Government Executive - All Content

Judge halts ‘favorite EO’ question on federal job applications

Erich Wagner — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 18:39:45 -0400

A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a decision Friday halting federal agencies from asking job applicants about their favorite Trump administration initiative, concluding the essay question likely violated jobseekers’ First Amendment rights.

The case dates back to the Office of Personnel Management’s issuance of the Merit Hiring Plan, which asserted greater engagement in the hiring process by political appointees and introduced four essay questions to most federal job applications, in May 2025. The third question asked jobseekers how they would advance the president’s policies and asked for an example of an executive order or initiative “significant to” them.

In U.S. District Judge George O’Toole’s long-awaited ruling, he focused on a sworn declaration of a federal employee and member of the American Federation of Government Employees, one of three unions suing to block the question’s deployment, who said she felt compelled to provide an answer contrary to her personal views for fear that not answering—or answering honestly—would “hurt her application.”

“The plain language of Question Three calls for the applicant’s personal views on a political topic, and directly links that personal view to the duties of the desired civil service job,” O’Toole wrote. “Indeed, the defendants implicitly recognize the reasonableness of such an interpretation insofar as the [Merit Hiring Plan] guidance states that answers to Question Three and the other free-form essay questions should not be used as ‘an ideological litmus test.’ Notably, as far as the court can discern from the present record, the limitation stated in the MHP guidance does not appear in the text of Question Three as it is presented to civil service applicants.”

Attorneys for the Trump administration had sought to argue that O’Toole lacked jurisdiction to hear the case; instead, the unions or their members should have exhausted administrative processes before either the Federal Labor Relations Authority or the Merit Systems Protection Board, then appeal those decisions in federal circuit court.

But the judge said the unions’ constitutional claims were “wholly collateral” to those review schemes, and noted that the alleged First Amendment violations occurred regardless of the outcome of a hiring decision.

“[The unions] do not, however, seek to remedy an identified personnel decision against any one of their members,” O’Toole wrote. “Put another way, there is no ‘personnel practice’ at issue. In fact, under the plaintiffs’ theory, even a civil service employee who receives a promotion would suffer a constitutionally based injury alleged if faced with Question Three when completing the relevant application.”

O’Toole issued a stay in the case, requiring agencies to cease asking applicants for every federal job GS-5 and above the favorite EO question at least until the conclusion of litigation. But he found that he could not issue a preliminary injunction blocking agencies from considering answers to the question that they had already received from job applicants, for the same reason.

“The requested injunction would thus effectively restrain the defendants’ conduct when reaching hiring decisions in individual cases,” he wrote. “The plaintiffs, however, repeatedly emphasize that this dispute does not concern individual personnel decisions involving their members. Indeed, the plaintiffs contend that the challenged question causes their members’ constitutional injuries regardless of any ensuing personnel decision. Accordingly, the requested injunction would not redress the injuries alleged.”

Union leaders, alongside Democracy Forward, which helped represent them alongside Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP in the case, applauded Friday’s decision.

“Requiring federal job applicants to answer politically motivated questions goes against the very nature of the nonpartisan civil service, and we are pleased the judge has put an immediate stop to the administration’s loyalty question,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley. “Federal employees should be hired based solely on their ability to perform the job—not their allegiance to any particular administration.”

“For more than a century, civil servants have been hired based on their merits, not based on allegiance to a partisan political agenda,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. “Today’s decision—stopping the Trump-Vance administration’s required loyalty question for public servants—reaffirms the importance of a nonpartisan civilian workforce that serves the American people.”

]]>

25 years after 9/11, spy agencies face old lessons and new threats

David DiMolfetta — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 14:10:14 -0400

As Air Force One returned to Washington, D.C. on the night of Sept. 11, 2001, Michael Morell looked out a window and saw an F-16 off the aircraft’s wingtip. Beyond it, the Pentagon was still smoldering.

Morell, then-President George W. Bush’s intelligence briefer, had spent the day answering the president’s questions and relaying intelligence as the country tried to understand the attacks that had hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in New York City. A quarter-century later, that view from the window remains one of his most vivid memories.

At the National Security Agency, Rick Ledgett recalled colleagues weeping in the hallways as the agency shifted into crisis mode. Within a month, it had transferred 3,000 analysts to counterterrorism work, he said.

“Personally, it was shattering,” Ledgett, who later served as NSA deputy director, told Nextgov/FCW in an email, adding that he “saw people step up and perform in ways they hadn’t before.”

The response to the worst terrorist attack in modern history would forever transform the government they served. The efforts involved reorganizing intelligence agencies, expanding surveillance powers and drawing spies deeper into a global campaign to capture or kill suspected terrorists. It also produced longstanding debates over torture policies, targeted killings, mass surveillance, prolonged wars and disputes over presidential power that became inseparable from efforts made to keep Americans safe from another catastrophe.

Twenty-five years later, former officials describe a country better prepared to disrupt terrorist organizations, but facing a broader mix of threats from foreign governments, hackers and extremists able to reach Americans online.

“I think we’re much safer than we were on September 10, 2001, from the threat of terrorism,” Morell, who later served as CIA deputy director and acting director, told Nextgov/FCW in an interview. But threats from nation-states like China or Russia, he said, are the most significant the country has faced since the Cold War.

The 9/11 Commission — chartered by Congress and the White House in late 2002 to present a full accounting of the attacks and response — described in its final report failures spanning imagination, policy, capabilities and management. Agencies held pieces of information that did not come together, and domestic defenses were not effectively mobilized despite mounting warnings about al Qaeda.

Just over a month before the attacks, Morell briefed Bush on a landmark intelligence report titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US” that flagged “patterns of suspicious activity in this country” consistent with preparations for hijackings and other attacks. He told Nextgov/FCW it outlined al Qaeda’s intent to attack the country but did not specifically identify when, where or how a specific plot would unfold.

Getting agencies to work together

The transformation that followed 9/11 sought to make cooperation a standing responsibility. Congress created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in late 2004, establishing a lead unit responsible for integrating intelligence across agencies that collect data from human informants, satellite imagery, intercepted phone calls and other clandestine sources. The Department of Homeland Security was also stood up in late 2002 to drive domestic defense efforts.

The expansion also deepened agencies’ reliance on contractors. After years of workforce drawdowns following the Cold War, the federal government turned to private companies to meet demands for intelligence collection, analysis and technology support, according to a 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service. Today, they play a ubiquitous, outsized role in America’s national security missions.

Lauren Goldman, a former official in ODNI’s Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center and National Intelligence Council, recalled a major shift in the basic expectations that governed intelligence-sharing across government and the private sector.

“The burden became on why you shouldn’t share versus why you should share,” she said. That culture has permeated many categories of today’s national security landscape, especially cybersecurity.

ODNI sought to help ensure information reached people who needed it, including officials who might otherwise have been left outside an agency’s reporting channels, Goldman said. Because the office does not collect intelligence itself, it can assess reporting without the same institutional or cultural attachment to a particular collection method, she added.

James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence for more than six years under the Obama administration, said that coordination requires a “full-time champion.” Under pre-9/11 arrangements, the CIA director also headed the intelligence community, but agency demands often consumed the attention needed for that broader role, he said.

Clapper said the DNI position was created to coordinate intelligence agencies but was not given full authority over them. Entities like the State Department or the Pentagon, for instance, retained control of their own intelligence shops. Still, the DNI could influence their priorities through oversight of intelligence funding and a direct advisory role to the president, he said.

“I do think there’s a need for an overall champion of collaboration and integration,” Clapper told Nextgov/FCW. His remarks come as the Trump administration has sought to shrink ODNI’s workforce and consolidate its functions, on grounds that the office has become bloated and duplicates work performed elsewhere in the intelligence community.

Ledgett credited ODNI with promoting cooperation, as well as running the National Counterterrorism Center and other hubs. But he said it had struggled to take power from individual agencies, particularly the CIA, and secure the president’s attention.

Morell said the CIA knew al Qaeda wanted to attack the United States but failed to uncover the 9/11 plot. He blamed that failure largely on a shortage of resources to gather intelligence, rather than agencies failing to share what they knew. That view differs in emphasis from the commission’s account, which identified missed opportunities to share or act on information.

Clapper said mistaken assessments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs also reshaped how spy agencies worked. The Bush administration cited those assessments in making its case for its 2003 invasion. Clapper, who had involvement in a key flawed assessment of Iraq’s WMDs, said the failure pushed agencies to scrutinize their sources and challenge assumptions more rigorously. U.S. analysts, in particular, had relied heavily on an Iraqi informant whose claims came through German intelligence, without direct access to question him.

The limits of intelligence powers

Global surveillance became one of the defining disputes of the post-9/11 era. The NSA’s bulk collection of domestic telephone records, exposed in Edward Snowden’s 2013 disclosures, drew scrutiny over both its intrusions into Americans’ lives and its value as a counterterrorism tool.

In 2014, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board recommended ending that collection program, and a federal appeals court ruled in 2015 that it exceeded what Congress had authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. But other surveillance programs exposed by Snowden — including those operating under the contentious Section 702 authority — have remained central to U.S. intelligence-gathering.

Ledgett, who led the NSA’s assessment of the damage from Snowden’s disclosures, defended the post-9/11 surveillance effort as “legal and authorized,” though he noted the intelligence community could have done better at public relations.

The incident forever changed how lawmakers and journalists examine spy agencies’ collection activities and whether Americans’ privacy is adequately protected. Contemporary mass surveillance debates have taken on new forms, including spy agencies’ purchases of sensitive data from commercial brokers and police use of artificial intelligence-powered tools to search vast networks of information about people’s movements and activities.

The CIA’s detention, interrogation and torture practices produced another reckoning. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2014 investigation concluded that the agency’s coercive interrogation techniques were ineffective in obtaining intelligence or cooperation and that the CIA impeded oversight and misrepresented aspects of the program.

Morell, who has previously disputed the Senate report’s conclusions, argued that responsibility also belonged to the president and other authorizing officials, and he rejected the idea that the agencies had acted entirely on their own.

Asked whether the country went too far in its broader response in the War on Terror, Morell said that “as a nation, we overreacted,” pointing mainly to the Iraq War and the length of the war in Afghanistan.

Intelligence agencies also helped identify and track suspected terrorists for controversial targeted killings, including those carried out through U.S. drone strikes. The debate reached American citizenship itself when the government targeted Anwar al-Awlaki, an American and al Qaeda operative, in a lethal strike. Defending the action in 2013, then-President Barack Obama argued that citizenship could not shield an operative plotting attacks when capture was not feasible.

Today, drones have become a battlefield mainstay in Russia’s war against Ukraine, and Western militaries are studying how to build, deploy and counter them. Weapons that drew scrutiny for their role in U.S. counterterrorism operations are now also held up as examples of military innovation, with NATO learning directly from Ukrainian drone operators. But questions about whom they kill and how they are used persist, as the United Nations documents their growing toll on civilians.

The fight over intelligence powers also became increasingly partisan. President Donald Trump’s disputes with intelligence officials over Russia’s interference in the 2016 election helped fuel his accusations that agencies were being used against him. A bipartisan Senate investigation upheld the intelligence community’s finding that Moscow sought to help him win. But allegations of political “weaponization” became a recurring theme in Trump’s criticism of intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

A changing threat landscape

Intelligence agencies now face a wider range of threats, including foreign hackers with access to fast-evolving AI tools.

Morell said the United States learned how to degrade terrorist organizations by denying them safe havens where they could train, raise money and prepare attacks. But the growing reach of digital networks has created other ways to threaten the U.S. without physically entering it.

Goldman pointed to critical infrastructure, where connected systems can allow the effects of an intrusion to spread beyond a single building or city, as a target of such threats. Hardening airports and other physical targets has value, she said, but does not eliminate vulnerabilities created by that cyber interconnectedness.

State-backed hacking illustrates the stakes. About six years ago, Russian cyber operatives compromised SolarWinds software as part of an espionage campaign that infiltrated multiple federal agencies and some 100 private companies. China-linked Salt Typhoon hackers later penetrated major telecommunications networks, targeting senior officials’ communications and accessing systems used for court-authorized wiretaps. And another Chinese campaign, Volt Typhoon, embedded hackers in American critical infrastructure, with U.S. officials warning that the access could enable disruption during a future conflict.

Terrorist groups have also found new ways to spread propaganda and reach potential recruits online. The Digital Citizens Alliance and cybersecurity firm risk3sixty recently examined 25 piracy-based internet television services and identified terrorist-linked broadcasters on 17 of them. Hezbollah’s Al-Manar satellite television station appeared on all 17, according to their analysis.

Some terrorism-prevention measures have also lapsed. A Sept. 8 Government Accountability Office report found that the 2023 expiration of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program ended continuous screening of roughly 500,000 people for possible terrorist ties. The program covered about 3,200 high-risk chemical facilities, whose owners cannot independently access federal terrorist watchlist information.

As officials who lived through 9/11 reflect on their time in government, they want the next generation to remember how warnings were missed and what it took to get agencies working together.

Goldman said analysts need to keep questioning their conclusions, examining blind spots and sharing information, despite the demands of daily work. Clapper emphasized the difficulty of persuading policymakers to act on a danger the public has not yet experienced.

Ledgett expressed confidence in those who will take their place.

“Everyone eventually retires, and organizations continue,” he said. “The next generation steps up and delivers when needed.”

The U.S. is skilled at responding once a crisis arrives, but has struggled to prepare before it does, Morell said.

“Becoming a nation, a White House, a Congress, an American people that is proactive in preventing things — preventing bad things — is much better than only being reactive to them,” he said.

]]>

Judge considers temporary pause in USDA relocations in new lawsuit

Jory Heckman — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:34:04 -0400

A federal judge in San Francisco is considering a temporary pause of the Agriculture Department’s imminent plans to relocate employees across the country.

U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria told attorneys in a hearing Thursday that he may need to issue a “brief administrative stay” in order to get up to speed on the facts of the case.

A coalition of federal employee labor unions, nonprofits and local governments initially challenged USDA’s relocation plans in July, as part of an ongoing lawsuit over the Trump administration’s mass downsizing of the federal workforce.

But U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston, in a ruling last week, allowed USDA to proceed with its relocation plans and urged plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit if they wanted to keep challenging the agency’s reorganization. Plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California this week.

Chhabria said he plans on issuing an administrative stay that would block USDA from moving forward with its relocation plans until Oct. 2.

"Only if I extend it beyond that will it go beyond that," he said.

The court’s next hearing in this case is currently slated for Sept. 29.

Chhabria said an administrative stay “doesn't say anything about the merits,” or “whether it's a strong or weak case or anything,” but would give him more time to “adjudicate this properly.”

“I don't have a problem with slowing down the schedule. In fact, I think it would be better for everybody involved. Because like I said, these issues appear to be very complicated and Judge Illston's been dealing with them for a long time, but I haven't had to deal with anything remotely like this before,” he said.

Corrine Johnson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said management-directed reassignment letters have gone out to eight USDA components so far. Johnson said about 200 USDA employees have been instructed to report to new offices across the country starting Sept. 21, while others have been instructed to report by Oct. 5.

USDA officials told the court in late August that about 725 employees have received MDR letters so far, and that 64% of them have accepted reassignment.

Employees and union officials, however, say USDA’s acceptance rate is “inflated.” They claim that some workers have accepted relocation notices because that is the only way they can proceed with a request for a hardship or medical exemption. Others say they have nominally agreed to relocate, but are still applying for other jobs. If that those plans fall through, they may quit rather than move.

Justice Department attorney Taylor Pitz told the judge that the government would object to such an administrative stay, and that USDA’s reorganization “has already been well underway” for over a year.

“There's been plenty of interim planning development in the meantime, and this is certainly not the first step of the reorganization. Our understanding is there's already been employees who have needed to vacate certain buildings, so this is just another in many steps that have already been well underway,” Pitz said.

Chhabria said an administrative stay in this case would be “as limited as possible.”

“If somebody has a deadline of like Dec. 1, there's no need for me to stay that, because we're going to have the P.I. motion adjudicated long before that,” he said, referring to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

USDA expects no more than 2,000 of the 4,600 employees currently working in the national capital region will remain there after moving staff to five regional hubs being stood up across the country.

Plaintiffs argue that the relocations are a veiled attempt for USDA to further shrink its workforce. Lawmakers included a provision in the fiscal 2026 appropriations bill for USDA that blocked officials from reorganizing or relocating offices or employees without congressional authorization.

Department officials pushed back on plaintiffs’ claims that its relocation plans are a reduction in force in disguise, but DOJ attorneys told the court that the “reorganization plans include workforce optimization measures, including downsizing.”

DOJ attorneys told the court this summer that USDA hadn’t conducted any attrition analysis on its reorganization plans yet, but will do so, "in conjunction with hiring and facilities planning at relocation sites as it finalizes relocation plans on an agency-by-agency basis."

The Government Accountability Office found the vast majority of employees at the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture quit rather than relocate to Kansas City in 2019.

GAO found that ERS and NIFA dealt with major staffing losses and saw substantial decreases in productivity. According to GAO, it took both agencies about two years to recover from those staffing losses. Even then, the watchdog agency says ERS and NIFA staff are now less experienced and less diverse.

USDA plans to hire 16,000 employees, but senior officials expect these hires will mostly “offset expected attrition," driven by its reorganization plans.

]]>

On 9/11’s 25th anniversary, modernizing government starts with remembering our past

Kshemendra Paul — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 10:12:35 -0400

As we mark the 25th anniversary of Sept.11, 2001, we honor those we lost and reflect on progress in our national security and public safety architectures. Yet behind the ceremonies lies a persistent, quiet vulnerability. Today, public sector Chief Data Officers and Chief Data and AI Officers have inherited the imperative to connect the dots, share information across boundaries, and better serve Americans.

Too often, however, they stumble over the same structural barriers that blinded us a quarter-century ago: isolated data silos, stove-piped legacy systems, failures of intergovernmental coordination, and interagency turf wars. Worse, threats have accelerated, driven by transnational crime, rapid technological advances in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, and geopolitical conflict. These barriers are compounding into AI data readiness gaps. The cost of forgetting is not theoretical.

Following the 9/11 Commission’s diagnosis, legislation informed by the Markle Foundation required the President to establish a cross-domain, whole-of-government Information Sharing Environment (ISE). The ISE attributes were forward-leaning. They anticipated current efforts to catalog data, build trust architectures, and automate discovery. Sharing and safeguarding were treated as aligned, with guardrails for sharing allowing for more lasting, efficient, and secure impact. The underlying approaches were a data-first approach to architecting enterprise transformation and not specific to terrorism-related information.

Through ISE-linked governance, leaders established policies and technologies that strengthened secure information sharing. These efforts contributed to nearly $531 million in savings and allowed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to remove nationwide terrorism-related information sharing from its High-Risk List in 2017. In particular, GAO highlighted leadership commitment among federal, state, local, tribal, international, and private sector partners as a key driver for the collective results.

Yet, a subsequent GAO review underscored that progress stalled as dedicated coordination, partner engagement, investment, and oversight were allowed to lapse. At the 2022 National Summit on Intelligence, hosted by the Department of Homeland Security and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), more than 100 frontline leaders warned that without active governance, cooperation has drifted. Why are we still fighting these battles? We must use this anniversary to pause, remember, and build upon our past successes.

Bridging Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Like many others, I decided to be part of the solution post-9/11. I first served as the Department of Justice’s Chief Enterprise Architect and delivered the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) into use across all 50 states. I then served as the Federal Chief Architect at the Office of Management and Budget. Subsequently, I served for six years as the Presidentially-designated Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE) and governmentwide lead for information sharing.

In that role, I saw firsthand the friction of cross-agency information sharing. Bridging the gap between domestic criminal intelligence and foreign intelligence meant overcoming cultural aversion and perceived risk. There was always tension and pushback from powerful agencies that preferred to operate unilaterally. I sat in rooms where the right answer was obvious and the institutional will to act on it was not.

Acting as an empowered convener backed by the White House, the PM-ISE championed the collaborative, collective approaches that were otherwise impossible. Co-chairing the National Security Council’s (NSC) information sharing and safeguarding inter-agency policy committee, we developed and oversaw implementation of our national strategy. We embedded robust operational policies to protect privacy, and civil liberties—protections that were operationalized nationally and later affirmed in federal courts.

The Operational Impact of Federated Governance

Federated, transparent, participatory, and collaborative governance was the true engine of this progress. It worked because it aligned incentives rather than imposing control: rather than forcing local agencies into a monolithic federal database, we treated state, local, and private sector leaders as first-rank partners through interlocking advisory bodies.

We built upon and integrated successful models like the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) division and its Advisory Policy Board. To bridge information sharing architectures, we partnered closely with industry and standards organizations. That collaboration continues today with NIEMOpen.

A core success of the ISE was delivering the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative into operational use. This standardized tips and leads, used the national network of fusion centers as local filtering, analysis, and information sharing nodes, and successfully integrated a million frontline officers into a national architecture protecting Americans.

To make federated governance tangible for those frontline officers, we championed operational coordination and deconfliction between High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA), Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS), and the National Network of Fusion Centers. While dedicated professionals continue to share tactical intelligence locally, state-wide and regionally, and with federal partners daily through mechanisms such as Joint Terrorism Task Forces, it is the enterprise-level strategic governance required to scale these efforts and connect the dots nationally that has atrophied.

Fortunately, the DOJ’s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative and its Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC) have just been formally rechartered. We have a critical window to restore them to their capstone role with our public safety and domestic law enforcement architecture.

The Thread Forward: Evidence, AI, and Trust

The ISE structural reforms directly connect the hard-earned lessons of post-9/11 counterterrorism to the modern mandates of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, and the urgent need to counter AI-accelerated threats. Today, semantic interoperability is more critical than ever. As NIEM has evolved into NIEMOpen, it restricts governance overhead to the minimum common standards needed across a mission ecosystem, providing the crucial semantic foundation data leaders need.

If we attempt to fuel modern AI tools using the siloed, non-interoperable data architectures of the past, we risk billions in failed IT modernization and dangerous algorithmic hallucinations. Federated and open frameworks like NIEMOpen are not just administrative best practices; they are the semantic prerequisites for trustworthy and interoperable AI.

The Call to Action

On this 25th anniversary, our nation faces a clear choice. To secure our communities and lead in the AI age, the Administration and Congress must take decisive action:

Fully Restore Global and the CICC: Fully empower the newly rechartered Global advisory committee and its CICC. For a local police chief, this federated governance means receiving a single, actionable threat picture rather than drowning in duplicative, siloed federal alerts with resulting likely gaps.

Reconsider the PM-ISE: Congress and the Administration must resolve statutory ambiguities to formally re-establish and empower the Program Manager. Anchoring this role as in the past with the NSC and OMB will provide the independent leverage needed to align federal equities, integrated state and local needs and perspective, and refresh and broaden our national strategy.

Embrace Federated Data Governance for AI: Follow the principles of the Evidence Act and NIEMOpen. We must treat data as an enterprise asset governed by shared semantic standards and robust safeguards. To lead this effort, OMB should lean on agency CDOs to refresh the Federal Data Strategy and consider use of NIEMOpen as the basis for inter-agency and state and local data sharing standards. ensuring our AI models generate trustworthy insights.

The technology of government matters, but it is people, trust, and federated governance that make it work. By bringing back the human and structural DNA of the ISE, we can honor the legacy of 9/11 with enduring institutional renewal.

Kshemendra Paul retired from federal service in 2025. He is recognized for his pioneering results and solutions to improve government services and operations. He started his career in the private sector as technology leader and entrepreneur. In the second half of his career, he served in a variety of federal agencies and the White House in leadership roles such as assistant inspector general, governmentwide lead for information sharing, federal chief architect, and chief data officer. His focus now is public policy advocacy. He also advises leaders and organizations on data and artificial intelligence strategy and governance.

]]>

How 'Star Trek' inspired generations of NASA scientists and astronauts

Deana L. Weibel, The Conversation — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0400

“Star Trek” began as a television series but grew into a cultural phenomenon.

When it premiered in 1966, no one could have predicted that it would lead to more than a dozen spinoff shows, more than a dozen movies and one of the most enduring fandoms in popular culture.

“Star Trek” is also unusual for its close connections to NASA, both in its storylines and in the real world. Decades of “Star Trek” adventures have ignited a love of spaceflight across generations, inspiring many who now work as space professionals.

I’m a cultural anthropologist who studies why people work in space exploration. I’ve interviewed astronomers, engineers, flight surgeons and astronauts. Although I focus more on science fact than science fiction, I’ve noticed in my interviews how much the two threads intertwine.

Because of this, I found myself at a “Star Trek” convention in early August 2026, just ahead of the show’s 60th anniversary on Sept. 8. The convention participants included people of widely different ages, appearances and identities. I was struck by just how much those gathered reflected the series’ values.

When NASA met Star Trek

In the original series, the show’s creator, Gene Roddenberry, came up with a philosophy held by the Vulcan people. He called it IDIC: infinite diversity in infinite combinations. It suggests that an ideal society is made up of many different types, all working together.

It represented Roddenberry’s rejection of conformity. It also explained why the Enterprise crew included a Russian alongside Americans, and Black, Japanese and female characters all in positions of responsibility and authority. While many ordinary viewers absorbed “Star Trek’s” lessons of camaraderie and acceptance, those involved in real space exploration also took notice.

Roddenberry established relationships with NASA personnel in the early days of his series. NASA provided photographs of planetary bodies and advice about the realities of spaceflight, as well as stock footage and access to certain NASA facilities.

Leonard Nimoy, who played the popular character Mr. Spock, was even brought to the National Space Club’s Goddard Memorial Dinner in 1967 as a special guest. Then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey gave the keynote speech. Afterward, though, it was Nimoy, not Humphrey, who found himself surrounded by the club’s members, including NASA employees, aerospace engineers, members of the military and government officials, all eager to meet the actor portraying the starship Enterprise’s first officer.

The relationship between NASA and “Star Trek” benefited the show by legitimizing the series. It also helped NASA by publicizing its work and depicting a positive future where its efforts to land on the Moon would eventually lead to visits to distant worlds – and amazing scientific advances like the show’s transporter and warp drive.

The connection between the space show and space agency was reflected in NASA’s decision to name its first space shuttle Enterprise, after some encouragement from the “Star Trek” fan community.

Inspiring astronauts

In 1977, actress Nichelle Nichols, who portrayed communications officer Uhura, was hired to recruit for NASA. The space agency had expanded its pool of astronauts to include scientists and other “mission specialists.” For the first time, an astronaut no longer needed to be a pilot to participate in a space mission.

NASA selected its first Black astronaut candidates and its first female astronaut candidates in 1978. While this move toward inclusivity may not have been directly influenced by infinite diversity in infinite combinations, it was compatible with it. “Star Trek” inspired many of NASA’s future employees. In interviews for my book “The Ultraview Effect,” a quarter of the space professionals I spoke with mentioned “Star Trek” as an influence.

An Apollo astronaut I interviewed, for instance, said he believed humans would eventually “be able to go anywhere in the universe, just like ‘Star Trek.’”

A young engineer who had grown up in the 1990s told me his motivation came from the “opening line of ‘Star Trek’… to explore strange new worlds.”

A space shuttle mission specialist emphasized Roddenberry’s decision to make the starship crew multicultural, explaining: “Today I look at the diversity of it … he was setting the stage back when it wasn’t acceptable [in order] to be acceptable!”

A changing future

That influence has accompanied a changing astronaut corps.

Both the 2025 astronaut class, which for the first time included more women than men, and the crew of Artemis II, which sent the first woman, first Black astronaut and first Canadian on a lunar mission, resemble the future that “Star Trek” imagined.

The “Star Trek” fans at the convention I attended were even more diverse. It was clear to me that Roddenberry’s “infinite diversity in infinite combinations” isn’t just a concept from the series, but something that has become a defining value of contemporary Trek fandom.

One such fan, Bjo Trimble, holds special status. She is credited with “saving ‘Star Trek’” when the series was almost canceled in 1968 after two seasons. Wearing a rainbow “IDIC” pin, she signed autographs at the SyFy Sistas booth, where T-shirts featuring Black “Star Trek” icons such as Uhura and Benjamin Sisko were on display.

However, with the Trump administration’s recent orders to dismantle all of NASA’s diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs and policies, institutional support for “Star Trek’s” vision of acceptance and inclusivity, which flourishes in its fan base, is being undone. This rollback occurred just as NASA’s crews were reaching new milestones in representing the diverse future that “Star Trek” has encouraged for decades.

Sixty years later, some of the diverse future that “Star Trek” imagined has become part of everyday spaceflight. Other parts of that ideal remain unfinished.

Deana L. Weibel, Professor of Anthropology, Grand Valley State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

]]>

What does 9/11 mean for young public servants who hardly remember it?

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 05:59:00 -0400

Many of the articles about the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, will likely begin with the writer sharing where they were that fateful Tuesday morning. I can’t start this piece that way, however, because I don’t remember anything from that day. Because I was 4.

While there was a time when the only segment of the population that would have had little to no memory of the attacks was young children, I was born the same year as former White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., the youngest member of Congress.

More people who don’t remember 9/11, or were born after it, will continue to enter government service. Nevertheless, three individuals who were young during the attacks — including a federal employee, a veteran and one who worked in national security – said that 9/11 and its aftermath continue to impact the next generation of public servants.

“I feel guilty I don't remember”

While I don’t remember anything from Sept. 11, 2001, I do have memories from the following days — specifically a tribute to the victims on local news and my parents talking about the attacks with their friends at church. Given how unreliable childhood memories can be, however, I’m not confident in my recollections.

Likewise, Megan Anderson — who previously worked for the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, a membership organization for individuals who work in those fields — who was 5 on 9/11 is “pretty confident” she remembers her grandmother picking her up at school.

“I love my grandmother, so I was very excited to see her,” she recalled.

Anderson said that she didn’t see her dad, who worked for the FBI and responded to the Pentagon, for about two weeks after the attack. She said that visits to the building with her dad over the years helped her to make sense of 9/11.

“The big thing that I remember about seeing the Pentagon is my dad walking me through what happened from his perspective,” she said.

Taylor Wensel, the president of a Veterans Affairs Department union local in Utah and a coordinator for the American Federation of Government Employees committee for young members, was also 5 on 9/11 but has no memory of the attacks.

“I even asked my mom a couple times because people bring up what they remember,” Wensel said. “My mom was like, ‘Maybe you were playing with your Barbies.’ I was a Barbie kid, so I was probably playing with Barbies in the basement.”

Every year on 9/11, Wensel watches documentaries about the attacks.

“I feel guilty I don't remember. I don't have my own memories, so I have what's called collective memory, so I'm learning off of other people,” she said. “It was a big thing that happened in my timeline. I looked at my kid, and I said, ‘Hey, you're learning this, but I lived during it, but I don't remember it.’”

“There are people who are innately called to serve…and there are events that make that happen a lot quicker”

When I first pitched this article to my editor, who covered 9/11 as a reporter for Government Executive, she said that the attack initially motivated many people to serve in the federal government. It also led to an uptick in military enlistments.

Frank Lopez — an Air Force veteran who is currently attending Harvard Kennedy School through a fellowship for public servants – remembers being one of the last kids in his second grade class to be picked up on 9/11.

“I think by mistake, looking back now, [my teachers] turned on the television, and I actually saw the planes hit the towers,” he said. “I couldn't really at the time understand what was happening, but I had that feeling that something terrible had gone on.”

As an immigrant from Cuba, Lopez said that he always had a desire to give back to the U.S. but that 9/11 likely “made that happen a lot sooner.”

“I believe that there are people who are innately called to serve. I think that there are events that make that happen a lot quicker,” he said. “9/11 was a culminating event, and it did spur that spirit inside of me.”

Similarly, Anderson said that 9/11 influenced her interest in counterintelligence and counterterrorism work. She also said that the attacks motivated her younger brother, who was 3 in 2001, to join the Marines.

Even Wensel, who has no memory of 9/11, said that it probably impacted her desire to enlist in the military, which was her plan before she became pregnant.

“I think it pushed me to want to protect and to not see that happen — I know it probably won't happen here in Utah — but I don't want to see [9/11] happen again anywhere,” she said.

Still, Wensel sees a connection between her interest in the military and her current role at the VA.

“I do help veterans now, so I get the flip side that they protected me and now I help them in return, which is a nice turnover to me wanting to be a Marine,” she said.

“9/11 was just like a constant”

Even though the people I interviewed have limited recollections of the day itself, they said events that occurred as a result of 9/11 stand out in their memories.

“We launched the war in Iraq, and I remember the local casualties up on the nightly news,” Lopez said. “That stayed with me as a kid. I'd always wonder ‘Why are these people in the situation and why are they here on this television screen and like what's happening?’”

Wensel recalled that her neighbor’s dad was deployed.

“They would send him books and tape recorders, so he could read the books, and then the kids could listen to him,” she said. “That's how I correlated it. We were attacked, and now my neighbor doesn't get to see her dad.”

Anderson said that she woke her dad up in the middle of the night to tell him that Osama bin Laden was killed.

“That was actually something we talked about at school. It was a manhunt like ‘We don't know where he is’ and ‘Oh maybe we found his compound,” she recalled. “That was a really big topic because a lot of people in the area worked for the government, so 9/11 was just like a constant.”

I also remember when bin Laden was killed in 2011, but it’s because President Barack Obama’s announcement interrupted a new episode of “The Celebrity Apprentice,” so I missed which contestant was fired by host Donald Trump.

Lopez, who was deployed to Kuwait and Syria from 2019 through 2020, also brought up his memories of the 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, specifically the suicide bombing at a Kabul airport that killed more than 180 people, including 13 U.S. service members.

“I remember vividly sitting around the screen with my guys and gals, and we were talking through how centralizing forces within one airport and over the mission planning that would go behind an operation like that in order to get these folks out of there. We war-gamed it basically, and we all determined that what would happen is X potentially, like there's a high probability it would happen,” he said. “Sure enough, a day or two after, that same thing happened. I thought that was a complete — complete — operational failure, at least the aspect of those folks getting killed, I think it could have been avoided.”

Generational differences

Given that the people I interviewed were all young when 9/11 happened, I asked them if there are other national tragedies that stood out more clearly in their memories. Some of the events that they mentioned included Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012 and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Wensel also brought up a bomb threat at her school that was connected with a belief that the world was going to end on Dec. 21, 2012, based on the ancient Mayan calendar.

“I remember the lockdown and the cop standing by the door all puffed up. He was a pretty big guy, but short, so it was pretty funny seeing him stock up,” she said. “I remember my parents texting us asking, ‘How's the day going? If anything weird's going on, you guys can leave whenever you want,’ which my parents never said that any other day.”

While many of the individuals entering public service today were born pre-9/11, they may only remember a post-9/11 world. As such, a large-scale terrorist attack occurring on U.S. soil, or a school being put into lockdown over a conspiracy theory, is not a wholly unexpected event for them.

“Younger generations get digged at because we’ve generally had pretty decent lives, but we’ve had all these big life events that have caused little things to change,” Wensel said. “My parents will be like ‘Oh, you guys had it easy.’ I beg to differ. I’d rather go through another 2008 recession if it can prevent more school shootings.”

]]>

Bill would let federal whistleblowers sue if disciplined over violating NDAs

Erich Wagner — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 17:50:18 -0400

A pair of House Democrats introduced legislation last month that seeks to strengthen federal whistleblower protections in the face of the Trump administration’s effort to instill a standard non-disclosure agreement for use across government.

The Federal Worker Protection Act (H.R. 10198), introduced by Reps. Eugene Vindman and Suhas Subramanyam, both D-Va., would require every NDA issued by federal agencies to include a statement of federal employees’ whistleblower protection rights adjacent to each signature line in the document. Agencies would need preclearance from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel before deploying an NDA, and OSC would create a public repository of every NDA in use.

In the biggest departure from existing policy, federal employes removed or disciplined for violating an NDA in connection with a protected disclosure could sue their employing agency directly in federal district court. Currently, a whistleblower must go to their agency’s inspector general or OSC and then the Merit Systems Protection Board before appealing to a federal circuit court.

The Democrats’ legislation comes as the Trump administration weighs a proposal to institute a standardized governmentwide NDA for federal workers to sign, and shortly after the Office of Personnel Management in July finalized regulations granting itself the ability to remove federal workers for violating or refusing to comply with an NDA or other instances of “post-employment conduct” via suitability decisions, which bypass most of federal workers’ appeal rights.

And the National Security Agency’s inspector general reported last month that most of that agency’s NDAs already do not sufficiently inform employees of their whistleblower rights.

Allen Shoikhetbrod, managing partner at federal employment law firm Tully Rinckey PLLC, noted that bill’s proposed private right of action could open agencies up to liability unseen in most administratively channeled federal employment cases.

“It potentially creates an explicit private right to bring action in federal court to seek an injunction, damages, attorney fees and civil penalties for violations,” he said. “A judge could void noncompliant NDAs, or even just void a provision that would make them unenforceable altogether.”

In a statement, Vindman, whose brother Alexander Vindman’s whistleblowing led to President Trump’s first impeachment, warned the proposed NDA would have a chilling effect on the federal workforce.

“Federal workers should never have to choose between doing their jobs and speaking up when they see something wrong,” he said. “Last fall, I hosted a town hall for federal employees, where I heard directly from them about the fear and pressure they were facing. These are people who have dedicated their careers to serving their country and our communities. This legislation makes clear that public servants who speak up will not face politically motivated retaliation.”

]]>

What 9/11 can teach federal families about benefits

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 15:00:00 -0400

Every year, the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, brings back the same difficult truth: federal service is not always performed behind a desk, and risk does not always announce itself in advance. Sixty-nine federal employees were among those who died that day — including 62 at the Pentagon, three at the World Trade Center, three aboard Flight 93, one aboard Flight 77 at the Pentagon and one aboard Flight 175 at the World Trade Center. Many more reported for duty afterward to secure facilities, investigate the attacks, transport people, provide emergency assistance and help the country recover.

For their families, the lesson is not only one of remembrance. It is also a benefits lesson. If a civilian federal employee is injured, develops an occupational illness or dies because of federal employment, the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act may provide important protection.

FECA is the federal government’s workers’ compensation program for civilian employees, administered by the Labor Department’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. It can pay for medical treatment, replace part of lost wages, provide compensation for permanent impairment and, in fatal cases, provide benefits to eligible survivors.

This is where many employees and families get into trouble: They know there are “benefits,” but they do not know which benefit applies, who administers it or what evidence is needed. A traumatic injury is generally tied to a specific incident during one workday or shift and is reported on Form CA-1. An occupational disease or illness develops over more than one workday or shift and is reported on Form CA-2. Wage-loss compensation is generally claimed separately, often with Form CA-7.

These distinctions are more than paperwork. They affect deadlines, agency responsibilities, medical documentation and how the claim is developed.

For survivors, FECA death benefits can be a critical source of financial protection. If the employee’s death was caused by a work-related injury or occupational illness, eligible dependents may receive recurring compensation based on the employee’s pay, subject to limits under the law. A surviving spouse may qualify. Eligible children may be included. In some situations, other dependent relatives may have rights as well.

FECA may also help with funeral and burial expenses and transportation of remains when applicable. But these benefits are not automatic just because the person worked for the federal government. The claim must show that the death was causally related to federal employment.

That means survivors need records. A surviving spouse or eligible children generally use Form CA-5 to claim compensation. Other dependent relatives may use Form CA-5b.

The file may need a death certificate, medical reports explaining the cause of death, proof of marriage or dependency, birth or adoption records, incident reports, position descriptions, exposure records and any prior FECA claim information. When the death follows an accepted work injury, the earlier claim file may be especially important. When the illness appears years later, the quality of the medical explanation and the factual history can make all the difference.

Sept. 11 also reminds us that not every compensable condition is visible on the day of the event. Some injuries are immediate, but others involve exposure, cumulative stress or occupational disease that may not be diagnosed until later.

Employees should not wait to document what happened. Write down where you were assigned, what you were exposed to, who was with you, what symptoms developed and what medical care you received. Survivors should ask whether an incident report was filed, whether there was a prior FECA claim and whether agency or medical records connect the condition to federal duty.

FECA is also only one part of the survivor-benefits picture. A family may also need to deal with the employing agency, the Office of Personnel Management, Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance, the Thrift Savings Plan, Social Security and, in certain 9/11-related circumstances, other specialized programs.

These programs do not all use the same forms, deadlines or rules. Filing a FECA claim does not automatically file a retirement survivor annuity claim, a life insurance claim, a TSP beneficiary claim or a Social Security survivor claim.

Here is the practical advice I would give any federal employee: Do not leave your family to search for help as if they were on a scavenger hunt. Keep beneficiary designations current. Tell your spouse, adult child or trusted person where to find your personnel records, FECA correspondence, insurance information, TSP account information, medical records and emergency contacts.

If your work involves unusual hazards, deployments, emergency response, law enforcement, security operations, transportation, public health or disaster recovery, keep records that explain what you did and where you served.

A practical family checklist: Know the employing agency contact; know whether a FECA claim was ever filed; keep copies of medical, exposure and incident records; preserve marriage, birth, adoption and dependency documents; confirm beneficiary designations for life insurance and TSP; keep the death certificate and final medical records; ask promptly about FECA death benefits; and remember that a delayed illness, retirement or separation from service does not necessarily end the question of whether a condition was work-related.

Forms and resources to know: The Labor Department’s FECA program website and OWCP forms page are the official places to find current instructions, forms and claim resources.

CA-1 for a traumatic injury that occurs during one workday or shift;
CA-2 for an occupational disease or illness that develops over more than one workday or shift;
CA-7 to claim wage-loss compensation;
CA-5 when a surviving spouse or eligible child claims death compensation;
CA-5b when another dependent relative files a survivor claim.

Employees and survivors can learn more about filing a claim and how to use the Labor Department’s ECOMP system to start claims, upload supporting documents and follow claim activity.

The anniversary of 9/11 is a time to remember the lives lost and the service given. It is also a reminder to prepare. FECA cannot remove grief, but it can provide medical support, income protection and survivor benefits when the requirements are met.

Families are in the best position when they know the benefit exists, understand that documentation matters and have the records needed to act quickly. In federal benefits, as in retirement planning, the best time to get organized is before there is an emergency.

]]>

USPS workers most impacted by mail-in ballot EO haven’t been trained yet, union warns

Jory Heckman — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:49:51 -0400

The Postal Service’s top executive says the agency stands in the middle of a legal battle over mail-in ballots that is largely out of its control.

The head of the American Postal Workers Union says its frontline employees are being put in a similar situation.

In the lead up to this year’s midterm election, federal lawsuits are challenging the Trump administration’s executive order imposing new rules on mail-in voting. Those cases are once again before the Supreme Court.

APWU President Jonathan Smith told Government Executive that bargaining unit employees haven’t gotten training on the changes outlined in the Trump administration’s executive order. USPS, he added, is contractually required to meet with the union before making any significant changes to the work that bargaining unit employees are expected to perform.

“They’re going outside of the normal measures that we go through. In the contract, they're required, when there's a serious change in the duty assignment, to sit down with the union and explain to the union what you're asking the people that I represent to do. None of that has happened. They have not been trained,” Smith said.

In a final rule USPS released in August, any state that plans to use mail-in or absentee ballots must provide USPS with a list of participating voters. The final rule also establishes new barcode and envelope-formatting requirements. USPS provided nonbinding guidance to states in previous elections, but now says it will reject ballots that don’t meet its standards.

APWU raised its concerns to the Supreme Court in an amicus curiae brief filed on Wednesday.

"The Final Rule would likely cause catastrophic wholesale non-delivery of mail to hundreds of thousands of voters. An enormous number of postal clerks in facilities nationwide would be needed to implement the Final Rule’s restrictions on mail ballot acceptance," the union wrote. "These postal clerks cannot realistically be trained in the operation of the Ballot Portal in the short time before the November elections. The hurried launch of this unprecedented system, at odds with the normal workflow of the Postal Service, will inevitably grind the operation of the postal system to a halt, delaying or preventing timely delivery of mail ballots."

APWU represents the frontline Business Mail Entry Unit (BMEU) clerks who accept large batches of mail-in ballots to be delivered to voters. According to a USPS whistleblower, these clerks will scan a sample of each batch to confirm the voter information on individual ballots matches the information states uploaded to an online portal. APWU also represents the IT workers tasked with creating that online portal.

The whistleblower claims that if clerks identify any errors in the sample, USPS will refuse to accept the entire batch - in many cases, tens of thousands of ballots - until election officials resolve these errors.

“We have the best postal system in the world because we are great at doing what we are trained to do. We are not great at doing what we're not trained to do," Smith said.

Last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction barring USPS from taking further steps to implement key provisions of its final rule. The Trump administration quickly appealed that ruling and the Supreme Court will soon have the final word on the legality of the executive order.

If the Supreme Court clears the way for USPS to implement the executive order, Smith said frontline employees represented by APWU will have little time to prepare for these changes. North Carolina began mailing ballots last week, and more states are expected to mail theirs in the coming weeks.

USPS conferred with APWU the last time the mail agency was tasked with carrying out new, complex work in a short amount of time – working with the Biden administration to mail millions of COVID-19 tests to households.

APWU signed a memorandum of understanding with USPS in 2022 that allowed postal clerks covered under its collective bargaining agreement to package and label parcels that contained free COVID tests. The memo stated this was “new work” that postal clerks were ordinarily not expected to perform.

“It addresses a problem that does not exist,” Smith said about the mail-in ballot executive order. “It’s to create chaos and put doubt in the American people's minds about voting by mail.”

Smith said he’s concerned the public will blame frontline USPS workers if they run into problems receiving a mail-in ballot this fall. He said the Trump administration is “giving the false impression that postal workers should determine who gets a ballot and who doesn't get a ballot.”

“When a customer does not receive their ballot, they're not going back to the White House. They're not going back to upper-echelon postal officials. They're coming to that poor frontline clerk, angry and upset,” Smith said. “We never should put our employees in that position. It's a dangerous position to take, and no one is talking about the safety and the security of the clerk who's just doing their job, doing what they’re told when they have no choice.”

Smith said that USPS employees are well-versed in carrying out “extraordinary measures” for mail-in ballots in the run-up to elections. Those include extra deliveries and collections, special pickups, expanded hours at processing plants, Sunday collections and visual checks of various points for ballots.

Postmaster General David Steiner told Government Executive in an interview last month that USPS will continue to carry out these extraordinary measures. But Smith said the steps USPS is expected to take under the executive order will make it harder to carry out those extraordinary measures.

“We're going to do what we have always done,” Smith said. “We are going to deliver, and we are going to do the best possible job we can do, but do not put us in a position to fail, is what we're saying, and that's what's happening right here.”

Steiner said USPS “is not a political organization,” and is prepared to carry out its end of the executive order if the Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of the administration, or comply if the court decides to permanently block the EO’s implementation.

Steiner said implementation of the executive order is “really not dramatically different than what we've been doing for years.” Smith, however, said many of the employees he represents feel unprepared for changes that may be coming.

“Talking to the people I represent, they don't even want to do this. They're not comfortable doing this. The postmaster general says this is not much different than what we regularly do … This is totally different,” Smith said. “What other mail do we verify who can get it and who can't get it? Don't tell me it's nothing different than what we've ever done before. It's totally different. It's not our job to determine who can receive mail. It's our job to deliver the mail. The blame is already being laid where it doesn't belong.”

USPS is tasked under the executive order with launching a Federal Mail Ballot Portal for states to upload their voter lists. Steiner told Government Executive interview that creating the portal “did take a little bit of IT time, but not a dramatic amount.”

“We create the portal, and then all we have to do is compare that manifest to the ballots that get mailed out to make sure that all the ballots were mailed to the right person. It's what we do every day,” Steiner said in the interview in August.

Smith said USPS is putting together the portal under an accelerated timeline with insufficient time for testing.

“They're asking them what would normally take more than a year to do in a matter of three months. That's a recipe for disaster,” Smith said. “They're prepared to release something this critical, knowing it's impossible to get all the bugs out of the portal.”

A USPS whistleblower recently claimed that the agency has rushed to complete work on the portal, and hasn’t followed “standard principles of testing and debugging new software before launch.”

Steiner said in a statement last Friday the USPS “takes these concerns seriously,” and those concerns have been “promptly escalated to the appropriate decision-makers.”

USPS Chief Customer and Marketing Officer and Executive Vice President Steven Monteith told the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts last week that the portal should be “available to users for voluntary use” sometime this week.

“If you're saying ‘ready’ is, ‘We’ve got an acceptable amount of bugs in the system, where it will only reject about 10% of the ballots,’ then we're going away from our oath that everybody has a right to a vote, and everybody has a right to a ballot. That's unacceptable,” Smith said.

In his statement last Friday, Steiner said that although USPS developed the portal on an accelerated schedule, "our standards for quality, security, and system integrity were not compromised.”

“Testing and validation have been continuous throughout the development lifecycle, and our process requires that deployment be delayed whenever significant defects or security vulnerabilities are identified, until those issues are appropriately resolved,” he said.

]]>

Don’t let federal agencies judge their own discrimination cases

Kendrick Roberson — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 07:00:00 -0400

For more than two million federal workers nationwide, the Trump administration has proposed taking away their automatic right to request a hearing before an impartial judge when they face workplace discrimination. If adopted, the proposal would make it harder for federal workers to challenge discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was expressly designed to protect workers from discrimination.

Specifically, the proposed rules would eliminate federal and D.C. government employees' automatic right to have their discrimination cases reviewed by a neutral administrative judge. Instead, the worker's employer would initially decide whether discrimination occurred. The worker could then appeal that decision to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and request that the commission refer the case to an administrative judge, but such a referral would be discretionary.

That change would create a clear conflict of interest. The same agency accused of discrimination would investigate the complaint and initially decide whether discrimination occurred.

The impartial hearing is crucial.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to protect people in the United States from discrimination, and Title VII of that law specifically protects workers from discrimination. To enforce these protections, the law also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whose stated mission is to "eliminate unlawful employment discrimination."

For many decades, federal workers who faced discrimination in the workplace have been able to appeal to the EEOC for relief and justice. For the past 40 years, they have had the right to request a hearing before an impartial administrative judge if they believed they were discriminated against on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, disability, age, religion, genetic information or retaliation. The Trump administration seeks to end that automatic right and instead make an administrative judge hearing available only when the EEOC determines that such proceedings are necessary or efficient to resolve an appeal.

Under the current process, when a federal worker claims they faced discrimination in the workplace, the worker's employer is responsible for receiving the discrimination complaint, investigating it within 180 days and creating a report of the investigation.

If the employer is then in charge of deciding whether discrimination occurred and whether the employer will owe the worker restitution, federal workers are subject to a situation where the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The employer has a strong interest in deciding that the worker was not subject to discrimination. In FY 2021, agencies issued 5,604 merit final agency decisions that did not involve an administrative judge, and 109 of those decisions found discrimination. By comparison, 3,821 final orders implementing administrative judge decisions included 112 findings of discrimination.

This is why, in most circumstances, rather than have the employer make the decision, employees have a better opportunity to achieve justice by exercising their right to request a fair hearing before an administrative judge, which would be their first time engaging with a neutral party.

For example, we often represent employees who file discrimination complaints because their immediate supervisor sexually harassed them repeatedly and upper-level management knew and did nothing about it. Under the proposed rule, an agency would investigate the complaint and issue a final decision before the employee could appeal to the EEOC. The employee could request that the EEOC refer the case to an administrative judge, but the commission would decide whether such proceedings were necessary or efficient to resolve the appeal.

That means the agency that already controls the complaint and investigation process would initially decide whether the supervisor's actions constituted sexual harassment, whether management took appropriate action to stop the harassment, whether the employee is entitled to damages and, if so, the amount of those damages.

The historical data from the FY 2021 Annual Report also shows that administrative judge decisions accounted for a substantial share of findings of discrimination. Of the 221 findings of discrimination reported that year, 112 came through final orders implementing administrative judge decisions, while 109 came through final agency decisions without an administrative judge.

Furthermore, there are numerous instances when the federal agency that employs the worker does not complete its discrimination investigation within the 180-day deadline. Under the current process, when the investigation is complete, the employee can request a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge. The FY 2021 EEOC report found that agencies completed 86.4% of investigations on time, meaning thousands were not completed within 180 days.

We have represented many cases at the Department of Veterans Affairs where nurses with physical disabilities were fired or suspended for taking the same actions as employees without disabilities who were not disciplined. In many of these cases, the VA has blown through its deadlines to investigate the discrimination, and it was only through our ability to request intervention from a neutral judge that we were able to have the claims fully investigated and win relief for these nurses.

The proposed changes would remove that automatic avenue for these nurses and instead require them to wait for the agency to conduct its investigation and issue a final decision before appealing to the EEOC. Meanwhile, the nurses could be out of work and without a paycheck.

If this rule becomes final, there would also be significant practical and financial burdens placed on workers who allege discrimination. Court cases are complex and often involve significant court and attorney's fees. By taking away the automatic right to a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge and making such proceedings discretionary on appeal, the proposed rule's real effect would be to discourage employees from pursuing claims of illegal discrimination and make it harder for those who do move forward to challenge that discrimination successfully.

Every federal worker could be affected by this rule change, as the EEOC hearing process helps protect workers from discrimination as Congress intended. Although the proposed changes are currently targeted at federal and D.C. government employees, the rights of all workers are at stake and are under attack. This Trump administration has shown a malignant hunger to dismantle the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and this new proposed rule is a big, vicious bite.

Kendrick Roberson is a national vice president for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 820,000 federal employees. He leads AFGE's civil rights department, which represents members in discrimination cases through its Women and Fair Practices departments. Roberson is also a professor of labor at UCLA.

]]>

Trump signs veterans benefits order calling for improved data sharing

Christian Robles — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 17:03:18 -0400

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday afternoon that seeks to give veterans quicker access to benefits and services by enhancing data sharing between the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs, requiring a review of relevant information technology contracts and deploying new digital tools to process claims.

The order gives the Department of Defense 30 days to ensure all current servicemembers’ military personnel files, health records and service treatment records are shared with the VA as soon as they are released or discharged from military service. It currently takes 90 to 180 days for records to be exchanged when service members transition to civilian life because of legacy systems, according to a White House fact sheet.

The directive instructs DOD and VA to create guidance and information technology systems within 180 days that would ensure the “permanent, prospective and ongoing sharing” of records from the moment an individual enters military service until they no longer need VA benefits.

Enhanced data sharing between the two departments could help veterans receive benefits more quickly.

VA has reduced the amount of time it takes to process disability claims from 141.5 days to 76.1 days on average under the second Trump administration, according to a Tuesday VA press release. Sharing military records between DOD and VA could trim the average processing time by another 20 to 30 days, the release added.

“Giving VA continuous access to warfighters’ military records will eliminate weeks of waiting for Veterans applying for VA healthcare and financial benefits,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a statement. “We want to make the transition from military to Veteran status as seamless as possible, and we look forward to working with President Trump and Department of War Secretary Pete Hegseth to do just that.”

The order also gives DOD and VA 120 days to conduct a review of existing information technology systems and software contracts. The analysis — in collaboration with the Health and Human Services Department and the Office of Management and Budget — will include a mandate that IT systems be interoperable with systems for military personnel, health records and service treatment records, according to the order.

The directive tasks DOD with updating relevant programs — including the Transition Assistance Program — within 180 days.

A DOD spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, while a VA spokesperson pointed to the press release.

In addition to interoperability, the order tasks the two departments with deploying artificial intelligence and emerging technologies that would streamline veterans’ applications for benefits within 180 days. The digital tools would come in a “comprehensive single source” and include job training opportunities offered by the Labor Department, the order added.

VA is already using AI and automation to speed up veterans' claims processing. Democrats are concerned that those technologies are leading to greater errors in benefits processing, but VA officials have denied those charges and emphasized that human reviewers make final claims decisions rather than AI.

]]>

GSA announces per diem increases for feds this fall

Erich Wagner — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 16:18:12 -0400

The General Services Administration announced Wednesday that it would increase per diem rates associated with lodging when fiscal 2027 begins on Oct. 1.

Each year, GSA updates the reimbursement rates it offers federal employees who travel on official business, based upon the average daily rate at hotels in each region of the continental United States. Beginning in October, the agency said it will increase the base lodging rate from $110 to $113 per night.

The update, announced in a filing scheduled for publication in the Federal Register Thursday, does not include changes to other federal per diem rates. The standard meal and incidental expenses rate will stay at $68, while non-standard meal and incidentals rates will remain between $68 and $92.

Last year, GSA kept all per diem rates static. The last time the reimbursement rate for meal and incidentals increased was October 2024.

Unlike previous years, no regions were added or removed from the list of locations with reimbursement rates higher than the base amount. In 2024, six cities were removed from the list, while in 2023, GSA added two cities while removing 16 others.

With Wednesday’s filing, GSA has updated its online tool where federal workers can check the per diem rates throughout the continental U.S., which is available on the agency’s website.

]]>

Trump is staffing up agencies with political appointees. They’re not sticking around, new analysis finds

Sean Michael Newhouse — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 15:12:25 -0400

While Trump officials are installing a historically high number of political appointees in the federal government, those individuals are leaving their positions at higher rates than other recent presidential administrations, according to an analysis published Wednesday.

“The turnover among non-Senate-confirmed appointees stands out across every measure — in its scale, in its spread across agencies and in the speed with which appointees have left,” wrote Chris Piper, a researcher for the Partnership for Public Service nonprofit, which has been critical of the Trump administration’s cuts to the civil service.

During the first 18 months of Trump’s second term, more than 930 non-career members of the Senior Executive Service and Schedule C political appointees have left the federal government. That’s higher than the number who departed within the same timeframe under the presidencies of Barack Obama (426), Trump’s first term (592) and Joe Biden (432).

In response, the administration has brought on a higher-than-usual number of new appointees, according to the Partnership. Trump since January has made roughly 160 non-Senate-confirmed appointments per month compared with an average of about 70 under Obama, Trump’s first term and Biden during the same period.

As a percentage, nearly a quarter (24.6%) of the political appointees who were hired during the first 18 months of Trump’s second term have exited government, which is a higher rate than at the same point during the Obama (20.4%) and Biden (18.4%) administrations but lower than the share during Trump’s first term (28.3%).

“High turnover among political appointees is not an anomaly of the second Trump administration so much as a pattern across both of his terms,” Piper wrote.

Researchers wrote that the “steepest” losses have occurred at the Homeland Security Department, where 97 non-Senate-confirmed appointees have departed. DHS, which has received billions in additional dollars for immigration enforcement, also experienced turnover at the very top with Secretary Markwayne Mullin in the spring replacing Kristi Noem.

Additionally, the Partnership found that nearly 45% of the departing political appointees served for less than a year, and more than a quarter stayed with the government for six months or less. The researchers noted, however, that the percentages are likely higher because the Office of Personnel Management doesn’t record how long a political appointee stays in a given role but rather their total amount of time in government, which can include work under a different administration.

“The share who served less than a year, and less than six months, include…appointees who came in with prior federal service. Their recorded totals reflect earlier government work on top of their time in this administration,” Piper wrote. “Strip that earlier service out and the share of appointees who spent less than a year, or less than six months, in the second Trump administration would be higher still.”

In July, the Partnership similarly found that Senate-confirmed officials in the second Trump administration were leaving their positions at record rates. The nonprofit also reported in the spring that, under the current president, the federal political appointee workforce was at its largest size in decades while the number of career employees in the Senior Executive Service, the highest-ranking career staffers, had decreased by 30%.

The organization warned that high turnover among political appointees paired with fewer senior career leaders could make it more difficult for agencies to operate effectively.

“The second Trump administration has pushed a familiar pattern to a new high, losing more of these appointees, and losing them faster, than any recent president,” Piper wrote. “When churn at that level meets a career leadership already thinned by heavy attrition, agencies have less continuity to fall back on.”

]]>

For federal executives, retirement means losing more than a job

Joy Levin — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 13:08:14 -0400

Career Senior Executive Service ranks have dropped nearly 30% since the end of the Biden administration, falling from 8,127 members to 5,837 by January 2026, the lowest level on record since at least 1998. Notably, the Partnership for Public Service warned in a March report that the shrinking career SES will mean a real loss of institutional knowledge and operational continuity across agencies. Furthermore, roughly 105,000 federal employees are projected to retire across all grades by the end of 2026.

Agencies and OPM extensively cover the financial impacts of this for retirees in FERS annuity calculations, TSP withdrawal strategy, and FEHB and Medicare coordination. What gets far less structured attention is whether the executives behind those numbers are personally ready for what comes after the title, the clearance and the mission disappear. The same retirement wave carries costs for the agencies losing this expertise, and agencies have preparation of their own to do.

What makes this different for federal executives

For a career GS-15 or SES executive, that gap works differently than for a private-sector retiree. A corporate title can often be replaced with consulting work or a board seat. A federal clearance typically cannot be carried forward without a new sponsor, and a mission-driven identity built over two or three decades of public service has no clean private-sector substitute.

A departing federal executive gives up more than a general sense of loss: signature authority over budgets and programs, standing relationships with the GS-14s and 15s they were mentoring toward the SES track, and a clearance that, until it lapses, still defines what rooms a person can be in.

What this means for Gen X/Generation Jones

Gen X and Generation Jones federal employees also have no experiential template for this: They are the first cohort retiring almost entirely under FERS rather than the older CSRS pension structure, and that timing carries implications for the federal agencies they are leaving, too, since this cohort is retiring into an SES bench that has shrunk by nearly a third in two years. Previous generations handed off to a peer who had come up through the same institutional culture. However, with political appointees now filling a large share of senior roles, the current wave increasingly hands off to a smaller, thinner circle of career colleagues, or to no one at all.

What federal executives can do

Federal executives approaching retirement can treat identity readiness as its own planning track, run on the same timeline as the benefits paperwork rather than after it. Four moves matter most.

First, map what the title actually provides, roughly 12 to 18 months out: Consider decision authority, access, daily structure and recognition. Decide which to rebuild deliberately. Retirement advice usually covers what to retire toward, but rarely what to retire with. SES executives leave with real skills and talents intact. Deciding which to keep using, and how, matters as much as deciding what to build next.
Second, run that mapping alongside the OPM retirement application rather than after it. Digital applications are averaging well over three months this year, and the full wait to a first annuity check often runs six to nine months, long enough that postponed identity work can sit untouched for most of a year.
Third, decide early whether cleared work is part of the plan. Transferring a clearance to a private-sector or consulting role generally has to be worked out before separation, not after.
Fourth, build the identity conversation into the benefits counseling session a spouse or partner often already attends, rather than scheduling it separately. Retirement changes the household's structure and belongs in that conversation.

What agencies can change

Agencies have leverage here, too:

Pre-retirement seminars can add a structured identity-transition module alongside the FERS and TSP content. A deeper approach, rather than a single slide or an optional webinar, gives both the executive and the agency a clearer transition to plan around.
Succession planning can build in a formal knowledge-transfer period, pairing a departing senior executive with a successor for the final several months, giving the departing executive a defined role until the end instead of a hard stop.
Structured retirement coaching support, in-house or external, can serve both sides of that handoff: a framework for the executive's identity readiness and better-documented knowledge transfer for the agency.
And HR leadership can start tracking identity-related retirement risk the way it already tracks eligibility and succession pipeline data on OPM's dashboard: Which senior leaders are eligible to retire, and which of them have no plan beyond the paperwork? None of this shows up on that dashboard today, which may be exactly why it has gone unaddressed.

Agencies have gotten very good at measuring who can retire and when. The open question is whether agencies, and the executives themselves, are equally prepared for what retirement actually asks of a person who has spent a career being the one with the clearance and the mission.

Joy Levin is a Certified Professional Retirement Coach and founder of Gen X Exec Encore. She spent nearly 30 years in market research before shifting her focus to executive transition coaching and works with Gen X and Generation Jones leaders, including federal executives, preparing for retirement.

]]>

Air traffic controllers are still waiting on 2.8% of their congressionally approved pay raise

Erich Wagner — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 18:25:29 -0400

Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin, both D-Ill., last week urged Federal Aviation Administrator Bryan Bedford to greenlight the remaining 70% of a pay raise Congress appropriated for air traffic controllers last April.

As part of the spending package that ended the 76-day shutdown of the Homeland Security Department, Congress authorized a 3.8% pay raise for federal air traffic controllers, backdated to January, and set aside $140 million in appropriations to pay for it.

But Washington Examiner reported last month that Bedford has thus far only authorized a 1% raise and has withheld the remaining 2.8% increase. That’s because the law authorizing the pay increase granted him “sole discretion” to ensure improvements in “workforce scheduling, staffing utilization or other operational efficiencies” first.

“I can tell you many examples I’ve looked at would indicate there is a lot we can do to better utilize the limited staff we have when there’s actually traffic to control, as opposed to having lots of staff around when there’s very limited traffic to control,” Bedford told the Examiner.

But in a letter to Bedford, the Democratic senators described the law’s conditions as “not a high bar” and said leadership is asking for too much from the beleaguered ATC workforce, who are already chronically understaffed and overworked in one of the most stressful government jobs. They suggested Bedford is using the pending pay raise as leverage in negotiations with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association to further increase employees’ workloads.

“Holding air traffic controllers’ remaining 2.8% pay increase hostage to force a workforce that has operated under mandatory overtime for years to work longer hours is petty, disrespectful and counterproductive,” Duckworth and Durbin wrote. “Whether the Trump administration’s Brand New Air Traffic Control System succeeds or fails will depend on the morale of the people expected to run it.”

The fracas over the pay raise comes as the Trump administration takes a more punitive approach to air traffic controllers. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy suggested ATCs could be “punished” if they called in sick during another government shutdown last fall, and the FAA moved to fire two air traffic controllers at LaGuardia Airport after they left work early upon completing their duties—a common practice across the agency—which reportedly contributed to a crash between an Air Canada jet and a firetruck last March.

Further stretching air traffic controllers’ hours or workloads will lead to more safety incidents, not less, the senators wrote.

“Squeezing more ‘utilization’ out o fair traffic controllers who have been understaffed, underpaid and overworked for years will weaken retention and undermine aviation safety,” they wrote. “Your own [workforce] plan says as much: ‘Chronic use of overtime leads to fatigue, controller burnout and ultimately loss of retention.’”

]]>

CDC, after months of delays, gives employees 20 days to resubmit disability accommodation documentation

Jory Heckman — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:45:50 -0400

Employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention waiting for the agency to process their accommodation requests for disabilities and medical conditions are facing an imminent deadline to submit supporting medical documentation – even if they have already done so.

CDC, in an email sent on Aug. 20, told employees with pending reasonable accommodation requests that they must resubmit their supporting medical documentation within 20 calendar days. That deadline is Sept. 9.

In the email obtained by Government Executive from two sources, CDC states that if employees don’t receive the requested documents within that timeframe, “your case will be administratively closed.” The email also tells employees that any interim accommodations “will also cease upon administrative closure of the case.”

“As part of the ongoing reconciliation of Reasonable Accommodation Program records, we need to ensure that the medical documentation supporting your request is available for review,” the email states.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ updated reasonable accommodation policy states employees have 20 calendar days to submit their medical documentation once requested by their agency, “though reasonable extensions may be granted.” If a reasonable accommodation coordinator finds an individual’s medical documentation is insufficient, they may get the opportunity to provide additional documentation.

CDC’s instructions go beyond what’s stated in the department’s policy. The agency is directing employees who have already provided supporting medical documentation to update or resubmit their medical documentation. According to the memo, the agency is seeking this paperwork from employees in the following circumstances:

“If you previously submitted medical documentation, please forward or resend a copy so that it can be associated with your current case.”
“If your previously submitted documentation is no longer current (i.e. older than 6 months) or your circumstances have changed, please provide updated medical documentation.”
“If you have not previously submitted medical documentation in support of this request, please provide the initial supporting medical documentation.”

CDC employees and their union, as well as a reasonable accommodation expert, say these instructions are unusual, and raise new hurdles for workers who have already waited months or longer for the agency to process their paperwork.

CDC faces a backlog of about 3,000 reasonable accommodation requests that it expects will take six-to-eight months to process. HHS overall is dealing with a backlog of about 9,000 reasonable accommodation requests.

When asked why CDC employees are being asked to resubmit or update their supporting medical documentation, an HHS spokesperson said in a statement that “this reflects a misunderstanding of the documentation process.”

“When an employee submits a reasonable accommodation request, they explain the accommodation they are requesting. Someone then follows up with the employee to determine whether medical documentation is needed to support the request. If documentation is required, the employee has 20 days to provide it. If they do not provide it within that timeframe, the request may be closed,” the HHS spokesperson said. “The employee may also let us know that they no longer need an accommodation.”

Jodi Hershey, a former reasonable accommodation specialist at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the founder of the workplace accommodation firm EASE, LLC, said CDC is “ignoring a basic principle” that “an agency shouldn't demand more medical documentation than it actually needs.”

HHS's policy states that once an employee submits medical documentation establishing a disability and describing functional limitations, the case moves to a decision. The policy states that component agencies may not request more medical information from employees once they have provided “sufficient information to document the existence of a disability and their functional limitations related to the request.”

“For employees who already submitted sufficient documentation, a blanket demand to resend or refresh it isn't just unnecessary. It runs against what the policy instructs,” Hershey said.

One CDC employee, who preferred to be unnamed due to fears of retaliation, said they have now submitted three different reasonable accommodation requests for telework and have never gotten a decision back on any of them.

The employee sent the first one in summer 2025 and didn’t receive a response until an official sent an acknowledgement of receipt in December 2025. Despite following up with the official, the employee said they never heard from them again.

The employee submitted another telework reasonable accommodation request in the spring through a new HHS form. Shortly thereafter, however, the individual was diagnosed with a new condition that necessitated them to send in another request in July, which they have not received a response to besides an automated confirmation of receipt.

“Nobody knows what's happening. There's no guidance. There's no clear communication,” the employee said.

The employee’s supervisor has permitted them to telework some days throughout this process, but the individual said they’ve still had to use sick leave and that their health has “declined rapidly.”

“I went from having my chronic illness completely managed to it having gone totally out of control,” they said. “There's no proof that the stress of all this caused the new diagnosis, but that is very likely a contributor to how it got so bad.”

A second CDC employee told Government Executive that staff seeking reasonable accommodations are frustrated “because it’s taken over a year, in many cases, or longer, and suddenly we have a strict deadline or lose our accommodations.”

After months of delays and related issues that have contributed to declining morale, the CDC employee said they’re planning to leave the agency for work outside the federal government.

“I feel guilty because I have very specialized expertise in my subject and this will leave a critical gap in my team’s ability to function, but I ultimately need to care for myself and my family,” the CDC employee said.

Hershey said “it's possible the department is sincerely trying to clean up files that got disorganized,” but said a “cleanup shouldn't punish the people already stuck in this quagmire.”

“If the agency lost track of documentation it was given, the burden of fixing that belongs with the agency, not with the employee, and certainly not under threat of case closure and the loss of an accommodation they're relying on right now,” she said.

A former CDC employee said the agency is spending months, if not a year or longer, to process reasonable accommodation requests because HHS-wide layoffs and separation incentives targeted the department’s human resources and equal employment opportunity offices.

The former CDC employee said the agency’s restrictions on reasonable accommodations are “decimating the most vulnerable employees not only at CDC, or HHS, but in the federal government.”

AFGE Local 2883 President Yolanda Jacobs said in a statement “HHS’s new blanket changes to its Reasonable Accommodations Program once again leaves workers in the dark.”

“This is yet another tactic by HHS leadership to deny reasonable accommodations to its workers, all while trying to give the appearance that they’re properly working through and responding to the backlog of thousands of unresolved accommodation requests,” Jacobs said, adding that some CDC employees may not be able to get updated documentation from a medical provider within the 20-day timeline.

Jacobs wrote in a letter to CDC leadership in March that employees are waiting months for the agency to approve their reasonable accommodation requests, and that the estimated cost of resolving hundreds of disability discrimination complaints exceeds $200 million.

Hershey said the 20-day deadline in the HHS reasonable accommodation policy allows component agencies to close out requests for employees who never submitted documentation, or who stopped responding altogether.

“Aiming that closure clock at employees who already provided what was asked repurposes a mechanism meant for abandoned or unsupported cases. The practical effect is that cases can be closed, and quietly dropped from the backlog count, over a records problem the agency created,” she said.

The upcoming closeout of interim accommodations, Hershey added, “carries the most immediate human cost.”

“An interim accommodation exists for one purpose: to protect an employee while the request is pending. Taking it away because the agency is reconciling its own records strips that protection from someone who did nothing wrong,” she said.

Sean Michael Newhouse contributed to this report.

]]>

NSA looks to AI to help analysts sift through vast data troves

David DiMolfetta — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 15:09:14 -0400

The National Security Agency is leaning into artificial intelligence tools to process mass volumes of data it collects, allowing analysts to sort through tasks and find anomalies faster, a top official said Tuesday.

“I think right now we’re looking at how to use an AI where we could triage so much more,” David Imbordino, the head of the agency’s cybersecurity directorate, said on a panel with officials from the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance at the Billington Cybersecurity Summit in Washington, D.C.

The agency ingests vast amounts of data every day, including intercepted foreign communications and electronic signals from radar and weapons systems. Imbordino’s directorate, in particular, focuses on both intelligence collection and cyberdefense.

“Volume has always been a problem,” he added, but AI has raised the prospect of getting “to the nuggets” faster than before. In the near future, analysts will likely increasingly use AI tools to look at disparate pieces of information and evaluate them “much more quickly” than current methods that can take days or weeks, Imbordino added.

His remarks highlight one of many ways the nation’s cyber and intelligence agencies are putting AI to work and show the omnipresent role such systems will play in day-to-day work in spy offices.

NSA has also taken a leading role in the Trump administration’s AI policy efforts as increasingly powerful tools promise to help defenders find and fix software flaws while giving hackers new ways to break into networks. Late last month, NSA deputy director Tim Kosiba said that the agency wants access to a wide range of models and is engaging heavily with frontier AI companies.

The agency is helping to implement a sweeping June executive order directing national security agencies to create classified tests for determining when AI systems have developed sufficiently advanced hacking capabilities to warrant additional scrutiny. The order calls, in part, for a voluntary arrangement through which developers can give the federal government access to qualifying models for as many as 30 days before releasing them to other trusted partners.

]]>

Musk should testify about overstated savings from DHS contract cancellations, Democrats argue

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 15:07:50 -0400

Two House Democrats last week requested that Elon Musk and other Department of Government Efficiency officials testify under oath after a new watchdog report found that the cost-cutting initiative overstated its savings from Homeland Security Department contract cancellations.

“Elon Musk and DOGE tried to sell the American people a lie: that firing federal workers and gutting public services would make government more efficient and save taxpayers billions,” said Reps. Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and James Walkinshaw, D-Va., in a statement. “Instead, they inflicted lasting damage, indiscriminately cancelled contracts and fired essential personnel.”

The Government Accountability Office reported that DHS fully or partially terminated 438 contracts between Jan. 20 and Sept. 30, 2025, as a result of DOGE’s mandate to reduce agency spending, including on contracts. Auditors found that, as a result, the department deobligated more than $249 million but also obligated $157 million in new costs to settle the canceled agreements with contractors and for continued work under partially terminated contracts.

While that results in a net of about $92 million in savings, DHS reported that the 2025 contract terminations could generate more than $10.5 billion in reduced spending. Unlike GAO’s analysis, which looked at how much money was deobligated, the department’s methodology relied on the maximum amount that could’ve been spent under the canceled contracts.

In addition to criticizing DHS’ analysis, the auditors found that 95% of the $10.5 billion in potential cost savings is attributable to 30 terminated IT contracts. But the department, in some cases, is using other contracts to obtain those services.

“According to the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, in fiscal year 2025, DHS obligated over $1.7 billion through existing government-wide contracts to meet these [IT] requirements,” they wrote. “Thus, $1.7 billion of potential costs under these contracts were not avoided but incurred through other contracts.”

Thompson and Walkinshaw argued that Musk and other DOGE officials should testify in a hearing about the contract terminations, including who approved the DHS estimates and how the cancellations may have impacted department functions.

A DHS spokesperson said in a statement to Government Executive that officials have "reviewed thousands of contracts, ended hundreds that were no longer mission-critical and redirected resources to higher-priority operational needs. That is responsible stewardship: identifying wasteful or lower-priority spending, ending unnecessary contracts and ensuring taxpayer dollars support DHS’s most critical operations."

Last month, GAO issued a report that found multiple errors with how DOGE calculated its savings. For example, about $34.6 billion of the $61 billion estimated to have been generated from terminated contracts either came from contracts that were never canceled or there wasn’t evidence that the contracts were terminated.

]]>

FEMA’s future looks clearer. Disaster aid is still uncertain

Alex Brown, Stateline — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 07:00:00 -0400

State leaders are breathing a sigh of relief that the Trump administration’s threats to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency have subsided.

But experts say there’s still confusion about President Donald Trump’s decisions to approve or deny disaster declarations, leaving states with uncertainty about whether they can expect federal recovery funds.

“The foundation (at FEMA) seems stronger than it did six months ago, but this is an unreliable administration when it comes to the fair and equitable distribution of disaster funds,” said Juliette Kayyem, faculty chair of the Homeland Security Project at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a former Obama administration official.

Trump has long called on states to take on a larger role in responding to disasters, and suggested early in his second term that FEMA might “go away” entirely. Kristi Noem, who served as Trump’s secretary of Homeland Security until she was fired in March, pledged at one point to “eliminate” FEMA, and slashed the agency’s spending and staffing during her tenure.

Last month, the Senate confirmed Cameron Hamilton to serve as FEMA’s administrator, making him the first permanent agency leader during Trump’s second term. Hamilton, once a FEMA critic, had previously served as acting administrator, but was fired in May 2025 after saying he had become convinced the agency should not be eliminated.

Experts say Hamilton’s return and Noem’s departure are signs of stability for FEMA.

“It’s basically a return to regular order,” said Craig Fugate, who served as FEMA’s administrator under President Barack Obama. “They’re filling positions and reestablishing programs that got cut during the purge.”

State emergency managers say the leadership changes are welcome developments.

“(Hamilton) he has the right attitude as far as supporting his employees and supporting the states,” said Lynn Budd, director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security. “I have a positive feel for that.”

Budd also serves as president of the National Emergency Management Association, a nonprofit comprising state and territorial emergency officials.

The foundation (at FEMA) seems stronger than it did six months ago, but this is an unreliable administration when it comes to the fair and equitable distribution of disaster funds.

– Juliette Kayyem, faculty chair of the Homeland Security Project at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government

While FEMA appears to be safe from the most drastic threats, states still face uncertainty over some agency programs they have long relied on. The agency has said that states must comply with Trump’s voting and immigration policies in order to qualify for Homeland Security Grant Program funding. A coalition of states and municipalities have sued, saying they stand to lose out on millions of dollars they need to prepare for terrorist and other security threats.

The White House press office did not respond to a Stateline interview request.

Trump decisions

Experts say the biggest challenge for emergency managers is the lack of clarity around Trump’s disaster approvals. While FEMA has clear thresholds that determine which disasters qualify for federal aid, the president has full discretion to approve or deny those requests for help.

Trump has been far more willing to grant disaster declarations for Republican-led states, at 89%, while Democratic-led states have seen only 23% of their requests approved, a Politico analysis found in March.

Trump overruled the recommendations of his own agencies when he rejected federal aid for four Democratic-led states in July, Politico reported.

“The bad news is you have a very unreliable administration and a very political president,” said Kayyem, of Harvard. “When it comes to states’ expectations, we can’t know what this White House will do.”

But some emergency management veterans said the denials aren’t a clear-cut case of political retribution. Fugate, the former FEMA administrator under Obama, noted that many of the disaster requests Trump rejected were snow-related. Trump’s administration has pushed to eliminate snow assistance from FEMA disaster aid, arguing that states should not receive federal reimbursement for plowing their own roads. Many of the northern states that have experienced snow disasters are represented by Democrats.

For other disasters, Fugate said, Trump has a higher bar for granting federal recovery funds.

“The administration’s been very clear they’re wanting to raise thresholds, even if they haven’t formally changed the numbers,” he said. “I’ve not seen them deny catastrophic disasters, major disasters. It’s the smaller marginal disasters that are really judgment calls.”

While saying he “ain’t a big fan” of the Trump administration, Fugate said shifting the financial burden for disaster relief from the feds back to the states has been a longtime discussion among both parties.

Still, emergency managers said the White House should provide more clarity about what the new thresholds are and give states time to prepare for a bigger role.

“There’s really never been feedback about why a disaster was denied,” said Budd, the Wyoming official. “That’s something I would hope to see in the future, creating more clarity in what exactly are we looking at when we go through the process of trying to request a major disaster declaration.”

State money

Some states have begun preparing for a drawback of FEMA support. Tennessee lawmakers established a statewide recovery fund intended to help communities hit by disasters that don’t qualify for federal aid. While Republican Gov. Bill Lee requested $100 million to create the fund, lawmakers ultimately approved $44.2 million earlier this year. Some legislators fear that won’t go very far.

“Cutting it by more than half shows the State can’t afford for FEMA to cut back its support, much less to stop supporting states altogether,” state Sen. Jeff Yarbro, a Democrat, told the Tennessee Lookout in a statement. “Funded at its current level, this fund can only really fill a few gaps where FEMA is too slow or too rigid.”

Budd, the president of the emergency managers’ group, said other states are considering similar funds.

“These are the types of programs that we as states need to look at, and something that I will have conversations about with our legislators in the future,” she said.

But as states look at making those investments, Budd called on the White House to give them more time.

“The very hard part about saying states need to do more is that it cannot happen overnight,” she said. “It will take time for states and lawmakers to build that.”

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

]]>

USDA employees dispute ‘inflated’ claim that most staff asked to relocate will do so

Jory Heckman — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 18:20:51 -0400

Updated at 12:00 p.m. ET on Sept. 4

The Agriculture Department is telling a federal court that a majority of employees who received relocation notices so far have agreed to relocate – a higher acceptance rate than what the department experienced with a smaller-scale relocation under the first Trump administration.

In an Aug. 28 court filing, Mary Pletcher Rice, USDA’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for administration, told a federal judge in San Francisco that 725 USDA employees have received management directed reassignment (MDR) letters so far, and that 64% of them have accepted reassignment.

USDA agencies saw major staffing losses when it relocated hundreds of D.C.-based employees to Kansas City, Mo., under the first Trump administration — a much smaller-scale plan than what USDA is proposing under the second Trump term. The Government Accountability Office found the vast majority of employees at the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture quit rather than relocate to Kansas City in 2019.

USDA employees who currently face relocation and the unions representing them say the department’s figures don’t reflect the number of employees who will actually move across the country to keep their jobs. The department has sent relocation notices to less than a third of the approximately 2,500 employees expected to receive them. The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

USDA so far has sent relocation notices to employees at ERS, NIFA, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Foreign Agricultural Service and the Office of General Counsel. Employees at other components facing relocation have yet to receive notices.

USDA expects no more than 2,000 of the 4,600 employees currently working in the national capital region will remain there after moving staff to five regional hubs being stood up across the country.

Some employees say they’ve accepted relocation notices because that is the only way they can proceed with a request for a hardship or medical exemption. Others say they have nominally agreed to relocate, but are still applying for other jobs. If that plan doesn’t work out, they may quit rather than move.

A Natural Resources Conservation Service employee told Government Executive that he accepted relocation, but only so that he has more time to look for another USDA job within the D.C. metro area.

“My intention is to stay in the D.C., Maryland, Delaware, Virginia area. That's my intention. And whatever I need to do to do that is what I want to do. I'm just trying to buy myself some time where I can make that happen,” the NRCS employee said.

NRCS is USDA’s second-largest component, and helps farmers and other agricultural producers protect and conserve private lands. The agency has shed more than 20% of its workforce so far under the Trump administration. Government Executive reported last summer that NRCS is looking to backfill critical vacancies through lateral transfers.

“If I see a position that suits me and that I’m interested in, I can apply for that. However, it’s either going to be at an equal grade or lesser,” the NRCS employee said. “That’s one way of forcing people to take a voluntary downgrade.”

More than 28,000 employees have separated from USDA, largely through voluntary separation incentives, since the start of the second Trump administration. Factoring in hiring, the department has seen a net decrease of nearly 16,000 employees. USDA officials told the court on July 24 that the department is planning to hire nearly 16,000 employees this year to “offset expected attrition.”

A NIFA employee who opted to relocate said USDA’s claim that 64% of employees have opted to relocate is “highly inflated,” because colleagues are applying for exemptions or applying for local jobs.

“I know people who have accepted the MDR, but only accepted so they could try to stay employed, apply for other jobs in their area, and keep their jobs in case of an injunction,” the NIFA employee said. “I know a number of people who accepted because they needed to apply for hardships or reasonable accommodations, and the agency required you hit ‘accept’ in order to apply for those. These people will not move if they don't get their hardship or RAs.”

The NRCS employee said staff have nothing to lose by telling USDA they plan to relocate, even if they have no intention of moving, or are only considering it as a last resort.

“If I had said ‘no’ to the letter, the position that I'm assigned to, it goes away. There's no benefit to me to say ‘no.’ You’re almost pushed in a position of saying ‘yes’ to the letter," the NRCS employee said. “If you say no to the reassignment, ultimately you’re going to get removal. If your answer is anything other than, ‘Yes, I’m going to move, and yes, I”m going to show up on this date,’ the ultimate path is that you’re going to be removed."

Keywan Johnson, a labor relations specialist with the American Federation of Government Employees, told the court that USDA’s figures are “inflated,” because they must accept relocation in order to request hardship exemptions or reasonable accommodations.

"Due to their personal circumstances, many of those employees will not be able to relocate if their requests are denied,” Johnson wrote.

In some cases, USDA employees said they cannot relocate because their spouse’s job requires them to remain in the area, or because they are the sole caregivers for elderly parents. Union leaders told reporters in July that internal polling indicates that women, people of color, older workers and workers with disabilities are disproportionately being asked to relocate.

“They’re overwhelmingly the group of individuals that are being moved and relocated and put in positions of lesser responsibility than what they were before,” the NRCS employee said. “By targeting these individuals, you’re looking at reducing your overhead through salaries and benefits because you’re getting these higher-cost employees off the books, and by having such a secretive process, then you’re able to do this, and cherry-pick individuals to stay in place that you have more of an affinity to.”

A coalition of federal employee labor unions, nonprofits and local governments is asking a federal judge in San Francisco to stop USDA’s relocation plans arguing that the move is an attempt to downsize its workforce without congressional approval.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston, in a ruling Wednesday, allowed USDA to proceed with its relocation plans for now. Illston told plaintiffs challenging the USDA reorganization, via a lawsuit filed in April 2025 to challenge the Trump administration’s widespread federal workforce layoffs, that their latest claims “do not belong in this case,” and should be brought up in a separate lawsuit.

"The Court concludes that the claims plaintiffs seek to bring regarding the USDA reorganization involve new and distinct causes of action that should be the subject of a separate lawsuit,” she wrote.

]]>

Former pardon atty calls MSPB ‘a dead end,’ sues for reinstatement

Erich Wagner — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 17:31:21 -0400

Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer sued the Trump administration Thursday, asserting that her 2025 firing on “Article II” grounds violated her First and Fifth amendment rights, as well as the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act.

Oyer, who served as a federal public defender for a decade prior to her appointment to pardon attorney in 2022, was removed from her career post in March 2025, shortly after refusing to issue a nonbinding recommendation that actor Mel Gibson’s right to own a firearm be restored despite his 2011 domestic violence conviction.

Her removal was one of the first in a string of so-called Article II firings at the Justice Department that eventually encompassed attorneys, prosecutors and immigration judges. In these cases, the department has elided the firing procedures and rules set forth by the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, instead arguing that the president has constitutional authority to remove these employees at will.

Though Oyer filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board shortly after her firing last year, she has yet to receive meaningful movement toward a decision before the quasi-adjudicative agency. Last March, the MSPB relinquished jurisdiction of such cases, and in June, an MSPB administrative judge dismissed Oyer’s case without prejudice, a decision that means she must wait at least another six months before she may refile and longer to receive a decision.

“The MSPB has proved, however, to be a dead end,” the lawsuit states. “Despite filing her MSPB appeal more than 16 months ago, she has yet to receive any substantive review of her termination. Most recently, on June 2, 2026, the MSPB dismissed Ms. Oyer’s appeal without prejudice for a minimum of an additional six months (and likely far longer), sending her case to a further prolonged limbo.”

Although federal workers typically must exhaust their administrative avenue to appeal a personnel action before heading to federal circuit courts for judicial review, Oyer argued that the morass of seeking MSPB review, combined with her firing purportedly on constitutional grounds, rather than via the Civil Service Reform Act’s procedures, allow her to pursue her case before the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C.

Oyer and her attorneys also argued that even if administration officials can bypass statutory removal protections when they fire inferior officers under Article II of the Constitution, the Justice Department failed to follow its own policy governing such removals, as her firing was signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“With respect to its purported removal of Ms. Oyer, moreover, DOJ did not even use the procedures that DOJ itself maintains are necessary to effectuate a removal under Article II,” the lawsuit states. “That is because Ms. Oyer’s removal was signed only by the deputy attorney general. This distinction is significant because—on DOJ’s own telling—only the attorney general can wield the president’s Article II removal authority.”

Another case challenging the Justice Department’s Article II filings, Jackler v. MSPB, is set to go before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for oral arguments in December.

]]>

Reliable rules for your retirement recordkeeping

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 15:00:00 -0400

This is an update to an article I wrote last year (and the year before) that provides tips and resources to transition from employee to annuitant and to catch up on some of the retirement planning that should have, but maybe didn’t, begin when you started your career.

Here are some crucial tips for every stage of your federal career:

Understand the parts of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS)

FERS An Overview of Your Benefits

FERS Information

Learn about your Minimum Retirement Age (MRA)

Service Credit

You know how long you’ve been a federal employee, but is there sufficient evidence of your career so that service may be credited towards your retirement eligibility and calculation? Be sure that there is documentation of your prior federal civilian and military service in your electronic Official Personnel Folder (eOPF) or paper OPF. If documentation is missing, let your retirement specialist know so that it can be retrieved and included in your service history for leave accrual and future retirement eligibility and computation.

In today’s climate where every federal employee is on alert for early retirement offers and, in some cases, the “pink slip” of an involuntary separation, it is important to take responsibility for gathering copies of the records that prove your beginning and ending dates of federal and military service, your retirement coverage, and work schedule.

If your agency isn’t as responsive as you would like, try to learn more about service credit by reading and attending available training. Here are some places to begin:

Office of Personnel Management YouTube: Retirement Counseling Tips

Office of Personnel Management YouTube: Quick Guide to Retirement Processing

Office of Personnel Management YouTube: Navigating Federal Retirement: How to Register for a Login.gov Account through Services Online

Consider paying a deposit into FERS for military service, non-covered civilian federal employment performed before 1989 (civilian service not covered by FERS deductions after 1988 is not currently creditable), and any refunded FERS contributions that you may have if there was a break in your federal career allowing you a return of your retirement contributions.

Understand the value of your sick leave and annual leave

Sick leave is your “short-term disability” protection. Treat it like “gold!” You earn four hours per pay period which translates to six months of paid time off after 10 years and a full year of paid time off after 20 years of federal employment.

Unfortunately, sick leave does not add much value to your retirement benefit – only 1/12 of 1% (or 1.1%) of your high-three average salary per year. For example, if you have a high-three of $100,000, 1 month of sick leave would add 1/12 of $100,000 x 1% or $83/year or about $7/month… where using that 1 month of accrued leave would be worth around $48 x 22 workdays x 8 hour/day = $8,448. Plus you would earn a little more annual and sick leave at the same time! If you need to use your sick leave and you have retirement coming up in your near future, then it is OK to use it if you have a valid reason to use it. Otherwise, be thankful you were healthy! It hasn’t been that long that FERS retirement received any credit for unused sicvk leave towards retirement calculation credit… so there’s that! It has only been for about the last 13 years: 50% Credit was applied to retirements with an annuity starting date from Oct. 28, 2009, through Dec. 31, 2013 and 100% Credit was implemented for all retirements starting on or after Jan. 1, 2014.

Know the rules for using your leave:

Fact Sheet: Annual Leave (General Information): An employee may use annual leave to establish initial eligibility for retirement in reduction-in-force (RIF) and other restructuring situations. An employee who has received a specific notice of termination in a RIF situation may use annual leave past the date the employee would otherwise have been separated to establish initial eligibility for immediate retirement, including discontinued service or voluntary early retirement.

Fact Sheet: Sick Leave (General Information): Unused sick leave will be used in the calculation of an employee's or survivor's CSRS or FERS annuity based on retirement with an immediate annuity or on a death in service.

Update your designation of beneficiary

Unpaid Compensation SF 1152: (Last paycheck, allowances and reimbursement for things such as unused annual leave, and anything else that is owed to an employee from the agency upon the death of a federal employee)

Federal Employees Group Life Insurance SF 2823

Reporting a death/FEGLI Death Claims

Federal Employees Retirement System or Civil Service Retirement System SF 3102 This does not determine any recurring benefits such as a survivor annuity for a spouse or a child. This benefit consists of the deceased's retirement contributions, plus any applicable interest, in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

Chapter 75, CSRS and FERS Handbook, Lump Sum Benefits

Office of Personnel Management Survivor Benefits

Thrift Savings Plan: To designate a beneficiary or beneficiaries, log in to My Account on tsp.gov or use one of the Thrift Line Service Center options listed in the Death Benefits booklet. Remember that once you select a beneficiary(ies), you cannot cancel and return to the order of precedence. You will only be able to designate a new beneficiary. If your spouse inherits your TSP account, they will have a TSP Beneficiary Account set up for their inherited funds.

Understand how the TSP works

Online Learning Opportunities: The TSP offers free recorded webinars, live webinars, and other scheduled training which cover many topics for TSP participants and their beneficiaries. These learning opportunities are hosted by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB).

How Does Compound Interest Work? By Mark Catanzaro, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank: Learn about the Rule of 72 and learn about how inflation affects purchasing power of money. This should always be considered when reviewing long-term projections. For instance, the purchasing power of $787,180 today would be approximately $434,580 in 30 years, assuming a 2% average inflation rate.

Core Funds vs. L Funds vs. Mutual Fund Window

Set up your “My Social Security” account with LOGIN.GOV: This account will let you access your earnings record, age-appropriate information about Social Security benefits and estimates of the benefits you are earning.

Leaving federal service early:

Leaving early might mean giving up lifetime FEHB coverage, life insurance, and credit for unused sick leave toward your retirement computation.

A deferred retirement is paid later when a federal employee is not entitled to an immediate retirement benefit, however, you must have a minimum of five years of creditable civilian federal service to qualify for any retirement benefit. A deferred annuitant is not entitled to the FERS Special Retirement Supplement to hold you over until you qualify for Social Security at age 62. When contemplating a move to the private sector, consider and compare workplace flexibility; leave policies and accrual; retirement benefits, insurance options; and of course, salary.

If you make the decision to leave:

Consider keeping your FERS retirement contributions on deposit to allow a deferred retirement benefit that is payable later if you have at least five years of creditable civilian federal employment.

Consider keeping your retirement savings in your TSP account if you leave federal service when you are at least 55 in the year of your separation from federal employment to avoid early withdrawal penalties that may apply from an IRA when you make withdrawals before age 59 ½. If you separate before the year that you reach age 55, be aware of the potential tax penalties for early withdrawal unless you meet one of the other exceptions as described in the TSP Tax Rules About TSP Payments publication.

You may continue your FEHB coverage for up to 18 months following your separation (this is called Temporary Continuation of Coverage comparable to COBRA in the private sector). Under TCC, you will pay the employer and the employee share of the premium.

Be sure to use up your flexible spending account dollars before you leave. The balances in your Health Care FSA (HCFSA), Limited Expense Health Care FSA (LEX HCFSA) and Dependent Care FSA (DCFSA) are treated differently if you separate before the end of the calendar year.
- Your HCFSA or LEX HCFSA will terminate as of the date of your separation or retirement. There are no extensions. Any eligible health care expenses incurred prior to the date of separation will still be reimbursed but those incurred after the separation date are not reimbursable, even if you accelerated your allotments. If you used your entire elected amount before FSAFEDS has deducted it from your pay, you will not be responsible for the remaining allotments.
- Your DCFSA remaining balance can continue to be used to pay for eligible dependent care expenses until your account balance is depleted or the end of the calendar year, whichever comes first.

Retirement Sooner than Later:

Make sure you are on track with your savings (review the TSP tips for new hires)

Learn the pros and cons of a TSP Loan before you apply for one.

Try saving for big items such as a car, vacations, and other major outlays rather than using credit or loans.

Update your designation of beneficiary forms

The TSP allocation you have could be too conservative

The TSP allocation you have could be too aggressive (or not aggressive enough)

Begin to project your retirement benefits payable at your MRA, age 60, and at age 62.

At your MRA, you may find that you are eligible for either a reduced MRA + 10 benefit or an unreduced immediate retirement benefit with a supplemental payment to help you retire earlier than age 62. Although you may be eligible to retire, can you afford to retire?

At age 60, you will only need 20 years of creditable service to retire with an unreduced, immediate retirement benefit, and be entitled to a FERS Special Retirement Supplement to age 62.

Age 62 is worth considering for a variety of reasons:

To be eligible for an immediate retirement at age 62, you only need five years of creditable civilian service covered by FERS.
If you have 20 years of creditable service (including credit for unused sick leave), you will qualify for a higher computation factor for your benefit resulting in a ten percent increase just for have 20 or more years of service (and being 62 or older),
Cost of living adjustments for most FERS retirees begin at age 62. Remember that if you retire before 62, your retirement under FERS (and the FERS Supplement) will not increase until you turn 62 years old. Exceptions for special groups such as law enforcement officers and firefighters retiring under FERS along with disability annuitants and survivor annuitants.
At age 62, you are now eligible for Social Security retirement benefits which will be more than the FERS Supplement because they will be based on your lifetime of Social Security covered employment rather than only your civilian service covered by FERS. Social Security benefits are adjusted annually for inflation.

To Do List:

Run the numbers
- Compute your FERS Basic Retirement Benefit (or have your HR office do it for you). Consider reductions for survivor elections, former spouse apportionments and survivor benefits, age reduction for MRA + 10 option, and proration of the benefit if you ever worked part-time. Be sure to review your service history and be sure that all the time is creditable for the calculation of your retirement.
- Your retirement benefit will also be subject to monthly withholdings for federal and state income tax (not all states tax federal retirement benefits, however), and insurance (FEHB, FEGLI, FLTCIP, and FEDVIP).
- If you are going to file for Social Security retirement, get an updated estimate at www.ssa.gov. Your benefit will be partially taxable on the federal level and there are about six states that also tax SSA benefits.
You can prepare the Application for Immediate Retirement, SF 3107, https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf3107.pdf before you begin the Online Retirement Application. This will help you understand the decisions you will need to make and the documents you may need to upload into the ORA System. If available, set up pre-retirement counseling to ask questions, review your estimated benefits, and learn how your agency processes your retirement.
- Become familiar with the new Online Retirement Application: https://retire.opm.gov/portal
- SF 2818 Continuation of Life Insurance (FEGLI)
- Fact Sheet: Lump Sum Payment for Annual Leave
- Retirement Facts 8: Credit for Unused Sick Leave Under the Civil Service Retirement System (also applies to FERS)
The health plan you are in may not be the best health plan for retirement. This is especially true if you enroll in Medicare Part B once you have retired. FEHB plans wrap around Medicare nicely so you can avoid most out-of-pocket expenses (deductible, copays, and coinsurance). It pays to compare your current coverage with plans that offer incentives to enroll in Medicare. Members of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association have access to a series of webinars that can help you understand and choose the best plan for you. In addition, the Checkbook Guide to Federal Health Plans can provide comprehensive information for employees and retirees during open season.
- Retirement is not a Qualifying Life Event, however if you move outside of your FEHB plan’s service area or if you are 65 or older, you can use a QLE to change plans outside of open season. See a list of all QLEs on form SF 2809 or OPM Form 2809.
Make copies of everything that you fill out before you turn in your applications.
Brush up on tax information
- W-4P Withholding Certificate for Periodic Pension or Annuity Payments
- IRS Publication 721 Tax Guide to U.S. Civil Service Retirement Benefits
- Tax Rules About TSP Payments, TSP Publication 26
- Request to withhold taxes from your Social Security benefit

Be sure to have six months of living expenses in the bank before you retire to allow for delays in processing your benefits.
Update your designation of beneficiary forms (see above) Information for FERS Annuitants
When you receive your CSA (Civil Service Active) number from the Office of Personnel Management, it is time to set up your Services Online account. This will allow you to make changes such as updating your address, electing federal and state tax withholding, view your annuity statement and more.
Learn how to manage your TSP account in retirement
The TSP allocation you have could be too conservative
The TSP allocation you have could be too aggressive
Consider the options for distribution of your TSP account
TSP Distribution Booklet
Withdrawing Your TSP Account after Retirement
- One option for a TSP distribution is to purchase a TSP life annuity through the TSP vendor. To compute an estimate of this, use the TSP annuity calculator. The current TSP Annuity interest rate index factor is 5.075% up from 4.95% in August. The historical rates can be found here: https://www.tsp.gov/withdrawals-in-retirement/historical-annuity-rates/ Learn about this option in the TSP Annuity Fact Sheet.
- Other, more flexible options include requesting monthly, quarterly, or annual installment payments directly from your account; partial payments, as needed; and you may also transfer some or all your TSP to an IRA.
- Make sure that your address is current with the TSP and be sure to enter your bank information by accessing your account at www.tsp.gov. This will make your withdrawals go smoother and take less time to process.
- For your protection, the destination you wish to send your TSP payment to must be on file for at least seven days before it can receive funds. This includes any postal address or any direct deposit information you’ve entered. Make sure this information is on file for at least seven days before you start your request. Lost, stolen, damaged, or misdirected checks can take six weeks or longer to replace.

All the best to those of you who are getting ready to complete your career of dedicated federal service and move into the next chapter of your career or your retirement life!

]]>

Former CISA employee pleads guilty to defrauding government with secret contractor jobs

David DiMolfetta — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 14:05:03 -0400

A former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency employee pleaded guilty Wednesday to defrauding the government of nearly $250,000 by secretly holding multiple federal contracting jobs and submitting timesheets that sometimes claimed she worked 33 hours in a single day.

Richeline Anisso Fung pleaded guilty to a federal false claims charge, the Justice Department announced.

She worked full time at CISA from September 2016 until October 2025. Between January 2021 and August 2024, she simultaneously held contracting positions supporting the Drug Enforcement Administration and the departments of Energy, Justice, Transportation and Agriculture, as well as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Some of that work was performed through RAF Pro-Consulting, a Florida company Fung established in 2020. She concealed the overlapping jobs from CISA and the contractors, according to prosecutors.

The arrangement resulted in extraordinary claims on her timesheets. In February 2022, Fung was working for CISA and three contractors supporting the DOJ, Agriculture Department and Federal Highway Administration. Her reported working time exceeded 24 hours a day on 15 occasions that month.

She claimed to have worked 33 hours on four consecutive days and 32 hours on a fifth, prosecutors said.

Fung admitted that she was able to conceal the overlapping employment because the positions were carried out remotely. Justice did not disclose her role at CISA or describe the work she performed for the other agencies.

Nextgov/FCW could not immediately reach Fung for comment. As part of a plea agreement, she must repay nearly $250,000 to the government, with sentencing scheduled for Jan. 20.

]]>

Inspectors general are facing an identity crisis. Here’s how some former IGs would preserve the watchdogs’ independence

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 13:26:32 -0400

As President Donald Trump installs individuals with political histories into inspector general positions, which historically have been nonpartisan agency watchdog roles, a panel of current and former oversight officials on Wednesday discussed what actions lawmakers could take to protect IG independence moving forward. But the speakers acknowledged that many of their recommendations have tradeoffs and weaknesses.

“I don't know what the answer is,” said Mark Lee Greenblatt, the former IG at the Interior Department who was removed in a mass firing of the watchdogs at the start of the president’s second term. “It is a very, very hard call. I think you can adopt some measures; the question is whether Congress is interested in them.”

Greenblatt said at the Government Oversight and Accountability Symposium, which was hosted by George Washington University’s Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, that a recent Supreme Court decision that expanded the president’s ability to fire officials who previously had removal protections complicates any attempt to set up new guardrails. He mused that sequestration, or automatic funding cuts, if a president improperly fires an IG could align with the justices’ ruling. But he noted that may create a perverse incentive for removing a watchdog.

“The problem is that maybe the president wants to cut the budget of that agency, and this is a great backdoor way to do it,” he said.

Greenblatt also pointed to a blog by Fernando Laguarda, an American University law professor, that argued IGs still could be protected from removal under a different recent Supreme Court decision that temporarily blocked Trump’s attempted firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

Allison Lerner, the former IG at the National Science Foundation, recommended on Wednesday that Congress set up a dedicated appropriation for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Currently, the central watchdog group receives its funding through contributions from participating IG offices.

The Office of Management and Budget blocked CIGIE from receiving funding for about a month-and-a-half in 2025, arguing that IGs “have become corrupt, partisan and in some cases, have lied to the public.” The White House backtracked, however, after pushback from Senate Republicans.

But Lerner, who previously led CIGIE, said that her recommendation pre-dates the latest conflict with the administration.

“By taking a tiny percentage of every OIG's budget and having that shifted over to CIGIE to fund its operations, in practice that's been truly challenging to manage,” she said. “I'm concerned that it may become even more challenging if people decide that they simply don't want to transfer that money over to CIGIE.”

Greenblatt also recommended that Congress should codify CIGIE’s practice of reviewing possible IG nominees. Tammy Hull, the IG for the U.S. Postal Service and acting CIGIE chair from January 2025 through April 2026, told the audience that the review panel no longer provides input on presidentially appointed IGs but does for those selected by agencies.

There are more than 70 federal IGs; about half are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate while the other half are appointed by an agency head.

CIGIE also runs the Integrity Committee, which oversees investigations into allegations of wrongdoing against an IG or other senior OIG staffers. Lerner contended that the current process “looks like IGs pitted against IGs” and recommended transferring that responsibility to the Office of Special Counsel, which supervises investigations that are prompted by whistleblower complaints.

“Since I've retired, I have time when I'm walking the dog to think about things like the Integrity Committee. My most recent thought was that it might make sense to put the Integrity Committee into the Office of Special Counsel,” she said. “The OSC conducts administrative investigations that are very similar to the investigations that the Integrity Committee does.”

Greenblatt agreed with removing the Integrity Committee from CIGIE but also cautioned that the OSC could be led by a partisan-minded individual. The current special counsel is Charles Baldis, a former GOP Senate staffer. In 2025, Trump removed the incumbent special counsel — Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden — before the end of his five-year term.

House Republicans in July advanced out of committee the Restoring Integrity and Efficiency to Inspector General Oversight Act (H.R. 9725) that would abolish CIGIE. Supporters of the bill pointed to a June report from the Government Accountability Office that found the Integrity Committee frequently fell short of its own process requirements during investigations.

Speakers also stressed the importance of improving IG engagement with the public, particularly with respect to pushing agencies to implement their recommendations.

“We have a comms problem,” Hull said. “I think we have relied on our 20th century brains that say ‘We issue these 25 to 30 page reports. [People] will read them. They will do the right thing.’ The world we live in is not that world.”

Greenblatt touted Lucy Lang, the New York state IG, who frequently promotes her office’s work on social media and even wrote a comic book that uses dog characters to explain what an IG does.

Oversight is the name of the game, and OIG knows how to play it.

We published our 2025 Annual Report on Gaming Commission Oversight, detailing our work to strengthen integrity in the gaming sector.

Read the full report at https://t.co/A18E0DrgaH pic.twitter.com/LbfNCh0Bmi
— NYS Inspector General (@NewYorkStateIG) August 21, 2026

“We need to get in the modern era. We're not issuing 50-page reports and just throwing that out to the world. Zero people will read that,” Greenblatt said. “You have to make it consumable for the average American. You have to make them understand why this matters to them. We're not speaking just to the agency. We're not speaking just to Congress. We have to speak to the American people and have them understand why we are doing this.”

]]>

OPM taps new healthcare and insurance chief ahead of Open Season

Jory Heckman — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 17:06:38 -0400

The Office of Personnel Management’s healthcare and insurance division, following recent staffing reductions, is getting new leadership ahead of its busy Open Season.

Matthew Kiley, a former Department of Health and Human Services official under the first Trump administration, will serve as the associate director of OPM’s healthcare and insurance division, starting Sept. 8, according to an internal memo obtained by Government Executive.

A copy of Kiley’s resume shared with OPM employees and partially viewed by GovExec shows Kiley is the founder and former president of the Weyhill Group, a boutique management consulting firm in the greater Philadelphia area that serves clients in financial services, insurance and healthcare.

According to Kiley’s LinkedIn page, he also led the Office of Health Policy within HHS’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) between November 2019 and and January 2021.

Kiley wrote that during his tenure at HHS, he “helped the department make significant progress in improving the health of all Americans and moving toward a more patient-centered and sustainable system.” Projects he worked on include eliminating surprise billing for patients, lowering “excessive drug prices" and addressing rural health issues.

Kiley was also involved in the administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providing information used to allocate ventilators and relief funds. Earlier in his career, Kiley was a senior executive with Aramark, a consultant for McKinsey and an underwriter for Berkshire Hathaway's Insurance Group.

Kiley will take over for Shane Stevens, who announced in May that he was voluntarily stepping down. Kiley and OPM did not respond to requests for comment.

OPM shrank its total headcount by 35% between December 2024 and March 2026, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office. GAO found that more than half of OPM employees who left during this period had 11 or more years of service.

Nearly 60% of OPM employees who have left under the second Trump administration did so through the deferred resignation program. GAO wrote staffing reductions “have reduced institutional knowledge and operational capacity at the agency.”

OPM recently carried out further workforce cuts. The agency announced in June that it would give employees in its healthcare and insurance division another shot at opting into the deferred resignation program, before rolling out an “organizational change.”

OPM H&I employees accepted into this round of the DRP went on paid administrative leave at the end of August, and will officially separate from the agency in March 2027. The agency is shrinking its healthcare and insurance workforce a few months before OPM’s busy Open Season, a one-month period in which federal and Postal Service employees can make changes to their healthcare plans.

Open Season starts in November and ends in December. Health plan changes made during this period go into effect in January. An OPM spokesperson told Government Executive in July that “we feel very confident in our staffing levels and OPM’s ability to deliver on a successful open season.”

Earlier this year, OPM called on federal health carriers to reduce costs while promoting a “well care” model in the federal insurance marketplace. In its March 31 call letter, OPM emphasized that members of Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans should take a more active role in their health.

Health plan participants have faced significant premium hikes in recent years. For 2026, enrollees in FEHB and PSHB paid an average of 12.3% and 11.3% more, respectively, toward their health insurance premiums.

]]>

The National Science Foundation is building out the government’s AI research infrastructure

Alexandra Kelley — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 16:58:00 -0400

The National Science Foundation unveiled a new “backbone” for its artificial intelligence research resource on Tuesday, called the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource Operations Center.

The NAIRR Operations Center will support the broader program offering researchers access to data and other computational resources for their advanced AI research. The operations center will coordinate efforts between research resource partners and offer support and training to users working with the NAIRR.

The NAIRR itself was initially launched in January 2024, linking private sector partners like NVIDIA, OpenAI and Microsoft with NAIRR researchers. It was set to expire in January 2026, and is now transitioning to a permanent part of NSF’s AI research infrastructure, in part with the help of the new operations center.

“The NAIRR pilot has demonstrated both the demand for and the impact of a national approach to AI infrastructure,” the NSF press release reads. “NAIRR-OC will build on this progress by transforming successful elements of the pilot into a sustained national capability.”

Two academic institutions, the San Diego Supercomputer Center at UC San Diego and the Texas Advanced Computing Center at The University of Texas at Austin, will lead the operations center.

The Trump administration has prioritized fortifying the U.S. scientific research apparatus with AI technologies. President Donald Trump’s AI Action Plan, debuted in July 2026, called for investments in AI-enabled scientific discovery, charging NAIRR with continuing to build inroads for public-private sector partnerships.

In May of this year, U.S. Chief Technology Officer Ethan Klein underscored the administration’s focus on leveraging new AI systems for scientific advancement.

“Across a broad swath of applications, but specifically for scientific discovery, I think agentic AI will be transformational,” Klein said at the Special Competitive Studies Project’s AI+ Expo.

NSF has also been at the center of the Trump administration’s massive government overhaul by conducting a mass termination of select grants beginning in April 2025 as a result of investigations conducted by the Department of Government Efficiency that deemed them too heavily focused on diversity, equity and inclusion. Among the terminated grants were topics that focused on deepfake detection and aspects of AI advancement.

]]>

Scammers are making the government harder to trust

Caroline Melear — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:00:00 -0400

“Your vehicle has an unpaid toll. Pay now to avoid late fees and legal action.” Countless Americans have received some form of this text in recent years. Unfortunately, it is part of a pattern.

In 2025, there was an 87% increase in government impersonation scams reported to the FBI. Americans lost about $920 million that year to criminals posing as government agencies, up from $789 million in 2024, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

And now, scammers are impersonating FBI employees to target former scam victims. In the long run, without firm enforcement, these scams will further erode trust in government, making it harder for agencies to do their jobs.

Scams targeting Americans have exploded since 2020, but imposter scams are among the most worrying. Scammers exploiting the authority of the government are eroding the trust necessary for legitimate government communication.

A call or text claiming to be the IRS or a state toll authority can cause a victim to act impulsively, fearing penalties or legal action. But after repeated communication attempts from multiple scammers, Americans may no longer trust legitimate government communication.

The FBI has also warned about scammers using AI-generated voice messages to impersonate senior U.S. officials, a capability that will only become cheaper and more convincing over time.

Meanwhile, a new survey confirms that federal complaint data captures only a fraction of the problem. Gallup estimates 15 million Americans, or roughly 6% of adults, were personally scammed in 2025, for a total toll of about $68 billion, across all types of scams.

That is more than four times the amount reported to the FTC for the same year. Only around 13% of victims reported their scam to a federal authority, and nearly two-thirds said they would not know where to report a scam.

Many who stayed silent did not think reporting would help them get their money back, reflecting a lack of confidence in the reporting process. After all, 82% of Americans surveyed said the government is doing too little to prevent scams.

Yet despite public sentiment, it would be unfair to claim the government has been only a bystander in solving scams. The FTC’s Government and Business Impersonation Rule gives the agency authority to sue impersonators and seek civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.

In the two years since the rule was finalized, the FTC has brought a dozen enforcement actions and recovered more than $70 million for consumers, including cases against fake tax-debt-relief operations posing as the IRS.

This is just one of many government-led initiatives to stem the tide of scams, like those from the Treasury Department, Justice Department and the White House.

Beyond enforcement, Health and Human Services started a public-private partnership aimed at America’s seniors.

The “Never Ever” campaign informs them that the government will never demand payment via a payment app, cryptocurrency, wire transfer or gift card, and it will never threaten to suspend benefits unless someone pays immediately. This solution at least attempts to head off scammers instead of relying on retroactive enforcement.

But whack-a-mole and after-the-fact solutions are poorly suited to reducing the threat or rebuilding Americans’ trust.

A more durable solution starts with the federal government bringing its full weight to bear on scam operations themselves and allowing agencies to leverage the same AI tools that are used against victims. It also means holding accountable the communication channels where scams most frequently reach Americans, including phone calls, text messages and social media, and incentivizing them to block scam communications from ever occurring in the first place.

This may include introducing stronger digital ad verification standards at the platform level and greater legal responsibility for the telecom middlemen who allow scam callers to connect to consumer-facing carriers.

Finally, Americans are clearly lost when it comes to reporting. This is why a single, consumer-friendly system is vital for reporting, tracking and possible restitution, both for Americans and policymakers who need accurate data to properly address the problem.

None of these fixes work in isolation, nor are the solutions an exhaustive fix. Each chips away at the problem while scammers find whatever gap is left open.

What’s needed is a comprehensive response that connects enforcement, communications accountability and consumer protections into a single coordinated strategy, rather than a patchwork of agencies each managing their own slice of it.

Every unanswered official text and ignored call is a sign that Americans are starting to tune out the government itself, including the notices that are real. If people can no longer tell a legitimate IRS message from a scam, many will stop responding, period, and no FTC fine will be able to buy that trust back.

Caroline Melear is a Resident Fellow for Finance, Insurance and Trade with the R Street Institute.

]]>

Inspector general fired by Trump talks leadership, OIG independence and his new memoir

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 17:55:51 -0400

Across his decades-long career in government, Larry Turner served in the Army, in senior positions at the Defense Department’s inspector general office and, ultimately, as the IG for the Labor Department. He was fired by the president, along with 16 other federal agency watchdogs, in January 2025.

Since his departure from government, Turner wrote a book recounting his abrupt firing as well as lessons in leadership that he’s learned throughout his life — tracing his path from being an introverted kid to heading a government oversight office.

In an interview with Government Executive, Turner discusses how IG staffers serve as a check on their boss, how he would strengthen the Trump administration’s anti-fraud initiatives and what he’d say to the president in order to change his mind about diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Editor’s note: The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Q. It's clear from reading the book that you really loved being an IG and being in the IG community — so much so that you coined the phrase, "It's a great day to be in the OIG.” So my first question for you is, what do you miss most about being an IG?

A. I actually miss the staff. Going through the military and going through the government and a couple years as a contractor, one of the things that I realized was my strength was leadership. When I say that, that sounds like a nice, corny thing to say. But after working for several different managers over my career, I know the importance of getting the best out of your staff and how you can get the best out of your staff.

When I would hire people or interview people for our jobs, I was really wanting to measure their passion about their work. We were a small OIG. We were about 350 employees. I would bring executives in and I would let them know that “Hey, unlike some places where you may be in this ivory tower, here you got to roll your sleeves up and actually go to work and manage people.”

I want people that are gonna get outside their office and go talk to the staff. That was how it was for me. That's why I love managing staff so much. When I left the government, all of a sudden, I found myself at home every day. I see my wife and talk to a few friends and colleagues on the phone, but I don’t have the daily interaction that I had with staff, which I just loved.

Q. In your book, you talk about the importance of IG independence. While IGs are supposed to be appointed “without regard to political affiliation,” most of the IGs who have been confirmed since the start of Trump's second term worked in the president's first or second administration. Your successor, Anthony D’Esposito, is a former GOP lawmaker who recently spoke at a Trump political rally. Considering all of this, do you feel you will be able to trust the findings of DOL OIG audits and investigations moving forward?

A. I would say with any OIG there's a possible perception that you may favor the administration or the secretary. People may question your findings. Was it independent? Was it nonpartisan? So that's the problem you run into, even if you were not trying to. Some of the criticism I see of some of the newer IGs, including my replacement, is because they, in some cases, have not stayed away from that. One of the things that you learn as an inspector general is that you have got to give the appearance of being independent and not influenced by the administration.

The other part about that is you don't know your staff’s political affiliation. I think our staff are just a slice of the American public, and so they are the ones that help you hold your feet to the fire. If they feel that you are siding with the administration, your employees could write a whistleblower complaint, somebody could go to the media or they could even turn you into the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.

(Editor’s note: CIGIE oversees investigations into senior watchdog officials. Last year, the Trump administration prevented the group from receiving funding for about a month-and-a-half, but backtracked following objections from some Senate Republicans.)

That's one of those things where we police ourselves up. That's why I think it's so important to provide that independence. IGs are intentional about that because you make sure that you avoid meetings with the secretary that may have a certain slant in terms of what the administration is doing. IGs try to stay away from that, and the secretaries know that because sometimes they won't invite us to certain meetings, or we will opt out and they understand and agree with that.

Q. Could you provide an example of a meeting that you purposefully skipped while you were an IG at Labor?

A. Once a week there were certain internal-level meetings that the secretary or the deputy secretary would have. When you get a new secretary, a time or two, you may attend those until you realize that this was really based on administrative guidance. So those were meetings where you felt like, “OK, I don't need to be at this meeting.” You would let the secretary or the deputy know that, and they would say, “Oh, not a problem Mr. IG. I understand that, and we don't want to compromise your position.”

Q. You write in your book about growing up in a segregated town, attending a segregated school and being one of the only Black officers at your first assignment in the Army. You write openly about racism you experienced in your personal and professional life. Something that stood out to me was when you had a new colonel, and he would only say good morning to white staff members and not Black ones. You also describe yourself as a supporter of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. In contrast, the Trump administration has sought to remove DEI from the federal government. If you had an opportunity to meet with the president, what would you say to him to try and convince him to change his anti-DEI stance?

A. I would say that if your goal is to hire the best people, then you have to open up the hiring process. If you only look at people that know you or that look like you, then you limit yourself. I am greedy. I want the best people working for me. Why would I want anything else than that?

If I were talking to the president, that's what I would tell him. If you really are serious about hiring the best people, then you have to open up the gates for everybody to apply. And from that application process, it'll give you a chance to look at more people. One of the reasons I pushed DEI was because I understood that there were a lot of qualified people that have been working all their lives to qualify for certain jobs. If you shut that down, then you don't give them a chance to compete.

I would like to be interviewing the top three or four people that are really good. You want your best choices. You don't want to have one person that stands out and two or three that are just really bad. That was the thing that I always impressed upon my managers and senior execs. At the end of the day, I considered success as getting the best employee available.

There were times that I had to have like a teach-and-train moment with my execs because they had a candidate or two that was African American, and they were afraid to hire somebody white because “I'm worried about stepping on the boss’ toes.” But they misunderstood what I was saying that, at the end of the day, it's about hiring the best people.

Sometimes that can mean you may have more white staff members. Sometimes you may have more Asians. Sometimes you may have more African Americans. But when you go through that process, and the top person that rises to the level is whatever race, it just happens that way. But I think it's unfair to anybody, and takes away from your credibility, when you just hire somebody that you know, or some friend, or somebody else’s friend or family member, or something like that.

Q. You were one of the first officials to warn about the prevalence of fraud in pandemic financial assistance programs, and the issue became personal for you when someone stole your identity to file a false unemployment claim. The Trump administration has prioritized combating fraud in federal programs. Given your experience, what suggestions would you give to the Trump administration to improve their anti-fraud initiatives?

A. Let your staff go after the top fraudsters. When you're going and looking for fraud, you want to be able to open up all gates. You can't pick a certain group to look at. If you're seriously interested in fraud, you want to go to those places where you can identify the fraudsters and prosecute them.

The other part about that, and this is why I feel the current administration has missed out a little bit, is that you gotta have the staff and resources to do that. My last two years as the IG, we were in a hiring freeze because we didn't have the budget. Under the Biden administration, they were trying to get us another $100 million. And even under the Trump administration, I was scheduled to testify like a week before I got fired because they were trying to get us additional resources.

I think it starts with resources, and you can't really be serious about fraud if you are continuing to reduce the staff or your auditors or investigators — the people that do the job. It's like you're talking out both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you're saying we want to really go after the fraud. But on the other hand, you're saying we're going to cut your staff by 50%. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

(Editor’s note: The Partnership for Public Service nonprofit reported that, as of May 31, the average Cabinet OIG workforce is 19% smaller than it was in December 2024. Federal workforce data shows that Labor OIG has gone from 315 employees in 2024 to nearly 250 currently.)

The other part about it is you’ve got to want IGs who are aggressive in going after fraud. I think there's a feeling right now that that is not really the mandate that has been given to IGs and their staff. I think there is a sense right now that some staffers are concerned about their jobs being at risk by going after certain fraudulent groups. I think that's the biggest challenge.

Q. Can you be more specific about staffers feeling that their jobs are at risk if they go after certain groups or individuals?

A. When 17 IGs were illegally fired, including myself, that was a terrible message to send to the IG community. If you were getting rid of IGs that were ineffective or were not doing their job, you could justify that and say, “Hey, this is why we're getting rid of them.” I think that would have went a long way with people accepting that. But when you didn't do that, then it got people saying, “Okay. They did their jobs and they got released.” So now, if you work for the people who were fired, you're concerned about “Am I going to get in trouble? Am I going to lose my job because I'm going after someone that may be in a certain party or may be a part of the current administration? If I go after a friend of somebody's or somebody in a red state, am I going to put myself at risk?”

One of the hardest jobs for all IGs to deal with is that sometimes you will get a request from a congressional member. And that congressional member may want you to investigate the secretary or somebody on their staff. Most IGs, when they get that request, they know that the price of poker just went up because they also know that “If I don't find what that congressional member wants me to find, are they going to hold that against me? If I do find that the secretary did commit a violation, I'm going to have the secretary mad at me.”

At the end of the day, most IGs don't care about that. They just care about getting it right. IGs follow the facts wherever the facts may lead us. We're like referees. We're independent, we're impartial and we don't even get distracted by political affiliation or what a senator or a Congress member wrote. You don't even worry about that. You’re just worried about “We got tasked with going out here and investigating something. Let's make sure we do a thorough job, and make sure we check and double check to make sure that it’s correct.”

Q. While in your book you praise many of your previous supervisors, you also discuss a “toxic” boss you had while at the Defense Department inspector general office. This individual was ultimately fired, in part, for making false claims against you. What advice would you give to a federal employee or any worker who has a boss that is creating a hostile work environment?

A. One thing I always told my staff is one of the keys to being successful is learning how to work under anybody. The first time that you have a boss that's difficult, don't just throw your hands up and say “I'm out of here.” It's almost like a math problem. You try to figure it out, and this route doesn't work. You try several things, and at some point, you may get to where you’ve exhausted all methods and all means. At that point in time, then I would advise someone to start looking outside for a different opportunity.

When you're younger and you're going through a difficult boss, sometimes you get frustrated and you want to let it get personal. What I've always advised my staff is to, first of all, always remain professional and always stay positive. At the end of the day, if it gets negative, a lot of times you're at a disadvantage because you're dealing with somebody that writes your appraisal. You always really just got to stay professional, and I think that's the hardest thing for a lot of junior employees to do because they take it personally.

But at some point in time, you may get to a point where you need to say, “You know what? I've tried all these different methods and ways to make this work. I've met with my boss, tried to find out what I can do to improve or change their opinion of me.” And sometimes you may work for somebody that just don't like you. And when it happens, the best thing I think an employee can do is start looking elsewhere. Some people get so frustrated they quit and walk away before they have something else. I would never advise anybody to do that. I would always say stay the course until you can find something better.

Q. This is my final question. Is there a question I didn't ask you that you wished I had?

A. I decided to write the book because throughout my time in the government, as well as in the Army, my leadership style has been somewhat unconventional. What I mean by that is that work does not have to be drudgery. I actually believe that work can be fun, and one thing I like about the OIG community is that a lot of our folks really love what they do. It's about creating an environment where they can continue being productive, and they want to come to work and their passion comes through.

I've had several managers who were toxic, and so it was for that reason that I wanted to be a leader. Too often, I hear GS-15s and -14s say “I want a non-managerial job.” I've never felt that way. I want a job where I can control something more than having somebody control me. If I'm the IG or the deputy IG, I can ensure that we have a positive environment where people can be productive.

I wrote the book because I'm a people's person. Oftentimes, when I was the IG and deputy IG — and throughout my career, and even now since I've left the government — I'm always giving advice or mentoring or coaching. But what happened was, I'm only giving that advice to a handful of people now as opposed to when I was giving it to a whole agency. I thought one way to share some of that knowledge and the success that I've had in my government career and military career was to write a book and just share some of those things with folks who are trying to learn, who are trying to be more effective as leaders and trying to get into the government.

]]>

TSP funds were back in the black in August

Erich Wagner — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 16:47:30 -0400

Each portfolio within the federal government’s 401(k)-style retirement savings program gained value last month, snapping a two-month streak of lackluster market performance.

The international stocks of the Thrift Savings Plan’s I Fund sported the best performance, gaining 3.32% last month. So far this year, the I Fund has grown 19.18%.

The C Fund, which is made up of large- and mid-size businesses, increased 2.72% in August, good for 13.12% growth since the start of 2026. And the small- and mid-size companies in the S Fund finished August 2.27% in the black, bringing its 2026 gains to 16.10%.

The fixed income (F) fund grew 0.40% last month, reducing its 2027 losses to 0.16%. And the G Fund, which grows at a statutorily mandated rate, gained 0.41% in August. So far this year, the G Fund has grown 3.00%.

Likewise, each of the TSP’s lifecycle (L) funds, which move toward more conservative investments as participants get closer to retirement, gained value in August. The L Income Fund, designed for those already making withdrawals, grew 1.11%; L 2030, 1.75%; L 2035, 2.04%; L 2040, 2.31%; L 2045, 2.31%; L 2050, 2.43%; L 2055, 2.85%: L 2060, 2.86%; L 2065, 2.86%; L 2070, 2.85%; and L 2075, 2.86%.

Since January, the L Income Fund has increased 6.34%; L 2030, 9.78%; L 2035, 11.15%; L 2040, 11.87%; L 2045, 12.50%; L 2050, 13.14%; L 2055, 15.57%; L 2060, 15.57%; L 2065, 15.57%; L 2070, 15.56%; and L 2075, 15.56%.

]]>

Shutdown threat possibly lifted as House passes stopgap spending bill

Jory Heckman — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 14:22:02 -0400

The House approved a stopgap spending bill on Tuesday that will keep the federal government funded through early December, taking a government shutdown off the table ahead of midterm elections this fall.

The House voted 370-48 to pass a continuing resolution that will keep the federal government funded through Dec. 11.

The continuing resolution includes a provision that temporarily blocks the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule that would put federal grant funding under review by political appointees. It also includes language that would prevent the Trump administration from transferring funds from other programs to Border Patrol.

The Senate passed the stopgap spending bill in a 90-6 vote in July before leaving for its summer recess.

Federal employees dealt with the longest government shutdown in history last year, followed by the longest partial shutdown, which impacted the Homeland Security Department. Both shutdowns led to federal workers missing paychecks.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters Tuesday morning ahead of votes that Congress is “going to avoid the threat” of another government shutdown.

“On this CR we'll take up, it simply holds funding steady at current levels through Dec. 11th, as Republicans work to complete the full year appropriations process,” Johnson said.

The stopgap spending bill gives Congress more time to reach a deal on a comprehensive spending package for fiscal 2027. So far, the House has passed three of 12 spending bills that make up a comprehensive spending plan. The Senate hasn’t passed any of its FY 2027 bills yet.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla. said “the fiscal year deadline is outpacing the work that remains,” and that the continuing resolution will ensure constituents “will continue to get the services they need.”

“This will allow Congress time to get past the November elections, and allow us time to assess and move forward with further appropriations measures in November and December,” Cole said.

House Appropriations Committee Ranking Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. said the CR is a “marked improvement” from an earlier version that would have kept the government funded through Dec. 4 – and did not contain provisions blocking OMB’s proposed rule.

“The continuing resolution we are considering today is in no way a substitute for the full-year funding process. It is merely a means to complete this important work while averting a lapse in government funding,” DeLauro said.

The House passed the previous Dec. 4 CR largely along party lines, with Republicans overwhelmingly voting in favor of the bill. House Democratic leaders rejected the earlier stopgap spending bill, but House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said this latest version would receive “broad bipartisan support."

Vice Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus Ted Liu, D-Calif., said he would vote for the CR, “even though doing CRs is a stupid way to run government.”

“It is not a good way to run our federal government. But it's the only alternative that's gonna be put before us,” Lieu said.

]]>

Nearly 3,150 Labor employees seeking disability accommodations impacted by data leak, internal memo says

Jory Heckman — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 17:35:19 -0400

Updated at 10:03 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Sept. 1

Thousands of Labor Department employees’ sensitive personal and medical information was improperly shared to someone’s personal email account, according to an internal memo about the incident.

The Labor Department recently notified employees about an “internal incident” on July 22, in which an email containing a spreadsheet of personally identifiable information related to employees' reasonable accommodations requests was sent to an “individual's personal email address outside of the DOL domain.”

Following an initial investigation, the department “discovered that more than one email" containing PII or protected health information (PHI) was sent to the same personal email address outside of the DOL domain.

According to the Labor Department, the individual “had authorized access to the information in the performance of their DOL duties,” but did not have the authority to send the information to a personal email address.

According to a “talking points” memo obtained by Government Executive, the department’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management says the data leak discovered this summer impacted nearly 3,150 employees, all of whom submitted a reasonable accommodation request sometime over the past two-and-a-half years.

The talking-points memo states that the spreadsheet contained the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of employees who submitted reasonable accommodation requests between October 2023 and June 1, 2026.

The memo states that DOL “sent notification letters to all impacted individuals by mail," and that the department “is reviewing and considering current and new measures that may be necessary to safeguard the information.”

“The Department is extremely concerned about the recent disclosure of personal information maintained on behalf of DOL employees. DOL will continue to engage in remediation activities to recover and destroy all the information involved in this incident,” the department wrote in its talking-points memo.

A Labor Department spokesperson said in a statement that the department "takes this issue very seriously, and is taking every effort to ensure protection for all personally identifiable information and protected health information in the future."

Data impacted by the leak includes employees’ first and last names, duty location, work email address, job title, supervisor name and email address, pay grade and series. The spreadsheet also included information about each employees' disabilities or medical conditions that were the basis of their reasonable accommodation requests.

Naomi Berry-Perez, director of the department’s Civil Rights Center, previously told employees that “no Social Security Numbers (SSNs), dates of birth (DOBs), more specific medical diagnoses" were included in the spreadsheet.

Union officials said they’re frustrated the department waited about a month after discovering the data leak to notify impacted employees. They say the department has also been unable to answer basic questions about the incident – including the position, title and affiliation of the individual who sent the data to their personal email address, or why the information was sent to a non-agency email more than once.

Brent Barron, president of the American Federation of Government Employees’ National Council of Field Labor Locals (NCFLL), said the Labor Department has been “dragging their feet” processing employees’ reasonable accommodation requests, and was slow to notify employees impacted by the data leak.

“We take pride in protecting the American workforce, and our own agency can’t protect its employees,” Barron said.

Labor Department employees recently told Government Executive that the department is facing a backlog of hundreds of RA requests. Several reported waiting months or, in some cases, a year or longer for the department to process their requests.

Faced with a backlog of reasonable accommodation requests, the department is looking to roll out artificial intelligence tools to triage the workload. Experts warned that processing confidential medical records through AI tools could create privacy issues.

]]>

Trump’s 2027 pay freeze has unions warning of recruitment, retention problems

Erich Wagner — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 17:06:45 -0400

Organizations representing federal employees and their allies in Congress in recent days have decried President Trump’s plan to freeze most federal workers’ pay while directing sizeable raises for federal law enforcement and members of the military.

Last week, Trump issued an alternative pay plan formalizing the call from his fiscal 2027 budget proposal to freeze most federal workers pay at 2026 levels next year. He also announced that he would direct the Office of Personnel Management to authorize a 3.8% increase in basic pay for federal law enforcement officers, to go along with a between 5 and 7% raise for military service members, depending upon their rank.

But unions and professional associations warned denying most feds a raise next year could exacerbate recruitment and retention crises at several agencies. Following the Trump administration’s push to cut down on federal headcounts last year, including through mass firings and encouraging early retirement and buyout programs, the non-postal federal civilian workforce fell below 2 million employees this year for the first time since the 1960s, per June data from the Office of Personnel Management.

“This is a slap in the face to the dedicated civil servants who keep our nation running and will make it harder for federal agencies to recruit and retain essential employees,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. “For years, wages for federal employees haven’t kept pace with rising costs for housing, food, utilities and other essentials. Private-sector workers currently earn 27% more on average than federal employees doing the same job. To add insult to injury, the administration is asking for special approval to pay hundreds of employees ‘requiring an extremely high level of expertise’ up to $400,000 a year—equal to the president’s base salary—even as it denies workers a basic cost-of-living raise.”

Kelley referred to recently finalized regulations granting OPM greater authority to OK critical position pay that could allow up to 400 positions to earn more than double the current General Schedule pay cap of $197,200 per year.

William Shackelford, national president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, said that when coupled with inflation and a likely increase to health insurance premiums through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program next year, a pay freeze is effectively a pay cut.

“This ‘more work for less pay’ policy will only drive the most valuable employees out of federal service, costing Americans in degraded services—from care to veterans to law enforcement and support for our military, wasteful spending due to inadequate management of government contracts and grants, less reliable information and more,” he said. “[Pay] decisions do not only affect current employees—they reach into retirement, too. Annuities are based on high-3 average salary, so a freeze affects the value of future retirement pay as well as today’s paychecks.”

And Dave Spero, national president of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, a union representing Federal Aviation Administration workers who install and maintain air traffic control and other aviation safety equipment, said a pay freeze could jeopardize agency efforts to hire hundreds of new technicians.

“The FAA’s workforce plan to hire an additional 750 technicians just became that much more difficult,” he said. “Aviation safety inspectors and other critical employees will begin to retire and the recruitment of these aviation safety professionals will suffer . . . These employees maintain and oversee the largest, safest and most complex air traffic control system in the world. Dismantling it by destroying the morale of the employees is heartbreaking.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., accused the administration of trying to “drive hardworking public servants out” of agencies, and vowed to fight for Congress to override the president’s plan.

“Last week’s announcement that civilian federal workers will not be receiving an annual cost-of-living adjustment for 2027—even while military and law enforcement personnel are given as high as a 7% raise—will only further reduce morale and retention at agencies and make it harder to recruit the best and brightest to serve,” he said. “I’m proud to represent more than 75,000 civilian federal employees in Maryland’s Fifth District, and I will continue to fight this administration’s efforts to denigrate them and deny them the pay and benefits they are due.”

]]>

Federal disability employment program faced widespread compliance problems, whistleblower investigation finds

Sean Michael Newhouse — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 15:40:18 -0400

A federal agency that oversees a program intended to increase job opportunities for employees with disabilities may not be doing enough to ensure that its government contracts are supporting such workers, an investigation prompted by a whistleblower complaint found.

Additionally, the Office of Special Counsel, which protects whistleblowers, in a letter to the president last week criticized the agency’s response to the investigation, arguing that officials have neglected to take appropriate actions.

Through the AbilityOne program, federal agencies contract with nonprofits that employ workers with disabilities. The initiative supports jobs for 41,000 individuals and provided more than $4.7 billion in products and services to the federal government in fiscal 2025, according to its website. For example, all disposable gloves for the Transportation Security Agency come from organizations that participate in the program.

Nonprofits are eligible for AbilityOne if at least 75% of their “total direct labor hours” are performed by workers who are blind or have “significant disabilities.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2025 the employment rate for people with a disability was 22.8% compared with 65.2% for those without a disability.

A compliance specialist at the AbilityOne Commission, however, submitted a complaint to the OSC alleging that more than 50 participating nonprofits in a sample of 120 still received millions in contracts even though they failed to meet a program requirement during their last review.

This prompted an investigation by the AbilityOne inspector general that found:

In fiscal 2022, 87% of participating nonprofits were out of compliance with at least one program requirement.
There were 50 nonprofits that failed every compliance review between fiscal 2013 and 2022.
The agency did not act on a 2017 complaint by employees at Arbor Products, Inc., which alleged that the organization during an onsite visit “had deceived compliance inspectors into believing that blind or disabled employees were performing all direct labor,” until 2022. At that time, the entity became delinquent in paying program fees, lost its nonprofit status and was kicked out of the program.

Based on the investigation, however, AbilityOne reported that the whistleblower’s allegations were not substantiated and that no violations of law, rule or regulation occurred — perplexing OSC officials.

“AbilityOne exists to create real jobs for people who are blind or have significant disabilities. When large numbers of contractors fail basic program rules for years and the compliance system cannot show those failures were fixed, that is not a paperwork problem,” said Special Counsel Charles Baldis in a statement. “The Commission documented serious weaknesses and then declined to substantiate the whistleblower’s allegations to that effect. That conclusion is not reasonable.”

OSC officials noted that AbilityOne is overhauling its compliance practices and procedures, but they also cautioned that the agency does not appear to have made progress on two IG recommendations: to establish a training program for Commission employees on performing compliance reviews with annual refreshers and to improve the method for verifying the continued nonprofit status of program participants beyond annual self-certification.

Officials from the AbilityOne Commission in a press release last week disputed OSC’s characterizations.

“The Commission determined that the issues identified reflected systemic challenges and historical inconsistencies in a large, decentralized program — not intentional disregard of statutory mandates,” they wrote. “Many of the compliance concerns cited by OSC occurred during periods of operational disruption, including the pandemic, during which temporary flexibilities were granted in good faith and in consultation with relevant stakeholders. It is important to emphasize that recognizing areas for improvement does not equate to finding gross mismanagement, gross waste or statutory violations.”

Regarding the IG recommendations, the officials pointed to a congressionally mandated oversight panel that previously reported that AbilityOne’s workforce is appropriately trained but that the underlying issue is there aren’t enough staffers. They also contended that the agency “has historically followed standard federal practice in accepting IRS determinations and [self-certifications] from participating nonprofit agencies.”

]]>

‘Not our decision,’ USPS chief says, as agency faces mail-in voting lawsuits and a looming cash crisis once more

Jory Heckman — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 11:34:00 -0400

The Postal Service is dealing with a familiar pair of challenges: legal scrutiny over its capacity to deliver mail-in ballots ahead of the fast-approaching election season, and a plea to Congress to help the agency avoid running out of cash.

In the lead up to this year’s midterm election, several federal lawsuits are challenging the Trump administration’s executive order imposing new rules on mail-in voting.

USPS is also once again at risk of running out of cash. The agency is calling on Congress to take up a legislative package meant to help put the agency on firmer financial footing – either through annual appropriations or a cost-cutting package that may include shuttering post offices and reducing delivery days.

It’s a déjà vu moment for USPS. In 2020, federal courts scrutinized the nearly insolvent agency’s readiness to deliver an unprecedented volume of mail-in ballots, a process that is now fairly routine. About one in three U.S. voters cast ballots by mail.

Postmaster General David Steiner, in a wide-ranging interview, told Government Executive that regarding these two issues, the legal battle over mail-in ballots and reforms to its struggling finances, USPS stands in the middle of policy decisions largely out of its control.

Steiner said USPS “is not a political organization,” and is prepared to carry out its end of executive order if the courts ultimately rule in favor of the administration, or comply if the courts decide to permanently block the EO’s implementation.

“We deliver the mail. Someone else makes the rules. We deliver the mail, and so we deliver the mail under the rules that are put on us, and that's exactly what we'll do. People can fight over whether the rules are valid or not. Once that fight is finished, we'll do whatever the courts say we can do. That's not our decision,” Steiner said.

The Supreme Court allowed USPS on last Monday to proceed with a final rule on its implementation of the executive order. Last Thursday, a federal judge in Massachusetts granted a temporary restraining order blocking USPS from carrying its final rule. But the ruling has already been appealed, and may soon head back to the Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits argue the cash-strapped USPS is being directed to implement new restrictions with no time left to vet these changes ahead of Election Day. The Trump administration argues its order isn’t “restricting” mail-in voting, but introduces “modest envelope design requirements" on states that mail ballots to voters.

“You just can't do nothing”

USPS has floated the possibility of Congress providing “modest appropriations” – at least in the short term – to keep the agency from running out of cash. That would bring USPS more in line with its earlier business model, when it functioned as a Cabinet-level agency.

Absent those funds, Steiner said USPS will need to scale back days of delivery, shutter unprofitable post offices, and reduce the size of the USPS workforce – but the agency can’t make these changes without approval from Congress.

“Both issues are the same thing: other people make the policy, we just enforce it. On the EO, we're going to follow the rules that we get given. On the business, we don't get to make the policy decision. Congress gets to make the policy decision,” Steiner said.

Since 1971, the Postal Service has operated more like a business, funded largely through its own revenue. But an accelerating decline in mail volume has left the agency with few options to stay afloat through its own actions.

Steiner said he’s “agnostic” on which choice Congress makes, but said granting short-term funding would allow USPS to keep providing its same level of service to the American public.

“All I'm asking Congress to do is pick one of the policies,” Steiner said. “You just can't do nothing, because if you do nothing, we're out of business.”

Making mail-in ballots 'more safe and secure'

If the courts ultimately allow USPS to proceed with implementation of the executive order, Steiner said the agency has the capacity to make changes in a short period of time.

“It's really not dramatically different than what we've been doing for years,” Steiner said. “Not sure why it creates such a kerfuffle.”

Under the final rule, any state that plans to use mail-in or absentee ballots must provide USPS with a list of participating voters. USPS is also tasked under the executive order with launching a Federal Mail Ballot Portal for states to upload their voter lists.

“We don't compile the list. We don't review the list. We don't do anything with the list other than to make sure that the ballots on that are listed on that list are ballots that get delivered to the customer,” Steiner said.

The final rule also establishes new barcode and envelope-formatting requirements. USPS provided nonbinding guidance to states in previous elections, but now says it will reject ballots that don’t meet its standards.

Outbound ballots, USPS wrote in an FAQ, “will be rejected if during verification prior to acceptance the Postal Service cannot match the unique Intelligent Mail barcode on the envelope with the data in the Federal Ballot Mail Portal."

Steiner said the barcode requirement is very similar to the agency’s longstanding guidance, and “reduces the amount of work for our folks.”

“Honestly, if we could put that into law, we would put it into law, because it makes the mail more efficient,” Steiner said. “It makes it easier for us to deliver ballots, it makes it easier for election officials to trace the ballots. No one can disagree that that is a more efficient way, from our perspective, and from the mailer's perspective, to track and understand the mail.”

As part of a 2021 settlement with the NAACP and Public Citizen, USPS has agreed to deploy “extraordinary measures” for mail-in ballots ahead of subsequent elections. That includes extra deliveries and collections, special pickups, expanded hours at processing plants, Sunday collections and visual checks of various points for ballots. Steiner said these measures will remain in place for the 2026 election, noting that while they are costly for normal mail, the agency has performed them for years and views them as a “non-issue” from a cost perspective.

But postal experts remain wary about USPS’ capacity to roll out new changes just a few months out from Election Day.

Robert Fisher, a former USPS executive, postal consultant and the founder of the Research Alliance for Postal Policy, said USPS has done a “great job” delivering ballots in previous elections, but “to do what’s being asked in the short term, it’d be a disaster.”

“The scope of it, the complexity it adds, having to deal with so many exceptions to longstanding practices, it’s going to be a disaster, in spite of heroic efforts,” Fisher said.

Mike Plunkett, a former USPS manager for pricing strategy and innovation and manager of retail alliances, now president of the Association for Postal Commerce, said the last time USPS was asked to pull carry new, complex work in a short amount of time was working with the Biden administration to mail COVID-19 tests to households at the height of the pandemic.

“This, to me, seems orders of magnitude more difficult technically, because they have to coordinate among 50-plus states and territories. If you compile that list, and then put in place acceptance procedures for thousands of locations that will allow them to do verifications against those lists within less than 10 weeks, that is a tall order,” Plunkett said.

Voters are slated to receive mail-in ballots well ahead of Election Day.

“I have no idea how many disputes this will create, because inevitably there will be disagreements between the postal officials and the election officials,” Plunkett added. “And there’s no existing dispute resolution processes in place that I’m aware of, so they will have to create that on the fly too.”

President Donald Trump has been openly skeptical of mail-in ballots. Politico first reported that Trump, who is registered to vote in Florida, cast his vote in the state’s Republican primary via USPS.

Asked about vote-by-mail skepticism, Steiner said USPS has a solid track record of delivering ballots quickly and on time. In the 2024 election, the agency delivered ballots in 1.4 days on average.

“Yes, it's safe and secure. Can it be more safe and secure? Absolutely. All I can talk to is the part that we are responsible for. I don't know what happens to a ballot once it shows up in your hand. Is something going on there? No idea,” Steiner said. “Our job is to move mail, and when we move ballot mail, we move it safely and securely. Now, that's when it's in our possession, right? What happens to that ballot when it's outside of our possession? No idea. Could there be something going on? No idea.”

“Don't let that change the sense of urgency”

After the midterm elections, USPS will still need help from Congress to avoid running out of cash. There's a chance these negotiations may require support from a Democratic majority in the House or Senate, depending on the outcome of the election.

Steiner said USPS will be submitting a legislative proposal to Congress in “weeks, not months.”

Lawmakers have been critical of USPS leadership in recent public hearings, but Steiner noted that private talks with the Congressional Postal Service Caucus and the appropriations committees have ”been very constructive.”

“It's a problem-solving session, which I thoroughly enjoy,” Steiner said about these closed-door meetings. “Obviously, the hearings are more theater, but the private conversations we've had have been spectacular.”

USPS estimates that its public service obligations cost the agency about $6-9 billion annually to carry out. Given an accelerated decline in mail volume, Steiner has proposed Congress partially fund USPS through annual appropriations, or free up the agency to close post offices and reduce delivery days.

“I don’t think we need that amount of money to be profitable. I think it’s more like $4-6 billion. I think that would be the range that we’d be in,” Steiner said about the agency’s appropriations request.

According to the National Association of Postal Supervisors, USPS is authorized to request up to $460 million from Congress each year as “public service reimbursement.” But the agency hasn’t requested or received any public service reimbursement since 1982.

“All we're asking is let's bring that concept back. If you're going to ask us to do things that lose money, pay us for that,” Steiner said.

Steiner said Congress could put in a provision in the spending package that requires lawmakers to revisit USPS appropriations about every five years, because by then, the agency could be in better shape financially.

Steiner said three things are losing USPS money – its legal obligation to deliver mail and packages to every address six days a week, an inability to set its own prices without approval from its regulator, and keeping all of its post offices open, even though 60-70% of them are unprofitable.

“Take those shackles off of us, we'll be profitable in six months. Not hard. Let us operate like a business. If our mandate is to make money, let us operate like a business. We'll make money in six months. Now you're going to have less days of service. You're going to have less post offices. You're going to have higher prices, so that's one policy choice. The other policy choice is fund the mandates.”

If Congress doesn’t act on a legislative package for USPS this year, Steiner said the mail agency will be forced to consider lowering service standards, raising prices and closing thousands of “unprofitable” post offices.

“If we don't have a legislative solution, which I hope we will – or at least a view to a legislative solution. We don't have to have an actual bill, but I'd like to know which way Congress is going. If we don't know that by, call it first quarter of 2027, we'll start closing post offices. We'll start looking at how we can reduce service levels, and we'll do everything we can on pricing.”

Earlier this year, Steiner told lawmakers that USPS would run out of cash in early 2027, if it kept meeting all of its financial obligations. But the agency now expects to avoid a cash crisis until about 2031 by suspending its contributions to one of its employee retirement plans. USPS also put new restrictions on nonessential spending to avoid running out of cash sooner than expected.

Steiner stressed that USPS is buying itself more time through emergency measures – not paying its contributions to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) – and that Congress should not see this as an opportunity to “kick the can down the road.”

“If we do nothing now, not only are we out of money, our employees' retirement is out of money in 2031,” he said. “We had to do that to keep the doors open, but don't let that change the sense of urgency for you. Don't think that things are rosy. We are borrowing from our employees' retirement. It's what I told Congress, we're not comfortable with that. Our employees aren't comfortable with that. They shouldn't be comfortable with that.”

“I get the frustration”

Congress passed long-awaited reform legislation in April 2022 that saved USPS $107 billion in total costs. USPS warned lawmakers that it was also on the verge of running out of cash at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and received $10 billion in pandemic relief funds.

Congressional Republicans backed the 2022 Postal Service Reform Act after USPS rolled out its 10-year Delivering for America plan, championed by former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy.

Lawmakers and the agency’s regulator have soured on the plan, arguing that projected USPS cost-savings haven’t justified declines in on-time delivery. In June, two of Trump’s nominees to serve on the USPS Board of Governors told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that was time for the agency to come up with a new long-term plan.

“I get the frustration,” Steiner said. “We got out over our skis. We promised profitability, and you can see we didn't achieve profitability.”

At its core, the plan envisioned getting USPS to “break even” by cutting costs and boosting revenue through a reconfiguration of its postal processing facilities and transportation network. Under DFA, USPS is also running trucks less often between processing plants and post offices to transport mail, under a “Regional Transportation Optimization” (RTO) strategy.

Steiner said “it’s time to step back and take another look at” DFA, acknowledging that for some of its customers, elements of the 10-year plan have become shorthand for unreliable service.

“When they hear DFA, they think, ‘My letter didn't show up, it must be DFA.’ Whenever their letter’s late, they go, ‘RTO.’ They don't even understand what it is, but it's become sort of a catchphrase for all the problems of the Postal Service,” Steiner said. “End-to-end visibility will take the occurrences of that happening, and shrink it dramatically.”

More than a year into the job, Steiner has emphasized the need for USPS to improve on-time delivery metrics. Steiner said some elements of the DFA plan, including its overhaul of postal facilities, will result in greater efficiencies and growth in its shipping and packages business.

“The capital's been spent. It would be foolish to say let's start over,” Steiner said. “We now know how to operate the network, but we will operate it so much more efficiently when we know where every piece is at every point. And right now, we don't. We know where it is at certain points in the network, but we don't know every place, every point.”

“How do we fix it for the American public?”

As the head of USPS, Steiner holds meetings with lots of stakeholders. At times, he’s met with the president. Steiner said he’s met with Trump “a couple of times,” the first being when he interviewed with the board for the job of postmaster general. Trump also met with DeJoy and former Postmaster General Megan Brennan.

“I wouldn't say that we've had deep strategic conversations. I've given him sort of the 50,000-foot view,” Steiner said.

In his initial meeting with the president, Steiner said he also met with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

“Howard has been hugely helpful. I don’t have a lot of conversations with the president. I’ve had quite a few with Howard, and Howard's goal is how do we make things faster, better, cheaper for the American public,” he said.

USPS has partnered with the Census Bureau on a small-scale test of the 2030 population count.

“[Lutnick] came to me at the very beginning and said, ‘Can you guys do the Census?’ He said, ‘Look, we're sending people out to get information on the Census, and we're sending them out 10 different times, and people aren't home. You guys go by every house every day. You are the absolute logical people to do this,’ and so we started a couple pilots in that regard,” Steiner said.

As USPS looks for ways to overcome its long-term financial problems, Steiner said he’s looking for more opportunities to collaborate with other agencies.

“I don’t talk to the president, but I talk to the administration, and everybody to a person in the administration has been hugely helpful in trying to figure out how to fix this, and every single one of them goes about it by saying, ‘How do we fix it for the American public?’” he said.

]]>

Why a smaller government isn't automatically better

Gene Lockwood-Shabat — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 07:00:00 -0400

This hurricane season, FEMA, the agency responsible for coordinating the federal disaster response, is operating without a strategic plan. This predicament highlights a broader systemic shift: Washington is shrinking the federal workforce at a pace not seen in decades, even as public confidence in government sits near historic lows.

The 2026 Harvard Youth Poll found just 15% of young Americans trust the federal government, the lowest mark in the poll's history.

The Pew Research Center’s most recent survey found a similar low, 17%, among the general public.

Meanwhile, GAO's workforce data shows the civilian workforce contracted by more than 250,000 employees across 22 major federal agencies between December 2024 and January 2026, an 11% overall decline.

The question for government leaders isn't whether government can become smaller. (It can, and it has.) The question is whether it can become smaller while operating better.

History offers a precedent. The National Performance Review under the Clinton administration pursued a similar drawdown in the 1990s, calling for the elimination of 252,000 federal positions by 1999—a target Congress later increased to 272,900. Over that period, public trust in government also recovered according to Pew’s survey from the low levels of the mid-1990s, rising from the low 20s in 1994 to the 40s in 2000. While broader political and economic factors influenced that rise, including a strong economy and a budget surplus, the approach of the 1990s offers three lessons for government reform today that hold up regardless of politics.

Target work processes, not just headcount

The National Performance Review in the 1990s went beyond standard personnel cuts to focus on structural efficiency. Working with a Republican Congress, the Clinton administration cut red tape and consolidated overlapping functions, concentrating reductions in management and internal review layers rather than front-line service positions.

At the IRS today, reductions are outpacing operational redesign, and the service data shows it. The agency lost approximately 17,000 employees in 2025, or about 17% of its workforce, through deferred resignation and early-retirement programs. In July 2026, GAO reported that reduced staffing contributed to longer wait times, fewer calls answered, and delays in processing paper returns. Notably, IRS customer service representatives answered about two million fewer calls, while average wait times nearly tripled, from three minutes to eight.

At the Department of the Interior, GAO’s review of the Bureau of Indian Affairs found an 11% net workforce decline between January and July 2025, with some regional offices losing close to a third of their staff. GAO reported that agency officials said the reductions had resulted in a loss of experienced leadership and placed additional strain on short-staffed offices, while Tribal leaders reported impaired service delivery and concerns that the agency lacked adequate staff to carry out its responsibilities.

At the Department of Veterans Affairs, GAO reported that the agency cut its contracting staff by about 15% between April and November 2025. VA obligated more than $78 billion in contracts in Fiscal Year 2025 and has remained on GAO’s High-Risk List for acquisition management since 2019, with 23 prior GAO recommendations still open as of January 2026. GAO’s review underscores the importance of strategic workforce planning, employee involvement, and clear mechanisms for monitoring whether reorganizations are achieving their intended results. As of February 2026, VA had not yet developed a full plan to address the workforce challenges affecting its acquisition management.

Three agencies, three different missions, but the same underlying lesson: a smaller workforce requires a deliberate redesign of how the work gets done.

Empower front-line staff to redesign work and implement AI

The 1990s reforms gave federal employees a direct role in identifying outdated rules and inefficient ways of doing their jobs. The same principle should apply today. AI can help eliminate routine administrative work, but agency leaders shouldn't leave decisions about how to use it solely to vendors or headquarters. The employees who process claims, manage grants and answer calls often know best where time and effort are being wasted. They should help identify and redesign those processes before agencies automate them.

VA also offers a working example done well. At a House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing in April, VA officials testified that the average time to complete a disability claim had fallen 42%, to 81 days, while its 12-month issue-based accuracy rate reached 94%, the highest in two years. VA attributed the gains to increased productivity and a whole-lifecycle approach to claims processing that included AI and automation. The lesson isn't that technology replaces the workforce. It's that government can use technology to take routine work off employees' plates, improve productivity and let them focus on the decisions that require human judgment.

Evaluate success by public experience metrics

The 1990s reinvention framework measured success against concrete customer-service standards, an approach later reinforced by statutory reporting requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Agency effectiveness should continue to be judged by service delivery outcomes, such as call resolution rates, benefit processing speeds, and permit approval timelines.

Reducing headcount is a fiscal mechanism. Government reform is a management discipline. To ensure workforce contractions lead to better performance, not worse, agency leaders need honest answers to three questions:

Are workflows being streamlined, or are essential staff simply being removed?
Are front-line employees empowered to use tools like AI to redesign daily operations?
Can the agency demonstrate faster, more accurate service through metrics the public can see?

Shrinking the federal workforce doesn't automatically destroy public trust. But downsizing without operational redesign puts service performance at risk. The test of modern public administration is whether a smaller government is also a measurably better one. With the next crisis always on the horizon, we cannot afford to wait to find out.

Gene Lockwood-Shabat is a former senior federal executive with nearly three decades of public service across five federal agencies. From 2022 to 2025 he served as associate deputy assistant secretary for Planning and Performance Management at the Department of Veterans Affairs and VA’s Performance Improvement Officer.

]]>

Here’s what Trump’s new ‘Space Academy’ could mean for the US military

Thomas Novelly — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 06:00:00 -0400

President Donald Trump’s mandate for a new “Space Academy” puts defense leaders under a NASA-led initiative that could mean military service requirements for the future school's graduates.

Trump signed the executive order on Friday at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston during a ceremony where he presented the Congressional Space Medal of Honor to the four crew members who are to take the Artemis II spacecraft around the Moon. It appoints a commission, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Air Force Secretary Troy Meink and chaired by NASA administrator Jared Isaacman, to “strengthen the nation’s space workforce” by planning for a new national academy.

“Given the rapid growth of the U.S. Space Force and commercial space industry, and the expansion of our ambitions to the Moon and far beyond the Moon, it’s clear we will need to educate and train an entire generation of skilled service members, engineers, and civil operators,” Trump said at the ceremony.

The idea of a Space Academy isn’t new, but one defense expert told Defense One it’s unclear how a new institution would further the administration’s military space-related ambitions. The Space Force does not lack for recruits, although its civilian workforce was cut during last year’s federal workforce purge. Currently, the Space Force commissions new officers through the Air Force Academy, ROTC, or Officer Training School. Friday’s executive order instructs the commission to consider imposing military-service requirements on academy graduates.

The order calls for an evaluation of “service obligations for graduates, including service in the armed forces” and explores “prerequisites for applicants, including citizenship status, security clearances, and government employment or military status.”

Air Force officials declined to comment and clarify details of the executive order. White House spokespeople did not immediately respond when asked for details and how a Space Academy would interact with the armed services and officer-commissioning pathways. The commission has 120 days to submit a report to Trump “proposing key details” to establish the Space Academy.

A White House fact sheet said the Space Academy will “combine rigorous technical education with leadership development and public service, preparing graduates for careers supporting America’s military, civil, and broader space enterprise.”

“In the years ahead, we will return NASA astronauts to the lunar surface, build the Moon Base, get underway on nuclear power, ignite the orbital economy and launch more missions of science and discovery,” NASA’s Isaacman said in a news release. “I have no doubt that so much of the future talent that will graduate and contribute to these exciting endeavors will be educated at the United States Space Academy.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the conservative think tank’s playbook for the Trump administration, pitched the idea of creating a “Space Force Academy.”

“Explore creation of a Space Force Academy to attract top aero–astro students, engineers, and scientists and develop astronauts,” the playbook read. “The academy could be attached initially to a large existing research university like the California Institute of Technology or MIT, share faculty and funding, and eventually be built separately to be on par with the other service academies.”

Todd Harrision, the American Enterprise Institute’s defense budget and space expert, called the executive order “out of left field” and fears it will further muddy civilian and military roles.

“NASA, the Space Force, and the intel space agencies—they all have very well-defined lanes and responsibilities and areas of expertise,” Harrison said. “Intermingling them like this does not sound like a good idea.”

Harrison also questioned the idea of a government-run “Space Academy” when there’s world-class private and public universities that produce top-notch aerospace and engineering students. The Space Force recruits from such schools under its University Partnership Program.

Trump’s push to bolster space-related careers comes as the Space Force works to rebuild its civilian workforce after the administration’s hasty cuts last year.Officials have been aggressively trying to hire talent to manage a requested $71.3 billion service budget, which would be the largest year-on-year increase, by percentage, for any military service branch since 1952, according to a report from the Aerospace Corporation.

The Space Force hasn’t struggled to hit its uniformed recruiting goals. Service leaders have pitched plans to double the number of its guardians. Harrison said it’s not clear how the Space Academy aligns with those realities.

“It’s not consistent with the other workforce changes the administration has been making,” Harrison said. “It doesn’t appear there is a clear need for this. The other thing too is … they’re going to need authorization and funding from Congress to actually do this. So, what is their plan there?”

]]>

National Archives says agencies’ AI use does not automatically create federal records

Edward Graham — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 17:15:00 -0400

Recent guidance issued by the National Archives and Records Administration says that the use of artificial intelligence platforms “does not, in and of itself, result in the creation of federal records,” although it notes that AI inputs and outputs may still qualify for recordkeeping if they influence broader agency operations.

In an Aug. 21-dated memo to agencies, NARA says that “whether an AI material is a federal record depends on the circumstances surrounding the creation, maintenance, and use of the materials, such as whether the agency relies on it in decision-making, uses it to conduct official business, circulates the material to others, or incorporates it into an agency system.”

Under the Federal Records Act, agencies are mandated to create, maintain and preserve records documenting, in part, their functions, policies, decisions and procedures. As NARA notes in its memo, recorded information “does not become a federal record merely because it is made or received by a federal agency.”

The new guidance says agencies need to look at how the output from AI tools is used to determine whether or not it qualifies as a federal record. NARA says, for instance, that an employee who uses an AI platform to conduct preliminary research for a work-related white paper but does not use the outputted information in their report or circulate the responses is not likely to be covered by the law, even if there is a record of their searches.

“Agencies may decide to maintain an audit trail of all of its employees’ actions on their laptops and other work devices, including actions performed in an AI system,” the memo says, “Mere retention of the audit trail within the AI system does not establish that the audit trail is a federal record. The audit trail would become a record, however, if, for example, the agency decides to capture it and use it to conduct an investigation.”

NARA also notes that uses of commercial AI programs, such as Gemini and ChatGPT, are likely not considered federal records, although the memo says each agency is responsible for ultimately determining whether AI materials or output fall under the law.

The guidance also calls for agencies to incorporate federal records management requirements into their own internal AI policies moving forward.

“Although there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution for agencies to implement policies, processes, and procedures related to the use of AI, NARA recommends agencies adopt formal AI policies in collaboration with legal, information technology, and other relevant stakeholders,” the memo says.

]]>

Trump formally proposes pay freeze for most federal workers, 3.8% increase for law enforcement

Erich Wagner — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 15:44:04 -0400

Most federal employees would see their pay frozen at 2026 levels next year under an alternative pay plan issued by President Trump this week, though for the second straight year, federal law enforcement officers would receive a 3.8% increase.

Trump first proposed the pay freeze as part of his fiscal 2027 budget proposal. Though the document was silent on federal employee compensation, officials with the Office of Management and Budget quickly clarified that its omission equated to a planned freeze for 2027.

In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, dated Thursday, Trump said increasing most federal employees’ pay would be “unacceptable and unfair” given the inflation that occurred under the Biden administration. Inflation actually has risen from 2.8% when former President Biden left office to 3.3% as of last month.

“I have therefore decided to set at zero the pay adjustment to be made for the 2027 pay year,” Trump wrote. “This decision will maintain fiscal responsibility without harming the government’s ability to recruit and retain well qualified employees.”

But in the next paragraph, Trump said that for the second straight year, he instructed the Office of Personnel Management to issue a 3.8% increase in basic pay to federal law enforcement personnel next year, “to increase recruitment and retention” in those roles.

The issuance of a pay freeze would mark a departure from last year, however. While Trump proposed a pay freeze as part of his fiscal 2026 budget, ultimately he elected to institute a 1% across-the-board raise for non-law enforcement federal workers last August.

Alternative pay plans have been a routine exercise across Democratic and Republican administrations. Presidents have until the end of August to issue those proposals, else much larger increases to locality pay would automatically take effect, due to the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act.

Congress may override the president’s proposal, typically as part of appropriations legislation. Though the House’s spending bills are silent on federal employee compensation—effectively endorsing Trump’s plan—the Senate has yet to unveil its draft of the spending package that typically serves as the vehicle for pay raises.

In early 2019, the newly Democratically controlled Congress successfully overrode Trump’s plan to freeze federal worker pay that year, ultimately instituting a 1.9% average pay raise retroactive to the beginning of that year.

]]>

OPM memo pushes agencies to speed up hiring with AI

Christian Robles — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 15:30:10 -0400

After the federal government lost thousands of workers last year, the Office of Personnel Management released guidelines to help agencies safely use artificial intelligence that would speed up lengthy hiring procedures.

“We owe job applicants and taxpayers a faster, better hiring process, and AI is an obvious step,” wrote Adam Starr, OPM’s chief information officer, in a blog post. “It currently takes on average a whopping 87 days to hire in the federal government. Clearly, the current process is not working.”

Agencies should review AI involved in hiring processes and determine whether they are “high-impact” or “presumed high-impact,” according to a memo released on Thursday. High-impact use cases are ones where AI “output serves as a principal basis for decisions or actions with legal, material, binding, or significant effect on” civil rights, privacy, access to critical government programs, critical infrastructure, public safety and more, according to the document sent to agency heads.

For high-impact cases, agencies must either implement “minimum risk management practices” or request that their chief AI officer waive some of those requirements, according to OPM.

If an agency determines a presumed high-impact AI application does not meet the definition of high-impact, it must submit written notification to the CAIO. That documentation should describe controls like human review, sampling and audit logs, and performance monitoring, the memo recommends.

In determining the appropriate response, agencies should start by reviewing whether AI is presumed high-impact or high-impact, the memo explains.

Presumed high-impact cases could include AI tools that draft job descriptions, qualification requirements, evaluation statements, interview questions and other materials, according to the document. But OPM generally does not consider AI used to draft those materials high-impact because they are usually not the “principal basis for a decision or action,” it adds.

The presumed high-impact cases category could also include AI tools that screen resumes, review documents to determine veterans’ eligibility and score candidates, it continues. Agencies should consider whether these AI tools serve as the “principal basis” for hiring decisions and actions and therefore are high-impact, the memo explains. The AI tools typically would not fall in the high-impact category if a human independently reviews a hiring candidate’s record or other safeguards are in place.

Federal agencies have already begun using AI to hire employees. A General Services Administration official has recently said AI helps HR officials and hiring managers quickly develop General Schedule job classifications, according to Government Executive.

In addition to the memo, OPM is looking to bring AI features to USA JOBS, USA Staffing and USA Hire. Those features will include improved search capability, plain language job titles and descriptions, and other tools to help job seekers connect with federal openings, according to Starr.

]]>

DHS watchdog says Noem-era policy hampered probe into FEMA employees skipping homes with Trump signs

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 09:11:26 -0400

The inspector general for the Homeland Security Department said that the scope of his office’s audit into an incident in which Federal Emergency Management Agency employees passed over the homes of disaster survivors based on politics was limited by a lack of action from department officials, including the secretary.

Auditors determined in a report released last week that FEMA staffers violated policy while responding to Hurricane Milton in 2024 when they skipped over 11 homes in Florida for displaying signs in support of Donald Trump at the direction of their supervisor. The Office of Special Counsel reached a similar conclusion last year after its own investigation, and the disaster agency removed the supervisor shortly after the incident occurred.

The IG asserted, however, that the office was not able to determine if political bias or other prohibited practices impacted other disaster responses because FEMA delayed access to records of employees documenting their interactions with survivors. Auditors in March 2025 requested the data, according to the report, but then in September 2025 the contractor supporting the system underpinning such records shut it down “because then-Secretary [Kristi] Noem did not act on the FEMA request to fund the contract before its lapse.”

During his confirmation hearing, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin testified that he would reverse Noem’s policy that required her to sign off on any department spending that is more than $100,000, which critics argued slowed disaster response efforts.

In March, DHS IG Joseph Cuffari notified lawmakers that department officials denied access to requests for information from his office in 11 cases. Cuffari, who was confirmed during Trump’s first term, was spared from the 2025 mass firings of IGs. A panel of agency IGs and other federal investigative officials in 2024 substantiated allegations that Cuffari abused his authority and engaged in substantial misconduct, mostly in relation to an outside investigation into former employees who submitted whistleblower complaints against him.

FEMA officials told the IG that the agency would need to procure a new sole-source contract with the vendor to restore the data on employee interactions with disaster survivors.

The IG also found that FEMA did not consistently provide training to its employees and supervisors on the Hatch Act, which aims to ensure federal programs are implemented in a nonpartisan manner, and that senior officials were not required to review notes from employees about their interactions with disaster survivors. Auditors pointed out that the 2024 incident could have been uncovered earlier, as workers documented that the presence of Trump signs was the reason they skipped certain homes.

DHS’ watchdog recommended that FEMA determine an “appropriate frequency of ethics and Hatch Act training” for all employees who could be deployed following a disaster and that supervisors perform quality control reviews of survivor interaction surveys. The agency concurred with all of the recommendations.

“We’ve made sure that everyone responsible for this incident has been punished, and we’ll make sure that nothing like this ever happens again,” Mullin said in a statement after the report’s release.

Marni Washington, the fired FEMA supervisor, told The Washington Post on Wednesday that some hurricane survivors threatened employees based on their perceived political affiliation and that her team only avoided homes that had a Trump sign and another indicator of hostility, such as a sign that homeowners would shoot trespassers.

Congressional Democrats have accused the administration of politicizing FEMA, pointing to a March media report that the president had approved 89% of disaster funding requests from states with a Republican governor and two Republican senators compared with 23% for states with Democratic leadership.

Trump had proposed eliminating FEMA, but a White House-backed panel in May instead recommended reducing the size of the agency while giving state and local governments a larger share of responsibilities following emergencies.

]]>

Agencies have a new question to answer about employee misconduct

Bill Pedersen — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 07:00:00 -0400

Agencies across the executive branch must reassess longstanding practices for addressing employee misconduct following a flurry of regulatory activity by the Office of Personnel Management. OPM’s two recent updates to the federal suitability regulations, little more than a month apart, rewrite the employee misconduct playbook for the over 1.35 million competitive service and career Senior Executive Service members of the federal workforce.

OPM’s first rule, published June 30 and already in effect, introduced a new tool for addressing employee misconduct: suitability actions based on post-appointment conduct under 5 CFR 731. These actions allow agencies to tap into OPM’s resources to remove individuals who have engaged in gross misconduct.

This is a significant change. Instead of relying solely on the agency’s staff and traditional adverse action procedures under Chapter 75 of Title 5, the law governing most serious disciplinary actions against federal employees, OPM can step in to act.

OPM’s second rule, published Aug. 3 and effective Sept. 2, streamlined the appeals process for suitability actions and moved the venue for appeals from the quasi-judicial Merit Systems Protection Board to OPM. The new appeals rule replaces the prior MSPB appeal route with an OPM appeal process.

Together, the rules create an alternative path when an individual poses an unacceptable risk to the integrity or efficiency of the federal service that can:

Reduce the agency’s level of effort required; and
Accelerate timelines for resolving threats to the government’s people, property, information and critical missions.

Figure 1.0 illustrates how OPM’s rules reshape the landscape and why agencies should take a timeout to reassess their employee misconduct playbooks.

Figure 1.0 How employee misconduct is addressed

The suitability path shifts responsibility from the agency to OPM after evidence gathering. This single action drastically reduces the burden on the agency’s HR, employee relations and attorney resources. The streamlined appeals process could also lead to a faster final resolution when someone challenges an action.

OPM’s final rules might provide agencies with a straightforward approach to address a possible rise in employee misconduct cases due to the ongoing government efforts to implement continuous vetting. This is part of a comprehensive overhaul of the federal personnel vetting system called Trusted Workforce 2.0.

Continuous vetting, a core element of Trusted Workforce 2.0, aims to proactively detect potentially problematic behavior among trusted federal employees. Identifying risky conduct earlier than traditional reactionary methods is expected to enhance the government’s ability to mitigate risk before a concern escalates into a serious problem.

Continuous vetting uses automated records checks, traditional investigative activity at certain time intervals or in response to certain life events, and information maintained locally at the agency, like disciplinary or security incidents.

Agencies generally embrace the enhanced ability to identify potential risks delivered by continuous vetting. Its expansion to cover the non-national security populations of the workforce fills a void where vetting processes either previously omitted staff in low-risk positions or saw varied compliance with requirements to check in on the conduct of the public trust population. A Government Accountability Office report on Trusted Workforce 2.0 found that agencies reported improved access to real-time information on personnel, while also identifying challenges with implementation.

The looming question facing agencies, though, is what will they do with all of this new information about employee misconduct once it’s identified?

Being prepared to adopt the new post-appointment suitability path rules could be the best move to handle a possible surge in employee misconduct cases. Agencies interested in this should start rethinking their traditional workflows and familiarize themselves with the updated suitability policies and guidance.

Key considerations include:

Identifying information-sharing protocols between agency mission areas (HR, Information Security, Insider Threat, OIG, etc.) to ensure communication breakdowns do not block effective risk management;
Developing workflows that create clear lanes of responsibility;
Providing position-specific training tailored to HR, employee relations and personnel vetting/security staff on updated suitability regulations to equip them to adopt new processes; and
Creating operating procedures for evidence gathering and submitting suitability referrals that comply with OPM’s suitability regulation and its implementing guidance in OPM’s Suitability and Fitness Processing Manual.

Agencies exploring how to reengineer processes to leverage OPM’s suitability updates can obviously look to recent guidance issued by OPM. OPM’s ability to help agencies might be limited because its suitability office is currently focused on expanding its capacity to handle up to four times more suitability actions each year. At the same time, it is establishing a new suitability appeals function.

Recruiting trusted industry partners with expertise in suitability is one play call agency leaders could use to ready themselves where OPM’s capacity to provide support may be limited.

OPM’s new rulings changed the playing field, and continuous vetting may increase the need to address employee misconduct. Game day is not the time to learn a new playbook. Agencies should use this early implementation window to build the workflows, train their teams and establish the partnerships they will need to put these new authorities into practice.

Bill Pedersen is a Personnel Vetting Enablement & Strategy Lead with Xcelerate Solutions and brings decades of experience in federal personnel security, suitability and vetting reform. As a former Division Director within OPM’s Suitability Executive Agent Program, he led Trusted Workforce 2.0 initiatives, authored key national policies and earned the OPM Director’s Individual Award for Customer Service.

]]>

EEOC votes to propose new rule stripping feds of hearing rights, class action complaints

Erich Wagner — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:27:45 -0400

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted 2-1 Wednesday to propose new regulations that would overhaul how federal workers may pursue workplace discrimination claims, removing employees’ right to request a hearing before an administrative judge and outright banning class action cases outside of federal court.

Currently, federal workers alleging discrimination at their employing agency must undergo up to 90 days of pre-complaint counseling, which includes informing employees about the EEO process and sometimes mediation, after which their agency will conduct an internal investigation. Once that is complete—or after 180 days—the employee may request a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge.

But under a new proposed rule, set for publication Friday in the Federal Register, complainants would no longer go through pre-complaint counseling, instead directly filing their complaints to EEOC within 60 days of the alleged discriminatory incident. And they would no longer be guaranteed a hearing; that decision would instead be made by officials within the EEOC’s Office of the Federal Sector.

Under the plan, complainants would have to affirmatively request a hearing when they appeal a final agency decision, and in some cases submit an explanation justifying its need. Those who do receive a hearing under the new process would no longer have the benefit of discovery, a practice by which parties can request and receive documentation related to the case.

Additionally, while employees with similar allegations of discrimination may elect to have their individual complaints processed “jointly,” EEOC would cease consideration of class action cases. If employees wish to proceed as a class, they would each have to exhaust their individual cases before the agency and then file a class action lawsuit in federal court.

EEOC’s two Republican appointees, Chairwoman Andrea Lucas and Commissioner Brittany Bull Panuccio, said the proposed changes are needed to speed up the resolution of discrimination cases. Between fiscal 2021 and 2025, successful complainants waited an average of more than two years from when they requested a hearing to receive an administrative judge’s decision granting relief.

“As things stand today, EEOC administrative judges spend most of their time and energy on motion practices for cases, sometimes often cases without merit,” Lucas said. “The proliferation of so many clearly meritoriousless complaints indicates the process has become susceptible to abuse. Employees can use lengthy and complex administrative judge proceedings to evade performance accountability and stymie routine performance personnel actions that have no plausible link to unlawful discrimination.”

Lucas argued that though federal employees currently have the expectation that they may request a hearing before an administrative judge, that technically is not a right.

“It’s important to start with the concept of what in fact are the statutory rights provided by Title VII [of the 1964 Civil Rights Act],” she said. “What we’re talking about here is not changing anyone’s statutory rights. We’re talking about an administrative process that EEOC has created, a process that we were entitled to take some steps to do via rulemaking, and that we can also have the authority to change it via rulemaking. Again, it is a creature of regulatory creation that is not working right now for federal employees, and therefore we have the right and the obligation to reform that process.”

But Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, who as the commission’s lone Democrat appointee voted against the regulations, said that while she would not defend the status quo, the new proposal “kneecaps” federal employees who believe they’re victims of discrimination.

By removing complainants’ right to a hearing, agencies, whose internal EEO investigations routinely miss deadlines for submitting a final agency decision, would have no incentive to ensure their investigations are timely and thorough, she said. With reports of severe contractions in the headcounts at EEO, HR and civil rights offices across government, many employees could be left in "limbo," unable to advance their complaint.

“In the past, EEOC has identified impediments to [final agency decisions], including inadequate investigations and heavy caseloads,” Kotagal said. "With no pre-complaint counseling and mandatory FADs, these challenges will balloon under this proposal. Although this [notice of proposed rulemaking] purports to make the process speedier, the reality is that myriad other aspects of it, like insufficient consequences for noncompliance, undermine that objective symptomatically.”

Courtney Mickman, an attorney focusing on federal employment issues and a former EEOC administrative judge, said the proposal for agency staff to vet which complaints receive an administrative judge, estimated in the regulations as taking “one half hour,” is unrealistic.

“30 minutes is a truly unbelievable statement,” she said. “Earlier this afternoon, I had an initial conference in a case, and the report of investigation was 184 pages, and I specifically told the judge in that case that the report was deficient,” she said. “[I’m] not sure how many people can line-by-line go through 184 pages in 30 minutes, but the average report is 500 pages. And in lengthy hostile work environment claims I’ve seen ROIs hit 1,000 or 2,000 pages.”

And Michael Fallings, managing partner at Tully Rinckey, another federal employment law firm, said that the removal of discovery from EEOC’s process would hamstring complainants and administrative judges alike.

“The [agency] investigators are asking boiler plate questions in writing for officials to answer, so that means there are no follow ups, and a lot of times management officials just don’t understand a question and write, ‘I don’t understand,’” he said. “There’s not really a good or consistent process for obtaining relevant documentation either—that’s why discovery is often needed, to seek that additional info. Sometimes what happens is the administrative judge already recognizes and orders for additional documents to be produced by the agency or the complainant, but without discovery that’s not going to occur.”

The move to end consideration of class complaints, which EEOC officials said would not apply to already filed cases, comes after the agency quietly instructed its staff to cease work on those cases, and a week after the commissioners by a 2-1 vote moved to decertify a handful of classes in pending cases. In a statement, the American Federation of Government Employees, which sued the agency last month over the stop-work directive, decried the proposal.

"The changes being proposed by the EEOC will result in discrimination cases taking longer to resolve at greater cost to taxpayers, which is a disservice both to federal employees and the American public,” said Kendrick Roberson, the union's national vice president for women and fair practices. “The Trump administration is assigning the fox to guard the hen house. Under these proposed changes, when federal workers allege that an agency has discriminated against them, they will no longer have the right to have their case reviewed by a neutral judge. Instead, the agency will decide if the agency engaged in discrimination, and that is a crystal-clear conflict of interest and a denial of justice.”

Kotogal sought to at least secure a longer 60-day window for members of the public to submit comments on the proposed rule, but was rebuffed. Comments on EEOC’s proposal will be due Sept. 27.

]]>

NSA wants access to ‘all’ AI models, top official says

David DiMolfetta — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:00:38 -0400

The National Security Agency wants access to artificial intelligence models across the commercial market and is holding extensive discussions with leading developers as it moves to carry out new White House directives on the technology, the agency’s deputy director said Thursday.

“We want access to all the models, and we’re going to take advantage of that,” Tim Kosiba said on a panel at an Intelligence and National Security event in Bethesda, Maryland.

Kosiba said NSA has used AI in various forms for decades, but the rapidly improving capabilities of newer systems are driving a more aggressive effort to obtain and deploy the fast-evolving technology.

“The transformative change that we see today is what these models can actually do,” he said.

The remarks offer one of the clearest public indications that NSA is actively engaging major AI developers as it assumes a central role in the government’s new framework for evaluating advanced models. They also follow months of internal deliberations among officials regarding the role the U.S. intelligence community’s primary signals intelligence and cyber organization should play in advancing U.S. AI competitiveness.

“There are a lot of conversations happening amongst industry, especially the frontier model companies,” Kosiba said. He didn’t identify the companies involved, say which models NSA currently uses or disclose whether any developer has provided the agency with access to an unreleased system.

The term “access” may cover several different arrangements. NSA could use a model through a company-controlled service, deploy a version inside a government environment or receive access for security testing of classified networks.

The conversations are occurring as NSA helps implement a sweeping June executive order directing national security agencies to create classified tests for determining when AI systems have developed sufficiently advanced hacking capabilities to warrant additional scrutiny.

The order calls for a voluntary arrangement through which developers can give the federal government access to qualifying models for as many as 30 days before releasing them to other trusted partners. It explicitly prohibits the creation of a mandatory government licensing or approval process for new AI models.

NSA’s director is responsible for deciding which systems meet the threshold for a “covered frontier model,” in consultation with the Office of the National Cyber Director, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and other government offices.

A related national security directive issued in June instructed intelligence and defense agencies to form “deep, proactive partnerships” with industry and make the most advanced models available to national security personnel without delay. It also encouraged the government to avoid becoming dependent on a single company by obtaining technology from a diverse group of suppliers.

Kosiba’s comments didn’t establish that the voluntary pre-release program is fully operational or that companies have begun providing models through it. The White House told major developers earlier this month that open-weight models would not be included in the testing program. Unlike closed systems controlled by companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, open-weight models make their underlying settings available for others to download and modify.

Government access to advanced AI has expanded. OpenAI’s latest GPT-5.6 models became available to federal customers this month through its FedRAMP-authorized enterprise service after their public release in July.

The push for broad access comes as the Defense Department remains locked in a legal and policy dispute with Anthropic over restrictions the company placed on certain military uses of its models. The Pentagon designated Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company declined to relax some of those safeguards, prompting a lawsuit in which a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the government’s action.

Parts of NSA temporarily lost access to Anthropic’s Mythos 5 amid an export control dispute between the company and the Trump administration, demonstrating how government access to commercially controlled systems can be affected by policy decisions outside the agency. The administration has subsequently lifted the restrictions that had affected access.

AI-enabled cyber risks have become an increasing flashpoint in recent months after Anthropic unveiled its first version of Mythos, an advanced model it withheld from public release because of concerns that its ability to find and exploit previously unknown software vulnerabilities could be misused.

Since then, Anthropic, OpenAI and other developers have introduced a growing family of models with similar capabilities, forcing policymakers to consider how to test the systems, control access to them and harness their abilities for cyberdefense without giving attackers the same advantage.

As NSA pushes to adopt AI faster, Kosiba said humans will remain responsible for checking that its use complies with surveillance laws and the agency’s internal rules.

“What the models are putting out, how we’re leveraging technology today, will always require that human to double-, triple-check and make sure we are in complete compliance with the law,” he said.

]]>

Want to retire at the end of 2026? Start planning now

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:00:00 -0400

If you're planning to retire at the end of 2026, it's time to get busy preparing. End-of-year retirements are popular, especially for federal employees who are saving annual leave for a large lump-sum payout in 2027.

The Office of Personnel Management continues to process a historically high volume of retirement claims, and while digital submissions are improving processing efficiency, overall claim inventories are still above target levels. This is why early preparation helps during the transition from employee to annuitant.

Employees can reduce potential delays by confirming service records, reviewing benefit elections, preparing financially for the transition period and submitting retirement paperwork early through their agency's recommended process.

Some recent retirement processing numbers:

In July 2026, OPM processed 14,370 digital claims and 3,471 paper application packages. By comparison, in January 2026, OPM processed 6,465 digital applications and 9,106 paper applications.

The 2025 Deferred Resignation Program contributed to the 2026 surge. Large numbers of employees left federal service under the DRP, creating delays for payroll providers and human resources offices responsible for initial retirement processing.

As of the end of July 2026, OPM still had 24,784 claims awaiting adjudication, above its goal of 13,000 or fewer pending claims. Although the inventory has improved from a high of 65,237 claims in February 2026, processing times remain a key consideration for employees planning a year-end retirement.

Checklist to get ready

1. Build a cash reserve for the transition.

Your final paycheck should arrive within a few weeks of retirement, and your lump-sum annual leave payment usually follows soon after. However, timing can vary.

Interim retirement payments may begin within 6 to 8 weeks, while final adjudication may take several months. In July 2026, digital claims averaged about 98 days from receipt at OPM, while paper claims averaged 156 days.

It is not clear whether those are 22-day work months or 30-day calendar months, but either way, these are only "averages."

2. Confirm that your records and paperwork are complete.

Verify that your federal service is fully documented in your eOPF, including appointment dates, work schedule changes and retirement coverage changes.

Keep copies of key records in your personal personnel file.

Confirm whether any military service credit deposits are complete.

Verify that all service is creditable for retirement eligibility and computation before setting your retirement date.

3. Update beneficiary designations for CSRS or FERS, TSP and FEGLI.

4. Review survivor benefit elections.

If applicable, consider spousal survivor benefit options before submitting your retirement application.

5. Confirm FEHB eligibility.

Remember, you must be "covered" by FEHB (or PSHB) for the five years immediately preceding your retirement date. You also must be retiring with immediate retirement eligibility.

6. Determine whether a former spouse is entitled to benefits.

If applicable, review your divorce decree or court order. Include a copy with your retirement application if benefits are payable to a former spouse.

7. Review life insurance needs.

Consider your FEGLI coverage and review the Continuation of Life Insurance form, SF 2818

Additional information is available from OPM's life insurance resources

8. Give sufficient notice and begin the application early.

OPM advises employees to contact their employing agency about recommended submission timeframes. Agencies generally need at least 60 days to process a retirement application before sending it to OPM, but some agencies may require more time.

9. Final retirement estimate

Do you understand the numbers on this estimate? If not, ask questions to be sure.

This is an "estimate." OPM is responsible for the final numbers. Be sure to receive a final retirement estimate and be sure that you understand and agree with the dates and numbers.

10. Understand the difference between paper and digital applications.

Paper applications: Employees complete the Application for Immediate Retirement, SF 3107 for FERS or SF 2801 for CSRS. HR reviews the application, completes the Certified Summary of Federal Service, which you will need to sign and return, and submits the package through payroll to OPM.

Digital applications: When an employee notifies HR of a retirement date, HR sends an invitation to access the Online Retirement Application system. HR and payroll review and complete their portions before electronically releasing the application to OPM.

]]>

Data from Labor employees seeking disability accommodations impacted by 'internal incident'

Jory Heckman — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 14:01:25 -0400

The Labor Department is informing employees who requested reasonable accommodations for a disability or medical condition that some of their personal health information was improperly shared outside of the department’s network.

In a notice sent last week, Naomi Berry-Perez, director of the department’s Civil Rights Center, told employees seeking reasonable accommodations about an “incident that may have affected the privacy of some of your information.”

According to the notice, shared with Government Executive by impacted individuals, DOL learned in an “internal incident report” on July 22 that a single email containing a spreadsheet of personally identifiable information related to employees' RA requests was sent to “one individual's personal email address outside of the DOL domain.”

“The individual had authorized access to the information in the performance of their DOL duties. However, the individual did not have the authority to send the information to a personal email address,” Berry-Perez wrote.

She told employees that, following an initial investigation, the department ”discovered that more than one email" containing PII or protected health information (PHI) was sent to the same personal email address outside of the DOL domain.

“DOL is currently assessing the scope and impact of these related incidents. DOL is engaging in remediation activities to recover and destroy all the information involved,” Berry-Perez wrote. The department, she added, is also “reviewing and considering current and new measures that may be necessary to safeguard your information.”

It’s not entirely clear how many DOL employees received these notices or are impacted by the incident. Labor Department employees recently told Government Executive that the department is facing a backlog of hundreds of RA requests. Several reported waiting months or, in some cases, a year or longer for the department to process their requests.

“We have been contacted by about 80 people in an hour,” a union official employee said about the notification letters. "Essentially everyone who has applied for an RA.”

The Labor Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“If DOL determines that additional categories of PII/PHI left the DOL domain, verifies additional incidents where your information has been disclosed, or identifies additional recommended steps that may safeguard your information, additional notifications will be provided,” Berry-Perez wrote.

She told employees that the department “has identified all of the information that was involved in the incident,” which includes employees’ first and last names, duty location, work email address, job title, supervisor name and email address, pay grade and series.

The spreadsheet sent to a personal email address also included applicants' PHI, which in this case included “categories of functional limitations that are the basis for the reasonable accommodation request.” Functional limitations listed on the spreadsheet included whether employees had any of the following conditions:

• Dexterity/mobility issues

• Low vision/blindness

• Physical disability

• Deafness/hard of hearing

• Mental health

• Cognitive learning disability

• Chronic health condition

• Pregnancy

“No Social Security Numbers (SSNs), dates of birth (DOBs), more specific medical diagnoses beyond the above-listed functional limitations, medical documents, or additional financial information were included in this spreadsheet,” Berry-Perez wrote.

]]>

Pushed out by the Trump administration, these ex-feds want to make agency firings simpler and fairer

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 05:59:00 -0400

After being pushed out of their jobs last year by the Trump administration, Maureen Klovers and April Mohr Harding co-founded We the Doers, an organization that aims to take the expertise of former civil servants and use it to improve government operations.

Because she had been in a new Senior Executive Service position for less than a year, Klovers was briefly fired as a result of the mass removals of newly hired or promoted agency staffers in their probationary periods. Ultimately, however, she decided to leave government service through the deferred resignation program rather than be reassigned to a new location as part of the Agriculture Department’s reorganization initiative.

Similarly, Harding, who was a senior official at the IRS, participated in DRP after being told that her position was slated to be eliminated as part of workforce reductions.

In the midst of the Trump administration’s overhaul of the procedures for removing agency staffers, which critics contend is chipping away at federal employees’ due process rights, We the Doers on Thursday issued a report on federal firing reform. Klovers and Harding argue that their recommendations would make it easier to terminate an underperforming employee for cause while still preserving civil service job protections.

“[Firing] is one of those very polarizing things — and our approach to this, as with all of our work — is really to bring the lived experience of people who have moved through the actual process into the conversation and to pretty aggressively pursue a common sense set of solutions that is not partisan and that is based on the things that we can all agree on — which is if someone's not in the right job, there should be a way to move them on or move them out,” Harding said. “And if that happens, it should be as quick and painless as possible for all parties involved.”

For its report, We the Doers in the spring convened 10 former or current federal managers who addressed an employee performance or conduct issue as a first- or second-level supervisor. Across a dozen cases that these individuals were directly involved in, it took an average of 19 months between when the manager initiated the removal process and when the employee resigned, retired, transferred to another agency or was fired.

Klovers and Harding also consulted with federal HR officials and a former Democratic and Republican member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates federal employee appeals concerning violations of merit principles. We the Doers is financially supported by the Fund for Constitutional Government nonprofit.

Harding said that their "most high-impact" recommendation is to establish a standard, governmentwide removal process. She argued that the federal firing process seems simple on paper, but that it is complicated by agency-specific policy and possible additional requirements in union collective bargaining agreements.

“This is an example of a much broader issue in the sort of breakdown between theory and practice in workforce management. The process as documented at different levels is pretty straightforward and pretty clear. But then it immediately exponentially grows because there is so much variation,” she said. “That's a big part of why [the removal process] feels opaque and confusing to people. Because you can do it in one place and then do it in another place — or do it in the same place with different people supporting you — and have a different experience. If we don't clean that up, then the rest of the reforms won't be effective.”

Klovers shared, for example, that she had to discipline an employee who wasn’t showing up for work. An HR official told her that before she could issue a written reprimand she needed to engage in informal counseling. (i.e. “Just tell [the employee] you have to show up for work when you're scheduled.”) In contrast, other feds who We the Doers interviewed said their agency mandates an automatic written reprimand when a worker is AWOL.

Klovers and Harding also recommended that lawmakers “consolidate all post-removal appeals and investigative processes for federal employees into a new, strengthened, non-political single adjudicatory body.”

Currently, feds can appeal a removal decision to the MSPB, the Office of Special Counsel (which specializes in whistleblower cases and can act as a prosecutor before the MSPB) as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (which has jurisdiction over claims of discrimination in the public and private sectors).

An agency attorney who We the Doers interviewed said that they handled a case that took a decade to resolve because the employee “bounced back and forth” among those three agencies.

“At the end of those 10 years, none of the witnesses were available because they died, moved or other things had happened, and so the agency ended up having to settle with the employee because after 10 years they didn't have a case because they had no witnesses,” Klovers said. “That's an extreme example, but it's an example of why it's such a problem that there are three different bodies an employee can go to.”

The duo acknowledged that a challenge to establishing such an agency is a recent Supreme Court decision that permitted the president to fire without cause members of bipartisan boards, such as the MSPB.

“We think it's critical to get buy-in from both sides of the aisle and to have a fair process to have an adjudicatory body that is truly independent,” Klovers said.

Some of We the Doers’ other recommendations include:

Requiring agencies to track how long it takes to remove employees, or “time to fire.”
Mandating agencies to request agency-funded second medical opinions for most Family and Medical Leave Act or reasonable accommodation requests from employees on an active performance improvement plan. Based on their interviews, Klovers and Harding found that staffers can take advantage of these processes to delay removal or use a denial as grounds for a complaint.
Assessing supervisors’ ability to address “performance and conduct issues in a professional, expeditious manner.” The duo noted that OPM in June similarly required performance plans to include a section regarding how “timely and efficiently” supervisors address “poor and mediocre performance” of employees they oversee.

Since the start of Trump’s second administration, OPM has issued rules to grant itself the ability to fire government employees for post-appointment conduct (which previously only applied to job applicants), take over adjudication of appeals for reduction-in-force decisions from MSPB and overhaul federal worker discipline.

]]>

Lawmakers call for watchdog review of DOT’s passenger privacy practices

Edward Graham — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 18:21:44 -0400

Two Democratic lawmakers are calling on the Government Accountability Office to launch an investigation into the Transportation Department’s airline passenger privacy practices, warning that the agency has failed to safeguard U.S. citizens’ personal data by not moving to regulate the practices of commercial airlines.

In a Wednesday letter to GAO acting Comptroller General Orice Brown, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Shontel Brown, D-Ohio, noted that “although DOT has had sole authority to safeguard passenger data for over 40 years, DOT has never taken a single enforcement action related to privacy.”

The lawmakers added that DOT’s “abdication of its role as a privacy regulator” has allowed passengers’ data to be “exposed to corporate exploitation, warrantless government surveillance, and warrantless seizure of money and other property.”

In one notable case, 404 Media reported in June 2025 that a data broker owned by several U.S. airlines sold Customs and Border Protection access to travelers’ flight information. The Drug Enforcement Administration similarly profiled train and airline passengers using their data to identify individuals for questioning, with the lawmakers’ letter saying the agency “for years bribed airline employees millions of dollars to covertly siphon off Americans’ private data.”

The missive said “a Congressional Research Service review found no instance of [DOT] taking a public enforcement action or issuing civil penalties regarding consumer privacy violations,” despite the agency having four decades’ worth of authority to police such offenses. DOT has said it receives few complaints regarding consumer privacy violations and that it investigates any concerns as they arise — “a reactive approach to airline privacy,” the lawmakers said in a Wednesday press release.

Similar concerns raised by Wyden during the Biden administration ultimately led to DOT launching an industrywide review of U.S. airliners’ privacy practices, with then-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg saying in March 2024 that the move was “the beginning of a new initiative by DOT to ensure airlines are being good stewards of sensitive passenger data.”

Despite Wednesday’s letter noting that Transportation’s review included requests for information from major U.S. airlines about their privacy policies and procedures, the lawmakers said that, “more than two years after this announcement, it remains entirely unclear whether a meaningful review ever took place.”

None of the responses from U.S. airlines were ever made public, and Transportation did not release any subsequent reports or take any actions against airlines for privacy violations. Under the Trump administration, the lawmakers said that “DOT appears to have abandoned this effort” and “has not announced any additional privacy reviews.”

Wyden and Brown’s letter calls for GAO to launch a formal investigation “into the DOT’s systemic abdication of its consumer privacy enforcement mandates,” and similarly requests that the watchdog provide legislative recommendations to address “DOT's inaction and compel the agency to more vigorously protect the privacy rights of travelers.”

The missive outlines several priority areas for GAO to review, including reporting on the status of Transportation’s 2024 industrywide privacy practice evaluation, examining the agency’s coordination with the DEA and assessing the current “complaint-driven oversight model” when it comes to investigating potential consumer privacy violations.

]]>

GSA's $13 billion fraud claim relies on cases predating task force

Nick Wakeman — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 08:00:00 -0400

The General Services Administration claims it has uncovered more than $13 billion in suspected fraud by federal contractors since launching its anti-fraud task force in March.

The White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud is using governmentwide contract data, public reporting, and inspector general enforcement information to uncover the fraud, GSA said in its announcement.

“Let this serve as a warning to any bad actors thinking of stealing from the federal government: we will catch you, we will work with law enforcement to ensure your arrest, and we will do everything in our power to help recover every dollar you stole,” said GSA Administrator Edward C. Forst.

The GSA announcement doesn’t offer examples of the fraud but links off to a Breitbart News article that cites examples the organization says GSA provided it.

But the examples Breitbart cites predate the launch of the fraud task force and at least one case predates the Trump administration.

The alleged fraud of the cases adds up to about $117 million, and the companies paid $29 million to settle the allegations.

GSA did not respond to a request to confirm the Breitbart story or provide information on the number of fraud cases it has referred to the Justice Department.

While not actually uncovered by the fraud task force, the allegations at the three companies cited by Breitbart are egregious.

Sierra Nevada Corp. agreed to pay $7.75 million to settle False Claims Act allegations because it hired a consultant, Michael Henry, while he was still employed by the Defense Department’s Joint Staff/J6.

He formed a business with another, unnamed Sierra Nevada employee, but took that person’s name off the business to hide any connection, according to Henry’s 2025 plea agreement. DOJ indicted Henry in 2024 of “acts affecting a personal financial interest,” the court document states.

Henry helped the company win three contracts with DOD. Breitbart reports that Sierra Nevada allegedly committed $44 million in suspected fraud.

Sierra Nevada’s settlement with the Justice Department was announced last month. DOJ said the company “knowingly made, or knowingly caused to be made, material false statements, material false certifications, and material omissions” involving organizational conflicts of interest.

According to court records, Sierra Nevada didn’t put any OCI mitigation practices in place when it hired Henry.

The agreement with DOJ settles the allegations but is not a finding of civil liability, according to the Justice Department.

The second case Breitbart cited involves two companies and their senior executives. Broadway Electric and Cornerstone Contracting created a scheme to win contracts reserved for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses as well as other small businesses. Cornerstone is a subsidiary of Broadway Electric.

Broadway and Cornerstone were not qualified to bid on the contracts, as they were not service-disabled small businesses.

The Justice Department said the companies and their senior executives, John Oehler and Christian Blake, would enlist a SDVOSB to be the prime. While Broadway and Cornerstone did the work of preparing bids, securing bonding, and performing most of the work, they would pay the small business a fixed fee of between 1 and 3%, according to the settlement.

Part of the $21.3 million settlement will go to two whistleblowers, who will share $3.7 million.

The companies ran their scheme from 2019 to March 2025. The companies and the executives “admit, acknowledge, and accept responsibility” for their actions, according to DOJ.

]]>

Politicizing government investments hurts all of us

Jason Walsh — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 07:00:00 -0400

The federal government has a fundamental responsibility to spend tax dollars in the best interest of taxpayers. This should not be a controversial stance.

And yet, the Trump administration is attempting to politicize the allocation of federal funds. Nestled into a massive new rule proposed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is a revision of Section 200.205 in the Uniform Guidance (UG) that would require political appointees to review and approve any awarding of federal funds. The revision would upend longstanding processes for how federal funds are awarded and would impact all federal agencies that award funding. For example, under the current UG, the Labor Department uses a peer review process in award decisions. That process is managed by a career civil service grant officer. A review board awards points based on the funding announcement criteria for awards and the grant officer has final say on award determinations. This ensures that grant decisions are merit-based rather than politically motivated.

The Section 200.205 revision in the proposed rule would still allow most of this process, but in the end, a political appointee would have final say based on subjective criteria, like “anti-American values” or the “president's policy priorities.” Perhaps even more disturbing, the OMB rule attaches new ideological conditions on funds in an effort to ensure they don’t promote diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, and it would allow federal agencies to exclude specific types of nonprofit organizations from eligibility before an application is even opened. This effectively removes any fair competitive environment where potential applicants are aware of the rules prior to applying.

This kind of politically motivated funding decision-making can be disastrous. For example, under the second Trump administration’s Agriculture Department policies overseeing wildfire funding require states to yield to the administration on unrelated efforts, including deportation and eliminating DEI programs. Because of that, $15 million in wildfire-prevention grants for an area in Washington state have been long delayed. That area was impacted by wildfires earlier this month and 65,000 residents had to be evacuated. As of Aug. 8, those funds were still on hold. More than 900 homes, businesses and buildings have been destroyed.

The award of congressionally mandated funds should not be tied to any president’s whims. Doing so, by design, deprioritizes the public good.

This has long been well understood and is why, historically and under current guidance, there is a firewall that allows apolitical career staffers to make merit-based award decisions without the participation of political appointees. I experienced this myself as an Obama administration appointee at the Energy Department. I ran an office that regularly made competitive grant awards, but I didn’t touch the selection process, which was conducted by career staff. Even as an administration appointee, I was kept separate from the selection process because the appearance of political favoritism had to be avoided to maintain the integrity of the process.

The bottom line: Taxpayers will not benefit from a system under which grants are awarded based on who curries the most favor with the president. Politicizing the grantmaking process by adding arbitrary requirements to fulfill presidential priorities and enabling political appointees to block projects they deem distasteful will hold back our ability to fund the projects our nation needs to maintain its research, development and deployment edge in a rapidly shifting economy.

We’ve already seen what the Trump administration’s attempts to politicize federal grant funding look like. A federal court ruled that the Trump administration acted unconstitutionally when the Energy Department canceled billions of dollars in grants for clean energy projects that were awarded in states that didn’t vote for Trump in the 2024 presidential election. This is not speculation. The Trump administration admitted to basing the cancellation decisions solely on whether projects were based in blue states. With these terminations, Trump used the federal government to sacrifice jobs and investment for partisanship. The courts correctly interpreted this as an assault on the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. Now OMB is attempting to institutionalize this same approach to federal funding.

The harm caused by this proposed rule would stretch far beyond the projects targeted. It could make it less likely that high-quality applicants would compete for federal grants and loans, undermine trust in federal contracts, jeopardize private investment and weaken U.S. competitiveness. If private-sector and nongovernmental leaders cannot trust the impartiality and stability of government decisions and commitments, they may be less likely to include partnerships with the federal government in their business and innovation strategies. This could drive talent, capital and partnerships toward countries with more stable, apolitical funding environments, putting U.S. leadership in energy, science and technology at risk. It weakens the government’s ability to partner with companies to invest in strategic sectors, support vital domestic industries and ensure next-generation technologies scale in the United States, ironically, goals the Trump administration claims to support.

Jason Walsh is executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance. Walsh previously served in the Obama administration, as the director of the Office of Strategic Programs in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and as a senior policy advisor in the White House Domestic Policy Council, where he led the Obama administration’s efforts to align and scale up federal investments in workers and communities impacted by the shift away from coal in the power sector.

]]>

Unions: OPM’s suitability and performance management overhauls assert ‘plenary’ authority over federal firing

Erich Wagner — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 17:24:14 -0400

A coalition of unions that represent roughly half of all civilian federal employees sued the Trump administration Monday, seeking to halt a pair of recent regulatory changes that erode federal workers’ civil service protections and instill unprecedented power in the government’s dedicated HR agency.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, centers on a pair of regulations finalized by the Office of Personnel Management this year: one requiring agencies to follow a forced distribution when conducting performance appraisals—effectively limiting how many employees receive top ratings—and another granting OPM the ability to fire employees across government for post-appointment conduct via suitability decisions, which previously only applied to job applicants, not incumbent employees.

The unions argued that the regulations at various points conflict with the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, as well as violate the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements that regulations be sufficiently reasoned and consider the reliance interests of stakeholders.

And they said the suitability rule, when considered in conjunction with separate regulations taking review of those and other personnel actions away from the Merit Systems Protection Board, effectively bypasses Congress’ intended bifurcation of the old Civil Service Commission into two agencies.

“Because an employee can only appeal a suitability action with OPM itself, the same agency (OPM): (1) establishes the use of suitability actions for removing employees, (2) takes such actions against employees, and (3) purports to determine whether its own actions were proper,” the lawsuit states. “In short, OPM has granted itself plenary and, in its view, unreviewable authority to fire employees across the government. It is hard to imagine a scheme that is more contrary to Congress’ design.”

In addition to the removal of appeals rights for feds fired under a suitability action, the labor groups called out the lack of transparency in who would effectuate those removals.

“There are no requirements or standards for determining who at OPM is authorized to make decisions regarding suitability actions, nor is that information public,” they wrote. “OPM’s website currently claims: “OPM’s Suitability Executive Agent Programs serves as the federal government’s suitability and fitness authority.’ OPM provides no further information regarding who comprises ‘SuitEA’ (which is not a subcomponent created or regulated by statute or regulation.”

The adoption of a “forced curve” on agency workforces through the new performance management process violates the Civil Service Reform Act’s requirement that performance appraisals must be based on objective criteria—ranking employees in relation to one another is inherently a subjective metric, the unions said.

“A small team with only high performers will need to rank some as less high performers,” the unions wrote. “Further, if two employees have the same objective performance rating and the new ‘distribution’ requires that they receive different summary levels, this is an invitation for favoritism based on subjective and impermissible factors. OPM has not shown that more dispersed evaluations are also more accurate and objective or that the use of objective criteria is no longer feasible.”

In a joint statement, union officials warned that these changes—if allowed to proceed—ultimately will erode agencies’ ability to serve the public.

“Congress built the civil service on a simple principle—that public servants are hired, judged and fired on merit, not on politics,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. “OPM does not have the authority to write those protections out of the law, and no statute gives it the sweeping power it has claimed here.”

“These rules proposed by the Trump Administration are yet another illegal continuation of their attacks on federal workers and the apolitical civil service, as they seek to eliminate long-held worker due process rights while implementing a ‘fox guarding the henhouse’ employee appeal process,” said International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers President Matt Biggs. “These actions are un-American.”

]]>

GSA says it’s uncovered ‘record-setting’ $13B in suspected procurement fraud

Christian Robles — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 17:08:55 -0400

The General Services Administration announced that it has found $13 billion in suspected procurement fraud since March 2026 in what is the largest suspected fraud bust in the agency’s history, according to a Tuesday press release.

In collaboration with the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, GSA uncovered the suspected fraud by using contracting data, public reporting and inspector general enforcement information, the agency said.

“Anyone who lies their way into receiving taxpayer dollars is putting their business, their reputation, and their freedom at risk. GSA is fully committed to working with Vice President [JD] Vance’s task force to root out fraud and protect the integrity of federal procurement,” said GSA Administrator Edward Forst in the release.

GSA said it will refer suspected fraudsters to the Office of the Inspector General or Department of Justice for investigation.

GSA is also conducting a review of COVID-19 spending, the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program spending, contractor eligibility, bid rigging, cybersecurity false claims, bribery and other contractor-integrity risks.

GSA’s $13 billion estimate appears to have been added to fraud.gov, the White House’s official tabulation for suspect fraud, on Tuesday, a Nextgov/FCW comparison of current numbers on the website and previous tallies recorded via the Wayback Machine.

According to Fraud.gov, GSA has prevented $202.2 million in fraud through administrative actions and recovered $29.5 million in fraud through enforcement actions since January 2025.

Spokespeople for GSA and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on the fraud.gov listing by the time of publication.

“As we saw with the efforts from DOGE, this is a trust but verify situation. ‘Suspected’ procurement fraud is a lot different than adjudicating the incidents and seeing the results of the investigations,” Tim Brennan, president of the Center for Procurement Advocacy, told Nextgov/FCW.

“If this number is real, then we need to do more to reinforce the acquisition workforce with attracting additional qualified personnel and providing better training across the government. Contracting officers have incredible workloads and with the early retirements and reductions in force, they will have a harder time preventing fraud in the future. Hopefully this results in positive changes that protect the government from fraud going forward,” he added.

GSA did not offer examples of suspected procurement fraud in its release but examples included in a Breitbart exclusive predate the launch of the White House fraud task force, according to Washington Technology. At least one case predates the Trump administration.

The agency did not respond to the outlet’s request to confirm the Breitbart story or provide information on fraud cases referred to the Justice Department.

]]>

Agencies backfilled 20,600 employees who left government under the deferred resignation programs, analysis finds

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 16:48:43 -0400

As the Trump administration slashed the civil service last year by more than 300,000 employees, about 41% of the separations were a result of the deferred resignation program. Under the initiative, participating workers were generally placed on paid leave for several months through the end of September 2025 when their federal service officially ended.

In an Aug. 20 analysis, however, the Partnership for Public Service nonprofit found that many agencies appear to have backfilled impacted positions. Specifically, researchers reported that, by June 2026, nearly 20,600 employees “had been hired in the same agency subcomponents and occupational series as prior DRP separations.”

“Many employees were paid to resign only to be replaced just months later, often at a more junior level,” the Partnership asserted.

For example, 155 staffers in the “consumer safety inspection” occupational series left government under the DRP, according to Office of Personnel Management federal workforce data, but an equal number of individuals were then hired into jobs in that same series.

OPM Director Scott Kupor criticized the analysis in a Tuesday blog post, arguing the job classifications that researchers used are too broad to serve as a proxy for backfills. While he disputed the Partnership’s methodology, he also pointed out that it shows only around 15% of individuals who separated under DRP were replaced.

“That’s pretty good for a program that was rolled out government-wide,” he wrote. “Simply put, 85% of the reductions were real and lasting.”

The Partnership analysis also found that new hires in the backfilled positions came in at an average of roughly 1.4 General Schedule grades below the people they replaced. In particular, researchers flagged that the average GS grade for new employees in the FBI’s “criminal investigation” series was 3.1 grades lower than the average grade among employees at the law enforcement agency who left under DRP.

In his blog, Kupor contended that the federal government needs to address the underrepresentation of early-career employees at agencies.

“We believe that organizations can also benefit from bringing in new talent — even with lesser experience — and finding ways to train and promote them to become future leaders,” he wrote. “We don’t have a long-term sustainable organization without developing new talent.”

Government watchdogs in recent months have criticized agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, IRS and General Services Administration, for cutting staff without analyzing how doing so would impact services to the public.

]]>

State Department board’s ability to challenge firings undercut by DOJ

Jory Heckman — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 09:11:02 -0400

The Trump administration is challenging the authority of an independent board to prevent the State Department from firing or disciplining Foreign Service employees who face allegations of misconduct.

The Foreign Service Grievance Board, a panel created under the 1980 Foreign Service Act, can reverse disciplinary measures and reinstate Foreign Service employees who face termination if the board deems there is insufficient evidence for the State Department to justify those actions. While the board views its role as an evidentiary check to ensure the department’s case holds up, the administration views this check as an infringement on executive power.

In a legal opinion released last Friday, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel determined that the grievance board violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because it had “unreviewable authority" over the secretary of state.

Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wrote that although the secretary of state appoints members to the board, he cannot remove them except for cause. In most cases, the board’s decisions can be appealed to federal district courts.

“The Act violates the Appointments Clause by vesting final decisionmaking authority in the Board, rather than the presidentially accountable Secretary,” Gaiser wrote.

DOJ wrote in a press release that the Foreign Service Grievance Board may continue to hear grievances, but that the secretary of state “will retain final decision-making authority, as the Constitution requires.”

Rubio’s failure to fill board vacancies serves as a practical, albeit passive, way to achieve the administration’s goal of weakening independent oversight.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau posted on X that the board “effectively has the power to overrule the secretary and the president on whether particular conduct — e.g. alcoholism, drug use, spousal abuse, or even espionage — warrants disciplinary consequences and, if so, what kind.”

“Under our Constitution, the President and the Secretary of State must have the final word on whether Foreign Service officers, who represent our country abroad, are subject to disciplinary consequences, including termination, for their actions,” Landau wrote.

Critics of the decision say the DOJ opinion is part of the Trump administration's goal of making it easier to fire federal employees who are not fully aligned with its policy goals.

Last summer, the State Department sent reduction in force notices to nearly 1,350 employees. Last year, the department made "fidelity" to the Trump administration’s policy goals a new criteria for promotions and career advancement within the Foreign Service.

Daniel Crowley, a partner with the law firm Crowley So LLP, noted that the Foreign Service Grievance Board serves as a vital check, determining whether the department has gathered sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action or termination. He warned that without this independent oversight, "we’re going to have cases where they can’t prove it, and they just fire them anyway. It’s really just about the administration’s desire to fire employees for any reason."

Crowley said the Foreign Service’s "up-or-out promotional system" already holds officers to a high performance standard. While the administration frames the shift to easier terminations as a mechanism for accountability, critics argue the existing system already enforces high standards, suggesting the change is less about performance and more about removing obstacles to executive discretion.

Last month, the Office of Personnel Management finalized regulations that significantly shrink the role of the Merit System Protection Board in hearing appeals from federal employees.

Charles Carron, chairman of the Foreign Service Grievance Board, told lawmakers and the State Department in July that Rubio hasn't named anyone to serve on the board. He said the terms of its remaining members will expire on Oct. 1, and that the board “will cease to function until new members are appointed by the Secretary.”

In the board's latest annual report, Carron wrote that its inability to function “is contrary to the intent of the Congress, which established the Board as the sole, independent grievance appeals body of the Foreign Service, adjudicating grievances from the Department of State and other foreign affairs agencies within its jurisdiction.”

Carron said the board received nearly three times as many new cases in the first half of 2026 as it did for the same period the prior year. He wrote to Rubio in May, asking if he intended to make any appointments to the board, but did not yet receive a response.

“Right now, they’re at half-staff with an explosion of cases because of everything that’s happened at the State Department and across the government,” Crowley said. “They’re already pretty hamstrung, and this is just the next step.”

George Chuzi, senior counsel at the law firm Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch P.C., said the DOJ decision is just the latest in a series of legal opinions giving President Donald Trump broad authority to reshape the federal workforce.

The Supreme Court last summer allowed the Trump administration to proceed with mass layoffs. In June, the court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter that the administration is free to fire members of most independent boards — with the exception of the Federal Reserve. This empowers the secretary of state to act unilaterally on these personnel decisions, reinforcing the "unreviewable authority" point made earlier.

“The Supreme Court, in the Slaughter case, has made clear that the president’s power to appoint, even with the advice and consent of the Senate, cannot be limited by Congress,” Chuzi said. “If he has the power to appoint them, even with advice and consent, for whatever reasons he wants, he can terminate them.”

Members of the Foreign Service Grievance Board serve two-year terms and can be removed by the secretary of state only “for corruption, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or demonstrated incapacity to perform his or her functions."

DOJ's Gaiser said the board in 2013 reinstated a Foreign Service member who had been terminated for downloading and viewing pornography on his government-provider computer. Crowley said that in this particular case, the employee was accused of viewing pornography at work, but the department didn't present evidence at the hearing fully supporting it claims. The department, he added, didn’t appeal the board's decision in federal court.

“That’s not a case of the grievance board saying that this person who viewed pornography at work shouldn’t be fired. It’s the grievance board saying there was no evidence that person viewed pornography at work,” he said.

The American Foreign Service Association said in a statement that the legal opinion “threatens a key safeguard of the professional, nonpartisan Foreign Service.”

“An independent review process cannot provide the same safeguards if the department whose action is being challenged ultimately has the power to overrule the decision,” AFSA said.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., said the DOJ opinion is "part of a broader effort to politicize the federal civil service, purge career public servants, and replace them with unqualified political lackeys.”

]]>

Blanche is confirmed. Now Congress needs to hold him accountable

Stacey Young — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 07:00:00 -0400

“I am not entirely satisfied where this is,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said of the vindictive prosecutions pursued by the Justice Department under Todd Blanche. “I have no doubts I will have concerns in the future.” Hours later, he voted to confirm Blanche as attorney general.

This queasy acquiescence and the verbal gymnastics needed to justify his vote echoes the reasoning given days earlier by Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, who were likewise on the fence about the confirmation. Tillis and Cornyn, both lame ducks like Cassidy, wrangled a milquetoast concession out of Blanche to feel more secure in their vote. Even then, the written order they demanded confirming the anti-weaponization fund’s cancellation did not legally bind the parties of the lawsuit, including President Trump.

That ambiguity was validated just an hour after Blanche’s swearing-in ceremony when Trump, asked whether the fund was still alive, said “that would be up to Todd Blanche.”

While Blanche has not indicated whether he will revive the fund, his loyalty to Trump is an established fact. As a top Justice Department leader, Blanche fired individuals who worked on cases disfavored by the president. He also oversaw the Weaponization Working Group, signed off on vindictive prosecutions, protected administration allies, obscured Trump’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s illegal conduct, and shifted thousands of agents, attorneys, and analysts away from mission-critical work to support the president’s immigration agenda and 2020 election fraud obsession.

Senators voted to confirm Blanche with full knowledge of this record; that is their prerogative. But just as important — especially for those who expressed concerns over Blanche’s deference to the White House — is their duty to hold him accountable when he steps over the line.

That starts with making it safe for whistleblowers to come forward. Over the past year and a half, traditional avenues for employees to report abuses or misconduct have been constrained. DOJ’s Office of Inspector General appears to have retreated. The Office of Professional Responsibility’s staff shrank by nearly half, DOJ fired its head last year, and the number of new investigations are at a 20-year low, even as complaints have reportedly reached record levels. The Office of Special Counsel, which investigates misconduct across the federal government, is no longer trusted to be impartial. (This is why Justice Connection worked with Protect Democracy on a guide for employees who want to disclose wrongdoing to the press — an option that can still be covered by whistleblower protection laws).

Congress has a responsibility to investigate these offices to ensure internal checks on waste, fraud, and abuse work as intended, without partisan favor, loyalty tests, or the fear that stepping forward will ruin someone’s career.

More than that, Congress itself must once again be a safe place for whistleblowers. Before this administration, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle treated whistleblowers with respect and encouraged them to come forward. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Kan., in particular, built a reputation as a champion of whistleblowers, even those reporting allegations against Republican political appointees. Yet over the last 18 months, DOJ employees who have disclosed credible claims have been smeared and derided, including by Grassley.

Blanche himself has cracked down on employees’ ability to speak out. Under his watch, the department has fired hundreds of agents, attorneys, and support staff who were assigned to work on cases disfavored by this administration or who disagreed with investigative steps in other cases. He has also issued a new policy imposing stiff penalties on employees who post anything work-related on social media. The culture of fear inside DOJ is staggering. As Justice Connection's Peter Carr told Congress, “if an agent or prosecutor thinks they’ll be fired for their cases, they are less likely to accept difficult assignments. And they might start looking more at the long-term consequences of an investigation for their careers, rather than at the facts and the law. That’s not the justice we should want for our country.”

Congress needs to start meaningfully exercising its oversight powers. Lawmakers, especially those who voted for Blanche despite their reservations, must make clear that confirmation does not equal free reign. Instead, it should be treated as the beginning of a relationship of accountability that includes taking whistleblowers seriously and bringing to light abuses reported from concerned public servants inside the department.

Stacey Young is executive director of Justice Connection, an organization that provides direct support to Justice Department employees. Young was previously a DOJ lawyer for 18 years, and ran the DOJ Gender Equality Network.

]]>

White House space transportation policy calls for integration with air traffic control modernization

Edward Graham — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 17:18:58 -0400

New space transportation policy released by the Trump administration on Thursday looks to build out the infrastructure capabilities needed to rapidly increase the number of U.S.-led rocket launches in the coming years, including by tying the push with ongoing efforts to modernize the nation’s outdated air traffic control systems.

President Donald Trump’s strategy sets a goal of supporting “more than 1,000 launches and reentries” by 2030, largely by prioritizing enhanced commercial sector engagement and increasing the number of launch and entry sites across the country.

Building out this infrastructure, the policy says, will entail the Pentagon and NASA working together to “operate Federal launch and reentry ranges and facilities in a transparent manner that accommodates government and non government users.”

Other relevant agencies will also need to be involved in these discussions, the strategy adds, to develop and publish range schedules that can “maximize efficient use of range resources for commercial users” and “optimize launch capacity.”

To help facilitate more space launches in U.S. airspace, the Transportation Department — in coordination with the Pentagon and NASA — is directed to “implement a plan to integrate space launch and reentry management into airspace and traffic control modernization efforts” and “designate priority airspace for critical space launch corridors” within 180 days of the policy’s release.

Under Transportation’s leadership, the Federal Aviation Administration has been driving the administration’s effort to radically overhaul the nation’s outdated air traffic control systems.

The modernization initiative was announced by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in May 2025 and followed several high-profile airspace incidents, including a deadly crash between an Army Black Hawk helicopter and a commercial airliner near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that January.

While the project includes some brick-and-mortar upgrades at U.S. airports and related facilities, most of the effort is focused on updating outdated air traffic monitoring and communications systems.

The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which was signed into law in July 2025, allocated $12.5 billion for the modernization effort. Transportation, however, called that amount a “down payment” that December and said it would need an additional $20 billion for the initiative.

It remains to be seen what steps will be needed to integrate the administration’s strategy with the air traffic control modernization effort, and whether or not this will have any impact on the project’s timeline.

The FAA announced in December that it awarded Peraton a $1.5 billion contract to serve as the project’s prime integrator, although Politico reported on Thursday that officials within the agency were growing frustrated by the company’s management of the massive systems overhaul.

During an April event, however, Duffy said “we’re on track to have this project completed before President Trump leaves office.”

When reached for comment, Transportation directed Nextgov/FCW to a Friday press release that announced the agency’s request for public comment on where new space launch facilities should be built, as well as how it should go about setting aside “priority airspace” for future launches.

Both Transportation’s request for information and press release, however, did not include any details as to how the space transportation policy would be integrated with the agency’s air traffic control modernization project.

An FAA spokesperson similarly referenced Transportation's release and said the agency is "seeking input on how increased launch cadence can be integrated into the U.S. airspace system."

Editor's note: This article has been updated to include comment from the FAA.

]]>

Unions accuse mediation agency of ‘doublespeak’ in updated lawsuit

Erich Wagner — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 17:16:23 -0400

“Doublespeak,” “internally inconsistent,” and “inappropriate post-hoc justification.”

A coalition of federal employee unions had harsh words for regulations submitted last month that formalized a policy to block some labor groups from obtaining independent arbitrators to hash out disputes with management.

Earlier this year, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service abandoned more than four decades of precedent when it began asking parties about a grievance’s arbitrability prior to issuing a panel of arbitrators for a union and their agency to choose from. An April memo stated that it would no longer appoint arbitrators for grievances at agencies named in President Trump’s two 2025 executive orders banning collective bargaining on national security grounds.

Unions sued to block the new policy, arguing that it violated FMCS’ own regulations, which stated that it would honor requests for an arbitrator “whether joint or unilateral,” as well as federal statute, which stipulates that federal sector collective bargaining agreement must allow for “either” party to invoke arbitration.

But in July, FMCS published an interim final rule changing its regulations to allow itself to conduct investigations and make “limited threshold determinations” regarding its authority to issue arbitrator panels in federal sector grievance cases.

The unions filed an amended complaint last week in its case against FMCS, incorporating the new regulations into its argument. In addition to accusing the agency of reverse-engineering its regulations to allow the April directive, the unions said that FMCS is effectively inserting itself into Congress’ intended review scheme: arbitrators determine the arbitrability of a particular grievance, with appeals of those decisions going to the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

“Under the guise of clarifying its longstanding regulations, the [interim final rule] transforms FMCS from a facilitator of arbitration to a decision-making body, instituting a new ‘threshold inquiry’ to determine whether issuing a panel would violate ‘applicable law, a court order or FMCS’ statutory or regulatory authority,” the unions wrote. “Other than noting that FMCS ‘may request the parties’ agreement, a statutory provision, regulation, court order, written authorization or other information needed to determine whether FMCS may provide the requested service,’ no further details are given regarding the scope and extent of the new inquiry before providing an arbitration panel, nor whether or how a party could dispute the decision made.”

The unions argued that the new regulations’ imposition of a review process at FMCS contradicts the agency’s continued insistence that it does not decide the arbitrability of a dispute.

“FMCS’s own explanation or why this change is needed is internally inconsistent with its insistence that by conducting this inquiry, it is not deciding ‘the validity of any collective bargaining agreement, the merits of any grievance, the arbitrability of any dispute, or the parties’ rights or obligations under any agreement or law,’” they wrote. “FMCS does not—and cannot—explain how an inquiry that calls for examination of agreements, statutes and regulations to determine whether a party has a right to an arbitration panel aligns with regulatory provisions stating that FMCS is not determining arbitrability.”

A scheduling hearing in the case before the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., is slated for Sept. 23.

]]>

Postal inspectors aren’t being pulled away from mail crime investigations for immigration enforcement, IG reports

Sean Michael Newhouse — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:39:02 -0400

Several federal agencies have reassigned employees to support the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda, but the U.S. Postal Service’s watchdog found in a new report that any immigration-related work conducted by postal law enforcement officers is limited and has a nexus to mail crime.

“We did not observe any Postal Inspection Service resources diverted solely for immigration enforcement activities,” auditors from the USPS inspector general office wrote.

The IG reported that, since the start of Trump’s second term, the USPIS has reassigned nine inspectors (less than 1%) to a Homeland Security Task Force. Based on agency data, however, none of the transfers were solely related to immigration enforcement and often dealt with threats like drug trafficking, human trafficking and financial crimes.

Likewise, auditors found that 39 postal inspectors (3%) in the same time frame assisted with investigations that had an immigration-related component for another law enforcement agency.

“For these investigations, postal inspectors mainly performed address checks for [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and provided investigative support when targets used the mail to traffic drugs and launder money, according to Postal Inspection Service data,” the IG wrote.

USPS OIG’s audit was initiated by a request from lawmakers who wanted to know if “potential resource diversions to immigration enforcement activities” impacted USPIS’s ability to investigate white collar crime.

The watchdog reported that the number of initiated white collar cases increased from 693 in fiscal 2024 to 1,100 in fiscal 2025 and that the number of such cases that were closed or resulted in charges between the two fiscal years marginally decreased.

“This review assessed congressional concerns about the Postal Inspection Service’s involvement in immigration-related activities since January 2025 and did not identify impacts to white-collar crime investigations attributable to resource shifts toward immigration enforcement,” the auditors wrote.

Gary R. Barksdale, the chief postal inspector, agreed with the report’s findings in an attached letter.

“The Postal Inspection Service has not sought, has not been delegated and does not exercise any immigration enforcement authority, and no postal inspector serves in the capacity of an immigration officer,” he wrote.

Trump has fired many agency IGs and replaced several of them with individuals who worked in his first or second administration. The postal IG, however, is appointed (and would be removed) by the USPS Board of Governors and Postal Regulatory Commission.

]]>

Watchdog: NSA’s NDAs don’t comply with whistleblower law

Erich Wagner — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 07:00:00 -0400

The National Security Agency routinely fails to inform employees of their rights under whistleblower protection laws when they sign non-disclosure agreements, the intelligence agency’s inspector general concluded this week.

Although the NSA is not officially subject to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, Congress has consistently required most of its provisions—minus those relating to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, who lacks jurisdiction to review matters involving counterintelligence and foreign intelligence—to apply to the agency via annual appropriations laws since 1988.

But according to a new report from the NSA inspector general, most of the agency’s non-disclosure agreements lack the required reference to federal whistleblower protections, meaning its employees “may not be aware” of their rights to disclose violations of law or instances of waste, fraud and abuse.

“We identified five unique NSA-developed NDAs. One of the five NDAs, NSA’s Security Agreement, did not include the current required whistleblower provisions but did include language related to whistleblower protections and had some statutory references,” the inspector general wrote. “The remaining four NDAs made no mention of whistleblower protections . . . Additionally, the OIG identified another five agreements that were not titled or identified as nondisclosure agreements but implied nondisclosure obligations and did not include the required whistleblower protection provisions.”

The report comes as the Trump administration considers promulgating a standardized NDA for use across government. The proposal has drawn bipartisan criticism for the potential chilling effect it could have on employees who witness misconduct while on the job, including by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who requested the inspector general’s review of NSA NDAs.

The watchdog also found that the process by which NSA employees obtain access “compartmented information” include more nondisclosure provisions that similarly lack the needed whistleblower protection language.

“The subject matter experts we spoke with explained that individual offices develop their own access agreement brief sheets using a template, and an affiliate’s acknowledgement of one of these electronic brief sheets serves as the nondisclosure agreement,” the report states. “In interviews with SMEs, two opened brief sheets of their own and noted that the required provisions were not present. We reviewed the template and noted that it lacked inclusion of the required whistleblower protection provisions.”

The inspector general recommended creating a process to ensure all nondisclosure policies, forms and agreements include the statutorily mandated whistleblower protection language, as well as assigning the task to an official within the agency.

NSA concurred with the IG’s recommendations and said it planned to assign compliance to the agency’s chief of staff.

]]>

What AI’s workplace adoption means for government agencies

John Breeden II — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 11:23:36 -0400

Most people probably associate the U.S. Census Bureau with the massive effort to count everyone in the country once every 10 years. But Census researchers are hardly sitting around waiting for the next decennial tally. The agency constantly surveys Americans about how they live, work and even play. The resulting information helps government agencies set policy, support programs and track how conditions across the country are changing.

And lately, that changing world includes a lot of artificial intelligence.

In March, the Census Bureau’s Household Trends and Outlook Pulse Survey asked U.S. workers whether they were using AI on the job and, perhaps more importantly, what they were actually doing with it. The results offer a detailed snapshot of how workers are using AI today.

About 55% of U.S. workers said they had used AI for at least one of 11 work-related tasks included in the survey. The most common applications were fairly ordinary. About 37% used AI to search for information or technical help, 32% used it to write communications, documentation or instructions and another 32% had AI help them generate ideas. About 31% used AI to interpret, translate or summarize information while 27% used it for administrative tasks.

In other words, much of workplace AI adoption does not seem to involve building autonomous agents or developing sophisticated machine learning models. People are using it to help with the kinds of things they already do every day.

Many also said it was saving them time. Among workers who had used AI during the previous week, 31% estimated that it saved them one to two hours. Another 15% said they saved three to four hours and 15% reported saving more than four hours.

AI did not save time for everyone. About 10% said it did not save them any time and 3% said using it actually required additional time to complete their work. So, the reported productivity benefits were not universal.

The Census findings cover U.S. workers generally, not government employees specifically. But they raise an interesting question for agencies trying to expand their own use of AI: As employees become more comfortable with the technology, what does practical adoption look like inside government?

I recently moderated a discussion about government AI adoption with government and industry officials that included Pamela McKnight, chief AI officer for Louisville Metro Government in Kentucky. Louisville has taken exactly that kind of approach, combining centralized governance with efforts to get AI capabilities into the hands of employees throughout the organization.

“There has to be an understanding that business will be done differently now,” McKnight said. “It’s not just about educating people about how to use an AI tool, but also identifying a use case within their area and then actually implementing that AI tool into their workstream.”

Rather than expecting a central AI team to discover every possible use case, Louisville has worked to identify employees who are interested in the technology, give them access to training and tools, and encourage those with both interest and aptitude to become AI leaders within their own areas of government.

Louisville's experience offers a government example to place alongside the broader workplace patterns Census measured. Its approach is to let employees identify potential use cases within their own areas, then pair that operational knowledge with access to AI tools, training and support. In Louisville, however, giving employees room to experiment does not mean creating an AI free-for-all, or deploying AI simply because the technology is available.

“You have to have guardrails in place, and we worked very closely with our cyber teams on those, so that is number one,” McKnight said. “And then our office is an enabler. We come along beside them and support and enable them as partners … we train them, we educate them and we show them how to specifically use those different AI tools.”

Another implementation question is which AI tool best fits a particular government task. At another discussion I recently moderated, state and local government officials warned that different AI systems have different strengths and weaknesses.

“Make sure you have the right AI as they are not all created equal and will be better at different things,” said Domain Information Security Officer for the State of Tennessee Brendan Taylor. “And even if you have OpenAI or Mythos, Gemini or whatever, make sure you are using their right product for what you are trying to do. Some are better at security or coding or productivity tasks like making reports. Make sure you are matching with the right solution.”

And while government technology leaders are working through those practical questions, the Census Bureau will continue doing what it does best: measuring what is actually happening.

The Household Trends and Outlook Pulse Survey is conducted every two months to provide timely information about changing social and economic conditions. In this case, it captured a workforce already experimenting with AI in very practical ways. Among workers who had used AI for at least one of the tasks Census measured, 24% said they used it every day during the previous week while another 46% had used it on at least one day.

The survey does not say whether employers should encourage more AI use or what tools they should deploy. But it does provide a useful snapshot of where things stand today: what workers are using AI for, how often they are turning to it and, in many cases, how much time they believe it is saving them.

And for government agencies trying to understand how AI is finding its way into everyday work, that may be one more Census count worth watching.

John Breeden II is an award-winning journalist and reviewer with over 20 years of experience covering technology. He is the CEO of the Tech Writers Bureau, a group that creates technological thought leadership content for organizations of all sizes. Twitter: @LabGuys

]]>

IRS CEO’s call to end advanced leave should be ‘null and void,’ NTEU says in lawsuit

Jory Heckman — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 15:14:34 -0400

The National Treasury Employees Union is asking a federal judge to block a recent IRS decision prohibiting its employees from taking annual leave or sick leave time they haven’t accrued yet.

NTEU, in a lawsuit filed Thursday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argued that the IRS workforce policy change should be declared “null and void” because it was made by Frank Bisignano, who is leading the agency as its “chief executive officer,” a new title created under the Trump administration.

Bisignano is also the Senate-confirmed commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which rolled out the same prohibition on advanced leave in a nearly identically worded memo.

NTEU wrote that, to its knowledge, “no other agencies besides IRS and SSA have issued directives categorically barring their employees from using advanced annual or sick leave.”

The union, in its complaint, said Bisignano's de facto leadership of the IRS violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause as requiring “principal” officers to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

NTEU wrote that Bisignano “is carrying out the functions of the IRS Commissioner, which is a principal officer, but the President did not nominate him to that position and the Senate did not confirm him to it.”

“Mr. Bisignano has therefore lacked authority for his official actions, including issuing the Directive,” the union told the court.

Bisignano has mused aloud about how unusual it is to be running both the IRS and SSA.

“I don't know that there'll be another person who oversees both of them,” he said at the Government Service Delivery Summit in June. “I also think overseeing both of them is much like running a large company.”

The IRS currently lacks a permanent or acting IRS commissioner or deputy commissioner.

The Senate confirmed former Republican congressman Billy Long in June 2025 to serve as the agency’s permanent leader, but he left after less than two months on the job. Long now serves as the U.S. ambassador to Iceland.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took over as acting IRS commissioner in August 2025, but officially stepped back from that acting role after his 210-day acting term under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act expired in March 2026. Bessent appointed Bisignano as the IRS CEO last October.

The IRS released a statement in March 2026 stating that Bessent “retains the authority and responsibility to perform the functions and duties of vacant Treasury offices that are not filled on an acting basis, and that Bisignano is “successfully leading day-to-day operations and reporting directly to the Secretary.”

“If this type of circumvention of the Appointments Clause is allowed to stand, there could be an executive branch full of CEOs at the helm of each agency, instead of a Secretary or Commissioner — none of whom would go through the Constitution’s process of presidential nominations and Senate confirmations,” NTEU wrote. “That would plainly conflict with what the Framers intended through the Appointments Clause.”

The union also argued that the agency’s new prohibition on advanced leave and advanced sick leave is “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act, “because it requires across-the-board denials of all pending advanced leave requests and because it cuts off any future such requests, regardless of an employee’s individual circumstances.”

An IRS spokesperson declined to comment on pending legislation, but said in a statement that the agency’s advanced leave restriction “aligns with the agency’s efforts to build a high-performing, highly engaged workforce operating as One IRS to deliver a world-class customer experience and aligns to our commitment to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

“The IRS continues to offer a comprehensive and competitive benefits and leave program that promotes employee well-being, flexibility, and long-term financial security,” the spokesperson said.

The IRS’ Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) instructs supervisors to review each request for advanced annual and sick leave on a case-by-case basis. Guidance from the Office of Personnel Management states advanced sick leave is a “flexibility” agencies can use to help new employees who haven’t accrued much leave yet, as well as more tenured employees experiencing personal hardships.

OPM directs agency supervisors to “use their judgment in reviewing a request for advanced sick leave” and minimize the chances of employees separating from service with a negative leave balance.

Federal employees replenish their annual and sick leave over time. Federal employees who leave government service with a negative leave balance must refund the cost of that advanced leave, and agencies may deduct it from their final paycheck.

NTEU wrote that the IRS’ new policy “is harming numerous IRS employees” who had advanced leave requests pending.

“The agency has now summarily denied all of those requests pursuant to the Directive,” the union wrote.

]]>

‘Glaring violations’ of the Hatch Act by senior Trump officials have gone unpunished for months, good government group alleges

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 14:38:05 -0400

A good government group is asking a federal watchdog why it’s taking so long for officials to resolve Hatch Act complaints that the nonprofit has filed against senior political appointees in the Trump administration.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on Thursday sent a letter to the Office of Special Counsel, which enforces rules that govern the political activities of federal employees, contending that the agency has opened investigations into six senior officials, five of which have been pending for more than 10 months.

Many of the Hatch Act complaints deal with comments made during media briefings and interviews by officials, such as outgoing White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, criticizing democratic socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani when he was a candidate.

Federal employees are not permitted to engage in political activity in their official capacity. For example, the OSC found that Biden Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro and Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley ran afoul of the Hatch Act when they criticized Donald Trump in media interviews ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

“While we understand that financial constraints and abrupt leadership changes by President Trump have challenged law enforcement efforts at agencies including OSC, CREW’s outstanding complaints originate from public interviews and posts that are easily reviewed and assert glaring violations of the law,” wrote CREW President and CEO Donald Sherman.

The organization argued that administration officials will continue to violate the Hatch Act until OSC resolves these complaints. For example, Sherman pointed to Attorney General Todd Blanche’s appearance at a campaign rally for a Republican running for New York governor. Public Citizen, another good government nonprofit, submitted a complaint about that speech earlier this week.

An OSC spokesperson said in a statement to Government Executive that the agency “doesn’t comment on open cases.”

Also on Thursday, OSC announced that it filed disciplinary complaints with the Merit Systems Protection Board against two feds who, despite warnings, allegedly ran for partisan political office and solicited political contributions. Both activities are prohibited under the Hatch Act.

Additionally, the agency touted at the end of last year that it resolved hundreds more Hatch Act complaints in fiscal 2025 than it did in fiscal 2024.

But CREW said this points to a divergence in how potential Hatch Act violations are treated depending on the employee’s rank.

“Ethical compliance cannot thrive in the federal government if the most politically powerful officials are allowed to skirt the law while their subordinates are punished for similar activity,” Sherman wrote.

Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed Charles Baldis, a former GOP Senate staffer, as special counsel, though he’s been leading the agency since spring 2025 as the designee of the former acting chief.

During Trump’s first term, the OSC found that several officials, including White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, violated the Hatch Act.

]]>

House Democrats want answers on what CISA lost in workforce cuts

David DiMolfetta — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 12:00:00 -0400

Five House Democrats are asking Congress’ investigative arm to examine how significant staffing cuts at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have affected the government’s ability to defend federal networks and critical infrastructure.

The lawmakers are calling on the Government Accountability Office — the top congressional watchdog that audits and evaluates federal programs — to examine the impact of personnel and program reductions enacted at CISA since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, according to a letter first seen by Nextgov/FCW.

The request, addressed to acting Comptroller General Orice Williams Brown, is led by Reps. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., and Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee. Ramirez is the top Democrat on the panel’s cybersecurity subcommittee, where Walkinshaw also serves. Reps. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., and LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., who also serve on the cyber panel, joined the request.

The lawmakers say CISA has lost nearly a third of its workforce “at precisely the moment when our adversaries are accelerating attacks against critical infrastructure,” leaving Congress without a clear picture of which capabilities were lost and whether remaining teams can keep pace with growing cyber and physical threats.

The concerns have grown during the war with Iran, as CISA and the FBI help utilities navigate cyberattacks affecting at least 12 states that some U.S. officials suspect may be tied to Tehran.

The lawmakers are asking GAO to examine how CISA’s workforce has changed over the past five years, including its size, composition, geographic distribution and reliance on contractors. They also want the watchdog to identify which programs were affected by the reductions and what consequences CISA and its industry and government partners have reported.

The letter further asks GAO to evaluate what data CISA uses to make workforce decisions and whether its human capital strategy aligns with its current and future mission needs.

“Little is known about the impact of these workforce reductions on CISA’s programs and services,” the lawmakers write, arguing it’s unclear whether the agency is positioned to replace the skills it has lost.

Nextgov/FCW has asked CISA and GAO for comment.

CISA is now attempting to rebuild parts of its workforce after layoffs, voluntary departures and other personnel actions reduced staffing from roughly 3,300 employees to about 2,200. Acting Director Nick Andersen has said the agency plans to hire about 330 people, while Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said CISA may need roughly 600 additional staff and that hiring could take a year or more.

Walkinshaw previously told Nextgov/FCW that restaffing the agency would be “a very difficult thing to do,” noting that cyber personnel have seen colleagues pushed out and their work publicly criticized by administration officials.

The workforce picture has also been complicated by internal DHS transfers. CISA’s former acting director told lawmakers in February that about 70 agency employees were reassigned to other DHS offices, while just over 30 moved into CISA.

At the same time, the administration’s fiscal 2027 budget request calls for eliminating roughly 870 CISA positions, including cutting staff tied to election security, stakeholder engagement and workforce development. House appropriators have since advanced a bill that would provide CISA with about $400 million more than the White House requested and set aside $31 million for critical hires. The measure has not received a House floor vote, and the Senate has not released its version, leaving the agency’s final funding and staffing levels unsettled.

The cuts were part of the Trump administration’s broader push to shrink the federal workforce, but CISA has drawn particular scrutiny over its past election security work.

That fight dates back to Trump’s first term, when he fired CISA’s first director, Chris Krebs, after Krebs rejected Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election had been stolen from him. Republicans have concurrently accused the agency of censoring conservative speech when it worked with social media platforms to flag election- and COVID-related misinformation in and around the 2020 race.

]]>

Trump’s FDA pick faces questions about leading the agency

Jennifer Shutt, States Newsroom — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 09:00:20 -0400

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration will face challenges securing Senate confirmation after the committee chairman in charge of that process expressed doubts.

That, however, hasn’t deterred White House officials from pressing for Dr. Heidi Overton, arguing she has the experience needed and that her policy goals align with the president's.

“As Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, Dr. Heidi Overton has spent the last year and a half coordinating an interagency policymaking process with senior officials across HHS, FDA, CDC, USDA, and other agencies to deliver on President Trump’s MAHA agenda,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement shared with States Newsroom on Thursday.

“Dr. Overton has been integral to ensuring that the Administration’s policies are correct, consistent, and grounded in Gold Standard Science, and will play a similar role at the FDA as its next Commissioner,” Desai added. “The White House looks forward to her swift confirmation by the Senate.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., wrote in a social media post on Wednesday that while he respects Overton’s “experience as a physician,” he isn’t convinced she’s the right person to lead the FDA, highlighting her role in a Health and Human Services Department executive order that would weaken vaccine requirements.

“Her lack of managerial experience does not prepare her well for leading a large organization that is already dealing with staffing and morale issues,” Cassidy wrote. “Additionally, Dr. Overton’s active role in last week’s nonsensical vaccine executive order calls into question her commitment to standing up for sound science and protecting children’s health. That alone is almost disqualifying.”

Cassidy, as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has control over whether to schedule a confirmation hearing or a committee vote on Overton’s nomination.

It wasn’t immediately clear whether Cassidy was open to changing his mind on Overton’s nomination. He expressed doubts about HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Erica Schwartz before voting to confirm both of those nominees.

But the White House did have to withdraw surgeon general nominee Dr. Casey Means after it became clear she didn’t have the votes to advance out of committee. And Trump had to rescind Janette Nesheiwat’s nomination for surgeon general.

The president wrote in a social media post on Wednesday that he would nominate Overton “to ensure that the U.S. remains the WORLD LEADER for Scientific Discovery and CURES.”

“Dr. Overton was a prestigious White House Fellow in my First Term, is a Board-Certified Physician in Public Health and General Preventive Medicine, and holds a Ph.D. in Clinical Investigations from the Johns Hopkins University,” he wrote. “She is SMART and RESPECTED by all! Dr. Heidi will work with Secretary Kennedy and Dr. Oz to RAPIDLY deliver on my priorities of FASTER Cures, INCREASED American Innovation, MAJOR Clinical Trial Reforms, LOWER Drug Prices, and even more MAHA WINS!”

]]>

Federal job listings provide clues for next set of Schedule P/C conversions

Erich Wagner — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 18:09:05 -0400

As agencies prep for a reported second round of conversions of federal positions out of the competitive service and into the at-will Schedule Policy/Career, experts have taken to reading new job postings as tea leaves in an effort to understand the initiatives current and future scope.

The new job category, ostensibly for “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, and policy-advocating” positions in government, was formally implemented in June, when President Trump signed an executive order converting around 8,000 positions from the apolitical competitive service into the excepted service.

Employees placed into Schedule P/C are effectively at-will employees; they no longer may challenge adverse personnel actions before the Merit Systems Protection Board, and their whistleblower complaints would be investigated by their own agency, rather than the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

But since its initial implementation, it has been difficult to ascertain whom exactly has been impacted by the new policy. Thus far, the only public documentation of Schedule Policy/Career’s scope are the statements of officials, who have said 97% of conversions involved GS-15s or senior leaders (SL), and an appendix to Trump’s executive order listing various job titles by agency, along with a position number that agencies only use internally.

New analysis from the Partnership for Public Service examining more than 130 listings that mention Schedule P/C on USAJOBS, the federal government’s dedicated online job board, has found at least a dozen positions—or nearly 10%—tagged for the new job category at the GS-13 level or below. In some cases, jobs like airport screeners at the Transportation Security Administration were listed as Schedule P/C despite not being listed in the appendix, though the agency told Government Executive those were due to an administrative error and would be corrected.

Other job listings, including for a variety of posts at the International Development Finance Corporation, state that the agency has submitted the position to OPM for conversion into Schedule P/C but had not yet received approval. The Energy Department flagged some of its jobs as “potentially meeting the requirements” for the job category, while three U.S. Agency for Global Media positions are listed as “under review for inclusion” in Schedule P/C.

Brandon Lardy, the Partnership’s data director, said in an interview that a combination of the Trump administration’s “opaque” documentation surrounding the new job category along with the chilling effect created by stripping employees of their civil service protections has created a nightmare for transparency advocates.

“We continue to be concerned as we see this rollout continue to play out, particularly as it seems to be going beyond the bounds of the executive order and its intended scope,” he said. “We’re also concerned about the effect this will have on morale across the federal workforce with the fear of being classified into Schedule P/C and losing their protections.”

Ultimately, Lardy argued that the Schedule P/C tag will hurt federal agencies’ ability to attract qualified applicants to these positions.

“Especially when you take it in the context of the administration’s actions last year, particularly to remove probationary period workers from government, that in combination with these reclassifications and this new appointment type all makes it easier to be fired,” he said. “That does have an effect on who is looking to get into government, either as a new graduate from university or someone with a long career in private sector looking to shift into public service. Either way, someone would be pretty nervous to see that their position could seemingly be reclassified and lose the civil service protections that are often a draw for folks who move into government . . . It’s not a healthy way to recruit folks into an organization.”

]]>

OPM wants to woo young workers. Can internet memes overcome Trump’s cuts to the civil service?

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 17:33:21 -0400

Updated at 10:20 a.m. ET Aug. 21

As the federal government’s human resources agency, the Office of Personnel Management frequently posts information on its social media about subjects like performance ratings and retirement processing.

On Aug. 6, however, OPM shared a post on its X account of an IMAX theater showing a video encouraging young people to apply to work at agencies with the caption: “Learning why you should join the federal government the way Christopher Nolan intended.”

The post is referencing the movie director’s decision to shoot “The Odyssey," his latest box office hit, entirely with IMAX cameras. It also includes a link to a government early career talent webpage.

Public service now on IMAX pic.twitter.com/lq1F8f2UZ4
— U.S. Office of Personnel Management (@USOPM) August 6, 2026

While the Nolan IMAX post might seem random, OPM Director Scott Kupor said it’s a key part of an effort to recruit more early-career employees into government.

“Yes, we're trying to be funny and kitschy and stuff like that,” Kupor said. “But most of that is in service of a strategy, which is, can we actually find the people that we're interested in talking to and convince them to take 30 seconds out of their busy days and hear what we have to say?”

The underrepresentation of young people in the federal government is a longstanding issue that the Biden administration also sought to fix. As officials in the second Trump presidency take their shot at solving the problem, Michelle Amante, senior vice president of government programs at the Partnership for Public Service nonprofit, warned that the president’s ongoing efforts to downsize the civil service could undermine any attempt at mass recruitment.

“When [Gen Z is] thinking about — ‘where do I want to spend my career [and] where do I want to make a difference’ — it's hard to just brush [the last year-and-a-half] under the rug, regardless of what fancy social media campaign you have,” she said.

“Make the federal government feel more approachable and even fun”

Kiki Nyoh, an OPM spokeswoman, said that the agency’s social media presence is driven by a four-person communications team — most of whom are younger than 30.

“We know how our generation communicates because we are our generation, and we’re using that perspective to make federal service resonate with the next generation of talent,” she said over email.

Christina Harbison, a senior digital adviser, shared that a lot of OPM’s social media content is inspired by a stray comment that someone will make in the office.

“We’re always listening for those unexpected ideas and looking at what people are already engaging with online, then thinking about how we can give it a federal workforce spin,” she said by email. “Content that feels timely, light and culturally relevant tends to make the federal government feel more approachable and even fun.”

For example, Harbison said that a recent post with clips of characters from the popular sitcom “The Office” dancing to tout OPM’s transition away from paper to streamline the retirement process originated with Kupor mentioning that he liked Michael Scott, who is the boss in the show.

Skip the paperwork and start your retirement journey online. Find out how OPM's Online Retirement Application can help make the retirement process faster, easier, and more transparent. Visit: https://t.co/a5CLmMaVPX pic.twitter.com/3BbeuqnJE4
— U.S. Office of Personnel Management (@USOPM) July 9, 2026

Kupor, who is frequently featured in these posts, said that he’s always up for participating, even if he doesn’t understand the humor, such as a recent video he filmed as part of the “what’s on my desk” trend.

What’s in my desk?! Watch to see the items I can’t work without and the items I didn’t know were in my desk pic.twitter.com/kiNXg3Z8OK
— Scott Kupor (@skupor) August 17, 2026

“Quite frankly, I'm willing to try anything,” he said. “You know, at the end of the day, obviously I trust [my staff] to not completely embarrass me.”

Several agencies, including the Homeland Security Department, Transportation Department and Small Business Administration, have launched TikTok accounts in recent weeks after the Justice Department found in July that a 2022 law banning the Chinese social media platform from government devices is no longer applicable because the U.S.-based version of the app is now under majority control by American investors.

When asked if OPM would create a TikTok account, Nyoh replied “stay tuned.”

“They want to hear it from people their own age”

Amante — of the Partnership, which assists agencies with hiring — said she “applauds OPM’s desire to try to expand the way it recruits the next generation” but doesn’t think that its “specific messaging is likely to land well with Gen Z.”

In particular, she criticized OPM’s “Making Government Cool Again” slogan.

“Cool is not really a word that is being used frequently by Gen Z,” she said. “That is a Gen X-era word.”

Pew Research Center defines Gen X as those born between 1965 and 1980 and starts Gen Z with anyone born in 1997.

Writers for Slang Insights, a website led by a “team of linguists, language enthusiasts, cultural researchers and content creators who share a common passion for understanding how language evolves,” reported in an Aug. 4 blog post that “if you’re still saying ‘cool,’ you might be dating yourself.”

Relatedly, a video promoting OPM’s Early Career Talent Network features country singer Kid Rock, a Trump supporter whose peak popularity was in the 2000s.

Amante also suggested that OPM should highlight younger civil servants on social media.

“It's not helpful to only hear the leaders telling [potential hires] what they think they will experience,” she said. “They want to hear it from people their own age.”

“Broad reshaping of government”

OPM’s social media posts encouraging younger workers to apply for the government come after agencies have shed more than 300,000 employees since the end of 2024, according to federal workforce data.

Kupor argued that many of the incentives that the Trump administration used to push out civil servants, such as Voluntary Early Retirement Authority, didn’t apply to early-career workers.

He also contended that there’s an opportunity for a “broad reshaping of government.” Specifically, the OPM director pointed to the importance of addressing skills shortages across the civil service, which the Government Accountability Office has identified as a major issue since 2001, as well as the share of retirement-eligible federal employees, which currently stands at 13.5%.

But the percentage of agency staffers under the age of 30 decreased over the first year of the Trump administration, according to a Partnership analysis, going from 8.9% in September 2024 to 7.9% in January 2026. Researchers attributed this to the mass firings of probationary employees, which generally impacted those who had been hired or promoted within the past year.

And while the Trump administration created Tech Force in 2025 with a goal to bring on 1,000 early-career software and data engineers potentially as soon as the end of March, OPM reported to Government Executive that it has only made 325 hires so far. And the president eliminated initiatives like the Presidential Management Fellows, a nearly 50-year-old program that served as a pipeline for graduate students to consider and pursue a career in government.

Still, Kupor is optimistic.

“I think at the end of the day, people are going to take a job or listen to what I say mostly because I give them either a compelling reason that matches their interests and that shows that we're helping them try to develop their career,” he said. “If we do that well, then I think we'll continue to attract great people. Quite frankly, if that story is not believable or not compelling to folks, then I get it, and we won't have the success that I certainly expect that we'll have.”

Correction: This story has been updated with the correct number of OPM communications staffers younger than 30.

]]>

GSA looks to ‘meaningfully increase’ hiring to replenish its workforce

Jory Heckman — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 16:29:48 -0400

The General Services Administration, the federal government’s landlord, is looking to increase its hiring after going through significant staffing cuts last year.

GSA’s Public Buildings Service told staff in an internal notice last week that a total of 142 new vacancies have been posted to USAJobs, “reflecting our continued growth and need for talented individuals.” According to the notice obtained by Government Executive, PBS is hiring a mix of construction managers, lease contracting officers and building managers.

GSA Administrator Ed Forst told office heads in a separate email that “we need to meaningfully increase our hiring in certain disciplines and decisively attract the best talent that will support GSA as we continue to grow as an agency.”

“Recruiting the right people is one of the most important things we will do to strengthen our agency. The people we bring in will shape our capacity, our performance, and our ability to power the federal government for today and our future,” Forst wrote.

An agency official familiar with the matter told Government Executive that 142 vacancies “constitutes just one week's worth of hiring news,” and that "GSA has a few hundred approved hiring opportunities, which will include external hires and internal merit promotions.”

“Many positions have already been filled, and many more opportunities are in the offer or awaiting onboarding stage as GSA strategically invests to meet its evolving mission needs,” the official said.

Current and former agency officials said significant hiring is needed at PBS to help it recover from last year’s deep staffing cuts. Since the start of the second Trump administration, PBS has cut its total workforce by more than 2,500 employees through a combination of layoffs, attrition and voluntary separation incentives.

PBS cut its workforce by 45% between September 2024 and November 2025, according to a report in April from the Government Accountability Office. Agency officials told GAO that PBS didn’t conduct workforce planning before the staffing cuts.

In the early days of the Trump administration, Department of Government Efficiency officials embedded at GSA pushed for dramatic reductions in government office space, posting lease terminations on its online “Wall of Receipts.” The DOGE website shows that 264 leases were eliminated, roughly a third of its earlier goal.

PBS employees said the agency’s staffing cuts have hampered its goal of offloading underutilized office space. A PBS employee said the agency lost nearly half of its workforce “but retained 100% of the work.”

“Everything was being slow-rolled while they tried to terminate all soft-term leases,” the employee said. “Fast-forward to today, where we aren’t just sprinting, we are racing. Workloads have doubled for just about everyone. The workforce remaining is feeling the strain.”

GSA officials told GAO that about a third of the staff responsible for processing disposals of GSA-owned properties left the agency, “creating uncertainty on whether properties were properly vetted and approved to begin the process.”

The agency, which manages 40% of the federal government’s office space, is accelerating plans to offload underutilized buildings and those falling into disrepair as part of a $50 billion maintenance backlog. Forst told members of the Senate Appropriations Committee in May that half of GSA’s buildings portfolio is in “fair” or “poor” condition.

Forst and the heads of more than 20 federal departments and agencies asked Congress to give GSA full access to the Federal Buildings Fund, a pot of money that includes all rent payments GSA receives from its tenant agencies.

Over the past 15 years, Congress has skimmed about $1 billion annually from the Federal Buildings Fund to cover other expenses. Adjusted for inflation, Forst said that Congress has “looted” about $22 billion from the fund that would have otherwise gone to repairing and maintaining federal buildings.

The Public Buildings Reform Board, created by Congress under the 2016 Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA) to help GSA identify properties it should offload from its portfolio, said congressional appropriations won’t address GSA’s maintenance backlog without a “radical reduction” of its real estate portfolio.

The Trump administration, with GSA's assistance, is in the process of selling or consolidating headquarters buildings used by several agencies in the Washington, D.C. area. So far, it has announced plans to sell headquarters buildings for the Agriculture Department and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The Education Department plans to vacate its headquarters and hand it over to the Energy Department. The PBRB recommends selling the current Energy Department headquarters.

Education employees under this plan would relocate to leased space that previously held staff for the now-shuttered U.S. Agency for International Development.

The FBI is moving out of its headquarters building and relocating to the Ronald Reagan Building, just a few blocks away, which already provides office space for several other agencies. This week, a federal judge granted a permanent injunction blocking those plans.

GSA is also embarking on plans to renovate its own headquarters. Once those renovations are completed in December 2028, the building will also serve as OPM’s headquarters.

In the early days of the Trump administration, GSA officials pushed for deeper cuts to the PBS workforce, at one point seeking a 63% reduction in its workforce, which would have eliminated more than 3,500 total positions. But more recently, under new leadership, GSA has been taking steps to reverse those workforce cuts.

PBS told staff in April that it’s looking to hire 400 employees over the next six months. Last fall, the agency offered another 400 laid-off employees the opportunity to come back to their jobs.

Another PBS employee told Government Executive that “we don’t have enough people.”

“They realize they let go of too many people and were inundated, because the kids at DOGE didn’t know what they were doing,” the employee said.

A third PBS employee said “the cuts really had a brain drain effect that will take a decade to recover from.” A fourth employee said the agency’s hiring efforts were “replacements for all the firings.”

“It does appear that GSA is doing some serious hiring to rebuild after last year,” a fifth PBS employee said.

Tenant agency officials interviewed by GAO “voiced ongoing concern” about PBS’s capacity. One of its tenants, the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the national policymaking body for federal courts, is asking for control of courthouse property management.

While the Judicial Conference of the U.S. has held this perspective for decades, the organization told Congress that the issue has worsened since the Trump administration cut the staff at the federal government’s real estate agency.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sens. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. and John Boozman, R-Ark, introduced a bill last month that would give the federal judiciary authority to manage courthouse facilities in 10 judicial districts.

“Managing the federal government’s real estate portfolio is an enormous undertaking, and too often our courthouses are at the bottom of the priority list for maintenance, repairs, and upgrades,” Cramer said in a statement.

GSA’s Forst told the Washington Reporter that the Judicial Space and Facilities Management Effectiveness Act was “misguided,” and cited several GAO reports as evidence that the federal courts system is not prepared to manage its own facilities.

“The Judiciary’s core mission is to deliver justice — not to manage buildings,” he said.

A former PBS employee who received a RIF notice last year said the agency’s hiring push was “bittersweet” news. He said he considers himself “lucky for having landed a great new job” after the RIF, but his "former colleagues that are left need help with a relentless workload and there is so much to be done.”

“It was all just so random and terribly senseless, obviously,” he said about last year’s sweeping RIFs. “Honestly, I would never go back to [federal] employment under this administration and don’t envy anyone that is still there now. It’s just a real mixed bag of feelings.”

]]>

Life happened. Now what about your retirement benefits?

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 15:00:30 -0400

Retiring from federal service is a major milestone, of course, but it does not end the need to understand how federal benefits work. In the years after retirement, life events and new opportunities can raise important questions about insurance, survivor benefits, beneficiary designations and the effect of returning to government employment.

Today I will highlight several post-retirement issues that federal employees may want to plan for in advance. This is not an all-inclusive list, but it’s a list that will hopefully remind you that it is important to review your benefits and be sure to understand how they can change as life goes on.

The topics included today are the FEGLI Living Benefit, reemployment in federal service after retirement, changing beneficiary designations, marrying after retirement and providing benefits to a new spouse, and understanding how CSRS or FERS retirement benefits may change over time.

The FEGLI Living Benefit

The FEGLI Living Benefit is one that we hope that we will never need, but it can be very important to the person who is entitled to it.

This benefit allows an eligible employee, annuitant, or compensationer (a person receiving benefits from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs as a result of a work-related injury) enrolled in FEGLI Basic life insurance to receive a lump-sum payment while still living if the person is terminally ill and has a documented medical prognosis showing a life expectancy of no more than nine months. This payment can provide important financial flexibility at a difficult time.

It may help pay for medical costs, in-home care, family travel, household expenses, debt, or other needs that arise when an employee or retiree is facing a serious illness and may no longer be able to work or manage expenses in the usual way.

Using the Living Benefit also affects the people who would otherwise receive the FEGLI Basic insurance after the insured person’s death. The Living Benefit is an advance payment of Basic insurance, so any amount paid while the insured person is living reduces, or may eliminate, the Basic insurance payable to beneficiaries later.

Employees may be able to elect a full or partial Living Benefit, while annuitants and compensationers may elect only a full Living Benefit. A full election generally means there will be no remaining Basic insurance payable to beneficiaries after death, although any FEGLI Optional insurance remains separate and is not reduced by the Living Benefit election.

Although premiums may end for the amount covered by the Living Benefit, the individual must continue to pay premiums for any option coverage remaining.

The Living Benefit is not subject to federal income tax. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, these payments are tax-free at the federal level, though you should still check your specific state laws since a few states treat them differently.

Because the decision is irrevocable and directly affects both current cash flow and survivor protection, it should be considered carefully with family members, beneficiaries, and financial or tax advisers.

For example, suppose a federal retiree with FEGLI Basic coverage is diagnosed with a terminal illness and elects to receive the full Living Benefit. The lump-sum payment could help the retiree pay for uncovered medical expenses, arrange additional care at home, or reduce financial pressure on family members.

However, because the Basic insurance has been paid in advance, the retiree’s beneficiaries should understand that little or no Basic insurance may remain payable after death, depending on the election made.

Reemployment in federal service after retirement

Some retirees later return to federal employment as reemployed annuitants. In many cases, the retiree’s existing CSRS or FERS annuity continues during the period of reemployment, but the new federal salary is reduced, or offset, by the amount of annuity that applies to the time worked.

This means the retiree usually does not receive both a full annuity and a full salary at the same time unless a specific exception or dual compensation waiver applies. The employing agency pays the reduced salary and sends the offset amount to the retirement fund, while OPM generally continues paying the annuity separately.

FERS retirees who are receiving the FERS annuity supplement should also understand that returning to work can affect that payment. The supplement is separate from the regular FERS basic annuity and is intended to approximate the Social Security benefit earned through FERS service until age 62.

After a retiree reaches the minimum retirement age, the supplement is subject to an earnings test. Wages or net self-employment income above the annual exempt amount ($24,480 in 2026) can reduce the supplement by $1 for every $2 earned over the limit, and high enough earnings can reduce the supplement to zero.

This rule applies even when the retiree returns to federal service as a reemployed annuitant, including situations involving a dual compensation waiver; the waiver may affect salary offset rules, but it does not by itself exempt the FERS supplement from the earnings test.

Reemployment can also allow an increase to future retirement benefits if the period of service is long enough and retirement deductions are properly withheld or deposited. A supplemental annuity may be available after the annuitant completes at least one year of actual, continuous, full-time reemployment service, or the equivalent amount of part-time service.

If an annuitant is reemployed in a part-time position at a tour of duty less than 40 hours per week, for example, 20 hours per week, and if the annuitant works a total of 1,040 hours in a year (52 weeks x 20 hours), then the employee must work for two continuous years to be eligible for a supplemental annuity.

When the reemployment ends, the supplemental annuity is added to the retiree’s existing annuity rather than replacing it, giving the retiree an additional monthly amount based on the new period of federal service.

A redetermined annuity may be available after a longer period of reemployment, generally at least five years of actual, continuous, full-time service, or the part-time equivalent. Instead of simply adding a supplemental amount to the old annuity, a redetermined annuity is a new computation that considers all creditable service and the law in effect when the employee separates from reemployment.

The retiree must elect the redetermined annuity in place of the prior annuity and any supplemental annuity that otherwise would be payable. Because the rules can vary based on the type of retirement, appointment, retirement system, salary offset status, and whether a waiver applies, retirees should review the details with the employing agency and OPM before accepting reemployment and again before separating from the new position.

OPM has a new Benefits Administration Letter 26-104, titled Reemployed Annuitant Decision Tables, designed to detail the agency actions required for retirement coverage and benefits, health insurance, and life insurance for an annuitant upon appointment, separation, and death (if an annuitant dies during reemployment).

Changing beneficiary designations after retirement

Beneficiary designations determine who receives certain benefits, such as life insurance proceeds or retirement contributions or the final retirement payment, after a retiree’s death. Because family circumstances can change after retirement, retirees should periodically review and update their designations to make sure benefits are paid according to their current wishes.

Outdated forms can lead to unintended results, especially after marriage, divorce, the death of a beneficiary, or changes in family relationships. An easy way to do this is to file new designation of beneficiary elections which will supersede any that have been previously filed.

Different federal benefits have different designation of beneficiary forms, so retirees should be careful not to assume that one designation controls every benefit. For FEGLI life insurance, the beneficiary form is SF 2823, Designation of Beneficiary, Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Program. SF 3102 is the Designation of Beneficiary form for federal employees and retirees under both the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS).

You can download these forms directly from www.opm.gov/forms. These forms are separate from any survivor annuity election, which is governed by different rules.

Annuitants should send the completed SF 3102 and SF 2823 to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Retirement Operations Center at P.O. Box 45, Boyers, PA 16017-0045. The forms must reach OPM before your death to be legally valid.

TSP beneficiary designations are handled separately through the Thrift Savings Plan. Retirees can add or update TSP beneficiaries by logging in to My Account at TSP.gov; TSP also explains that the designation must be on file with TSP at the time of death and that a will or other document will not control the TSP account.

Because beneficiary designations can override expectations after events such as divorce, remarriage, or the death of a beneficiary, retirees should review FEGLI, CSRS or FERS, and TSP designations whenever their family or estate-planning situation changes.

Marriage after retirement and benefits for a new spouse

Marriage after retirement can create new questions about survivor benefits and continued access to federal benefit programs for a new spouse. If a retiree marries after leaving federal service, the retiree may elect a reduced annuity to provide a survivor annuity for the new spouse, but the election generally must be made in writing to OPM within two years of the date of marriage.

This election is separate from changing beneficiary designations and is important because, without a survivor annuity election, a new spouse generally will not receive a continuing monthly CSRS or FERS survivor benefit after the retiree’s death.

OPM will provide the retiree with form RI 20-63, Survivor Annuity Election for a Spouse, which will include the option of choosing the maximum amount available or an amount that will provide a survivor annuity of a specific dollar amount (no more than the maximum survivor annuity benefit).

OPM will also include a letter outlining the cost associated with this election and directions on how to respond within the two-year deadline for this election. It is important to contact OPM after you remarry and well before the expiration of the two-year deadline so that you have time to consider your options.

In addition to the regular survivor annuity reduction, a post-retirement election for a new spouse generally requires a permanent actuarial reduction. OPM describes this reduction as the difference between the annuity already received without the survivor election and the amount that would have been paid if the survivor election had been in effect since retirement, plus 6% interest.

This actuarial reduction is spread over the retiree’s lifetime and continues even if the marriage later ends, so retirees should ask OPM for a cost statement and carefully review the effect on their monthly income before confirming the election.

A new spouse may also be added to FEHB coverage because marriage is a qualifying life event. A retiree who is enrolled in FEHB may generally change to a family enrollment or self plus one enrollment during the permitted qualifying life event window, beginning 31 days before marriage and ending 60 days after marriage or doing a future open season.

Retirees should include this request when contacting OPM regarding the remarriage. Providing a survivor annuity is also an important election to allow FEHB coverage for your new spouse to continue if you predecease them.

Cost-of-living adjustments to maintain your buying power

The purpose of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for federal retirees is to protect the fixed retirement income CSRS or FERS retirement benefit from the impact of inflation that can erode the buying power as the costs of goods, services, and medical care rise over time.

The retirement benefit COLA automatically adjusts annuity payouts using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) measured during the third quarter of the year.

The CSRS receives the full calculated COLA matching the measured rate of inflation, while the FERS benefit often receives a modified or capped COLA (e.g., if inflation exceeds 3%, the FERS increase is typically 1% less than the CPI increase) and generally does not kick in for regular retirees until the Minimum Retirement Age (MRA), which is 57 for retirees born in 1970 and later and between 55 and 57 for retirees born earlier.

The “offset” for CSRS Offset retirees and survivor annuitants

CSRS Offset retirees and survivor annuitants should also understand that their civil service annuity may be reduced when Social Security entitlement begins or would begin upon proper application. For retirees, OPM generally determines the offset around age 62, or at retirement if the retiree is already over age 62, and reduces the CSRS annuity by the portion of Social Security attributable to CSRS Offset service.

A CSRS Offset survivor annuity is computed like a regular CSRS survivor annuity, but it may be reduced if the survivor is eligible for Social Security benefits based on the retiree’s federal service.

In cases where the survivor annuity is reduced because of the survivor annuitant’s own “earned” Social Security retirement benefit, the offset may be reduced or eliminated. It is important for survivor annuitants to understand this since OPM may not always be aware of the survivor annuitant’s earned Social Security benefit amount.

See previous Government Executive articles, A Rude Annuity Shock and Sometimes, Your Benefit Really Is Too Small, to learn more about this situation.

Health benefits and life events

Health benefits can also change after retirement, not only the premiums and the benefits, but your needs may change over time. Outside of open season, FEHB changes generally must be tied to a Qualifying Life Event (QLE), such as marriage, divorce, death of a family member, or a move out of a plan’s service area, and many changes must be requested within 60 days of the event.

Annuitants should confirm the effective date with OPM because the timing can depend on the type of change. For example, some enrollment decreases may be made at any time and are commonly effective at the beginning of the month after OPM receives the election, while other changes follow the qualifying life event rules.

There is a little-known option to change insurance just because you have reached age 65, it is QLE 2L. This is your “ace in the hole” that you can only use once in your lifetime to change plans outside of open season.

This is generally used to change plans when enrolling in Medicare after retirement, but if not used at age 65, it can be used later – but only once!

Restoration of a reduced CSRS or FERS annuity

If a spouse or former spouse dies and the retiree’s CSRS or FERS annuity is being reduced to provide a survivor annuity for that person, the retiree should notify OPM and provide the required proof, such as a death certificate or marriage certificate in the case of a former spouse who remarries before age 55.

OPM may then increase the retiree’s annuity by removing the survivor reduction, restoring the annuity to the unreduced amount prospectively.

Retirees who divorce should also notify OPM promptly. If the marriage ends by divorce, the survivor reduction may be removed. However, as is often the case, a court order may require the retiree to continue providing a former spouse survivor benefit.

In a divorce, not only are survivor annuity benefits sometimes continued for the former spouse, but divorce can also create continuing rights for a former spouse to a portion of your retirement, often referred to as the “marital share.”

Court orders may also require assignment of FEGLI to the former spouse and require continuation of health benefits for the children of the marriage. There are also Temporary Continuation of Coverage (TCC) and Spouse Equity benefits available for a former spouse to continue health benefits coverage.

Because OPM must follow clear and specific court orders and will not rewrite unclear terms, retirees should make sure any divorce order addresses federal retirement, survivor, health benefits, and life insurance issues with precision. Be sure that your attorney uses the language outlined in the Attorney Handbook.

Key takeaways for federal retirees

Review benefits after every major life event. Marriage, divorce, the death of a spouse or beneficiary, reemployment, or a serious illness can all change how federal benefits work.

Keep beneficiary designations current. FEGLI, CSRS, FERS, and TSP benefits are controlled by their own forms or account records, and a will may not override an outdated designation.

Do not assume a new spouse is automatically protected. A survivor annuity election, FEHB enrollment change, or other action may be required within a specific deadline.

Understand how income can change after retirement. COLAs, CSRS Offset reductions, survivor benefit reductions, reemployment salary offsets, supplemental annuities, redetermined annuities, and court orders can all affect monthly income.

Act promptly after divorce or the death of a spouse or former spouse. OPM may need documentation to adjust an annuity, restore an unreduced benefit, or apply a court order.

Check before relying on assumptions. Federal retirement, insurance, health benefits, and TSP rules can interact in ways that are easy to overlook, so retirees should contact OPM, TSP, or a knowledgeable benefits specialist before making decisions that affect current income or survivor protection.

Understanding federal benefits does not end on the day an employee retires. Retirement can bring new decisions about life insurance, beneficiary designations, reemployment, survivor protection, health benefits, and changes to CSRS or FERS annuity payments.

By reviewing these rules before a major life event occurs – and knowing when to contact OPM, TSP, or a former employing agency, retirees can make more informed decisions, avoid unintended consequences, and better protect themselves and their families throughout retirement.

]]>

New CDC chief looks to rebuild a workforce fearful of retaliation

Jory Heckman — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 19:13:20 -0400

The new head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says she will focus on restoring trust with a workforce spread thin by staffing cuts and public health challenges.

CDC Director Erica Schwartz told staff at an all-hands meeting on Wednesday that she will “speak truth to power,” and ensure CDC employees can offer candid feedback on policy matters without fear of retaliation.

“I will listen to you. I will respect your expertise, and I will support you as you carry out this mission. I want CDC to be a place where an employee can respectfully say, ‘But ma'am, the evidence points in another direction,’ and know that your concern will be heard," Schwartz said, according to a transcript obtained by Government Executive. "Scientific integrity requires us to make room for respectful disagreement.”

Schwartz is the CDC’s first permanent leader in a year. The last permanent CDC director, Susan Monarez, was fired last summer, less than a month on the job, following conflicts with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Schwartz acknowledged Monarez’s firing, but told staff “there is no retribution for honest thought and honest conversation” under her leadership.

“I want you to feel psychologically safe. I do not want you to feel like you're in an environment where retribution will rain down upon you. That is not how I lead as a leader. And I feel very comfortable making sure that I can represent the CDC to our leadership and making sure that the secretary understands our point of view,” she said.

Schwartz said the CDC has been in a “a period of significant uncertainty,” and is looking to rebuild trust in the agency after more than a year of upheaval. The CDC recently commemorated the one-year anniversary of a shooting at its headquarters campus. On Aug. 8, 2025, a gunman fired more than 180 shots at the CDC headquarters, wanting to send a message against COVID-19 vaccines.

In recent months, CDC has responded to outbreaks of Ebola and hantavirus abroad, as well as cyclospora and measles outbreaks in the United States. It also stood up an emergency operations center for the FIFA World Cup.

Schwartz said she will work with CDC leadership to address the agency’s staffing gaps. The CDC has lost about a quarter of its workforce through layoffs and voluntary separation incentives. CDC officials told employees last month that a “strategic planning process” is underway to identify its staffing gaps and where hiring is most urgently needed.

“What are the critical areas that if we don't get these filled, we will fail in our mission for the American people? That information I will take back, and I will be that advocate for the CDC,” Schwartz said.

Among her concerns, Schwartz cited recent reporting from the Associated Press on “zombie programs” at the CDC that have been funded by Congress, but lack the staff to operate.

“The people that are here ... they're burning out, they're exhausted. And they're questioning, ‘Is this going to be the new normal?’ Well, the good news is, I'm here, I'm week one of being here, and now I can certainly be able to advocate for the CDC," she said.

A retired U.S. Public Health Services Commissioned Corps rear admiral, Schwartz previously served as the Coast Guard’s chief medical officer and deputy surgeon general.

The Trump administration has announced changes to the federal childhood immunization schedule that raise alarms among public health experts. Last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reducing the number of recommended childhood vaccines. Schwartz said she will try to earn back trust with vaccine skeptics during her tenure.

“There are a lot of Americans who have vaccine hesitancy, and they feel that the CDC has been somewhat paternalistic when it came to vaccines, and so they feel that the CDC may not be speaking for them. I do think we have to be honest as an agency to say, 'Are we an agency for just those Americans that believe in vaccines, or are we an agency for all Americans and helping those Americans that have vaccine hesitancy understand why vaccines are so safe and effective?'” she said.

CDC employees reiterated concerns about staffing shortages and fear of retaliation.

“Thank you for acknowledging that we are tired, because we are,” one CDC employee said during the Q&A. “We are at a significant reduction in our employees. And that makes it really hard on the rest of us to pick up the slack, because the work doesn't change. We were already under-resourced and understaffed in public health, as you know, and now it's even worse.”

Another CDC employee told Schwartz that “fear of retribution” is a common concern among staff.

“We've been shot at. We see multiple outbreaks right now,” the employee said. “We also know what happened to the previous director. And I think that there is a general fear of speaking [about] what's actually happening.”

A third employee asked if former employees who received reduction in force notices would have an opportunity to rejoin the agency.

“We have so many vacancies, and we had these wonderful staff that were not separated due to performance. They were separated because of the way the RIF was done. Many of them are very eager to come back,” the third employee said.

Schwartz and other senior CDC leaders said they would look into opportunities for RIF’d employees to come back.

Yolanda Jacobs, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2883, which represents CDC employees, previously told reporters that CDC has made very little progress on hiring, and that recently laid-off employees looking to rejoin the agency haven’t made it far in the hiring process.

Kennedy recently told lawmakers that HHS is looking to hire 12,000 employees after going through widespread layoffs last year.

“Not only have we not had any excessive amounts of new hires, or even any really significant hiring of CDC employees, but we've also had ignoring and stalling when it comes to those employees that had been RIF'd, who were supposed to have priority for some of those jobs as the rehiring starts," Jacobs said. "Those individuals are not seeing any action as far as hiring goes. Those who have even applied have been told that they did not meet the qualifications for their own jobs, the jobs that they previously had.”

Jacobs, however, added that "a new CDC director has an opportunity to turn the tide."

Sean Michael Newhouse contributed to this report.

]]>

Appeals court keeps limits on DHS immigration enforcement near churches

William J. Ford, Maryland Matters — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 14:47:01 -0400

A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld an injunction that bars Department of Homeland Security agents from conducting immigration enforcement “at or near” more than 1,400 houses of worship sprawling across 33 states and the District of Columbia.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a February 2025 ruling in favor of a coalition of Quaker, Sikh and Baptist congregations that sued to block the Trump administration’s reversal of a Biden-era policy discouraging immigration actions at “sensitive places.”

The religious groups argued that the administration’s policy would drive away immigrant attendees, burdening “their ability to worship communally and to minister to immigrant communities, both acts of which are fundamental to their religious exercise.”

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang agreed, issuing the preliminary injunction in 2025 that blocked the new policy at those congregations, requiring DHS to follow the more-restrictive rules of the 2021 Biden policy. He declined to apply the injunction nationwide.

In its 40-page ruling Tuesday, the appeals court panel upheld the injunction, agreeing with Chuang that the houses of worship were likely to succeed on their claim that the administration’s policy, if implemented, would decrease “attendance at worship services and other activities.”

“The plaintiffs have presented evidence showing that the 2025 Policy is having a chilling effect on their congregations and already has caused declines in attendance among members of CBF [Cooperative Baptist Fellowship] and the Sikh Plaintiffs,” Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote for the court.

“And our preceding analysis makes clear that this decline in attendance and the increased threat of immigration enforcement at all the plaintiffs’ houses of worship already has imposed a substantial burden on the ability of all the plaintiffs to express their religion through communal worship,” she wrote.

Keenan noted a January 2025 statement from a Homeland Security spokesperson that she said amplified the fact that the agency “intends to target houses of worship in future immigration enforcement actions.” The judge quoted the spokesperson’s statement last year that, “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.”

“DHS’s statement emphasizing the rationale for this policy change shows that the threat of immigration enforcement at their houses of worship is real and substantial,” wrote Keenan, who was joined by Judges Pamela Harris and G. Steven Agee.

When asked for a response to the ruling Tuesday, a Homeland Security spokesperson replied with a paraphrase of that 2025 statement.

“Criminals are no longer able to hide in places of worship to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement and instead trusts them to use common sense,” the statement said.

It went on to say that Immigration and Customs Enforcement “does not target places of worship. This is just another false narrative to try and demonize our brave ICE law enforcement who are facing” increased assaults and death threats.

But Democracy Forward, the Washington, D.C.-based group that filed the lawsuit on behalf of the houses of worship, welcomed the ruling.

“The Trump-Vance administration’s policy threatened that longstanding tradition by forcing congregations to choose between fulfilling their religious mission and protecting members of their communities,” Democracy Forward said in a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs. “We are grateful that the court has preserved these protections while this case moves forward.”

The plaintiffs include the Sikh Temple Sacramento and six yearly meetings of the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers: from Philadelphia, New York, New England, Richmond, Baltimore and Adelphi, Md. They also include the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a network of hundreds of churches located in 33 states.

Their lawsuit was in response to a policy, issued on the first day of the second Trump administration, lifting restrictions on enforcement activities around sensitive locations, like schools and churches. Agents instead were told to exercise “discretion along with a healthy dose of common sense” when deciding whether to act in or around a sensitive location.

It was a change from the 2021 policy that said enforcement near sensitive areas was to be avoided “to the fullest extent possible.” Such action could still be taken but, except in emergency situations, it needed agency approval first.

Matt O’Brien, deputy executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, called the 4th Circuit’s opinion “absurd.” FAIR filed a friend of the court brief in support of DHS.

“There is zero reason, constitutional or otherwise, why immigration enforcement should be prohibited near houses of worship. This is a politically-motivated decision by an activist judge.”

But in a concurring opinion, Agee noted the “narrow scope” of the preliminary injunction, which applies only to the houses of worship that sued the federal government. In essence, it doesn’t restrict Homeland Security from conducting immigration enforcement at or near sensitive places such as mental health centers, libraries, schools and other places of worship. It also doesn’t stop all activity, he wrote.

“A host of DHS immigration enforcement actions are expressly permitted by the preliminary injunction. It states, for example, that … [it] ‘does not enjoin or restrict [DHS] from conducting arrests in or near places
of worship when authorized by an administrative or judicial warrant,’” Agee wrote.

“Further … the preliminary injunction incorporates the provisions of the 2021 Policy, which itself did not ban all immigration enforcement actions at or near a place of worship,” he wrote, noting that the 2021 policy allows agents to act without prior approval when in pursuit of a suspect, when there’s a threat of violence and in other emergency situations. “Plainly, nothing in this Court’s decision or the preliminary injunction could be construed as limiting DHS’s ability to act in accord with these directives.”

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: info@marylandmatters.org.

]]>

The watchdog gets watched: GAO’s hiring process length faces scrutiny

Sean Michael Newhouse — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 13:53:41 -0400

The Government Accountability Office is an independent legislative branch agency that reviews the effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs. For example, in recent weeks, GAO has issued reports finding that the State Department could be overspending on residences for overseas employees because certain housing standards haven’t been updated in more than three decades and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency cut staff without considering the impacts on disaster operations.

GAO’s own watchdog, however, determined in a report published on Monday that the oversight agency is taking longer to hire than other federal agencies and that there are issues with how it measures certain hiring data, which could impede efforts to shorten the time that it takes to recruit.

“The length of GAO’s hiring process increases the agency’s risk of not meeting its stated goal of hiring well-qualified candidates because prospective employees may accept other job opportunities while waiting for GAO to complete its hiring process,” the inspector general for the GAO wrote.

In fiscal 2024, the IG reported that GAO took an average of about 103 days to hire employees into roles that have been deemed mission critical occupations across government (e.g. information technology management). To compare, the agency’s internal hiring target is 98 to 101 days, and the Office of Personnel Management’s hiring goal for executive branch agencies is 80 days.

For instance, it took executive branch agencies that are part of an OPM dashboard an average of 72.1 days to hire for contracting roles in fiscal 2024 compared with 110.1 days for GAO to recruit for identical positions.

GAO’s chief human capital officer defended the hiring length in a letter attached to the report, noting that the agency “relies heavily on multiple rounds of interviews as an important part of our assessment process.” The official also said that GAO allows potential hires to negotiate their salaries, unlike other agencies, “but which may simultaneously add time to the process and may increase our ability to attract a broader applicant pool.”

The IG also reported that the agency inadvertently excluded 20, about 30%, of its fiscal 2024 mission-critical hires from time-to-hire data and that there’s a discrepancy between whether the hiring process starts when human capital staff consult with a hiring manager about a vacancy or when such consultation is complete.

“By using the consultation completion dates, [Human Capital Office]’s calculations would have undercounted the days spent on some hiring actions,” investigators wrote. “Further, HCO staff indicated that consultations often took longer than the allotted two days. However, because HCO did not record the start date for consultations, it cannot determine how long consultations took or accurately assess the length of its hiring process.”

GAO agreed with two of its IG’s recommendations: to periodically review hiring timelines and address inefficiencies and to update all internal documents to reflect the established target hiring time frames.

With respect to a recommendation to ensure all hiring actions are included in time-to-hire calculations, GAO countered that certain actions, such as annual promotions for analysts, shouldn’t be included. And regarding a recommendation about accurately documenting hiring dates, GAO suggested performing separate tracking of early actions in the hiring process (e.g. consultation with hiring manager).

Regardless, GAO officials said they would implement all of the recommendations by April 1, 2027.

The IG also noted that GAO in fiscal 2025 hired fewer than 10 entry-level employees and experienced a net loss of around 100 staffers because it didn’t backfill positions due to “budget constraints.”

The Office of Management and Budget has previously criticized GAO after the agency on several occasions determined that the administration violated rules around impoundments, which is when the executive branch delays or withholds congressionally approved spending.

For fiscal 2026, House Republicans proposed halving GAO’s spending level, but the final appropriations bill kept the agency’s funding flat.

]]>

Archives workers granted telework ahead of D.C. IndyCar race

Erich Wagner — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 13:34:16 -0400

Officials at the National Archives and Records Administration announced Tuesday that employees stationed at its headquarters building in downtown Washington may telework for the rest of the week due to nearby construction associated with this weekend’s IndyCar race in response to safety concerns from its union.

Archives I, referred to colloquially as A1, is located inside and bound on three sides by the planned race route. Employees said that beginning this week, getting to the office has required navigating road closures, active construction around the building and a temporary pedestrian bridge over Pennsylvania Avenue NW, which itself is partially blocked by the branches of a neighboring tree as well as a fence.

Credit: IndyCar

Officials with the American Federation of Government Employees Council 260, which represents NARA workers, told Government Executive that they had been raising concerns about the potential for disruptions caused by the event since at least June. It was only after the union sent an email demanding management address “unsafe working conditions” around the building Tuesday that the agency informed employees—though not AFGE—that it would approve telework.

“NARA is authorizing situational telework, to the extent possible, through August 23, for employees whose duty station is Washington, D.C.,” the agency wrote in an email to employees. “Employees should coordinate with their supervisor to consider other workplace flexibilities such as maxiflex, and/or unscheduled leave. Schedule changes should be approved by your supervisor. Employees who must report onsite should plan for additional travel time and remain alert to road closures, pedestrian restrictions and transit service adjustments.”

In a separate message to the union, agency management said that while it had been in regular contact with both the U.S. Secret Service and IndyCar parent company Penske, it bemoaned a “fluid” situation “with circumstances constantly changing.”

But union officials said offering telework through Friday is not enough to protect employees, particularly those with disabilities. In an email to management Tuesday urging the authorization of telework, they described the difficulty that an employee “with mobility issues” had accessing the building on Monday, something they said would recur next week, as race organizers begin breaking down the temporary barricades and pedestrian bridge.

Photo courtesy AFGE

“Once they found [an ADA accessible] entrance, they were not able to use it because there was no one there to operate the lift,” the union wrote. “The employee then had to find the pedestrian bridge, which is not ADA accessible, and put their health and safety at risk by climbing the stairs. Since the bridge that employees were instructed to use was built against a tree with limbs at rail height . . . they were instructed to crawl under the limb, at additional risk to their health and safety as an employee with disabilities. This situation is obviously unacceptable.”

A photo taken Wednesday morning documented that workers had since cut the tree branch, though a fence continues to at least partially block the pedestrian bridge’s entrance.

Photo courtesy AFGE

The union also said the agency’s expectation that employees familiarize themselves with a newly modified building evacuation plan is similarly insufficient to ensure employees’ safety.

“The agency is obligated to ensure a safe working environment,” AFGE officials wrote in a follow-up email Tuesday. “The union expects that managers and supervisors will review the plans with their employees to ensure that everyone is aware of emergency egress routes. Since everything has been so fluid, those plans have not covered the situation on the ground so far this week, which is why we have requested that the agency station one or more facilities or security employees at the staff exit to help with way-finding.”

As of press time, union officials said the agency had not responded to its request to extend telework into next week. The agency did not respond to requests for comment.

]]>

The CDC director’s job just got a lot more complicated

Syra S. Madad and Nahid Bhadelia, The Conversation — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 12:10:20 -0400

The new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Erica Schwartz, confirmed by the Senate on Aug. 5, 2026, is only the second CDC director to face Senate confirmation. Congress adopted the process for the agency after the COVID-19 pandemic to bring more scrutiny to one of the country’s most consequential public health jobs, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.

That change is especially important now. The CDC is tracking multiple measles outbreaks, investigating a multistate cyclospora outbreak linked to iceberg lettuce and other produce, and supporting the response to the second-largest Ebola outbreak in history unfolding in Central Africa. At the same time, the Trump administration is reshaping federal childhood vaccine recommendations in ways that could weaken protection against preventable disease for years to come.

As public health policy becomes increasingly politicized and polarizing, the CDC director needs more than technical expertise and political skill. She must give the public clear, accurate guidance, including when the evidence conflicts with the preferences of the president or the health secretary.

Schwartz is a retired U.S. Public Health Services Commissioned Corps rear admiral, who was previously the chief medical officer with the Coast Guard and then the deputy surgeon general from 2019 to 2021.

As experts in infectious-disease preparedness, outbreak response and public health policy, we see Schwartz’s confirmation process as critical for a reason that goes beyond the vote itself.

Senate review can make a nominee answer publicly for her judgment, priorities and willingness to defend evidence. But it can’t ensure scientific independence or restore the people, systems and public trust that disease control requires. Confirmation opens a line of accountability – it doesn’t guarantee how the director will use it.

What matters now is how Schwartz uses the authority she has – and whether Congress and the administration give the agency the capacity to do its work.

Senate confirmation creates a public record

For most of the CDC’s history, the secretary of health and human services selected the agency’s director without a Senate vote. Congress changed that arrangement in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Beginning in January 2025, the president nominates the director, and the Senate provides its “advice and consent.”

The process adds several layers of review. The White House selects and vets a nominee, including reviewing financial interests and possible conflicts. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions examines the nominee’s record, seeks written answers and may hold a public hearing. If the committee advances the nomination, the full Senate decides whether to confirm the nominee by a simple majority.

The final 51-44 vote confirmed Schwartz, but the more consequential part of the process was the public record it created. At her July 15 hearing, senators pressed her on vaccines, scientific integrity and how she would handle political pressure. Her answers gave Congress, CDC staff and the public a standard against which to judge her decisions.

That is the clearest benefit of confirmation. A hearing cannot certify that a nominee will be a good scientist or an effective manager. Senators may also evaluate her responses through different political lenses. But the process forces key questions into public view before a director takes office, rather than after a crisis has already exposed disagreements inside the government, and gives Congress a stronger basis for oversight.

Outbreaks will test the agency, not just its director

The CDC director’s job can sound abstract when it is discussed as job duties and reporting lines. The fact that the U.S. is currently facing multiple simultaneous outbreaks from foodborne, vaccine-preventable and zoonotic pathogens shows that the job is far from abstract – it’s very hands-on.

The CDC is responding to continuing measles outbreaks. As of Aug. 13, the agency recorded 2,566 confirmed measles cases and 38 outbreaks in 2026 – the highest number of cases since 1991. Containing measles requires fast case detection, vaccination, contact tracing to stop its spread, as well as clear communication with families and clinicians.

The agency is also investigating multiple cyclospora outbreaks linked to iceberg lettuce that had caused more than 9,481 confirmed illnesses – including two deaths – in 17 states as of Aug. 5. That investigation is a reminder that outbreak control depends on coordination among epidemiologists, laboratories, health departments, regulators and the food industry.

Overseas, the Democratic Republic of Congo is experiencing the largest Ebola outbreak recorded in the country’s history. The outbreak involves a strain of the virus called Bundibugyo, for which there is no licensed vaccine or specific treatment. As of July 30, the World Health Organization had reported more than 3,600 confirmed cases across the DRC and Uganda, and several travel-associated cases treated elsewhere. An outbreak at that scale calls for international surveillance and laboratory cooperation even when the immediate risk to most Americans is low.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration – guided by the stance of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – has directed changes to the federal childhood immunization schedule that depart from the long-standing evidence-review process used to develop vaccine recommendations and have alarmed public health experts.

These outbreaks are caused by different pathogens, but each relies on the same underlying assets: timely data, specialized staff, functioning laboratories, cooperation with state and international partners, and communication that people find trustworthy. Yet despite these ongoing pressing public health needs, between January 2025 and June 2026 the Trump administration cut the CDC workforce by nearly one-third, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management.

No director, however capable, can make up for missing epidemiologists, laboratory experts, data systems, and state and local capacity. Maintaining those essentials requires the federal government to provide steady funding and long-term support, rather than expecting a CDC director to do more with fewer people and resources.

Accountability is not the same as independence

Senate confirmation gives Schwartz a measure of democratic legitimacy. The president nominated her, senators examined her record, and a majority consented to her appointment.

It does not place her outside presidential control. Her responses at the confirmation hearing have already raised concerns about whether she would stand up against political pressure from the Health and Human Services secretary to maintain evidence-based policy.

The CDC sits within HHS, and the CDC director has neither a fixed statutory term nor explicit congressional protection from being fired. Schwartz will have to advise political leaders, carry out lawful administration policy and, at times, explain evidence that may be politically inconvenient to those in power.

If Congress wants a CDC director who can follow the evidence, it would need to write that authority into law by giving the CDC the authority to release certain data and recommendations without prior approval from political offices and require that any override of those judgments be documented and disclosed. With such a change, political leaders who overrule the science would have to do so on the public record.

There is precedent for this approach. In 2019, Congress enacted the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, which codified standards of timeliness, accuracy and objectivity for federal statistical agencies. Under that framework, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics operates with authority to release statistical information without prior political clearance and according to predetermined release schedules.

Congress could extend similar protections to other CDC products, including outbreak reports, case counts, vaccine recommendations and its primary scientific publication, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Doing so would help protect the agency’s core public health functions from political interference.

In addition, bills such as the Scientific Integrity Act, which has been introduced repeatedly but has not passed, could require federal science agencies, including the CDC, to adopt and enforce scientific integrity policies that protect career scientists and maintain scientific independence.

Confirmation makes the CDC director more publicly accountable. Its value will ultimately depend on whether Schwartz and the institutions around her are able to protect rigorous surveillance, candid communication and evidence-based recommendations.

Syra S. Madad, Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School and Nahid Bhadelia, Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Boston University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

]]>

Plans to move FBI headquarters to Reagan Building blocked by federal judge

Jory Heckman — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:54:20 -0400

A federal judge in Maryland is blocking the Trump administration’s plans to relocate the FBI headquarters to the Ronald Reagan Building in downtown Washington, D.C.

This marks the latest twist in a nearly 15-year saga of several administrations trying to replace the FBI’s crumbling J. Edgar Hoover Building with a new headquarters, and unwinding the decisions made by prior leaders.

The General Services Administration under the Biden administration selected Greenbelt, Md., from a list of three shortlisted sites as the future home of a suburban FBI headquarters. But the Trump administration scrapped those plans in 2025, opting instead to move the FBI to the Reagan Building.

The first Trump administration pushed for demolishing the Hoover Building and constructing a new headquarters in its place. But Democratic lawmakers ultimately blocked funding for these plans.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang on Monday granted a permanent injunction on Monday that will prevent the administration from moving forward on plans to relocate the FBI headquarters to the nearby Reagan building or tapping into funds Congress already approved for the project.

Chuang noted that in prior spending bills, Congress required that GSA must select Greenbelt or one of the two other sites on its shortlist.

“On their face, these statutory mandates preclude the GSA from choosing a different site, such as the Reagan Building,” he wrote.

The FBI said in a statement that "this is not the first time courts have tried to undermine the administration in its goal to make government more cost-effective for American taxpayers."

"The court has chosen to impermissibly intervene for political reasons. This FBI is mission-focused and will continue the best course of action to meet the needs of law enforcement," the agency said.

The lawsuit is led by the State of Maryland and Prince George’s County. Maryland’s Attorney General Anthony Brown said in a statement that, “by blocking the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to move the FBI to the Reagan Building and divert the funds Congress set aside for this project, the Court has cleared the path back to Greenbelt.”

Congress passed a FY 2026 spending deal stating that unspent funds set aside for the FBI headquarters project “may not be further obligated until the FBI submits a "completed architectural and engineering plan” to the House and Senate appropriations committees.

“To date, no such architectural and engineering plan has been submitted,” Chuang wrote.

Chuang also noted that the FY 2026 spending package makes no specific reference to an FBI headquarters at the Reagan Building “and contains no language approving of it.”

A GSA prospectus approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last fall estimates that it will cost $1.4 billion to retrofit the Reagan Building to accommodate the FBI.

GSA planned to fund the Reagan retrofit with $844 million in unused money provided to the agency in past appropriations bills for construction of a new FBI headquarters as well as $555 million given over the years to the FBI for a new headquarters. GSA expected alterations to the Reagan Building would be complete in fiscal 2030.

Administration officials told the court that plans for an FBI headquarters in Greenbelt would likely face opposition from a Republican-controlled Congress.

“The court cannot find that there is no realistic possibility that the consolidated FBI headquarters project will proceed at the Greenbelt site, particularly given that the composition of the relevant congressional committees, and the priorities expressed by their members, are not static,” Chuang wrote.

]]>

Social Security expands electronic health record sharing to speed up disability claims adjudication

Christian Robles — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:43:00 -0400

The Social Security Administration is looking to speed up disability claims adjudication by allowing Americans to consent to their medical providers sending the agency digital copies of their health records through a data sharing superhighway.

In April, Epic — the largest electronic health record vendor for U.S. hospitals — announced that its health system customers are connected to SSA through the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement, or TEFCA. Through that superhighway, dozens of hospitals and clinics can send digital medical records to SSA, eliminating the need to fax documents to the agency and slashing disability claims processing times by up to 50%.

Jacksonville, Florida-based Baptist Health is among the first Epic customers to start sharing electronic health records with SSA through TEFCA.

Baptist Health has sent SSA several thousand electronic medical records since it started sharing data with the agency through TEFCA at the end of July, Aaron Miri, the health system’s chief digital and information officer, told Nextgov/FCW.

Because of TEFCA, Baptist Health has reduced the number of staff dedicated to processing medical records for SSA to essentially half a person, Miri said in an interview. Before TEFCA, three staffers were manually sending SSA medical records through fax machines and checking that the agency actually received the information, he said.

“We’re seeing time saved, we're seeing accuracy [of medical records] go up, we're seeing happy patients,” Miri said. “It's just positive, positive, positive.”

Dozens of Epic customers in California, Oklahoma, Washington, Arizona and other states have also connected to SSA through TEFCA.

Epic expects more than 550 hospitals and nearly 20,000 clinics will use TEFCA to exchange data with SSA by the end of the month, and all of its customers to eventually migrate to TEFCA, a company spokesperson told Nextgov/FCW.

SSA has connected to 84 health care entities and made 60,595 data requests through TEFCA as of August 13, according to an agency official familiar with its health information technology strategy.

SSA obtaining electronic medical records for disability claims adjudication is not new. The agency has received health information from medical providers through Carequality and eHealth Exchange — two other health data sharing superhighways — for years. But TEFCA has several advantages compared to those pathways.

Medical providers can use their existing connection to the TEFCA rather than starting new legal agreements to connect with the SSA, the Epic spokesperson said. They also no longer have to constantly provide SSA with an updated list of their facilities because TEFCA has a directory SSA can use to identify facilities, they added.

Over 65% of Epic customers are currently sharing records with SSA across TEFCA, Carequality and eHealth Exchange, they said.

But SSA is agnostic whether medical providers use TEFCA or another pathway to share data, so long as patient consent is part of the equation and they share adequate information for disability claims adjudication, the agency official said.

SSA is working with TEFCA Qualified Health Information Networks, or QHINs, besides Epic, which would give more medical providers the ability to send the agency digital health records, according to the agency official.

“eClinicalWorks and NetSmart are actively in various stages of development and testing with SSA today,” they clarified. SSA has a seat on the TEFCA governing council,Nextgov/FCW previously reported.

The Epic spokesperson said the company wants all medical providers — regardless of whether they use Epic software — to electronically send medical records to SSA. But that could prove difficult to achieve.

Many behavioral health, specialty and rural providers do not use electronic health records, meaning they continue to rely on manual record request processing, noted Jennifer Burdick, a divisional supervising attorney at Community Legal Services of Philadelphia. Department of Health and Human Services data backs up that assessment: thousands of substance use and mental health treatment facilities continue to use paper charts instead of software to maintain patient records.

Even though TEFCA promises to speed up claims adjudication for thousands of Americans, disability advocates have warned Americans are finding it hard to access SSA disability benefits. That’s in part because SSA is pushing online servicing and has introduced AI onto its phone lines, according to a Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund report published in March. SSA contested claims that disability benefits are becoming harder to access and touted a decline in its initial pending backlog in a previous statement to Nextgov/FCW.

]]>

Attorney general violated Hatch Act ethics rules, nonprofit says

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:22:40 -0400

During Todd Blanche’s confirmation process, Senate Democrats and some Republicans argued that the president’s former personal attorney lacked the independence needed to serve as attorney general. Now, just one week after he was sworn in, a public interest nonprofit is alleging that Blanche has already violated an ethics law that governs the political activities of federal employees.

Public Citizen on Tuesday requested that the Office of Special Counsel launch a Hatch Act investigation into an Aug. 14 speech that Blanche gave during a Long Island campaign rally attended by police officers for Bruce Blakeman, a Republican running for New York governor. OSC enforces the Hatch Act.

While most civil servants are permitted to participate in partisan political campaigns, “further restricted employees” — generally those at intelligence and enforcement agencies — are not.

“Though Blanche did not specifically say ‘vote for,’ his participation in the campaign rally along with President Donald Trump constitutes an active endorsement of the Republican candidate,” wrote Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.

Specifically, Public Citizen said that Blanche is classified as a “further restricted employee” under DOJ policy. Additionally, civil servants are barred under the Hatch Act from engaging in political activities in their official capacity. The organization said that Blanche was identified at the rally as the attorney general.

A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement to Government Executive that: “This is a politically-motivated complaint designed to weaponize the Hatch Act against the Attorney General for his support of law enforcement. The complaint is baseless, and it will not stop DOJ from continuing to work with our state and local law enforcement partners to keep Americans safe.”

An OSC spokesperson said that the agency has no comment. The Senate recently confirmed Charles Baldis, a former GOP Senate staffer, as the new special counsel.

Several other administration officials have been the subject of Hatch Act complaints.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington accused Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick of running afoul of the Hatch Act for encouraging voters to not support Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayor race. The nonprofit also contended that Labor Department inspector general Anthony D’Esposito broke the ethics rules over apparent actions he took while in office to prepare for a congressional run.

Penalties for violating the Hatch Act include removal from federal service, a grade reduction, ban from federal employment for up to five years, suspension or a civil penalty of up to $1,000.

]]>

USDA hasn’t looked at staff attrition ahead of relocations, but downplays its impact

Sean Michael Newhouse and Jory Heckman — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 14:14:25 -0400

The Agriculture Department plans to hire 16,000 employees this year, but senior officials expect these hires will mostly “offset expected attrition," driven by sweeping reorganization plans.

A coalition of federal employee labor unions, nonprofits and local governments is asking a federal judge to stop USDA’s plans to move thousands of employees across the country, arguing that the move is an illegal attempt to downsize its workforce. Lawmakers included a provision in the fiscal 2026 appropriations bill for USDA that blocked officials from reorganizing or relocating offices or employees without congressional authorization.

Department officials pushed back on plaintiffs’ claims that its relocation plans are a reduction in force in disguise, but Justice Department attorneys told the court last month that the “reorganization plans include workforce optimization measures, including downsizing.”

“The fact remains that relocating employees — even if some voluntarily resign instead — is not the same as implementing large-scale RIFs as Plaintiffs suggest,” DOJ attorneys wrote. “USDA has reiterated time and again that it is relying heavily on completely voluntary tools to reduce its workforce.”

The department told employees receiving relocation notices it was a “myth” that the reorganization is “just another way to shrink the workforce and get rid of federal employees.”

A USDA spokesperson said in a statement that the "department has made clear the reorganization is a regimented, multi-step process, and that all services and supports will continue without interruption."

The human cost of relocation

Tom Bewick, vice president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 3403, told the court that NIFA employees were required to accept relocation offers before being allowed to apply for a reasonable accommodation or hardship exemption.

“NIFA appears to be aware that the relocation is likely to cause a mass exodus of experienced staff because they have recently implemented new systems to attempt to preserve institutional knowledge,” Bewick wrote.

Those new systems include having employees document the steps necessary to run particular grant programs.

“That experience cannot be easily replaced,” Bewick wrote, adding that it takes a new hire at NIFA about three or four years to learn how to run a grant program independently.

“Many of the employees hired in 2020 (to address the attrition from forced relocations in 2019) are just beginning to hit their stride,” he added.

Collin Bradley, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3976, which represents Foreign Agricultural Service employees, wrote that in a recent internal survey of more than 150 bargaining unit employees, 94% said they would quit rather than relocate to Kansas City. Other internal polls conducted by unions have found similar results.

“I am certain there will be significant attrition if the relocation orders proceed,” Bradley wrote. “We have shared the results of our survey with the Agency and we have communicated our concerns about attrition.”

Downsizing efforts revealed

Internal documents shared with the court show that USDA requested an extension of its Voluntary Early Retirement Authority in February 2026 as part of its reorganization plans and to “support USDA's efforts to Downsize the Federal Workforce.”

More than 28,000 employees have separated from the Agriculture Department, largely through voluntary separation incentives, since the start of the second Trump administration. Factoring in hiring, the department has seen a net decrease of nearly 16,000 employees.

Agriculture officials told OPM it expected another 5,000 employees to accept its extended VERA offer. If the department fell short of that goal, USDA wrote that it would try to shrink its workforce through relocations, reassignments and downgrades – but not through RIFs.

In the recent filing the department noted that, “due to delays related to expansive litigation impacting USDA reorganization planning," its reorganization plans will continue through at least February 2027.

DOJ attorneys wrote that USDA hasn’t conducted any attrition analysis yet, but will do so, "in conjunction with hiring and facilities planning at relocation sites as it finalizes relocation plans on an agency-by-agency basis."

“The best information currently available to the agency indicates that, as a result of the current job market, attrition will be less than during prior reorganizations,” they wrote.

The department is trying to relocate many more employees than it attempted under the first Trump administration. The 2019 relocation of the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture set the stage for what followed, with those agencies losing more than half their staff after employees quit rather than relocate to Kansas City, Mo.

Agriculture officials told the court on July 24 that the department is planning to hire nearly 16,000 employees this year. But according to updated staffing plans, the department expects that a “majority” of its hiring initiatives will “result in no net gain,” and will instead “offset expected attrition.”

“In fact, through workforce optimization initiatives, these organizations may end FY 2026 with reduced employee counts where attrition outpaces gains,” USDA wrote.

Under USDA’s staffing plans, the Forest Service “expects to reduce the number of onboard employees by the end of FY 2026,” with hiring “focused on” logging and mineral production, “to support the Administration’s priorities.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue USDA’s hiring plans are focused on recruiting less-experienced staff into different positions than the ones its more experienced workers are leaving.

The department reported that the Food and Nutrition Service, which has lost about a third of its employees under the Trump administration, “does not anticipate hiring in FY 2026 unless mission-critical vacancies occur.” The Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture will conduct “nominal” hiring.

According to department figures, nearly a third of its new permanent hires this year will be early career employees.

Concerns over staffing and expertise

Plaintiffs warn that “early career employees will not have the experience, skills, expertise, or training to replace the highly experienced staff who are forced out by the relocation.”

AFSCME's Bradley wrote that FAS is already borrowing staff from other USDA components through three or four-month details to maintain staffing for its programs.

“Relocating to Kansas City will mean that the Agency won’t have the same experts readily available, which could lead to critical staffing gaps,” he wrote.

A Natural Resources Conservation Service employee with decades of experience received a “notice of intent” on Aug. 5 that she would be reassigned to a position more than 1,200 miles from where she currently lives. Besides the new job title, the employee said that she has not been provided with a description of the new position’s responsibilities.

The NRCS employee has worked remotely for years under a reasonable accommodation, which she said was recently reapproved. Agencies provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities in order to help them more easily perform their jobs.

When she pointed this out, an HR official responded in an email viewed by Government Executive that “you will need to accept [the new position] and report to your new duty location in order for us to move forward with the reasonable accommodation process for that position and/or location.”

“I don't know anything about the job. I don't know if it violates my rights,” the employee said. “I have several disabilities. My husband is my caregiver, and my doctors already work with me. Moving to another location will require me to have to find new doctors and also have to see if my husband can relocate, which his job doesn't have reciprocity, and I can't provide for myself.”

Multiple agencies have cracked down on remote work and telework reasonable accommodations as part of the Trump administration’s directive ending work from home for the civil service.

The NRCS employee has until Aug. 20 to decide whether to express intent to accept the reassignment, express intent to decline with the possibility of getting a new job at the agency or apply for retirement. She said that the stress of the decision has exacerbated her conditions and forced her to take sick leave.

“There's so many unknowns, and the agency intentionally, I think, did this to force people to make rash decisions,” she said. “But I don't make rash decisions like that when it comes to my life and the life of my family.”

A second NRCS employee said many of her coworkers were hired as remote workers, and that the Trump administration’s relocation plans are “decimating the staff that does the work on the ground.”

A NIFA employee said she opted into relocation after unsuccessfully looking for another job that would keep her in the D.C. metro area.

“It boiled down to whether I could find another job that met my and my family's needs and I couldn't,” the NIFA employee said. “We're currently under-staffed and will be critically short of staff after the relocation occurs. We don't know if or when we'll be able to hire back all of the needed positions. Challenges will continue at the agency for the foreseeable future.”

A Food and Nutrition Service employee said staff working out of the Braddock Road office building in Alexandria, Virginia have been directed to relocate to the Yates Building in downtown Washington, D.C., or the George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville, Md.

According to the employee, union negotiations over cross-country relocations have just begun. The FNS employee said she “definitely would not have moved out of state.”

“I’m close, but not quite close enough, to retirement. Trying to hang in there through the administration and hoping we’ll get some telework back one of these days,” she said.

]]>

Getting a simple FOIA request from OPM shouldn’t be this hard

Al Shaw, ProPublica — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 13:37:35 -0400

I file a lot of Freedom of Information Act requests. I’ve been requesting staff lists from both Trump administrations, and I have tracked thousands of federal political appointees in order to publish financial disclosures in searchable databases.

Much of that data was sourced from the Office of Personnel Management, which maintains a trove of information about who works in the federal government. But that agency’s FOIA department was thrown into chaos as Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency fanned out across federal agencies to cut employees in early 2025.

Getting records from the agency has since become an increasingly Kafkaesque process, one that in early July of this year bounced me between three different seemingly abandoned email inboxes and two web portals. Aside from the fact that my once-routine requests now languish for months, just asking for documents has become its own kind of shell game.

“They just let the whole Privacy team go,” a now-former FOIA specialist at OPM told me by email in February 2025, referring to public records office staff. The specialist was cut the next day.

Here’s how the process worked at most agencies before the Trump administration and DOGE destroyed the offices that managed these requests: You would send a simple email with a text description of the documents you want. That’s it.

It didn’t mean you would get the records in the most timely manner, or would get the records you wanted at all. But it was a simple process, and it often worked.

According to OPM data, more than 600 government information specialists (staffers who administer FOIA and the Privacy Act) have resigned or been fired since the start of the second Trump administration. Within OPM itself, 12 information specialists left, seven of whom were laid off. (There was one new hire in that time period.)

Reached by phone, the former FOIA specialist told me the cuts made the office less efficient, less able to perform its function and threatened the statutory laws they are required to fulfill.

At the end of the 2025 fiscal year, over 1,600 FOIA requests were still in OPM’s backlog, seven times more than at the end of fiscal year 2024. The average processing time for a simple request at the agency slipped to over 84 days — twice as long as the year before.

Indeed, I noticed my records requests were taking longer, and they were increasingly steered toward web portals. Such was the case in early July, when I attempted to submit a request to OPM for human resources data. When I clicked “log in,” I was confronted with a message reading, “Something went wrong while processing your action. Please contact admin@ains.com for assistance if the problem persists.”

I emailed the address, but the message bounced back to me. AINS, it turned out, was no longer the name of the company — it is now known as Opexus. Opexus has received more than $50 million in federal contracts, according to a Bloomberg report, and has come under fire for lax cybersecurity standards after two of its employees were indicted for deleting and compromising government data. (One pleaded guilty in April, and the other was convicted in May). On its website, Opexus claims to process FOIA requests for 80% of federal institutions.

OPM’s website still listed contact information for a FOIA public liaison, someone who is supposed to help the public understand the records process and assist with requests. When I emailed the address, I got an automated response reading, “I am no longer at OPM. If you need assistance with a FOIA matter, please contact FOIA@opm.gov.”

So I did. I immediately got another automated message. This one told me to submit my request to the National FOIA Portal, a cross-government site that allows you to submit a FOIA request to any agency.

So I did that, too. Afterward, I finally got a response that acknowledged my request — from the same OPM portal that was throwing an error any time I tried to use it.

Stymied by the lack of response from the agency itself, I reached out to Opexus support, explaining that I was a FOIA requester and that the OPM site wasn’t working. I got a response from someone named Stephen, saying, “I have escalated this issue to our engineering team.” When I followed up a few days later, Stephen said, “I have identified the root cause of the issue and am currently working with the OPM administrator to implement the necessary fix.” Further questions on the support ticket thread weren’t answered.

On July 23, 13 days after I had filed the support ticket with Opexus, I got another response asking me again what error I was getting. I told them I was still getting the same message. A few hours later, I tried logging back in. The site was fixed.

In a statement, Opexus said it became aware of the issue on July 10 when a customer support case was opened. Incidentally, that was the day I had opened one. The statement noted access to the portal was restored on July 23, and that the issue did not prevent OPM from receiving FOIA requests through alternate submission methods. The company said that “there is no evidence that customer data was accessed, lost, or compromised” and that the issue was isolated to OPM’s portal.

The statement added that Opexus recognizes “how important uninterrupted access to FOIA request systems is for the public.”

OPM did not respond to a request for comment.

I’m still waiting for the records.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. This story first ran in Dispatches, our weekly newsletter from our reporters about their recent investigations.

]]>

Bill expanding paid leave for feds is pared back in Senate

Erich Wagner — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:54:59 -0400

Legislation aimed at improving the amount of paid leave federal employees are eligible each year took another step forward as Democratic senators introduced companion legislation shortly before Congress left for its August recess.

In June, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced the Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Employees Act (H.R. 9261), a measure that would provide feds with up to 12 weeks each year of paid family leave, to be used to attend to a serious health condition or care for a spouse, child or parent. It also would cover absences needed in connection with a family member’s deployment into active-duty military service, or to help a family member who has been the survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.

And last month, Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and seven other Democrats introduced their own version of the bill (S. 5168). That measure also extends 12 weeks per year of paid family leave to federal workers to deal with a health condition or a family member’s health condition and to attend to a family member’s military deployment, but it excises the provision relating to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.

“Right now, our laws are forcing federal workers to make the impossible choice between caring for their families and keeping their jobs,” Schatz said in a statement. “Our bill will provide federal workers with 12 weeks of paid leave, giving them the time they need to take care of their own health and their loved ones.”

Paid family leave and other provisions relating to federal workers has recently been a tougher sell for the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol. In 2019, as lawmakers considered providing 12 weeks of paid parental leave to federal workers each year via the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, the House’s version of the legislation also included family leave, only for the Senate to balk during negotiations between the chambers.

Likewise, the House has included a provision blocking President Trump’s anti-union executive orders’ implementation at the Pentagon in both last year’s NDAA and the one currently under consideration. The Senate stripped the provision from their version of the bill last year.

Despite the more pared-back approach, the Senate’s family leave bill has still attracted the support of several unions and other federal employee associations.

“Expanding paid family and medical leave ensures federal employees never have to choose between caring for themselves or a loved one and serving the American people,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. “This legislation will strengthen the federal workforce, improve employee retention, and help the government remain a competitive employer for the dedicated public servants our nation depends on.”

“Federal employees should never have to choose between caring for their loved ones and paying their bills on time,” said National Treasury Employees Union National President Doreen Greenwald. “The Comprehensive Paid Family Leave Act would provide federal workers with the flexibility and support they need during some of life’s most significant moments. As the federal government works to attract and retain talented public servants, providing comprehensive paid family leave is both the right thing to do and a smart investment in the workforce.”

]]>

National crisis and support hotline operations remained consistent despite staffing cuts, watchdog found

Christian Robles — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:50:09 -0400

Three hotlines offering Americans mental health crisis support saw the quality of their services remain consistent and their communications increase, even as the federal agencies managing them saw a slight decline in staff, according to a Government Accountability Office report published on Aug. 6.

The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, Veterans Crisis Line and National Maternal Mental Health Hotline generally saw calls, texts and chats increase in fiscal 2025 compared to fiscal 2024, the watchdog found.

Performance metrics remained largely consistent across the three hotlines amid the spike in communications, according to the report.

The 988 Lifeline saw answer rates — the percentage of contacts routed to crisis contact centers and answered by crisis counselors — hold steady for calls and texts throughout fiscal 2025 at levels comparable to past fiscal years, GAO found. The hotline also saw the average response times for calls remain steady throughout fiscal 2025 but did see large variations in the average response times for texts and chats.

The Veterans Crisis Line saw monthly answer rates for texts, chats and calls remain “high throughout [fiscal] 2025” — 89% to 99% — and “consistent with previous years,” according to GAO. The average response time for answered calls and texts in fiscal 2025 were 8.6 and 27.1 seconds, respectively, which are comparable to the averages from fiscal 2021 through 2024, the watchdog concluded.

The National Maternal Mental Health Hotline saw “high” monthly answer rates for calls and texts of 92% to 95% throughout fiscal 2025, the report found. Throughout the fiscal year, 89% to 94% of hotline contacts had wait times of less than 30 seconds, it added.

Staffing changes

The findings suggest that the performance of all three mental health support hotlines was largely insulated from the operational challenges other federal agencies faced following sweeping 2025 reductions in force.

The departments of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs lost some employees working on the hotlines under 2025 reductions in force, GAO found.

The 988 Lifeline coordinating office, for example, saw its headcount drop from 24 to 18 during fiscal 2025, according to GAO. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which oversees the office, had not backfilled those positions as of February 2026.

But the watchdog cautioned that overall workforce changes for the 988 Lifeline are unknown because the number’s crisis responders are employed by over 200 local crisis contact centers. GAO did not tabulate workforce changes for these local facilities.

A May 2026 survey in JAMA, however, found that 71% of 988 Lifeline center leaders say their center is understaffed and almost 90% of them reported difficulty acquiring resources to hire staff.

“This study suggests that 988 Lifeline center staffing shortages could be associated with operational demands, underscoring the importance of increased investments to bolster the 988 Lifeline workforce,” the medical journal's survey concluded.

The Veterans Crisis Line saw its workforce remain largely steady, dropping to 1,149 in April 2026 from 1,162 in October 2024, according to the GAO report. Additionally, the hotline’s responder turnover rate hit 18% in fiscal 2025, which is on par with the 17% it saw in fiscal 2024, the report added.

HHS lost four of the six full-time employees dedicated to providing oversight of National Maternal Mental Health Hotline operations under an April 2025 reduction in force, the Health Resources and Services Administration told GAO. Those four positions have not been filled and staff from other programs have been fulfilling oversight responsibilities as of March 2026, the agency told GAO.

The watchdog did not assess whether the contractor that operates and staffs the hotline, Postpartum Support International, saw a change in staffing levels.

A spokesperson for Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., who requested the GAO report, did not return a request for comment by the time of publication.

]]>

EPA’s cancer-risk data has gone dark

Sachi Kitajima Mulkey, Grist — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:31:45 -0400

Darya Minovi was mapping pollution from medical sterilization plants across the country when many of the communities she was speaking to began asking the same question. The facilities emit ethylene oxide, a potent carcinogen, and those who lived nearby wanted to know how much the emissions were increasing their cancer risk. She turned to data compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency to find out.

The resulting maps, published in 2023 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit where Minovi is a researcher, revealed that more than 14 million people lived in a 5-mile radius of ethylene oxide-emitting facilities. Crucially, the map highlighted 23 sterilization facilities that the EPA had found emit ethylene oxide at levels that definitively contribute to elevated cancer risk. The project helped raise awareness and was used to push the government to tighten limits on ethylene oxide emissions.

But now, the cancer risk data that made Minovi’s analysis possible has quietly gone offline. After more than two decades of sharing this information with the public, the Environmental Protection Agency has omitted cancer risk estimates from its latest update to national air pollution data. The agency is continuing to release raw pollution figures, but it is no longer providing information on the additional cancer risk that the emissions cause. It has also not updated its searchable U.S. map of cancer risk from air pollution with the most recent data.

The risk assessments are routinely used by communities to understand the effects of the pollution in their neighborhoods, as well as by journalists and nonprofits to inform the public and hold polluters accountable. Withholding this information would shift the burden of interpreting pollution data — a technically demanding task requiring specialized experience and an understanding of EPA protocols — onto the public, Minovi said, making it harder for communities to access this vital public health information.

“At the end of the day, the people who are living in communities with concentrated sources of pollution are frankly the ones to lose,” she said. “They end up caught in a bureaucratic and political tug of war, and they’re not being protected as they should be.”

The Trump administration has made it significantly more difficult to access environmental data. So far, the administration has modified or removed nearly 2,000 webpages and datasets on science, climate, and environmental topics. Last year, the EPA discontinued a tool that allowed the public to search its inventory of facilities that handle large volumes of hazardous substances by ZIP code. It also shut down an environmental justice screening tool known as EJScreen, which was the EPA’s flagship tool for tracking environmental hazards across the United States and mapped industrial pollution hot spots alongside demographic data, revealing which communities face the greatest health risks. And some of the agency’s webpages about pollutants, like ethylene oxide, have been modified to remove information about cancer risks and emphasize their industrial usefulness.

Inyang Uwak, a research and policy director for Air Alliance Houston, a nonprofit advocacy group in Texas, said that the administration’s cuts tend to prioritize industries at the expense of public health.

“It’s unfortunate because this data is highly useful to organizations such as ours that use it,” she said, adding that scientists and policymakers also need the data to make informed decisions. “It’s a disservice to public health in general.”

The EPA has been publishing the cancer risk data periodically since 2002 as part of a program called the Air Toxics Screening Assessment, which details the concentrations of dozens of toxic pollutants across the country down to the census block level. The agency began releasing the data on an annual basis in 2022, but the information is typically several years out of date because of the time required to compile the information. As factories and other polluting facilities are built, shut down, or expand, local pollution levels can change dramatically. The yearly updates to the cancer risk data provided communities with the most current information available about those changes.

Had the updates arrived on schedule this year, the agency would have released data on the cancer risk from emissions in 2022. Instead, the most recent update was published a year late and represents emissions data from 2021.

It was only made available on a public-facing webpage this summer after Tai Lung, a senior advisor for federal data policy at the Federation for American Scientists, reached out to the agency. Lung had previously worked at the agency for more than a decade as the lead of EJScreen, which also used the data, before the Trump administration suspended him alongside 170 colleagues.

Carolyn Holran, an EPA spokesperson, told Grist that the agency “will continue posting the annual nationwide air toxics emissions and concentrations data when it becomes available,” but did not address the missing cancer risk data. Holran also did not answer Grist’s questions about why it did not release the cancer data this year and whether the agency is still making this calculation internally.

“EPA is committed to fulfilling our core mission of protecting human health and the environment and ensuring clean air for all Americans, while following gold standard science,” she said.

Lung said the agency’s decision will make it harder for the public to understand how pollution affects their health. “So now we’re just sharing this raw data, which really means nothing to anybody,” he said.

The United States has one of the highest cancer incidence rates in the world. Nearly 40 percent of all Americans will receive a cancer diagnosis at some point in their life, and more than 2 million new cases are diagnosed each year. Living near industrial sources of certain pollutants, like benzene, formaldehyde, and ethylene oxide, can increase a person’s chances of developing cancer. Louisiana’s so-called “Cancer Alley,” neighborhoods near the Houston Ship Channel, and the southeast side of Chicago are all home to a concentration of industrial operations and have become cancer hotspots.

Cancer risk assessments are at the core of the regulatory work that the EPA does. The EPA has long set “acceptable thresholds” for how much exposure to industrial pollution is allowed in an area. The agency generally follows limits of one additional cancer case per 10,000 people exposed over their lifetime. (The agency has also said that cancer exposure would ideally be far lower, at one in a million.) When a new polluting facility applies for a permit or when the agency considers new rulemaking, it assesses whether the change will raise the cancer risk in the area above this threshold.

Many of the administration’s regulatory changes fall into one of two patterns, said Denice Ross, director of the Data Policy Institute at the Federation of American Scientists and a former U.S. chief data scientist during the Biden administration.

The first is the deliberate removal of data that conflicts with the administration’s priorities, or casts its policies in an unfavorable light. Information and projects that focused on diversity, social justice, gender, and climate issues were among the first to disappear, she said.

The second trend is data being lost as a consequence of the sweeping funding and staffing cuts to scientific research at agencies and institutions. There is now more red tape and political approval needed to accomplish tasks that were once routine, she said.

The services that agencies provide “have historically been invisible infrastructure,” Ross said. “There’re so many things that we take for granted about federal data in our lives, and the people aren’t taking that for granted anymore.”

Some of these cuts contradict President Donald Trump’s own policies. In 2019, during his first term in office, Trump signed the OPEN Government Data Act, a law that established government-wide requirements to make federal data more useful and accessible to the public. Federal law also requires agencies to provide adequate notice when substantially changing or ending significant sources of information, such as the Air Toxics Assessment. But many of the recent changes are “just sort of quietly happening behind the scenes,” Ross said. “And if you don’t know where to look, you won’t find it.”

Recently, some organizations have begun preserving lost EPA tools, like EJScreen, by recreating them or releasing unofficial copies. But these versions still rely on updates to federal data and do not carry the same authority as government assessments.

Many communities also don’t have access to the expertise or training necessary to interpret raw EPA data, said Elizabeth Bechard, a public health manager at Moms Clean Air Force, a nonprofit advocacy organization. The group often uses EPA data to equip families fighting against polluting industries in their communities with the data they need. Ending the cancer risk assessment, Bechard said, will make it harder for people to get involved.

“The public deserves to have that information about that risk so that they can be equipped to push back,” she said. “We’re trying to protect people. It’s not just a math equation.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/regulation/the-epas-data-on-cancer-risk-from-air-pollution-has-gone-dark/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to reporting on climate change.

]]>

The Army gave General Dynamics $533M to build an artillery plant that produced nothing

Jesse Coburn, ProPublica — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 12:37:09 -0400

A robot was on fire. Again.

It was the summer of 2024, and the cutting-edge robots inside General Dynamics’ sweltering artillery factory near Dallas were catching fire with startling regularity, according to four former workers there. This wasn’t ideal, as the plant was supposed to be churning out urgently needed artillery shells for Ukraine. The robots, giant metal arms with clamps for hands, would end up drenched in oil, which would then — no surprise — combust as they moved steel blocks heated to 1,800 degrees into and out of a machine that periodically erupted columns of fire. One blaze that summer melted a robot’s cables, putting it out of commission for a week.

Only weeks earlier, defense officials and executives had touted the factory’s innovative new machinery, imported from Turkey, at a gala opening ceremony. But employees were already used to spectacular mishaps, fiery and otherwise. “After the second, third, fourth time, it just became almost normal,” one former worker said. “It got to the point where I was not surprised by anything that happened there.”

Instead of producing shells in an efficient and streamlined fashion, the pricey machines kept failing in bizarre ways. The robot arms would swing out of control, smashing into carefully calibrated equipment, and sometimes they would unexpectedly drop hunks of steel 5 feet down to the floor. The factory’s signature device, meant to precisely stretch the steel for the artillery shells, instead often cracked it beyond repair. Then there were the giant press machines, which required regular pounding with a sledgehammer to function properly but still botched the shaping of nearly every shell. “We really didn’t have any standardized practice,” said Quantel White, a former employee. “It was just a bunch of guys taking turns going at the machine with a sledgehammer every night.” To workers, even the factory buildings themselves came to feel doomed, with acrid smoke hanging in 100-degree heat over foundations seemingly sinking into the earth.

The situation never improved. The U.S. Army, which funded the factory, ordered work halted on two of its three production lines in August 2025. By then, General Dynamics had blown eight deadlines. Work on the third production line continued, but the facility never produced a single usable shell, according to a report from the Department of Defense’s inspector general in July.

The fiasco has cost American taxpayers $533 million, according to the Army. But the Army has not held General Dynamics or a key Turkish subcontractor — which provided the factory’s much-hyped but little-proven equipment — publicly accountable for the failures. Nor has it made General Dynamics pay a penny back.

Just the opposite: General Dynamics, one of the world’s largest defense companies, has been showered with new contracts, continuing its track record as one of the greatest beneficiaries of Pentagon spending. The company is still in charge of the factory. It recently announced that it will fix things there by bringing in another much-hyped but little-proven technology.

“It’s an absolute disaster,” said one former official in an Army office supervising the project. “The Army should’ve gone after recovering money from General Dynamics,” added the official, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Publicly, the Army has been tight-lipped about what, exactly, went wrong at the factory, located in a sprawling suburb called Mesquite. The inspector general report described the failure but offered few specifics. It didn’t name the companies involved, much less any of the individuals responsible. The report’s recommendations were tepid: The Army should determine whether the contract was “appropriately issued,” how “the money was spent” and whether it can recoup any of it. It should also “identify and implement a solution” for producing more artillery. Army officials deflected blame, telling the inspector general that they didn’t do anything wrong.

In a detailed statement to ProPublica, the Army said it will recover funding for the project by getting unspecified discounts from General Dynamics on production orders. “The Army is exercising rigorous oversight to ensure every dollar invested delivers capability to the warfighter,” the statement read. “Where vendors fail to meet contract specifications, as seen at the Mesquite facility, we are evaluating contract performance, seeking recoupment of funds, and pivoting resources.”

As for General Dynamics, it has given no public explanation whatsoever. The company has said that it “met or exceeded requirements,” according to the inspector general report. General Dynamics declined an interview request from ProPublica. Company spokesperson Jeff Davis said ProPublica’s reporting “fundamentally mischaracterizes the circumstances and falsely impugns our record of employee safety and truthfulness with our customer.” He continued: “An article based on this foundation would be a materially false and misleading hit piece.” Davis did not respond to ProPublica’s request that he specify the alleged errors.

ProPublica reconstructed how the project went awry through interviews with 36 current and former employees of General Dynamics, the Army, the Pentagon and the White House. ProPublica also reviewed internal company documents as well as photographs and videos taken inside the factory.

Those involved described a project that was rushed and ill considered from the start. Congress paved the way, removing government contracting guardrails — meant to ensure taxpayer money isn’t wasted — so that Ukraine-related defense projects could be funded quickly. The Army took advantage, handing General Dynamics lucrative no-bid awards without knowing whether the machines it planned to use could perform the desired work. The Army’s due diligence was inadequate, four former Army and General Dynamics officials told ProPublica.

Compared to the multibillion-dollar budgets of other DOD projects, the financial cost of the Texas debacle is small. But the lack of consequences for the companies involved, in the view of defense-spending critics, is symptomatic of a larger problem: a deep-rooted culture at the Pentagon and in Congress in which expensive failures lead only to more spending. Such critics fear that extreme cases like this one could become more common if the Trump administration succeeds in boosting the defense budget from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion. The administration is also seeking tens of billions of dollars for its war against Iran and pressuring defense companies to quickly ramp up weapons production.

“Too often the contractors have no accountability for their mistakes,” defense budget researcher William Hartung said. The Texas failure, he said, “is a foreshadow of what’s to come if the Trump administration gets the budget it asked for.”

The Pitch

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 felt like an emergency to the Biden administration. For General Dynamics, it was an opportunity. And Firat Gezen was ready with a pitch.

In six years running General Dynamics’ Ordnance and Tactical Systems business, Gezen had earned a reputation as a deft strategist and salesman. At 50, he wasn’t an engineer, and he had no experience running factories. He had spent decades working on the financial side of the weapons business. With a ready smile and a delivery as smooth as his perfectly bald head, he knew how to woo corporate leaders and Pentagon arms buyers alike.

Gezen was also shrewd. In 2020, after the Army sought to diversify its artillery supplier base by contracting with a small Pennsylvania company, Gezen swooped in and bought that company. That allowed General Dynamics to maintain its stranglehold over the production of metal bodies for the standard American artillery shell, referred to by its caliber: 155 mm. “Firat throws his arm around you and talks to you nicely,” one former Army official said. “But he’s got, like, five things that he’s the sole provider of, and it’s exclusive. He’s got you locked up forever.”

Firat Gezen, former president of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems U.S. Army photo by PFC Brandon L. Perry

That put General Dynamics in an ideal position. Russia and Ukraine were firing thousands of shells back and forth each day. The United States was a key supplier to Ukraine, but decades of disinvestment had left the U.S. artillery industry emaciated. In March 2022, Congress passed the first in a series of bills allocating billions of dollars for Ukraine-related causes, including boosting artillery production. The next month, President Joe Biden pledged to send shells to Ukraine, and he wanted to move fast. But first someone had to make them.

The 155 mm shell has been a military workhorse for a century, owing to its simple, lethal power. Packed with TNT, the 33-inch cylinder can travel 10 miles when shot out of the barrel of a howitzer and send fragments flying hundreds of feet upon impact. But decades of asymmetric warfare in the Middle East, in which the United States relied largely on drones and bombs, had led some to believe the days of artillery battles were waning. By 2022, General Dynamics was the only producer of 155 mm metal shell bodies in the country, mainly in a century-old facility in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Given that, the company was an obvious candidate to meet the sudden new demand. General Dynamics could simply replicate Scranton’s traditional manufacturing method, which dated back to the time of the Korean War. But in meetings with Pentagon officials in the fall of 2022, Gezen proposed an alternative: What if the Army funded a state-of-the-art production line that used a promising new technique?

A soldier attends to 155 mm shells in Ukraine in March 2025. Dmytro Smolienko/Urinform/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Central to this proposal was a virtual unknown in the world of American defense: Repkon. The company had been operating in its home country of Turkey for decades, providing “turnkey production facilities in the metal forming industry.” (Coincidentally, Gezen himself was born to Turkish parents in the United States.)

But Repkon had never received a Pentagon contract, and certainly not for its signature metalworking process called “flow-forming.” Whereas the Scranton method mainly involves molding ultrahot steel in giant forging presses, Repkon added a step in which a fast-spinning machine squeezes and rolls out the metal like clay on a potter’s wheel. The advantage, Gezen told defense officials, is that the same equipment could produce shells of various calibers. Most important, Repkon had a production line already available, meaning General Dynamics could start making shells faster than if it had to procure traditional equipment piece by piece.

Warning signs abounded. Army officials learned that the production line that Repkon wanted to sell had been designed to produce an older, simpler model of 155 mm shells, which was made with different steel. It wasn’t clear that the Turkish equipment could even work with the steel used to make the newer 155 mm model, as the equipment had never actually produced it, according to four former General Dynamics and Army officials. Repkon said other countries were using the machines to produce the older model. But the Army and General Dynamics could not inspect those active production lines, Repkon told them, citing customer privacy.

The Army could have balked at all of this and insisted on learning more about the capacity of the Repkon machines to perform the desired work. But learning more would’ve taken time, and time seemed in short supply. “There was incredible pressure to go fast,” a former Army official said. Everybody moved forward.

In November 2022, the Army raced to give General Dynamics the first in a series of contract awards for the project that would ultimately be worth nearly $600 million if carried to completion. The next month, Congress granted the DOD extraordinary powers to award money for Ukraine-related causes without the usual contracting safeguards, dropping competitive bidding requirements and restrictions on so-called undefinitized contracting actions. UCAs allow a company to begin work even before finalizing the terms of its contract with the government. One defense executive compared them to “building the airplane as you’re flying it.”

The Army made the most of its expanded powers, awarding General Dynamics a number of UCAs without considering alternate proposals in a competitive bidding process. (The Army told ProPublica it selected the company because of its unique artillery production experience.)

In fact, the Army was so enamored with the proposal that it decided to order even more than Gezen had pitched. Instead of contracting for one Repkon production line, the Army signed up to buy three. Without knowing whether any of them would work.

Gezen had never overseen a project this ambitious. Until then, he had mainly presided over smaller expansions of existing factories that used traditional methods. But he was optimistic it would work. “He’s extremely aggressive, willing to take risks,” one former colleague said.

Some of the Army’s scrutiny of the proposal occurred only after it began awarding contracts for it. The service and General Dynamics sent staffers to Turkey to inspect Repkon’s machinery, but they never inspected a full production line in action and there weren’t enough experts who could spot potential defects in the equipment, four former General Dynamics and Army officials said. Crucially, before greenlighting the deal, the Army did not require General Dynamics to demonstrate that it could use the Repkon equipment to complete the entire production process and make shells that met the Army’s specifications. (The Army told ProPublica that “formal testing could not occur prior to full machinery installation.”)

If the typical contracting safeguards had been in place, perhaps everything that followed could have been prevented. If the Pentagon had been forced to open the project to competitive bidding, it would have had to consider other proposals in a painstaking review process. If restrictions on UCAs had been in effect, the Pentagon would have had to slow down and finalize the terms of the deal before allowing it to proceed, which might have surfaced its fatal flaws.

But one man’s due diligence is another man’s red tape. Soon, Repkon’s flow-forming machines were sailing across the Atlantic, heading eventually for Mesquite.

“This Is Actually Hell”

On May 29, 2024, the mood in Mesquite was triumphant. After two short years of planning, the factory was opening, and defense officials and executives gathered there to celebrate.

Former Army Secretary Christine Wormuth at the opening of General Dynamics’ artillery factory Sgt.1st Class Nicole Mejia/U.S. Army

“Our nation’s defense relies not only on our soldiers and other servicemembers in uniform but on production facilities like this one,” then-Army Secretary Christine Wormuth told seated dignitaries. She stood at a podium branded with the General Dynamics logo, with two howitzers posed behind her. She thanked the company’s CEO, Phebe Novakovic, and Gezen by name. “It’s a pleasure to highlight the fantastic work you all have done,” she said.

But everything was not as fantastic as it appeared. Artillery shells displayed around the plant that day had been shipped in from elsewhere, three former workers told ProPublica. A worker picked one up and was startled to discover it was fake — seemingly made of plastic. General Dynamics had already failed to perform a scheduled first article test, meant to demonstrate the facility could produce shells that met the Army’s specifications. The facility was supposed to start cranking out shells soon, but machines were barely functioning.

Soon problems seemed to explode out of every corner, according to interviews with 12 former factory workers. For one thing, the flaming robot arms also kept smashing into things. They slammed into computer numerical control machines, breaking their windows and bending their doors. They knocked over shells. They bashed into safety fences. Workers talked about the arms going “rogue” and began calling one of them “Johnny 5” after a sentient military robot from a 1980s movie.

Even simple equipment failed with slapstick regularity, six workers said. Conveyor belts broke down. Automated carts got lost. Safety gates meant to shut down machines when workers approached did not shut down machines when workers approached. A pipe exploded, spraying water up to the ceiling. Parts on Repkon machines deformed, leading a worker to discover that they were made with Chinese steel, possibly in violation of federal regulations. (The Army said it has no evidence of such violations.)

Smoke hung in the air; it rolled off the press machines when robots sprayed them with lubricant. Workers could feel the smoke in their lungs. When they blew their noses after shifts, their mucus was black. A worker complained to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration about a “respirable hazard” at the factory, according to an OSHA record and spokesperson. The agency opened an investigation in October 2024, and an inspector visited the facility. The smoke-spewing press machines were scheduled to be operating on the day of the visit, but for some reason they weren’t running during the inspection, according to four former workers. OSHA issued no penalties, the agency told ProPublica. Staffers started to think it wasn’t just Repkon’s faulty equipment to blame for problems at the factory — it was General Dynamics’ management, too.

The plant could reach Sahara Desert temperatures when the furnaces or presses were on. “This is actually hell,” one worker thought to himself. It was hotter still inside cabinets containing drives that controlled critical machines, where it was regularly 140 degrees, two former workers told ProPublica. An outside inspector warned in an email reviewed by ProPublica that, at that temperature, “you would not only have drives failing but also human lives failing.”

Every day seemed to bring more of the same: another machine broken, another frantic effort to repair it, another batch of misshapen shells tossed into the discard pile. As 2024 became 2025, little seemed to get better.

With so few shells passing inspection stations along the production line, many workers had nothing to do. A cat-and-mouse game ensued. Bored staffers spent endless hours gazing at their phones, leading supervisors to restrict phone use. So workers began bringing crossword books. Managers nixed those. Some workers were seen sleeping, so supervisors took away chairs.

“We sat around twiddling our thumbs, trying to find work, trying to figure out what was going on,” said Natashia Passmore, a former production technician in the plant. “It was a waste of government money, and it was a waste of our time.”

The Dumpster Fire

Tension rose between the Americans hired by General Dynamics and Turkish workers sent over by Repkon. The Repkon team was there to install the equipment, but it seemed equally flummoxed by the problems. General Dynamics workers found them evasive. They would give curt responses to questions in English but then be seen holding long, animated conversations in Turkish outside during frequent smoking breaks. A carelessly discarded cigarette butt sparked a real-life dumpster fire, three former workers said.

Repkon was especially secretive about the flow-forming machines, refusing to answer most questions about their operations. General Dynamics workers could tell when Repkon was testing one of them, because they would find metal shards scattered on the floor around it later. The shards looked like alligator teeth. “Oh, the tooth fairy was here,” one worker would think to himself.

Paranoia set in. Repkon refused to share passwords needed to control important equipment, according to five former General Dynamics employees. Sometimes workers would be startled by the sight of a machine moving by itself and realize it was being controlled by someone in Turkey. Spooked, General Dynamics workers tore out hardware to cut off remote access to the machines, two former workers said.

Rumors swirled among the Americans that the Turks were purposefully sabotaging machinery — or perhaps even engaged in some convoluted form of espionage. “It was astonishing how little progress we would make, month after month, year after year,” one former General Dynamics worker said. “People started speculating, ‘I wonder if they’re spying on us.’” General Dynamics assigned someone to shadow the Repkon workers in the factory, two former staffers said. (The Army said it has no evidence of sabotage or spying.)

Even the buildings themselves — a trio of vast, anonymous boxes tucked into the crook of two freeways — were plagued with problems. Walls cracked, and daylight became visible around window frames. Doors began dragging on concrete floors. When it rained, water would flood in — “like a tsunami,” one former worker said. The foundations appeared to be shifting or sinking, six former employees said. It was as if the whole dysfunctional factory — its fires and smoke, its idle workers and haywire machines — was being slowly sucked down into the earth.

Faced with the kaleidoscopic array of problems, the response from General Dynamics managers always seemed to be to plow forward. “Every single time they opened their mouths, it was: ‘We need to get into production,’” one former worker said. “Production is the only thing that mattered.”

“Nobody Wins”

As the situation at the factory deteriorated, General Dynamics and the Army told a very different story to the public.

In April 2024, General Dynamics CEO Novakovic told investors: “In the U.S., we are rapidly increasing ammunition production with the opening of our Texas facility.” General Dynamics failed to conduct a scheduled first article test in Mesquite that same month.

That July, two months after the opening ceremony, Novakovic told investors that “the first line is running and producing as we anticipated.” In fact, the first line was not producing any usable shells, six former plant workers told ProPublica.

In September Doug Bush, then the Army’s acquisition czar and a key figure overseeing the project, said “there have been no major delays” to the Army’s goal of producing 100,000 artillery shells each month — a goal for which the Mesquite factory was critical. “Any delays you’ve had have been measured in, I would call them weeks, not months, certainly not years,” Bush told reporters. He downplayed the problems, describing them as merely a matter of adjusting a machine “so that it puts out shells just so, versus a little bit off.”

The next day, a laborer in Mesquite photographed the work of a machine meant to begin giving the shells perfectly smooth noses; it had instead mangled the metal into something that resembled the swirl of soft-serve ice cream.

A machine at the factory sometimes mangled artillery shells, meant to be perfectly smooth, into swirls that looked like soft serve. Obtained by ProPublica

Also in September, Secretary Wormuth touted the Army’s artillery ramp-up at a conference, saying, “part of what’s enabling that are things like the brand-new plant that we opened up in Mesquite.” One month later, an Army contracting officer sent General Dynamics a letter of concern about its performance at the facility. The company missed the Army’s deadline for completing the first production line one month after that. (Wormuth declined to comment.)

Despite it all, Gezen remained optimistic through the fall of 2024. The issues in Mesquite were mere delays, he thought, and there were plans in place to fix them, according to a person familiar with his thinking. “If Firat’s guilty of something, it’s not wanting to see the truth in the matter,” a former colleague said. He “has a tendency to not want to listen to bad news.” General Dynamics announcedGezen’s retirement in January 2025. Some industry insiders believe he was pushed out in part over Mesquite. (Gezen denied that but declined to sit for an on-the-record interview.)

The split screen of blown deadlines and rosy public comments continued into the second administration of President Donald Trump. In April 2025, General Dynamics missed the completion date for the second production line. That same month, Novakovic told investors, once again: “We are rapidly increasing munitions capacity and production with the opening of our projectile facility in Texas.” The company missed another first article test two months later.

As the failures mounted, a sinking feeling took hold in Army offices. The service assembled a team to assess the situation in the factory, which produced a report that gave little confidence the problems could be fixed. Finally, in June 2025, the Army told General Dynamics it was considering terminating the contract awards for the plant, a defense trade publication reported at the time. Two months later, the service ordered work halted on two of the factory’s three production lines.

But the Army did not unilaterally terminate the contract awards. “A termination for default would’ve taken years through the legal system, because General Dynamics wasn’t going to accept that,” a former Army official told ProPublica. “Nobody wins except the lawyers.”

This would not be the last act of generosity from the Trump administration to General Dynamics. In December 2025, according to the inspector general’s report, the government paid the company $26.3 million in “progress payments” for the second and third production lines in Mesquite, although neither line had ever produced a usable shell.

General Dynamics’ factory in Mesquite, photographed in August Desiree Rios for ProPublica

A Novel Solution

Two months ago, General Dynamics made an announcement that conjured a sense of déjà vu. To fix the problems at the factory, the company would team up with yet another unheard-of partner promising technological innovation. The solution this time? Artificial intelligence.

A news release from General Dynamics and the new company, Deterrence, was filled with techno-business jargon. “AI-enabled capabilities” and “intelligence and connectivity” would be added at Mesquite and other General Dynamics factories, the companies wrote. “AI transforms production facilities into strategic assets,” Deterrence’s CEO said in the release. “We’re building autonomous manufacturing systems that learn, adapt, and scale in real time.”

These pronouncements have baffled former Mesquite workers. “What are they talking about? There’s nothing to learn or adapt or scale,” one said. “It’s all broken.”

General Dynamics is doing this even as it replaces most of the Repkon equipment with traditional machines like those used in Scranton. How AI will wrest miracles from decades-old technology is unclear. But General Dynamics told investors it expects to be in production next year, and the Army told the inspector general that’ll amount to 20,000 shells a month.

Compared with Repkon, Deterrence is perhaps an even less conventional choice. Deterrence was established just three years ago and has never received a DOD contract. Its website gives no indication it has ever helped to manufacture anything. Its three founders have no prior defense experience. One of them worked at Tesla; the other two created a startup that enabled people to lock and unlock buildings with smartphones. Deterrence did not respond to a request for comment.

General Dynamics also pledged to put $200 million into the project. That’s a small sum for a company that generated more than $50 billion in revenue last year and gave CEO Novakovic a compensation package worth more than $25 million. (Meanwhile, the company furloughed or laid off most of the Mesquite workers.)

The Army says it won’t spend any more money on the project, but it has hardly blackballed General Dynamics. Since the Army shut down work on two production lines in Mesquite one year ago, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems has received contract awards totaling $2.5 billion, the Army told ProPublica. (The service said this was for “distinct production lines and critical national defense requirements” unrelated to Mesquite.)

Repkon’s American offshoot is now at work setting up a TNT factory after receiving a no-bid contract from the Army worth $435 million. TNT is the primary explosive fill in 155 mm shells. Repkon Turkey’s CEO co-founded the American company, which was originally named Repkon USA. In March, it changed its name to Paligen Technologies. Some interpreted this as an effort to create distance from the Mesquite disaster. Paligen told ProPublica that it and Repkon are “different and wholly separate companies.” Repkon Turkey did not respond to requests for comment.

The one thing that key decision-makers appear to agree on is that they are absolutely not to blame. Gezen, the former General Dynamics executive, told ProPublica that the company and the Army did nothing wrong. In a brief conversation at his apartment door in a ritzy section of Washington, D.C., in May, Gezen maintained his sunny optimism. The Repkon equipment was a good option, and it may still be a good option, he said, holding an iced coffee in one hand and restraining a large dog with his other. In any case, he added, “it was the fastest option available.”

Bush, the Army’s former acquisition chief who had assured reporters there were “no major delays” to increasing artillery production, also declined to be interviewed. In a terse conversation in May, peering out from his half-closed front door in Northern Virginia, he told ProPublica: “All of this was done through appropriate procedures.”

Others who were involved, speaking on the condition of anonymity, engaged in mutual finger-pointing: The White House demanded too much too fast, Repkon and General Dynamics overpromised, the Army didn’t perform due diligence and Congress underwrote the whole thing.

The United States still is not close to producing the promised 100,000 shells per month, a former Army official told ProPublica in June, although other investments to increase 155 mm production have turned out better. Ukraine still needs those shells, the official said, but attention has once again shifted. In the Middle East, it’s other munitions that the Trump administration has rapidly burned through during its war with Iran. Trump officials are now calling for ramping up production in those areas — and fast.

“Conventional ammo is back on the back burner,” the official said. “Everything now is about interceptors, missiles.”

General Dynamics makes components for those too.

Alex Mierjeski and Jeff Ernsthausen contributed research.

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

]]>

Labor looks to AI to tackle accommodation requests from disabled employees

Jory Heckman — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 06:00:00 -0400

Faced with a backlog of accommodation requests from employees with disabilities and medical conditions, the Labor Department plans to use artificial intelligence to triage the workload.

An internal email obtained by Government Executive states that staff at the Civil Rights Center, which processes reasonable accommodation requests, currently must “engage substantively with every request regardless of completeness or likely outcome, limiting capacity and delaying determinations.”

“The process requires case-by-case judgment, but cases vary significantly in complexity and documentation quality: some are well-supported and straightforward, some require additional documentation, and some are not well-supported by the documentation provided,” the email states.

Labor Department employees told Government Executive that the department is facing a backlog of hundreds of RA requests. Several reported waiting months or, in some cases, a year or longer for reviews, delays they say have hampered productivity at a department charged with protecting the workplace rights of workers with disabilities.

One DOL employee told Government Executive that he submitted a reasonable accommodation request in March 2025, supported by documentation from his primary care and a mental health providers, yet his case remains pending.

“It’s just kind of ironic to me that the Labor Department is violating policies that they set,” he said. “That’s the most frustrating part, to be honest, is that they can’t even abide by their own rules.”

Labor officials wrote in the internal memo that AI will “streamline” this work, citing four AI applications under review “to improve this process.”

The memo stresses these AI tools will play a supporting role in processing reasonable accommodations, and that Civil Rights Center employees “will continue to make decisions on necessary actions (including how and what is requested).”

The department expects that AI “could triage incoming requests by likely complexity and documentation sufficiency, allowing staff to prioritize effectively.” It adds that “AI-assisted document analysis” could flag incomplete or inconsistent medical documentation earlier in the process, “reducing back-and-forth and shortening timelines.”

The memo also states that “Al-enabled communication capability could engage requestors by providing updates, prompting requestors for additional information, and initiate follow-up to keep requests progressing without staff intervention.”

DOL also wrote that “Al could assess whether the accommodation requested is effective for the documented functional limitation,” or suggest “if other equally effective options exist.”

The Labor Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Jodi Hershey, a former reasonable accommodation specialist at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the founder of the workplace accommodation firm EASE, LLC, said “the problem DOL is trying to solve is real” – many federal agencies don’t have the staff needed to keep up with the volume of incoming accommodation requests.

“I've seen employees wait a year or more for a decision on something they needed on day one — sometimes going without the very accommodation that lets them do their job. So I don't dismiss the impulse to find a faster path. The status quo is already failing disabled employees,” she said.

Hershey said AI “could genuinely help employees” navigate the reasonable accommodation process. “But that's very different from an agency using AI to take the human judgment out of the decision, and that's where this plan worries me,” she said.

“‘A human still makes the final call’ sounds reassuring, but if the AI has already sorted the case, flagged the documents, and suggested an answer, the human is grading the algorithm's homework. Real oversight means a person can actually reach a different conclusion — and that the employee knows a machine was ever involved,” she said.

Michael Fallings, managing partner at Tully Rinckey PLLC, a firm specializing in federal employment law, said he’s represented clients who have waited a year or longer for their agencies to process their reasonable accommodation requests.

While agencies may be tempted to use AI to speed up the work, Fallings warned that processing confidential medical records through AI tools may raise some legal risks.

“I’m sure the government’s thought process is … ‘We may not have the number of staff to handle it,’ but that does then create privacy issues for employees when you’re not using people, you’re using technology,” Fallings said.

Hershey said she was most concerned by the Labor Department’s plans to triage requests by “likely outcome” using AI.

“The employees with the thinnest documentation are often the ones with the least access to good healthcare, or to anyone who can help them navigate the paperwork. If the system quietly moves those cases to the back of the line, you've built a process that works best for the people who needed the least help to begin with,” she said.

"Hundreds of stories like this"

Aliyah Levin, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2391, said the Labor Department is dealing with a backlog of “almost a thousand people that haven’t been accommodated.”

Many employees, she added, were hired for fully remote positions, or only had to report to the office twice per two-week pay period. President Donald Trump’s first-day memo required most federal employees to work onsite — but exempted employees with disabilities.

“This administration came in on day one and eliminated all of our workplace flexibilities — all of them — and said, ‘No matter what, regardless of who you are, whatever deal you’ve got, however you were hired, you now have to have your butt in the seat in an office that you’ve never reported to,’” Levin said.

Levin said one bargaining unit member, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration employee with a blood-pressure condition and vertigo, was hired as a remote worker, but later was told to start reporting to the office.

Levin said the department granted the OSHA employee a remote work accommodation last month, but “there’s hundreds and hundreds of stories like this” where employees are still waiting to hear back.

“It has a disparate impact on veterans, which have varying degrees of disability. It’s affecting them the most,” she said. “We have people who, for whatever reason, they have issues driving. They rarely drive, never drive, and they live in LA. Now they have to drive to get to work.”

Levin said “productivity has plummeted, in terms of implementing the mission.” Among their duties, DOL employees carry out wage theft investigations, workplace safety enforcement, benefits administration, labor statistics, mine safety inspections and veterans' employment programs.

Omar Algeciras, AFGE Local 2391 vice president and a wage and hour investigator, said that when DOL employees “cannot receive the accommodations they need, the public eventually feels the effects.”

"The Department of Labor enforces workplace laws across the country. Employees believe the Department should meet the same standard of fairness, accessibility, and accountability expected of every employer,” Algeciras said.

"Employees are not being protected"

Another Labor Department employee said she’s been waiting nine months for her reasonable accommodation request to be processed. She said she received an interim accommodation while her paperwork is under review, but it's scheduled to run out soon.

“I started reaching out three or four weeks ago, before the expiration, asking for an update – asking about the interactive process being started, and none of that has happened. I haven’t gotten an update,” she said.

The Labor Department, she added, is “supposed to be protecting American workers, and their employees are not being protected.”

A third employee requested a reasonable accommodation to work from home about half of the time in August 2025. The request was granted in February 2026, but he is still waiting for an ergonomic chair and standing desk.

“I am finally seeing some progress, but I just don’t know why a basic chair took so long to get,” he said.

The third Labor Department employee said the department saw a surge in reasonable accommodation requests following the Trump administration’s return-to-office mandate, but a shrinking human resources workforce has been unable to keep up.

“They’re just so backed up because a lot of people took the Fork [in the Road]. They really haven’t filled these positions to be able to process these reasonable accommodations,” the employee said. “People need them.”

The third employee said the HR worker assigned to process his reasonable accommodation request has changed three times so far.

A fourth employee, a combat veteran, said he requested a reasonable accommodation in January to manage his depression and anxiety, but is still waiting to hear back.

“We enforce workers’ protections, but then here I am, dealing with my own dilemma,” he said.

A fifth employee, a disabled veteran who was hired to a fully remote position in 2024, said she requested a reasonable accommodation in April 2025 after being asked to report to the office full-time.

“After adjusting to remote work and the benefits of how it positively impacted my mental health, it really set me in an anxiety spiral, where I was just like’ ‘This is uncomfortable,’” she said.

The employee said the department ultimately shelved her RA request, allowing her to continue working remotely because her husband is a 100% disabled veteran. The Trump administration has exempted spouses of 100% disabled veterans from its return-to-office mandate.

That accommodation may be short-lived. The employee said she received an offer for a new Labor Department job, but was told her military spouse RTO exemption would not apply. To avoid having to relocate across the country, the employee was advised to submit a new reasonable accommodation request, but was warned there are no guarantees it will be accepted.

“They’re telling me maybe if I reapplied for a reasonable accommodation under the new job … then it might be accepted. “I have to accept the new job and then apply for the reasonable accommodation,” the employee said. “But that’s really terrifying, because I am not in a position to move. My spouse has a well-established care team and everything in place. We can’t just pick that up and move.”

]]>

OneGov savings balloon to over $1.6B as agencies weigh future of AI in contracting

Christian Robles — Fri, 14 Aug 2026 16:27:18 -0400

The OneGov program has saved the federal government about $1.62 billion — including about $1.4 billion through limited-time discounts on artificial intelligence — since its inception, a General Services Administration official said Thursday.

“That number may not capture the full impact because some agencies might have used the OneGov pricing to negotiate pricing on their own contracts outside of GSA’s [involvement],” Birgit Smeltzer, director of the agency’s Office of IT Products, said at the GovCIO Federal AI Forum.

Indeed, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is one example of an agency that has negotiated technology discounts beyond OneGov. But federal agencies only have limited time access to discounted software through the OneGov program.

Smeltzer said some of the original equipment manufacturers have already agreed to extend the duration of their OneGov discounts or are working on forging new offers. She did not say which manufacturers have already promised to reup discounts or when GSA would announce them.

“Some of the [original equipment manufacturers] have already agreed to extend some of the limited time offers, and some are looking at producing new offers for us,” she said.

GSA officials previously said they want manufacturers to extend OneGov deals as they look to become direct contractors on the Multiple Award Schedule. Officials have also said they want the OneGov initiative to extend beyond technology and software.

Smeltzer forecasted that even though OneGov prices “will eventually increase, the offers have already created significant value for agencies.”

“Leveraging the OneGov has been tremendous in order to really prove value,” said Geoffrey Sage, director of the enterprise services and analysis division within NASA’s Office of Procurement.

OneGov is just one way agencies are thinking about AI and contracting.

NASA has started to talk with industry about how it should use AI in contract evaluations, Sage also said at Thursday’s event. That specific application of AI has been a “thin red line” for the agency to date but it's also a “necessity,” he added, while noting that NASA takes a risk-based approach in deciding to use AI.

“We spend 85 percent of the agency's budget through procurement,” Sage said. “We can't afford AI to trip up and hamper our source evaluation process.”

Federal use of AI to evaluate contracts has recently garnered scrutiny, with some contractors alleging agencies are misusing the technology and relying on hallucinations in their evaluations.

NASA is also using AI to bring its number of contract writing systems down from three to one next year, Sage said.

Federal officials should view industry as collaborators, Anil Chaudhry, senior AI advisor for the Transportation Department, also said at the event.

“As a government employee, you can no longer have a mindset that you're competing with industry. You have to have that mindset that you're collaborating with industry,” he added.

]]>

OPM finalizes expanded hazard pay for federal firefighters

Erich Wagner — Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:20:47 -0400

Federal wildland firefighters will soon have more opportunities to receive hazard pay in connection with their work fighting and preventing wildfires, thanks to newly finalized regulations from the Office of Personnel Management.

Currently, federal firefighters are eligible for hazard pay—a 25% increase over their normal salary—only when working to extinguish an unplanned wildfire. But they do not receive this increased pay when working on prescribed burns, in which officials intentionally ignite decaying forest material in the hopes of mitigating the risk of an uncontrolled wildfire breaking out in the future.

In a new rule published in the Federal Register Friday, OPM finalized its April proposal to expand firefighters’ access to hazard pay to include prescribed burns, effective Sept. 13. The regulation authorizes hazardous duty pay for prescribed burns for firefighters hired under the General Schedule pay sale, as well as environmental differential pay for those serving under the Federal Wage System.

But OPM noted that the new hazard pay will not be available for every activity associated with a prescribed burn.

“As in the proposed rule, the final rule limits differential coverage to employees participating as a member of a firefighting crew engaged in activities on the fireline directly involving the implementation and control of a prescribed wildland fire,” OPM wrote. “The rule does not extend the differential to pre-ignition preparation activities. OPM retains this limitation because the hazards justifying coverage are associated with the active fire environment and its immediate aftermath on the fireline, not preparatory work performed before a fire has been ignited.”

Typically, federal workers are not entitled to hazard pay for duties that fall within their position description; an exception exists for firefighters due to the health risks inherent in the job.

“Prescribed fire duties [include] ignition, holding, patrol, mop-up, fireline construction, and snag felling expose employees to open flame, radiant and convective heat, smoke, unstable terrain, fire-weakened trees, chemical by-products of combustion, and biological hazards,” the regulations state. “OPM concluded that these hazards cannot be fully mitigated through training, personal protective equipment, or standard operational controls and are comparable in degree to the hazards supporting the existing 25 percent differential for wildfire fireline work.”

In a statement Thursday, National Federation of Federal Employees President Randy Erwin, whose union first recommended approving hazard pay for planned burns in 2022, applauded OPM’s decision.

“This is yet another step in the right direction to ensuring federal wildland firefighters receive the pay they deserve for the incredible work they do protecting our communities from the wildfire crisis,” Erwin said. “For years, NFFE has been seeking a permanent policy allowing hazard pay for prescribed fire activities. We have explored legal options, legislation, and regulatory action, and after many sustained efforts by NFFE members campaigning for change, we have achieved a monumental victory.”

]]>

Intel ops are underway at Space Command’s nascent Alabama HQ

Thomas Novelly — Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:10:44 -0400

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — Less than a year after President Trump reversed a Biden-era decision to keep U.S. Space Command in Colorado, space intelligence operations are being conducted in existing offices at Redstone Arsenal while a permanent headquarters is built on base.

By year’s end, SPACECOM plans to have roughly 200 of the 1,800 Colorado-based positions at the Army base. Roughly 50 of those employees are already conducting missions with the command’s Joint Intelligence Support element, or JISE, which is already doing analysis for space operations and coordinating with allies. Those analysts are also coordinating with colleagues working, at least for the next few years, at Space Command’s existing headquarters in Colorado.

“We've designed our facilities with collaboration spaces and with the collaboration tools that allow our personnel here in Huntsville—of course, those numbers are growing—to work back with our people in Colorado Springs to execute our missions,” Whiting told reporters on Wednesday. “So far, our folks are crushing that, and I'm very proud of how they're performing.”

Reporters toured the up-and-coming facilities and saw the progress of the new headquarters on Wednesday during the Space and Missile Defense Symposium here. While the personnel moves and construction projects will not be complete until 2032, military officials said that the combatant command remains focused on its mission.

In April, Gen. Stephen Whiting, Space Command’s leader, hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Joint Intelligence Support element on base. Wednesday’s tour was among the first access allowed to media outlets.

“Make no mistake, the JISE leading this charge serves as a symbol of our commitment to ensuring mission needs are executed flawlessly throughout this move,” Brig. Gen. Nathan Rusin, who leads the USSPACECOM Intelligence Directorate, said in an April press release.

In 2021, in the last weeks of his first term, Trump announced that Space Command would move its headquarters from Petersen Space Force Base in Colorado to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville. Several congressional probes followed. In July 2023, President Biden reversed the decision and said it would stay in Colorado.

An April 2025 Defense Department Inspector General’s probe wondered why the 2023 basing decision was made by the White House instead of Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall. The service secretary told lawmakers in 2023 he thought “the projected cost savings, together with the availability of potential mitigation measures, outweighed the operational risks that had been identified” for moving the command to Alabama.

But a May 2025 Government Accountability Office probe showed that if SPACECOM headquarters were to remain in Colorado that “new military construction would be needed to support the headquarters’ operations” and that officials “faced ongoing personnel, facilities, and communications challenges” in setting up a permanent facility out West.

Whiting told reporters that the goal is to have half of SPACECOM at Redstone Arsenal by 2028 with a full move-in completed by 2032. The command’s joint operations center, the main command-and-control hub for space warfare missions, will remain in Colorado until the completion of the new headquarters.

“The opportunity for U.S. Space Command is that we get a purpose-built command and control headquarters out of this, we did not have that in Colorado,” Whiting said. “So to get this facility is going to be an incredible accelerant to our mission.”

]]>

Lawsuit seeks to enforce 2025 SCOTUS decision improving pay for feds called to active duty

Erich Wagner — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 16:36:53 -0400

A Veterans Affairs Department employee filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management Wednesday seeking to force it to promulgate new regulations implementing a Supreme Court case opening up differential pay to more federal workers who simultaneously serve as military reservists that was decided more than a year ago.

In 2009, Congress enacted legislation aimed at ensuring federal workers are not forced to take a pay cut when they deploy to active duty as part of their service in a military reserve unit, as their military pay is often lower than their civilian salary.

Though the law tasked the Office of Personnel Management to issue regulations governing this differential pay, the HR agency instead issued policy guidance to agencies in 2009. That guidance, last updated in 2015, requires federal workers to prove that their active-duty deployment is “substantially connected” to a particular war or national emergency in order to be eligible for differential pay.

But in April 2025, the Supreme Court overruled that test in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, finding that the law requires only a “temporal link” between an employee’s deployment and a national emergency. That case, decided by a 5-4 vote, involved a federal air traffic controller who spent nearly five years on active duty as a Coast Guard reserve petty officer escorting military vessels to and from harbor in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a new lawsuit, VA attorney Marcus Colicelli, who also serves as a major in the Army Reserve’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps, argues that OPM’s continued failure to issue binding regulations on differential pay or to update its policy guidance to reflect the new Supreme Court precedent constitute a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. During litigation of Feliciano, OPM twice stated that it planned to revise its guidance document; to date, it has not occurred.

“The Merit Systems Protection Board has meanwhile held, in a precedential decision involving the same employing agency as plaintiff’s, that a federal civilian employee ordered to active duty . . . is entitled to differential pay . . . where that service temporally coincided with a declared national emergency,” the suit states. “OPM’s guidance continues to instruct employing agencies to the contrary.”

According to Colicelli and his attorneys, the status quo effectively requires federal workers to pursue differential pay through their agency and be denied, then seek redress before MSPB in order to be made whole.

“Had OPM discharged the duty [the statute] imposes, its instructions would carry the force of law and would bind employing agencies government-wide,” they wrote. “Instead OPM substituted a non-binding subregulatory document for the binding rule Congress required. The result is that no employing agency is authoritatively directed to administer [the statute] as Feliciano construes it, and each reservist is left to vindicate his own entitlement agency-by-agency and activation-by-activation. The absence of a binding rule is not incidental to plaintiff’s injury; it is the injury.”

In a statement Thursday, Trial Lawyers for Justice, the firm representing Colicelli, said it is soliciting other plaintiffs in preparation for filing a class-action case with the Merit Systems Protection Board in the coming weeks.

“The Supreme Court could not have been clearer: these men and women earned this pay, and the law requires the government to make them whole,” said attorney Andrew Tutt, who also represented Feliciano in his case. “They held up their end of the bargain. It is long past time for the government to hold up its own.”

]]>

Before you take money out of your TSP, weigh these trade-offs

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:00:00 -0400

The Thrift Savings Plan can be one of the most valuable retirement assets for federal employees (as well as members of the uniformed services), but once you leave federal service, the distribution decision is not just a matter of deciding how much cash you need. There are other important considerations to understand before you can select the dollar amount you will need to make your retirement financially secure. Remember that once a TSP withdrawal is processed, it generally cannot be reversed, so these are all important considerations to understand before deciding on your distribution plan.

If you have a minimum balance of $200, you may keep your money in the TSP. TSP elections for withdrawal include taking a partial distribution (minimum amount is $1,000), electing a total distribution, purchasing a life annuity (must have at least $3,500 to elect this option), setting up installment payments or combining methods.

Keeping money in the TSP may be appropriate if you do not need immediate income, because the plan offers simple investment choices and historically low expenses. Installment payments can create predictable cash flow while leaving the remaining balance invested. A life annuity can provide income for life, but it is typically irreversible and may reduce flexibility for heirs or future emergencies. A lump sum may be useful for a specific need, but it can create a large taxable event and remove assets from a disciplined retirement structure.

Taxes

Traditional TSP withdrawals are generally taxed as ordinary income in the year received. That means the timing and size of distributions can affect your marginal tax bracket, taxation of Social Security benefits, net investment income planning, state income taxes and estimated-tax requirements. Adding additional taxable income may even have an impact on the premiums you will pay for Medicare Parts B and D.

The TSP reports distributions to the IRS and may be required to withhold federal income tax from taxable payments, but remember that this withholding is not the same as the final tax that may be due. In addition to the IRS and federal income taxes, remember that many states will also consider these distributions taxable on the state level.

States that generally do not tax TSP or similar retirement-account distributions include the following states that don’t have an income tax — Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming — as well as states that generally exempt most retirement distributions, such as Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi and Pennsylvania.

State rules can change and may depend on residency, age, income level and the type of retirement income, so retirees should verify their state’s current rules before making large withdrawals or relocating to a state because of favorable income tax rules. Don’t forget about property tax, sales tax and other taxes that states need to collect to make the state an attractive place to retire.

Retirees should coordinate withdrawals with other taxable income, deductions, charitable giving and any planned Roth conversions.

Required minimum distributions (RMDs) also matter. If you are subject to RMDs, waiting until the first-year deadline may cause two taxable distributions in one calendar year: the delayed first RMD and the current-year RMD. That income bunching can increase taxes and may ripple into other areas, including Medicare premiums.

Roth TSP balances are treated differently from traditional balances under recent rules, but taxpayers should confirm current requirements before making elections. If you were born before 1960 and have left federal service, your RMD is at age 73 and the first distribution is due by April 1 of the year after you turn 73. If you were born in 1960 or later, your RMD age is 75 and your first distribution is due by April 1 of the year after you turn 75 or older and have left federal service.

If you are retiring early, be sure to understand the 10% early withdrawal penalty tax if you plan to take distributions or elect a withdrawal option before you reach age 59½. There is good news for some, since the additional 10% tax generally does not apply to payments made from your TSP account if you separate from federal service during or after the year you reach age 55.

Additionally, if you are a public safety employee as defined in section 72(t)(10)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code, payments made after you separate from service during or after the year you reach age 50 or have 25 years of service under the TSP are also exempt.

If you elect a life annuity, these payments will not be subject to the 10% penalty. If you elect a distribution of substantially equal payments over your life expectancy, these payments will not be penalized, but you must maintain this election until you reach age 59½.

The penalty can be applied retroactively if you stop your life expectancy installments or take additional money from your account within five years of beginning your installments or before you turn 59½ years old, whichever is later. See the TSP booklet 26, Tax Rules About TSP Payments, for more tax information and additional exceptions. Also, refer to IRS Publication 721, Tax Guide to U.S. Civil Service Retirement Benefits.

Living longer

One reason TSP distribution planning is so important is that older adults are one of the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. population, and more retirees may need their savings to last 25, 30 or even more years in retirement. Many retirees underestimate how long retirement can last.

Taking too much too soon can leave the later years exposed to inflation, medical costs, long-term care expenses or the loss of a spouse’s income. On the other hand, withdrawing too little may lead to unnecessarily large RMDs later or leaving out some of the enjoyment this additional income can add to your early retirement years.

A sustainable withdrawal strategy should consider expected longevity, survivor needs, inflation, investment risk, guaranteed income sources (i.e., Social Security benefits, CSRS, FERS retirement benefits, etc.) and whether it is important to preserve assets for your beneficiaries.

The following examples show why the distribution rate matters as much as the investment return. These are simplified illustrations using a $500,000 TSP balance, annual withdrawals taken at year-end, no additional contributions, no taxes, no inflation adjustment and steady annual returns of either 6% or 10%.

Actual results will vary because market returns are not level from year to year, taxes reduce spendable income and increasing withdrawals for inflation will shorten the timeline.

If you withdraw…

$25,000/year or 5% of your $500,000 balance, your payments can last indefinitely if a rate of return of at least 6% is earned consistently before costs and taxes are deducted.

However, if you increase your withdrawal amount each year by an estimated 3% inflation rate to maintain your purchasing power, your investment will last for only 29 years.

If you withdraw 7% of your balance or $35,000/year, you will run out of money in about 33 years if you earn a consistent 6% rate of return.

Your money may last indefinitely if 10% is earned consistently before costs and taxes.

However, if you add a rate of 3% or 4% inflation, your spending will quickly overtake the growth, and you may run out of money in as little as 26 years.

Unfortunately, if you start taking out lump-sum distributions in addition to the stream of payments, you may deplete your balance much more quickly.

A 10% average return can still produce poor outcomes if losses occur early in retirement, because withdrawals during down markets permanently reduce the number of shares left to recover. This is known as sequence-of-returns risk.

For that reason, retirees should test their TSP election against conservative return assumptions, inflation-adjusted withdrawals, income taxes, Medicare premium thresholds and the possibility of a very long retirement.

These examples do not guarantee these projections or recommendations! Try this calculator from USAA to help gauge how long your savings may last using estimated rates of inflation, your tax bracket and estimated rate of return.

Too much risk? Consider the life annuity

A TSP life annuity converts part or all of your account balance into guaranteed monthly payments for life through the TSP annuity provider. The primary advantage is longevity protection: Payments continue even if you live far longer than expected.

It can also reduce the pressure of managing investments in retirement and may be useful for someone who wants more guaranteed income in addition to a FERS or CSRS pension and Social Security.

There is a big trade-off to these advantages. Once TSP money is used to purchase a life annuity, you give up control. The payment amount depends on the purchase amount, age, interest-rate environment and selected features.

A single-life annuity may pay more each month than a joint-life annuity, but payments can stop at your death unless a qualifying feature is elected. A joint-life annuity can protect a spouse or other eligible joint annuitant, but the monthly payment is usually lower because the insurer may have to pay for two lifetimes.

Inflation is another key issue. Level payments start higher but remain the same, so purchasing power can decline over time. Increasing payments start lower but rise by a stated percentage each year, which may help offset inflation, although the increase may not fully match actual living-cost increases.

Retirees should also understand beneficiary features, such as cash-refund or certain-period options, because adding protection for heirs can reduce the monthly income. Here are some of the options with the key pros and cons:

Single life annuity with level payments provides the highest starting monthly income and the payments will last as long as you do, but there will be no continuing payment to your survivors unless you add additional features, and your purchasing power will be eroded over time since the payments will not increase.

Single life annuity with increasing payments provides a lower starting payment but will increase over time by a 2% annual adjustment that will help reduce some of the risk of inflation. However, these increases may not keep pace with actual inflation.

Joint life annuity with spouse and increasing payments will provide lifetime income for two lives with payments that rise over time. Typically, the lowest starting income of these examples is because it combines survivor protection with increasing payments.

Remember that electing a 50% survivor option will pay 50% of the payment to the survivor (not “your” survivor). Full payment is only paid while you are both living. To keep the payment level over both lifetimes, a 100% survivor election is available with or without the increasing payment option added.

The following illustration assumes $250,000 is used to purchase a single-life, level-payment TSP annuity. There is no payment to your beneficiary regardless of how long you survive after the annuity begins unless you add the “10-year certain” feature or “cash refund” feature, which would reduce these estimates.

This example uses the current August 2026 TSP annuity interest-rate index of 4.95% as the basis for the comparison, but the figures should still be treated as estimates rather than exact quotes. Actual TSP annuity payments depend on the participant’s exact age at purchase, the annuity provider’s factors, the option selected, whether increasing payments or refund features are added and the rate in effect when the annuity is purchased.

If a single life annuity is purchased at age 50, the monthly payment would be $720 and over 30 years, you would receive approximately $259,200. Over 10 years, the annuity would pay only $86,400.

If purchased at age 60, the monthly payment would be $1,095 and over 30 years, you would receive approximately $394,200. Over 10 years, the annuity would pay only $131,400.

This comparison highlights the longevity trade-off. A younger retiree generally receives a smaller monthly payment because the insurer expects to pay for more years. If that retiree lives long enough, the cumulative payments can eventually exceed the original $250,000 purchase amount.

However, if death occurs early and no refund or survivor feature was elected, the retiree may receive far less than the amount used to buy the annuity. Adding refund protection, survivor protection or increasing payments can change the result and usually reduces the initial monthly income.

You can use the TSP Annuity Calculator to try this for yourself.

TSP distributions can also affect Medicare Part B and Part D premiums through the income-related monthly adjustment amount, commonly called IRMAA. Medicare uses modified adjusted gross income from a prior tax year to determine whether higher-income beneficiaries owe surcharges.

A large TSP withdrawal, Roth conversion or RMD year can therefore increase Medicare costs two years later. This does not mean distributions should always be minimized, but it does mean retirees should model the after-tax and after-premium result before taking a large payment.

If your modified adjusted gross income as reported on your IRS tax return from 2024 is above $109,000 if you file an individual tax return or above $218,000 for those filing a joint return, you’ll pay the standard Part B premium of $202.90 (2026) and an income-related monthly adjustment amount.

Estate planning issues after retirement

Estate planning should also be part of the TSP distribution decision. Beneficiary designations generally control who receives the account at death, so retirees should review them regularly and coordinate them with a will, trust, life insurance, pension survivor election and family circumstances.

This review is especially important after marriage, divorce, the death of a spouse, the birth of grandchildren or a blended-family change.

Retirees should also consider whether a surviving spouse or other beneficiary will need continued income. A withdrawal strategy that works during a couple’s joint lifetime may not be sufficient if one spouse dies and household income changes.

Traditional TSP balances are generally taxable when distributed to beneficiaries, so leaving a large account to adult children can create income-tax consequences for heirs, particularly if they are already in high-earning years. A spouse may have more flexibility than a non-spouse beneficiary, and an IRA rollover may offer additional beneficiary-planning tools in some cases.

The TSP annuity election also has estate-planning consequences. Money used to purchase a single-life annuity may no longer be available to heirs unless a refund, survivor or certain-period feature is elected.

Those protections can help address survivor or legacy goals, but they usually reduce the starting monthly income. Retirees should balance guaranteed lifetime income against the need for liquidity, long-term care expenses and the desire to leave assets to family or charity.

Trust planning may be appropriate when beneficiaries are minors, have disabilities, struggle with financial management or are part of a blended-family plan, but retirement accounts and trusts require careful tax drafting.

Charitable planning should also be coordinated, because taxable retirement assets may be better suited for charitable gifts than after-tax assets. In short, the TSP should not be treated only as an income source. It is also an estate-planning asset that should fit with the retiree’s broader tax, legal and family goals.

Should I stay or should I go?

The IRA-versus-TSP decision is rarely all-or-nothing. Leaving money in the TSP may preserve low-cost investment access, the G Fund, creditor protections, simplicity and certain penalty exceptions.

Rolling money to an IRA may provide broader investment choices, more flexible beneficiary planning, qualified charitable distribution options, professional account management or coordinated Roth conversion strategies. However, IRAs can also carry higher costs, sales incentives, more complicated investment choices and different protection rules.

A direct rollover can avoid current taxation when moving traditional TSP money to a traditional IRA, but an indirect rollover, missed deadline or Roth conversion can create taxable income.

A qualified financial professional can help compare TSP distribution choices, but the selection should be made carefully. The right advisor should understand federal benefits, TSP withdrawal rules, the FERS or CSRS pension, Social Security claiming, Medicare premium thresholds, beneficiary planning and the tax impact of traditional and Roth withdrawals.

This is especially important because TSP elections often interact with several other retirement decisions at the same time. Ask whether the professional you are considering acts as a fiduciary, how they are paid, what credentials they hold and whether they have specific experience working with federal employees.

Fee-only, fee-based, commission-based and insurance-licensed professionals may all provide different services, but their compensation structures and potential conflicts should be clear. It is also wise to ask whether the advisor will coordinate with a tax professional or estate planning attorney when the TSP decision involves Roth conversions, RMDs, trusts, charitable planning or large rollovers.

Before hiring someone, consider asking practical questions:

Have you worked with federal retirees before?

Can you compare leaving money in the TSP with rolling assets to an IRA?

Will you provide a written analysis of taxes, Medicare effects, survivor needs and investment risks?

Do you recommend specific products, and if so, how are you compensated? Will I retain access to low-cost TSP options if I move money?

A good professional should be willing to explain both the benefits and drawbacks of each option, not simply recommend a rollover or annuity without showing how it fits the retiree’s broader plan.

Before making an election, here are five questions to consider:

How much income do I need now?

What tax bracket will this distribution create?

Could the distribution increase Medicare premiums?

Will I need penalty-free access before age 59½?

Am I giving up TSP features that are hard to replace?

The best TSP distribution strategy is the one that balances current income needs with tax efficiency, Medicare planning, longevity protection and flexibility. Because the consequences can last for decades, a careful review with a qualified tax or financial professional is often worth the effort before the election is submitted.

]]>

The feds want private companies to take the fight to cybercriminals

Christian Robles — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 13:37:31 -0400

The National Coordination Center will create a program allowing authorized U.S. companies to conduct cyber operations against transnational criminal organizations at the direction of the federal government, according to a memorandum signed by President Donald Trump on Wednesday.

Program executive directors from the departments of Homeland Security and Justice will have the authority to greenlight companies’ cyber operations unless the authorization would result in a loss of life, serious injury or “rise to the level of use of forced or armed attack under international law.”

The federal government would vet and conduct oversight of authorized companies, which would need to enter into contractual agreements with either DHS or Justice.

The specific standards the government will use to screen the companies will be drafted by the program executive directors — in coordination with the Homeland Security Council — within 60 days of the memo’s signing. They will include technical proficiency, proven performance of cyber operations, facility security, personnel vetting, competence and reliability, according to the document.

The group will ensure that program participation criteria enable involvement from large and small companies, and that operations target only transnational criminal organizations.

The memo also allows participating companies to enter into commercial agreements with other private sector entities, federal agencies and state entities. The program executive directors will produce a report on the initiative’s status and submit it to the National Cyber Director and Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor.

The cybersecurity program seeks to build on a March executive order laying out steps to combat cybercrime. That order was released alongside a national security strategy that called for the government to more directly respond to adversarial threats and secure critical U.S. technologies.

In a statement, Mike Centrella — the head of public policy at SecurityScorecard — said the document “represents an important shift in how the United States approaches cyber threats originating overseas.”

“Strengthening defenses remains critical, but the memorandum recognizes that addressing cybercrime also requires identifying and disrupting the infrastructure and networks that allow criminal organizations to operate,” he said, adding that the guidance “signals an evolution in public-private cybersecurity collaboration — from primarily sharing information about threats toward combining government authorities with private-sector intelligence and capabilities to more actively disrupt them."

]]>

Statistical agency staffing cuts put federal data under new scrutiny on Capitol Hill

Jory Heckman — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 13:05:33 -0400

The top Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee is seeking a hearing on the state of federal statistical agencies, following a report documenting deep staffing cuts and leadership vacancies.

Citing “alarming” data in a recent report from the American Statistical Association, Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott, D-Va., is asking the committee’s chairman, Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., to give members “the opportunity to explore the hard choices these agencies have had to face as they absorb these cuts and do more with less.”

Scott’s requested hearing would focus on three statistical agencies that fall under the committee’s purview – the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics.

“I ask that you schedule a hearing in September so that Committee Members have the opportunity to hear about the erosion of our nation’s federal statistical infrastructure and better understand the downstream effects of poorer data quality and less frequent product releases,” Scott wrote.

All 13 principal federal statistical agencies have seen staffing cuts since the start of the Trump administration. Six of them shed at least a third of their headcount, and two of them lost more than two-thirds of their employees.

The American Statistical Association’s midyear report, released last month, found staffing cuts and persistent leadership vacancies “put the agencies in a weakened and vulnerable position to meet rigorous production schedules,” and “keep up with the demands of producing relevant, timely, and accurate statistics for decisionmakers and the public.”

“These agencies serve as vital lifelines for policymakers, businesses, and the public—producing nonpartisan, reliable statistics describing the realities confronting our constituents every day,” Scott wrote.

The association found in a report last year that widespread staffing and spending cuts, along with policy changes under the Trump administration, led to certain public-facing data sets being delayed, suspended or canceled.

The Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics lost nearly all its employees last year, as part of the Trump administration’s ongoing plans to dismantle the department. NCES, which operates within the department’s Institute of Education Sciences, shrank from about 100 staff to just four employees last year, but now has about a dozen full-time staff.

Scott wrote that NCES projects and studies on school crime and safety, teachers and principals, homeschooling and virtual education, and adults’ skills and competencies remain “inactive” amid these staffing cuts. Other work has been reduced in scope or transferred to other agencies.

Savannah Newhouse, the department’s press secretary, said in a statement that NCES and IES “were in need of reform,” and that the Trump Administration “is committed to ensuring that IES delivers usable, high-quality statistics, data, and resources for educators, researchers, and other stakeholders.”

USDA’s Economic Research Service cut a third of its workforce between fiscal 2024 and 2026. ERS, which produces data on the agricultural economy, food and nutrition, food safety, global markets, and rural economies, is planning to relocate employees to Kansas City this fall, doubling down on staffing moves carried out under the first Trump administration.

Many employees who received relocation notices in 2019 quit rather than move to keep their jobs. ERS in the process lost more than half its staff and dealt with productivity declines that took years for the agency to recover from.

Federal employee unions and nonprofit groups are suing to block USDA’s widespread relocation plans, arguing that they are a veiled attempt to intentionally shrink its workforce.

“It is both the Administration’s prerogative and our concern that staff departures will continue to undermine the ERS’s irreplaceable work to understand the challenges faced across the country regarding agriculture and food security,” Scott wrote.

Last summer, President Donald Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after the agency produced a monthly jobs report that showed hiring had slowed. The incident raised concerns about the long-term independence of federal statistical agencies.

The Senate confirmed Brett Matsumoto as the bureau’s new permanent director last week, but many of its leadership positions remain vacant. The bureau cut its staffing by 20% between fiscal 2024 and 2026.

BLS announced last month that it would no longer produce monthly state-by-state data snapshots of job openings, hiring, layoffs and workers quitting their jobs. Instead, the bureau will now publish monthly estimates for the prior year in annual data releases.

BLS never resumed data series that had been cut due to sequestration cuts from 2013, including the elimination of the Mass Layoffs Statistics program, which provided “information that identifies, describes, and tracks the effects of major job cutbacks in the economy.”

“These changes reflect long-standing understaffing and underdevelopment, despite warnings from current and former staff,” Scott wrote.

]]>

State’s overseas housing rules haven’t kept up with the times, GAO says

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 12:38:48 -0400

The State Department could be overspending on residences for employees stationed abroad because officials haven’t updated certain housing standards in more than three decades, the Government Accountability Office said in a report issued on Monday.

State manages housing for more than 9,000 agency personnel living overseas and in 2025 spent nearly $500 million on residential leases.

A majority, 64%, of such housing is leased while 36% is government-owned, as of March 2026. Officials told GAO, while leasing offers flexibility, purchasing properties provides “long-term stability and greater control over costs” but also “typically requires substantial upfront funding.”

Housing for a foreign service officer is based on their rank, family size and the location of their assignment, with countries that have the “most difficult living conditions” corresponding to the largest allowable space maximums.

For example, a standard-rank employee in fiscal 2024 with a family of two assigned to a country with a poor quality of life could reside in a unit that has an annual rent of no more than $55,000, according to the report. And an executive-rank employee that has a family of four in a country that is similar to the U.S. could live in a residence that is up to nearly 2,150 square feet.

Investigators found, however, that State has not revised its standards governing how large a government-provided home for an employee serving abroad can be since 1991. Such standards are based on “housing comparable to what an employee would occupy in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.” But over the last 35 years, the median housing square footage in the nation’s capital has gone down while median housing costs have increased more than Foreign Service salaries.

“Until it reviews and updates its housing space standards, State may be providing larger, more costly overseas residences than needed to meet its definition of adequate housing,” investigators wrote.

The report also found that, when calculating a unit’s space, State disregards certain areas like hallways, laundry rooms and closets, but most domestic housing appraisers count all finished square footage in a given space.

“State would have greater assurance that its housing costs are not higher than necessary, as its current measurement method could underestimate overseas square footage and allow posts to provide larger-than-needed residences,” investigators wrote.

GAO recommended that State align maximum housing space standards for overseas personnel with current conditions in Washington, D.C., and update the methods for measuring such properties. Department officials said they would implement both recommendations.

Investigators also flagged that State employees are using at least three data systems to manage the overseas housing program.

“[Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations] officials said that staff at the posts must enter the same housing data into multiple systems, resulting in processing mistakes and inaccurate and incomplete information,” they wrote. “Both OBO officials as well as officials at the selected posts said that the IT systems are not integrated or interoperable, resulting in missing or lost information and causing delays in lease approvals, waiver processing and overall housing readiness.”

Officials told GAO that they intend to initiate a new system that will combine the existing three programs toward the end of the calendar year.

]]>

State Department expands push to reclassify employees as at-will workers

Jory Heckman — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 06:00:00 -0400

The State Department is taking another look at its workforce to see if more employees should fall under a new governmentwide designation that makes them easier to fire. Agency officials are expanding their search for employees to reclassify as at-will workers under the Trump administration’s new Schedule Policy/Career designation for the federal workforce.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in June that officially reclassified 8,000 federal employees into Schedule Policy/Career, a rebranding of the Schedule F designation that Trump pursued in his first term, but did not implement before leaving office.

Employees placed into the new schedule would no longer be able to challenge adverse personnel actions before the Merit Systems Protection Board, and whistleblower complaints filed by Schedule P/C employees would be investigated by their own agency, rather than the Office of Special Counsel.

The Office of Personnel Management previously estimated that about 50,000 federal employees would fall under this new job category. But an OPM spokesperson said in June that the administration chose to instead focus on “the most senior-level career policy officials.”

The State Department’s actions suggest that its initial reclassification of employees fell short of the White House’s expectations, and other agencies may take a similar approach. NOTUS first reported that the Trump administration is directing agencies to find more federal employees to convert to Schedule P/C.

A spokesperson for the foreign policy agency declined to comment on “internal deliberative personnel matters.”

One State Department employee told Government Executive that human resources officials are using a short questionnaire to determine if GS-13 and GS-14 level employees are working in policymaking positions that should be reclassified to Schedule P/C.

“It is not clear how many ‘yes’ responses would trigger a new Schedule P/C status,” the employee said.

The questionnaire asks if a position “formulates, develops and/or determines foreign policy, including creation of draft documents with policy recommendations," or "develops or reviews non-public Executive Orders, regulations, directives, policy memoranda, or deliberative materials protected by the deliberative process privilege regarding foreign policy."

Other screening questions ask if an employee “provides substantive advocacy of foreign policy,” or represents the department before Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, foreign governments or external organizations regarding the administration’s foreign policy.

The questionnaire asks if an employee “publicly advocates Administration foreign policy through official communications or media engagement” or “exercises delegated authority to commit or bind the Department to policy decisions."

The department is also looking for positions that conduct official bargaining or negotiations on behalf of the department, or whether an employee “performs statutory policy-making responsibilities."

The State Department has already shifted supervisory foreign affairs officers and specialists, as well as other senior-level positions, to Schedule Policy/Career.

A second State staffer said the department is still in the early stages of its expanded search for Schedule P/C conversions, but added that this work is “moving relatively fast.” Staff have been directed to update to their position descriptions to ensure they reflect the full scope of their responsibilities.

“GS-13s, I don’t think, are typically in a position that you’re going to think of as a senior policymaking position,” the employee said. “I was surprised, personally, to see positions that junior given this designation.”

A senior administration official told reporters in June that 97% of employees that fall under Schedule Policy/Career are at a GS-15 level or higher. The official said a “small number” of GS-13 and GS-14 employees were also converted, but that most of them work at OMB.

“Outside of OMB, there are very, very few positions that are below the level of GS-15 that are being covered,” the administration official said. “The bottom line is that almost all of these are very senior positions in the federal government.”

The administration official said Schedule Policy/Career would “increase the accountability of officials who are responsible for carrying out the elected president’s policy agenda,” but would have little day-to-day impact on reclassified employees.

“As long as they’re performing their job duties in a competent, professional manner, they have nothing to be afraid of,” the official said.

The second State Department employee said Schedule P/C’s impact on the workforce has not yet been fully felt, but suggested that newly at-will employees may be reluctant to offer candid feedback on policy matters.

“If you convert my position to a position that can be expeditiously removed, I’m going to more carefully tailor what I’m saying,” they said. “Its practical effect, I think it’s safe to assume, is that it will reduce people’s willingness to give advice or offer policy positions that are inconsistent with the direction of the administration.”

A third individual said the department has started reviewing GS-13 and GS-14 positions for “possible conversion to Schedule Policy/Career.”

“That process has resulted in a hold on reclassifying any of the thousands of GS-13 and 14 positions, which an office or bureau might otherwise do from time to time to align position grades with updated responsibilities,” the individual said.

OPM's guidance to agencies states that many aspects of federal employment – including rules around pay, leave, benefits and reductions in force – remain unchanged for those moved to Schedule P/C. OPM also included a sample termination notice agencies may use when firing Schedule P/C employees. In the template, agencies may specify “unacceptable performance or misconduct” as justification for an employee's termination.

]]>

Space Command says it needs to ‘shoot, move and communicate’ in orbit

Thomas Novelly — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 19:19:38 -0400

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — Space weapons and refuelable satellites are among the items needed to preserve the U.S. military’s orbital edge over China, the head of U.S. Space Command said.

America’s adversaries are targeting U.S. space assets and rapidly developing their own, Gen. Stephen Whiting told attendees at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium on Wednesday. China, for example, has direct-ascent ASAT missiles, ground-based lasers, jammers, and maneuverable, dual-use satellites, he said.

“These developments intend to degrade our current space superiority and would potentially give

China a maneuver and logistics advantage in space – something we would not accept on the land, at sea, or in the air,” Whiting said.

In the four-star’s final Space and Missile Defense Symposium speech as the leader of the combatant command, Whiting told military and industry audience members that there are five major things on U.S. Space Command’s Integrated Priorities List for 2029 to 2033.

“This isn’t just a wishlist. It’s a clear demand signal to several audiences describing the warfighting capabilities we need to meet our mission,” he said.

1. Integrated space fires: Mirroring Army usage, Whiting has used this term throughout his tenure at Space Command to refer to the offensive and defensive capabilities needed to deter orbiting threats.“

We’re a combatant command and we fight to win wars,” he said. “To win, we need credible, acknowledged, kinetic and non-kinetic fires. They are a key component of how we establish space superiority and restore credible deterrence.”

2. Counter-pLEO tech: Whiting said new technology is needed to counter adversaries’ low-Earth-orbit satellite constellations. As of last month, China has launched 200 G60 and 168 SatNet communications satellites as it builds a pair of “mega constellations...to compete with Western proliferated LEO (pLEO) architectures,” according to a Space Force fact sheet.

“I don't want any U.S. force to be put at risk because somebody else might have a proliferated low-Earth-orbit constellation that could find, fix, track, and target them,” Whiting told reporters after his keynote address.

3. Joint, integrated space command and control: Military leaders often stress the centrality of being able to oversee, organize, and order complex space operations.

“We must enhance machine-to-machine connectivity to support decision-making and battle management of this global space fight on tactically relevant timelines,” Whiting said in his address.

4. Dedicated space domain awareness for space engagements: It’s not just for missile defense, Whiting said: space domain awareness needs to expand and evolve to a whole range of space operations, not just one segment of it.

“We must adopt a ‘target-quality track’ mindset to everything we do in space, just like the missile defense community has done for decades,” he said.

5. Sustained space maneuver: Developing satellites that can be refueled to extend their usefulness remains one of U.S. Space Command key priorities. In March, a Chinese commercial satellite used a flexible robotic arm to “to demonstrate on-orbit servicing, refueling, and debris removal,” according to the Space Force.

“Today, our satellites are limited by the fuel they launch with, which leads to a psychology of scarcity. Husbanding that fuel often overrides desired warfighting maneuvers,” Whiting said. “That must change. We must be able to actively avoid threats and maneuver to gain a position of advantage on our adversaries.”

Whiting has pitched some of these items at past symposiums; in 2024, he said his 2027 Integrated Priorities List was topped by space fires and resilient command and control.

“Our space assets need to shoot, move, and communicate just like the rest of the Joint Force,” Whiting said Wednesday. “In short, space needs to fight like the Joint Force, to empower the Joint Force’s ability to fight and undermine our adversaries’ ability to do so.”

]]>

Federal agencies are looking beyond the usual sources for new ideas

John Breeden II — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 18:01:58 -0400

A few years ago, I tried to help a team of astronauts survive a Martian dust storm.

Fortunately, nobody was actually in danger. I was participating in the second NASA MarsXR Challenge, a government-sponsored competition hosted on the HeroX open-innovation platform. NASA wanted members of the public to design virtual reality scenarios that could someday help train astronauts for missions on Mars.

The first phase focused on storyboarding, so participants did not need to know how to program a VR simulation. They needed to imagine a realistic challenge, explain how astronauts would respond and take advantage of the immersive capabilities offered by virtual reality. My team designed a scenario in which astronauts left their rover behind while collecting rock samples in terrain too rough for a vehicle. When a surprise dust storm swept into the area and visibility began to collapse, they had to navigate back to the rover using digital waypoints and beacons they had placed along their route.

It seemed like a plausible worst-case scenario and, admittedly, a pretty exciting video game mission. The design required astronauts to think ahead, use the available technology and remain calm when conditions suddenly changed. Our entry earned an honorable mention in the first phase. We did not advance to the programming round, where winning concepts could be developed into functioning VR training missions, but the experience gave me a firsthand look at how seriously NASA approaches open-innovation competitions.

NASA has used HeroX and the NASA Tournament Lab to solicit outside ideas for everything from virtual reality astronaut training to building better lunar rover wheels. Some of the most visible government-sponsored challenges over the past several years have naturally focused on space exploration.

But one of the most consequential challenges open in 2026 is aimed at a problem that is far more Earth-bound and deeply human. The National Institutes of Health’s Office of AIDS Research is offering $1 million in prizes for ideas that could help more people gain access to long-acting HIV prevention and treatment. The competition, called the NIH ARISE-HIV LAUNCH Challenge, is open for first-round submissions through Aug. 6.

Federal government involvement goes well beyond an agency endorsement for the HIV Challenge. The Office of AIDS Research is the official sponsor and is providing the $1 million prize purse. The NIH Office of the Director is conducting the challenge under the federal prize authority established by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act.

The challenge is also part of a broader program called Advancing Research in Implementation Science to End HIV, or ARISE-HIV. That effort involves all NIH institutes, centers and offices that award HIV funding or support related prevention, care and treatment research. HeroX provides the public competition platform, and the challenge appears through the NASA Tournament Lab’s wider open-innovation network.

To be clear, the current contest is not asking participants to invent a new HIV medication. Scientists have already developed long-acting products that can prevent or treat HIV without requiring patients to take a pill every day. Some are administered every two months, while others can provide protection for as long as six months. The challenge is getting those advances to the people who need them and making sure they remain connected to care.

In an August 2025 post reflecting on her appearance with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya on The Director’s Desk podcast, Office of AIDS Research Director Geri R. Donenberg described the gap the new challenge is trying to address.

“We have effective, lifesaving interventions, but people are not benefiting equally,” she wrote.

Donenberg explained that implementation science can help determine how, where and by whom effective treatments should be delivered to reach different populations. An approach that works well for patients in one community may prove impractical in another because of transportation, cost, staffing, stigma, scheduling or limited access to health care.

That is where the LAUNCH Challenge comes in. NIH is asking participants to develop actionable ideas in at least one of four areas: access, delivery, engagement or retention.

An access proposal might explore how mobile clinics, home-based services, street medicine or pharmacists could bring long-acting products to people who are not well served by traditional health care systems. A delivery proposal could address the staffing or coordination needed to administer injections safely and reliably. That might include evening appointments, transportation assistance, child care support or better integration with mental health and substance-use services.

Engagement proposals could focus on building awareness, understanding and trust among patients and their families. Finally, retention ideas might help patients remain on schedule and connected to care during the months between appointments. But those are just a few suggestions. By all means, if you have better ideas, feel free to participate in this new challenge and earn a share of the prize money.

NIH is deliberately casting a wide net looking for precipitants. Individuals, informal teams, community organizations, health professionals, researchers, universities and companies can all participate. People and organizations that do not currently receive NIH funding are specifically encouraged to enter as the agency is looking for fresh and new ideas.

The first-round submission for the ARISE-HIV Challenge is pretty approachable. Participants need to complete an online concept submission totaling about three pages. Participants must also provide a short public abstract and identify whether their proposal addresses access, delivery, engagement, retention or some combination of those areas.

Judges will place the greatest weight on public health significance and impact, which accounts for 40% of the score. Innovation and novelty make up 35%, while the remaining 25% focuses on whether the idea is pragmatic enough to work outside a controlled research environment. HeroX and government officials explained the judging process and the importance of the challenge in a recent YouTube video.

Completed Phase 1 entries must be submitted through HeroX by 5 p.m. Eastern on Aug. 6. NIH expects to award as many as 35 first-round prizes of $10,000 each. Those winners will be invited into Phase 2, where they will develop more detailed implementation and evaluation plans. Up to 13 second-round winners could receive approximately $50,000 each.

And this is a busy time for government sponsored and federally focused challenges as the HIV event is not the only one being opened to outside solvers. The Department of Energy’s Office of Electricity recently launched the $500,000 Storage Design Strategies to Ease Production Prize, known as the Storage Design STEP Prize. It asks developers of emerging grid-scale storage technologies to identify manufacturing, material-sourcing and supply-chain obstacles before those problems prevent promising designs from reaching commercial production. Phase 1 entries are due Oct. 8.

Another active competition, the privately organized GoAERO Prize, is supported by NASA, RTX, Boeing, Honeywell, Iridium and other partners. Teams for that challenge are actually building compact, portable aircraft that could autonomously carry a person or emergency supplies into areas where conventional rescue vehicles cannot easily reach. Its final fly-off will take place at NASA’s Ames Research Center in April 2027. The best overall performer can earn $1 million, with additional prizes for missions involving rapid deployment, difficult conditions and precise maneuvering around obstacles.

The live challenges are radically different, but they share the same underlying idea. Agencies and other sponsors describe a difficult problem, establish rules and rewards, then open the door to people who may never have encountered the issue through a conventional grant, contract or government job.

My Mars scenario never became a functioning astronaut-training mission. But earning an honorable mention showed that someone outside NASA could still contribute an idea the agency considered useful. The next valuable idea may come from a community health worker who understands why patients miss appointments, an engineer trying to manufacture a new kind of battery or an aviation team that knows how to reach people stranded after a disaster.

For readers with a useful perspective, technical skill or firsthand understanding of one of these problems, the invitation is real: take a look, join a team or submit an idea. You may not win the top prize, but you could still contribute something that advances a technology, helps an agency or improves someone’s life.

]]>

VA’s benefits system overhaul is running into some familiar problems

Edward Graham — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 11:28:50 -0400

Efforts to modernize a Department of Veterans Affairs system that supports the processing of veterans’ benefits claims have been hampered by “insufficient oversight and weak program management,” according to the agency’s Office of Inspector General.

The watchdog warned in an audit released on Tuesday that VA’s Office of Information and Technology has not taken all of the necessary steps to keep the revamp of the agency’s Benefits Enterprise Platform on track, which could potentially affect the processing of veterans’ benefits and other modernization efforts.

The BEP platform — one of 85 legacy systems that VA has identified as needing to be modernized or decommissioned to “improve overall efficiency of claims processing” — helps facilitate the sharing of information between the Veterans Benefits Administration and other “business line systems” that include pension, vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits.

VA awarded Booz Allen Hamilton a $1.1 billion contract in May 2021 to integrate its benefits systems into a new cloud-based Benefits Integration Platform, with the plan calling for the legacy BEP system to be migrated to this new service and then subsequently decommissioned. Although the contract was supposed to be completed this month, OIG noted that the latest timetable from VA said the BEP modernization effort is now slated to be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2034.

"Because BEP supports a significant number of systems, there is increased risk that other systems relying on it may experience negative consequences from potential delays in the modernization effort,” the report said.

The audit said the Office of Information and Technology failed to develop “a high-quality, reliable program schedule as recommended by the Government Accountability Office’s Schedule Assessment Guide” for the project and has instead relied on an agile project management tool for the effort — a tool that “does not contain roadmaps or detailed plans for the entire scope of the project.”

OIG also found that the office lacked a reliable lifecycle cost estimate for the modernization initiative, which has resulted in inconsistent funding information being included in various BEP plans and has “limit[ed] VA’s ability to make informed decisions.”

Lack of proper oversight, the watchdog reported, also may have jeopardized the security of veterans’ sensitive personal data when the office “hosted minor applications without conducting required security assessments.” After OIG notified VA officials about documented vulnerabilities — some of which dated as far back as 2021 — the watchdog said VA took the necessary steps to assess the security of its applications and remediate any identified issues.

OIG’s audit recommended that VA take steps to enhance its BEP modernization efforts, including by developing and maintaining a program schedule that aligns with best practices, ensuring that staff are following proper procedures when it comes to storing scheduling information, developing a “reliable, validated life cycle cost estimate” for the project and tracking all relevant project costs. VA officials said they concurred with the watchdog’s recommendations.

The BEP project is just the latest VA modernization initiative to be singled out for criticism by OIG for resulting in significant delays, cost overruns and oversight gaps.

VA is still in the process of developing a new digital GI Bill system, which the watchdog noted in an August 2024 report has seen its cost more than double as a result of “insufficient planning.”

The agency’s large-scale electronic health record modernization project has also been plagued by cost overruns, delays and oversight issues since the deployment effort began in earnest in 2020. The Trump administration has prioritized righting that effort, however, and VA Secretary Doug Collins said earlier this year that an EHR rollout resumption push has been “phenomenal” so far.

]]>

NTEU sets deadline for its members to resume paying dues

Jory Heckman — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 06:00:00 -0400

Amid the Trump administration’s rollback of collective bargaining rights across the federal workforce, the National Treasury Employees Union is setting a deadline for many of its members to resume paying dues.

According to three union officials, NTEU members who do not sign up for dues payments by Sept. 5 will lose access to the union’s benefits until they resume paying dues.

This includes eligibility for NTEU representation, either individually or as part of a group, the opportunity to receive remedies or settlements won through NTEU litigation, as well as member-only information and updates.

Last month, an independent arbitrator sided with NTEU and ordered the IRS to restore 2024-era telework agreements for its workforce. Meanwhile, a federal judge has barred IRS officials from confiscating and disposing of pro-NTEU flyers and other decorations from employees’ communal and personal workspaces.

NTEU's deadline will impact thousands of members who are currently not paying dues to the union.

“We have not imposed any specific requirements to pay dues for over a year, but we have to get the ball rolling again,” one union official told Government Executive.

NTEU did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Although NTEU represents federal employees at 38 departments and offices, about half of all NTEU members work at the IRS. The IRS terminated its collective bargaining agreement with NTEU in February.

In a pair of executive orders signed last year, President Donald Trump cited a seldom-used provision of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act to bar unions at nearly 40 agencies on national security grounds.

Those executive orders have stripped collective bargaining rights from roughly two-thirds of NTEU’s members. NTEU is challenging the executive orders, and the litigation remains pending.

Following the Trump administration executive orders, many agencies stopped automatic dues deductions from employees’ paychecks, dealing a significant blow to union revenue.

“This is going to have a lasting impact on the labor movement within the federal workforce,” a second union official said.

In a lawsuit challenging the executive orders, NTEU wrote that the administration’s actions will “immediately and drastically reduce the number of employees that NTEU represents and prevent NTEU from collecting dues from those members via payroll deduction.”

“This will threaten NTEU’s very existence and will severely diminish NTEU’s influence at the bargaining table,” the union wrote in its March 2025 complaint.

In fiscal 2024, member dues accounted for nearly 85% of NTEU's total revenue, the union wrote in its complaint. The unions received about 95% of those dues through payroll deductions.

The American Federation of Government Employees touted a surge in new dues-paying members in the early days of the second Trump administration. But the Associated Press reported in April 2025 that AFGE laid off more than half of their staff.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley said the union’s finances took a “very direct hit,” after the administration's executive orders removed over 200,000 of its dues-paying members.

Early in the Trump administration’s union crackdown, AFGE encouraged its members to pay their union dues directly to AFGE through regularly scheduled online payments.

In February 2026, NTEU began a phased rollout of its own online payment system, called “Dues Direct,” which allowed members who previously paid dues via automatic payroll deductions to send payments directly to NTEU. According to union officials, NTEU did not impose any deadline for members at impacted agencies to sign up for Dues Direct until it fully completed all phases of the system’s rollout.

The second union official said NTEU leadership has tried to avoid frustrating members who never stopped paying their dues because their agencies still recognize the union.

“Agencies that haven’t had their payroll deductions turned off have been putting pressure on NTEU leadership for over a year to take this action,” the second union official said.

NTEU’s second-largest agency, Customs and Border Protection, still allows its employees to pay union dues via payroll deductions. CBP employees make up about 25% of NTEU’s total membership.

But in several IRS chapters, NTEU leaders have only gotten a small percentage of their members to enroll in Dues Direct.

“I think it’s intentional on the part of the administration, to demoralize our workers, starve the union, and try to make it look like the union can’t help,” the second union official said. “I don’t know how we’re going to ever rebuild, if we win in court and retain our right to unionize.”

]]>

IRS says a new policy ‘moots’ NTEU’s First Amendment lawsuit. The union isn’t so sure

Erich Wagner — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:31:42 -0400

The Internal Revenue Service says a new policy governing what materials may posted in communal office spaces like bulletin boards clears the agency of accusations that it violated employees’ First Amendment rights when it began confiscating flyers and decorations supportive of the National Treasury Employees Union.

But attorneys representing the union said they’ve thus far received mixed messages as to whether the new policy would adequately address the concerns underlying a federal lawsuit stemming from the initial May directive.

On May 29, IRS issued a directive, purportedly stemming from President Trump’s 2025 executive order banning collective bargaining at many agencies, instructing its facilities management employees to remove “any and all NTEU materials” in IRS facilities using “whatever steps necessary,” short of vandalism. A federal lawsuit the following month documented instances in which NTEU flyers and decorations were taken from communal bulletin boards, stolen from employees’ cubicles and, in several cases, destroyed.

In late June, the IRS and NTEU jointly filed a stipulation to the court, announcing that agency management agreed to halt its campaign and return any union materials that had been confiscated but not yet destroyed.

In a new filing last week, IRS informed the court that it had promulgated a new policy, this time stating that only “agency-sponsored materials” and non-agency documents mandated by law, such as Occupational Safety and Health Administration notices, may be permitted in communal spaces such as bulletin boards. Employees may still decorate their workspace as they wish, provided they are consistent with federal ethics, equal employment opportunity and other existing IRS rules.

“[Facilities Management and Security Services] retains exclusive authority over posting and displays of materials in common areas or on designated bulletin boards of IRS facilities, and will only authorize agency-sponsored materials, with the exception of non-agency materials mandated by law,” the August 4 memo states. “Employees are not authorized to post written materials in IRS facilities.”

As part of its filing, IRS asked the union if it would entertain dismissing the portion of its lawsuit against the agency stemming from the materials confiscation policy as “moot,” noting that policies governing speech are generally not considered First Amendment violations if they are “content neutral.”

NTEU, in its response filed Monday, said it needs more information as it has received “conflicting information” about the new policy and its implementation.

“The language of the August 4 policy says, for example, that the only materials that may be posted in IRS workplace common areas are ‘agency-sponsored materials,’ which the IRS interprets as ‘materials created at the behest of the IRS and for the purpose of IRS business,’” the union wrote. “But the IRS’ Facilities Management and Security Services is posting notices telling employees, in contrast to the August 4 policy, that it may approve ‘non-agency-sponsored materials for display in common areas’ . . . NTEU might challenge this policy if it believes that it is merely a façade for viewpoint-based discrimination.”

But even if the new policy does assuage NTEU’s concerns, that would not be the end of the legal challenge. That’s because last month, the union amended its complaint to include additional alleged First Amendment violations, this time in the form of a content filter blocking access to the union’s website from agency computers.

If someone tries to access NTEU.org from an agency work station, a splash screen appears warning that the site has been flagged for “potentially damaging content,” for which the ban has “very limited or no exceptions.”

According to the IRS’ IT regulations, employees are barred from accessing pornography, “personal services” like online dating or most social media, hacking websites, online games, “proxy avoidance” sites and filesharing. One IRS employee told Government Executive the web filter typically lists one of those six categories when blocking a website; conversely, they had never seen the “potentially damaging” category before.

Also unusual was language suggesting that the restrictions would have “very limited or no exceptions,” the employee said. In most cases, IRS has a process by which employees may request an exception to access a website that has been blocked for a business need, such as for an audit or other investigation.

According to the amended complaint, the agency has also gone so far as to block all emails originating from the nteu.org domain. This has had damaging ramifications for employees involved in EEO cases and appeals before the Merit Systems Protection Board, the union said.

“When one NTEU attorney who had filed an MSPB case on behalf of an IRS employee engaged in settlement discussions over the phone with the agency attorney, the agency attorney told him that she would email him a document,” the complaint states. “After a day or two, however, the NTEU attorney had not received the document, even though the agency attorney insisted that she sent it. After another few days, the NTEU attorney told that agency attorney that he would go to the MSPB judge if he continued to not receive the document. Then, another day or two later, he was able to send emails to and receive them from the agency attorney.”

Ultimately, the IRS unblocked emails associated with NTEU for managers, HR personnel and some attorneys at the agency; it left it in place for members of the bargaining unit.

]]>