and what barriers exist to effective government that lawmakers may not know about.

But it’s also about showing Capitol Hill what’s possible, said Anne Meeker, senior advisor for the POPVOX Foundation, which collaborated with the Niskanen Center, Civil Service Strong, the Partnership for Public Service and the Foundation for American Innovation on the work, called Departure Dialogues.

Communication between those making laws and those implementing them has been a problem for a long time, said Meeker, in part because federal employees doing the work aren’t usually authorized to go talk to Congress about what they may be dealing with as they turn statute into reality. That made last year a unique opportunity, as federal employees left the government en masse under the Trump administration's efforts to shrink the size of the federal workforce.

Typically, Congress’ current mechanisms for feedback from those closest to implementation in the government are limited. Hearings “are performative as often as they are informative,” the new report reads. Audits from the Government Accountability Office are usually retrospective, and congressionally-mandated reports are often compliance exercises.

Federal agencies have legislative affairs offices, but the information they transmit to Congress often gets filtered down to politics and top-level priorities, not the “program-level, operational oversights [of] what’s working, what’s breaking, what statutory language creates unnecessary friction,” the new report reads.

The hope is that Congress may replicate POPVOX’s process, or parts of it — including the use of AI to synthesize insights and surface patterns — so that experts have channels to communicate with lawmakers and their staff. For that reason, Departure Dialogues includes a methods report, in addition to a report on key findings and a legislative index.

One recommendation is for congressional committees to consider building structured input processes into reauthorization cycles or invite mid-level experts in for structured listening sessions.

As for what lawmakers may find if they take on the charge of hearing more from those in government agencies, one top takeaway Departure Dialogues found is that the accumulation of policies and requirements is making it difficult to get things done. Congress usually adds requirements, but it doesn’t take them away.

“One recurring challenge I encountered was the cumulative burden imposed by overlapping and sometimes conflicting legislative and reporting requirements associated with different funding streams,” Vikki Stein, who worked at the U.S. Agency for International Development for 30 years, told POPVOX.

“While each requirement was reasonable in itself, together they created inefficiencies that reduced our ability to focus on program effectiveness,” she continued. “This led to significant duplication of effort, diverting staff time and resources away from program monitoring, learning, and adaptation.”

Others told POPVOX that statutory language sometimes directly prevents them from achieving what Congress intended.

A common culprit: the Paperwork Reduction Act, a law created before the days of the internet that’s meant to reduce paperwork for Americans. Detractors say the law adds bureaucracy internally to those delivering government services who want to collect data like feedback meant to help ensure that government programs work well for people — but that it doesn’t ultimately always reduce burden on citizens the way it’s intended to.

Those writing the new report saw themes across workforce, contracting and internal communication: just as agencies and Congress are siloed, so too are agencies isolated from each other, and even teams within agencies are experiencing separation.

“The project was a little bit of an experiment to see if departing federal employees in this really politically tense moment were interested in participating,” Meeker said of the work.

“The response that we got … was really neat to see. We had so many folks really excited about this chance to say to Congress, like, ‘Look, forget the partisanship, forget the politics. This is just the one thing you need to know about how to make this program better,’” she continued. “That spirit of service was actually really kind of moving.”

]]>

FEMA should employ fewer staff and offer aid to fewer individuals, Trump’s council recommends

Eric Katz — Thu, 07 May 2026 17:35:28 -0400

The federal government would employ less staff to respond to disasters and offer fewer opportunities for assistance to those impacted by them under a new set of recommendations put forward on Thursday by a panel created by President Trump, which said state and local governments must assume a larger share of responsibilities after major storms and other emergencies.

The much anticipated review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency called for a smaller footprint of the organization after a staffing assessment and a multi-year effort to shrink the workforce. FEMA’s workload has ballooned well beyond its initial mission, the panel said, which has resulted in an overly bureaucratic system that discourages states, individuals and the private sector from taking on important tasks.

Members of the FEMA Review Council—led by Homeland Security Department Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Defense Department Secretary Pete Hegseth and assortment of 10 current and former elected leaders and emergency management officials—said at a meeting unveiling their final report on Thursday that their “north star” was shifting leadership of emergency response and recovery to state, local, tribal and territorial governments. Their recommendations will now go to President Trump—who created the council by executive order on his first week in office—for his review, though many of the most significant proposals would require legislative action.

The council’s other goals included making FEMA a leaner organization, emphasizing the role of the individual, accelerating federal assistance dollars and maximizing transparency of public dollars spent on emergency management.

State and local governments should not be relying on federal spending to sustain their programs, said Kevin Guthrie, executive director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management and a lead on the FEMA panel. States should only hire firefighters they can pay themselves after initial federal assistance, Guthrie said as an example, and they should partner with faith and nonprofit groups for initial debris removal.

“Federal assistance should only be reserved for truly significant events that exceed state, local, tribal and territorial capacity and capability,” Guthrie said.

The council proposed a radical overhaul of FEMA’s assistance to individuals after disasters. Survivors can currently qualify for any of 15 different categories of individual assistance after an emergency, including for child care, medical expenses or a funeral. Under the new proposal, FEMA would offer only assistance to those whose houses were completely destroyed. The new approach would create a more streamlined interaction for survivors, who council members said have often complained of overly burdensome and confusing paperwork. They would still be able to use the funds for other costs, such as medical expenses or funerals.

Under the Trump administration, many governments and advocacy groups have complained of slowed down dispersal of funds after a disaster due to added layers of review and staffing losses.

Madison Sloan, director of disaster recovery and fair housing for the nonprofit Texas Appleseed, told reporters after the council released its recommendations that disaster survivors "absolutely" want a more streamlined system, but said the proposals would "slash the help" that is available to them.

“If your major disaster need is medical or funeral expenses, or you lost the car, you need to get to work, there's no help for you if your home wasn't destroyed,” Sloan said.

The panel suggested FEMA raise the threshold for when disaster declarations are made, saying it has become artificially low and does not appreciate the capacity state and local governments maintain.

It also recommended an overhaul of how FEMA doles out money for rebuilding and disaster avoidance, saying those mitigation dollars are disbursed too slowly in the current system. Under a new framework, states would be able to quickly tap into a percentage of estimated disaster costs in two tranches. In addition, the public assistance program, which funds projects such as replacing damaged infrastructure, would shift from a reimbursement model to a block grant model. The existing system is “reactive” and “excruciatingly slow,” whereas the new structure would transfer funds to states within 30 days of a presidential disaster declaration.

The council was initially set to release its report last year but the plan was put on ice after intervention from then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. It reportedly included widespread cuts to FEMA’s workforce. The updated document did not call for any specific staffing level, though it did propose reductions. FEMA recently reversed course on some personnel cuts after it brought back hundreds of emergency responders whose contracts it previously declined to review.

The report would task FEMA with conducting a “strategic review of personnel requirements to determine appropriate staffing levels, primarily targeting the disaster workforce through program efficiencies and increased accountability.” The resulting “workforce adjustments” would take place over two-to-three years to allow the agency “to realize the efficiencies while reducing staff.”

FEMA would, under the proposal, also consider relocating its headquarters out of Washington and offloading some of its work to the Defense Department.

Will McDow, the Environmental Defense Fund's associate vice president for coasts and watersheds, said the council's findings failed to reflect the increasingly frequent and severe storms across the country.

“Slashing investments and functions of FEMA would shift enormous burdens onto states and communities and reduce government efficiency,” McDow said. “Instead of one centralized agency that can respond for all states, we would need 50.”

Sloan similarly suggested the proposals would leave gaps in the nation’s emergency response.

“There is a major shift of responsibility and costs to state, local, tribal and territorial governments, with no guarantee that there will be sufficient federal funding to meet those costs, or that states will be able to raise that money themselves,” she said.

]]>

A week of recognition, and a career of service

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 07 May 2026 15:00:00 -0400

Celebrated annually during the first week of May, Public Service Recognition Week (PSRW) honors the people who serve our nation as federal, state, county, local and tribal government employees.

“Public Service Recognition Week is a chance to thank the people who keep government running and deliver results for the American people every day,” OPM Director Scott Kupor said. “Federal employees take on some of the most important challenges in the country, from protecting our national security to improving how government serves citizens. Their work matters, and this week is about recognizing the impact they make.”

The Partnership for Public Service introduced this celebration 41 years ago, and over the past 25 years they have honored some of the most outstanding public servants. This year’s group includes honorees who revolutionized dairy cattle breeding to improve milk production and animal health, recovered billions of dollars from multinational corporations that schemed to artificially lower their tax liability, halted sophisticated cyber intrusion to the State Department’s email accounts and accomplished groundbreaking methods of addressing air pollution.

Although the number of honorees in 2026 was reduced to only four, over the past 25 years there have been more than 800 civil servants recognized for their remarkable accomplishments that benefit our country and build trust in our government. Despite the disruptions in the federal workforce, federal employees continue to work across the country and around the world to find ways to prevent drugs from killing our citizens, prevent diseases from destroying our families, find solutions to transportation problems, forecast weather to minimize the loss of lives when a natural disaster strikes, protect our nation and countless other ways they help keep our nation safe and continue building our strong democracy.

There are countless federal workers who have a record of steady promotions to higher grade levels and increasing responsibility, but those records do not always show the sense of accomplishment felt at each advancement. Federal service has allowed eager young employees to move through the ranks by showing hard work and dedication to their mission. Federal workers build on their years of experience to become mentors to younger workers and examples to the public. There are countless opportunities for advancement and the option of doing many different types of work requiring hundreds of different skill sets, educational prerequisites and levels of experience.

Federal employees are often recognized for exemplary performance by receiving time off awards, pay increases and cash bonuses as a tangible way of showing thanks for a job well done. But a pat on the back by a fellow employee or a word of praise from a supervisor or a member of the public can also go a long way toward making that employee feel appreciated.

From my perspective of meeting employees near the end of their federal careers, I have noticed their sense of pride when looking back over the years of dedicated public service. When federal workers are ready to move on to a new chapter of their lives, they never seem to regret the choice that they made to enter a career of serving the American public. Federal employees prepare for retirement through diligent savings and thoughtful planning to produce a comfortable life after government. Retirement from federal service is not only a reward, but a well-deserved benefit.

Thank you to all the federal workers and employee annuitants who have crossed my path either in my everyday life or in my work of helping understand and obtain their retirement benefits. I have admired your dedication to your goals and the many accomplishments you have achieved.

I have often been on the receiving end of professional, patient and caring assistance from employees at the Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration and the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The retirement specialists and payroll office workers are the unsung heroes of the retirement process. If you are a federal employee planning to retire or who has already transitioned into retirement, know that despite the challenges faced by an overwhelming workload, the employees who are working for you deserve your appreciation, not only this week, but throughout the year.

]]>

‘Highly problematic for a thousand reasons’: NIH employees criticize Trump-era requirement to scrutinize grants with words related to diversity

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 07 May 2026 13:56:40 -0400

As the Trump administration continues its effort to root out federal funding for diversity initiatives, the National Institutes of Health has modified its grant review process to identify research that contains words associated with race or gender, which has held up some grant disbursements and forced scientists to rewrite proposals.

“I feel that this kind of censorship is making the path forward to support narrower and narrower research only to include, for example, white, straight, cisgender men,” said a program director at one of NIH’s institutes. “Any other population is being scrutinized, which is highly, highly, highly problematic for a thousand reasons. I don't want to be an instrument of an organization that is discriminating against people based on their demographics. That is 100% wrong, and I'm being forced to do that.”

The program director, who preferred to be unnamed due to fears of retaliation, told Government Executive that beginning this year employees at their institute have been required, as part of routine administrative reviews for grant applications and progress reports, to certify that the research documents do not contain certain words identified by a “text analysis tool.”

That certification refers to whether a grant has been populated into a spreadsheet for including a term flagged by the tool. Employees have not received a list of the words that the agency is searching for, but the program director and some colleagues have crowdsourced a list of terms that have previously caused problems including: diversity, equity and inclusion; gender; LGBT; racism; climate change; vaccine acceptance.

Along with seeking to terminate federal funding for DEI initiatives, the Trump administration has also canceled research related to climate change. And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who oversees NIH, is known for spreading misinformation about vaccines.

“We are now in a situation where people are finding this to just be so utterly unethical that there are terms that are flagged in the name of [agency] priorities that really aren't about identifying important areas of science to study,” the program director said. “They are identifying particular groups of people or topics not to study.”

As an example, the NIH employee said that if a grant report were detected for including the phrase “diverse perspectives,” they would either have to write a justification for why the use of the word “diverse” is acceptable in this case or the grantee would need to use a synonym, such as “various perspectives.”

“It's wasting the time of people who are highly trained scientists and science administrators to do something that is absurd,” the employee said, adding that it’s unclear who ultimately decides if a flagged word is appropriate and funding can therefore be unlocked.

While officials have been assessing NIH grants for words that may run afoul of Trump’s anti-diversity policies since the start of his second administration, the NIH program director said that the requirement to use a tool for identifying specific terms represents a more systematic attempt to scrutinize, and potentially cancel, research.

An NIH spokesperson told Government Executive in a statement that funding decisions are based on several factors including “scientific merit, public health priorities, available funding and adherence to federal requirements.”

“The agency relies on longstanding administrative and programmatic review processes to assess grant applications and progress reports,” the official said. “These reviews ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations, agency policies and program priorities.”

The spokesperson did not respond to a follow-up question about which agency official has the final say on whether funding for a grant with a flagged word can be disbursed.

Jenna Norton, an NIH employee who was put on paid leave after publicly criticizing the Trump administration’s research policies, on April 30 publicized through social media the mandate that grants be deemed “clean” by a text review before receiving funding.

"I also want to address the use of the word ‘clean,’ which implies that grants that use ‘misaligned’ words like ‘minority,’ ‘gender,’ ‘latinx,’ ‘equity,’ ‘lived experience,’ or ‘social determinants of health’ are dirty,” she wrote. “This kind of language matters. Grants that address these issues are not dirty.”

Norton was reinstated to her position on May 4.

Additionally, The New York Times recently reported that the text scan requirement for certain words has contributed to a slowdown in awarding grants.

NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya wrote in a 2025 statement that the agency under the Trump administration would prioritize chronic health issues and “next-generation tools” like AI.

“A core function of NIH institutes and centers is to assess scientific merit within the context of NIH’s broader strategic goals and develop appropriate research funding plans accordingly,” he wrote. “In an environment where NIH receives more meritorious applications than it can fund, this review process is increasingly critical.”

The Partnership for Public Service nonprofit reported that there was a 24% reduction between fiscal years 2024 and 2025 in spending on science agency project grants.

]]>

Legislative proposal would eliminate contracting preferences for minority, women-owned businesses

Nick Wakeman — Thu, 07 May 2026 13:11:06 -0400

A bill introduced in the House and Senate in late April would effectively wipe out many of the contracting preferences for minority and women owned businesses.

The Ending Discrimination in Government Contracting Act was introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wisconsin). It would codify and expand on provisions in President Trump’s March 26 executive order on diversity, equity and inclusion provisions in federal contracts.

The EO requires agencies to insert a clause in contracts that bans DEI and mandates reporting requirements to assure compliance, as well as allowing agencies to cancel contracts for not complying with the no-DEI requirement.

Prime contractors would be required to report subcontractors who violate the contract clause. Primes also would be required to report subcontractors who file a lawsuit challenging the no-DEI requirement.

The executive order also set a July 24 deadline for agencies to modify existing contracts by inserting the no DEI clause.

In their bill, Lee and Grothman also aim to eliminate contracting goals and preference programs for small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. These include the 8(a) program and small businesses owned by women.

Their bill leaves in place goals for businesses in the HUBZone small business, veteran-owned and service-disabled/veteran-owned categories.

The proposed legislation expands on the executive order by also banning agencies from considering sex, along with race and ethnicity when awarding contracts and grants. It also would bar agencies from telling prime contractors to require their subs to consider race, ethnicity or sex.

Lee and Grothman’s bills also end the requirement that agencies report on the number of contracts that go to women-owned businesses, and socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses.

The bills also seeks to repeal the Minority Business Development Act of 2021, which has steered billions of dollars in contracts to minority-owned businesses since its passage.

Part of the argument from Lee and Grothman is that DEI programs waste taxpayer money and are not fair.

Their proposed bills would be a significant restructuring of the small business contracting world and would impact thousands of businesses.

So far, there are no co-sponsors for Lee's bill (S. 4390) or Grothman’s bill (HR. 8511). Both bills have been referred to their respective committees.

]]>

Education tech chief heads to OMB as deputy federal CIO

Natalie Alms — Thu, 07 May 2026 12:27:17 -0400

Federal Chief Information Officer Gregory Barbaccia has a new deputy: Thomas Flagg, currently the CIO for the Education Department, according to an internal email viewed by Nextgov/FCW.

Flagg has been at Education since fall 2024, and he worked at the Labor Department for over 11 years before that.

“He understands firsthand the operational realities, constraints, frustrations, and opportunities that agency technology leaders face every day,” Barbaccia wrote in the email announcing Flagg’s new role. “I am looking forward to working with him as he brings that ground-truth knowledge into the federal policy process, helping us better interpret agency pain points and translate them into practical, effective government-wide direction.”

OMB did not return a request for comment.

Flagg joins the OMB team as Barbaccia is split between several roles, including serving as the acting director of the Technology Transformation Services within the General Services Administration. That team helps agencies across the government with their technology, including by maintaining some central solutions. It has lost about 70% of its staff since President Donald Trump took office last year.

Barbaccia is also the federal chief AI officer — overseeing the government’s AI efforts — and serves as the federal government’s service delivery lead under the Government Service Delivery Improvement Act.

]]>

Dems introduce bill to protect feds’ credit scores during shutdowns

Erich Wagner — Wed, 06 May 2026 14:30:08 -0400

Senate Democrats introduced new legislation last week aimed at protecting federal workers from knock-on financial penalties they may incur while furloughed or working without pay during government shutdowns.

The 2026 Federal Worker Credit Protection Act (S. 4478), introduced by Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., would bar consumer reporting agencies like Experion and Equifax from marking down a federal employee’s credit score during or shortly after a lapse in appropriations that affects their employing agency. The measure, which covers furloughed or working-without-pay feds from the beginning of a shutdown that’s at least 24 hours long through 30 days after funding is restored, also provides feds an avenue to request such entries be removed from their credit reports at no charge.

If enacted, the bill would apply retroactively to Feb. 1, 2026, meaning it would nullify any negative consequences Homeland Security Department workers have seen on their credit scores since the start of the 76-day partial government shutdown. The bill is also sponsored by senators Angela Alsobrooks, Chris Van Hollen, both D-Md., Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, both D-Va.

“Federal workers shouldn’t be punished by a government shutdown that isn’t their fault,” Kelly said. “Earlier this month, I met with Phoenix TSA officers working without pay. They shared how the financial strain they were dealing with—including missing payments—hurt their credit scores. That kind of damage can follow you for years. I’m taking action to make sure the people who keep our country running aren’t hurt by Washington’s dysfunction.”

The bill already has support from the American Federation of Government Employees and National Federation of Federal Employees.

“The sad reality is that all-too-frequent agency funding lapses can permanently harm federal workers, long after the government eventually reopens,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley. “Simply giving people backpay, as current law requires, does nothing to undo the undeserved damage to their credit ratings, their good name, and their dignity. Senator Kelly’s bill hits pause on negative credit information during periods when feds are still working hard for the American people while drawing zero-dollar paychecks.”

““Federal workers work hard to keep this country running and they’re still being punished because of government shutdowns that aren’t their fault,” said Randy Erwin, national president of NFFE. “For them, falling behind on bills because their paycheck stopped shouldn’t hurt their credit standings, sometimes for years after a shutdown ends.”

]]>

White House weighs reining in contractors’ control over how agencies use AI

Alexandra Kelley and David DiMolfetta — Wed, 06 May 2026 14:11:03 -0400

The federal government is circulating draft policy documents that contain language clarifying the government’s ability to use private sector technology without outside stipulations for how they do so, two sources familiar with their development told Nextgov/FCW.

While it remains unclear if the language being passed between various government agencies — namely the Department of Defense and components of the Trump administration — will manifest into an executive order or finalized policy, that language centers on ensuring the government has control over how its acquired technology products are used.

One source familiar with the ongoing development told Nextgov/FCW that the goal of the language is to clarify that “it is for that democratically elected government to determine what is a lawful and appropriate use of a particular technology, not solely a company.”

The White House is mulling an executive order that would create a working group for AI models before they are deployed, according to a person familiar with the matter. The New York Times first reported the administration’s consideration of the order. It’s not clear if the contracting language is a separate initiative or would be a provision embedded into a forthcoming directive.

Other language featured in the draft documents examines how the government can manage emerging cybersecurity threats posed by AI models like Anthropic’s Mythos Preview and OpenAI’s GPT 5.5, according to the same source and another person familiar with the matter.

The discussions and draft documents highlight how the Trump administration is looking to take a more hands-on approach on the AI sector, despite prior policy positions that signaled a more permissive environment for the evolving technology.

“There is likely going to be another wave of AI government statements,” the first source said.

When asked to confirm the existence of these documents, a White House official told Nextgov/FCW that “any policy announcement will come directly from the President. Discussion about potential executive orders or policy directives are pure speculation.” The Department of Defense referred questions to the White House.

The Trump administration’s efforts to refine the government’s rights when licensing private sector AI models and systems follow a dispute between Anthropic and the Department of Defense over using the company’s AI products in autonomous weaponry and domestic surveillance.

The Pentagon designated Anthropic a supply chain risk, and federal agencies were subsequently required to offload the company’s products from federal workloads. Some lawmakers took issue with the perceived retaliation on behalf of the administration, and Rep. Sam Liccardo, D-Calif., attempted to amend the Defense Production Act to prevent government blacklisting in March.

The administration has telegraphed some of its wants for the relationship between vendors and industries since that debacle, with Emil Michael, the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, saying on a March episode of the All-In podcast that “all lawful use seems like a good thing” to benchmark against.

Anthropic model capabilities piqued government officials' interest, however, when the company announced the release of its new high-powered Mythos Preview model and associated Project Glasswing for select companies to test in their digital networks.

Leadership at the Pentagon has not been wholly opposed to guardrails on tech use in defense and warfighter operations. Michael told CNBC on May 1 that the Pentagon wants guardrails “in some ways,” but maintained that these guardrails have to align with the government’s needs.

“When they deploy on our networks, they’re deploying models that are tuned for national security purposes,” Michael said. “And that's why the partnership with the executive team and the management is so important, because things are evolving in the threat landscape. And whatever guardrails, whatever principles they want to develop against, has to be consistent with our values, our mandate, our restrictions, even, and that’s where the guardrails come in.”

]]>

More than 3-in-4 allegations of sexual assault against federal prison staff are going unresolved

Eric Katz — Wed, 06 May 2026 13:41:57 -0400

Allegations of sexual abuse against staff at federal prisons are overwhelmingly left unresolved after the Bureau of Prisons is unable to draw a conclusion on whether such incidents occurred, according to a new report that found the federal Bureau of Prisons is frequently ill-equipped to handle those investigations.

Allegations of rape and sexual misconduct against federal corrections officers by inmates have spiked in recent years, the Government Accountability Office found in its review of enforcement of the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), and the bureau is in many ways failing to implement the law in the way Congress intended.

From 2014 through 2022, federal inmates logged nearly 4,000 complaints of sexual abuse against prison staff. Just 9% of those were substantiated by BOP, though 77% saw investigations end inconclusively. The agency proved the incidents did not occur in just six cases, or about one-tenth of 1%.

A similar trend emerged from sexual abuse allegedly committed by incarcerated individuals, with 81% of those cases reaching inconclusive findings.

GAO separately found federal prison guards faced around 3,000 allegations of sexual abuse from 2020 through 2024, a significant uptick in incident rate from prior years. From 2014 through 2022, BOP averaged 433 allegations against its staff per year. In 2023 and 2024, that spiked to 857 per year.

When an allegation of sexual abuse is made, the bureau deploys an evidence recovery team for and a local nurse conducts a rape kit if the alleged event had just occured. Employees said, however, that they often learn of allegations well after the fact, such as after an inmate transfers from a different facility.

GAO reported last year that BOP’s Office of Internal Affairs had 12,153 open allegations in its employees misconduct caseload, though the agency said most were not related to PREA violations. More than one-third of those cases had been open for at least three years. GAO noted the bureau has ramped up its efforts to address the backlog, including by deploying strike teams of investigators to facilities with particularly large caseloads.

Still, employees told the auditors that they have insufficient staffing for responding to allegations of sexual abuse, including a shortatge of investigators. Longstanding personnel shortages at the agency have led to less general supervision that in turn allows misconduct to fester, officials told GAO. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Trump signed into law last year included $3 billion for BOP staffing, though criminal justice reform advocates have faulted the Trump administration for cutting PREA grants last year.

Abusers also employ tactics to avoid repercussions. Most of the corrections officers with whom GAO spoke said abusers know where they can go to evade cameras and some said the video quality is poor or not retained for a sufficient amount of time. Employees also said investigations against staff can take time, often years, to complete.

Corrections officers told GAO that false allegations of sexual abuse are prevalent and waste resources and tarnish the credibility of those reporting real incidents. Incarcerated individuals told the auditors that their fellow inmates make false accusations against prison staff as a form of retribution.

Still, corrections officers overwhelmingly told GAO they “would not hesitate to report sexual abuse perpetrated by employees against incarcerated individuals.”

PREA sought to establish a “zero-tolerance policy” for rape in U.S. prisons while tasking the Justice Department with instituting national standards for preventing, investigating and tracking such incidents. GAO noted sexual abuse “remains a significant problem” in federal prisons despite some progress under the law. The auditors titled a blog post accompanying their report “The Heinous Crimes Haunting Federal Prisons.”

Facilities that have been found to be fully compliant with the law have maintained the highest incident rates of sexual abuse in the country, GAO found. PREA requires ongoing audits of federal prison facilities, but GAO said current practice fails to detect ongoing sexual abuse. When the bureau contracts auditors for those investigations, it does not ensure they meet established requirements and they do not always have access to key documentation.

“Sexual assault is a heinous crime that can have lasting, harmful effects on survivors,” GAO said. “The issues identified through this report highlight that not all correctional facilities are meeting the intent of PREA.”

GAO cited BOP for a slew of additional failures, including its decision to only focus on cultural issues at women’s facilities and not men’s. It noted the bureau does not publish or analyze uniform data across the bureau to identify trends.

Jolene Lauria, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for administration, said BOP agreed that it must assess its approach on PREA enforcement and vowed to implement all of GAO’s recommendations. Various hiring initiatives will address staffing shortages that lead to coverage issues, officials said, and the agency will look at bringing on staff with specific experience in data analysis. It will also ensure the third-party investigators who conduct PREA audits have access to the documentation they need and review their training and guidance materials to enhance detection of ongoing sexual abuse.

]]>

Agencies eye agentic AI but readiness questions linger

Frank Konkel — Wed, 06 May 2026 08:00:00 -0400

Agentic AI has entered the chat for federal agencies.

According to a March survey of more than 200 technology executives across government, more than half (53%) said their agencies are exploring agentic AI or actively planning pilots of the technology. Another 15% are currently implementing agentic AI systems or have completely done so already, compared to 6% who said they were not yet considering agentic AI.

However, even as agencies race toward agentic AI, respondents identified potential barriers to adoption in the forms of inadequate oversight policies and disparity between the perceived necessity of governance frameworks and their implementation. The findings were released today by Market Connections on behalf of ServiceNow.

“This research confirms what we're hearing from agencies every day — the appetite for agentic AI is real, but oversight hasn't kept pace," said Mike Hurt, Global Vice President of U.S. Public Sector at ServiceNow. "Seventy-seven percent of federal leaders say oversight frameworks are essential, yet fewer than a third have actually implemented them. Agencies that build accountability into their AI workflows from the start, not as an afterthought, will be the ones delivering strong results for citizens.”

The findings come after a major uptick in AI use across the federal government in 2025 despite a significant decrease in the total number of federal employees.

In April, the Office of Management and Budget unveiled its 2025 Federal Agency Artificial Intelligence Use Case Inventory, which indicated AI use more than doubled across federal agencies from 2024. In total, agencies reported more than 3,000 AI use cases, with significant jumps in AI use at NASA and the departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Justice and Energy.

Agentic AI is generally defined as autonomous systems capable of pursuing complex goals and reasoning, with the ability to take independent actions across software systems with minimal human oversight. Those agentic capabilities to perform some tasks without human intervention have made it an attractive option, and it has been touted by some of President Donald Trump’s top tech officials as a key way to do more with less.

But per the findings, not every agency is ready for agentic AI, even as a growing number of companies offer agentic solutions. Only 20% of respondents said their agencies have defined policies for pre-deployment testing or generic agentic AI use, and only 8% have a defined framework for incident response. Even fewer (6%) have a framework for third-party or vendor governance.

"Agentic AI has definitely entered the chat. Over half of those we surveyed are currently in the planning stages or have actively launched a pilot effort,” said Aaron Heffron, president of Insights and Research at GovExec. “The main question remains, however, if the current infrastructure, both human and technical, is up to the task.”

Findings also indicated some agencies struggle moving agentic AI pilots from the sandbox to production environments. Those challenges move beyond policy and into data readiness.

“One of the very big questions that you have to ask is, ‘How am I getting my data ready for AI consumption? That governance piece becomes critical [to] making sure that your data within your organization and your AI are working together,” advised one unnamed IT director in his response.

ServiceNow Federal Chief Technology Officer Jon Alboum said one way to address the data problem is bringing data and workflows together in a single environment.

“The current environment of fragmented, siloed systems and disconnected workflows only increases complexity and hinders adoption,” Alboum said. “To move forward, AI adoption should focus on bringing everything together in an AI control tower so that policies can be applied, controls enforced, and results delivered efficiently across the organization.”

Research findings indicated that while governance frameworks tended to lack maturity, consistent oversight was a near-universal requirement. Almost 90% of respondents said they required logging and audit trails for all actions, and more than 80% requiring automated policy checks and guardrails.

The findings further point to a strong correlation between the demand for human oversight and criticality of data. For national security, critical infrastructure and emergency response data, 79% of respondents said their agencies mandated “human-in-the-loop” oversight, with approval needed for every action performed by AI. For high-risk data, like benefits claims or agency financial data, 78% of respondents said their agency requires formal human approval before high-risk actions are taken by AI, but not every action. Conversely, more than 90% of those surveyed said they favored reduced direct involvement for low and moderate risk data, requiring only periodic check-ins.

To ensure accountability for agentic AI solutions, 84% of respondents said their agencies had documented escalation policies, while 78% had structured post-incident review processes. Fewer than half (44%) said their agencies included liability or responsibility clauses for AI vendors in contracts, and fewer than one-third (29%) had documented “kill switch” procedures.

“Federal leaders say they want human control over high-risk AI — but less than a third have a kill switch to enforce it, leaving a dangerous gap between intent and capability where trust is won or lost,” the report states. “Agencies must act now to define intervention triggers, ensure data readiness, and unify oversight into a single platform — or risk losing control as systems scale. When failures happen, they cannot be crises; they must be contained, repeatable workflows. Built-in accountability is no longer optional — it is the prerequisite for any agency serious about deploying agentic AI at mission speed.”

Editor’s note: Market Connections is a business division of GovExec, the parent company of Nextgov/FCW.

]]>

Agency leader says AI is helping resource-strained workforce identify more fraud

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 05 May 2026 15:01:28 -0400

An anti-fraud official from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that artificial intelligence is enhancing her workforce’s capability to spot scams.

“There's a lot of fraud in the healthcare sector. The estimates on the conservative side are about $100 billion and, depending on who else you talk to, you can easily double or triple that with different calculations,” said Jeneen Iwugo — the acting director for the CMS Center for Program Integrity — at the UiPath Public Sector Summit on Tuesday. “I have a modest budget of $1 billion, so the size of the problem is much bigger than the budget I'm given to find it.”

Specifically, Iwugo explained that AI tools are helping CPI’s roughly 500 employees better identify fraud across the four to five million claims they review every day.

“My team uses AI to comb through those claims and that data and figure out where the risk is the greatest,” she said. “I cannot investigate everything that looks weird, so I have to restratify my work to make sure that I am auditing and reviewing those instances where we have the biggest risk for something fraudulent happening.”

Iwugo emphasized that the Trump administration’s prioritization of combating fraud has given her office more flexibility.

“The longer leash I get, the more I'm able to push the needle with using AI, getting into the agentic AI space, the more of that $100 billion I'll be able to recapture,” she said.

Going forward, Iwugo stated that CMS is piloting programs in which AI doesn’t just review potentially fraudulent claims but also recommends to employees what the possible penalties could be.

“Once I get there, I will be able to take off and capture a lot more of the fraud that I know exists, that I'm able to detect, but that I'm just watching because I can't move fast enough,” she said.

Iwugo also touted that CPI in fiscal 2024 saved Medicare an estimated $26.3 billion, which is a return on investment of $14.6 for every $1 invested and an improvement from fiscal 2023 when the agency projected that it recovered $14.9 billion.

Agencies reported there were 3,611 individual AI use cases in 2025, which is more than double from 2024. The Veterans Affairs Department, as one example, is using the technology to speed up processing of veterans’ benefits claims, but congressional Democrats argued that it is worsening error rates.

]]>

10 years after OPM data breach, identity protection benefits for affected feds start to expire

Eric Katz and David DiMolfetta — Tue, 05 May 2026 13:49:26 -0400

A decade after the 2015 breach of the Office of Personnel Management exposed roughly 22 million records, identity theft protection services for affected federal workers and their families are beginning to expire, marking the end of a long-running federal response to one of the government’s most damaging cyber intrusions.

Those who signed up for the MyIDCare program OPM established 10 years ago are receiving emails on a rolling basis informing them their services will expire 10 years to the day of their enrollment. The notices began going out to enrollees late last year and will continue through September, the end of the current fiscal year.

“This is to notify you that the credit monitoring and identity theft insurance coverage you were provided by the Federal government has a 10-year term, which ends on [10 years after enrollment date],” reads an April email viewed by Government Executive from MyIDCare, the OPM-backed service that offered credit monitoring, dark web scanning, insurance and recovery services to those impacted in the breach. The emails are now being sent to breach victims who enrolled in the services.

“This service was provided following the 2015 OPM cybersecurity incidents and has helped safeguard your identity. OPM provided identity and credit monitoring through MylDCare, powered by IDX, in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 for a period of 10 years from 2015 - 2025,” it adds. The email gives users the ability to continue coverage, and links to a URL where they can explore options.

The hack was discovered in 2015, but the intrusions, which were overwhelmingly assessed to have been linked to China, began at least a year prior. OPM disclosed two data breaches in 2015: one that exposed the personnel files of all current and former federal employees and another that released the personally identifiable information of all applicants for security clearances, as well as their families. More than 22.1 million people were impacted by the breaches.

Shortly after the hack was discovered, OPM offered three years and up to $1 million worth of protection services. Congress subsequently required the agency to expand the program to cover 10 years and up to $5 million.

OPM signed two contracts with ID Experts — now IDX — to provide the services, the first worth $340 million and the second worth up to $416 million.

Funding for services officially ended at the end of September, when the federal fiscal year calendar resets.

An OPM spokesperson said the agency looked into extending the program but decided it was too expensive.

“OPM evaluated extending the contract and determined it would not be a responsible use of taxpayer resources, given the high cost of the program and the very low level of claims in recent years,” an agency spokesperson said. “OPM remains committed to protecting sensitive data through robust cybersecurity, privacy, and risk management programs, with continuous monitoring to safeguard personnel information.”

The Government Accountability Office has criticized OPM for overpaying for the services, saying the level of coverage is “likely unnecessary” and may be distorting the identity theft insurance market.

Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit reached a settlement in 2022 with the government that made $63 million available for those who could demonstrate financial hardship as a result of the breach. A federal judge closed out the case in 2024 after OPM and the Treasury Department doled out just $4.8 million to just more than 5,000 individuals. The remaining $58.2 million was returned to the U.S. Treasury.

One former federal contractor affected in the breach, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, reflected that personally identifying information exposed in the hack used to be viewed as the “most detrimental thing to all of us.”

Today, that’s no longer the case. “Our information continues to be pilfered time and time again,” the former contractor added. “It’s just fascinating how far we’ve come from caring about security and wanting to take the right measures to treating it like an afterthought.”

The end-of-services notifications caught some recipients by surprise. IDX has since peppered recipients with marketing emails imploring them to re-enroll in the service at their own expense, offering 50% off discounts and warning “you’re unprotected” in subject lines.

“It’s disturbing given that the government’s negligence caused people’s personal information to be stolen, and China still has that information,” said one former federal employee who received the termination notice.

One current senior federal agency official affected in the breach told Government Executive that 10 years is sufficient for coverage. “I can understand why they cut it off. It costs money to do that,” the senior official said.

The official added: “I think it’s incumbent on people themselves to protect their credit in their reporting and make sure they keep tabs on it. You can’t expect the government to continue to do that.” They said they would consider enrolling in the plan offered by IDX to continue coverage.

Some lawmakers have continued to push for lifetime coverage for those impacted by the breach, though legislative efforts have failed to advance. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. in a letter to OPM last year highlighted the ongoing threats that breach victims still face.

“The federal workforce was dangerously exposed by the 2015 OPM breach, and millions of impacted individuals will continue to be at risk because of the breach, likely for the remainder of their lives,” Warner said. “Current and former public servants should not be abandoned to bear the risks of the federal government’s failure to protect their sensitive information.”

]]>

How State finally got online passport renewal to stick

Natalie Alms — Tue, 05 May 2026 11:52:00 -0400

In 2024, the State Department opened its online passport renewal platform, upending the paper-based, 1970s process the department had been intending to revamp for over a decade with little success.

The department has now issued over 7.3 million passports through the online system. Compared against a general discourse about government systems being old, clunky and frustrating, the online renewal tool appears to be a bright spot, as 94% of users have rated it positively in government surveys, according to Matt Pierce, deputy assistant secretary for passport services, consular affairs.

And unlike some of the other recent stories of successful digital government rollouts that did not survive into a new administration, most notably the IRS Direct File program, State’s system is still going well into President Donald Trump’s second term, and the department is planning for more.

State wants to pilot online applications for those seeking their first passport, and it’s looking into issuing digital travel credentials, too, said Pierce, who recently spoke with Nextgov/FCW about what made the online renewal process work and what’s next.

Up until 2024, the process for renewing a passport was largely the same as it had been for decades, even as the number of people getting passports has been increasing. In 1990, only 5% of Americans had a passport. Now, that number sits at around 50% — and that figure is expected to continue to grow, said Pierce.

State debuted its first attempt at an online system in 2022, in the lead-up to record passport backlogs the following year, as Americans looked to travel again following the COVID pandemic. At the time, the department was still grappling with staffing shortages caused by a hiring freeze instituted during Trump’s first term.

That pilot worked for some people but was ultimately unsuccessful, one former State Department employee who worked on online passport renewals told Nextgov/FCW. They requested anonymity for fear of retribution.

In technical terms, the first system was made in a waterfall development style. State made a list of requirements and chucked them “over the fence” to technologists who built a tool, they said.

Passport adjudicators weren’t consulted in the design process and had a really difficult time using the system. Applications would get lost because of how work queues were set up, the former employee said.

The department paused, pivoted and eventually opened the system that’s still running now in 2024.

What changed? For one, the department switched to a human-centered, agile design process.

There are thousands of employees who handle over 24 million passports a year, Pierce said, adding “that system has to work for them.”

In the lead-up to the second launch, the team tested the system with frontline employees and worked to make sure that the understanding of those building the new system matched up with the needs of those actually handling the day-to-day passport work. That included considering not only technology alone, but also processes and policies.

And while the department attempted to replace the entire system in the first rollout, for the second, they replaced only the front end portion that Americans see. On the backend, enhancements were made, but the system is largely as it was before, meaning employees didn’t have to make changes, said Pierce, while the department continues to work on a larger overhaul.

Moving forward, Pierce is looking to use the same dialogue with employees that made the second online passport renewal effort successful to find improvements to prevent future backlogs along with a staffing baseline. It’s an organizational transformation, he said, driven by employees to change processes and procedures.

One big shift for the department, he said, has actually been a cultural one in how it responds to risk.

“In the past, we would spend a lot of time thinking about something, working on something, and then here it is. Now you’ve got to live with it for 10 years,” Pierce explained.

Now, employees are more open to taking calculated risks with the understanding that they can pilot changes and adapt as needed, he said, noting “that has been a huge change.”

More improvements ahead

Over a year out from the second, more successful launch, it takes 20 minutes to renew a passport on the new, online system, as opposed to the 40 minutes it took through the old process, said Pierce. The department estimates that it’s saved Americans over a million hours.

The online system currently handles over half of renewals. Some people aren’t able to apply online depending on their situation, although the goal is to eventually make it so that anyone renewing can do so online, said Pierce.

The team is also planning to pilot letting Americans that want to get their first passport apply online in the coming years. That’ll require the department to work through some wonky issues, like how it will digitally validate proof of citizenship documents that State itself doesn’t house, like birth certificates — something that will likely require the department to work out data-sharing agreements with states, said Pierce.

State is also in the early stages of looking into digital travel credentials.

“A lot of people call it the digital passport,” said Pierce, but it’s different from the ID that digital wallet users can create with a passport, for example, which can’t be used for international travel or border crossings.

“I mean something that can ping against the database, like the passport, to validate that it is a valid passport issued by the United States government, and this is the person’s information,” he said.

The department is also working to add Trump’s face to a limited number of commemorative passports, although that news broke after Nextgov/FCW’s interview with Pierce.

New challenges

As it pursues new changes, the department will be working with a different team than the one it used for online passport renewal.

Last year, Pierce won what’s considered the Oscar of government service, a Sammie, alongside another key leader in the passport modernization effort, Luis Coronado, the former CIO for the Bureau of Consular Affairs at State. But Coronado and others have since left the department.

The Bureau of Consular Affairs wasn’t spared from layoffs last year as the Trump administration sought to downsize the federal workforce, although some affected employees were later reinstated.

Other offices that worked on the online passport renewal project have also been shuffled around as part of a reorganization. Consular Affairs’ tech office, led by Coronado, was moved to the central IT department within State, and also was affected by layoffs, said the former employee, who has also left federal service.

“The intent of the reorg is to become a more responsive, a more relevant State Department,” said Pierce, adding that he’s seen “a lot of positives.”

Other departments, including Interior, have also been centralizing their technology operations.

The team behind the online passport renewal launch also included 18F, a digital services consultancy inside the government that the Trump administration shuttered completely last year, as well as the U.S. Digital Service, which was renamed to house the Department of Government Efficiency as the U.S. DOGE Service.

“We lost a lot of the folks that had been integral to getting that online passport renewal successfully stood up and out the door for the 2.0 version,” said the former employee.

These teams helped other agencies adopt different models of modernizing, such as the IRS with Direct File.

“The federal government has lost a lot of that,” the former employee said. “How is the government — absent those organizations — going to continue to transform how the government improves services?”

]]>

Agencies delay action on Trump mail voting order amid legal fight over authority

Jonathan Shorman, States Newsroom — Tue, 05 May 2026 11:31:43 -0400

Federal agencies say they have yet to take steps to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail, as the Department of Justice fights a Democrat-led lawsuit against it.

The Justice Department late Friday filed documents asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit and to not block the executive order on a preliminary basis because the order has not been implemented. The filings marked the Trump administration’s first effort to defend the order in court.

The March 31 order directs the creation of state citizenship lists and restricts how ballots can be sent through the mail, instructions that Democrats and election experts have called unconstitutional and illegal. It comes as Trump has seized on the specter of noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon, to demand sweeping voting restrictions.

In its Friday filing, the Justice Department sought to persuade Judge Carl J. Nichols in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that a legal challenge is premature.

“If and when the Executive Branch takes some action to implement the Executive Order,” then a lawsuit can be brought, Stephen Pezzi, a senior trial counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, wrote in a court filing.

Nichols has scheduled a hearing for May 14.

No action taken, officials tell court

The DOJ’s argument relies on statements by key federal officials that the agencies affected by the order — the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service — are still deliberating over how to carry out Trump’s directive. In declarations filed in court on Friday, officials at all three agencies say final decisions have not been made.

“As the Postal Service is still in the deliberation phase of determining how to implement the Executive Order, we have not yet published a proposed rule, nor have we reached any final decisions about the substance of a proposed rule,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, wrote.

The executive order directs the postmaster general, who leads the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would block states from sending ballots through the mail except to voters on lists provided by the state to the Postal Service.

The order also instructs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age U.S. citizens in each state with the help of the Social Security Administration. Democrats allege the Trump administration is building an unauthorized national voter list, despite the U.S. Constitution giving states the responsibility of running federal elections.

Michael Mayhew, deputy associate director of the Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, wrote in a declaration that the agency “has not yet begun preparation” of state citizenship lists. USCIS is a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

At the Social Security Administration, Jessica Burns MacBride, head of program policy and data exchange, wrote that the agency has not made any final decisions “about its role” in implementing the executive order.

Focus on Postal Service

The order’s opponents are especially watching the Postal Service’s response, since it is an independent corporation overseen by its Board of Governors — not the White House.

Democrats and experts on postal law say Trump has no authority to order the postmaster general to take any action. The Board of Governors hires and fires the postmaster general, and board members serve seven-year terms, helping insulate them from political pressure.

Last month, 37 Democratic U.S. senators signed a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the Board of Governors urging the Postal Service to not implement the executive order. The senators pointed out the president has no authority to regulate federal elections or the Postal Service.

“Like the President, the Postal Service has no authority to regulate the manner of voting in federal elections, nor who is eligible to vote by mail in such elections,” the letter says.

The Postal Service is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed by Democratic groups and leaders in Congress.

The Justice Department, which is representing the Postal Service, sidestepped questions about the president’s authority in Friday’s court filing. It called arguments about Trump’s authority over the Postal Service an “abstract legal question” that cannot be resolved before the agency takes action.

Still, Monteith appeared to nod to concerns within the Postal Service over the order’s legality while avoiding specifics.

“I am aware that deliberations are currently ongoing within the Postal Service regarding the implementation of the Executive Order,” Monteith wrote, adding that the deliberations include “legal considerations” regarding the order.

Unitary executive theory

The executive order faces at least five lawsuits, including a challenge brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta. The Justice Department has not yet filed court documents defending the order in that case.

For their part, Republican attorneys general — led by Catherine Hanaway of Missouri — are defending the executive order. Their position, if adopted by courts, would give Trump sweeping control over the Postal Service.

In a May 1 court filing, the GOP attorneys general argue those challenging the executive order are unlikely to succeed in showing that Trump cannot direct the Postal Service to propose a rule. They say that federal law does not specifically prohibit the president from ordering the postmaster general to put forward rules on mail ballots — and it is unconstitutional if it does.

“The Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President,” the Republican coalition says, articulating a view commonly called the unitary executive theory: the idea that Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

The Republican states involved also include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Democrats and many constitutional law experts reject the unitary executive theory, though it has gained support among Trump-aligned Republicans as the White House seeks greater control over independent agencies.

If the U.S. Supreme Court eventually greenlights Trump’s efforts to control the Postal Service and other independent agencies, it would mark a “tremendous” change in how the federal government operates, James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law, said in an interview last month.

“What you’re basically talking about is redesigning the U.S. government,” Campbell said.

]]>

Growing agency talent is critical for modernization, Transportation’s IT head says

Edward Graham — Tue, 05 May 2026 08:00:00 -0400

Building out new technology capabilities within the Transportation Department is the relatively easy part of modernization; working to ensure that personnel have the resources and training they need to leverage the tools effectively is one of the real challenges, the agency’s digital and IT lead said on Monday.

During a keynote speech at GITEC 2026, Transportation’s chief digital and information officer, Pavan Pidugu, said the agency’s “1DOT” initiative has been focused on enhancing the efficiency of its IT infrastructure. Pidugu was a 2026 Fed100 winner for driving that initiative by unifying disparate internal organizations and systems into the streamlined 1DOT operating model.

“We're simplifying the way we work,” Pidugu said about the effort. “We're simplifying the assets that we have, the technology applications we have, and we are unifying our processes to make the best use of technology that's available today.”

While this includes streamlining processes through modernization — not an easy lift, by any means — Pidugu said “building the new technology probably is the easiest thing” when it comes to changing business-as-usual across Transportation.

“What are the challenges that we face today? While we are in this major transformational journey, there are lots of gaps, and our people, our processes need to change,” he said.

To not frustrate agency employees during this modernization effort, Pidugu said Transportation has been looking to use the process to build out opportunities for employees.

"We're going through a monumental and historic change that the department has never encountered or went through,” he added. “How can we make it fun? How can we help our people achieve their personal and professional goals?”

To accentuate this process, Pidugu said the agency is “creating lots of new opportunities for our workforce in growing our talent.”

Transportation’s most recent IT strategic plan, which delves into the 1DOT initiative, includes a focus on growing agency talent alongside the broader push to eliminate its technical debt.

The document says the agency is looking to accomplish this goal by pushing to “invest in our Federal workforce’s technical capability via skills assessments, targeted training (cloud-native, Agile, data/AI, security), rotations and mentorship, competency-based hiring, and performance-based recognition to retain and scale institutional expertise.”

To further empower its workforce and grow talent, Pidugu said Transportation has also been looking to industry to help with some of these efforts.

“Not everything can be done within the DOT in-house,” he added. “We're a small organization. We have limited resources as appropriated through the funding channels. There is a lot of work to be done, so we are trying to make sure, ‘where do we establish those partnerships with the industry?’ We're making sure what innovation we can influence in the industry to support our needs. And through those partnerships, we're just beginning.”

But, right now, Pidugu said internal buy-in from the entire department is the major key to success.

“There should be a lot of support from leadership all the way from the top,” he said. “There should be a lot of excitement all the way from the bottom also. When there is support and excitement, then you can do magic.”

]]>

Weighing the costs and trade-offs of suspending FEHB for Medicare Advantage

Kevin Moss — Tue, 05 May 2026 06:00:00 -0400

Tucked away in Section 9 of every Federal Employee Health Benefits plan brochure is an important and sometimes overlooked provision: “If you are an annuitant or former spouse, you can suspend your FEHB coverage to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan, eliminating your FEHB premium.”

For annuitants enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B, Checkbook’s Guide to Health Plans compares costs for both FEHB and Medicare Advantage (MA) plans offered by carriers where you keep your FEHB enrollment and continue paying its premium. What we have not previously analyzed is the third option available to federal annuitants: suspending FEHB to enroll in a private, commercial MA plan.

This gap has always raised a question for us at Checkbook:

How does suspending FEHB to enroll in a commercial MA plan compare with FEHB coverage with Medicare as primary, or MA plans offered by FEHB carriers?

To answer it, we selected two geographic markets, gathered benefit and price data for all available commercial MA plans and ran them through our yearly cost estimate model. Our goal was to determine which type of coverage delivers the lowest total costs for federal annuitants. Here are the results, which were first released in the May 2026 NARFE Magazine, and some advice if you’re considering enrolling in an MA plan.

Methodology

We chose two different geographic locations to perform this research: an area with a high percentage of federal employees and annuitants, Fairfax County, VA (ZIP code 22035), and a rural location, Cass County, ND (ZIP code 58047).

For the three plan types available to federal annuitants — FEHB plan, MA plan from an FEHB carrier, commercial MA plan — we applied the same user profile to calculate yearly cost estimates. The profile is a 65-year-old federal annuitant enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B with income below $109,000 and not subject to Part B or Part D Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amounts (IRMAA), who expects average health care expenses in 2026.

The three lowest-cost health plans for average expected health care costs were used to compare plan options. To see a full ranking on estimated yearly costs for FEHB plans and MA plans from FEHB carriers, visit the Checkbook Guide.

Cost comparison between the three plan types

In Fairfax County, VA, if you have coverage through your FEHB plan with Medicare as primary, Aetna Direct CDHP, MHBP HDHP and GEHA Standard are the three cheapest options. All eliminate out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part A and B services, and both Aetna Direct CDHP and MHBP HDHP contribute to savings accounts that annuitants can use for Part B premium reimbursement or any other qualified health care expense.

Compared to FEHB plans, MA plans from FEHB carriers can cost less. A federal annuitant could save about $900 a year by enrolling in Kaiser Standard Medicare Advantage 2 instead of Aetna Direct CDHP.

However, the cheapest option in this area is from a commercial MA plan, Humana Direct Choice Giveback. It has the lowest estimated costs because it has no premium and some Part B premium reimbursement, which only leaves out-of-pocket costs for medical services and the remainder of the Part B premium. Compared to federal annuitants who have coverage through their FEHB plan with Medicare as primary, choosing Humana Direct Choice Giveback would save you around $1,400 over Kaiser Standard Medicare Advantage or $2,300 over Aetna Direct CDHP.

In North Dakota, which has fewer MA plans available, there are potential savings with commercial MA plans, but they’re much smaller than what we found in Fairfax County, VA. Federal annuitants could enroll in Align ChoicePlus and save about $60 in estimated yearly costs compared to Aetna Advantage Medicare Advantage, or around $900 compared to Aetna Direct CDHP.

Commercial Medicare Advantage plan advice

In the two geographic markets we researched, a commercial MA plan was the cheapest plan option, but that may not be true where you live. Consider the following before suspending your FEHB coverage and enrolling:

Prior authorization

MA plans could have more requirements, leading to delays in accessing care and an increased risk of claim denials. According to the Commonwealth Fund’s most recent State Scorecard on Medicare Performance, many MA plans require prior authorization even for routine preventive services or specialist visits. It varies significantly by state, from as few as 8.3% of MA plans in South Dakota to as many as 73.1% of plans in Washington.

You’ll need to review the MA plan’s summary of benefits or evidence of coverage for more details on prior authorization.

Provider access

MA plans may have narrower provider networks compared to some FEHB plans. Check to see if your doctors will be in network on the carrier website before enrolling in any MA plan.

No family coverage

Unlike both FEHB and MA plans offered by FEHB carriers, commercial MA plans are individual enrollments. If you need to cover a spouse or a dependent child, you won’t be able to use this option.

Higher out-of-pocket costs

Unlike most MA plans offered by FEHB carriers, where most out-of-pocket medical costs except for prescription drugs are waived, commercial MA plans still have them. And while many have no or very low premiums, you’re trading those savings for higher out-of-pocket costs when you use health care services. As a result, if you have higher health care expenses, the cost savings would evaporate and you’d likely pay more in one of these plans compared to FEHB options.

Higher catastrophic limit

If you have a worst-case health expense year, the higher catastrophic limit may mean you’ll pay more in a commercial MA plan compared to most FEHB or MA plans offered by FEHB carriers. For example, in Fairfax County, VA, the Humana Direct Choice Giveback catastrophic limit is $9,250 for in-network care, whereas the Aetna Direct CDHP catastrophic limit is $6,000.

The final word

Our analysis shows that MA plans can provide substantial financial savings, with some commercial MA plans offering the lowest overall costs for an average year. The savings vary greatly depending on which plan you’re currently enrolled.

However, these savings come with trade-offs and won’t be the right choice for all federal annuitants. Weigh the financial savings against factors like provider access and prior authorization, which is typically more common in MA plans and can sometimes lead to delays in care or denied claims.

However, the decision to enroll in a commercial MA plan carries far different long-term implications for retirees without employer-sponsored coverage. FEHB offers a unique and powerful safety net: annuitants may suspend FEHB to try a commercial MA plan and, if their needs change, unsuspend FEHB during any future Open Season.

This flexibility matters because FEHB plans are guaranteed issue (you cannot be denied coverage or charged more based on health status). By contrast, in 46 out of 50 states, Medicare beneficiaries who leave Medicare Advantage and wish to enroll in a Medigap plan after more than 12 months lose guaranteed issue protection. At that point, insurers are allowed to medically underwrite, meaning they can raise premiums or deny enrollment altogether based on your health status.

In practical terms, federal annuitants can explore MA without the same risks faced by other retirees. The ability to return to FEHB during any future Open Season represents a significant advantage, one that should be factored into your plan evaluation.

Kevin Moss is a senior editor with the Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees provided by Consumers’ Checkbook. Watch more of his free advice and check here to see if the Guide is available for free from your agency. You can also purchase the Guide and save 20% with promo code GOVEXEC.

]]>

Easing USPS handgun shipping rules will exacerbate crime, warns Democrat

Sean Michael Newhouse — Mon, 04 May 2026 17:25:06 -0400

A House Democrat is scrutinizing the U.S. Postal Service’s plan to make it easier to ship handguns through the mail.

The postal agency recently issued a proposed rule that would modify mailing standards to align with a January opinion from the Justice Department, which found that a federal prohibition on using USPS to ship “pistols, revolvers and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person” is unconstitutional.

“The Postal Service defers to [DOJ Office of Legal Counsel’s] judgment as to the lawful scope of this criminal statute and worked in consultation with OLC to develop the proposed revisions to our mailability regulations,” officials wrote in the proposed rule. “The proposed revisions expand the scope of mailable firearms compared to the existing regulations by allowing lawful handguns to be mailed under the same terms and conditions as lawful rifles and shotguns.”

Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., in an April 30 letter to Postmaster General David Steiner argued that these reforms will exacerbate crime.

“[The federal prohibition] has effectively helped reduce illegal handgun trafficking by restricting the conditions under which concealable firearms can be shipped through the Postal Service,” the congressman wrote. “Preventing enforcement of this law would enable criminals to acquire concealable guns more easily, bypassing federal background checks and relevant state firearm laws.”

He requested that USPS, by May 14, address several questions about enforcement of the modified rules including:

What security protocols will be implemented to prevent theft of gun packages.
How the agency will comply with state laws that require handgun transfers to go through a federally licensed dealer.
What measures will be instituted to deter the mailing of handguns to individuals who are legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing them.

Frost is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over the USPS. Before running for Congress, he was an anti-gun violence activist.

The deadline to submit comments on the proposal is Monday. USPS will then review the feedback before issuing a final rule that may incorporate suggested changes.

A USPS spokesperson told Government Executive that the agency would respond directly to Frost’s office about his questions, that officials will evaluate the comments on the proposed rule and that they “have nothing further to offer at this time.”

]]>

FEMA brings back employees it recently let go as it looks to 'stabilize' its workforce

Eric Katz — Mon, 04 May 2026 15:34:07 -0400

The Trump administration is rehiring disaster response staff it just let go in recent months, saying the reversals are necessary due to upcoming events and hurricane season.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is bringing back the employees as the Homeland Security Department has welcomed new leadership and is under pressure from an ongoing lawsuit challenging the dismissals. The staffers, part of the Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery, or CORE, saw FEMA decline to renew their contracts beginning late last year.

All told, around 200 employees lost their jobs and are now being asked to come back, except for those who retired or told FEMA they are no longer interested in the work. FEMA’s reversal came to light as part of a lawsuit the American Federation of Government Employees and other groups brought against the agency over the non-renewals, which they argued were illegally ordered by the Homeland Security Department and would have left FEMA incapable of delivering on its mission.

“As we approach the 2026 hurricane season and the FIFA World Cup, FEMA is taking targeted steps to stabilize our workforce and strengthen readiness,” a FEMA spokesperson said. “Under new leadership, FEMA is addressing outstanding personnel actions to ensure workforce stability and a strong, deployable surge force for upcoming national events and potential disasters.”

CORE employees, who typically serve in two-to-four year stints and generally see their contracts renewed, will, depending on performance and need, have their agreements renewed for one year if they were set to expire between Jan. 1 and May 31 of this year. Employees whose contracts are set to expire starting June 1 will be subject to an additional “functional review” before they can similarly be offered a one-year extension. After all employees go through such a review, they will become eligible for normal renewals of two-to-four years.

FEMA leadership has said as part of court depositions that DHS ordered the agency to develop plans to cut 50% of its workforce. Work on the plan to implement widespread staffing cuts was “put on hold” to implement the CORE non-renewal plan, said Karen Evans, the current FEMA head. She suggested the shedding of COREs was related only to right-sizing the workforce and not necessarily connected to the larger workforce plans.

The agency paused the mass non-renewals when winter storms hit much of the country in January. FEMA’s decision to rehire the CORE it had let go earlier this year was first reported by The Washington Post.

The lawsuit has proved a major nuisance for the administration, as more officials are deposed and more internal documents are ordered released to the court. Joseph Guy, a former deputy chief of staff at DHS, was set to be deposed on Monday. Kara Voorhies, a contractor accused of having undue influence over FEMA operations, is still awaiting scheduling for her deposition.

Evans, under court order, has turned over some screenshots of conversations she had on the secure messaging app Signal, though the judge on the case has demanded a more extensive review of her personal phone and an unredacted copy of her personal notes detailing her activities each day. While the judge ordered both of those disclosures to occur on Monday, Trump administration attorneys said Evans had gone to Idaho and it would not be possible to get access to her phone or notes until she returns.

It is not yet clear what impact the reinstatements will have on the lawsuit, and attorneys for AFGE and other plaintiffs on the case have said they are still reviewing the matter.

Cameron Hamilton, who Trump tapped to lead FEMA when he first took office but fired last year, is set to be nominated to once again lead the agency, according to several reports. Hamilton had clashed with then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who Trump has since fired. New DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has pledged to quickly work through the backlog of disaster response work that has built up in the last 16 months, in part due to Noem’s policy to review all expenditures of more than $100,000.

As FEMA looks to stabilize its workforce ahead of hurricane season and to address that backlog, it has also reinstated employees who warned about the agency’s diminished capacity in a public letter last year. More than a dozen employees sat on paid administrative leave for eight months before being reinstated.

FEMA employs around 10,000 CORE employees, about 4,000 reservists who serve on a part-time basis and only activate during disasters and around 5,000 permanent, full-time staff.

]]>