Government Executive - All Content

Federal agencies have until Thursday to fix website security flaws

David DiMolfetta — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 16:02:12 -0400

Federal civilian agencies have until Thursday to address two critical PHP vulnerabilities that CISA has now warned are being exploited by hackers, escalating the government’s response to flaws in software used to operate websites worldwide.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency added both flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog Monday, setting an Oct. 29 remediation deadline. The designation marks a change from CISA’s initial warning last week, when the agency said it had not observed exploitation. The catalog entries do not identify victims or describe the evidence behind the decision, leaving the scale of successful attacks unclear.

Known collectively as PHP2Shell, the vulnerabilities can allow hackers to run commands on a web server without an account or password, potentially enabling them to steal data or alter a website.

PHP handles tasks such as processing forms and retrieving information for websites built with WordPress, Drupal and other platforms. Because the defects are in PHP itself, a website can be exposed even if its own code and plugins are up to date.

The federal action follows several days of attempted hacks, alongside conflicting assessments of whether those attempts worked. Cloudflare reported millions of attempts last week.

Two security companies have since corrected earlier findings about the vulnerabilities. Sophos said its initial report of successful exploitation instead reflected scanning and failed attempts. Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 said Sunday that it could not confirm PHP2Shell was the entry point in an attack against a European government agency, retracting an earlier assessment.

The extent of federal exposure also remains uncertain. A Nextgov/FCW review last week found roughly 900 Shodan search results associated with federal, state and local government websites that showed signs of PHP use, though many of those PHP builds may have already been updated or were up-to-date prior to the vulnerabilities becoming public.

Repairs are progressing globally. Censys’ PHP2Shell tracker listed more than 10 million services as patched since Oct. 21. PHP’s developers released fixes last week.

CISA has urged organizations to locate PHP across their systems, including where it is embedded in other software, and prioritize internet-facing installations. Systems that can’t be promptly updated should be taken offline, according to its alert.

]]>

Judge: ‘Article II’ firings violate separation of powers, civil service law

Erich Wagner — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 10:31:41 -0400

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the Trump administration’s 2025 firing of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey violated the constitutional separation of powers and federal civil service law, setting a marker ahead of other litigation challenging a rash of so-called “Article II” firings.

Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was fired abruptly in 2025. Though her status as a career federal employee to the civil service protections laid out in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act and 1990 Civil Service Due Process Amendments afforded her with a rationale for her termination, as well as advance notice, the opportunity to respond and have representation through said proceedings, she was instead removed immediately, for the stated reason of “Article II” of the Constitution.

In her case, the Trump administration has asserted an expansive view of presidential removal authority, in Comey’s case arguing both that the attorney general has unfettered authority to remove federal prosecutors and that a recent Supreme Court decision opened the back door for plenary removal of inferior officers—federal workers with a high degree of power but who are supervised by presidential appointees. Opponents have criticized the latter argument as mistaking “dictum,” a term for when a judge describes something in passing, for precedent.

In a 55-page decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman found that Comey’s removal “indisputably” violated federal civil service law, and ordered the government to furnish five months’ worth of back pay to make her whole for the time between when she was terminated until when she started a new job last December.

“Defendants’ argument that Article II bars Congress from regulating the removal of AUSAs flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent, rooted in the text of the Appointments Clause, holding that Congress may generally restrict the removal of ‘inferior officers,’” Furman wrote. “Defendants’ contention that recent Supreme Court decisions have fatally undermined that precedent is not one that this court, as a lower court, may accept. It is also without merit. Indeed, to accept defendants’ argument would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this nation’s constitutional system.”

Furman said Comey’s position as a career federal prosecutor falls well within longstanding Supreme Court precedent allowing Congress to restrict the removal of inferior officers and federal employees.

“In short, for nearly two centuries, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress may, consistent with Article II of the Constitution, regulate and limit the removal of inferior officers,” he wrote. “In fact, the Supreme Court has never in its history found unconstitutional a congressionally imposed restriction on the removal of an inferior officer who answers, as AUSAs do, to a principal officer removable by the president at will.”

The decision in Comey’s case marks the first in a string of cases involving former Justice Department employees that have worked their way through the federal judiciary since last year. Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer sued last month over her own termination, following months of delays by the Merit Systems Protection Board, Jackler v. MSPB involves the removal of immigration judges, who appealed MSPB’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction over their and other Article II firing cases. Oral arguments in the latter case are scheduled for December.

In a statement, Comey’s attorneys—Ellen Blain, Nicole Gueron, Deepa Vanamali and Margaret Donovan—applauded the judge’s decision.

“This hard-earned victory belongs to Ms. Comey, to all civil servants, and to all fighting for the rule of law,” they said. “[This] decision reaffirms our bedrock system of checks and balances: the president is not above the law.”

]]>

IRS says it needs top performers, even if they don’t all get the performance ratings they deserve

Jory Heckman — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 18:27:47 -0400

The IRS is telling employees that it needs top performers who care about doing their jobs well, even if the agency is unable to give all of them adequate recognition for their accomplishments.

Federal agencies are currently reviewing how many employees can receive above-average scores on their annual performance reviews, after the Trump administration put a cap on top m arks across the federal workforce.

The Office of Personnel Management in September directed agencies to limit top scores – an “outstanding” score of five, and an “exceeds fully successful” score of four – to no more than 40% of their General Schedule employees during this year’s performance review cycle.

IRS employees have been told by management that a three – which equates to “fully successful” – is the default score many will receive. That preemptive messaging has led some IRS employees to question whether it is worth going above and beyond what’s expected of them.

An IRS division responsible for reassigning employees to different parts of the agency to address staffing shortages and backlogs caught wind of these complaints. In an email, it warned staff against “deliberately choosing mediocrity” in their day-to-day work.

In an email to employees last Friday, the IRS chief of internal consulting, a rebranded version of its chief operating officer, told employees that “changes to the performance rating process have generated concern, frustration, and, for some employees, disappointment.”

“Those reactions are understandable. Employees who work hard, take pride in their accomplishments, and routinely go beyond what is required naturally want that effort to be recognized,” IRS Chief of Internal Consulting Joseph Ziegler and his deputy, Elizabeth Vonhof, wrote in an email obtained by Government Executive.

Before serving in his current role, Ziegler was an IRS whistleblower who claimed the Biden administration gave preferential treatment to Hunter Biden, the former president’s son, during a tax investigation.

“I want to address one sentiment that has surfaced in some of the feedback received: ‘If I may not receive an Outstanding rating, why should I continue to perform at an outstanding level?’ I understand the frustration behind that question, but I hope we do not allow a rating label to define the quality of work we choose to perform or the professionals we choose to be,” Ziegler and Vonhof wrote. “A performance rating is important, but it should never be the sole reason we pursue excellence.”

Top performance ratings can make federal workers eligible for financial and time-off awards. Low scores could also make it easier for agencies to remove certain employees. OPM in July finalized a rule emphasizing recent performance reviews over tenure when carrying out reductions in force.

Ziegler and Vonhof told staff that the “IRS needs talented people who care about doing their jobs well” – even if they don’t necessarily get recognition for it. They added that a “fully successful” score “does not mean mediocre.”

“There is nothing mediocre about successfully performing meaningful work in service to IRS employees and the American public. At the same time, deliberately choosing mediocrity because a particular rating is not guaranteed is not the standard to which we should aspire as an organization or as professionals,” they wrote.

In February, IRS internal consulting put IT and human resources employees on 120-day details to work in taxpayer services. They were assigned entry-level roles answering inquiries from taxpayers and processing tax returns. Many of these temporary details to taxpayer services were extended for another 120 days in May. The National Treasury Employees Union estimates that about 1,500 IRS employees were placed on these details.

IRS employees who moved off taxpayer services details were told in late September that they would be reassigned to “ONE IRS Readiness” teams, with few details about what work they’d actually be doing in these new roles. Employees were shifted to these new assignments largely because they cleared a “huge” backlog of amended tax returns.

Employees placed on these details said it’s not clear how their performance will be evaluated this year, after being reshuffled to different parts of the agency. Impacted staff report currently report to internal consulting, but previously did work for taxpayer services. They originally worked in IT and human resources, but former IT staff have been explicitly told they cannot return to the agency’s tech shop. The IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“We should strive to do exceptional work because our work matters, because our colleagues and the public depend upon us, because we take pride in what we accomplish, and because excellence should be part of our professional identity, not something we turn on or off based upon the likelihood of receiving a particular rating,” Ziegler and Vonhof wrote.

One IRS employee said he was angry over what he saw as the agency trying to downplay staff concerns.

“If I do outstanding work, I want to be recognized for it outside of my own gratification. Otherwise, others will not believe my accomplishments were outstanding,” the IRS employee said. A second IRS employee said the email was “very disappointing.”

“These performance reviews are based on the jobs we were thrown into,” he said.

A third IRS employee said staff have been left in the dark over how performance ratings will be determined this year.

“No one really knows how and which employees were selected to be lowered. OPM gave some percentage recently and agencies had to calibrate to that percentage by a certain date last week,” the third IRS employee said.

Former IRS Chief Human Capital Officer Traci DiMartini, who was fired last year after challenging the acting IRS commissioner's decision to fire about 6,700 probationary employees for unspecified performance reasons, told Government Executive that the “tone of the email is insulting and also shows they have no clue how dedicated IRS employees are to the agency's mission and to supporting taxpayers.”

“One of the greatest privileges I had was leading the IRS HR office and it was quickly apparent that the IRS workforce is routinely mischaracterized by both political parties. The fact is the federal government has been doing pay for performance for decades," DiMartini said. "They routinely tie the bonus percentages to an employee's rating and that is why people are pissed off that this administration is unilaterally trying to find ways to downgrade performance.”

An IRS manager previously told Government Executive their program manager “didn’t want to see” any fives or fours – and that a “fully successful” score of three out of five “is what is expected across the board.”

Ziegler and Vonhof wrote that under OPM's new forced distribution model, “managers must continue to evaluate employees objectively against their established performance standards and document accomplishments accurately.”

“The standardized distribution does not eliminate the responsibility to assess performance fairly. It does, however, require greater differentiation when determining which accomplishments represent the organization's highest level of performance and recognition. That can require difficult conversations and difficult decisions, particularly among teams with many high performers.”

NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald said in a statement that taxpayers depend on experienced IRS employees to answer questions, process returns, and help resolve tax problems, and that “an arbitrary cap on the highest category of ratings undermines morale and makes it harder to retain the skilled employees who deliver those services.”

“IRS employees do not need a lecture about taking pride in their work. They demonstrate that commitment every day. Denying the ratings they earn sends the wrong message to a workforce the public relies on,” Greenwald said.

The IRS email states that internal consulting is in the “home stretch” of this year’s performance evaluation cycle, and is waiting to hear back about final ratings from the office of IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano, IRS human resources and the Treasury Department.

The email states the percentage of employees allowed to receive top scores “may change in future years based on OPM/governmentwide guidance.”

“This represents a significant change in how performance ratings are administered, and change, particularly when it affects something as personal as how our contributions are recognized is not always easy," Ziegler and Vonhof wrote.

]]>

SSA ‘corrects’ millions of Social Security Number database files

Christian Robles — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 17:52:09 -0400

The Social Security Administration has used internal and external data to correct nearly 15% of all active Social Security Numbers across 330 million U.S. citizens and nearly 390 million total records, according to a press release from last Tuesday.

The agency says updates to its SSN databases reflect its commitment to protecting Americans’ identity, preventing fraud and preserving proper program administration.

“The Social Security Number database is our country’s books and records. The database’s accuracy is essential to maintaining integrity of government services for citizens,” SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano said in the release.

The agency says the SSN cleanup effort has added 17 million death dates to records that previously lacked them by using internal SSA and State Department data.

SSA says it has updated roughly 25 million records missing citizenship information by using the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — or SAVE — services. The agency is currently working on correcting another 8.5 million records with inaccurate immigration status.

“This is the first time SSA has undertaken an effort of this scale, and I am proud of the work we have done to strengthen the foundation of identity data relied upon throughout government and the economy,” Bisignano said.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, an independent nonprofit, raised concerns about SSA’s push to clean SSN data in an Oct. 23 blog post.

The group warned that the SAVE database is “incomplete and prone to errors,” pointing to instances where the system has mistakenly flagged U.S. citizens as non-citizens.

“Now, some of the SAVE inaccuracies will be transferred into SSA’s files, doubling down on the use of inaccurate data and making it even more difficult to find an uncorrupted file to check data against,” Max Richtman, the committee’s president and CEO, said in the post.

The group also argued that the Trump administration could not be trusted with updating SSA data because of past alleged misuse, such as intentionally including living people in a database of dead people and a former Department of Government Efficiency employee uploading sensitive information into a thumb drive.

An SSA spokesperson referred to the agency’s release when asked for comment on the SSN corrections.

]]>

SBA is moving field offices away from major cities, union says

Sean Michael Newhouse — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 15:53:48 -0400

Updated at 4:10 p.m. ET Oct. 26

The American Federation of Government Employees last week said the Small Business Administration provided notice that the agency intends to relocate certain field offices outside of city centers, which union officials warn could lead to further reductions in SBA’s workforce.

“Longer and more difficult commutes, particularly when proposed locations are not readily accessible by public transportation, can make it substantially harder for SBA to retain experienced employees,” said AFGE Local 228 President Niklas Gustafsson in a statement. “The result could be a significant loss of institutional knowledge and expertise as employees with years or decades of experience choose to leave rather than accept substantially more burdensome commutes.”

AFGE, which represents more than 700 SBA employees, said that beginning next year the agency would move the following field offices: Boston to Southborough, Mass., Washington, D.C., to Herndon, Va., Atlanta to Marietta, Ga. and Denver to Englewood, Colo. Union officials also said that SBA is “reportedly considering” relocating offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, San Francisco and Seattle.

In an Oct. 20 letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Small Business committees, Gustafsson urged Congress to pause the field office moves until SBA conducts and publishes an impact assessment, studies the effects on civil servants and has “meaningful consultation” with the union.

“Relocation decisions that risk losing experienced employees and reducing public access must be supported by clear evidence that they will improve, rather than undermine, the agency’s ability to fulfill [its] mission,” Gustafsson wrote.

Like many agencies, SBA has been impacted by the Trump administration’s downsizing of the civil service. According to federal workforce data, SBA has shed about 35% of its headcount since 2024, dropping to a little more than 5,000 employees.

This is not the first time that SBA said it was going to relocate offices from urban areas. In 2025, Administrator Kelly Loeffler said that the agency was planning to move regional offices out of Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York City and Seattle because of the cities’ apparent noncompliance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

SBA similarly cited immigration enforcement, as well as cost savings, as a justification for the moves in a statement to Government Executive.

“The SBA is relocating a handful of field offices into less costly, more accessible communities that comply with federal immigration law,” an agency spokesperson said. “Not only will these new locations come at a lower annual cost to taxpayers; they were specifically chosen to increase accessibility for the vast majority of small business owners that are not located in dense urban centers, empowering the agency to better serve customers in the rural communities that were left behind by the Biden administration.”

Likewise, the House last year passed, largely along party lines, a bill that would require SBA to relocate regional, district and local offices that are in “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R. 2931) would define a sanctuary jurisdiction as any state or city that has a policy that restricts officials from communicating with another governmental entity information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status or from complying with a request by the Homeland Security Department to detain, or notify about the release of, a migrant.

The measure has not received any legislative action in the Senate.

This story has been updated with a statement from SBA.

]]>

NOAA wants better forecasts. First, it needs to rethink how it handles weather data

Christian Robles — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 11:36:00 -0400

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is in the middle of moving multiple systems to cloud-based technologies to improve weather forecasting.

NOAA operates two physical supercomputers for the Weather and Climate Operational Supercomputing System, or WCOSS. The agency uses the system to generate weather models used across NOAA offices and shared with the general public.

The two supercomputers are serviceable for about five years, but NOAA is now “pushing the limits” of what physical infrastructure can handle, David Michaud, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction Central Operations, told Nextgov/FCW.

To move information off of the supercomputers to NOAA’s 122 local weather forecast offices, the agency may have to reduce data size, Michaud said. For example, three-dimensional weather models present different variables about the Earth’s surface and layers of the atmosphere. But to get the data to offices, specific variables and layers may have to be omitted, Michaud explained.

“Trapped data is actually probably not my biggest problem. It's actually data that we've deleted and will never get back,” Neil Jacobs, NOAA administrator, said at the Google Public Sector Summit in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday.

To solve this, NOAA is shifting high-performance computing operations from on-premises hardware to the cloud.

While the two WCOSS supercomputers each operate at a speed of 14.5 petaflops, they are difficult to modify. With a cloud-based computing solution, NOAA can more easily adapt its technology as weather modeling evolves, Michaud explained.

NOAA aims to have a “full-scale system” for high-performance computing operations available by the end of 2026, with a go-live by the end of 2027, Michaud said.

The agency is currently learning how the cloud works with its weather models and determining how it wants to configure the cloud, he added. Google Cloud is the primary provider of high-performance computing operations for NOAA’s WCOSS modernization project.

“For the NOAA workforce, the move to cloud [high-performance computing] provides a more streamlined, flexible environment, enabling meteorologists and researchers to quickly adapt future modeling innovations,” Brent Mitchell, vice president of go-to-market at Google Public Sector, wrote in a blog post.

NOAA’s move to the cloud extends beyond the WCOSS.

Jacobs said that National Weather Service forecasters currently have to download data using Linux workstations in their offices and process the data locally. If issues such as an office evacuation arise, other offices have to cover for forecasters’ work. And if NOAA upgrades the resolution of weather models, forecasters don’t get that data until later, he said.

To resolve these issues, NOAA announced it would move the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System to cloud-based technologies by early 2028, allowing NWS forecasters to access data — such as forecasts and warnings — miles away from their offices, according to a NOAA news release.

]]>

Navy’s tech playbook serves as a ‘toolkit’ for the rest of government

Frank Konkel and Christian Robles — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:00:00 -0400

The IBM Center for the Business of Government and Foundation for American Innovation published a playbook for enterprise IT modernization over the summer based largely on the U.S. Navy’s successful framework for technology acquisition.

“Basically, they observed something we were doing — we were getting a handful of wins on common problems, and other agencies started copying it, and we started sharing what we were doing,” Navy Chief Technology Officer Justin Fanelli said on the sidelines of the SAP Public Sector Summit on Oct. 14 in Washington, D.C.

“They asked us, ‘What are you doing that’s different from other pockets that aren’t moving as fast?’ And essentially, we said, ‘Oh, we have a kit for that because we moved from the world of build-everything-yourself to a fast adopter,’” Fanelli said.

The aforementioned kit — the Navy’s framework for technology acquisition — became the basis for a roundtable discussion that culminated in the playbook. It gives three recommendations to agencies for modernizing technology systems.

The first recommendation is to understand the systems agencies operate and how they communicate with each other. The playbook says IT mapping best occurs by mapping processes, data and finances.

“To do modernization that actually benefits the portfolio, you need to have a picture of that portfolio going in,” Daniel Chenok, executive director of the IBM Center for the Business of Government, told Nextgov/FCW.

The second recommendation is to measure pilots against existing systems they are meant to replace with standardized outcome measures. The Navy picked user time saved or lost, adaptability, cost per user, user experience and operational resilience metrics to assess technology, the report notes.

Fanelli said that prior to 2025, the Navy was only executing a few true technology pilots each year. That year, the Navy increased its pilot use by ten times to about 25, and in 2026 has “dozens and dozens” of ongoing pilots on everything from AI, hosting hardware, edge computing and autonomy functions to nuanced technology like float sensors.

“It’s a pretty wide scope,” Fanelli said.

The department, he said, is now communicating with the same tech terminology and more transparently with each other about ongoing pilot work, reducing duplicative, siloed efforts.

In addition, the Navy has found the private sector to be a willing partner in piloting its commercial technology. Both decisions have allowed the Navy to increase its pilot proclivity without breaking the bank or budget.

“Instead of using only government money to do piloting, there are just way more private sector companies who are using their own funding to do pilots to say, ‘Hey, this is already a pretty mature capability.’ (Then), We only have to fund the last five yards (to score a touchdown),” Fanelli said.

Several pilot programs are now critical to department operations. For example, Project Dynamis was piloted by the Navy and U.S. Marine Corps in September 2025 to close the “sensor-to-shooter” gap. The program now deploys critical software like the Mavan Smart System to major commands, including the Marine Expeditionary Forces, and is the command-and-control program of record for the Marine Corps.

So far, Fanelli said ten pilots have transitioned to enterprise services or programs of record, and there is a queue of more than two dozen potential use cases.

“Those pilots have converted into, in many cases, designated enterprise services or programs of record,” Fanelli said. “So instead of hundreds of competing things that float around forever, we're now converting pilots into higher value and higher-impact enterprise services.”

“That is allowing us to cattle-drive legacy [technology],” Fanelli added, referencing Operation Cattle Drive, the Navy’s strategic initiative to identify, consolidate, and retire redundant, insecure and outdated IT systems.

Operation Cattle Drive demands structured divestments from old and outdated technology, and serves as the impetus for the playbook's third recommendation: to adopt an “acquire while divesting” strategy to ensure agencies do not layer new technology on old systems.

Agencies could meet the strategy by requiring divestment planning in solicitations, incorporating divestment planning in project planning and including retirement milestones in funding plans, the playbook says.

“There’s an old [President Ronald] Reagan quote summarized: ‘The closest thing to life everlasting is being a government program,’” Fanelli said. “How are you actually getting rid of things?”

The playbook builds on recent work from the IBM Center for the Business of Government, including a digital modernization implementation framework and an IT modernization roadmap.

]]>

USDA, undeterred by judge’s stay, moves ‘full-bore ahead’ with reorganization steps

Jory Heckman — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 17:51:16 -0400

The Agriculture Department is “full-bore ahead” with a sweeping reorganization, according to its top official, but is not explaining what that statement means in the context of a court order that has put key elements of the plan on hold.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins gave a brief update on the state of the department’s reorganization plans, which includes relocating about 2,600 employees across the country, in a call with reporters on Thursday.

“We are full-bore ahead in the reorganization,” Rollins said on the call, following an announcement on fertilizer production, according to the Associated Press. “We believe in it more today than we ever have — taking the USDA to our constituents, which is rural America, the Forest Service out West.”

USDA’s relocations are currently on hold, following an Oct. 13 stay ordered by a federal judge in San Francisco. The department appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appeals court has kept the lower court’s ruling in place for now.

A USDA spokesperson declined to clarify what Rollins meant by her statement, and said “her comment speaks for itself.”

“Any further responses will be filed with the court, not the press,” the USDA spokesperson said.

U.S. District Court Judge Chhabria wrote his stay does not prevent USDA from relocating or reassigning employees in the Washington, D.C. area to other offices within the region. The stay specifically bars USDA from “closing or eliminating offices” at component agencies impacted by reorganization plans, or “relocating or reassigning employees or their positions or functions to different and/or new locations outside the local commuting area.”

Undeterred by these developments, USDA is still carrying out reorganization activities not explicitly barred by the judge’s stay.

USDA’s second-largest component, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, planned to relocate employees across the country to several “hub” locations. But following the court’s stay, NRCS is now looking to fill positions at those hub locations through local reassignments, according to three agency employees who spoke with Government Executive.

NRCS, an agency created in the Dust Bowl era to help farmers protect and conserve private lands, opened its online critical vacancy portal on Tuesday, and will give employees until Nov. 2 to apply for available positions at their current grade level or lower.

Screenshots shared with Government Executive show NRCS is listing positions at “hub office” locations in Fort Worth, Texas; Fort Collins, Colo.; and Raleigh, N.C., in its critical vacancy portal.

Prior to the court’s stay, many NRCS employees received letters of intent, informing them that they may soon need to relocate to one of these hub locations in order to keep their jobs with the agency. Many employees say they’re unable to relocate and expect they will have to quit their jobs if USDA is allowed to proceed with its plans.

“They have included the positions they ‘offered’ us that many of us declined. They have also posted those positions at a higher grade level than what was offered to us. Those of us that declined the ‘offer’ still don't know what's going to happen to us,” one NRCS employee said.

NRCS has a Central National Technology Support Center (CNTSC) located in Fort Worth. But a second agency employee said most of that building space has been sold off or has faced environmental issues. As a result, employees in the area have been teleworking for years.

“We don't have a space for people to go to,” the second NRCS employee said. “I believe there was talk that a lease was being developed, but as far as on paper, the only way we have a Fort Worth location is because of the reorganization.”

The second NRCS employee said USDA is unlikely to staff up most hub locations through local reassignments, and that the department is ultimately trying to shrink its workforce without carrying out layoffs through a reduction in force.

“When you look at where these jobs are, in relation to people that would be eligible for them, the math doesn’t work. There’s no promotions that are associated with any of these jobs. There’s no relocation, so you have to be within the commuting distance,” he said. “The ultimate goal is to reduce the numbers of staff. That's really what it gets down to – without having to go through the RIF process, which is more structured and deliberate. With this one, you can sort of pick and choose winners.”

The Food and Nutrition Service, which the Trump administration recently rebranded as the “Food and Nutrition Administration,” notified employees in mid-October that the agency has officially restructured its operations, but has yet to carry out any of its planned employee relocations. The agency oversees 16 nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, that collectively serve about one-in-four Americans.

‘Held hostage by a court order’

Meanwhile, a fourth USDA employee said his voluntary relocation from one job to another has been put on hold by the district court’s stay – despite the move having nothing to do with the department’s reorganization plans.

The employee told Government Executive that he requested to relocate “separate from any reorganization plan,” but that his request has now been “denied.” He said that reversal forced his spouse to rescind a resignation for their current job, as well as rescind a job offer initially accepted where they intended to move. The denial has also forced the couple to cancel a lease where they planned to relocate.

“We have requested our own move, at our own expense, and are being denied,” the employee said. “Our lives are being put on hold because of this court case that has nothing to do with us, except that our agency has been named.”

Several USDA vacancies currently posted on USAJobs now include a disclaimer that department employees covered by the court’s stay, “whose current permanent grade is equal to the grade of the advertised position, and whose selection would result in a relocation outside the commuting area of their current duty station may not currently be considered for selection to this position.”

The employee said it’s frustrating the court’s decision has kept his family from carrying out a relocation “on our own accord,” and unrelated to USDA’s reorganization plans.

“We are being held hostage by a court order that should not have bearing on me as an individual that wants to make a decision that is best for my family,” the employee said.

]]>

Bureau of Prisons seeks another shot at ending union contracts

Erich Wagner — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 16:56:50 -0400

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons this week asked a federal judge to clarify whether a preliminary injunction blocking the agency from terminating its union contracts allows management to propose a new justification for the action.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Vernon Oliver issued a court order reinstating the American Federation of Government Employees Council of Prison Locals’, ruling that BOP Director William Marshall offered two contradictory reasonings in his September 2025 implementation of President Trump’s executive order banning collective bargaining for most federal workers: the official notice, which mirrored the president’s national security determination, and a message to employees in which he described AFGE as not the “kind of union” he supports.

But a week later, amid reports that the agency was in “open defiance” of the injunction, BOP management announced that it had issued a new termination notice and rescinded Marshall’s 2025 message to employees. Last week, Oliver nullified that order, ruling that management improperly engaged in “self help” rather than asking the judge to modify or rescind the injunction, but stopped short of the union’s call for leadership to be held in contempt.

In response, on Tuesday BOP asked Oliver to either clarify that his order permits the agency to move forward with its new termination notice, or modify the order to reflect it. Attorneys for the agency said that while the injunction mandates management honor the CBA for its agreed upon term,” a new justification requires new judicial analysis under the Administrative Procedure Act.

“The October 2026 rescission of the prior termination and messaging and attempted re-termination decision addresses the court’s prior concerns with the September 2025 termination and specifically explains hat to the extent the director’s September 2025 message (or any other communication) stated or implied that the termination of the CBA was not for the purposes related to Executive Order 14251, such statements or implications were rescinded,” the attorneys wrote. “The October 2026 decision on proposed re-termination also includes a thorough analysis of the impact of collective bargaining on BOP’s ability to execute its national security mission.”

BOP’s move to get the legal go-ahead to terminate its CBAs again comes as union officials bemoan continued “feet dragging” by management on the reimplementation of those contracts. AFGE CPL-33 President Brandy Moore White said she has seen a mix of compliance and non-compliance from across the agency’s around 120 correctional institutions, with most bright spots coming in the form of token gestures rather than the restoration of workplace policies.

“Some regions seem like they’re somewhat complying, but others not so much,” she said. “My overall view is that they’re trying to appease us with official time, and a few little things like access to disciplinary hearings. But the big ticket times, like compressed work schedules, I haven’t seen much of that come back yet.”

Aaron McGlothin, president of AFGE Local 1237, which represents employees at Federal Correctional Institution Mendota in rural California, said he has encountered nothing but stonewalling from Acting Warden E. Gutierrez and labor-management staff.

“It’s been three weeks and two different orders by the judge, so why are you dragging your feet?” he said. “All I ever hear is, ‘We’ll have to get back to you.’ Our staff is so fed up with being spun, with being lied to, and being treated like just dogshit.”

Prior to the CBA termination last year, policies like compressed work schedules, in which an employee elects to work four 10-hour shifts per week rather commute five days a week, were a lifeline for a workforce that largely commutes from an hour away or more to the prison. McGlothin said its absence is hurting workers’ morale and wallets simultaneously.

“The staff are begging me to form a protest and start a picket line outside, to show that management’s not working in good faith and they refuse to obey the letter of the law,” he said. “With this compressed work schedule thing, the cost of gas around here is almost $7 per gallon here now, and [with the end of retention incentive payments] last year, we’ve lost 15% of our pay. We can barely make ends meet.”

In a filing opposing BOP’s request for an expedited briefing schedule on its request, the union said it is preparing an amended complaint that would incorporate the agency’s actions over the last month. The agency must file a report with the court detailing its effort to comply with the injunction by Oct. 28.

]]>

The legal fight over the public service student loan forgiveness overhaul may be over

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 16:14:55 -0400

The Trump administration dropped its appeals in a pair of lawsuits challenging the Education Department’s overhaul of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which critics argued would enable officials to block organizations from participation based on political differences, leaving in place court decisions that prevented the changes from taking effect.

“Countless essential workers rely on this program, and weaponizing it for political purposes would hurt not just these workers but the communities they serve,” said American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees President Patrick Moran in a statement. “We’re glad the administration is now following the law and abandoning this illegal scheme.”

The Education Department in 2025 issued a proposed rule to block employers from receiving PSLF benefits if the secretary deems the organization engages “in activities with a substantial illegal purpose.” The program forgives the balances on certain federal student loans for individuals employed by government or not-for-profit organizations after 10 years.

In response, a coalition of cities, nonprofits and unions filed a lawsuit, arguing that the rule amounted to the Trump administration trying to hurt organizations they’re ideologically opposed to, particularly those that serve diverse communities, migrants or trans youth.

District Judge Myong J. Joun sided with the plaintiffs in June, deciding that Education’s rule violated the First Amendment and that department officials exceeded their authority in promulgating it. The same day, District Judge Amir H. Ali also ruled in a similar lawsuit brought by a different group of nonprofits that the regulation should be vacated.

While the Trump administration appealed both decisions, lawyers for the government and respective plaintiffs submitted agreements on Wednesday to dismiss both appeals.

“The scheme by [Secretary] Linda McMahon to try to hurt public service workers is illegal on its face and was slapped down by a federal judge months ago,” said Winston Berkman-Breen — the legal director of Protect Borrowers, one of the organizations that represented the former plaintiffs — in a statement. “It’s good that Trump’s lawyers gave up their fight and bowed to reality.”

Education referred questions about the case to the Justice Department. The DOJ declined to comment.

]]>

These former feds could be members of Congress next year

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 12:12:15 -0400

Updated at 12:00 p.m. ET Oct. 27

Many federal employees who left or were pushed out of their jobs last year due to the Trump administration’s downsizing of the civil service still wanted to be involved with the government. So, some of them pursued political office.

In fact, several of these individuals, who are hoping to be elected as new members of Congress in fewer than two weeks, cited the Department of Government Efficiency’s cuts to agency workforces and programs as a motivating factor in their decision to run.

Still, race ratings from The Cook Political Report show that virtually all of them are in tough races where they’re often long-shot underdogs.

Here is a list compiled by Government Executive of former career civilian federal employees who advanced to general elections in upcoming congressional midterm races.

Chris Backemeyer

Party: Democratic

District: Nebraska’s 1st

Opponent: Incumbent Republican Rep. Mike Flood

Backemeyer is a former State Department official who previously told Government Executive that he resigned from the government because of DOGE.

“They just wanted me to fire a lot of people. We were asked to basically pick 15%, and that's when I realized that I was playing by different rules,” he said. “I was trying to be faithful to the oath that I took to the Constitution. But there wasn't any mission or purpose left when DOGE came in. It was just about destruction and retribution.

Carmela Conroy

Party: Democratic

District: Washington’s 5th

Opponent: Incumbent Republican Rep. Michael Baumgartner

Conroy worked in the U.S. Foreign Service for 24 years, serving in several different countries across Asia, Europe and Oceania. She said in a local TV interview that those experiences shaped her political priorities.

“Japan, Norway, New Zealand — they all invest in their kids. There is no question whatsoever,” she said. “Every child deserves an appropriate education, every child deserves food security, every child deserves full medical care.”

Mike Croley

Party: Democratic

District: Tennessee’s 6th

Opponent: Republican Johnny Garrett (state representative)

Croley is a Navy veteran, former state park ranger and he worked at the departments of State, Agriculture and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under a presidential management fellowship. He told a local news outlet that he lost his job because of DOGE.

“A serious concern I have is the lack of institutional knowledge that we've lost and that will take a long time to get back,” he said.

Zach Dembo

Party: Democratic

District: Kentucky’s 6th

Opponent: Republican Ralph Alvarado (former state senator)

Dembo is a Navy veteran and former federal prosecutor who worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and as an assistant U.S. attorney in Kentucky. He said that he resigned due to the Trump administration’s “politicization” of the DOJ.

“The overt hostility toward all these hard-working men and women I knew in the FBI and DOJ was really galling and unpatriotic for me,” he told The New York Times.

Alissa Ellman

Party: Democratic

District: New York’s 24th

Opponent: Incumbent Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney

Ellman is an Army veteran who said that she lost her job at the Veterans Affairs Department because of DOGE.

“When you can be thrown out like yesterday’s garbage, that does not make people want to come and work for VA,” she said in an interview with MS NOW. “And it does not make people want to come and take the pay cut from the private sector to work for the federal government.”

Sam Forstag

Party: Democratic

District: Montana’s 1st

Opponent: Republican Aaron Flint (former GOP staffer and Army veteran)

Forstag was a smokejumper for the Forest Service. As the former vice president for National Federal of Federal Employees Local 60, he criticized DOGE’s cuts to public land agencies.

“What got me into this race was this misnamed Department of Government Efficiency, where at least in our state, in my agency, the Forest Service, they just about exclusively came after the lowest paid workers we’ve got,” he told the Montana Free Press. “The first round of firings from DOGE, it was 360 Montanans in the Forest Service, 80% of them making $19.70 an hour or less.”

Hillary Herzig

Party: Republican

District: New Jersey’s 6th

Opponent: Incumbent Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone Jr.

Herzig was a military spouse who worked at several agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Defense and Homeland Security.

“Being in a lot of crisis situations in public service, making important decisions and seeing the emotional effects of how granting citizenship, for instance, affects a human and their emotions, I believe that’s what has prepared me to serve my community,” she said in an interview with 710 WOR.

Kristin Hook

Party: Democratic

District: Texas’ 21st

Opponent: Mark Teixeira (former professional baseball player)

Hook is a scientist who worked for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as well as the National Institutes of Health and Government Accountability Office.

“I worked in the federal government. I know that it can be a powerful force for good — for consumers, for children, for families,” she said in an interview with KSAT 12. “Right now, it’s being weaponized against us.”

Michael Masuda

Party: Democratic

District: California’s 5th

Opponent: Incumbent Republican Rep. Tom McClintock

Masuda is an engineer and former State Department officer. He argued in an interview with The New York Times that working at an agency is ideal preparation for serving as a member of Congress.

“We had to work across the federal government and understand how those other agencies operate, what they care about, what their priorities are and how to get things done in this very complicated, bureaucratic environment,” he said.

Karen Ortiz

Party: Independent

District: New York’s 12th

Opponents: Democrat Micah Lasher (state assemblyman) and Republican Caroline Shinkle (attorney)

Ortiz was fired last year as an administrative judge for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after opposing an agency order to deprioritize gender identity discrimination cases.

“I may be an introvert, but I don’t stay quiet when I see harm being done,” she said in an interview with Marie Claire.

Lauren Reinhold

Party: Democratic

District: Kansas’ 1st

Opponent: Incumbent Republican Rep. Tracey Mann

Reinhold served in several different roles at the Social Security Administration and National Labor Relations Board. She decided to leave government after the Trump administration began implementing Schedule Policy/Career, which removed civil service protections from about 8,000 federal positions, and was motivated to run for Congress because of the Trump administration’s cuts to federal agencies.

“I want to be an ambassador to restore trust in our federal services,” she previously said in an interview with Government Executive. “Get people to recognize the importance of federal services — the ways they depend on it, even if they don't agree with everything the way it's done. For the most part, people see my experience as good.”

Ceretta Smith

Party: Democratic

District: Georgia’s 12th

Opponent: Incumbent Republican Rep. Rick Allen

Smith is a former Army medic, city councilmember and past president and member of American Federation of Government Employees Local 2017, which represents Army employees at Fort Gordon, who worked in the federal government for 24 years.

In an interview with 13 WMAZ, she said that “understanding what our local federal government workers bring to our community and do” sets her apart as a candidate.

Trina Swanson

Party: Democratic

District: Minnesota’s 8th

Opponent: Incumbent Republican Rep. Pete Stauber

Swanson previously worked for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ultimately becoming the agency’s director of international operations. She told MinnPost that she left after the Trump administration pressured her “to do things I thought were unethical,” including checking the visa for the spouse of a nanny who worked for a DOGE official.

This story has been updated with additional information.

]]>

CDC hiring plan and more permanent leadership coming soon, director tells staff

Jory Heckman — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:49:36 -0400

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is shoring up vacancies in its leadership ranks and telling employees that a hiring plan to mitigate the agency’s deep staffing cuts is coming into focus.

CDC Director Dr. Erica Schwartz told employees at a town hall Thursday that the agency has selected four permanent center directors, although several are still going through the security and ethics clearance process. She said another five candidates to lead CDC centers are still in the interview process.

Schwartz said she’s hopeful that by the agency’s next all-hands meeting, “we will be able to announce that all nine positions have been filled.” Schwartz told employees in August, shortly after her Senate confirmation, that she would focus on rebuilding trust in a workforce that has been fearful of retaliation, and would hold listening sessions with employees.

“Folks were saying they want stability. They’ve been through so much instability that there is a need for stability. And so the one thing that I would like to let all of you know, as a result of those listening sessions, is that we have been working very hard to actually put permanency in our leadership positions," Schwartz said, according to a recording obtained by Government Executive.

Former CDC officials told reporters in June that over 80% of CDC center director positions lacked permanent leaders, and were being run by acting officials. The CDC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sean Slovenski, CDC's principal deputy director and chief operating officer, previously told employees in a town hall this summer that he had “never seen such a plethora of acting roles in my life,” and that acting leaders typically don’t feel empowered to make decisions with a lasting impact.

Slovenski said Thursday CDC leadership is close to finishing a hiring plan that would replenish the agency’s ranks. CDC officials have told employees at least since March 2026 that hiring plans have been in the works, but have not yet materialized. CDC cut its workforce by about 25% under the second Trump administration.

“I know a lot of people have been asking, ‘Where are we in the hiring plan?’ We are pretty far down the road. Going into the beginning of the year, we're going to be able to move on a lot of that,” Slovenski said. “I think you're going to start to see things move a heck of a lot quicker than they have this past year or so.”

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. told lawmakers in April that the department will make about 12,000 new hires.

“We will have made up all the employees that we lost, and we’ve replaced them with a better group of people who are actually going to address chronic health,” Kennedy said.

Despite Kennedy's announced hiring surge, CDC hasn’t done much hiring, and is relying on temporary details to address some of its staffing shortages. According to the latest federal workforce data from the Office of Personnel Management, CDC has made 243 hires since the start of the second Trump administration – but has seen a net decrease of 3,389 employees.

“We've made great progress on getting through the initial approvals. Obviously, there's process at the HHS level, we're working through that, but so far we've gotten good affirmation on the requests that we've had for 2027,” Slovenksi said.

CDC this year responded to outbreaks of Ebola and hantavirus abroad, as well as cyclospora and measles outbreaks in the United States.

Dr. Henry Walke, director of CDC’s Office of Readiness and Response, told employees the Ebola outbreak in remote areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is the DRC’s largest outbreak and the “second-largest outbreak ever.”

“We have around 60 cases a day and about 30 deaths every day,” Walke said, adding that “it’s growing more quickly than previous outbreaks.”

The CDC estimates that there’s been 9,735 cases and 4,690 deaths linked to this current outbreak.

“We're rapidly approaching 10,000 cases. We'll probably reach that milestone in the next week, and 5,000 deaths,” Walke said.

Two Americans were previously diagnosed with Ebola and were successfully treated overseas. But to date, no cases of the disease have been confirmed in the United States in connection with the current outbreak.

“We anticipate this response will remain activated until well into the new year. And so, we will need all of CDC to stand up and be engaged,” Walke said.

“This year has placed significant demands on CDC's emergency response capabilities, and I want to thank the many staff across our agency who've stepped forward to support these efforts,” Schwartz said. “With our ongoing Ebola response and other public health emergencies, we will continue to need expertise from across CDC in the months ahead.”

To monitor more common illnesses in the United States, Schwartz said the CDC’s Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics has released an “enhanced surveillance tool” that will allow Americans to track COVID-19, influenza and RSV in their communities.

“Why I think that's so innovative and so great is because now you're basically giving them better information,” Schwartz said. “They're going to be able to make more informed decisions faster, because they're getting this data [in] almost-real time. It's not real-time specifically, but much faster than traditional surveillances.”

NBC News reported in September that the CDC recently raised its benchmark for levels of COVID-19 in wastewater, adjusting a key metric such that a level that would previously have been classified as high transmission may now register as moderate instead. The Associated Press reported in May 2025 that a dozen data-gathering programs that track deaths and disease at CDC had been eliminated in the early days of the Trump administration.

]]>

If you already have FEHB, should you sign up for Medicare B?

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 15:00:00 -0400

One question I get from retirees approaching age 65 or retiring after age 65 is, “Do I need to enroll in Medicare Part B?” Part A is easy because there is no premium for you or your spouse to have coverage. It was “paid” for by the Medicare tax withheld from your biweekly pay — the 1.45% hospital insurance tax. Part B, which covers outpatient care, including outpatient care at a hospital, has a premium.

The current monthly standard Part B premium is $202.90 per person. The proposed rate for 2027 is expected to increase to $209.50. An income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA) may be added to that premium for retirees whose income from two years earlier exceeds certain thresholds. For 2027 premiums, that means using modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) from 2025.

If your MAGI is more than $112,000 for a single taxpayer or $224,000 for those filing a joint tax return, the 2027 premium will include a proposed IRMAA surcharge ranging from $83.70 to $502.60, depending on how far your income exceeds the limit. IRMAA reduces the government subsidy for the cost of Part B for higher-income beneficiaries, shifting a much larger share of actual program costs directly onto the enrollee.

Depending on which bracket your 2025 income falls into, your IRMAA surcharge will require you to cover a significantly higher share of Medicare’s actual costs:

Standard Part B premium: Covers 25% of actual program costs, with 75% subsidized.
First IRMAA tier: Covers 35% of actual program costs, with 65% subsidized.
Second IRMAA tier: Covers 50% of actual program costs, with 50% subsidized.
Third IRMAA tier: Covers 65% of actual program costs, with 35% subsidized.
Fourth IRMAA tier: Covers 80% of actual program costs, with 20% subsidized.
Fifth IRMAA tier: Covers 85% of actual program costs, with 15% subsidized.

Combining Medicare Parts A and B with a Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) or Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) plan can provide comprehensive protection. The strongest coordination occurs when Medicare is the primary payer, once you are no longer covered by health insurance through current employment, and your plan waives deductibles, copayments and coinsurance. In that situation, you may have little out-of-pocket expense beyond the premiums for Part B and your FEHB or PSHB coverage.

In addition to $0 cost sharing, your FEHB or PSHB plan may cover the following services and expenses that Medicare does not include. Benefits vary by plan.

Hearing aids

Medicare does not cover hearing aids because its benefits focus primarily on short-term medical treatment for a severe injury, a sudden illness, an urgent medical condition or recovery from surgery and hospital-based care, rather than routine services or assistive devices.

Check Section 5 of your FEHB or PSHB plan brochure, or search the online brochure for “hearing aids.” Note the benefit limit, such as an allowance of up to $2,500 every five years, and verify whether you need prior approval or precertification. Your plan may also use a partner network such as Start Hearing, Amplifon or TruHearing.

Benefits vary among options from the same carrier. For example, BCBS Basic, GEHA Standard or High options and Aetna Direct are plans that include an allowance, while a lower-tier option such as FEP Blue Focus or GEHA Elevate may provide only a discount.

Dental and vision care

Your FEHB or PSHB plan may cover certain routine dental and vision services, so review the plan brochure for details. You may also purchase supplemental coverage through the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program at www.benefeds.gov.

Medicare Part B does not cover routine dental or vision care, but it does cover standard-frame eyeglasses or contact lenses after cataract surgery that implants an intraocular lens. After meeting the Part B deductible, you pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for those corrective lenses. Part B may also cover dental services related to a covered medical procedure or hospitalization, but it does not provide comprehensive dental coverage.

Health care outside the United States

The Office of Personnel Management provides the following information about overseas coverage under FEHB:

If living overseas, it is better not to be in a health maintenance organization (HMO) unless the overseas location is served by the plan, such as Guam.
See Section 7 of the plan brochure for information about filing an overseas claim.
Most overseas providers require payment upfront. Your plan may pay overseas providers at the preferred provider benefit level, but you will have to pay the difference between the plan payment and the actual charge.
Check to see whether you must provide an English translation of the bill or claim and currency conversion information.
Some plans help locate medical providers overseas or have participating hospitals and other providers.

Long-term care

Long-term care is not covered by Medicare or FEHB or PSHB plans. Medicare Part A and your health plan may cover short-term skilled nursing or rehabilitation needed after an accident, illness or injury, but they do not cover extended personal or custodial care.

Long-term care insurance can help address this gap. Without insurance, you may rely on personal savings, home equity through a reverse mortgage or home equity line of credit (HELOC), life insurance through accelerated death benefits or life settlements, annuities or hybrid products, or family caregiving.

Government programs may also help, including:

Medicaid: This is the “payer of last resort.” To qualify for state and federal assistance that covers nursing home care and home- and community-based services, your countable income and assets must fall below strict state thresholds. There are Special Needs Plans (SNPs) that combine Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Plans in your area can be found on Medicare’s website.
Veterans Affairs benefits: You may be able to use VA health systems, nursing care or the Aid and Attendance pension enhancement if you are an eligible veteran or surviving spouse.
Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE): This program combines medical, social and long-term care services for eligible older adults living in the community.

How Medicare Part B and FEHB or PSHB can reduce out-of-pocket expenses

Most FEHB and PSHB plans have coinsurance or copayments after you meet the plan’s annual deductible. For example, in-network care may require that you first pay a $700 deductible and a $25 copayment or 15% coinsurance. For out-of-network care, the cost is higher, and some plans do not cover out-of-network services.

On the other hand, if Medicare is the primary payer and your plan waives your deductible, coinsurance and copayments, your cost may fall to $0. Catastrophic out-of-pocket limits for covered expenses can range from $6,000 to more than $40,000, and they do not protect you from excluded expenses.

Medicare may cover certain costs when they are medically necessary. For example, Part B covers medically necessary physical therapy without a fixed limit on the number of visits, provided coverage requirements are met.

Medicare Part C

If you want to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan, also known as Medicare Part C, you must be enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B. This applies whether you choose a Part C plan offered through your FEHB or PSHB carrier or purchase an individual Medicare Advantage plan.

Final thoughts

Remember that you may be in good health today, but what about next year or in 10 or 20 years? At age 65, you may have decades of life ahead of you.

Unfortunately, if you delay Part B enrollment, a late enrollment penalty of 10% of the standard Part B premium is added for every 12-month period you delay enrollment beyond the later of the end of your initial enrollment period (IEP) or the end of your coverage under a health plan based on current employment. For federal retirees, this generally means coverage under an FEHB or PSHB plan while you or your spouse is still working.

For example, waiting 10 years after your IEP ends — three months after your 65th birthday month — could cause your Part B premium to be 100% higher than the standard premium.

]]>

DOGE’s layoffs took a toll on Black women. The effects are still being felt

Lottie Joiner, MindSite News — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 13:16:30 -0400

Darnese Foster remembers the day she learned she was fired from her federal government job.

“I was off that Friday, which was Valentine's Day. Then that Monday was the holiday,” said Foster. “I went to log in that Tuesday, I couldn't get in.”

Foster thought her password had expired and needed to be reset. She called the help desk to submit her request. Then someone from the IT department called her back.

“He said, 'You didn't get a phone call from your supervisor?’ I said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Well, unfortunately, your name was on the list of names that was denied access.’ I didn't know what that meant. I called my supervisor. He said, ‘Well, let me call you back. Let me talk to (the IT) supervisor to see what's going on.’”

Later that day, they both called back to tell her that she was on a list of employees on probation who were being terminated during the mass firing.

Foster’s initial reaction was numbness, then panic and dread. She had a child in private school and rent and a car note to pay.

“I would go in a corner and cry,” Foster recalled.

Now, more than a year after being fired from her position as a grant management specialist in the Department of Health and Human Services, Foster is struggling, not just financially, but to cope: struggling to stay strong, struggling to keep the faith. The constant strain, she says, has taken a toll on her mental health.

“I thought I would have a job a year later,” Foster, 47, said. “The worry of where I’m going to get the money to do what I need to do and how long will I be out of work, it’s mentally draining.”

Black women bore the brunt of the cuts

When Trump eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion programs by an executive order in January 2025 and empowered Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to gut the federal workforce that February and March, thousands of Black women lost their jobs. But the job cuts did more than just dismantle a longtime pipeline that helped lift Washington, D.C.’s majority-Black community into the middle class; it also gutted the well-being of the Black women who hold up that community.

A recent study by University of Maryland labor economist Brandon Enriquez found that DOGE cuts “disproportionately affected” the federal employment of Black women compared with other demographic groups. The study estimated that while DOGE “did not have statistically significant effects for any other race, gender, education, or age group,” it reduced Black women’s federal employment by 25%.

“At its lowest point in April 2025, employment was almost 50% reduced for Black women, with little effect for other groups,” Enriquez noted, although there was a partial rebound in subsequent months. Given the overrepresentation of Black workers in the federal government, Enriquez concluded that the layoffs increased racial inequality.

In many of the agencies that were targeted for massive staff reductions, women and people of color made up the majority of the workforce, according to a 2025 report by Sarah Javaid for the National Women’s Law Center. Javaid wrote that “while women made up 46% of the total federal workforce in September 2024, they represented the majority of the workforce” in the departments of Veterans Affairs, Education, Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development.

People of color – including Darnese Foster – made up 46% of probationary workers, according to the report, including 65% of those at the Department of the Treasury, 55% at Housing and Urban Development and at Homeland Security, and 53% at Health and Human Services.

Like some of her federal colleagues, Foster's probation was for two years. After years of contracting, first with companies in the private sector, then with the State Department, Foster had finally landed a permanent position at Health and Human Services.

A single mother of two, she'd been in her job for a year and seven months when she got the shocking news that she had been laid off.

“It was always my goal to try to get into the government,” said Foster. “My parents always said: 'Get with the government, it’s stable. You can grow. You can move up.'”

At its lowest point in April 2025, employment was almost 50% reduced for Black women, with little effect for other groups.

–BRANDON ENRIQUEZ, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

Foster had been excited about her new job and working with her new co-workers. And she was proud that despite struggling with a learning disability and adult ADHD, she'd recently gotten a raise in her pay and job grade.

Her work felt important to her, too. As a grant management specialist, her responsibilities included working with organizations such as hospitals or construction companies seeking government funding. If a hospital wanted new X-ray machines or a therapy facility wanted equipment, she helped them navigate the application process.

“I had finally gotten my dream job. It was devastating to have it snatched from me,” said Foster. “I had things in my life that I was putting in order, and goals that I wanted to do. This is where I was going to retire from.”

At the time of her firing, Foster’s oldest daughter was a senior in college and her youngest daughter, who was 9, was in private school and an avid dancer who took part in competitions. Since the firings, her daughter has continued to dance, but Foster can't afford the cost of competitions.

“I try not to take too much from her because she's 10,” says Foster. “I did keep her in dance, so she doesn't lose all that she's learned, so she won't feel like, ‘Oh, I can't do anything.’”

Foster says she has not been coping well. She received unemployment benefits for only six months. She lost the items in her storage unit because she couldn't afford the fees, and she has struggled to pay for her daughter’s private school tuition.

She feels like she’s in a “sunken place.”

“I’ll drop my youngest off at school and just sit in the car and cry,” Foster said. “What’s next? Where am I going to get the money to keep a roof over our heads?”

For a 2022 study focused on Black women's gender and race-related stress, epidemiologists Meghan Tipre and Tiffany L. Carson conducted focus groups and found that the top stressors identified by Black women were single parenting, Black children's safety and finances. “Black women report higher levels of psychological stress than White women and carry a disproportionate burden of chronic conditions associated with psychological stress,” the authors wrote in the journal Women's Health Reports.

Grieving more than a paycheck

Dr. Raquel Martin, a licensed clinical psychologist who focuses on Black mental health, says abrupt termination can be both a financial stressor and a traumatic stressor, because it's not just about the loss of income.

“It's the sudden loss of predictability and control, identity, community, and even future planning,” Martin says. “There's a significant association between unemployment and increased depression, anxiety, and psychological distress, as well as just life satisfaction overall.”

Job loss is more than just about money, Martin points out.

“When you think about job loss, you often think about money, but psychologically, abrupt termination can create a profound sense of instability, (and) human beings need and thrive off of predictability,” Martin says. “When employment disappears suddenly, people aren't just grieving that aspect of a paycheck, they're grieving a future of a world that they could count on.”

And when demands exceed your resources, Martin adds, the stress can be almost unbearable.

“When an experience overwhelms your ability to cope, and it leaves this lasting impact on your sense of self, safety, and sense of the world around you, that's trauma,” Martin said. “Trauma is not only what happens to you, it's also what happens inside of you, when you're repeatedly forced to adapt to conditions that threaten your safety or your dignity or your humanity or your ability to thrive.”

The way people respond to trauma varies greatly from irritability to depression to becoming sedentary or changing eating habits. Foster said after her job loss, she sometimes slept all day or sat at her desk and scrolled. She also admitted being “a lot more snappy” toward family and friends.

Martin says some people who lose their jobs experience “low pressure tolerance,” which she describes as being really irritable so that every little thing makes you want to “flip a table.”

I had finally gotten my dream job. It was devastating to have it snatched from me.

–DARNESE FOSTER

Black women like Foster who are breadwinners and heads of household may be especially stressed since they are overwhelmed with guilt and shame for not being able to provide at their previous levels. Even though the federal firings aren't something that they brought on themselves, the experience left some, like Foster, shattered.

“Mental health is affected by policy decisions, economic instability, and access to health care and employment protection. The solution can’t be only telling Black women to cope better with the trash circumstances that they didn't create in the first place,” Martin explained.

“We have to ask, what does it mean when the people who are often expected to care for everyone suddenly need to care for themselves?” she said. “What got in the way of them being able to do that in the first place? How can we come together as a community?”

What helps, and what doesn't

When trying to comfort people who have been fired or experienced traumatic events, Martin suggests avoiding statements like “everything happens for a reason” or “stay positive.” Instead, she suggests, ask how you can be helpful: “How are you doing today and what would be helpful for you right now?” or “You don't have to carry this alone. What are some tangible things I can do?”

But it’s also important, Martin says, that people experiencing this kind of stress let others help. She encourages staying connected to community and leaning into mutual aid. If neighbors want to bring dinner or provide a gift certificate, or if relatives want to take the kids to a park, let them.

“I know how we feel about the system failing us, but when it comes down to Black people, the system has failed us for such a significant amount of time we have to remember that the goal is for us not to fail each other and still keep it going,” Martin said.

Foster says she’s applied unsuccessfully for more than 100 jobs since her firing last year. In the interim, she braids hair and has worked as a consultant on political campaigns to make ends meet. She meets regularly with a mental health practitioner and tries to stay upbeat through prayer and affirmations.

Nevertheless, Foster feels like she is failing — failing as a mother, failing as a provider, failing at parenting.

“I feel like I’m almost 50 and I’m way behind. I don’t have a life insurance policy to leave my kids. No savings,” Foster says. “It weighs heavy for me as a mother.”

It’s not only the stress of not having the money to do what she needs to do as a parent, but the stress of having to lean on her 23-year-old daughter and mother to help pay the bills. As she continues to look for full-time employment, she says she is drained by the rejections.

Right now, Foster says, she’s holding it together, taking it one day at a time.

“I do believe in God, but when you’ve been down in life and have had disappointments, it’s kind of hard to keep your faith,” said Foster. “You try to stay strong, but you wonder, when is there going to be light at the end of the tunnel? How long do I have to stay like this?”

Part 1 of a three-part series, FIRED: The DOGE Layoffs Hit Black Women Hard, a collaboration between MindSite News, Capital B, The 19th and The Nation, edited by MindSite News. Reporting for this story was supported by the Rosalynn Carter Fellowship in Mental Health Journalism.

This article first appeared on MindSite News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

]]>

Instagram, comic books and public engagement: One watchdog’s plan to protect inspector general independence

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 11:17:30 -0400

Inspectors general lead independent oversight offices that seek to root out waste, fraud and abuse in — and otherwise improve the efficiency and effectiveness of — government programs. Lucy Lang, the IG for the state of New York, wants more Americans to know they exist.

Since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, he has fired nearly 20 of the watchdogs and installed several individuals who previously worked for his administration into the oversight positions. IGs are legally required to be appointed “without regard to political affiliation.”

Lang, who became New York’s IG in 2021 and previously served as a Manhattan prosecutor, argues that increased public awareness about the watchdogs’ work could serve as a bulwark against future attempts to weaken IGs.

In this interview with Government Executive, she discusses her office’s civic education campaign to teach students about IGs, including through a comic book that she wrote, how the state watchdog uses social media to engage more citizens and why she traces the origins of IGs to Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, a Prussian military officer who, as an IG, standardized training for the Continental Army at Valley Forge.

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

Q. What made you realize that IGs need to engage more with the public?

A. I was guest speaking at a government class at the University of Albany when I asked the seniors where they got their information about government. With one exception, 30 students said to me they got their information from independent journalists on Instagram and TikTok. They had not had personal interactions with elected or appointed officials in their lifetimes, so it made me realize two things.

One, we need to be really strategic and intentional about using platforms that reach a whole range of demographics, and our work using traditional media like op-eds and press releases was inadequate for educating the full breadth of the public who we serve. And second, my colleagues in government and I have been really deficient in our investment in civic education. So when 17 of my federal colleagues were fired the first Friday night of this administration's current term, I felt right away that the lack of public outcry was really on us. We hadn't fulfilled our mandate to communicate with the public about the important work that we're doing on their behalf. That is part of what has made oversight so vulnerable in recent years.

Q. Why create a comic book specifically?

A. In addition to America 250, the offices of the New York state inspector general are celebrating our 40th year. We wanted to be thoughtful about using this opportunity both to look backward and to think prospectively. As a student of history, I have come to the view that part of our work on civic education should call on the country's long history — dating back to the republic, right back to the revolution — of oversight.

We had already built out a very robust paid internship program for college and law students that we've been operating for several years. But looking at the numbers of high school students who are unable to identify the three branches of government, much less have any sense of what an inspector general is and does, I felt like we needed to start earlier than just our college and law school internship program. So we created a modular curriculum that we have been teaching around New York state over the course of this year, and we'll continue to teach in the future.

We were doing that at the high school level, and then a friend's kid — a middle school student— asked if he could come work for me. And I said, "I really don’t have a job for an eighth grader.” But that made me think that we should do something for even younger kids. We just launched a youth advisory council, where we have students from around New York state who applied and were accepted to our six-week program, which meets virtually for two hours a week to look at different parts of oversight. It also seeks input from students about ways in which our government is working and ways in which it might be failing them in their communities. So we see it as a real two-way street.

Then the comic book was the result of my own fifth and seventh grade kids and thinking about how to reach kids even earlier and give them something that's really accessible and might, for the nerdiest amongst them, even make history seem exciting and engaging. Also, perhaps the comic book would help lay some groundwork for future aspirations in public service and government or at very least — should we find ourselves in a position going forward where democratic guardrails like IGs are at risk again — it's not the first time they've heard of IGs when they've been purged, and it’s too late to do anything about it.

A copy of Lang's comic book "American Watchdogs." Credit: Sean Michael Newhouse/GovExec

Q. Any noteworthy anecdotes so far of people, young people in particular, reacting to the comic book?

A. Most noteworthy anecdotes, honestly, are from older people who look at it and say, "I can't believe that you thought of this” and how different it is from the approaches they have seen the government taking in the past. But I have heard from some of the elementary and middle school students who we pushed it out to that it's the first time that they learned in a way that they feel prompts them to ask follow-up questions about this really niche area of U.S. history. So that's been cool.

It's ongoing, and we just put it out last month, and we've just distributed it throughout New York state's middle schools. I'm hoping we'll have more data, both about how many students we're reaching and about what the potential impact is on their thinking about the government and their relationship to it.

Q. You talked about getting young people interested in public service and oversight work. What do you think government leaders could do to help connect young people who might be interested in this field to opportunities?

A. One major initiative that we undertook — and this is perhaps obvious — is that we changed what had been, prior to my arrival five years ago, a fairly ad hoc and an unpaid internship program into a paid internship. We were really only attracting young people who were in a position to live at home and pay for their summer opportunities, as compared to the interns we want who would ideally reflect the public who we serve. That’s helped us really diversify our internship program.

The other piece is trying to, as they say, meet people where they are. We have found that our use of social media has significantly increased the amount of interest in our programming. Frankly, we take advantage of our interns' ideas in doing that too. We had an intern this summer who was working as an auditor, but happened to have a really uncanny knack for social media. So she came to us with a bunch of ideas, which we took and found that we were able to reach a whole new kind of sector of the public because of her ideas.

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 https://t.co/LbfNCh0Bmi
— NYS Inspector General (@NewYorkStateIG) August 21, 2026

I think that what my colleagues in government and I can do most to reach a wider swath of folks is to really listen to and take to heart feedback from young people who are so often kind of shut out of conversations. Especially for elected officials, there is an easy default to “Okay young people don't vote” or “I'm thinking on a two- or four-year election cycle, so it's not a wise use of my time and resources,” but that's so short-sighted. What we're really trying to do — all of us one hopes, and this is not unique to either party — should be educating a committed body politic who want involvement, engagement and who are equipped to participate in government in whatever way, regardless of whether it manifests itself in a vote in two weeks or not.

Q. Given your work and interests as an IG, could you give three suggestions to federal IGs on how they can make the public more aware of the work they're doing?

A. I've been in conversation with some of my federal colleagues about just this, and I think it is going to require — as it did in my office, and it's a continuing area of work — an internal culture shift. I saw this when I was a prosecutor as well, it was true for a long time among prosecuting and law enforcement agencies, but there's a sense of “We can't talk about things because of due process concerns and other constitutional protections” and, as a result, we'll just clam up on everything.

In comparison, we can engage but just be mindful of what the legal restrictions are. It's okay to say, “I can't talk about that, but here's what I do want to tell you about that we're doing.” Something that I know federal inspectors general do think about is there are times where we may audit or review a program or commence an investigation and there's not a criminal outcome or even a disciplinary outcome. But we still want to tell the public: “We looked at this program, and it's actually working well the way it's supposed to.” We owe it to the public to say that too and not just the conclusions that are traditionally aligned with what law enforcement does.

Q. Is there anything you've done in your office with public engagement that you think would be easily replicable by a federal agency IG?

A. The social media piece is low-hanging fruit. That said, I don't know that we have enough data to say definitively that it is having a transformative effect on public opinion. But I think that over time, at scale, as more government offices and not just IGs lean in to making government accessible through social media platforms, that it will have a transformative effect.

It's not just putting out the press releases when there are conclusive findings. It is also sometimes the human interest stuff about staff. Sometimes it's the more soft public service type things that we might do, like partnering with an agency to plant trees in celebration of the parks department's anniversary. That kind of soft stuff makes clear we're out there and we're doing the work.

We’re in the moo-d to reminisce about The Great @NYSFair! Especially our run-in with the @newyorklottery Wow Cow! Suspect fraud or corruption in New York’s gaming industry? Report it to 1-800-DO-RIGHT. https://t.co/00RZ31fhpL
— NYS Inspector General (@NewYorkStateIG) October 19, 2026

Also, I think making staff available to speak to groups who are interested is huge. I think it is not common amongst my IG colleagues, but I hope it will become increasingly more so. Meeting with community groups, going into schools, talking to community boards, these are not functions that IGs have traditionally undertaken because I think we have thought of ourselves as investigative.

But if we think of ourselves as public servants whose core job is improving the public's trust of government, then we see that there are two streams in which to do that. One is conducting investigations to make sure that public programs do operate with integrity, and the other is telling the public that we're here and doing that work so that they can see that the government is structured in a way that is designed to operate with integrity.

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

A. It is really both interesting and inspiring to bear in mind that inspectors general, who many folks think date back to post-Watergate [and the Inspector General Act of 1978], actually go back to the revolutions. I would point Americans to Baron von Steuben — whose statue stands outside the White House — who was George Washington's inspector general who really helped turn the tide of the Revolutionary War at and after Valley Forge, and through to the Civil War when inspectors were on the battlefields counting munitions and helping ensure the integrity of the Union Army.

The memorial statue of Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben is covered in snow at Lafayette Square during a storm in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19, 2024. Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Then, of course, the shift to the civilian side after Watergate, and then the buildup of state and local IGs, all of this is a throughline to me of how, when democracy is tested, we have built oversight institutions, and by and large, it has worked. I hope more Americans pay attention to IGs, become IGs and that IGs persist 250 years and beyond in being a core part of the guardrails that maintain precious democracy.

]]>

HHS telework rollback challenge upheld by FLRA

Jory Heckman — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 17:54:29 -0400

A quasi-judicial agency overseeing labor-management disputes within the federal government has struck down a challenge from the Health and Human Services Department over its rollback of telework for employees.

A third-party arbitrator in January ordered HHS to walk back its return-to-office mandate for thousands of employees represented by the National Treasury Employees Union. HHS rescinded those workplace flexibility agreements in early 2025, after President Donald Trump ordered federal employees to return to the office full-time.

Arbitrator Michael J. Falvo ruled that HHS committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally terminating telework and remote agreements, without regard to its five-year collective bargaining agreement with NTEU.

Falvo ruled that HHS must “rescind the return-to-office directive,” and immediately reinstate remote work and telework agreements for NTEU members.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority’s three-member panel, in a decision Wednesday, denied HHS’s exceptions to Falvo’s telework arbitration award, keeping NTEU’s win intact.

“We find that the Agency does not demonstrate that the award is deficient on any of these grounds, and we deny the exceptions,” the FLRA wrote.

Among its objections, HHS argued that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by seeking to “nullify, disregard, or limit application of presidential directives” in his ruling. But FLRA members wrote that Falvo’s ruling was consistent with Trump’s return-to-office memo.

Trump’s presidential memorandum directed agencies to terminate remote work and telework agreements, but stated that the return-to-office mandate must be “implemented consistent with applicable law.”

“Therefore, we find that the Agency’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority,” they wrote.

HHS also argued that the arbitrator ignored or gave insufficient weight to some evidence when drafting his opinion. Agency officials claimed Falvo’s ruling didn’t consider that HHS's collective bargaining agreement with NTEU allowed management to suspend or terminate telework and remote work for “mission or operational needs.”

FLRA members, however, wrote that “mere disagreement with an arbitrator’s interpretation” was not sufficient to overturn his ruling, and that an arbitrator’s interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements and legal conclusions “cannot be challenged as nonfacts.”

NTEU said in a statement that the FLRA ruling is "big win for telework rights," but that HHS employees are "unlikely to see immediate changes to their telework arrangements" because HHS has until December 21 to appeal the FLRA’s decision to a federal appellate court.

"We will continue to vigorously defend telework as the fight continues across NTEU’s agencies," the union said.

The labor contract, which covers 2023 through 2028, states the agency can only terminate telework and remote work agreements “for cause,” including emergency situations and cases when an employee falls short of a “fully satisfactory” performance rating.

FLRA members also wrote the HHS officials appeared to use generative AI tools to draft its legal brief. They wrote that 22 of the department’s 29 footnotes, and 35 of its 42 of its citations are “fictitious, erroneous, or irrelevant.”

“Based on the nature and scope of these errors, it appears that the Agency may have used a generative artificial-intelligence (AI) tool in drafting its brief,” they wrote. “While nothing prohibits parties from using AI tools when preparing filings for submission to the Authority, we caution those who do so to be aware that AI continues to present significant risks of error.”

NTEU filed a grievance against HHS in February 2025, after the agency issued a directive requiring all bargaining unit employees to report to the office on a full-time basis. Union officials argued that HHS refused to negotiate before the return-to-office memo took effect, and that it would only agree to “post-implementation bargaining.”

The arbitrator's ruling impacts thousands of HHS workers represented by NTEU. It represents workers at the Food and Drug Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Administration for Children and Families, the Administration on Community Living, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the National Center for Health Statistics and the HHS Office of the Secretary.

HHS denied the grievance, saying that an agency head “retains the statutory right to determine overall telework levels and to exclude positions from telework eligibility.” HHS officials argued before the arbitrator that Trump’s return-to-office memorandum superseded the collective bargaining agreement.

Christina Ballance, the executive director of the agency’s National Labor and Employee Relations Office, told the arbitrator that HHS “was obligated to comply with the presidential memorandum.”

“Ultimately, the president is our chief, and if he directs that employees return to offices in person, the agency is required to do so,” Ballance said in her testimony.

But the 1978 Federal Services Labor-Management Relations Statute makes it an unfair labor practice for an agency “to enforce any rule or regulation … which is in conflict with any applicable collective bargaining agreement if the agreement was in effect before the rule or regulation was prescribed.”

Falvo said that Federal Labor Relations Authority precedent in previous labor disputes determined that a presidential memorandum “is not a governmentwide rule or regulation that the employer is obligated by law to implement immediately upon issuance.”

HHS officials rejected the claim that it terminated all telework and remote work agreements, noting that it still allows situational and ad-hoc telework, as well as workplace flexibilities for military spouses and reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.

Trump touted his return-to-office mandate at a White House press briefing on Jan. 20, 2026, where he looked back on the accomplishments of his first year in office. He told reporters that when he took office last year, “we had so many of our federal workers who wouldn’t come into work.”

“We don’t want them sitting in their home, on their bed, working. We want them in an office that we’re paying for in Washington, D.C., or wherever it may be. And we’ve largely taken care of that mess,” Trump said. “I guarantee you they’re out on the ballfields. I guarantee you they’re out playing golf. And you can’t run a country or a company that way.

]]>

‘Last chance to stay where you are.’ USDA gives some employees facing relocation a shot at unfilled local jobs

Jory Heckman — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 16:44:42 -0400

The Agriculture Department’s second-largest component is giving its workforce another chance to fill “critical” vacancies, allowing some employees to stay in place and no longer face relocation across the country.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service, an agency created in the Dust Bowl era to help farmers protect and conserve private lands, is giving employees a shot at voluntary reassignment to a vacant position in their local commuting area.

NRCS opened its online critical vacancy portal on Tuesday, and will give employees until Nov. 2 to apply for available positions at their current grade level or lower.

This is the second time the administration has offered lateral transfers to NRCS employees. Government Executive reported in July 2025 that NRCS encouraged employees to apply for critical vacancies ahead of the department’s nonvoluntary relocation plans.

“This feels like a ‘last chance to stay where you are’ move by the administration,” one NRCS employee said.

A second NRCS employee said NRCS staff were first notified about critical vacancies in September. The employee said that when he last checked the portal, there was only one position listed in the D.C. area that would have been a lateral move for him. All other available positions, he added, would effectively be a "voluntary downgrade."

“Anything [else] I wanted to do, I would have had to take a downgrade,” he said. “There were jobs available, but they all would have required relocation for me. There was nothing that would have allowed me to stay within my commuting area, as it is right now, and stay in my current grade.”

Some may see these critical vacancies as a chance to avoid relocation across state lines. USDA, as part of its sweeping reorganization plans, has sent letters of intent to NRCS employees, informing them that they may have to relocate to Fort Worth, Texas, Raleigh, North Carolina; and Indianapolis, Indiana.

“You’re going to go to one of these places if you want to remain a GS-14. This is what you would have to do,” the second NRCS employee said. “If you want to maintain your current grade and pay, really your only option is to move.”

NRCS is USDA’s second-largest component. The agency has shed more than 20% of its workforce so far under the Trump administration.

A USDA spokesperson told Government Executive that “this initiative provides employees with opportunities to pursue voluntary reassignment to positions that support the continued delivery of NRCS programs and services.”

According to an internal notice obtained by Government Executive, NRCS employees can apply to multiple open critical vacant positions using the portal, but employees “may apply only for positions that are at their current grade level (lateral moves) or lower grade levels.”

In an Aug. 28 court filing, a USDA official told the U.S. District Court that 725 USDA employees had received management directed reassignment (MDR) letters so far, and that 64% of them have accepted reassignment. Employees say that acceptance rate is highly inflated, because colleagues are applying for exemptions or applying for local jobs.

“For the most part, you have people with spouses that are working [or] have other commitments … that them moving is not really feasible,” the second NRCS employee said.

USDA’s relocation plans are currently on hold. On Oct. 13, a federal judge in San Francisco ordered an indefinite stay of the department's plans to relocate about 2,600 employees.

The Trump administration appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appeals court has kept the lower court’s ruling in place for now.

The administration has until mid-November to brief the appeals court on its challenge to the lower court’s stay. A coalition of federal employee labor unions, nonprofits and local governments fighting to block USDA’s relocations are scheduled to brief the appeals court by Dec. 11 – the same day that spending bill provisions blocking USDA from using congressional funds on reorganization are currently set to expire.

The second NRCS employee said agency staff hasn’t communicated why some agency employees have been tapped to relocate, while others working the same job in the same location have been exempt from relocation.

“There are some individuals that are staying in their current locations now. Whatever process, if there was one, the determination was made that, ‘OK, this person is staying in this position, in their current location. They don’t have to relocate.’ Those were Willy Wonka Golden Ticket kinds of things handed out in the dark, and there was no clear, defined process,” the employee said.

USDA said its relocations will bring its employees closer to the farmers, ranchers and other agriculture customers it serves. But about 90% of USDA employees already live and work outside of the D.C. area. The second NRCS employee said agency staff who work directly with the public are already working state-level jobs.

“Relocating them to some central hub throughout the country is not going to provide any better service to our customers,” he said. “You're going to see a decrease in service. You're going to see slowdowns. You're going to see more disruptions by carrying this out.”

]]>

‘It’s The Price is Right’: How USCIS artificially deflated employee ratings under forced distribution mandate

Erich Wagner — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 15:10:00 -0400

This month, federal agencies began appraising the work of their nearly 2 million civilian workers for the first time since the Trump administration lifted a ban on forced distributions in the performance management process and capped above average ratings at 40%.

But for months, federal employees have reported that their agencies had already unofficially limited most workers to a 3 out of 5 rating, while such a practice was still unlawful and months before the Office of Personnel Management formally proposed authorizing it.

Documents obtained by Government Executive offer a glimpse into how the 2025 performance appraisal process worked when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services imposed a forced distribution requirement on its National Records Center.

A whistleblower within the agency, who previously unveiled a scheme in USCIS’ Freedom of Information Act office to arbitrarily reject the vast majority of requests it received, described a hurried process in which high-performing employees’ ratings were deflated to fit a curve, while supervisors were more likely to retain high marks—and consequently, bigger awards.

Government Executive reviewed emails, contemporaneous memos summarizing meetings and other verbal communications, as well as a spreadsheet cataloging the distribution of ratings among frontline employees and supervisors. USCIS did not respond to questions regarding the 2015 performance appraisal process or if changes have been made for this year’s reviews.

A ‘backwards’ process

Timothy Turner served as section chief for HR and training at USCIS’ National Records Center until he retired earlier this year. He said that while he and his colleagues had heard rumors it was coming, the mandate to institute a forced distribution did not come down until late November, at a time when HR officials were already scrambling in the wake of the recently ended 43-day government shutdown last year.

Initially, the need to limit the numbers of 5—achieved excellence—ratings was pitched as due to budgetary constraints.

“The award allocation for ‘achieved excellence’ must be limited in order to stay within budget,” wrote then-NRC Director M. David Arnold, who has since been detailed elsewhere in USCIS. “Expect further guidance on the exact distribution of awards in order to stay within budget; however, this model will mean that ratings of ‘achieved excellence’ will be very limited.”

But Turner said it quickly became clear that the process for 2025 performance appraisals was “backwards.” Ordinarily, supervisors would rate their subordinates, and then allocate awards based upon the available bonus pool.

But in the new process, agency leadership mandated the size of awards from the outset—5.5% of salary for supervisors who scored 5, 3.5% for supervisors who scored a 4, 4% for non-supervisors who scored a 5, and 2% for non-supervisors who scored a 4. A Nov. 26 email states that the NRC could “afford” between 60 and 70 “achieved excellence ratings, and that officials in USCIS’ Immigration Records and Identity Services directorate had mandated a “20-40-20” bell curve, with the plurality of employees receiving 4s.

The forced distribution—and a looming Dec. 5 deadline—led officials to implement an unusual system for figuring out who would receive the now-limited 5 ratings.

“My immediate need is for every supervisor to nominate a primary and an alternate of their ratees for ‘achieved excellence,’” Arnold wrote. “The primary will most definitely receive a ‘5’ rating. The alternates will be used to work with until we exhaust our funds.”

But without the calibration panels that have begun to proliferate throughout the federal government, officials needed a way to ensure employees who performed well on concrete performance metrics, such as FOIA officers’ processing quotas, did not receive a 5 rating if they were not nominated for it, a practice some within the agency described as “level-setting.”

“Based on how the rating calculator works, if an individual with production goals receives a 5 rating in their production goals, unless you intend for them to be rated a ‘5’ you will have to give them mainly ‘3s’ in the subjective areas,” Arnold wrote. “Any rating of a 4.5 or above is considered a ‘5.’ . . . I know this constitutes a major change and we have very little time to execute.”

At a Dec. 2 meeting, a deputy director within NRC stressed the need to “make the math work,” and compared the reverse engineering of overall scores as akin to a game show. While traditionally, supervisors would file their performance reviews and then input the final scores into a spreadsheet for determining awards, under the forced distribution, the reverse is true.

“[The deputy director said] this is ‘The Price is Right,’ regarding having to change appraisal ratings to fit into the [performance appraisal and awards spreadsheet],” Turner wrote in a contemporaneous memo. “She stated that ‘you are agreeing whatever you are submitting for the PAAS is what you will rate them in [the employee performance management system]. Whatever we say is the score for awards is what we’ll put in EPM.”

‘More expedient than fair’

Turner told Government Executive that he raised concern with his supervisor that the new performance review process violated the federal regulations banning the use of forced distribution or stack ranking, which at the time described the practice as “incompatible with effective performance management.”

According to a memo memorializing the Dec. 1 conversation, the supervisor said he “gets” Turner’s concern, but said the “political reality” is that agency leadership has mandated the award sizes and that their office could not deviate from the framework.

Turner also proposed an alternative plan: if supervisors better calibrated their performance standards and limited the forced distribution only to supervisors, the NRC could still fall within the new bonus budget. That advice went unheeded.

“I also stated that this was largely an issue that does not need to exist, and that if we simply evaluated supervisors fairly and judiciously, particularly at the GS-13 and up level, most would be at a 3 (meets expectations),” Turner wrote in the Dec. 1 memo. “Additionally, if we applied that same level of rigor to non-supervisors, that would allow us to fairly assess each competency and performance goal in a way that ensured fairness and accountability.”

Ultimately, NRC saw 19% of its 414 employees receive a 3, 39% received a 4, and 24% received a 5. But there was a consequence of the two nominees per team strategy: as one ascends the organizational chart, teams get smaller. That meant supervisors got an outsized share of top ratings—37% of supervisors received an “achieved excellence” rating, compared to only 23% of non-supervisors.

That imbalance is aggravated by the fact that officials mandated USCIS offices to set aside 80% of their award budget for annual performance awards, with just 20% going to on-the-spot and other mid-year bonuses. In past years, the ratio has been more evenly split, typically with between 40% and 60% of the overall awards budget going toward mid-year bonuses.

Turner said that after performance reviews had been complete, he had a meeting with Arnold, who has since been detailed to USCIS’ field office directorate, to discuss his qualms with the new process. Per a Dec. 8 memo documenting the conversation, Arnold said that while leadership never mandated a forced distribution in an official capacity, he received “second and third order comments to that effect.”

“The director stated that ‘in a perfect world, I would have chaired meetings with [associate center directors]’ who laid out who 5s were, and made them justify ‘why this employee was better than the others,’ but they were ‘forced into a time bound deadline’ and conceded that they ‘did things more expedient than was fair, even though I hate the word fair,’” the memo states.

‘Creating the problem’

Turner told Government Executive that he came forward this fall out of concern for what federal workers across government face now that forced distributions are no longer banned and are, in fact, mandatory.

“Federal employees should be held accountable for their work,” he said. “Senior leaders should be held accountable for how they judge it. If a quota changed an employee’s rating, that employee deserves to know who ordered it and on what authority. Accountability cannot stop at the supervisor’s door.”

Don Kettl, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland and former dean of its School of Public Policy, said the experience at USCIS shows the pitfalls of applying a forced distribution on a personnel system built around objective standards for performance.

“If you have a very large group of employees over which you’d expect to have a fair distribution of not so good and then superior members of the workforce, then this forced distribution could make some sense, though it makes for some rough targets,” he said. “But if you have an agency with very high levels of professionalism, you wouldn’t want to have people around who are at the low end of the bell curve. So the more you get away from just a large, normal distribution, the harder and more unfruitful it is to force them into that normal distribution. And the more you try to force people into that, the more likely it is that you’re creating the problem you’re ostensibly trying to solve.”

And Ray Limon, a former member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, said Turner’s allegations could constitute a prohibited personnel practice for those employees whose performance ratings were artificially deflated. The new process also threatens to have a long tail, as OPM has also recently changed its regulations to emphasize performance ratings over tenure in the reduction in force process.

“Reducing performance management to a forced distribution scale creates this disincentive to be further engaged as an employee,” he said. “You have less agency in defining your own career path, while also being more at risk for future RIF efforts. It’s just antithetical to why we do performance management to begin with.”

]]>

USPTO looks to AI agents to ease examiner workloads

Edward Graham — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:34:31 -0400

Although agentic artificial intelligence systems are poised to help the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office significantly reduce the time it takes to review applications by streamlining rote tasks, a top official with the agency said the capabilities also have another added benefit — empowering skilled examiners to rely more on human-to-human interactions rather than the typical stream of impersonal correspondence.

Barry Schindler, USPTO’s acting commissioner for patents, said the agency currently has a diverse staff of patent reviewers, including PhD biochemists who review relevant patent applications. Rather than bogging these personnel down with tedious tasks during the three-step pre-exam, examination and post-exam patent lifecycle process, Schindler said USPTO has turned, in part, to a new agentic tool — called Compass — to help.

Examiners reviewing man-made or altered DNA sequences, for instance, first have to see if the submitted sequences are correct before determining whether or not they can be patented.

Schindler said these reviewers frequently have to engage in a “back and forth, back and forth, back and forth” dialogue with applicants, which is largely conducted through written correspondence. Now, Schindler said Compass “does what's called a formality check” to speed along the process.

“So then what happens now? I've got a PhD biochemist who had been hired to do what they were supposed to do,” Schindler said during the Google Public Sector Summit on Tuesday.

With a current backlog of 700,000 applications for review, and a staff of around 9,000 patent examiners, USPTO needs to turn to AI agents for help, he said, adding that further adoption of these tools can help promote more consistency in the review process.

“You as an applicant may get an examiner who has 20 years of experience, and at the same time you may get an examiner who has two years,” he said. “We put our examiners online almost immediately; we have to. We have this backlog. So what we're looking to do with this whole [AI] and [agentic agents thing] is how do we start getting consistency? So that examiner who has two years, how do we impart that knowledge that's similar?”

Providing patent examiners with a consistent review process and giving them AI tools to help navigate often cumbersome tasks, Schindler said, means skilled employees can more fully leverage their talents.

“The thing that is missing — and we don't have time to do it — is the human interaction,” Schindler said, noting that patent examinations are often “a negotiation” between applicant and examiner.

“If part of that iterative process is, instead of the examiner just putting paper — they do paper — back and forth, can we get the examiner on the phone and start having this human interaction? And examiners will say, ‘I love that, but I don't have time because I'm doing this [other stuff],’” he said.

Rather than taking sometimes five years for applicants to receive a patent, Schindler said “we can shorten that to one year, because you can pick up the phone and have conversations” by using agents to help shoulder some of the other workload.

Adoption of these tools, however, doesn’t need to be large. Schindler said even small uses of these capabilities are beneficial and noted that some research studies have shown that too much reliance on AI tools can impair cognitive skills.

“If somebody starts relying on agents and [they] don't understand the fundamentals and don't continue to learn the fundamentals, they can get dumb,” he said. “And so I have that issue that I have to think about: [using] agents, but how does the agent assist and not take over?”

Focusing on the underlying problem, rather than a one-size solution, Schindler added, is a necessity when it comes to maximizing the effectiveness of new capabilities like those offered by agents.

USPTO has previously touted some of the other AI tools it’s rolled out to help improve its internal operations, including an enterprise AI tool named Scout — a chatbot assistant used by personnel to help analyze, draft, research and summarize content.

]]>

ICE wants AI to take on more of its legal workload

Ross Wilkers — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 17:55:51 -0400

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has started to look at the landscape of cloud-native electronic discovery software tools to aid its office responsible for handling legal, regulatory and compliance matters.

ICE is launching this effort to aid its Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, which staffs 2,300 attorneys and 350 support personnel that handle large volumes of cases and related data. This office acts as the government’s sole representative in immigration removal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Artificial intelligence and agentic AI functions are a must for ICE in its search for a commercially available software-as-a-service platform that can support the full lifecycle of electronic discovery, the agency said in a Monday sources sought notice.

The notice cites potential use cases for the platform as including litigation, investigations, administrative proceedings, Freedom of Information Act-related cases, regulatory matters, congressional inquiries, and other discovery or compliance activities.

ICE’s desired specs for the platform include natural language and semantic search, automated summarization, AI-assisted review and coding, contextual analysis, and agents that can carry out and coordinate multi-step discovery workflows.

The request for information also spells out how the platform should cover information governance and legal holds from initial data collection work to the processing, review, analysis and production stages.

ICE is asking submissions to be sent in the form of white papers that include a capability narrative and responses to functional requirements in AI, agentic AI, governance response structures and questions surrounding the standard Electronic Discovery Reference Model framework.

George Socha and Tom Gelbmann developed EDRM in 2005 to standardize how legal, technical and compliance teams handle electronically-stored information during litigation and investigations.

Responses to the RFI are due by 2 p.m. Eastern time on Oct. 28.

All throughout the RFI, ICE uses the term “Super Intelligence” to comply with President Trump’s September executive order mandating agencies use the SI terminology in official communications.

]]>

‘A rushed and complicated system.’ Federal employees say they’re in the dark over limited top ratings

Jory Heckman — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 17:38:46 -0400

Federal agencies are crunching the numbers on how many employees they can justify getting above-average scores in their upcoming performance reviews, after the Trump administration put a cap on top m arks across the federal workforce.

At OPM’s direction, agencies have also stood up “calibration” panels staffed with senior executives to ensure managers and supervisors are awarding ratings fairly.

“A calibration panel is not a rating board that re-rates employees independently. The panel evaluates whether proposed ratings are supported by evidence, applied consistently across organizations, and aligned with agency performance standards,” OPM wrote in guidance this summer.

OPM finalized regulations in July that removed a longstanding ban on a forced distribution system. The federal HR agency wrote that limiting the number of top scores that employees can receive “will curb ratings inflation and increase accountability” across the federal workforce.

Experts in public-sector performance management say calibration panels can help weed out bias in performance scores. But combined with the rollout of a new forced distribution system, they warn this new rating system may pit employees against each other for a limited number of top scores, undermining the collaborative nature of some jobs.

Meanwhile, federal employees and their managers say they’ve been left in the dark about how these sweeping changes are being carried out.

The rollout

Federal workers told Government Executive that several agencies provided little information on how they should prepare self-evaluations that will serve as the basis for their final performance evaluations, and offered few details on the criteria senior officials will use to distribute a limited number of fours and fives.

Some have been told by their agencies that a three – which equates to “meets expectations” – is the default score that many employees will receive. Several managers said these constraints prevent them from giving high-performing employees the scores they deserve.

An IRS manager told Government Executive their program manager “didn’t want to see” any fives or fours – and that a “fully successful” score of three out of five “is what is expected across the board.”

“I’m sick of this constant abuse on good employees. Morale is low – really low,” the IRS manager said.

A manager at the Veterans Affairs Department said four of his five direct reports have “quantifiably achieved at least a 4, but I’m not allowed to give them all a final rating that high.”

“I hate the concept, but what I hate even more is that we weren’t notified of this plan before we issued the FY26 performance plans. Had we been notified first, we could have written the plans in a way that aligns to the rating system,” the VA manager said.

A supervisor at the Labor Department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration said the agency has instructed managers to lower employee ratings before they are sent to the calibration panels.

“I am a rating official, I rated my employees and the reviewing official concurred. Then the ratings were shared with leadership. Leadership met with us and told us the ones that need to be lowered,” the MSHA supervisor said.

The MSHA supervisor said these instructions from agency leadership were “to show the calibration process is not needed,” and that MSHA’s ratings are “already within the 40% of ‘exceeds’ and ‘outsandings.’”

These annual reviews carry material consequences for federal workers. Earning top scores make some federal workers eligible for financial and time-off awards. Low scores could also make it easier for agencies to remove certain employees. OPM in July finalized a rule emphasizing recent performance reviews over tenure when carrying out reductions in force.

Government Executive reported in January that most agencies sought to push back against OPM’s plan. In internal comments, many warned that enforcing a forced distribution of performance ratings contradicts merit systems principles and reduces collaboration and cohesion among employees.

Deadlines and training bottlenecks

Employees at the Health and Human Services Department told Government Executive that departmentwide and component agency-level trainings on these changes have been unable to accommodate all those looking to attend.

A recent meeting for Food and Drug Administration employees “started off with them having to re-send a link to let in everyone who wanted to attend,” according to an FDA employee who attended. At an HHS-wide meeting, “once again the online meeting did not have enough capacity for all who wanted to attend.”

“We’re scoring people on things we haven’t communicated,” a second FDA employee said, summing up communications from agency leadership about the performance evaluation changes.

This communication gap is mirrored in internal directives obtained by Government Executive, which outline strict timelines and calibration steps that managers must obtain behind closed doors.

In a message to employees, HHS wrote that OPM “will allocate a fixed number” fives to the department, and that the “HHS calibration process will ensure that HHS does not exceed its allocation.”

“The purpose of standardized distribution is not to predetermine individual ratings or replace rigorous performance appraisal. Rather, it is intended to support consistent distinctions among levels of performance across the Department,” HHS wrote.

An HHS spokesperson told Government Executive that the department is following OPM’s latest guidance on performance awards. An OPM spokesperson Kiki Nyoh said in a statement that a 40% cap on above-average performance ratings “best balances meaningful, standards-based ratings with recognizing outstanding performance."

“We will closely monitor FY 2026 results and use that data to guide future appraisal cycles,” Nyoh said.

The American Federation of Government Employees Local 2883, which represents employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s headquarters in Atlanta, told members in a recent email that HHS is rushing supervisors to “carry out a rushed and complicated system,” and that setting employees up to compete for a limited number of top scores undermines the collaborative nature of its scientific mission.

“CDC works because people collaborate. That is how public service works,” the union wrote. “A system that requires supervisors to rank teammates against one another risks turning people with a shared mission into competitors for limited recognition. It further erodes trust and creates exactly the wrong incentive for an institution like CDC.”

HHS employees had until Oct. 16 to complete a 6,000 maximum character “self-accomplishment narrative” highlighting their key accomplishments. Rating officials – usually an employee’s immediate manager or supervisor – will soon draft a “summary” of each employee’s self-evaluation, assign a preliminary rating and then rank all employees under their supervision.

According to internal documents obtained by Government Executive, each rating official must “rank each employee relative to the total number (N) of employees they supervise.” Each rating official’s preliminary scores and employee rankings will undergo “review and calibration” by agency-level and department calibration panels.

“Final ratings distribution will be reviewed and approved at the HHS level,” the memo states. Employees will be able to request reconsideration of their final ratings within five business days of receiving them.

“All ratings and narratives are preliminary and must not be discussed with or provided to employees at any time prior to them being approved by HHS senior executive leadership,” the memo states.

HHS employee evaluations will focus on three criteria – “organizational value,” “quality & reliability of demonstrated performance,” and “timeliness and efficiency of results.”

In one document outlining its “calibration factors,” HHS asks rating and reviewing officials to consider how an employee’s work advanced “organizational priorities or mission,” how often employees made mistakes in their work, and whether employees consistently met deadlines. But the document states that this information “should not be discussed with or provided to employees.”

Timelines and anxiety

A similar process is being rolled out at the Homeland Security Department, although some of the criteria employees are being evaluated on vary. Self-assessment forms at the Federal Emergency Management Agency ask employees to evaluate how well they’ve carried out the “administration’s priorities” – which include “executive orders, governmentwide directives [and] efficiency efforts.”

In a presentation to employees, FEMA officials stated that the new forced distribution system is “not a predetermined rating,” and “not a quota assigned to individual employees.” The presentation slides also state this new performance rating system “does not mean employees all receive the same rating.”

According to internal documents obtained by Government Executive, FEMA employees had until Sept. 30 to complete their self-assessments. Self-assessments are voluntary but highly encouraged,” one internal document states.

FEMA’s calibration panel will review employees’ preliminary ratings between mid-October and early November. Final ratings will be determined by Nov. 20 after DHS-level calibration. Employees will be notified of their final ratings in December. Performance awards are tentatively scheduled for February 2027.

The agency’s calibration panel will be led by a group of senior agency employees from each FEMA program office. According to internal documents, the calibration panel will “review preliminary ratings for consistency, fairness and alignment.”

A FEMA employee said staff are concerned their final performance ratings “will come from a panel of senior leaders who don’t know anything about our individual programs.”

“There is an incredible amount of lack of information at nearly every level in FEMA about this,” the FEMA employee said. “Nobody knows how the panels are being selected, what they are supposed to calibrate, and what the point of this new system is that isn’t already being accompanied by the current system.”

“The unspoken fear on everybody’s minds is that assessments from our supervisors and our self-assessments will be used to essentially grade everyone in the department ‘on a curve’ and then use that as a metric to start identifying people as ‘legitimate’ targets for being fired,” the FEMA employee said.

A second FEMA employee stressed the rushed rollout of changes this big, adding that, “in more normal times, they would have started socializing this months in advance.”

“It’s a huge ask for everyone, particularly leadership because they have to figure out and communicate the new system to their teams with little to no guidance,” the second FEMA employee said.

A Customs and Border Protection employee said a similar process is rolling out across DHS.

“The panels review proposed ratings for consistency. They compare across work units and they verify that the ratings are justified by evidence,” the CBP employee said. DHS and FEMA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Weighing the limits

Bob Tobias, distinguished practitioner in residence at the Key Executive Leadership Program at American University and former president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said performance management research shows that “those who perform at the highest level are those who are informed of what the goal is, and regularly informed about whether or not they're reaching that goal.”

“Right now, no one knows what behavior is being asked to be changed,” Tobias said. “All that's happening is a group of people at the end of the process are now evaluating employees. I do not believe that that approach will achieve a goal of increasing organizational performance or individual performance.”

Ellen Rubin, an associate professor of public administration and policy at the University of Albany, said research shows calibration ensures managers are applying the same standards consistently across different teams of employees, and can flag potential bias or discrimination before ratings are finalized.

“Calibration sessions – on their own, in theory – are a good thing,” Rubin said. “But when you introduce the forced distribution rating system, it cuts the legs out from the benefits that could potentially be realized.”

Rubin said a forced distribution system doesn’t root out poor performers, and that creating a scarcity of top scores “undermines collaboration” in team projects.

“There’s decades of research showing that forced distribution rating systems demotivate employees, and lead to ratings that employees think are often unfair,” she said. “There's also a pretty high incidence of force distribution rating systems leading to discrimination complaints. So generally, they are a terrible idea.”

Tobias said OPM’s rollout of a forced distribution system is starting from the assumption that “we've got too many people who are evaluated too high.” A 2016 Government Accountability Office report that found in 2013, 99% of employees received at least a “fully successful” rating.

“If I'm an employee and I get my evaluation, and then all of a sudden instead of being in the top 20%, I'm in the middle, how is that change going to inspire me next year? I don't know why my evaluation’s changed. The whole evaluation process is to give me information so that I can perform better next year. That doesn't happen with this system,” Tobias said.

]]>

Oversight of nuclear material security cut back due to civil service reductions, GAO finds

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:35:01 -0400

Staff cuts under the Trump administration at the agency responsible for safeguarding the nuclear weapons stockpile exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges at the National Nuclear Security Administration and reduced oversight of nuclear material security, according to a new watchdog report.

In total, the Government Accountability Office found that NNSA went from nearly 2,000 federal employees in the first quarter of fiscal 2025 to 1,755 civil servants as of the second quarter of fiscal 2026. This included a 13.6% reduction in the number of “mission-critical” workers.

While GAO in 2024 warned that NNSA was understaffed, auditors determined that the recent staff cuts “more than erased” hiring that the agency conducted in previous fiscal years.

As a consequence, officials told GAO that they’ve had to cut back on some oversight, including of nuclear material security. The security office at one location, for example, lost about 40% of its employees that performed such work.

The auditors reported that agency officials are trying to find efficiencies using artificial intelligence and overhauling their recruiting strategies, but they are facing several challenges.

“Officials noted that the reductions in staff and loss of institutional knowledge have created operational challenges and increased workloads for the staff that remained,” they wrote. “In addition, officials noted that there are limitations on how artificial intelligence can currently be used based on staff expertise and limitations on using the technology in classified settings.”

GAO found that nearly 45% of the recent staff departures were a result of the deferred resignation program, under which the government paid the salaries and benefits of participating employees for several months before they officially separated from the civil service.

NNSA also was impacted by the president’s freeze on federal civilian hiring, but auditors reported that the agency was able to bring on 35 individuals during such period due to an exception for national security personnel.

The report also covers an incident from February 2025 when, as part of the mass firings of new federal employees who were still in their one-year probationary periods, NNSA removed more than 160 such workers. Ultimately, the agency rescinded most of those terminations shortly thereafter.

In response to a request for comment, an agency spokesperson said in a statement to Government Executive that: “NNSA remains focused on ensuring we have the skilled workforce necessary to execute our national security mission. We continue to assess staffing and recruitment needs, improve operational efficiency and prioritize mission-critical positions to support safety requirements, nuclear modernization and deliver on mission priorities.”

GAO has recently issued several reports examining the effects of staff cuts on government services at multiple agencies, including the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Labor and State.

]]>

State Department orders ‘super intelligence’ wording across all official communications

David DiMolfetta and Jory Heckman — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 13:33:21 -0400

The State Department has instructed personnel to replace “artificial intelligence” with “Super Intelligence” in official communications and rename its AI-related programs and systems, bringing President Donald Trump’s terminology change into the daily work of U.S. diplomacy, according to two people familiar with the matter and contents of an unclassified cable obtained by Government Executive and Nextgov/FCW.

The cable — dated Monday and addressed department-wide — tells staff to use “Super Intelligence,” or “SI,” in new letters, emails, public messages, websites, reports, remarks and policy documents, subject to legal exceptions. Existing material should be updated when staff next revise it.

“All official titles and the names of Department governance bodies, systems, platforms, inventories, and programs must use SI in place of AI,” the cable states.

The instructions implement Trump’s Sept. 29 executive order, which directed executive agencies to adopt the new terminology across official communications. The cable shows how that broad instruction is being translated into specific requirements for diplomats and the department’s internal operations.

The order says the wording should reflect the advancing capabilities and promise of American technology. For now, however, it defines “Super Intelligence” as the same technologies and systems covered by the existing statutory definition of AI. In computing science, super intelligence is defined differently than the generative artificial intelligence technologies used today.

In recent weeks, administration officials had previously discussed the terminology change with certain State bureaus, people familiar with the matter said. But the cable appears to be the first organization-wide directive outlining where the new language must be used. The Associated Press previously reported such communications with State’s international organizations bureau.

The transition, while expected for some time, is significant because it would change how U.S. diplomats describe the fast-evolving technology in policy documents and discussions with overseas counterparts.

Foreign organizations retain their own names in internal writings. The cable specifically tells employees not to change references to China’s World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, even as the department replaces the term in its own materials.

The notice also spells out several exceptions to the replacement rule. Employees must preserve language required by law and existing legal citations, including quotations from statutes, regulations, treaties and other legal instruments. Contracts and grants are also excluded, pending further guidance.

Previously published documents, cables and archived web pages should not be revised or reissued solely to change the terminology, it adds. The instructions also preserve the published titles of existing presidential actions, programs and organizations, such as America’s AI Action Plan, unless the department provides further direction.

One program has already changed names. The cable says the American AI Exports Program is now the American SI Exports Program, citing an earlier State Department cable. The program’s public website already uses that name to describe its work helping American companies sell technology overseas.

For staff handling international agreements or departmental rules, the cable directs questions about terminology to the appropriate policy or legal office.

The vocabulary change is already appearing in senior officials’ public remarks. National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross repeatedly referred to AI as “super intelligence” and “SI” during an Oct. 1 discussion on AI safety, following Trump’s order.

Office of Personnel Management CIO Adam Starr also used “SI” in remarks last week, describing efforts to help agencies adopt the technology. Starr said OPM had launched a SuperIntelligence Governance and Adoption Program, or SI GAP, to assist other agencies.

]]>

Trump’s IG pick at the VA is ‘watering down’ oversight, some employees allege

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 05:58:00 -0400

Inspectors general lead watchdog offices that perform independent oversight of federal agencies. The Senate last July confirmed, along party lines, Cheryl Mason as IG of the Veterans Affairs Department. She previously served as chair of the Board of Veterans Appeals during President Donald Trump’s first term and as a senior adviser to VA Secretary Doug Collins.

During her tenure at the helm of the VA’s OIG, Mason has overseen significant staff cuts and watered down the office’s oversight work, according to some employees, who argue that services for veterans are less effective and efficient as a result.

“We all believe in this mission of the VA OIG to ensure that veterans are cared for, and they are being left out of all of these decisions that are being made. That's the bottom-line impact — it's the veteran,” said one employee. “It’s just sad. I work with a bunch of very depressed, demoralized coworkers right now.”

“We don't have the institutional knowledge”

Since the Trump administration began downsizing the civil service at the start of 2025, the VA OIG has lost about 20% of its employees, according to federal workforce data, bringing the number of staffers down to fewer than 950.

Two VA OIG staffers, who preferred to be unnamed due to fears of retaliation, both said the agency has backfilled some positions. Still, they shared that more experienced employees are struggling to balance workloads while also training new auditors and investigators.

“We don't have the infrastructure, we don't have the institutional knowledge and we don't have the programs we used to have in the past when we had [more] staff,” one of the employees said. “So it just becomes burdensome on the team members. I'm asking my staff ‘Hey, will you spend this time and train this [new person]’ while they're trying to do their inspection work. It’s slowing things down, but the expectations still remain that things need to be done timely.”

Another point of contention is that some of the recently hired staffers are permitted to work remotely, while several existing staffers relocated far distances in order to comply with the president’s return-to-office directive for the federal workforce.

The staff cuts appear to have taken a toll: the OIG issued 75% fewer audit reports in the first half of fiscal 2026 than its 2020-2024 average, according to an analysis by the Partnership for Public Service nonprofit.

Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget for the VA calls for a 4% reduction in the OIG’s funding while seeking to boost the department’s appropriation by more than 8%. During a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing with Collins in May, Chairman Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said that he felt the VA OIG’s proposed funding level was too low.

“I hope we can make certain that the IG at the VA is adequately funded to provide oversight, audit, hotline and investigative work,” he said. “And the reduction — the less funding — that's in the budget request seems to me to be damaging to that possibility.”

In response, the secretary said: “We feel like [the OIG] can do everything we need to [with that funding], but that was a number that was also agreed to by [Mason] as well.”

Michael Missal, a former VA IG who was removed by the president last January in a mass firing of the agency watchdogs, warned in an interview with Government Executive that a budget cut would likely equate to fewer auditors and investigators.

“A primary job of the IG is to make sure that money is being spent effectively and efficiently. You're trying to identify fraud, and the larger the [VA’s] budget, the more risk there is of fraud,” he said. “I would think it's a relatively smart investment to increase the IG budget, not decrease it.”

The Trump administration has prioritized combating fraud in federal programs.

“She's not going to let us say this, even if it's true”

During her confirmation hearing to become IG, Mason insisted that she does not have a “close” relationship with Collins.

But The Washington Sun reported in August that Mason regularly brings up her connection to the secretary, eliminated a certain type of alert that publicizes major issues in the VA at his urging and has edited oversight reports to avoid highlighting problems associated with staffing shortages. The department under Collins has sought to restrict hiring.

One of the OIG employees said that Mason has created a “chilling effect” across the agency.

“We look at things like, ‘Can we say this or is this even worth doing the work?’ because the IG is not going to let this out. Her interference with our work, that's the effect of it,” the employee said. “Now the question is, ‘Is this juice even worth the squeeze?’ because she's not going to let us say this, even if it's true.”

Mason told The Sun that she axed OIG preliminary alerts because they were “burdensome and not impactful,” but the OIG employee countered that they are “a very common technique used in the quality and safety realm.”

“The reason we did the [preliminary result advisory memorandums] and developed that was so we could then send it out to [the Veterans Health Administration] and say, ‘Hey VHA, we found this issue at this one facility. Now this could be a one-off, and that's great if it is, but it could be a vulnerability that exists in other places. We're not saying that you need to do any formal actions or develop an action plan, but you might want to just put it out to other facilities and ask some questions,’” they said.

Likewise, the other OIG employee said they’ve been instructed to not make staffing issues “front and center” in reports.

“It's kind of like a word of mouth through the chain of command,” they said. “Sometimes it's from the supervisor, sometimes it's from the supervisor's supervisor. They're like, ‘the IG does not want this. The IG wants this.’”

Mason told The Sun that "her office was waiting for a clearer outline on the department’s workforce goals before raising any concerns about staffing cuts." The IG added that: “It’s not about ‘gotcha’ with the department."

Nevertheless, both employees said that the public can still trust the objectivity of the VA OIG’s work, albeit with caveats.

“The work is still happening. Has it been watered down a little bit? Yes. But I do feel like the integrity of the work remains,” one argued, while the other added, “I would maybe question: Are the reports coming out painting a more positive picture of things at VA than maybe things really are?”

“You're ultimately hurting the agency”

Beyond her policy directives and oversight rollbacks, employees say Mason’s distinct leadership style and personal conduct have further contributed to friction within the agency.

The employees said that Mason frequently wears a badge, such as in this video where she recites Vice President JD Vance’s anti-fraud pledge, which has a focus on “illegal aliens.”

One of the OIG employees said that Mason wore the badge at a training.

“That was the talk. Everybody was like ‘Oh, did you see her badge?’” they recalled. “It’s unusual to see, at least the VA IG, wearing a badge.”

They also said that Mason refers to herself as a chief law enforcement officer of the VA, including in her July Fourth video message to the OIG.

“I work with law enforcement officers in the agency, and it is very disrespectful to them because they've had the training and they've risked their lives,” the other employee said. “It is a slap in the face to those individuals to have her present this way.”

Missal, the former VA IG, noted that the department has a law enforcement division, which protects VA medical centers and other facilities.

“I don't think anybody thinks an inspector general is a chief law enforcement officer of any agency because Congress set them up to be independent of the agency — not part of the agency,” he said.

In its report, The Sun also found that Mason held up the OIG’s relocation for months in order to ensure that she got a private bathroom at the new office and commissioned her own flag.

In response to several questions about the issues raised by employees in this article — including the impacts of the staff cuts, Mason's influence on what information is included in reports and her use of a law enforcement title — a spokesperson said that the VA OIG does not have a comment.

Mason’s appointment is part of a broader trend of the president installing individuals who previously worked in his administration as agency IGs. The White House last year also blocked funding for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency — a central watchdog group, which Mason was elected chair of in March — but reversed following pushback from some Senate Republicans.

Missal said he is worried that more partisan IGs will be less likely to tackle “tough issues” in their oversight work.

“If you're afraid of being critical of some of the programs because of partisanship, then you're ultimately hurting the agency,” he said. “You're hurting the people the agency benefits, which, in this case, is veterans.”

]]>

Union seeks new avenue to restore VA contract

Erich Wagner — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 05:00:00 -0400

Just weeks after a federal appellate court cleared the way for the Veterans Affairs Department to declare that its union contracts with the American Federation of Government Employees have expired, the union has filed a new motion it hopes could revive the agreement.

The VA has previously been barred from terminating its union contracts after U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose found the action likely violated employees’ First Amendment rights. But over the summer, the department announced it would let the deals expire on their own in August.

AFGE sought—for the third time—to enforce the preliminary injunction upholding their collective bargaining agreements, arguing that when the VA solicited the union to renegotiate the deal earlier this year, it triggered a clause that automatically extends the life of the current contract until a new one can be ratified. DuBose agreed, and again ordered the CBA’s reinstatement.

But earlier this month, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that decision modified DuBose’s original injunction, something improper for a case that has already been appealed. Last week, the VA declared the contract to be expired for more than 95% of its bargaining unit workers.

In response, the union filed a new motion in DuBose’s court, asking her to issue an “indicative ruling” that would modify her earlier injunction and restore the contract for the remainder of negotiations, but only if the First Circuit remanded the case for that purpose.

In the filing, AFGE continued to argue that the terms of the CBA’s automatic extension provision had been met. Despite the department’s claims that the union failed to begin bargaining within 30 days for the notice for renegotiation, the union said the parties continued to conduct ground rules negotiations until management sought assistance from the Federal Service Impasses Panel last month.

“Defendants’ most recent efforts to avoid the preliminary injunction is their manufactured dispute over the phrase ‘agreed-upon term,’” attorneys for the union wrote. “The court imposed the preliminary injunction for the ‘agreed-upon term’ of the master CBA . . . To effectuate the original intent of the preliminary injunction in light of the First Circuit’s ruling and defendants’ subsequent actions, the court should modify the preliminary injunction to specify that it will terminate when the parties have finished negotiating a new agreement.”

On the same day, the union also filed a national grievance, alleging that VA management engaged in bad-faith bargaining and multiple contract violations.

Attorneys for the VA on Monday filed a response to the union’s motion. Though the document does not address the merits of last week’s filing, it objects to the union’s request for an expedited briefing schedule, noting that a decision on the motion would not take effect immediately and citing attorneys’ obligations in other lawsuits.

“Plaintiffs acknowledge that their motion for indicative ruling, even if granted, would have no immediate effect,” the filing states. “Instead, it would merely indicate to the First Circuit that this court would modify the preliminary injunction if, in the future, the First Circuit were to remand for that purpose. A decision from the First Circuit is not imminent—the parties have not yet finished briefing the case—and the First Circuit is under no obligation to remand before it resolves the appeal.”

]]>

This cybersecurity agency is supposed to protect U.S. elections. Officials fear it’s been compromised by Trump

Doug Bock Clark and Andy Mannix, ProPublica — Mon, 19 Oct 2026 17:59:47 -0400

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

A few months into President Donald Trump’s second term, political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security made an unusual request of its agency focused on cybersecurity: Secretly acquire a voting machine and hack it.

The appointees wanted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to procure the machine, examine it and report back the findings so they could be given to the White House, according to two former administration officials with knowledge of the request.

The proposition was shocking to CISA’s career staffers, according to one of the former officials. CISA typically worked to thwart hackers. Moreover, the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices. The request made the CISA employees fear they were being asked to take part in political interference.

“My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don’t like,” one of the former officials said. “This goes against everything CISA represents.”

The CISA employees repeatedly told the political appointees that their request was impossible, in part because the agents capable of pulling off such an operation had just been laid off by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative. The appointees eventually stopped pressing CISA.

Though not acted on, the request shows how the Trump administration has tried to use the agency for its own ends while draining it of resources for one of its critical missions: protecting the nation’s voting systems.

In Trump’s second term, his administration has laid off or pushed out more than 1,000 CISA employees, shrinking the agency by about one-third. The president’s 2027 budget proposal would reduce funding for the agency by another $700 million, which could necessitate 900 additional layoffs.

In response, Democratic lawmakers have called for an investigation into CISA’s ability to do its job and demanded answers as to why federal funds are not being used to support election security as directed by Congress.

Since Trump signed the CISA Act in 2018, the agency has worked with state authorities and voting machine vendors to help protect election infrastructure from cyberattacks. During Trump’s second term, though, CISA has abandoned much of this work. Several state election authorities said the agency provided them no assistance — and no explanation for its absence — during the most critical planning stages for the upcoming midterms.

“There is a difference between deprioritizing and being nonexistent,” said Ryan Macias, an election technology and cybersecurity expert who has worked as a consultant for CISA. In 2025 and through mid-September 2026 — when the bulk of preparations for the election typically would have been completed — “they were nonexistent. Literally nonexistent.”

While Trump has repeatedly warned that America’s elections are vulnerable to hacking, in some cases repeating disproven claims, experts said his administration is undermining the federal government’s role in helping secure them.

Though CISA re-emerged in September with a last-minute security plan for the election, some state officials told ProPublica they fear that what is left of the agency has been compromised by a conspiracy-obsessed presidential administration. In recent months, in reviving debunked theories about the 2020 election, the Trump administration has declassified troves of records, including sensitive material that state officials provided to CISA. Some state authorities said they no longer trusted the administration enough to share information with CISA, a key to the agency’s success in past elections.

“They’ve violated the entire premise of that information-sharing relationship,” said one former high-ranking federal cybersecurity official who now advises state governments on national security. “There’s no fucking way they’re ever going to give any information to CISA. And it’s unclear if they ever will in the future.”

A spokesperson for the White House declined an interview request but defended Trump’s handling of election security in an emailed statement. “President Trump has done more than any other President to ensure we have free and fair elections,” said Lauren Bis.

Bis referred specific questions about CISA’s handling of elections to DHS. DHS and CISA did not respond to interview requests or to a detailed list of questions.

“There’s no fucking way [state governments are] ever going to give any information to CISA. And it’s unclear if they ever will in the future.”
A former federal cybersecurity official who advises state governments

Current and former CISA employees and state election officials describe an agency that has become significantly less equipped to help states fight legitimate cyber threats. State leaders say they have used their own resources to shore up gaps left by CISA, such as paying for sensor technology that can detect unusual activity in election networks. But some services, like intel on foreign actors, can’t be replicated. Some people interviewed said they were worried that Trump and his allies continue to ratchet up rhetoric about voting security, particularly about threats to voting machines. Officials in one large voting jurisdiction said they have met privately with machine vendors to come up with a contingency plan if the federal government seizes their machines or declares them unusable.

“I don’t pay attention to what the president says. I pay attention to what his administration does,” Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said. “And what they’ve done is basically cut us off and left us on our own.”

Defending elections from hackers wasn’t always part of DHS’s remit.

Throughout the mid-1990s and 2000s, a series of cyberattacks rocked the federal government, demonstrating the emerging threat. In 2007, hackers broke into the Pentagon and stole terabytes of sensitive data. The digital heist, by an unknown foreign adversary, was so damaging that one intelligence leader later described it as an “espionage Pearl Harbor.”

Under George W. Bush, DHS underwent a reorganization to more effectively combat terrorism and respond to disasters like Hurricane Katrina. The department dedicated resources under an office called the National Protection and Programs Directorate to help fortify advanced cyber defense systems and important infrastructure. The office’s work ranged from helping secure events like the Super Bowl to protecting chemical plants to issuing cybersecurity warnings to the private sector and the public. In 2018, Trump signed a bill making the office a stand-alone agency, allowing for more federal funding and transforming it into, essentially, the ultimate tech support desk for anything DHS designated “critical infrastructure.” The bill renamed the agency CISA.

Though Trump helped create CISA, he didn’t much appreciate the work the agency did under its old name to expose the extent of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Russian agents had unleashed a massive disinformation campaign, with a Kremlin-backed troll farm creating thousands of social media accounts posing as Americans and promoting Trump, according to bipartisan reports from the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released before the 2020 election. A dozen Russian military agents were indicted for what the Justice Department described as “a sustained effort to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.”

Trump publicly downplayed this interference, but DHS leadership saw the Russia attack as an escalation. In January 2017, before Trump took office, DHS upgraded America’s elections to the status of critical infrastructure. This placed the polls and all voting technology used in federal elections under the watch of what would soon become CISA.

To carry out this function, CISA needed help. But states and voting machine vendors were wary about sharing data on weaknesses in voting systems, fearing it could be exploited if certain details were to become public. State officials were also reluctant to cede any role in election preparation to the federal government.

Gradually, though, CISA and state election officials negotiated a fragile trust. At its center was a commitment: The sensitive information states and vendors shared with CISA would be kept confidential.

“It took years and years of building trust, of talking to election officials, of hiring people with elections experience who could be validators for the work that CISA wanted to do, before they finally built strong working relationships,” said Derek Tisler, who specializes in election security as counsel for the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan institute based out of New York University School of Law.

Under Director Chris Krebs, CISA hosted penetration testing in which its agents would try to hack into a state’s system to locate weaknesses that could then be patched, along with tabletop exercises simulating a series of potential catastrophes around elections. CISA also offered regular secret-level briefings to secretaries of state to share federal intelligence. And CISA paid for sensor technology that looked for potential malicious online activity on election networks, notifying officials about emerging threats.

“The staffing was there, the expertise was there, the visibility was there, the funding was there,” Macias said.

The consortium shared data as run of the mill as spambots as well as more serious threats. If Virginia caught unusual activity in its system, it could let other states know to be vigilant.

While CISA had prepared for attacks from the Chinese and Russian governments, or lone wolf hackers, few there had expected the threat to elections would come from inside the White House. But when Trump refused to concede to Joe Biden in 2020, claiming the vote had been rigged, CISA became a key component of the guardrails that ultimately led to the election results being certified.

The agency, in a statement co-signed by secretaries of state and voting machine vendors, vouched for the election’s integrity, calling it “the most secure in American history.” When Krebs publicly rebutted claims amplified by the White House as “unsubstantiated” or “technically incoherent,” Trump fired him over Twitter.

As Congress prepared to vote on certifying the election results, it was members of CISA, along with the FBI, who convinced then-Attorney General Bill Barr that the conspiracy theories embraced by the president could be explained by human error, not systemic fraud or hacking.

When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, his administration immediately started to dismantle CISA. The administrative notices were sent out just a couple of weeks after the inauguration and included the team in charge of dispelling disinformation.

For the employees under the DOGE microscope, work became impossible, said one former senior CISA employee. “Those groups couldn’t even order a pizza.”

DOGE laid off people critical to the agency’s election work, including those who’d worked closely with states. The Trump administration cut funding for the technology that monitored web and election servers, blinding the federal government to breaches it had detected.

When it came time for states to prepare for the 2026 midterms, CISA had disappeared.

On the evening of July 16, in the Black Hills of South Dakota, dozens of election officials and their staffs gathered for a reception near Mount Rushmore. It was the third night of an annual conference for secretaries of state, drawing participants from red and blue states. They’d spent the week discussing state voter roll maintenance and voter ID — issues that at times made for disagreements.

At about 8 p.m., a wave of discomfort swept through the crowd, visible on attendees’ faces as they glanced frequently at their phones, according to people at the event. Any minute now, Trump was going to address the nation on election security. Some at the reception worried he would declare a national emergency, as his allies had urged him to do months earlier, and use it as a pretext to direct the government to seize voting machines.

Then reports on the speech began rolling in, and the mood shifted. The claims Trump was making were unsubstantiated and outlandish. Many had been examined ad nauseam, including by those at the reception, and roundly debunked. The collective anxiety that was palpable moments earlier melted away, as many saw the speech as another attempt to revive disproved theories unlikely to be taken seriously by most voters.

“Everyone just sort of guffawed and put their phones away and went to the bar,” recalled Quinn Raymond, co-founder of VoteShield, a nonprofit that works with states to help monitor voter registration data, who was at the event.

Still, if the speech made little impact, records published by the Trump administration to support the president’s claims damaged the already eroding relationship between CISA and state election officials. The material included raw information states had shared with the agency that was supposed to remain private, such as a log of communications from Election Day 2020 detailing activity being monitored in several states.

“It betrayed the trust of all partners who were willing to share information at the time,” said Geoff Hale, who worked on CISA’s elections team from the agency’s inception until last year. Now he specializes in election security at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for digital and civil rights.

Bis, the White House spokesperson, denied that the Trump administration broke any agreements in releasing the information. “The release of such information is exactly the sort of transparency news organizations should applaud,” she said. Bis also defended Trump’s speech, saying it had been fact-checked “by the agencies whose evidence was released and did not mischaracterize any information.”

Hale and others said the speech was one of several instances demonstrating the Trump administration’s reckless attitude toward sensitive data collected by CISA. Earlier this year, Politico reported that acting CISA Director Madhu Gottumukkala had uploaded records to ChatGPT, even though DHS had barred its employees from using the unsecure program. A CISA spokesperson told Politico that Gottumukkala had been permitted to use the technology for a “short-term and limited” basis.

Last May, an independent journalist named Brian Krebs exposed that CISA published private data, including passwords, cloud keys and other information, on its public GitHub page, in a folder labeled “Private-CISA.” A CISA spokesperson told the journalist there was no indication that sensitive data was compromised.

Some state election authorities were also alarmed to see the lengths to which the Trump administration went to legitimize the president’s fixation on the 2020 race.

In fall 2025, Missouri election officials produced a memo stating Andrew McCoy Warner, a Department of Justice official and prominent 2020 election conspiracy theorist, had called several clerks asking for access to voting machines. Tulsi Gabbard, then the director of national intelligence, had also led an operation in Puerto Rico to seize election machines. When the private cybersecurity contractor hired to examine the machines, Mojave Research Inc., failed to find evidence supporting claims about 2020, the federal government became “dissastified” with its services and stopped renewing its contract, its CEO later told reporters.

A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told reporters in August that Mojave’s work ceased because it had completed its contract. Testifying before Congress in March, Gabbard said the seizing of voting machines came at the request of an assistant U.S. attorney in Puerto Rico.

“What happened in the second Trump administration is from almost day one — I mean, literally the first two months — they took all that was built up by Trump 1 and just decimated it,” said David Becker, founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonprofit that works with state election authorities. “Election officials lost trust in the federal government.”

It didn’t help that, in his speech, the president mocked CISA’s defense of the 2020 election, calling the statement about it being the most secure in history a “very pat line” concocted as part of a deep-state cover-up. One former career CISA employee described being crestfallen at the Trump administration’s erosion of all they’d accomplished.

“We worked so hard to build that trusted relationship,” said Caitlin Durkovich, former DHS assistant secretary for infrastructure protection and co-founder of the cybersecurity firm Civira Partners. “I don’t know how you put it back together.”

A few weeks after Trump’s speech, the state election officials gathered once more, this time for a video call with Nick Andersen, who had replaced Gottumukkala as CISA’s acting director.

Though the primaries were already under way, this was the first time many had met Andersen, a former cybersecurity adviser to Trump’s White House who had joined CISA a year earlier. Andersen is also a district representative for the Republican Party in Virginia, according to the party’s website. In March, he gave a speech to the Fairfax GOP chapter titled “Fighting Democrat Redistricting.”

Speaking over video in August, the boyish-faced former Marine Corps engineer announced that DHS was preparing to release a plan on how it would work together with state officials to secure the election, according to five people who were present at the video meeting, some of whom shared notes with ProPublica.

Many on the call were stunned at what they perceived as a lack of understanding of election planning. Early voting for the general election was just around the corner. They had spent over a year preparing for the midterms, and there was no more time for ambitious work.

Some peppered Andersen with questions: Where had CISA been when there was still time to make improvements?

Andersen blamed any lapses or perceived breaches in trust on the federal government shutdown in fall 2025, twirling his pen uncomfortably and sipping from a Monster energy drink.

Fontes, Arizona’s secretary of state, was blunt about his feelings regarding working with Andersen and CISA, according to several of the people on the call.

“I told him I didn’t trust him,” Fontes recalled in an interview. “I did raise my voice a little bit, because I’m frustrated — very frustrated — that they would have the temerity to come in, clear the entire deck of competent professionals, stop supporting the states, eviscerate the coordination efforts that they had and then suddenly come in and say: ‘Oh, we’re from the federal government. We’re here to help.’”

Indeed, one recently departed CISA official said attempting to do the agency’s typical election work now would be futile. In previous years, CISA had finished almost all its preparations with the states by Labor Day.

“That ship has sailed,” the official said.

CISA published its security plan for the 2026 election on Sept. 24. The 13-page document describes how, over the past two years, CISA has “recommitted to its statutory mission and remains resolute in strengthening the security of elections.”

State officials said their planning will ensure a secure election, even without help from CISA. Yet they and cybersecurity experts worry that Trump will say the election was hacked if Republicans don’t win in November.

The security plan calls for “leveraging collaborative partnerships” with states the agency has abandoned since Trump took office. Shenna Bellows, Maine’s secretary of state, said she’d welcome that but was skeptical of the agency’s motivations.

“For CISA to promise election officials now, at this point in time, that they are going to be a resource for the 2026 election is too little, too late,” she said.

]]>

Senator warns hundreds of federal web addresses may lack key spying protection

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 19 Oct 2026 10:52:00 -0400

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is urging the Trump administration to close an encryption gap that could let foreign adversaries track visits to sensitive government websites, including the FBI’s tip portal and a veterans crisis line, according to a letter sent to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Office of Management and Budget on Monday and first seen by Nextgov/FCW.

Wyden asked CISA and OMB to require that agencies implement a web security standard that hides the name of the website someone is visiting. The protocol, known as Encrypted Client Hello, protects the website name when a user’s browser connects to a site and has been supported by major browsers and some web infrastructure providers since 2023.

Wyden’s office identified 350 federal web addresses that lack the encryption specification. They include sites that facilitate intelligence community job applications, immigration services, health information and U.S. diplomatic websites around the world.

“This visibility could lead to malicious eavesdroppers identifying whistleblowers, profiling cleared federal personnel, tracking Americans seeking crisis support, and mapping interactions between agencies,” Wyden wrote to CISA acting director Nick Andersen and deputy federal chief information officer Thomas Flagg.

He also asked OMB, working with CISA and the Office of the National Cyber Director, to require that cloud and network providers support the technology to qualify for federal contracts. He requested responses by Nov. 20.

Nextgov/FCW has requested comments from CISA and OMB.

Federal websites generally encrypt the information people read or submit, though hackers can still learn which sites they visit by monitoring their internet traffic.

The letter singles out two services whose visitors could be particularly vulnerable.

The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Veterans Crisis Line platform uses Amazon Web Services, which does not currently support ECH for the site, according to the letter. Wyden warned that the exposure could help foreign adversaries identify veterans seeking mental health assistance. Additionally, the FBI’s tips.fbi.gov site uses Cloudflare, a provider that supports ECH, but the portal has not enabled it, the senator added, arguing the current arrangement could put people contacting the bureau at risk of identification.

The possible FBI exposure also comes after a prolific criminal hacker group recently stole troves of sensitive employee information tied to the bureau’s jobs portal.

The list of sites without the protocol also includes hotline.oig.dhs.gov, the DHS inspector general’s complaint hotline; civilrights.justice.gov, the Justice Department’s civil rights reporting portal; and apply.intelligencecareers.gov, an intelligence community recruitment site. Federal HIV information sites, including hivinfo.nih.gov and clinicalinfo.hiv.gov, are also listed.

To craft the list, Wyden’s staffers tested federal web addresses using third-party network providers to see if ECH successfully hid which specific websites were being visited, a spokesperson told Nextgov/FCW. The protection only appeared to work on sites relying on Cloudflare’s free service tier, the spokesperson added.

The letter does not establish that adversaries have tracked visitors to any of the listed addresses.

Wyden argued the government can close these gaps using technology already supported by major browsers and deployed across millions of websites. For agencies whose providers support ECH, enabling it can be as simple as changing a setting, he said.

“Modern federal zero trust cybersecurity practices rely on protective software installed directly on agency devices, so enabling [Encrypted Client Hello] would strictly improve the cybersecurity of federal networks,” Wyden wrote.

The effort follows his September call for NSA to update its advice about virtual private networks. A Congressional Research Service analysis requested by his office at the time warned that foreign intelligence services with broad visibility into internet traffic could potentially connect VPN users to websites by comparing traffic patterns.

]]>

Enforcement ‘surge’ from DOJ, IRS uncovers $490M in suspected tax fraud

Jory Heckman — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 18:06:21 -0400

The Justice Department, working with the IRS and its criminal investigation unit, is stepping up efforts to prosecute cases of alleged tax fraud.

DOJ told reporters Wednesday that the tax section of its newly established National Fraud Enforcement Division is prosecuting 76 individuals for $490 million in alleged tax fraud schemes.

Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald, the head of DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division, said that those 76 prosecutions are a mix of new charges filed this week, as well as dozens of convictions through guilty pleas and “numerous sentencings of criminal fraudsters”

DOJ is touting these prosecutions as the results of its first “national tax enforcement surge,” which began in early September.

The Government Accountability Office estimates the federal government loses up to $304 billion in tax fraud annually. McDonald said more taxpayer dollars go to fraudsters every year than the combined budgets of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and Interior.

“No program is off limits for a fraudster. They will take from all of us until there is nothing left. Fraud against the American taxpayer is a crisis of the first order,” McDonald said.

Attorney General Todd Blanche launched DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division in April. So far, it has announced over 1,000 fraud enforcement actions.

“Medicaid fraud, SNAP fraud, HUD fraud, Social Security fraud, SBA fraud, and the list goes on and on,” McDonald said.

The alleged fraud cases include individuals who used other people’s names and tax information to file fraudulent tax returns, and instances of payroll tax fraud – in which employers collect Social Security and Medicare taxes from employees, but pocketed the money instead of paying it to the IRS.

“We are not looking for the person who clicked the wrong button on an online filing form.

We are not looking for the family that misread a line on their tax return, or the small business owner who inadvertently claimed a deduction, but turned out not to qualify. We are looking for people who lied on purpose to take money that they knew did not belong to them,” he said.

IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisigano said improving tax compliance is one of his “top priorities,” that the agency is relying on data analytics to “focus our enforcement efforts where they matter most.”

“Technology can only assist us, and we will continue to invest in it and using it to drive these efforts even further,” Bisigano said.

Bisignano and other senior IRS officials recently told employees at an all-staff meeting that the agency will invest in more AI tools to shrink the “tax gap” between the revenue the IRS collects every year, and the amount individuals and companies actually owe.

IRS Criminal Investigation Chief and Chief Tax Compliance Officer Jarod Koopman said the IRS and DOJ “remain committed to uncovering these schemes and holding offenders accountable.”

“If you purposely exploit the tax system, we will find you, we will prosecute you. And we will not stand by as you continue to steal from the American public,” Koopman said.

DOJ and IRS officials said this won’t be the last tax fraud enforcement surge of its kind. But it's not yet clear how much money they'll claw back from suspected fraudsters.

“Without strong security of protocols at the front end, preventing money from going to fraudsters, at that first step, a lot of that money gets spent – it dissipates,” McDonald said, adding that the fraud Enforcement Division is creating an asset forfeiture and recovery team “so that we can go after the proceeds as best that we can.”

“If those proceeds have gone into, for instance, a Rolls-Royce, or a luxury mansion, or an apartment building in Kenya, or whatever it might be, we will be using those tools as effectively as we can to ensure that we can recover that,” McDonald said.

The IRS, under the Biden administration, planned on tapping into billions of dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act to hire more enforcement personnel. In July 2024, it recovered $1 billion from wealthy individuals behind on their tax obligations.

But Congress has rescinded much of the IRA funding, and the IRS has shed more than a quarter of its total workforce under the Trump administration.

The latest data from the Office of Personnel Management shows the IRS has seen a net reduction of 240 employees in the 1811 criminal investigation job series since Jan. 20, 2025.

]]>

Judge again orders reinstatement of Bureau of Prisons union contracts, but stops short of contempt

Erich Wagner — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:10:31 -0400

A federal judge in Connecticut on Friday ordered the U.S. Bureau of Prisons again to reinstate its collective bargaining agreement, ruling that last week’s re-termination of union contracts violated the preliminary injunction he issued last month.

In September, U.S. District Judge Vernon Oliver found that the Bureau of Prisons’ move last year to terminate its union contracts with the American Federation of Government Employees likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency’s official reasoning was “entirely pretextual.”

But last week, the union reported that several wardens across the federal prison system were instructed not to take action to reinstate the agreements, and at least one employee was denied union representation in a disciplinary meeting in which they were ultimately fired. AFGE’s Council of Prison Locals called for Oliver to enforce his court order and to hold agency leadership in contempt.

The following day, the union reported that some pieces of the CBA were restored on a limited basis—some officials began seeing requests for official time, office space and union representation at a committee meeting approved. But the agency then issued a new termination notice and rescinded prior statements about the first contract cancellation, particularly a blog post from Director William Marshall that stated AFGE wasn’t the “kind of union” he supports.

In a 14-page opinion Friday, Oliver found that last week’s re-termination violated his order, describing the gambit as impermissible “self help.” Such a move would only be fruitful if, as the Biden administration did when it rescinded the “remain in Mexico” policy, the agency presented its new termination to the court prior to implementing it and then requested modification or rescission of the injunction.

“At no point did the defendants in Biden v. Texas seek to disregard a court order,” Oliver wrote. “Instead, they complied with the injunction, despite issuing a new action, and only sought to implement it after moving to vacate the original injunction . . . Here, in contrast, the defendants failed to move the court for amendment, clarification or dissolution. . . Rather than abiding by this order, defendants issued the re-termination memorandum, which purported to terminate the CBA under new rationale.”

But the judge stopped short of granting the unions’ request as it pertained to whether the agency initially “defied” the injunction, and he denied the motion to hold leadership in contempt. Oliver wrote that BOP plausibly raised the notion that “administrative burden” was to blame for the agency’s slow reinstitution of the CBA, and that individual violations of the contract should be handled through its own procedures.

“Individual instances of noncompliance with the CBA, such as failing to allow union representation at disciplinary proceedings or delaying responses to official time requests, are properly addressed under the agreement itself,” the order states. “The CBA has an extensive grievance process for managing individual complaints of noncompliance. Those concerns are properly addressed under the CBA—not by this court.”

In a statement Friday, Council of Prison Locals President Brandy Moore White applauded the judge’s ruling and urged management to comply.

“The employees we represent work in some of the most challenging and dangerous conditions in federal service, and their union contract gives them a collaborative way to speak out when their safety or the safety of the public is in jeopardy,” White said. “Our members deserve nothing less than full compliance with the court’s decision, and we will keep fighting for our members to ensure the safety and security of the workers we represent.”

]]>

VA allows union contract to expire for most employees

Erich Wagner — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:06:45 -0400

The Veterans Affairs Department this week told employees that it has let its collective bargaining agreements with the American Federation of Government Employees expire, weeks after a federal appeals court ruling stayed an order requiring management to honor the deal amid negotiations for a successor deal.

As part of its efforts to implement President Trump’s executive order banning collective bargaining for most federal workers on national security grounds, the VA had sought for months to terminate its union contracts, including two instances where the cancellation was blocked in court.

In July, the VA announced that it would let the contract lapse upon its scheduled Aug. 8 expiration date. AFGE officials argued that when the VA last spring requested to begin negotiations on a successor agreement, it triggered a clause in the CBA that extends its provisions indefinitely until those negotiations are complete.

But VA management said the union failed to come to the bargaining table within 30 days, negating that provision. Union officials, conversely, argue the ground rules negotiations they engaged in throughout that 30-day window meet the clause’s requirements. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose agreed and again halted the contract’s termination, but a three-judge panel found that decision improperly modified the scope of her original injunction, allowing the department to proceed.

In a message to employees Tuesday, obtained by Government Executive, VA management pitched the removal of AFGE as an opportunity to improve communication within the department.

“Employees and managers can more freely engage in open communications to improve the organization,” the message stated. “You may also see changes to some of the processes and procedures that were previously contained in the now-expired AFGE collective bargaining agreement. Managers have been directed to exclusively follow VA policy for all matters, including, but not limited to, promotions, alternative work schedules, details, hours of work, telework and leave usage . . . You are encouraged to discuss all workplace matters directly with your supervisor.”

And in guidance from the department’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, the department said it would maintain portions of the expired CBA, albeit only for its police officers, firefighters and security guards—jobs exempted from Trump’s executive order. Specifically, management said it would preserve only contract articles pertaining to conditions of employment, and disregard provisions governing non-mandatory subjects of bargaining.

Most VA workers will also lose their Weingarten right to have a union representative present during disciplinary proceedings or other formal discussions, something department first responders will retain.

Similarly, the department will continue to provide union office space in facilities with exempt employees, primarily VA medical facilities. But employees banned from collective bargaining may only enter union office space while off duty.

Management also said that while it is ending its participation in any grievance proceeding or case before the Federal Labor Relations Authority involving “non-exempt employees,” it will continue to participate in cases involving exempt workers, and it will seek to carve non-first responders out of any cases involving a mix of employees.

“If the underlying grievance covers or appears to cover both exempted employees and non-exempted employees, VA should continue to participate in the grievance and arbitration procedure only to the extent it covers exempted employees, but continue to raise EO 14251, the CBA expiration, and all related arguments/positions) . . . at every stage of the grievance and arbitration procedure,” VA wrote. “Further, if the matter involves both exempted employees and non-exempted employees, VA should request the matter be held in abeyance until the litigation related to EO 14251 and VA’s implementation thereof is resolved.”

In a blog post this week, AFGE said it will continue to fight for the restoration of its contract for all VA bargaining-unit employees, and that it is examining potential next steps.

“Notably, the First Circuit [Court of Appeals] did not sanction the VA’s interpretation of the Duration of Agreement article, nor did it give the VA permission to re-terminate the CBA,” the union wrote. “[Our] fight is far from over. We will take every action to defend our contract and the rule of law. The court has not ruled on the underlying issue in this case, which is whether VA Secretary Doug Collins has the right to strip more than 300,000 VA employees of their voices at work.”

]]>

USPS ‘ready to deliver’ ballots in midterms without mail-in voting EO restrictions

Jory Heckman — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 08:46:20 -0400

Top officials at the Postal Service say the agency is ready to deliver mail-in ballots on time ahead of November’s midterm elections, using the same playbook from previous elections.

USPS executives told reporters on Thursday that the agency will be deploying the same “extraordinary measures” from previous election cycles, and that the agency has a solid record using these measures to ensure ballots get to election officials on time.

USPS officials said this election cycle will largely be business as usual for the agency, after the Supreme Court blocked the agency from implementing an executive order President Donald Trump signed in March imposing new rules on mail-in voting.

A final rule USPS released in August would have required states planning to send mail-in or absentee ballots to provide USPS with a list of participating voters. The final rule also established new barcode and envelope-formatting requirements.

USPS on its website states that it is not “implementing or enforcing” its final rule, and that “our processes and procedures for this year will be consistent with previous election cycles.”

Postmaster General David Steiner said USPS “is ready to deliver a successful election mail season.”

USPS will begin its “extraordinary measures” starting Oct. 24 to expedite the delivery of completed mail-in ballots to election officials. Those include extra deliveries and collections, special pickups, expanded hours at processing plants, Sunday collections and visual checks of various points for ballots.

Steiner said USPS has proven capable of carrying out these extraordinary measures, and that “these procedures have proven successful in past general elections.”

“We are all systems go for next month's midterm general election,” he said.

USPS’ law enforcement agency, the Postal Inspection Service, is investigating suspicious letters, including several sent to state officials who oversee election operations.

Deputy Chief Inspector Brendan Donahue said USPIS and the FBI are investigating a “series of suspicious mailing that have been sent,” including to several secretaries of state’s offices

“This is a series of suspicious mailings. Some of the letters have contained an unknown substance, and we're working closely with our law enforcement partners to respond to each incident,” Donahue said. “I can confirm that we have intercepted some of these letters, and they are in law enforcement possession.”

NBC News reported that in Ohio, Louisiana and Oklahoma were sent packages with an unknown substance. Donahue declined to comment on the number of suspicious letters USPIS is investigating.

The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) and the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) said in a statement Wednesday that they are “deeply concerned by these incidents,” and that “threats against election officials and workers have no place in our democracy.”

“Those who administer our elections should never fear for their safety while carrying out their essential duties,” they said.

Incidents like this occurred in previous election cycles. The Guardian reported that in the 2024 election cycle, 14 election offices received mail containing a white powder. In some cases, the substance was determined to be flour. In 2023, the Associated Press reported that election offices in six states also received mail containing white powder – which in some cases contained trace amounts of fentanyl.

Amber McReynolds, chairwoman of the USPS Board of Governors, said the agency has more than enough capacity to deliver ballots on time. USPS processes and delivers about 370 million pieces of mail six days a week. In the 2024 presidential election, more than 165 million individuals voted and USPS handled nearly 100 million mail-in ballots.

“That 165 million total votes is not even half of the volume that we handle on a daily basis,” McReynolds said.

McReynolds said that intelligent mail barcodes that power ballot-tracking systems and visibility of election mail within the USPS network “are so vital for the overall structure to improve.” USPS provides nonbinding guidance to states on envelopes and barcodes, but its final rule blocked by the Supreme Court would have allowed the agency to reject ballots that didn’t meet its standards.

"This work is about more than operational effectiveness. It's also about the public's trust. Every eligible voter should feel confident that the processing and delivery of election mail and the administration of our elections are handled professionally and securely, and that the people involved in these processes are doing everything they can to honorably fulfill their responsibilities,” McReynolds said.

USPS Chief Customer and Marketing Officer Steve Monteith said that in the 2024 presidential election and the 2022 midterm election, USPS delivered 99.9% of ballots from voters to election officials within seven days – and that on average, USPS delivered ballots in less than two days.

“The total number of ballots and so forth is a small percentage, about 1% of the total of what we deliver,” Monteith said.

Adrienne Marshall, USPS director of election and government mail services, said the agency’s goal is to “meet or exceed the impressive election mail performance we had in the 2022 and 2024 elections.”

USPS generally recommends voters drop their completed ballots in the mail at least a week before their state election office’s deadline. Some states may recommend allowing even more time.

USPS as part of cost-cutting measures, has reconfigured its postal processing facilities and transportation network. As part of its “Regional Transportation Optimization” (RTO) strategy, the agency is running trucks less often between processing plants and post offices to transport mail. A recent study from the Brookings Institution found that roughly 40% of mail-in ballots returned by voters come from places where the nearest post office is impacted by RTO.

As a result, the postmark applied at USPS processing facilities may happen a day after a voter dropped their ballot off in the mail. Voters can request a same-day postmark from the clerk behind the counter of their local postal office.

Monteith said RTO has been “about 65% to 70% implemented,” but that implementation will be paused temporarily for the election cycle, starting on Oct. 17.

"We'll have no more implementations of RTO. So what's in place is in place. The recommendation for voters is what we've always said, which if you choose to vote by mail, make sure you know what the requirements are for your election jurisdiction, and then mail at least seven days before that ballot is due," he said.

]]>

CMS hopes to quadruple provider suspensions over next 6 months, official says

Christian Robles — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 08:38:00 -0400

SANTA FE, N.M. — The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services plans to expand provider suspensions and publish the results of a pilot testing whether artificial intelligence can prevent Medicaid fraud, a senior agency official said Thursday.

The two moves are the latest in the Trump administration’s technology-enabled drive to trim fraud, waste and abuse in federal health care programs. The push has helped yield $41.9 billion in savings for fiscal year 2025, or a 59% increase over the previous year, according to a slideshow CMS Deputy Administrator Kimberly Brandt presented at the ADAPT conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

In April 2026, CMS launched a “Medicaid War Room” to curtail fraud, waste and abuse. The CMS arm has stopped $342 million in improper payments as of Sept. 2026 and sent 124 notices of intent to exclude providers, according to the slideshow.

“My hope is that suspension number will quadruple over the course of the next six months,” following new exclusion authority granted by the Health and Human Services Department earlier this week, Brandt said.

With that power, CMS can kick providers out of Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and other federal health care programs. Brandt previously said she urged congressional offices to give CMS the exclusion authority.

Beyond CMS’ push to exclude certain providers, Brandt noted that the agency is piloting AI and machine learning to detect Medicaid fraud.

The pilots use AI to flag suspicious billing patterns — such as upcoding, phantom services and geographic anomalies — in near real-time before Medicaid payments are made, according to the slideshow. The pilots are also testing a shared platform where CMS, Medicaid Fraud Control Units, program integrity contractors, states and law enforcement work on high-risk cases together.

“If proven out, the goal is to scale this into a national, standardized, continuously improving platform that stops fraudulent Medicaid payments before they’re made,” the slideshow said.

Brandt said CMS will soon publish the results of an Indiana Medicaid fraud pilot the agency conducted with Oracle, and that it is also actively working with five other states on Medicaid pilots. But the agency is also using other technologies to further its mission to combat fraud, waste and abuse.

CMS is utilizing a “Netflix-type algorithm” that compares new providers and suppliers with ones the agency already has a relationship with, Brandt said. The technology allows CMS to put suspicious providers and suppliers on a watchlist for the first six months after they enter a federal health care program. The agency has cut about 67% of those providers and suppliers because they did not follow or comply with program rules, she said.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration announced it cut subsidies for 189,000 people on the Affordable Care Act exchanges after it found those same enrollees had duplicate health care coverage or were dead. The administration said it found some of the duplicate beneficiaries through periodic data matching of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Brandt added that the agency is “doing even more” analysis of the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File so as not to issue payments to dead people, though she did not elaborate on what the analysis was.

Even so, CMS’ use of technology to claw back fraud has not been perfect, Brandt acknowledged.

“There are a lot of things about WISeR that are not working,” Brandt said, referring to a controversial pilot of AI-supported prior authorizations of Medicare items and services that have a high risk for fraud.

Hospitals and Democratic lawmakers have criticized the six-year initiative for delaying and denying seniors’ access to care since it launched at the beginning of the year. The House Ways and Means Committee advanced a provision to end the WISeR program in June, while the Senate has rejected efforts to stop it.

“Especially because of the congressional scrutiny on [the WISeR program, CMS Innovation Center staff] are committed to trying to get that right and get it better,” Brandt said.

Among the lessons CMS has learned from the WISeR model are that technology requires continuous oversight, human clinical review is essential and provider feedback is an important monitoring signal, according to the slideshow.

]]>

HUD’s staffing cuts hurt certain housing services, watchdog finds

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 16:45:51 -0400

Updated at 6:35 p.m. ET Oct. 15

Grantees, property managers and national housing organizations reported to government auditors that it has become more difficult to work with the Housing and Urban Development Department following last year’s staff cuts, according to a watchdog report that was publicly released on Wednesday.

The Government Accountability Office found that HUD’s workforce decreased by about 29% between December 2024 and 2025, going down to roughly 6,300 workers. Most staffers left under the deferred resignation program, and 41% of the departing employees had more than 20 years of department service.

Based on interviews with representatives from 20 housing stakeholder organizations, auditors determined that last year’s downsizing made it harder for these groups to get information from HUD.

For example:

All Fair Housing Initiatives Program grantees and agencies that GAO interviewed reported that they were either unsure who their HUD grant administrator was or had less communication with a newly assigned official.
One organization shared that “questions that previously received same-day responses could take up to 30 days.”
A public housing agency said that it could not access the department’s grant and subsidy disbursement system for three months because “it took time to find a HUD employee with the proper administrative rights to the system to grant [the agency’s] new executive director access to the system. During that period, the PHA used reserve funds to cover salaries, utilities and other operating costs but was unable to pay some contractors.”

GAO noted that HUD has announced several proposals to improve efficiency, including updating IT systems, creating a unified grants system and launching a service delivery improvement initiative. But auditors said that the department did not respond to their request to discuss the status of these programs.

“These initiatives may help HUD modernize and improve the delivery of its programs and services,” they wrote. “However, it is too soon to assess their effectiveness or the extent to which they will help HUD achieve its mission.”

In response to a request for comment, HUD said that it "remains laser-focused on delivering the gold standard of service" and has reduced backlogs of civil rights and fair housing cases.

“Under President Trump and Secretary Turner’s leadership, HUD has restored its commitment to efficiency and stewardship," a spokesperson said in a statement to Government Executive. "While the Biden administration turned a blind eye to this massive amount of waste and abuse, we are standing up for the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars, so every cent serves our most vulnerable instead of lining the pockets of homeless industrial complex millionaires."

In the spring, the department began moving the majority of its headquarters workforce from a building in Washington, D.C., to a new location in Alexandria, Va. The Trump administration has argued that the relocation will save money and provide HUD workers with a better office building.

The District of Columbia in July filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the move, pointing to the lack of congressional approval and a statutory requirement that HUD be established in the “seat of government.” The filing said that more than 80% of headquarters employees have been reassigned to the Alexandria office.

This story has been updated with a statement from HUD.

]]>

AI offers Secret Service unique mission enhancements, official says

Edward Graham — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 16:41:16 -0400

Artificial intelligence is providing the U.S. Secret Service with new capabilities to carry out its protective and investigative missions, the agency’s IT and AI lead said on Thursday, with further adoption of the technologies poised to help it respond even better to future risk environments.

Given the Secret Service’s directive to both safeguard top U.S. officials and visiting dignitaries and to conduct criminal investigations, Chief Information Officer and Chief AI Officer Chris Kraft said “we have to look broadly at what's the art of the possible” when it comes to leveraging AI for its operations.

While Secret Service, like other federal agencies, has leveraged AI to streamline mundane back-office operations or other rote tasks — Kraft noted during the SAP Public Sector Summit in Washington, D.C., that “with generative AI, there's huge opportunity to automate things, such as invoice processing or contracts or other capabilities” — its unique mission positions it to utilize some of the more cutting-edge AI capabilities.

The service is trying to navigate an unprecedented threat environment with an understaffed workforce. During an interview with 60 Minutes on Sunday, Secret Service Director Sean Curran said threats against the agency’s full-time protectees are up more than 40% since last year, with around 10,000 threats made on those individuals since January.

“I believe that artificial intelligence can help us as we investigate those threats, monitor those threats [and] bring together correlations between seemingly disparate information,” Kraft said, referencing Curran’s interview. “I also think when you look at facial recognition and biometrics, [you see] the things that you can do — and at scale — with artificial intelligence.”

Kraft said, for instance, that an object detection tool could help the agency quickly identify how many individuals are in one space “at a speed that a human is not able to do that.”

The Secret Service currently lists three AI use cases in its most recent public inventory, with two of those uses — a model to support criminal investigations through facial recognition matches and another that is used to decipher license plates from poor-quality images or videos — currently deployed by the agency. Kraft said the agency’s AI adoption is meant to empower Secret Service’s human agents to better carry out their duties.

In an interview with Nextgov/FCW earlier this year, Kraft also said the Secret Service is working to embed AI specialists across its operations to help drive further adoption of AI tools.

Kraft highlighted that initiative on Thursday and said developing an internal AI team will allow experts to “go and work with different parts of the organization and accelerate, where it makes sense, our adoption of the technology.”

]]>

Federal retirees face more than a COLA change in 2027

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 15:00:00 -0400

If you’re retired from federal service, a bigger benefit check in 2027 is welcome news. But how much more you’ll get depends on your retirement system, and there are other changes on the horizon that could affect your bottom line.

The cost-of-living adjustment announced this week is 3.6% for CSRS annuities, Social Security benefits, military retirement benefits and VA disability benefits. Eligible FERS annuities will get a smaller 2.6% increase. Here’s what that means for your retirement check.

CSRS retirement and survivor benefits

If you receive a CSRS annuity, your monthly payment will increase by 3.6%. A $4,000 monthly annuity, for example, would go up by about $144, bringing it to approximately $4,144 before deductions. Survivor annuities get the same adjustment, though your first COLA may be prorated based on how many months you’ve been on the annuity roll.

FERS Retirement and Survivor Benefits

Because the COLA is more than 3%, eligible FERS annuitants receive the COLA rate minus one percentage point. The 2027 FERS COLA is therefore 2.6%, not 3.6%. For example, a $3,000 monthly FERS annuity would increase by about $78, to approximately $3,078 before deductions. The FERS spousal Basic Employee Death Benefit is adjusted by the full 3.6% CSRS COLA to approximately $45,377.34 up from $43,800.53 in 2026. The official announcement will be reported by OPM later. This is in addition to one-half of the final annual pay (or average pay, if higher).

COLA increases for FERS annuitants only apply to the retiree’s basic annuity (not the annuity supplement). For survivor annuitants, COLA applies to both the basic survivor annuity and supplement (if payable) annuity. The COLA increase is prorated according to the annuity commencing date during an annuitant’s first year on the annuity roll. This provision applies to FERS annuitants who are eligible for an “immediate” COLA at retirement. Not all FERS annuitants will receive an immediate FERS COLA. FERS COLAs generally do not apply to annuitants who are under age 62 as of Dec. 1, 2025, except for:

Spouse, former spouse, or insurable interest survivor annuitants;
Certain disability annuitants;
Those who retired under the special provisions for law enforcement officers, firefighters, and Capitol Police;
Those who retired under the special provisions for air traffic controllers; and
Those who retired under the special provision for military reserve technicians (age 50, 25 years of service) because they ceased to quality for military membership on account of disability;

FERS disability annuitants receiving the 60% rate during their first year on the disability roll will not receive a COLA increase.

FERS retirees may want to pay attention to proposed legislation, H.R. 491 /S.624: Equal COLA Act that would provide full cost-of-living adjustments, based on the relevant change in consumer prices, to Federal Employees Retirement System annuities. Don’t get too excited about this proposal, however, according to GovTrack.us, this bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced by Congress on Jan. 16, 2025, and has only a nine percent chance of passing at this time.

FERS Annuity Supplement Earning Limit

FERS annuitants receiving an annuity supplement are subject to an earnings test. The annuity supplement is reduced if the annuitant earns more than the exempt amount of earnings set forth each year by the Social Security Administration. The Social Security earnings limitation for 2027 is $25,560.00. If a FERS annuitant earns more than this amount, annuity supplement will be reduced by $1.00 for every $2.00 earned over the minimum level unless the annuitant retired under the minimum retirement age and retired under one of the special provisions related to these specific employee populations: law enforcement officers, firefighters, air traffic controllers, military reserve technicians separated for loss of military membership. The 2026 earnings survey will be sent to current retirees in the spring of 2027. The earnings limit for 2026 is $24,480.

Interest Rate for Service Credit Deposits

The official 2027 variable interest rate for FERS and CSRS service credit deposits has not yet been released by the Treasury Department or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Treasury typically calculates and announces this specific retirement-related interest rate in late November or December for the upcoming calendar year. The 2026 variable interest rate is 4.25%.

Social Security

Social Security retirement, survivor, and disability benefits will increase by 3.6% beginning with benefits payable in January 2027. The Social Security Administration estimates that the average retired-worker benefit will rise from $2,095 to $2,170 per month—an increase of about $75. The exact change for an individual may differ slightly because Social Security applies the annual COLA to the Primary Insurance Amount determined at the Normal Retirement Age (67 if born in 1960 or later). If you choose to retire earlier, your benefit will be lower than your PIA. On the other hand, if you choose to retire after you reach your normal retirement age, your benefit will be higher than your PIA.

Other 2027 Amounts That Change

Social Security taxable maximum wage for the 6.2% FICA tax increases from $184,500 to $192,300.

One credit of coverage is earned if Social Security covered wages $1,970 in 2027, up from $1,890 in 2026 (four credits earned if wages are $7,880 or more in 2027).

Retirement earnings test: the annual limit for beneficiaries under normal retirement age increases to $25,560; the limit for the year a beneficiary reaches full retirement age increases to $67,920 for earnings before the month in the year when the normal retirement age is reached.

Medicare Costs, Part B Premiums, and IRMAA

The 2027 standard Medicare Part B premium, annual deductible, and income-related monthly adjustment amounts have not yet been officially announced. CMS generally releases the following year’s figures in late October or November; for example, the 2026 amounts were released on November 14, 2025. After the 2027 figures are issued, Social Security will generally send beneficiaries a notice in November or early December showing the new benefit amount, Medicare deductions, and net payment beginning in January.

How the Standard Part B Premium Is Calculated

The Part B premium is calculated separately from the Social Security COLA. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) actuaries estimate the coming year’s costs for physician and outpatient services, durable medical equipment, certain home health services and physician-administered drugs, expected use of services, medical-price changes, administrative expenses, and a contingency margin. The standard beneficiary premium is generally intended to finance about 25% of projected Part B costs, with federal general revenues financing approximately 75%. Because it is based on Medicare’s projected costs rather than COLA, the premium can rise by more or less than 3.6%. According to the 2026 Medicare Trustees Report, the estimated standard monthly premium for Part B in 2027 will be $209.50.

How IRMAA Is Determined

Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA) is an additional charge for higher-income beneficiaries enrolled in Part B or Part D. Social Security generally uses modified adjusted gross income reported by the IRS for the tax year two years before the premium year. Therefore, 2027 IRMAA will ordinarily be based on the beneficiary’s 2025 federal tax return. For this purpose, modified adjusted gross income is adjusted gross income plus tax-exempt interest.

Social Security compares that income with statutory brackets for the beneficiary’s tax-filing status. Part B IRMAA tiers increase the beneficiary’s share of program costs above the standard level—generally to approximately 35%, 50%, 65%, 80%, or 85%. Part D uses separate monthly adjustment amounts for the same income tiers, added to the premium charged by the beneficiary’s drug plan. The exact 2027 income thresholds and adjustment amounts will be known only when the official tables are released.

General Pay Adjustment for Active Federal Employees

Active federal employees may also hear the term annual pay adjustment, but that adjustment is separate from the COLA for CSRS and FERS annuitants. Retiree COLAs are tied to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, while General Schedule pay adjustments follow a different process intended to reflect changes in private-sector wages and geographic pay differences. The GS base pay schedule is usually adjusted annually each January with an across-the-board pay increase based on nationwide changes in the cost of wages and salaries of private industry workers. Most GS employees are also entitled to locality pay, which is a geographic-based percentage rate that reflects pay levels for non-Federal workers in certain geographic areas as determined by surveys conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Under the statutory process, January General Schedule pay has two potential components. The first is an across-the-board adjustment to the GS base-pay schedule, normally derived from the Employment Cost Index for private-industry wages and salaries, measured from the third quarter of one year to the third quarter of the next, minus 0.5 percentage point. The second is locality pay, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics comparisons of federal and nonfederal salaries for comparable levels of work in each locality pay area. The Federal Salary Council reviews the data and makes recommendations to the President’s Pay Agent, which consists of the Secretary of Labor and the directors of OMB and OPM.

The statutory formulas do not necessarily become the actual pay increase. Congress may establish a different amount through legislation, and the President may issue an alternative pay plan when economic conditions or a national emergency make the statutory adjustments inappropriate. The final rates are generally implemented by a presidential executive order near the end of the calendar year, after which OPM publishes the official pay tables.

For January 2027, the president announced an alternative pay plan freezing General Schedule base and locality rates at their 2026 levels. Accordingly, most covered federal employees are scheduled to receive no general across-the-board or locality-pay increase for 2027 unless subsequent legislation changes that result. This pay freeze does not prevent an employee from receiving a within-grade increase, promotion, or other individually applicable pay action.

A separate exception is planned for designated federal law enforcement personnel. OPM has been directed to use special salary-rate authority to provide a 3.8% increase for covered positions, with final occupational and agency coverage to be announced in the special-rate tables. Special salary rates are used to address significant recruitment or retention problems and are generally treated as basic pay for purposes such as retirement deductions, overtime and certain percentage-based incentives.

]]>

The next counterintelligence threat may be hiding in federal hiring

Lindy Kyzer — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 05:00:00 -0400

The federal government spends considerable time determining who can be trusted with sensitive information. But a recent report from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) suggests agencies should be paying closer attention to what happens before an individual ever enters the personnel vetting process.

Foreign intelligence services are exploiting the very activities government agencies and defense contractors rely on to build their workforces: resume submissions, recruiting outreach, professional networking and expert consultations.

In its latest report, Targeting U.S. Technologies: A Report of Threats to Cleared Industry, DCSA identified approximately 2,900 incidents involving foreign entities seeking sensitive information or technology during fiscal 2025. The agency received more than 22,000 suspicious contact reports during the same period.

While the report focuses on cleared industry, its findings have implications for the federal government, particularly as agencies work to recruit specialized talent, modernize hiring practices and compete for expertise in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, engineering and other mission-critical fields.

The takeaway isn't that federal hiring needs more bureaucracy. It's that agencies need to recognize hiring and professional engagement as potential counterintelligence vulnerabilities and equip the people managing those processes to identify threats.

From resumes to relationships

One of the more interesting findings in DCSA's report is how foreign collection methods are evolving. In the agency's previous annual report, resume submissions accounted for 28% of reported collection attempts, making them the most common method of operation. Exploitation of experts accounted for 21%.

In the latest report, exploitation of experts has moved into the top position, accounting for 28% of reported incidents. Academic resume submissions remain a significant method of contact, accounting for 15%, while email continues to dominate at 30%.

The distinction between a method of operation and a method of contact is important, but so is the broader trend. Foreign intelligence entities are not simply trying to gain access to organizations through job applications. They are increasingly seeking out individuals whose professional knowledge, relationships and technical expertise make them valuable intelligence targets. That should concern anyone responsible for managing the federal workforce.

A federal employee with specialized expertise in acquisition, intelligence analysis, artificial intelligence or weapons systems may be valuable to an adversary even without access to classified information. Knowledge of government priorities, technical challenges, program requirements and organizational relationships can provide significant intelligence value.

The federal resume is an intelligence roadmap

Consider the professional information available through resumes, conference biographies, public profiles and professional networking platforms.

An adversary looking for insight into a particular defense capability doesn't necessarily need to penetrate a classified network to begin identifying relevant experts. Publicly available professional information can help establish who works in a particular technical field, what organizations they support and where they may have developed specialized expertise.

The objective should not be to discourage applicants from demonstrating their qualifications. It should be to encourage relevant, skills-based descriptions rather than unnecessary disclosures about sensitive programs, customers or operational environments.

It should also be to recognize that the federal hiring process isn't just essential to accomplishing the mission. It's a key element of the government's counterintelligence and security posture.

HR is part of the security perimeter

When federal agencies discuss counterintelligence threats, the conversation typically centers on cybersecurity, insider threats, classified information and personnel security. Human resources and recruiting rarely receive the same attention or a similar budget.

The current threat environment and the prevalence of professional credentials and resumes as counterintelligence risks demand a more deliberate relationship between human resources, hiring managers, personnel security and counterintelligence teams.

A security clearance doesn't solve the entire problem

The federal government has invested significant resources in modernizing personnel vetting through Trusted Workforce 2.0, continuous vetting and improvements to investigative and adjudicative processes. Those efforts are important. But they address a different part of the risk equation.

A security clearance determination assesses whether an individual is eligible for access to classified information. Continuous vetting provides ongoing assessment of individuals within covered populations. Neither process eliminates the risk of foreign intelligence entities approaching government employees, contractors, researchers or prospective hires through professional channels.

And we know not every federal employee holds a clearance.

Agencies employ thousands of individuals whose work may involve sensitive but unclassified information, acquisition strategies, proprietary technology, critical infrastructure or specialized technical expertise.

The DCSA findings underscore the importance of treating counterintelligence awareness as a workforce-wide responsibility, tailored to the sensitivity of an employee's role.

That doesn't require subjecting every federal applicant to an intelligence investigation. But it does highlight the importance of a principle emphasized through Trusted Workforce 2.0: considering every vetted worker's role in national security and the risks posed by foreign adversaries.

The government can't afford to make hiring harder

There is a risk in responding to reports like this by adding another layer of screening, another compliance requirement or another reason to delay an already lengthy federal hiring process. That would be the wrong lesson.

The federal government is competing for highly skilled workers in a labor market where speed, transparency and candidate experience matter. After a year of significant cuts and reductions in force, many federal agencies are highlighting significant staffing shortages, specifically in highly specialized skill sets — the exact ones most at risk of foreign targeting.

For agencies struggling to recruit cyber professionals, engineers, data scientists and other specialized talent, a hiring process that becomes more suspicious of applicants rather than more effective at identifying risks could make existing workforce challenges worse.

Agencies can start by giving HR professionals practical guidance on suspicious contacts and reporting procedures. Hiring managers should understand what information can appropriately be shared during recruitment. Employees should receive guidance on unsolicited consulting opportunities and requests for technical expertise.

Protect the talent, not just the technology

Another important implication of DCSA's report is what it says about the value of the federal workforce itself. Foreign intelligence services aren't simply targeting technologies. They're targeting the people who understand those technologies.

The shift from resume submissions toward exploitation of experts suggests that adversaries understand something federal workforce leaders should recognize as well: Institutional knowledge, professional relationships and technical expertise are strategic assets.

The answer isn't to make federal workers harder to find or federal jobs harder to obtain. It's to make the government's hiring and workforce practices smarter about the threats surrounding them.

Because in today's national security environment, the most valuable target may not be a classified document or a sensitive technology, but the person who knows how it works.

]]>

OPM revamps online pay tables, spearheads AI adoption across federal workforce

Jory Heckman — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 17:18:32 -0400

The federal government’s human resources agency is revamping one of the most heavily trafficked tools on its website: annual pay tables for federal employees.

The Office of Personnel Management is planning to launch a new version of the online tables that agencies and employees use to look up federal pay rates each year.

Adam Starr, the agency's chief information officer, said on Wednesday that the agency’s pay rates website gets about 14 million visits each year, but hasn’t changed much since 2011.

“I always like to remember that 'OPM' really stands for ‘other peoples’ money.’ And in this case, it is your money. People come to OPM pay tables, asking us to show them the money, and for years these have been legacy, clunky sites,” Starr said Wednesday at the SAP Public Sector Summit sponsored by GovExec. “It’s not the experience that a federal employee deserves.”

Starr said the revamped OPM pay tables will launch “later this calendar year,” in the first quarter of fiscal 2027.

“We’re launching it in beta. This will be the default, but people can always fall back to the old version if they don’t like this new version. We’ll get feedback from the agencies, from the employees. We can iterate, relaunch, and get this in people’s hands. Because that’s how everyone’s doing it in industry, and government should be no different,” he said.

Starr said OPM tested the pay table redesign with an accessibility expert who uses a screen-reader. He said that individual “had absolutely no issues using it.”

“For too long, I think civil servants have really suffered with outdated technology that doesn’t keep at the frontier,” Starr said, adding that OPM is looking to give employees the “latest and greatest tools.”

OPM’s pay tables are the latest in a series of government website refreshes happening under the Trump administration. The agency last year overhauled its federal workforce data website, and the White House’s Nation Design Studio is on a mission to transform more than 27,000 federal websites.

These efforts culminated recently in the launch of America.gov, a site that allows users to ask a chatbot questions about everything from qualifying for Medicare to finding a job to renewing a passport.

Starr described the OPM pay-table refresh as part of a broader plan to “make every part of the federal experience tech-first,” and to get federal employees “the best support that you need in every stage of your career.”

“This is kind of just an example of many of the modernizations that we’re trying to do across OPM, from consolidating 119 different HR IT systems to answering every phone call in our retirement services contact center,” Starr said.

OPM is also spearheading some of the Trump administration’s latest efforts to foster greater adoption of AI tools across the federal workforce. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month rebranding AI across the federal government as “super intelligence.”

Starr said OPM has launched a consulting program called the SuperIntelligence Governance and Adoption Program (SI GAP), focused on helping other agencies adopt AI tools.

“Every SI transformation industry has HR at the table, and OPM is HR for the government,” Starr said. “Really, it comes down to being able to take measured risk of trusting your

employees with these tools, giving them the opportunity to experiment and reinvent their work — because just using it as a better chatbot or a better Google search is not going to reinvent the way that we have the enterprise work.”

Starr said that agencies – including OPM – have historically been too risk-averse with AI, and haven’t yet seized the “opportunity to reinvent their work” with these tools.

“I imagine a world where every employee is more empowered to do the impactful work that they need to do — that a lot of the tedium of the day can be automated,” he said.

Starr said OPM recently launched an AI agent to help process phone calls for the retirement services team.

“We showed it to the entire agency. People were aghast at how human it sounded, how helpful it was,” Starr said. “Literally today we released a new feature, and we released a new feature on Friday last week. And every day this is getting better.”

The federal retirement backlog under the second Trump administration has drawn scrutiny from House Democrats. The backlog sat at 55,681 pending cases on March 31, down from a peak of 65,237 the previous month. The backlog fell to 8,814 pending cases in September.

“We've historically had a large backlog of retirement claims, and it's not because the employees don't want to do good, but there's been processes that are highly optimized on paper that just can't improve until they're digital. They're now digital, and so how can we now optimize those and lead to faster retirements? How can we onboard people quicker?”

OPM in a recent memo directed agencies to use AI to speed up the hiring process for new employees employees. OPM Director Scott Kupor has also been tapped to serve as vice chairman of the administration’s interagency Super Intelligence Task Force.

Starr said OPM understands the importance of keeping guardrails around the data it holds. OPM in 2015 was the target of a massive data breach, exposing about 22 million federal records.

“We have a high risk tolerance for delighting our customers and a low-risk tolerance for security breaches,” he said.

OPM, he added, has three basic rules for AI use: employees are responsible for the work they produce with AI, can use only approved tools, and must stay signed in with official accounts.

“It’s on the CIO team to make sure this is secure, and just constantly thinking about what are the risks and how do we mitigate it. There are concerns about access to the internet via these tools, so we put in a cached version, so nothing hits the internet,” Starr said. “[We’re] just constantly looking at what are the concerns, knocking that down, and iterating and improving.”

]]>

Trump quietly hired political appointees under a new job classification, good government group reports

Sean Michael Newhouse — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 16:16:10 -0400

The Trump administration installed political appointees at agencies under a new job classification before the position category was formally set up, according to a good government nonprofit, which argued that this incident furthers a trend of officials showing a lack of transparency regarding federal workforce reforms.

In July 2025, the president issued an executive order creating Schedule G, a new job classification for non-Senate-confirmed political appointees in policy-making or policy-advocating roles. Officials said at the time that roles under the category would be targeted to the Veterans Affairs Department.

Shortly thereafter, the Office of Personnel Management issued guidance to agencies on making Schedule G appointments. The government’s HR agency proposed a rule establishing Schedule G in regulation in September; the deadline for members of the public to comment on the proposed rule is Nov. 17.

The Partnership for Public Service reported that, based on publicly reported information, it didn’t appear that the administration was using Schedule G — until last week when updated data on presidentially appointed positions maintained by OPM showed that there are at least 25 individuals serving under the classification. Researchers noted that the number could be higher.

“The [OPM] data reflects what agencies report to OPM, and agencies have discretion over what they share,” Chris Piper wrote. “Twenty-five is what we can see, not necessarily what exists.”

Of the 25 individuals, 22 work at the VA. Researchers emphasized that the earliest appointee began serving in August 2025, more than a year before OPM proposed the Schedule G regulation.

“The fact that the public can see who holds political appointee positions offers transparency, and thus a tool for public and congressional oversight and accountability,” Piper wrote. “But in the case of Schedule G, for more than a year, officials served in a new appointment category with no public record, and the only acknowledgment came through an unannounced data update rather than a report or a press release.”

OPM countered that, even without a final rule, there are still formal guardrails for Schedule G because of its implementing guidance to agencies as well as the executive order itself.

“The pending proposed rule would make conforming amendments to [the Code of Federal Regulations]; it does not establish the underlying authority for Schedule G,” said OPM spokesperson Kiki Nyoh in a statement to Government Executive. “The executive order also cited improving operations at the Department of Veterans Affairs as a rationale for creating the new schedule.”

At the same time as the president has downsized the civil service, the Partnership reported that Trump, at the end of this first year in office, installed more political appointees under Schedule C (i.e. confidential or policy-determining positions) than any other administration in the last 40 years.

]]>

Cost-of-living adjustments for federal retirees to increase next year

Erich Wagner — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 16:03:23 -0400

Retired federal employees are set to see their defined benefit annuity payments increase in January, though many will still receive what advocates call a “diet COLA.”

The Social Security Administration announced Wednesday that Social Security beneficiaries will receive a 3.6% cost-of-living adjustment next year, an improvement from last year’s 2.8% increase. SSA calculates the increase based on the annual change in the third quarter consumer price index for workers.

Federal retirees in the Civil Service Retirement System will therefore receive a 3.6% increase to their annuities next year, but former feds who are part of the Federal Employees Retirement System, launched in the 1980s alongside 401(k)-style Thrift Savings Plan, will see only a 2.6% adjustment.

That’s because FERS’ annual cost-of-living adjustment is based on an extrapolation of the CSRS and Social Security increase. Each year, if CSRS sees an increase of less than 2%, FERS retirees receives the full COLA. But if the figure falls between 2% and 3%, FERS participants receive only a 2% increase, while if the COLA is 3% or more, like this year, FERS enrollees receive that adjustment, minus 1 percentage point.

Organizations representing federal workers and retirees have argued this is inequitable, and support legislation to standardize the COLA across the FERS and CSRS populations. In addition to having access to the TSP, FERS enrollees also pay into Social Security while they work and may draw upon it when they reach retirement.

“With inflation above 3%, FERS retirees will have their COLAs reduced by an entire percentage point, reducing the real value of their annuities,” said William Shackelford, national president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. “Inflation impacts these FERS retirees the same way as all other retirees, yet they are forced to accept a diet COLA. The Equal COLA Act would remedy this inequity, providing full COLAs to FERS retirees.”

Despite the pending increase in annuity payments, NARFE warned that the improvement threatens to be swallowed up by further increasing costs next year, namely in the form of double-digit average increases to federal workers and retirees’ health insurance premiums in the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs. Some insurance carriers report that premiums could jump by as much as 100% in January.

“This COLA also does not adequately compensate for the sharp increase in the enrollee share of health insurance premiums affecting the federal community, which will rise by an average of 10.9% next year for federal annuitants, following a 12.3% increase for 2026 and a 13.5% increase for 2025,” Shackelford said. “This comes on top of rising prices for many other goods and services.”

Most current federal employees, conversely, are set to have their pay frozen next year, while some law enforcement officers are slated for a 3.8% average pay increase in January.

]]>

ICE resists automatic activation of body cameras despite oversight concerns

Ariana Figueroa, States Newsroom — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 15:56:22 -0400

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection need to improve oversight and guidance for federal immigration officers' use of body-worn cameras, according to a Wednesday report from independent federal investigators.

Officials with the Department of Homeland Security, however, resisted a recommendation in the report from the Government Accountability Office that ICE change its current policy, in which agents choose when to manually turn on body cameras, as opposed to automatic activation.

In a response to GAO, the department — which oversees both agencies — argued that automatic activation on a body camera presents a risk to ongoing operations, such as recording sensitive interactions with informants or victims or inadvertently filming bystanders.

GAO said that statement was insufficient. “However, DHS’s response did not include information on environments where automated activation could be effective, or other controls that could help ensure compliance with activating cameras when required by policy,” according to GAO.

Multiple shootings

The report came after multiple high-profile cases of federal immigration officers shooting and killing people during interactions and enforcement actions, prompting calls for wider body camera use.

GAO made seven recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security to update its guidance for body cameras.

The department agreed with six, but disagreed with implementing automated camera activation controls, arguing that ICE’s current policy is sufficient. CBP does have automatic camera activation, which means the body camera turns on and starts recording when a weapon is drawn or emergency lights are turned on.

“Without reliable control activities, ICE risks gaps in documentation and video evidence that can make reviews of incidents more challenging,” according to GAO.

After federal immigration officers killed two U.S. citizens in January during an aggressive deportation drive in Minneapolis, the Trump administration directed body cameras to immigration agents.

In June, there were two back-to-back killings of immigrants in Texas and Maine that prompted border czar Tom Homan to announce that during traffic stops at least one ICE officer will wear a body camera.

Democrats have also pushed for all federal immigration officers to wear body cameras in the wake of the killings and violent interactions from agents that were recorded by bystanders.

Thousands of body cameras distributed

GAO investigators found that as of April, ICE issued 4,800 body cameras, splitting them evenly between its deportation wing of Enforcement and Removal Operations and the investigative law enforcement arm of ICE, Homeland Security Investigations.

And in June, CBP issued approximately 11,500 cameras, mostly to Border Patrol.

But GAO found problems in the cameras’ deployment.

“Most CBP and ICE offices have not developed specific operational guidance that explains how personnel should use, or not use, cameras under their unique operational circumstances,” according to the report. “The lack of guidance at this operational level increases the risk that CBP and ICE personnel will fail to use the cameras as required under policy.”

DHS agreed to the recommendations from GAO that the leaders of ICE and CBP should update their body camera program to include changes in requirements and costs and plan for any contingencies based on current risk.

The department also agreed that CBP and ICE should implement goals to ensure effectiveness for the body-worn camera program and that both agencies should ensure their sub-agencies are also given proper guidance on the expectations and appropriate uses of the body cameras.

]]>

A judge just put USDA’s employee relocation plans on ice

Jory Heckman — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 21:19:43 -0400

A federal judge in San Francisco is putting an indefinite hold on the Agriculture Department’s plans to relocate many of its employees across the country.

U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria granted a stay on Tuesday that indefinitely bars USDA from carrying out relocations for about 2,600 employees while the court continues to review the merits of the case.

A coalition of federal employee labor unions, nonprofits and local governments argued USDA has been trying to circumvent guardrails on USDA reorganization established by Congress in its most recent spending package.

Lawmakers included provisions in the fiscal 2026 appropriations bill for USDA that blocked officials from reorganizing or relocating offices or employees without approval from the House and Senate appropriations committees.

Chhabria wrote that there is ultimately “strong evidence that USDA’s planned reorganization activities deviate from Congress’s expectations at the time it appropriated the funds.”

The ruling effectively extends an administrative stay Chhabria issued on Sept. 14 that put a hold on deadlines for all “management directed reassignment” letters USDA has issued so far. Employees who received relocation notices were generally told to report to their new offices by September or October.

The stay specifically bars USDA from “closing or eliminating offices” at component agencies impacted by reorganization plans, or “relocating or reassigning employees or their positions or functions to different and/or new locations outside the local commuting area, including by issuing or enforcing MDR letters or any other notice or directive of reassignment or relocation in whole or in part."

Chhabria wrote his order does not prevent USDA from relocating or reassigning USDA employees in the Washington, D.C. area to other offices within the region. The stay also does not require USDA to return employees to their original duty stations if they were relocated before the judge’s administrative stay on Sept. 14.

Justice Department attorneys representing USDA asked the judge to consider narrowly tailoring his stay to cover only employees represented by the unions. But Chhabria did not grant that request, stating that “the most appropriate remedy is indeed to stay USDA’s reorganization expenditures, full stop.”

“It would be contrary to the public interest to require USDA to keep some employees in their current offices — preventing closure of those offices — while allowing the agency to move other employees to new offices, as this would require expenditure of congressionally appropriated funds on two offices with two sets of employees rather than one,” he wrote.

USDA has two business days to notify its employees about the terms of the preliminary stay, and to post the ruling on its website about the reorganization.

In a Sept. 30 hearing, Chhabria debated how much authority Congress and its appropriations committees have authority over USDA’s reorganization decisions.

While Congress controls funding for federal agencies – and specified that USDA may not “reprogram” any funds for reorganization plans – Chhabria said the specific mechanism lawmakers included in the FY 2026 spending package was unconstitutional.

“Both sides agree that this committee-approval language is unconstitutional,” he wrote, but agreed that ultimately “Congress was actively working to restrict the agency’s ability” to use appropriated funds to reorganize and relocate employees.

“This Court will proceed on the understanding that it has discretion to temporarily halt all the reorganization activities that likely violate the appropriations statutes. And that’s what this ruling will require,” Chhabria wrote.

The judge cautioned the scope of relief from his stay “could end up being quite short.” The Trump administration is likely to appeal his ruling, and spending bill provisions blocking USDA from using congressional funds on reorganization are currently set to expire on Dec. 11.

“If the agency wishes to move forward with its plans to close offices and relocate employees, it will soon have the opportunity to convince Congress of the merits of those plans. Congress, if it agrees, can choose not to extend the restrictions at issue in this case. But until then, USDA is preliminarily enjoined from spending appropriated funds on the challenged office closures and employee relocations,” Chhabria wrote.

Citing polls conducted by unions, showing that a majority of their members will not relocate to keep their jobs, Chhabria agreed with plaintiffs that “there is at least some risk that USDA’s office closures and employee relocations would impede these components’ ability to carry out their critical functions,” and in the process, disrupt “programs on which many Americans depend.”

“Although it’s unclear how many employees USDA plans to actually relocate, if the relocations are allowed to proceed, it’s likely that many affected employees will decline to move and will instead leave,” he wrote.

Chhabria added that “it does not appear USDA has conducted any analysis to show that these risks are not real or are outweighed by any potential benefits."

“With respect to the balance of equities and the public interest, the Court has no view on whether USDA’s planned reorganization is a good idea or a bad one,” he wrote. “Perhaps USDA is organized in an inefficient or outdated fashion, such that the harm some employees would suffer from a reorganization could be outweighed by the potential benefit to the taxpayers, not to mention citizens who interact with the agency more directly. But on this record, the balance of equities and the public interest strongly support an stay”

Elena Goldstein, a legal director at Democracy Forward, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the stay “will allow the vital work of the department and its employees to continue, protecting the families and communities across the nation that rely on its vital work.”

]]>

Disability accommodations at Labor get extra scrutiny with annual reviews

Jory Heckman — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 18:18:10 -0400

Labor Department employees with workplace accommodations in place for disabilities or medical conditions will soon have to justify them annually, as part of an agencywide review that begins next month.

The Labor Department told employees Tuesday that its Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM), starting in November, will conduct an annual “recertification” of reasonable accommodations currently in place for employees with disabilities and pregnancy-related medical conditions.

“This is a review of existing, already-approved accommodations to confirm they meet employees' current needs and job duties,” OASAM wrote in the email obtained by Government Executive. “If the review identifies a change in medical needs, job duties, or accommodations' effectiveness, accommodations may be adjusted.”

The email states that this review is “part of ongoing efforts to strengthen the RA program,” but doesn’t shed much light on the department’s motivations for carrying out these changes. A Labor Department spokesman did not immediately comment, but referred Government Executive to the contents of the staff email.

The Office of Personnel Management and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in updated guidance on telework as a reasonable accommodation, wrote in February that agencies may “find it helpful to reevaluate a significant accommodation such as recurring or full-time telework once a year to confirm the accommodation remains effective and manageable.”

Agencies have broadly scrutinized federal employees’ use of telework since President Donald Trump directed them to return to the office full-time at the start of his second term.

The department will begin its review with reasonable accommodation agreements approved on or before September 30, 2025. Accommodations approved in fiscal 2026 or later “will be reviewed on a separate schedule announced at a later date.”

According to the email, OASAM will establish standardized criteria and procedures for “annual recertification reviews” later this fiscal year.

“This review will provide DOL with a more complete and accurate record of existing accommodation agreements and strengthen the Department's ability to consistently document, administer, and track accommodations,” the email states.

Employees may be asked to provide updated medical information “confirming their continued need for the accommodation.” Supervisors may also be asked to provide information about an employee’s essential job functions and how accommodations are being implemented.

The Labor Department said current accommodations will remain in effect while the review is underway, unless employees are “individually notified otherwise.”

Linnet Griffiths, a former senior advisor to the chief operating officer at the Centers for Disease Control Prevention and equal employment opportunity director at CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services, said she has “never seen this practice” for someone already approved for a permanent RA.

“There are sometimes temporary or limited RAs that require renewal, but that is stipulated on the approval of the original RA,” Griffiths said.

Jodi Hershey, a former reasonable accommodation specialist at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the founder of the workplace accommodation firm EASE, LLC, said “checking in on whether an accommodation is still working is good practice,” but that requiring every employee with a reasonable accommodation to recertify “is not how this has traditionally worked.”

Hershey said these new annual recertifications are “quickly becoming the pattern” across several federal agencies.

In their updated guidance, OPM and EEOC wrote that agencies are not required under the Rehabilitation Act to continue all previously granted telework accommodations, and that “an employee is not necessarily entitled to their preferred accommodation in perpetuity.”

They wrote that after an accommodation has been granted, agencies are allowed to “assess whether there continues to be a need for reasonable accommodation based on individualized circumstances [including] whether alternative accommodations might meet those needs.”

“An agency may therefore reevaluate a previously granted telework accommodation and replace it with an effective alternative reasonable accommodation,” they wrote.

The guidance states that agencies may replace a previously granted recurring or full-time telework accommodation with a “reasonable and effective in-office option,” such as alternative work schedules or specialized equipment.

OPM and EEOC cautioned that agencies “should not take a blanket approach to rescind and deny all recurring or full-time telework accommodations.”

Hershey said that DOL’s review “reaches every accommodation, for disabilities and pregnancy-related conditions alike, every year, which goes well beyond" what OPM and EEOC outlined in their guidance.

The Labor Department’s email states that it notified employees in February 2025 that it “intended to review and recertify previously approved reasonable accommodations.”

This annual review of reasonable accommodations is likely to add more strain to the department’s human resources workforce, which has already been spread thin by staff reductions.

Labor Department employees told Government Executive last month that the agency is facing a backlog of hundreds of reasonable accommodation requests, and that they have waited months or longer for the agency to address their cases. A bipartisan group of lawmakers recently expressed concerns about the department's backlog.

Government Executive first reported in August that the Labor Department is turning to artificial intelligence tools to triage new reasonable accommodation requests.

“I'd be curious how DOL plans to do individualized re-reviews without slowing decisions for the people still waiting on an answer to their original request,” Hershey said.

Meanwhile, the department announced this summer that sensitive personal and medical information for more than 3,000 employees seeking RAs was improperly shared to someone’s personal email account.

Hershey said many employees should consider submitting updating medical documentation, even if it isn’t required right now.

“Medical documentation is the crux of a telework accommodation, and the documentation that got telework approved a few years ago may very well not hold up now,” she said. “Agencies are starting from the position that the answer is anything but telework, and backing into the decision from there.”

Hershey said medical documentation that holds up to this new level of scrutiny does three things: clearly identifies an employee's limitations and ties each one to their job; explains what traveling to and being present at a worksite does to an employee's ability to work, and what working from home makes possible; and addresses in-office alternatives an agency is likely to offer, and whether those alternatives will be effective.

“None of this is easy. Updating documentation takes appointments, time, and money, and that burden falls on people who are already managing a health condition. And the uncertainty is its own harm," she said. "When people are told the support that lets them do their job is up for review, the stress affects their health long before any decision is made.”

]]>

Fraud-prevention work stalled at USDA amid staffing cuts and funding disputes

Eli Hager , ProPublica — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 17:23:25 -0400

It wasn’t the kind of call a grocery store gets every day. A customer with a thick Eastern European accent was on the phone saying he wanted to buy several thousand cans of Red Bull. Could the store have them in stock in a few days? Also, did they have equipment to move all those stacks of energy drinks into the parking lot, where two minivans would be waiting?

When the day came, Oct. 19, 2022, employees at the Smart & Final store in San Diego sold 3,960 cans of Red Bull and 720 of Monster Energy to two men and two women, all with the same accent, and helped them wheel the pallets out back. To pay for it all — the bill came to $10,747.05 — the group pulled out piles of plastic. These weren’t credit or debit cards; they looked more like hotel-room keys. There were 25 cards in all, each with a different amount loaded onto it, and the four people took turns swiping one after another. Then, the payment complete, they drove off.

In the days that followed, people as far away as New York and Florida made panicked calls to the store. They wanted to know why their food-stamp accounts (containing their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits) had been drained at this seemingly random location in San Diego.

It would turn out that what became known as the Red Bull Crew had gotten ahold of their SNAP data and used the funds to buy the energy drinks, which they then sold online or to smaller stores. It was hardly an isolated event. From September through November of that year, the same crew, part of a criminal syndicate based in Romania, bought at least $305,274.52 in energy drinks, using SNAP account information and PINs stolen from at least 174 victims nationwide, according to court documents and federal investigators.

To hear the Trump administration tell it, the SNAP program is under siege by well-heeled recipients of food stamps. Vice President JD Vance, upon being named “Fraud Czar” this spring, said: “There are people who have Lamborghinis who currently receive SNAP benefits.” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose agency oversees the program, regularly goes on TV and social media to allege that masses of SNAP recipients are scamming the system, driving Bentleys, Ferraris, Maseratis and, yes, Lamborghinis.

The federal government’s own statistics tell a different story. Confirmed cases of intentional program violations — fraud — committed by SNAP recipients account for $64 million a year, or about 0.08% of all benefits issued annually, according to the most recent 50-state reports compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Meanwhile a far bigger fraud wave has exploded over the past five years: organized theft from SNAP recipients. In 2025, $470 million was stolen electronically from beneficiaries — and thus from the U.S. taxpayer — according to data supplied to ProPublica by Propel, a company that provides a mobile app for SNAP recipients to check their account balances and transaction histories. More than 990,000 households that received food assistance last year had benefits stolen. (The reason it’s necessary to use data from a private company: The federal government has stopped tracking rates of this crime.)

ProPublica interviewed nearly 100 victims of SNAP theft, federal prosecutors, Secret Service agents, USDA officials, caseworkers and other experts to understand what’s behind this phenomenon and why more isn’t being done to stop it. The victims are almost all working people with families, or retirees, who have struggled to afford groceries in the current economy. Most didn’t learn about the crime until they were in a checkout line, only to have their benefit card declined.

Upon reporting the disappearance of their food assistance, victims are informed that nothing can be done under current federal law. “The only thing they said was that [my benefits] cannot be refunded unless they were lost due to a natural disaster,” said one SNAP theft victim in Ohio. “They told me they’d add my name to the list,” said another in rural Oregon. “They advised if I feel the place is sketchy, don’t run my card there,” a victim in Philadelphia said. Still another, in Virginia, added, “They even charged me $2 for a replacement card.”

Perhaps the most vexing aspect of all: The federal government knows how to prevent the vast majority of this crime in a single step. Congress just hasn’t been willing to take it.

SNAP theft is an old scheme applied to a new target. For years, scammers would surreptitiously install skimming devices on card readers at ATMs, gas pumps and corner stores. These devices could read the data on people’s cards as they swiped — while a pinhole camera or overlay keypad captured their PINs — all of which could be picked up later or sent via Bluetooth to someone sitting in a nearby cafe or parking lot. This pilfered data, in turn, was used to make online purchases, or it was loaded onto cloned cards to withdraw cash.

Skimming became exponentially more difficult when credit and debit card companies installed digital microchips in the 2010s and then introduced tap-to-pay. But one kind of card did not get the new chips: Electronic Benefits Transfer, or EBT, cards, which people use to access SNAP and other public assistance. These still rely on the 1960s-era magnetic-stripe technology that skimmers can easily read.

EBT cards are not a particularly high-value target compared with bank cards. (The average monthly SNAP benefit is about $350 per household.) But funding boosts to SNAP during the pandemic temporarily increased benefit amounts, and profits could be considerable if you skimmed hundreds of people’s card information every month. Skimming teams, often run by Romanian gangs, pivoted. With cloned magnetic-stripe cards, they started buying up huge quantities of SNAP-eligible products like energy drinks and baby formula that are easy to store and resell.

“We’ve started many, many briefings saying that one of the biggest ways we’re going to fight this is to just get chips in the cards,” said Michael Peck, assistant special agent in charge of the Secret Service’s Criminal Investigative Division. Among the Secret Service’s lesser-known functions is investigating many financial crimes, and Peck leads its efforts against benefit theft. He said he and his team have delivered this message on Capitol Hill both at committee meetings and to individual members of Congress.

Yet congressional leadership has continually blocked legislation that would fund chip EBT cards nationally, despite universal support for the measure among Democrats and significant support among the Republican rank and file. For instance, House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn Thompson, a Republican from Pennsylvania, said at a hearing in March that chip technology is “very effective.” But he shut down a bipartisan proposal to upgrade EBT cards with chips, citing unspecified budgetary constraints. (“Chairman Thompson is supportive of finding a fiscally responsible path forward for implementing policy that supports chip cards,” a committee aide said in a statement on his behalf. She added that “there was an appetite” for this reform among Republicans, but that Democrats weren’t willing to “find the budgetary offsets” for it.)

The Congressional Budget Office has yet to formally score the proposal, but multiple Hill staffers said they were told the total cost would be in the range of $215 million, as compared to the $600 million-plus annual loss on theft of SNAP and other benefits.

The main thing Congress has done about SNAP theft is to abandon a previous effort to help victims. The federal government had, since late 2022, been replacing people’s stolen funds, just as banks are required to do if your debit card is hacked. As a result, 753,929 households were compensated.

In December 2024, a bipartisan spending agreement that included a provision to extend these reimbursements through 2028 was on the brink of becoming law. But Elon Musk, who had been named a leader of the new Department of Government Efficiency, attacked the legislation more than 100 times on X, pushing to “defund everything.” (Musk did not reply to a request for comment.) Trump then sank the deal. Victims of SNAP theft can no longer get any of their benefits replaced. And with the government off the hook for losses, there is now less incentive to put money into the solution.

In the 22 months since, the Trump administration has gone on to strip funds for addressing EBT theft from the USDA’s annual budget requests to Congress, while cutting at least 650 of the staff of the federal Food and Nutrition Administration, the subagency that oversees SNAP. More than half of the technical experts whom the agency had hired to help it develop EBT card security guidance have been pushed out, according to the Government Accountability Office.

“Many of us who were working on fraud, we’ve left the federal government entirely,” said Kym Ayodeji, who had been a data scientist in the SNAP program until she departed this spring. (FNA, the agency she worked for, is also responsible for tracking fraud committed by retailers, which is far more prevalent than that committed by beneficiaries.) Ayodeji said she and her colleagues had been working on ways to identify retailers where unusually large quantities of certain items had been purchased and addresses where purchases made with many different EBT cards were being delivered. Some of this work was indefinitely delayed by firings, early retirements, agency reorganizations and government shutdowns, she said.

SNAP is federally funded and supervised. Congress and the USDA traditionally mandate, and pay much of the costs for, major changes to the system, especially involving technical coordination between states. States evaluate applicants and administer the accounts of those who are approved.

That said, states are allowed to adopt chip cards on their own. California has nearly completed the transition, and Alabama and Oklahoma began rolling out new cards this year. A handful of others initiated the process in recent months — before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, starting Oct. 1, cut 50% of states’ administrative funding for SNAP, which Alabama and the others had tapped to transition to chip technology.

The rest — about 40 states — have likely missed their window, unless Congress acts. They’re also waiting for regulatory guidance on EBT card security and chip card implementation that the USDA has been claiming for nearly four years it is planning to publish. (The USDA Office of Inspector General has found that the agency’s failure to issue this has allowed the theft of at least $555 million in SNAP benefits.)

State-level SNAP administrators have also been overwhelmed with the hundreds of new requirements that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has saddled them with. For one, the law mandates that states adopt intensive new work requirements for older adults and others, resulting in voluminous additional monthly paperwork. And federal funds will be slashed even further next year if states don’t scramble to reduce their “payment error rate,” a figure that measures unintentional over- and underpayments in SNAP benefits. With all of this to juggle, many state officials told ProPublica that they’ve put chip card implementation on hold in order to implement the Trump law — one of whose ostensible goals was to reduce fraud.

All the while, that law has cut food aid for more than 1.2 million children. The USDA’s Rollins has said that nearly 6 million people in total have been “moved off SNAP” during the current administration.

The White House declined to respond to a detailed list of questions. A USDA spokesperson, in an emailed statement, did not refute that Rollins has focused on individual SNAP recipient fraud rather than on EBT theft, but said that finding “cracks in public statements screams politics, not fact-finding.” The spokesperson also did not address ProPublica’s reporting showing that the agency has failed to deliver solutions on EBT theft specifically. Instead, the statement pointed to the agency’s work, in collaboration with the Department of Justice, combating retailer fraud. The USDA says it has cracked down on thousands of stores that were abusing their SNAP privileges.

Absent action from Congress or USDA leadership, it has largely been left to the Secret Service to apply an enforcement approach to what is arguably a policy problem. Agents first went after gangs like the Red Bull Crew, often by watching hours upon hours of grocery store surveillance footage. More recently, they’ve tried to get ahead of the scammers by heading to cities that have been hit by EBT theft attacks and then going store to store to check card readers for skimming devices. The agency has run more than 70 of these operations since April 2024, independent of any White House initiative.

Most of them are led by Peck, the assistant special agent in charge. With his form-fitting black polo tucked into cargo pants and a contoured beard, he has a flat affect even as he lists off colorful details like how the criminals sometimes ship dishwashers full of cash overseas. But he also emphasizes the vulnerability of the victims and wishes there was even more his team could do for them. “The U.S. has been fighting the War on Drugs and the War on Terror for how many years?” he said. “We are pushing hard and we’re doing all we can with the resources and abilities that we have.”

One bright morning in late June, dozens of law enforcement officers gathered in a Secret Service meeting room on the top floor of a downtown Brooklyn skyscraper, with a commanding view of the New York City skyline. In addition to unarmed Secret Service analysts in short-sleeved shirts inscribed with the field office they were joining from (Nashville, Miami, San Diego), there were agents from the USDA Office of Inspector General as well as a smattering of NYPD officers — who had guns, handcuffs and the jurisdiction to make arrests should anything go awry that day.

From a podium, Peck recapped how the multiday New York operation was going so far, including that the previous day, officers had happened upon two foreign nationals installing a skimming device, chased them down and made arrests. “Be safe, watch backs, stay fed,” he concluded.

Then everyone dispersed into teams of three or four. Each was given a list of dozens of stores in Brooklyn or Queens — disproportionately ethnic and dollar stores, but also some larger chains like 7-11 — that they were assigned to visit, based on data analytics showing where skimming activity was most probable.

The squad that ProPublica joined was headed to Midwood, in South Brooklyn, which is home to Orthodox Jews and immigrants from the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere. As we walked around the neighborhood with these federal agents, we got plenty of confused looks and some scared ones, too.

“Hello, we’re here with the Secret Service,” one of the analysts would say upon entering each store. Then they’d ask the store manager for permission to inspect each card reader. They also handed out flyers in four languages telling the cashiers what to look out for.

When they did find a skimming device, they donned gloves and masks to handle it. After prying it off the card reader, they bagged it and tagged it, to be sent in for DNA and fingerprint testing as well as digital forensic analysis. Maybe a lead could be extracted, a connection to a larger EBT theft ring.

These missions are clearly well-intentioned, and every skimmer removed saves families from being deprived of food. Yet, plainly, conducting store-to-store checks of card readers is inefficient. Over the course of two years, the agency has spent tens of thousands of staff hours checking 69,805 point-of-sale terminals at stores, 42,972 gas pumps and 10,661 ATMs. They’ve found 637 skimming devices. And as one agent told ProPublica, “There could be a new skimmer on there tomorrow.”

Ultimately, it just won’t be possible to arrest one’s way out of this crisis, both federal and state law enforcement officials acknowledged. Low-level runners keep arriving from Romania and elsewhere; even if they do get caught, they’re often able to bond out of jail because they’re only facing state charges for nonviolent offenses. Then they disappear.

Funding for chip EBT cards still faces dim prospects on Capitol Hill, according to Democratic and Republican lawmakers and staffers, even with newfound support from major retailer associations and big players like Walmart. There’s a chip card provision in the Senate’s draft version of this year’s Farm Bill, but the whole package is mired in a dispute between the parties — over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s cuts to SNAP funding — that looks like it will last until well after the midterm elections. This almost doesn’t matter, given that on the House side, the Farm Bill has already passed, and it contains no funding for chip cards.

And there’s been no movement on repeated bipartisan proposals from Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and others to renew the reimbursement program for families that have had their food assistance taken.

Certainly, the mass distribution of any new payment technology isn’t easy. California, Alabama and Oklahoma have had to phase in their new cards gradually, allowing customers to still use the card’s magnetic stripe if the chip isn’t working everywhere yet. And they’ve tried to notify rural convenience stores and gas stations, and help corner bodegas update their card readers, so that no one is left with only a chip card in a desert of stores that still just accept magnetic stripe.

But by doing all of this and employing additional data tools, California has reduced the theft of food and cash benefits by as much as 83% in just two years, the governor’s office said. And Alabama officials claim their state hasn’t had any confirmed EBT theft cases since they began to distribute chip cards this year.

Still, chip cards aren’t the entire solution and doubtlessly, scammers will find clever ways to get around this technology. Moreover, SNAP recipients have largely been denied the basic services that banks and credit card companies use to block likely fraudulent transactions in real time. (Think of the email or text alerts you get from your bank when suspicious purchases are attempted with your card information.)

If states were to try this without federal help, they would have to individually pay for the additional security features. Most have gone for cheaper options like advising or requiring SNAP recipients to change their PIN regularly and to lock their card when not using it. Both are useful stopgaps but require constant diligence.

State and county SNAP caseworkers said they’ve been deeply frustrated that ever since Trump and Musk killed the reimbursement program, all they can do for victims is suggest they change their PIN more often and maybe try reporting the crime to local law enforcement. “It is a short conversation,” said Norman Vogele, a caseworker in Oregon. The date of the crime and the missing amount is recorded. “It isn’t clear why we even do that much,” he said, “as there is zero recourse.”

The Red Bull Crew stayed on the run for over a year, using looted food benefits to buy hundreds of thousands of dollars of bulk energy drinks in Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. After hundreds of hours of surveillance by the Secret Service, federal prosecutors and local authorities, all but one of the members were arrested and served sentences ranging from one to three years. They’ve all since been released, and some may have been deported.

Meanwhile, every day, SNAP theft sprees keep popping up in new corners of the country. A Secret Service official sounded gloomy about the pursuit of street-level operatives on its own, without policy change. “You can arrest them,” he said. “But essentially once you take them off the street, there’s 10 more that are doing the same thing.”

The first-person accounts have been edited for length and clarity.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power.

Cassandra Garibay contributed reporting. Gabriel Sandoval contributed research.

]]>

Labor has mostly stopped checking whether federal contractors are following disability rules

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 17:06:39 -0400

As the Trump administration slashed a Labor Department agency’s workforce and jurisdiction, the office’s enforcement of certain anti-disability discrimination rules that are still on the books was nevertheless weakened by the overhauls, according to a new watchdog report.

Prior to the start of the president’s second term, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforced equal opportunity requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors, including Executive Order 11246 (a 1965 anti-discrimination directive), Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (anti-disability discrimination law) and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (veterans employment law).

Agencies in fiscal 2025 spent roughly $793 billion on federal contracts that support the employment of more than one million U.S. workers.

OFCCP used to generally conduct audits to assess contractor compliance with all three measures’ requirements concurrently, but Trump repealed the executive order as part of a broader anti-diversity push. As a result, the agency paused, with respect to anti-disability discrimination requirements, the annual certification of affirmative action programs and associated auditing.

The Government Accountability Office found that this has caused confusion among federal contractors about what rules are still being enforced and could hurt federal contractors with disabilities.

“In the absence of audits related to Section 503, DOL lacks a mechanism for regularly monitoring contractors’ implementation of the policies and practices described in their required affirmative action programs,” auditors wrote. “In turn, OFCCP has less assurance that contractors are complying with Section 503 and supporting the employment of people with disabilities.”

An OFCCP employee told Government Executive in 2025 that possible employee settlements under Section 503 and VEVRAA were being held up by the enforcement pause.

In August, DOL also updated regulations so that contractors no longer have to set a goal of employing 7% of their workforce with people with disabilities or track such progress by requiring employees and applicants to self-identify as having a disability or not.

GAO reported that OFCCP conducted nearly 9,000 contractor audits between fiscal years 2017 and 2025, of which 15.7% uncovered at least one violation of agency regulations.

Following the repeal of EO 11246, OFCCP also downsized its workforce. GAO found that the agency went from nearly 500 full-time employees at the start of fiscal 2025 to fewer than 80 by fiscal 2026 and reduced the number of its field offices from 50 to six.

Additionally, auditors criticized agency officials for not conducting workforce planning to ensure that the retained staffers had the skills needed to perform remaining enforcement activities.

GAO recommended that OFCCP resume certifying contractor affirmative action programs and Section 503 audits. The agency’s director, Kenneth J. Wolfe, wrote in a letter attached to the report that officials do not have plans to restart either “at this time” due to the August regulation updates. He noted, however, that the agency is investigating contractor complaints alleging disability discrimination.

The agency did agree with a recommendation to conduct strategic workforce planning as well as several suggestions to provide more information to contractors about current compliance requirements.

Earlier this month, new Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling was sworn in after his predecessor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, resigned following a series of scandals.

Civil servants with disabilities have recently accused several agencies, including the departments of Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services and Labor, of unreasonably denying and delaying decisions on reasonable accommodations requests, particularly for telework.

]]>

USDA reshapes its food assistance agency, but employee relocations remain on hold

Jory Heckman — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:00:00 -0400

The Agriculture Department is proceeding with a reorganization of an agency that administers food assistance for millions of Americans.

The Food and Nutrition Service, which the Trump administration recently rebranded as the “Food and Nutrition Administration,” notified employees last week that the agency has officially restructured its operations.

The biggest part of this reorganization – relocating most FNS employees across the country – remains on hold, for now.

A federal judge in San Francisco placed a temporary hold on deadlines for all “management directed reassignment” letters USDA employees have received so far. That hold is scheduled to remain in place through Oct. 13.

FNS plans to relocate most of its staff to new “hubs” that USDA has established across the country, including in Indiana, Texas, Missouri and North Carolina. A union representing the agency’s workforce says these relocations will result in further staffing losses, putting its food assistance programs at risk of disruption.

Acting FNS Administrator Shiela Corley told employees in an Oct. 6 email that the agency “officially transitioned into our new organizational structure” at the start of fiscal 2027.

According to the email, FNS operations will focus on four separate organizations – State Support & Evaluation (SSE), Nutrition Research & Regulations (NRR), Benefits & Integrity (BI), and Retailer Operations & Compliance (ROC).

“Each of these organizations are led by Deputy Administrators and form the backbone of the agency,” Corley wrote. “They are responsible for national program administration, regulatory oversight, program integrity, and operational consistency across all our nutrition assistance programs.”

FNS employees told Government Executive it’s not yet clear what impact this stage of the reorganization will have on their day-to-day work.

“It broadly talks about restructure of work areas, but no details, no timeline, nothing,” one employee said about the email staff received.

“Not sure what this means on a day-to-day level, or how this will be impacted by the larger reorg,” a second employee said. “As far as I am aware, we don’t have any additional guidance from managers, either.”

Corley wrote that the agency has “received numerous questions about how FNA programs will be organized under our new structure,” and that it will provide more information in additional biweekly updates throughout FY 2027.

An employee in USDA’s IT shop recently received a notice about an upcoming reorganization of the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO).

“I have a new immediate supervisor, but the same executive leadership. IT is not making anyone move with their re-org. But it is a dramatic change, so how the new org is going to operate seems very much up in the air,” the USDA IT employee said.

According to the USDA IT employee, a reorganization of the OCIO was also supposed to go into effect on Oct. 1, but has been pushed back to mid-December because of “processing delays at HR.”

USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A coalition of federal employee labor unions, nonprofits and local governments is suing USDA over its reorganization plans. Plaintiffs argue the relocations are a veiled attempt by USDA to further shrink its workforce. USDA already cut its workforce by about 20,000 employees largely through voluntary separation incentives last year – about a fifth of its total workforce.

FNS has shed about 30% of its workforce under the second Trump administration. About one-third of its remaining 1,200 employees currently live in the Washington, D.C. region.

The National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 226, which represents FNS employees, says more than 80% of staff who took an internal survey claim they will not relocate to keep their jobs.

FNS oversees 16 nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Women, Infants and Children, that collectively serve one-in-four Americans annually.

USDA leaders say the reorganization and relocations will improve customer service, and not result in any disruption to agency programs. A senior USDA official told the court in August that out of the 725 USDA employees who have received relocation letters so far, and that 64% of them have accepted reassignment.

Employees say that figure is inflated, and that some individuals accepted relocation notices because it is the only way they can proceed with a request for a hardship or medical exemption. Other say they've opted into relocation only to buy themselves more time to find a job that would keep them in the D.C. area.

U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria recently issued an administrative stay of USDA’s relocations while he decides whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction that would indefinitely bar USDA from carrying out relocation plans for about 2,600 employees.

In a recent hearing, Chhabria questioned how much authority Congress and its appropriations committees have over USDA’s reorganization decisions.

Lawmakers included a provision in the fiscal 2026 appropriations bill for USDA that blocked officials from reorganizing or relocating offices or employees without approval from the House and Senate appropriations committees.

]]>

The Pentagon gave $350 million in contracts to a firm closely tied to a senior Defense Department official

Aaron C. Davis and Robert Faturechi, ProPublica — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 16:16:32 -0400

Among a cadre of Wall Street executives brought into the Pentagon during President Donald Trump’s second term, George K. Kollitides II has emerged as a powerbroker with a broad mandate to improve procurement of weapons and critical minerals.

The longtime partner at the private equity firm Alvarez & Marsal Capital has framed his tour of duty in government as a service to the country. But the work he’s leading has also been a boon to his old friends in the private sector, government procurement records show.

In April, months after Kollitides had started work at the Pentagon, he was listed on a securities filing as continuing to work for his old company as a senior adviser. Two months later, the Defense Department finalized a $281 million no-bid consulting contract with an affiliate firm, Alvarez & Marsal Federal, to advise Kollitides’ new Pentagon office, the records show.

That contract, large for consulting work even by Defense Department standards, is the second in a pair of deals that since December have awarded almost $350 million in military spending to the firm — about five times more than Alvarez & Marsal entities had received from all U.S. agencies combined in the two decades before Trump returned to office, according to federal spending data. Both of those contracts have been for work connected to Pentagon offices where Kollitides is the head or has a senior role.

The deals remain shrouded in secrecy, records show, because they were signed under an unusual contracting method the Defense Department uses to fund experimental weapons — work A&M has never claimed to do. They have begun to send unprecedented sums of taxpayer money to a company that boasts helping government agencies create a “customer-centric culture” and that is deeply intertwined with the private equity firm where Kollitides was a partner for almost 10 years. The two partner firms tag-team investment deals and share back-office support, company documents and federal filings show.

Kollitides was still working with A&M Capital when the deals were signed. It’s unclear if he will benefit financially from the windfall of military spending on A&M consulting. His employment at the Pentagon is under a special classification that allows him to keep his financial disclosures confidential.

Ethics experts said it’s generally illegal for executive branch officials to play a role in awarding contracts that would have a direct impact on their own finances, unless they were granted a waiver.

“It looks way too cozy to be legitimate. I think taxpayers should be appalled,” said Virginia Canter, a former federal government ethics lawyer. “There are a million consulting firms in D.C. and New York. Why would you sole source this contract? They’re not sending replacement parts for a ship that is sinking.”

After ProPublica sent questions to the Pentagon, Kollitides and both A&M entities early this week, A&M Capital said Kollitides had just stopped working there days earlier.

In a statement, A&M Capital said it is a “separately capitalized and separately managed firm from the Alvarez & Marsal consulting business” and its “management and employees have no involvement in the day-to-day operations of the consulting business, and vice versa.” The firm said that none of Kollitides’ work for it related to the “defense industry, the Department of War or Mr. Kollitides’ government service.”

The Alvarez & Marsal consulting business did not answer any of ProPublica’s questions, including how it became aware of the possibility that it could seek the $281 million no-bid contract and what services it is providing to Kollitides’ Pentagon team. The Wall Street Journal on Thursday reported the existence of some of the Alvarez & Marsal contracting.

“We are proud to serve clients across all industries, and all levels of government,” the company said in a statement. “The common denominator is always the same: we help solve difficult problems.”

“It looks way too cozy to be legitimate. I think taxpayers should be appalled.”
Virginia Canter, former federal government ethics lawyer

Kollitides did not respond to questions about whether he played a role in A&M securing contracts to work for his office, but a Pentagon spokesperson replied for the department and on Kollitides’ behalf saying they both followed all applicable rules.

“The Department of War maintains a rigorous, multi-layered ethics framework that includes financial disclosure reviews, divestitures where appropriate, and screening to prevent conflicts of interest,” Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Jacob Bliss wrote in an email. Kollitides, he added, “is in full compliance with all ethical laws and regulations. Any claims otherwise are false.”

There is widespread bipartisan agreement that the Pentagon’s procurement systems are in need of radical reform and private-sector know-how could help the country better secure supply lines and accelerate the development of new weapons to ensure the military is prepared to fight future wars.

But current and former defense officials say the massive spending for connected consultants is a reflection of a changed Defense Department under Trump. They say a clubby and politicized culture has taken hold in a wing of the Pentagon controlled by Kollitides and other former Wall Street executives recruited by Steve Feinberg, the billionaire private-equity titan who is now the deputy defense secretary. It’s an operation, they say, that favors people and companies that have close ties to the administration.

This year, ProPublica reported that the Office of Strategic Capital, a unit at the Pentagon that Kollitides helps lead, granted a small North Carolina startup linked to Donald Trump Jr. a $620 million loan after a top aide to the president intervened on the company’s behalf. A group of Democratic lawmakers accused the office of “a staggering level of corruption and influence peddling.”

ProPublica also reported that the same Pentagon unit was considering a loan to Unusual Machines, a second company connected to the president’s son. A defense official told ProPublica recently that the unit is now in the late stages of a $220 million loan for the Florida drone parts maker, where Trump Jr. sits on the advisory board and was granted a stake.

The Pentagon did not respond to a question about the advancing loan process for Unusual Machines and if Trump Jr.’s connections were playing a part. After the earlier loan to a Trump-connected company, the Pentagon said “no company receives preferential treatment” and “political connections play absolutely no role in the Department’s funding decisions.” Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson pushed back on criticism, saying the Defense Department is conducting extensive due diligence on potential lending.

That Pentagon lending unit was launched during the Biden administration with an open application process for interested companies. Current and former officials and people who have interacted with the office say Kollitides and other leaders now rely more on their own personal networks to choose companies to fund — as well as the consultants to vet those deals.

Multiple Pentagon Hats

That reliance on personal networks is how Kollitides got to the Pentagon.

Feinberg first hired Kollitides more than two decades ago.

Then a rising private-equity star who had graduated from Columbia Business School, Kollitides moved up the ranks at Cerberus, Feinberg’s firm, taking the reins of its aerospace, defense and government groups. In 2012, Kollitides took on an especially sensitive and more public job for the private-equity giant. Kollitides was named chief executive of a Cerberus company combining Remington, the nation’s oldest gun maker, with more than a dozen other firearms and parts companies, eliminating hundreds of jobs from New York to Georgia to Montana.

After three years with the Cerberus-owned gunmaker, Kollitides left and became a partner at Alvarez & Marsal Capital, an offshoot of A&M consulting, whose co-founder also had long-standing business ties to Feinberg.

Some former business associates said they were not surprised that Kollitides jumped at the chance to rejoin Feinberg at the Pentagon. The two share a love for firearms and defense industry investments. They have also both described their work addressing the military’s most vexing supply chain issues as a patriotic calling.

“Americans need us at the Pentagon and our civilians and our contractors to do better,” Feinberg said last year. “We can’t fail, we can’t make excuses, we must succeed.”

On social media, Kollitides has shown the kind of partisanship long taboo in the Pentagon but now fostered in its ranks by Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Kollitides has decried the “Democrat Party,” warned of the ills of socialism and posted that “the government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”

Over the last year, Feinberg has continued to heap responsibility on Kollitides: naming him his co-chief of staff and senior adviser; vice chairman of the Office of Strategic Capital’s investment committee; and director of two other new offices, the Economic Defense Unit and the Business Operators for National Defense, or BOND — the office with the $281 million no-bid contract.

His employment status allowing him to hold any of those roles at the Pentagon is somewhat of a mystery.

Unlike Feinberg, who was confirmed to his post by the Senate, Kollitides was reportedly first brought onto the federal government last year as a special government employee, or SGE, a designation that allows someone to work in government for no more than 130 days a year. Kollitides seemingly exceeded that cap several months ago.

But in the Pentagon’s email system, Kollitides’ name now carries an abbreviation signifying he has been designated an HQE, or highly qualified expert. His employment classification, which the Pentagon confirmed, is designed to hire people who bring “enlightened thinking and innovation” to Defense Department roles that can last up to six years.

That distinction brings a unique benefit for Kollitides. Financial disclosures filed by HQEs are generally confidential, while those of high-ranking SGEs are often subject to release once a person fills a government role for more than 60 days. It’s unclear if Pentagon ethics officials granted Kollitides a waiver to keep any disclosures confidential.

(ProPublica requested Kollitides’ financial disclosure forms in August, but the Pentagon has not yet responded.)

Kollitides’ continued tie to Alvarez & Marsal Capital surfaced in April in a securities filing by a second company with which the defense official was taking a leadership post.

Days after Feinberg named him the head of BOND, granting Kollitides deep visibility into weapons production rates of U.S. military contractors, Kollitides took a seat on the board of D. Boral Acquisition I, an offshore shell company whose affiliate D. Boral Capital has partnered with defense-related businesses. Bloomberg Government first reported the filing in July, and that Kollitides stepped down from the position at the end of September.

Kollitides’ biography in the filing described his current roles at the Pentagon, then added that “he is also a Senior Advisor” to Alvarez & Marsal Capital and that he previously was a partner and co-head of one the firm’s funds.

The A&M entity that Kollitides is described as still advising in the filing is essentially the private-equity partner of the sprawling Alvarez & Marsal firm that includes A&M Federal, which is now providing consulting services for his offices at the Pentagon.

Though the private-equity and consulting businesses are distinct, they work together, share back-office staff for human resources and tech support, and have overlapping ownership, according to company documents. The private-equity arm describes itself as having a “strategic relationship” with the consulting side of A&M. The firm boosts its investment decision-making by working with the consulting firm’s thousands of employees around the globe to assess particular companies. And after the fund takes a stake in a company, it deploys the consulting arm’s employees to improve that firm’s operations and make the company more valuable.

In other words, the fund’s success hinges on the consulting firm’s.

Whether Kollitides violated government ethics rules hinges on details that he and the Pentagon have declined to provide.

A Defense Department official told ProPublica that Kollitides “does not and has never had” any investments or financial relations with A&M consulting. The official said Kollitides is also “recused on any conflicted matters related to A&M Capital,” which could be referring to Defense Department decisions related to companies A&M Capital has a financial stake in.

Ethics experts said that without a written waiver, executive branch officials are generally barred from participating in decisions, such as the awarding of a contract, that would have a direct impact on their financial interests. That law, the experts said, could apply even if the official doesn’t have a stake in a company but just draws a salary — the rationale being that they’ve improved the odds that the company will be able to continue paying them.

The Pentagon official did not answer specific questions about whether Kollitides was being compensated by A&M Capital when the contracts were signed, if he played any role in the contract decision-making process or if he sought or received an exemption to do so.

A “Blank Sheet of Paper” Contract

A&M’s first contract with the Pentagon was signed in December, months after Kollitides joined the government. That $67.6 million deal was awarded to Alvarez & Marsal Federal through a Defense Department entity focused on efforts to strengthen the nation’s industrial base.

The full scope of work that A&M provided is unclear. But documents reviewed by ProPublica show that by late last year, the firm had begun helping to vet possible loan deals for the Office of Strategic Capital, the lending unit then run in part by Kollitides.

Like that first contract, the larger, $281 million deal that followed to advise Kollitides’ BOND office came in the form of what is called an OTA, or other transaction agreement, which allows agencies to bypass regular federal contracting rules on public disclosure and oversight.

Congress first authorized the Defense Department to use the contracting method in the 1980s to fund breakthrough technologies without publicly disclosing much about the work. The Pentagon has increasingly turned to OTA contracts over the last decade to quickly fund a broader range of one-time costs, including prototype weapons and urgent production needs, even as government auditors have lamented OTAs as a “blank sheet of paper” arrangement with little oversight or accountability.

Still, experts said an OTA contract for consulting work was extraordinary. That’s because consulting is one of the simplest services the military can buy, and it has a long history of doing so through competitive bidding. Firms often publish the hourly costs for their associates, managers and other work before solicitations are posted.

But like black-box OTA contracts for secret weapons systems, the funding mechanism has hidden from public view details of what taxpayers are getting for the money.

The sheer size of the A&M contract stunned experts.

At $281,089,206.65, the consulting contract is among the largest OTAs funded through the Defense Department’s main support division in the last decade, including for top secret semiconductor projects and underwater drones, records show.

The Pentagon has said little about the impact of BOND since Hegseth claimed in February that the new entity would revolutionize military purchasing.

The defense secretary said that under the program, the military would embed former corporate executives, or, as he put it, “elite, private-sector patriots” to help optimize and accelerate the manufacturing of critical munitions. Hegseth said he thought the exercise would help the Pentagon increase resiliency in supply chains. The “era of managed decline is over,” he said.

In private recruitment materials for those executives, as well as for candidates to fill posts in other Kollitides-run units, the stakes and the mission for BOND were described in even starker terms: Neoliberalism and trade deals have left the U.S. as a country that “can no longer manufacture ships, munitions or planes in a timely manner.”

The recruiting materials cast the job of fixing that systemic problem as part-time work: “Recently retired Fortune 100 executives spend five days per month solving public- and private-sector operational challenges,” read pages viewed by ProPublica.

Two people familiar with A&M’s work for BOND said the firm’s consultants have accompanied former executives on trips to review work at major defense contractors such as Lockheed, Boeing, RTX and BAE Systems. BAE acknowledged a visit by BOND representatives but declined to comment further. Lockheed, Boeing, RTX and other companies contacted by ProPublica did not respond to requests for comment.

Contracting experts said that A&M is likely not guaranteed the full amount, and that contracts like these typically span several years, but records show A&M has already been paid about $31 million.

Not everyone, however, is welcome to participate.

One former military officer who worked in the defense industry told ProPublica he was contacted by an outside recruiter for Kollitides’ new BOND office. The recruiter, he said, told him that all applicants would be asked who they voted for.

The former military officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution, said he expressed discomfort with that line of questioning. He received an email shortly after from the recruiter telling him he was no longer under consideration. The Pentagon did not respond to a question about the officer’s account.

“Getting more effective and efficient is not a political question,” the former officer said.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power.

]]>

8 midterm races for federal employees to watch

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 15:51:59 -0400

The Trump administration’s efforts to downsize and remake the federal workforce could be curtailed if Democrats win back a majority in the House and/or Senate during the midterm congressional elections on Nov. 3.

Here are eight competitive congressional races for federal employees to watch, many of which feature lawmakers who are involved with the annual agency funding process or veterans’ issues.

1. Maine Senate

Susan Collins — the chair of the Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for allocating funding among most federal agencies — is up for re-election in a close race. A Republican, she frequently breaks with the president, including over funding for inspectors general and impoundments, which is when the executive branch delays or withholds congressionally approved spending.

Her Democratic opponent is Troy Jackson, the former Senate president of Maine. While in the state legislature, he sponsored legislation to provide no-interest loans to federal employees in Maine during a government shutdown. The state enacted an identical bill last year after Jackson had left the Maine Senate.

Cook Political Report rates the race as a toss up.

2. Iowa’s 1st Congressional District

Mariannette Miller-Meeks is the top Republican on the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Veterans Health Administration, which cares for more than 9.1 million veterans. She also has sponsored legislation, which is named after an Iowa corrections officer who died by suicide, that would promote mental health screenings and referrals for Bureau of Prisons employees.

Democrat Christina Bohannan, a law professor, is challenging Miller-Meeks for the third time. She is endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union.

Cook Political Report rates the race as lean Democrat.

3. Ohio’s 9th Congressional District

Democrat Marcy Kaptur is a senior appropriator on the subcommittee that oversees the Army Corps of Engineers and Energy Department. In response to the Trump administration’s impoundment of agency funding, she introduced legislation that would require senior federal employees to take annual training on the budget process.

Her opponent is Derek Merrin, a former GOP Ohio state representative. While in the state legislature, he supported a public employee right-to-work bill.

Cook Political Report rates the race as a toss up.

4. Texas’ 28th Congressional District

Henry Cuellar is the top Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Homeland Security Department, to which congressional Republicans have provided billions in additional funding for immigration enforcement.

He is a moderate Democrat. In 2024, Cuellar and his wife were charged with bribery, conspiracy and money laundering. Trump, however, later pardoned them.

Tano Tijerina, a county judge, is the GOP nominee for the seat. On his campaign website, he says that he wants to make Washington, D.C., more like Texas, which means “less bureaucracy, more action.”

Cook Political Report rates the race as lean Democrat.

5. Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District

Republican Jen Kiggans is the chairwoman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Her coastal district is home to tens of thousands of military personnel and federal employees. Last year, she introduced legislation to ensure that members of the armed services, Defense Department civilians and contractors and U.S. Coast Guard staffers would receive pay on a normal schedule despite the fall government shutdown.

Kiggans is in a rematch race against former Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria, who is known for serving on the House panel that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Cook Political Report rates the race as a toss up.

6. Georgia Senate

Jon Ossoff is the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee panel that oversees military construction and the VA. He has criticized the administration’s proposed fiscal 2027 VA budget for directing funding increases toward private sector care.

Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., is challenging Ossoff for the position. Media outlets have reported several instances in which Collins’ staffers or family members have shared Nazi or Ku Klux Klan imagery.

Cook Political Report rates the race as likely Democrat.

7. Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District

Republican Derrick Van Orden is the chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs panel that oversees veteran education, employment and housing programs. He’s also backed efforts to block the president’s attempts to remove collective bargaining rights for Defense Department employees.

His Democratic challenger is Rebecca Cooke, a small business owner and nonprofit leader.

Cook Political Report rates the race as a toss up.

8. Texas Senate

Whoever wins this state’s Senate race will represent more than 130,000 federal employees, one of the largest headcounts in the country.

Republican Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, said that he would support cutting federal benefits programs, according to leaked audio from a private fundraiser. Paxton was impeached by the Texas House in 2023 for abuse of power but was acquitted by the state Senate.

Democrat James Talarico is a state representative endorsed by AFGE for his “100% pro-labor voting record.”

Cook Political Report rates the race as a toss up.

]]>

HHS scraps disability accommodations over missing paperwork. Employees say they have receipts

Jory Heckman — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 10:41:50 -0400

The Health and Human Services Department, with a single email, is closing out accommodation requests from employees with disabilities or medical conditions.

Several HHS employees told Government Executive that the department administratively closed out their reasonable accommodation requests over failing to provide supporting medical documentation within 20 calendar days.

Impacted employees, however, shared evidence that they submitted their medical documentation before the deadline. One employee said she was granted an extended deadline to provide their medical records, but still had her RA request closed out.

“To date, the Reasonable Accommodation Program (RAP) has not received the information requested to support your request for a reasonable accommodation,” HHS wrote in Sept. 21 email obtained by Government Executive. "Because this information is necessary to evaluate your request and continue the interactive process, we are unable to proceed with processing your request. Accordingly, your reasonable accommodation case will be administratively closed.”

The email states that any interim accommodations employees had in place while their RA requests were pending “will also cease.”

“This administrative closure is based solely on the absence of the information necessary to evaluate your request and does not constitute a denial or determination on the merits of your request for reasonable accommodation,” HHS wrote.

An HHS spokesperson said in a statement that if a “request is verified to have been closed in error due to documentation having been received prior to the 20 day timeline, then those cases will be corrected accordingly.”

Many employees have waited months – or about a year, in some cases – for HHS to process their reasonable accommodation requests. HHS faces a backlog of thousands of accommodation requests.

In August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave employees 20 calendar days to submit medical information supporting their accommodation requests – even if they had already done so. Employees at the National Institutes of Health said they received a similar notice.

A CDC employee with degenerative arthritis said she first submitted her reasonable accommodation request in early 2025. She said CDC first requested medical documentation from her in August 2026. After dealing with delays from her doctor, she said the agency granted her an extended deadline, allowing her to submit documentation by mid-September.

Despite providing the necessary documentation, she said CDC administratively closed out her reasonable accommodation in late September. She said her condition has worsened now that she is required to report to the office full-time.

“When we were forced to return to the office full time in February [2025], I suffered steadily worsening knee pain, until the point where the pain was so severe that I could literally not bear to walk on it,” she said. She said she condition worsened to the point that she required surgery.

“I might have eventually had it due to my underlying condition, but I believe that it was significantly accelerated by the requirement to return to office full time,” she said.

A second CDC employee received the same message about the agency closing out their reasonable accommodation request – even though they submitted the required medical documentation.

“People are absolutely livid,” the second CDC employee said.

An NIH employee also said their reasonable accommodation request was administratively closed out.

A second NIH employee said she was already working with an HHS reasonable accommodation coordinator to submit her medical documentation, when she got a separate unsigned email from the department’s Human Capital Accountability (HCA) directorate with conflicting deadlines.

“Because I had already been given instructions and a deadline by my assigned coordinator, I was suspicious of this duplicate request,” she said.

She said she emailed the Human Capital Accountability (HCA) directorate to clarify the situation, but did not receive a response. She said her RA coordinator told her to disregard the email she received from HCA.

“Whether this is intentional or the result of a deeply dysfunctional process, the effect on employees is the same: people seeking disability accommodations are receiving overlapping or confusing directives, being placed under strict deadlines, and then waiting while their attempts to comply or obtain clarification go unread,” the NIH employee said.

Yolanda Jacobs, president of AFGE Local 2883, which represents CDC headquarters employees, said the decision to close out many RA requests was “a deliberate choice to clear the backlog without taking meaningful action to support workers.”

“What’s clear is that HHS leadership has no real solution to properly work through the backlog of thousands of unresolved accommodation requests, nor are they making any attempts to provide a solution,” Jacobs said.

Linnet Griffiths, a former senior advisor to CDC’s chief operating officer and equal employment opportunity director at CDC and HHS, who left the agency in April 2025, said that employees who can prove they submitted medical documentation should be able to file an appeal.

"This use to not be a problem because all documentation was submitted through the RA secure system. I’m not sure what they are using now," Griffiths said.

]]>

Watchdog to examine summertime hack of DHS information network, other incidents

David DiMolfetta — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 09:00:00 -0400

A forthcoming audit of a key Department of Homeland Security information-sharing network will examine three known security incidents that occurred on agency networks, including an intrusion by outside hackers that Nextgov/FCW first reported this summer, according to a GAO official and another person familiar with the matter.

The review concerns the Homeland Security Information Network, or HSIN, which allows government agencies, law enforcement and other approved partners to exchange sensitive but unclassified information. Its users rely on the platform to share threat reporting, coordinate security for major events and respond to emergencies.

The Government Accountability Office review is expected to document the incidents that occurred between 2023 and 2026 and potentially scrutinize DHS for failing to promptly notify Congress about those security problems, the person familiar said.

The audit is being conducted in response to a directive in the fiscal 2025 defense policy package, said Nate Tranquilli, the acting director of GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice team. The second person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the review. It’s not clear when the final report will be released.

The previously unreported scope of the audit places this summer’s intrusion within a longer history of security problems on the platform. It also raises questions about whether DHS has given Congress and HSIN stakeholder organizations enough detail to understand what may have been exposed.

GAO has identified two incidents stemming from employee and contractor errors, while the most recent involved a malicious actor whose affiliation remains unknown, the person familiar said.

In 2023, a contractor’s coding error allowed HSIN users to access restricted information they were not authorized to see, according to a memo previously obtained by Nextgov/FCW. Another similar incident occurred in 2025, the person familiar said.

Having a HSIN account does not automatically give a user access to everything on the platform. Information is organized into restricted groups, called communities of interest, focused on particular threats, regions or missions. A police official in a border state seeking information about cartel activity, for example, could request admission to a relevant group, with an administrator deciding whether to grant access.

The security incidents have also strained partners’ confidence in the network, according to the first person. Staff at some fusion centers — state and local hubs that bring together law enforcement and other partners to analyze and share threat information — do not know whether their files were accessed without authorization during the various incidents, the person said.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Senate Intelligence Committee’s vice chairman, previously said HSIN supported security coordination for this summer’s World Cup and America250 events and that the network’s exposure “risks national security.”

During the most recent intrusion, DHS analysts twice dismissed suspicious activity as harmless, allowing hackers to remain inside for weeks, Nextgov/FCW reported in July. An internal incident readout showed suspicious activity beginning in mid-May. By June 4, the intruders had installed hidden access points and stolen credential data used to authenticate access to accounts or systems, prompting personnel to declare an active breach.

It remains unclear what data, if any, was pilfered from the network.

A DHS spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In an earlier statement, the department said it was “aware of a recent cyber incident involving a specific, unclassified legacy information sharing environment” and had isolated affected systems, addressed the vulnerability and begun a forensic investigation.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated to attribute certain remarks to GAO official Nate Tranquilli.

]]>

Bureau of Prisons re-terminates union contracts despite court order

Erich Wagner — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 18:22:57 -0400

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons terminated its union contracts for the second time Thursday, just two days after the American Federation of Government Employees called upon its leadership to be held in contempt over failure to comply with a court order restoring the agreements.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Vernon Oliver ordered that BOP reinstate its collective bargaining agreements, finding that the September 2025 contract terminations, conducted under the auspices of President Trump’s executive orders banning unions at most federal agencies on national security grounds, violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency’s stated reasoning was likely “entirely pretextual.”

But on Tuesday, union officials reported to the court that they had experienced widespread “defiance” of Oliver’s preliminary injunction. Wardens reportedly told union officials their instructions were to wait, rather than comply with the ruling; one employee was denied union representation at a disciplinary hearing and was ultimately fired after 19 years at the agency.

In a court filing Thursday responding to AFGE’s contempt motion, the bureau alleged that leadership had instructed the agency to reinstitute its CBAs and that it simply took time to wind up those systems—union officials began getting approval for official time requests Tuesday, after the labor group filed its motion.

“Plaintiffs allege that wardens have been told not to comply with the PI and not to work with the union,” wrote BOP’s attorneys. “As indicated above, the BOP avers no such guidance was given by BOP leadership. On the contrary, beginning the morning of September 30, 2026, [Human Resource Management Division Senior Deputy Assistant Director Jonathan] Hemingway describes the focus of BOP senior leadership being on implementation and compliance with the preliminary injunction and remained the focus of bureau leadership until the agreement was terminated on October 7.”

In BOP Director William Marshall’s new termination notice, he rescinds the 2025 termination notice, as well as a blog post in which he said he was cancelling the union contracts because AFGE is not the “kind of union” he supports, though the latter message remains on BOP’s website. He argued that the contracts were “not intended to operate” independent of the federal sector labor rules the agency is now exempt from, and that engaging with the union distracts from its national security mission.

“Maintaining the CBA despite the president’s exclusion order has already caused, and will continue to cause, significant and irreparable harm to the bureau,” Marshall wrote. “These harms include substantial monetary, operational and resource impacts relating to staffing and scheduling, implementation of the First Step Act, staff and inmate safety, necessary infrastructure repairs, adoption of technological advancements and updating mission-critical policies and procedures . . . These monetary, operational and resource impacts directly interfere with the agency’s ability to meet its national security duties and responsibilities, as well as its other duties and responsibilities.”

Other agencies have tried a similar tactic, to limited success. The Veterans Affairs Department terminated its CBA for a second time last March, earning a swift rebuke, and then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was similarly chastised in a case involving efforts to overturn prior administrations’ administrative extension of collective bargaining rights to Transportation Security Administration workers.

In a statement Thursday, Brandy Moore White, president of AFGE’s Council of Prison Locals, denounced management’s effort to cancel her union’s contracts a second time, and vowed to continue to fight the initiative in court.

“Our collective bargaining agreement and local agreements provide essential protections for employees who work every day in some of the most challenging and dangerous conditions in federal service,” she said. “The public should be outraged. These agreements are not simply pieces of paper; they provide stability, due process and a meaningful voice for the men and women who keep our institutions safe. Our members deserve nothing less than full compliance with the court’s decision.”

]]>

VA rolls out CLEAR login option and in-person identity verification pilot

Edward Graham — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 18:20:00 -0400

The Department of Veterans Affairs announced on Wednesday that it has rolled out a new identity verification login option from CLEAR and established a pilot program at six medical facilities to help veterans create online VA accounts in person.

The new services are billed as part of a broader digital modernization effort being spearheaded by GovCIO to enhance VA’s online services and integrate the CLEAR1 security identity platform onto the VA.gov website.

Veterans now have the opportunity to voluntarily create CLEAR accounts to access their VA services using facial recognition. The agency’s platform also offers other log-in services that use biometrics for identity verification, like Login.gov — the government’s single sign-on service for federal and state platforms — and ID.me — another private sector offering that can be used to verify users of federal platforms.

Veterans who create CLEAR accounts can also use the service to sign into Medicare.gov through a similar partnership announced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services earlier this year.

The CLEAR accounts used to access VA.gov are different from those operated by the company that allow users to access CLEAR-verified airport security lines.

“Veterans want better customer service and convenience, and under President [Donald] Trump, VA is delivering,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a statement. “This technology is another way we’re changing VA to put Veterans first and make it easier for those who have worn the uniform to get the care and benefits they’ve earned.”

In addition to the new login option, VA is deploying CLEAR pods at selected medical sites to help veterans create identity verification accounts while at the facilities. Veterans who visit these biometric verification kiosks with the proper identifications can have their photos taken and then used to create CLEAR accounts.

The on-site identity verification pilot is now active at VA facilities in Atlanta, Georgia; Brooklyn, New York; Orlando, Florida; Palo Alto, California; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Washington, D.C.

During a Wednesday interview on CBS Mornings, CLEAR CEO Caryn Seidman Becker said veterans can go to VA.gov and verify their identities with “one selfie, and you’re in.” She said the CLEAR pods’ pilot program will also allow the firm “to meet veterans where they are and help them to enroll there.”

]]>

Some former federal employees are still struggling to find the right fit

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 17:12:21 -0400

Speaking outside of a job fair at a Northern Virginia Community College campus on Thursday, Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., said that “a lot of people have landed” since the Trump administration last year pushed hundreds of thousands of employees out of the civil service through layoffs, firings and separation incentives.

“But there's sadly been a persistent subset that has been very difficult to find a job that matches their skill set,” the congressman told Government Executive. “For example, foreign service officers and people that worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development [which the Trump administration shuttered], they have a unique skill — helping children not get malaria, or feeding kids or doing family planning in sub-Saharan Africa. There's not a lot of use for that in metropolitan Washington, D.C.”

The job fair, which was co-hosted by Beyer’s office, the city of Alexandria, Arlington County and several other nonprofits and state and local government agencies, is an example of ongoing initiatives to re-employ workers who lost their jobs as the Trump administration slashed agency workforces.

David Remick, the executive director of the Alexandria/Arlington Regional Workforce Council, said it has been a challenge to provide assistance to former feds, as there is a lot of variation in the type of work they used to perform.

“The positions were a bit all over the place,” he said. “There are some people that could, with some rebranding, move into something different. And there's others that can't.”

Remick emphasized the number of resources available to ex-feds looking for new work, including artificial intelligence-based tools (his office recommends Google’s Career Dreamer) and community support organizations.

“Some people feel a sense of isolation because they're not going into an office every day, and so there have been a number of ad hoc groups just popping up over the year where people can find belonging,” he said.

Government Executive has previously featured FedsForward, an AI-powered website that helps former civil servants navigate the private sector job search, and the organizations Former Gov and wellfed, which offer regular opportunities for ex-feds to connect.

As time goes on, Remick said the workforce council is offering fewer resources specifically for unemployed feds. For example, Thursday’s job fair, while marketed to laid off agency staffers and government contractors, was open to the general public.

Dozens of jobseekers attend a job fair at Northern Virginia Community College Alexandria Campus on Thursday. Two of the recruiting organizations included the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Credit: Sean Michael Newhouse/GovExec

“We still see people in our workshops or webinars, but we're not necessarily breaking them out between former federal workforce and anybody else. It's just — these are the people that we're supporting,” he said. “There was sort of a scarlet letter on some of these [former feds], they felt, because they were in this situation. And it shouldn't be that way. They're still valuable people that bring a lot to the economy, and I've just learned to treat them like anybody else. They appreciate that.”

Beyer has introduced bills to bring some of the pushed out feds back into government service. One would give federal hiring preference to individuals who were involuntarily removed from the civil service between Jan. 1, 2025, and the end of the current calendar year (H.R. 3093), while another would exempt former foreign service officers who were pushed out during Trump’s second term from having to retake the Foreign Service Officer Test if they want to rejoin (H.R. 9730).

While neither measure has advanced in the current Congress, Beyer thinks they could pass if Democrats retake the House and/or Senate in the upcoming midterm elections.

“They're not partisan bills. They're not ‘D’ bills or ‘R’ bills,” he said. “So I think we can get them to the Senate. Getting the president to sign them might be harder.”

There were at least two federal agencies at the job fair recruiting new workers: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA has walked back plans to halve its workforce, but the disaster response agency did lose 17% of its staffers in fiscal 2025. And agency officials have argued that they can operate with a smaller headcount because of technological advances.

]]>

Don’t let 5% become your TSP retirement strategy

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 15:00:00 -0400

Should you lower your TSP contributions before retirement? A 5% contribution can secure the full FERS agency contribution, but that does not necessarily make it the best choice for employees nearing retirement. Here’s what to weigh before changing your contribution rate, from taxes and cash flow to long-term savings.

TSP considerations when you are near retirement

Today’s column was inspired by a recent email from an employee who is nearing retirement and wants to know some of the pros and cons of reducing her TSP contributions to 5%, which is the amount that is subject to agency matching.

For federal employees covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), contributing 5% of basic pay to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) generally captures the full agency contribution. The first 3% is matched dollar-for-dollar, and the next 2% is matched at 50 cents on the dollar.

Combined with the Agency Automatic 1% Contribution, an employee who contributes 5% receives agency contributions equal to 5% of basic pay. That makes 5% an important floor, but not necessarily the ideal ceiling.

For an employee who is retiring in late 2026 or spring 2027, the decision to contribute more turns on the balance between current cash needs, taxes and the long-term value of additional retirement savings.

That decision begins with the annual contribution limits. For 2026, the employee elective-deferral limit is $24,500, shared by traditional and Roth employee contributions. Participants who are at least 50 may also make catch-up contributions: up to $8,000 for most eligible participants or $11,250 for those who turn 60, 61, 62 or 63 during 2026. Agency automatic and matching contributions do not count against the $24,500 employee limit.

Because these limits can change from year to year, employees who are not retiring in 2026 should watch for the annual update. The IRS reviews the limits using cost-of-living adjustments tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as required by federal law.

When inflation warrants an increase, the contribution caps rise in statutory increments, such as the $1,000 increase in the elective-deferral limit from 2025 to 2026. The IRS typically announces the following year’s retirement plan adjustments in late October or November. For example, the TSP published its 2026 contribution-limit announcement in mid-November 2025.

The annual limit is only part of the calculation; timing matters as well. To receive a maximum of 5% in agency automatic and matching contributions, you must contribute at least 5% of basic pay each pay period.

If you reach the annual elective-deferral limit early and payroll contributions stop, matching contributions also stop for the remaining pay periods. Employees who want the full-year match should therefore spread their contributions across all pay periods in the year or, if retiring, over all the pay periods leading to their retirement date.

Recent TSP statistics show that nearly nine in 10 contributing FERS participants save at least 5% of basic pay, but the published monthly data do not distinguish between employees contributing exactly 5% and those contributing more.

Learn more about elective deferral limits by reading the TSP fact sheet, “Annual Limit on Elective Deferrals.”

Separate plan-wide data, not limited to FERS employees, show a strong relationship between the length of time participants contribute and the balances they accumulate. As of March 2025, the following balance groups had these average contribution histories:

Limiting contributions to 5% may offer several advantages, especially for employees approaching retirement:

More money in each paycheck. Reducing your contribution rate can free up cash for an emergency fund, debt repayment, relocation, health expenses or the transition from your final paycheck to your first retirement benefit payment. This flexibility may be especially valuable because retirement claims can take time to finalize.
Full agency contributions can continue. Contributing 5% in every pay period generally allows you to receive the full FERS agency contribution while reducing the risk of reaching the annual employee limit before year-end.
Limited short-term effect near retirement. If you plan to retire within a few months, the difference between contributing 5% and a higher rate applies to only a limited number of pay periods. When your retirement savings are already sufficient, using some of that cash for a specific transition expense may be reasonable.

Those benefits, however, must be weighed against the potential costs of limiting contributions to 5% of basic pay:

Use-it-or-lose-it contribution opportunity. Once the calendar year ends, you generally cannot make up unused TSP contribution room for that year. Contributing less now could mean missing the chance to invest thousands of additional dollars in the TSP.
Less time for your savings to grow. Although you may not consider contributions above 5% when you are near retirement very important, remember that contributions made shortly before retirement can remain invested for many years. Contributing less now reduces the amount available for future compounded growth.
A potentially higher tax bill this year. You may not be increasing your take-home pay as much as you think. Traditional TSP contributions reduce your current taxable income. Lowering them may increase your federal and possibly state income tax, particularly during a final high-earning year.
Less tax flexibility in retirement. Roth TSP contributions are made after tax, but qualified withdrawals are tax-free. Reducing Roth contributions may leave you with fewer options for managing taxable income later, especially because Roth TSP balances are not subject to required minimum distributions during your lifetime.
A greater risk of spending instead of saving. Extra take-home pay improves your retirement readiness only if you use it for a specific financial purpose. If you simply spend the difference, you will enter retirement with fewer assets and no offsetting benefit.

How SECURE Act 2.0 changes the calculation

The choice is further impacted by changes enacted under SECURE Act 2.0. For employees making a near-term contribution decision, the most significant change is the mandatory Roth treatment of certain catch-up contributions beginning in 2026.

The rule applies to an employee who is eligible to make catch-up contributions, generally because the employee will be 50 or older in 2026, and who has 2025 FICA wages from the TSP-covered federal employer that exceeded $150,000.

In other words, 2025 wages of $150,000.01 or more trigger the Roth requirement, while wages of exactly $150,000 or less do not. The test uses prior-year wages from the employer sponsoring the plan, not the employee’s 2026 salary, adjusted gross income or total household income.

Only 2026 contributions above the $24,500 regular elective-deferral limit must be Roth; the rule does not require the employee’s first $24,500 of TSP contributions to be Roth. Employees at or below the threshold may generally choose traditional or Roth treatment for catch-up savings. Because the wage threshold is indexed for inflation, it may change in later years.

The law also raised the required minimum distribution (RMD) starting age from 72 to 73 beginning in 2023 and will raise it to 75 in 2033. It also eliminated lifetime RMDs from a participant’s Roth TSP balance beginning in 2024, reduced the excise tax for missed RMDs and created a larger catch-up limit for participants ages 60 through 63 beginning in 2025.

Taken together, these considerations make 5% a useful benchmark rather than a universal recommendation. It is usually the minimum sensible contribution rate for a FERS employee who wants the full match, but it is not automatically the best rate near retirement.

Before reducing contributions, project them by pay date so the 5% election continues through the final pay period, estimate the tax effect of losing traditional deductions and identify a specific purpose for the additional take-home pay.

Employees affected by the Roth catch-up rule should also compare their expected tax rate in 2026 with their likely tax rate in retirement. Because retirement dates, payroll calendars, FICA wages and tax circumstances differ, employees should confirm their election with their payroll office and consult a qualified tax or financial professional before acting.

Checklist for retirement readiness

Use this checklist to test whether your expected retirement income can support your desired lifestyle, withstand unexpected costs and remain sustainable over a long retirement.

First things first, confirm your retirement eligibility:

Confirm that you meet the age and service requirements for an immediate FERS retirement.
Verify your service computation date and resolve any missing or incorrect service records.
Determine whether you have any outstanding military or temporary civilian service deposits and compare your retirement estimate with and without making these payments.
Compare estimates for two different retirement dates to determine the impact on your monthly income from the FERS basic retirement benefit, Social Security or the FERS Supplement and potential income from your TSP investment.
If retiring under the MRA + 10 provisions, consider the benefit of working longer to avoid the age reduction vs. postponing your retirement application.
If retiring under age 62, compare the benefit of the enhanced annuity calculation factor of 1.1% instead of 1.0% if you will have 20 or more years of service by age 62.

Compute your “net” retirement income:

Obtain an official or agency-prepared estimate of your gross FERS annuity, including the FERS retirement supplement, if eligible.
Be sure to estimate reductions to your FERS retirement benefit that may include:
- Survivor benefit elections for a current spouse
- Court-ordered survivor benefit requirements for a former spouse
- Part-time work schedule proration
- Alternative annuity actuarial reduction
- Offset for Social Security (CSRS Offset coverage only)
- Unpaid deposits or redeposits (CSRS only)
Service not covered by retirement deductions is not creditable under FERS; compute retirement estimates without service where retirement deductions were not withheld or deposited. Noncovered civilian service performed after 1988 is not creditable and not eligible for a service credit deposit.
Estimate withholdings from your monthly benefit that may include:
- Federal income tax
- State income tax
- Insurance premiums (FEHB, FEGLI, FEDVIP, FLTCIP)
- Court-ordered apportionment payable to a former spouse
Review your Social Security estimate at several claiming ages, including at age 62, your full retirement age (67 if born in 1960 or later) and age 70.
If retiring at 65 or later, consider the cost of Medicare Part B premiums.
Estimate income from your TSP, IRAs, spouse benefits, pensions, part-time work and other sources.
Calculate expected after-tax monthly income rather than relying on gross amounts.
Identify which income sources are guaranteed and which depend on investment performance.
Identify which income sources will receive cost-of-living adjustments and when they are applicable to help maintain buying power in the future.

Cash reserves and retirement spending plan

Build a retirement budget that separates essential expenses from discretionary spending.
Compare the estimated net income you will have in retirement to your current net income while employed.
Account for irregular expenses and inflation rather than using current monthly bills alone.
Compare projected income with projected spending and calculate the annual amount your savings must provide.
Maintain an accessible emergency reserve so you are not forced to sell investments during a market decline.
Try living on your projected retirement income for several months before retiring if you expect to have less net income in retirement.

TSP and investment strategy

Confirm that your contribution rate captures the full agency match through your final eligible pay period.
Estimate your TSP balance at retirement under conservative, expected and unfavorable market scenarios.
Decide how much you expect to withdraw in the first year and whether that amount is sustainable.
Review your traditional and Roth balances and the tax treatment of future withdrawals.
Check whether your investment allocation matches your time horizon, income needs and tolerance for market declines.
Understand the differences among installments, partial withdrawals, rollovers and a TSP annuity before choosing a distribution method.
Include outstanding TSP loans in your retirement plan and understand the consequences of separation from service.

Consider your health, insurance needs and long-term risks to your financial security:

Verify eligibility to continue Federal Employees Health Benefits coverage into retirement.
Consider coordination of FEHB coverage with Medicare Parts A and B when you become eligible.
Review Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance choices and the cost of coverage as you age.
Consider how you would pay for long-term care, extended home assistance or assisted living.
Test whether your plan can withstand higher medical costs, a long life and several years of elevated inflation.

Taxes, debt and survivor planning

Estimate federal and state taxes on your annuity, Social Security, traditional TSP withdrawals and other income.
Evaluate whether Roth withdrawals or conversions could improve future tax flexibility.
Decide how mortgages, consumer debt and other obligations will be handled before and after retirement.
Compare FERS survivor annuity options and their effect on your monthly benefit and a spouse’s future financial security and continued FEHB eligibility.
Review beneficiary designations for the TSP, Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance, unpaid compensation and retirement (FERS or CSRS).
Update your will, powers of attorney, health care directives and instructions for locating important records.

Test your retirement readiness

Your projected after-tax income covers essential and discretionary spending with a reasonable margin.
Your plan remains workable if markets decline early in retirement, inflation is higher than expected or you live longer than expected.
You have enough accessible cash for emergencies and the possible delay between your final paycheck and finalized annuity payments.
You and your spouse or partner understand income, insurance, survivor and withdrawal decisions.
You have reviewed the plan with your agency’s retirement specialist and, when appropriate, a qualified tax or financial professional.

Readiness benchmark: A specific TSP balance alone does not establish readiness. A stronger test is whether dependable and investment income can cover expected after-tax expenses, preserve an emergency reserve and remain sustainable under less favorable assumptions.

]]>

Union demands federal prison leaders be held in contempt after agency ‘openly defies’ court order

Erich Wagner — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 17:23:08 -0400

The union representing employees at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons accused agency management Tuesday of “openly defying” a court order to reinstate its collective bargaining agreements and called for a federal judge to hold Director William Marshall in contempt.

U.S. District Judge Vernon Oliver, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction last week, finding that BOP likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it terminate its contracts with the American Federation of Government Employees’ National Council of Prison Locals, in accordance with President Trump’s 2025 executive orders banning collective bargaining at most federal agencies on national security grounds. Key to that decision was Marshall’s public statement that he made the decision because AFGE is not the “kind of union” he supports, rather than any national security concern.

But a week later, though attorneys for the Trump administration have said the agency has “complied” with the court order, union officials tell another story. In a motion to hold Marshall in contempt and enforce the injunction, they relay reports of wardens across multiple prisons who said they had been instructed to wait, rather than restore unions’ access to their office space or otherwise allow them to resume their representational work.

“On October 1, Jonathan Eperson, president of AFGE Local 612 at USP Big Sandy, reported that the acting warden had told him that the regional director instructed management not to work with the union on anything and to maintain the status quo,” the union wrote. “’At] FCI Manchester, management similarly advised the local union on October 5 that word had been ‘put out’ that management were ‘not to do anything yet.’ Another local president reported to [Council President Brandy Moore] White that his warden said wardens were being verbally instructed not to comply with the court’s order and to ignore it.”

And on Sept. 29, just before the injunction was issued, Marshall met with staff at Federal Correctional Institution Elkton in Ohio and was asked about the potential for the judge to order the collective bargaining agreements be restored.

“I don’t take directives from the court,” Marshall reportedly responded. “I take my orders from the president of the United States.”

One employee told the court that they were called into a disciplinary meeting on Oct. 5, when they were denied access to union representation.

“There ain’t no union,” said the prison’s HR manager. The meeting ended with the employee’s termination.

“These accounts support the conclusion that BOP has continued operating with the CBA terminated, which is contrary to the court’s order that BOP immediately reinstate the CBA,” the union wrote. “The withholding of these arrangements is significant because defendants themselves identified official time, bargaining and union office space as consequences of an injunction requiring reinstatement of the CBA. The continued absence of these benefits, coupled with management’s categorical denials of recognition, proves that the September 2025 termination remains operative in practice.”

Oliver on Wednesday instructed BOP to provide “detailed information” on the effort to reinstate AFGE’s contract by Thursday and scheduled a hearing on the union’s motion for Oct. 13. The Bureau of Prisons told Government Executive that it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

]]>

Social Security ends flexible work schedules, teeing up clash with union

Jory Heckman — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 17:04:51 -0400

The Social Security Administration is ending flexible work schedules for its employees, soon after imposing new restrictions on annual leave and sick time.

Under these flexible work schedules, SSA employees generally worked longer hours, in exchange for an extra day off each week or two-week pay period. Employees on these flexible schedules still work the same total hours as their peers working a standard five-day workweek.

The American Federation of Federal Employees, which represents tens of thousands of SSA employees, said many employees relied on these flexible work schedules for medical treatment or to provide family care, and that removing this option would push more staff to leave the agency.

SSA told its workforce that a consistent five-day workweek “strengthens our ability to deliver the service the public expects,” even for employees who don’t work directly with the public.

Employees received an email on Monday informing them that alternative work schedules would no longer be permitted, starting Nov. 16. SSA employees will be allowed to remain on flexible work schedules through Nov. 13.

Prohibited work schedules include employees working 10-hours days four times each workweek, or working eight nine-hour days and one eight-hour day for a two-week pay period.

“Management was given zero notice, so we are scrambling,” an SSA manager told Government Executive. “Many of us just approved people for new AWS schedules in the last few weeks.” An SSA spokesperson declined to comment further, referring back to the email employees received on Monday.

In the email, SSA Chief Human Capital Officer Florence Felix-Lawson told staff that “all employees will transition to a standard five-day workweek.”

“The American people depend on SSA to deliver on its mission every day, and that mission depends on a workforce that is present and available throughout the week. AWS, which allow employees to complete their work hours in fewer than five days, reduce staffing on the days employees are off,” Felix-Lawson wrote. “The cumulative effect across the agency is significant and impacts our service to the public.”

AFGE’s SSA General Committee filed a national grievance, arguing that the agency unilaterally ending flexible work arrangements amounts to an illegal repudiation of its contact with the union.

The Trump administration eliminated collective bargaining at more than 20 agencies last year through a pair of executive orders, on the grounds that these changes were necessary for national security reasons. SSA, however, wasn’t impacted by the executive orders and still recognizes AFGE. Its contract with the union is effective until Oct. 25, 2029.

AFGE’s SSA General Committee said in a statement that SSA “paints a false picture of an agency overwhelmed by employees with alternative schedules.” The union says public-facing field offices and hearing offices must have a minimum staffing level to be eligible for flexible work schedules, and cap the number of public-facing employees who can be off any given day.

The union said that an “overwhelming majority of employees” already work a regular five-day workweek, and that “a small portion of SSA’s total workforce utilized an alternative work schedule.” Employees at smaller offices, for example, are not eligible for flexible work schedules.

The union argued that these changes “will harm public service by further depressing morale in an already overwhelmed workforce, and that many employees will leave the agency, "exacerbating attrition and further depleting service capacity." About 7,000 SSA employees took voluntary separation incentives last year, bringing the agency to its lowest staffing level in about 50 years.

SSA, along with the IRS, announced in July that employees would no longer be granted advanced annual or sick leave until further notice.

Federal employees are generally allowed to use “advanced” annual or sick leave for major medical emergencies, family care and bereavement of an immediate family member if they have already exhausted their annual leave or sick leave. With advanced leave, employees essentially borrow from a reserve of leave hours they will eventually accrue.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., led colleagues in denouncing this new policy as a “cruel and unjustified plan that is likely to drive additional employees out the door.”

“Like with advanced leave, many SSA employees utilized alternative work schedules to make time to seek medical treatment and take care of loved ones without loss of pay. SSA’s action will fall harshest on those workers who will have to choose between getting paid or getting care. The cruelty of this move cannot be overstated,” the union wrote.

The union is calling on Congress to pass legislation that expands unions’ ability to seek injunctive relief in unfair labor practice cases. It’s also urging the Senate to pass the Protecting America’s Workforce Act. The bill, which passed the House last December, would restore collective bargaining rights to over 3,000 SSA IT workers and approximately 1 million federal workers.

]]>

Using holiday lights to inform hurricane recovery? Award honors ‘seemingly odd’ federally funded research that brings about groundbreaking discoveries

Sean Michael Newhouse — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 15:53:21 -0400

Miguel Román, the deputy director for atmospheres and data systems in NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Earth Sciences Division, started his career at the space agency with a much simpler title: intern.

“Summer 2003 was a sublime moment for me because I truly saw people walking the halls of this building, and they were literally changing the books of science by making major discoveries at the time by building large flagship missions and pointing them down at Earth and measuring things we had never looked at before,” he said. “Twenty-some years later, I'm sitting in the corner office of that building.”

Román himself has changed science books through his work on Black Marble, a NASA project that provides a near real-time measurement of nighttime light around the world. Its data has been used to support disaster response, humanitarian organizations in conflict zones and as a proxy for economic activity.

Black Marble is part of a trio of winners for this year’s Golden Goose awards, an annual program put on by the American Association for the Advancement of Science that honors “unexpected, seemingly odd federally funded research that ultimately leads to transformative breakthroughs for science and society.” Winners were recognized last week during a ceremony at the Library of Congress.

Past honorees include researchers that contributed to mRNA vaccines, artificial intelligence and GLP-1 drugs.

Black Marble’s quirky origin story is that initially NASA was picking up nighttime lights that researchers couldn’t explain.

“We thought the instrument was broken because the lights over desert areas where we drew all our calibration — very stable sites — were going up and down every year,” Román said. “Up until that moment, we didn't realize that we were seeing the effects of Muslim cities celebrating the end of Ramadan.”

The NASA official said that Black Marble’s life-saving applications started to become apparent during hurricane recoveries, such as Hurricane Maria in 2017 that hit Puerto Rico, where Román is from.

“I was looking at changes in places where I knew the names of streets, and I had walked. If you're a citizen of that locale, and you know what's going on, it carries a different weight,” he said. “We went from curiosity and something a little fun and happy to answering our call to service and having a sense of urgency and taking that seriously as a group, even though we're a science agency. The capability was there. We had data systems. At that point, it wasn't about the science as much as it was also making the data available to the people making decisions on the ground.”

New Orleans before Hurricane Ida in 2021 Credit: NASA

Román added that Black Marble data is increasingly being used by Fortune 100 companies for matters like assessing AI supply chains and insurance decisions.

“NASA built an ecosystem around public value that drives the national economy and national interests,” he said. “We are still doing the curiosity-driven work, but we're also helping eat up the risk that industry may not stomach to allow folks to take on this capability.”

“Scientific research is more than just about the funding; it relies on people”

The Golden Goose awards were founded in 2012 as a response to former Sen. William Proxmire’s “Golden Fleece Awards.” When he was in Congress from 1975 through 1988, Proxmire targeted federal spending that he considered to be wasteful, which often included scientific research funding.

“The idea for the Golden Goose award was to demonstrate that sometimes research that might sound silly or odd or a waste of taxpayer dollars can have amazing contributions to society,” said Joanne Padrón Carney, the chief government relations officer for AAAS.

For example, the other two Golden Goose honorees this year are:

Histotripsy, which can break apart tumors without surgery or heat, that originated with a graduate student, Zhen Xu, trying to quiet noisy lab equipment. The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Defense Department, and Xu has since co-founded a multi-billion health company to commercialize the technology.
Sidney Nagel, whose research backed by the National Science Foundation and Energy Department on phenomena like “the ring left behind by a spilled drop of coffee” has led to “applications ranging from inkjet printing and industrial manufacturing to grain silo design and diagnostic techniques that analyze dried blood and saliva droplets.”

Carney is concerned, however, that various actions taken by the Trump administration will stymie future scientific discoveries. Specifically, she pointed to attempts by the Office of Management and Budget to give political appointees more power in approving grants and the president’s proposed fiscal 2027 budget cuts to science agencies: NIH (-12.8%), NSF (-54.7%) and NASA Science (-46.3%). Congress largely rejected Trump’s proposed reductions to science agency funding last fiscal year.

Regardless of whether the administration’s efforts are ultimately successful, she worries that they will still deter young people from becoming scientists.

“Scientific research is more than just about the funding; it relies on people. Our concern is that these young, hopefully aspiring, scientists that may be in elementary school, high school or even college — they may not be considering going into scientific research as a career path because they're seeing the challenges facing the current cohort of scientists that we have across the United States,” Carney said. “Research really relies on people, ultimately, and their curiosity and their drive and persistence.”

]]>

What happens when the State Department loses its institutional memory?

Donald Heflin, The Conversation — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 15:05:24 -0400

Just before leaving town on Sept. 30, 2026, U.S. senators confirmed 10 new ambassadors. Among those nodded through before Congress closed for an extended midterm recess were new U.S. ambassadors for Kenya, Nicaragua, Malaysia and Kyrgyzstan.

That’s commendable – many of those countries hold geographical or strategic importance for U.S. diplomacy. But it still leaves 92 out of 196 ambassador jobs currently unfilled. In some of those cases, the White House has not sent names to Capitol Hill despite the second Trump administration being a year and a half into the job. In others, the Senate, which is controlled by the same party as the White House, hasn’t acted on the names put forward.

Regardless of the reason, as a former ambassador and an expert in the process of diplomacy, I find the current vacancies concerning. Among those embassies still without a top person in place are key partners for the U.S. – countries that Washington needs to achieve its security, economic and strategic objectives.

What makes these vacancies more worrying, in my view, is that they come amid other concerning developments in the State Department’s staffing of embassies.

Politicizing diplomacy

Chief among them are the high percentage of politically appointed ambassadors relative to positions filled by career diplomats – that is, senior foreign service officers, usually with at least 20 years of diplomatic experience.

Though many countries send politicians abroad as ambassadors, America’s diplomatic service is unique in two ways. The percentage of U.S. ambassadors who are political appointees – those who haven’t followed a career civil service path – is higher than comparative countries across the world. Second, those political appointees are often donors with little to no government experience.

The practice has existed for decades, but in recent years the number of political appointees has increased. During the Obama administration, the percentage of political appointees was around 30%. The number rose to around 40% in the first Trump administration and the subsequent Biden administration.

But in Trump’s second term, some 80% of names the White House has sent to the Senate have been political.

And many of the people Trump has put forward don’t appear to have the credentials usually associated with holding important diplomatic positions. Rather, many are friends, associates or donors to Trump, often with little overseas experience or knowledge of the country they are going to.

Lee Lipton, ambassador to a key ally in the Philippines, is owner of a restaurant in Palm Beach – Florida Benny’s on the Beach – a member of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and a contributor to his political campaign. The ambassador to Greece is Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Trump adviser and ex-fiancée of his son Donald Jr.

The system of political appointees has always had an element of handing ambassadorships to friends and supporters. But what has changed under Trump is the range of positions now available. In the past, ambassadors to key countries like Chile, Israel, Peru, the Philippines, Turkey and Egypt, for example, have almost always been career appointees. This has changed under the second Trump administration.

Appointing noncareer diplomats to small, faraway nations has the additional problem that the chosen individual may not actually spend much time there. The rule of thumb has long been that ambassadors should spend no more than one month every year back in the United States. But that is compromised if a noncareer diplomat with expansive business ties in the U.S. is selected.

The role of a deputy

A closely related problem is the State Department’s handling of an ambassador’s second in command, their deputy chiefs of missions – DCMs for short – under Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

During Trump’s first term in the White House, politically appointed ambassadors were often encouraged to swap out the DCMs they inherited from their predecessors. It meant going through a long hiring process, leaving those key jobs unfilled for months.

In 2025, the State Department went further, canceling the assignments of senior officers en route to take up embassy jobs and opening a new hiring process.

It formed part of a Trump purge of what many MAGA Republicans characterized as a “deep state” civil service. The reality is that DCMs fill a critically important role in helping political appointees navigate the bureaucracy and implement their policy ideas, as well as raising the occasional reality check.

With more politically appointed ambassadors – some of them with no relevant experience – having an experienced DCM can be the difference between success and failure.

Looking for other friends

When you put all of these personnel changes together, the result is the degradation of what was once seen as one of the most effective diplomatic services in the world.

What makes this potentially more worrying is where the vacancies are. For example, Belarus and Bulgaria, neighbors to Russia and Ukraine, are without U.S. ambassadors. And important countries in the fight against terrorism or in geopolitical hot spots, such as Kuwait, Qatar and Mauritania, are in the same camp.

Other countries still without ambassadors include Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s largest nation and the most populous Muslim-majority country in the world; key Middle East ally Egypt and nuclear power Pakistan; and nations the U.S. needs to help manage inward migration, such us Haiti and Guatemala.

The problem of absent or inexperienced ambassadors goes both ways. It means Washington may not have a capable diplomatic figurehead in these countries to contact in times of need. There are also fewer avenues for host nations to successfully convey messages back to the U.S. administration.

When faced with absent ambassadors, amateurish political appointees and deputy mission chiefs who are very junior or career appointees with short resumes, host countries may conclude that they aren’t seen as important to the U.S. and start looking elsewhere for friends.

And the U.S. has hollowed out its ambassadorial corps at a time when it is facing growing international influence by the likes of Russia, China and Iran – rival nations hoping to capitalize on a perceived diplomatic void left by Washington.

For example, as the U.S. tries to contain Beijing’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region, Fiji, Indonesia and Laos remain without U.S. ambassadors. Similarly, China’s diplomatic relations with Pakistan – a former key security partner for Washington – have grown while the ambassadorial seat in Islamabad remains empty.

And former Soviet states including Georgia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan don’t have U.S. ambassadors even as Russia President Vladimir Putin attempts to consolidate Moscow’s regional influence.

In large areas of the world, such as Africa and the Pacific region, and in important areas of policy, the lights may be on in U.S. embassies, but nobody’s home. And that is a distinct problem for national security and strategic interests.

Donald Heflin, executive director of the Edward R. Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

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

]]>

Bureau of Prisons is the latest agency ordered to reinstate union rights

Erich Wagner — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:15:16 -0400

A federal judge in Connecticut last week ordered the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to restore its collective bargaining agreements with the nation’s largest federal employee union, after he found the decision to terminate those contracts last year were likely “entirely pretextual.”

The 32-page preliminary injunction marks the latest in a string of rulings that examined not whether President Trump’s 2025 executive orders banning collective bargaining for most federal workers are legal, but whether the agencies complied with the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that decisions be well-reasoned when they implemented the edicts.

At the heart of U.S. District Judge Vernon Oliver’s ruling was the fact that when BOP terminated its contracts with the American Federation of Government Employees’ National Council of Prison Locals in September 2025, it told the union in its decision that it was to conform with Trump’s executive order excluding the agency from federal labor law. But in a message to employees and the public that same day, BOP Director William Marshall stated it was because AFGE was not the “kind of union” he supports.

“Director Marshall posted his message that heavily criticized [the union’s] operations and stated that the ‘whole purpose of ending this contract’ was because the ‘union was an obstacle to progress’ and ‘the current contract has too often slowed or prevented changes,’” Oliver wrote. “The letter did not state that EO 14251 required the termination of the CBA. Nor did it mention the national security rationale underlying the executive order . . . Although an agency may have multiple reasons for its action, it cannot offer an entirely pretextual explanation that is undermined by its own contradictory assertions made the same day.”

Oliver noted a laundry list of actions the agency has taken since the CBA was terminated, mostly to the detriment of employees.

“BOP pressured employees not to take sick leave, and in one instance sent a sick-leave abuse letter to an employee who was in the hospital for kidney surgery,” he wrote. “In another instance, an employee who was recovering from surgery was placed on AWOL (absent without leave) status and threatened with termination if they did not return to work. Terminating the CBA stripped BOP employees of the benefit of union representation in these instances, leaving them to navigate disciplinary proceedings without union support.”

Justice Department attorneys had argued both that the agency was acting on behalf of the president, making the termination exempt from the APA, as well as that the act was “committed to agency discretion,” which also would make it exempt from the APA. But the judge noted that the executive orders, and subsequent guidance from the Office of Personnel Management both allow agencies to “choose” whether to terminate a union contract, making such actions reviewable.

“Defendants took affirmative steps to decide whether and when to terminate the CBA: in accordance with OPM guidance, Director Marshall ‘made the decision’ to terminate the CBA, and defendants had the authority to determine when, precisely, the termination was to occur,” Oliver wrote. “Those decisions by BOP and Director Marshall are reviewable under the APA. Accordingly, defendants’ argument that decision to terminate the CBA is unreviewable because they lacked discretion is contradicted by the record, contradicted by other statements made by the United States, and unavailing to this court.”

In the days following Oliver’s ruling last week, the Bureau of Prison has indicated it is “complying” with his order. But it asked for clarification about whether it would be permitted to submit a new termination notice—something that has drawn the ire of judges in cases involving the Veterans Affairs Department and Transportation Security Administration.

But union officials at at least one correctional facility report that management has yet to comply. AFGE Local 1237 President Aaron McGlothin, whose union represents workers at Federal Correctional Institution Mendota in California, said he is still unable to access the union’s office on agency property, and that the agency continues to refuse employees access to union representation or even acknowledge the union’s status as workers’ exclusive representative.

“How can FCI Mendota management claim to respect the rule of law while refusing to honor a federal judge’s order?” McGlothin said in a statement. “This is a direct attack on the law enforcement officers who keep this institution running and protect the public every day.”

The Bureau of Prisons did not respond to a request for comment.

]]>

GSA still has problems with location data for federal properties, watchdog finds

Christian Robles — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 17:52:00 -0400

The General Services Administration is still not meeting the Geospatial Data Act of 2018’s requirement to maintain geospatial data, an Office of Inspector General report published Monday found. Previous 2024 and 2022 OIG audits also found that GSA was not fully compliant with the federal law.

GSA has two publicly available geospatial datasets — the Inventory of Owned and Leased Properties Dataset and the Federal Real Property Profile Dataset — that contain inaccurate or missing latitude and longitude coordinates, the OIG found.

The watchdog noted that about 78,624 — or 26% — of properties in the FRPP dataset with coordinates lacked distinct ones and “numerous properties” in that dataset contained erroneous coordinates. The finding echoes a June 2026 Government Accountability Office report that determined about 20% of buildings in the FRPP had coordinates that did not match their reported zip codes.

The OIG found that 634, or about 7%, of the GSA-controlled properties listed in the IOLP-buildings dataset lacked distinct coordinates. Approximately 20% of the IOLP-buildings dataset’s real property assets contained outdated and incorrect congressional representative data.

“GSA should identify cost-effective measures to improve the accuracy and usefulness of the latitude and longitude coordinates in the IOLP and FRPP datasets based on each property’s physical location,” the OIG wrote.

GSA did not maintain its geospatial data inventory for two years until it responded to OIG’s audit, according to the report. The updated inventory showed a roughly 22% increase in geospatial data assets compared to the 2024 inventory.

The OIG found that the agency did not maintain an updated inventory because it does not have a documented process listed in materials like the GEOSPATIAL DATA Standard Operating Procedure — or SOP — and Standards Guide.

“GSA should update its geospatial data SOP to establish a process for maintaining its geospatial data inventory, including defining roles and responsibilities,” the office wrote.

While the Geospatial Data Act requires agencies to search for existing geospatial data before procuring new data, the OIG found that GSA continues to not comply with that requirement.

Following the 2024 audit, GSA agreed to establish a search process, but the agency has not yet implemented it. GSA staff said in April that they were “evaluating resources to determine a timeline for updating the process,” the OIG wrote.

The report said that GSA’s delegation of Geospatial Data Act responsibilities is not effective, leading to some of the recurrent issues. GSA staffing cuts since 2025 have exacerbated those problems, the report added.

GSA did not respond to a request for comment on the OIG report by the time of publication.

GSA Chief Information Officer David Shive did sign a letter agreeing with all five of the OIG’s recommendations for improving geospatial data. The letter says GSA is “working on a plan to address” the recommendations.

Shive agreed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of feasible corrective action plans for geospatial data accuracy, create a process for correcting IOLP congressional representative name data and establish protocols for GSA-wide compliance with Geospatial Data Act rules.

Shive also agreed to align the GSA’s geospatial strategy plan with a federal 2025-2035 strategic plan and update GSA’s GEOSPATIAL DATA SOP and Standards Guide.

]]>

FBI removes Accenture contractor after missed security patch led to breach

David DiMolfetta — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 16:29:20 -0400

The FBI has severed ties with a contractor working for Accenture amid a massive cybercrime intrusion that may have exposed data on thousands of bureau employees, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Prolific cybercrime group ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the hack last month. The data stolen contained employees’ addresses, phone numbers and information on their spouses, among other categories. It also revealed sensitive data on employees’ intelligence and surveillance roles, as well as private medical information.

Accenture is responsible for software patch management and maintaining custom code at the FBI, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the situation is sensitive. Oracle — whose PeopleSoft platform was the initial access point that ShinyHunters claimed to have exploited — provided the security patches that were not integrated, the person added.

FBI cybersecurity chief Brett Leatherman confirmed the removal of an unnamed contractor in a statement to Nextgov/FCW.

“To date, our review has determined that the incident occurred as the result of a security failure of a platform managed by a third-party organization — after a contractor failed to implement a security patch explicitly issued to secure the platform,” Leatherman said. “As such, the FBI has removed the contractor and taken all necessary steps to both mitigate any further risk and protect our workforce.”

The remarks offer the bureau’s clearest explanation yet of how the intrusion occurred, though they do not address why the patch was missed and how the FBI monitored the contractor’s work to ensure systems holding sensitive employee information were protected.

Reuters first reported the removal late Monday. The specific Accenture employee could not be immediately identified.

In a statement, the company said it’s “proud to support the mission of the FBI and will continue to do so.”

The breach follows recent findings from Google’s Mandiant that ShinyHunters had resumed widespread exploitation of a PeopleSoft vulnerability for which Oracle issued a patch in June.

The incident poses serious counterintelligence risks because the exposed records could help foreign intelligence services identify employees working on sensitive investigations and exploit personal information about them.

ShinyHunters has said it would not publish the stolen data, but its statement did not say the records had been deleted. Retired Lt. Gen. Robert Skinner, who previously led the Defense Information Systems Agency, told Nextgov/FCW last week that the group could still sell some or all of the information to foreign intelligence services or other buyers.

Authorities have also moved against suspected members of the group. Dutch police last week announced the arrest of an alleged leader, and Reuters reported Saturday that another suspected member, Saif al-Din Khader, had been detained in Jordan and was helping investigators locate other hackers.

]]>

TSA took away its officers’ chairs. The union isn’t sitting quietly

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:43:34 -0400

The American Federation of Government Employees on Monday launched a public campaign to push back on a new Transportation Security Administration policy prohibiting officers from sitting while working at airport checkpoints.

“Our officers screen millions of people a day and they do it right, sitting or standing,” said Hydrick Thomas, president of AFGE TSA Council 100, in a statement. “Nobody who works a checkpoint asked for this. Nobody who flies asked for this. If TSA leadership truly believes standing makes people better at their jobs, I look forward to watching every manager in the building prove it for eight hours straight.”

According to an AFGE press release, TSA officials on Sept. 25 ordered that chairs be removed from travel document check stations because “[m]aintaining a standing posture helps reinforce professionalism, attentiveness and active engagement with passengers” and that the policy change “reinforces both our security posture and our commitment to hospitality.”

But union officials argued that there’s no data to support the assertion that a standing officer, versus a sitting one, improves security. They also reported that the agency has recently asked officers to sign a “Security Operations Pledge of Service and Security” in which employees agree to support “the well-being and morale of our colleagues.”

“That is a punch line,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley in a statement. “Hospitality is not something you get by making working people stand at a podium until their feet go numb. Respect is how you keep good officers, and respect is how you keep travelers safe.”

TSA did not respond to a request for comment.

The TSA workforce has recently worked for periods without pay across two government shutdowns: the 43-day funding lapse in 2025 and the Homeland Security Department shutdown earlier this year. As a result, many officers quit or called out sick, which led to long lines at airport security checkpoints.

The Trump administration has sought to remove TSA workers’ collective bargaining rights, but a district judge in January blocked its most recent effort. DHS on Sept. 25, however, filed a notice of appeal. AFGE and the trade association for domestic airlines also have pushed back on the administration’s plans to expand the privatization of screening at small airports.

Administration officials contend that axing TSA union representation and increasing airport security privatization would generate cost savings.

Erich Wagner contributed to this report

]]>

Appeals court seemingly OKs VA’s contested union contract expiration

Erich Wagner — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 17:45:28 -0400

A federal appeals court has seemingly cleared the way for the Veterans Affairs Department to allow its contract with the American Federation of Government Employees to expire.

Last month, a federal judge for the third time blocked VA management from cancelling its collective bargaining agreements with AFGE, the latest in the long-running dispute over the department’s implementation of President Trump’s executive order barring unions across much of the federal government.

U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose had previously ruled that the VA likely violated union members’ First Amendment rights when it first sought to terminate the contract in August 2025. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld most of her injunction and subsequent order enforcing it, though it noted that the court could not force the VA to “comply” with particular contract terms.

In July, the VA announced its intention to end its contracts with AFGE for a third time. This time, the department said it would simply allow the agreements to lapse when they expire in August; the union countered that management had already broached negotiations on a new deal, triggering a clause within the contract automatically extending its expiration date until such time as a successor agreement can be reached.

Dubose again blocked the effort through a new enforcement order last August, but the department appealed that decision again to the First Circuit. In an order Friday, the same three-judge panel that upheld her prior rulings issued a stay halting the most recent order, finding that it modified Dubose’s prior injunction, which is improper when those orders remain under appeal.

“On this score, the defendants contend that the second enforcement order ‘reaches well beyond the original injunction’s scope by imposing on the parties, on pain of contempt, the district court’s resolution of a disputed contract-interpretation question,’ namely, whether the parties’ communications ‘automatically extended the CBA,’” the judges wrote. “That dispute, the defendants assert, is ‘distinct from’ the dispute the district court addressed in the preliminary injunction: whether the defendants’ ‘initial CBA termination was unlawful.’ We agree.”

The three-judge panel found that Dubose’s determination that VA management had triggered the CBA’s automatic extension clause was the type of compliance question they previously warned about when upholding the bulk of her first enforcement order.

“We recognize that there remains an unresolved dispute between the parties as to whether their communications satisfied the CBA’s automatic extension provision,” they wrote. “But that is a function of the fact that the preliminary injunction’s directive to ‘reinstate’ the CBA leaves open potential questions of interpretation of and compliance with the CBA. As we observed in our prior decision, the duty to reinstate the CBA as a binding agreement and a duty not to violate the reinstated CBA in any particular instance are distinct obligations, because an individual breach would not in and of itself suffice to show that the CBA had not been reinstated as a binding agreement.”

]]>

Cut first, measure later: Watchdogs find problems across foreign affairs agency reorganizations

Sean Michael Newhouse — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 16:33:28 -0400

While the Trump administration overhauled foreign assistance spending as part of its cost-cutting efforts, a pair of new watchdog reports found that officials have been forced to walk back many of their cuts, including by recalling laid off employees, and have failed to properly track what they modified.

The State Department last year laid off more than 1,000 employees as part of a reorganization at about the same time that it also took over many foreign aid programs after the shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Government Accountability Office reported in an analysis published last week that officials were unable to produce data on changes to staffing and grants, leading to questions about the effectiveness of their decisionmaking.

For example, auditors found that State, as of July, cannot account for how many contractors and non-citizen staffers who work at embassies that it employs. GAO said that these groups have historically made up the bulk of the department’s workforce.

“According to State officials, State does not maintain staffing data in a way that allows generating comprehensive data on the composition of its workforce. In the past, State has reported comprehensive data on its workforce, including the number of locally employed and other staff,” auditors wrote. “Without readily available information on the size and composition of its workforce, State cannot be assured that it has the organizational capacity necessary to carry out its mission or to make informed decisions about its operations.”

While State has also canceled about 25% of its foreign assistance grants, contracts and cooperative agreements (nearly 4,300) as of March, totaling roughly $3 billion, GAO reported that there were many inaccuracies in the department’s grants management system. For instance, more than 4,000 awards (out of around 10,000) were categorized as active and terminated.

Additionally, at the start of his second term, President Donald Trump signed a directive pausing foreign assistance for 90 days for a review to ensure that future spending aligned with his priorities. But GAO said that State officials were unable to provide guidance regarding how foreign assistance is assessed under the new criteria.

The watchdog recommended that State correct any inaccuracies in its grant management system, figure out how to develop comprehensive data on its workforce and document standards for assessing the alignment of foreign assistance programs with administration priorities. Officials agreed with all three.

U.S. Agency for Global Media

In March 2025, the president signed an executive order directing several agencies, including the USAGM — which oversees Voice of America, an international broadcaster that provides service in several languages — to eliminate their non-statutory activities and “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law.” But the inspector general for the State Department reported last week that USAGM’s “reduction in operations was done without a detailed analysis of the cost or the impact on the organization’s overall mission.”

USAGM in June 2025 sent reduction in force notices to more than 600 employees, but they had to be reissued two months later because of errors. It’s unclear if those layoffs will take effect because of an ongoing court case, but, as of July, more than 400 employees are on administrative leave at an estimated biweekly cost to the government of $3.2 million.

Additionally, auditors found that officials are recalling staffers on “an ad hoc basis as agency needs were identified rather than based on strategic workforce planning.” For example, VOA Persian-language service employees were brought back after the war in Iran started.

Auditors reported that the agency also:

Canceled IT contracts that prevented it from running 24-hour cybersecurity monitoring and support service. Officials said that they are now reinitiating some of those contracts and hiring additional employees.
Lost the ability to “maintain key accounting processes and controls over accounting transactions or support an audit in a complete and timely manner" due to staff reductions.
Moved to a new location that employees warned would not meet agency requirements. “After taxpayer resources were used to cover the costs of the move, USAGM found that, as reported by internal subject matter experts, the new building did not meet the agency's needs. As a result, USAGM moved again, returning to a building that it previously occupied.”

As happened at other agencies, the IG found that Department of Government Efficiency staffers often disregarded USAGM employee input during the reorganization.

The president tapped Kari Lake, a former journalist and unsuccessful GOP Arizona Senate candidate, to be a senior adviser at USAGM. She’s accused the agency of financial mismanagement and spreading “fake news.”

However Michael Rigas, a senior appointee in the State Department, is the acting CEO of USAGM. And Sarah B. Rogers, the undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, is the nominee for the permanent position.

The IG made several recommendations, including that USAGM determine what its “statutory minimum requirements” are, set measurable agency goals and develop a strategic workforce plan. Rigas concurred with all of the recommendations.

]]>

US spy chief tapped as White House AI czar

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:08:13 -0400

President Donald Trump named intelligence director Jay Clayton to serve as the White House AI czar, just two months after being sworn in as the nation’s top spy.

Clayton will head what Trump referred to in a Truth Social post as the “Super Intelligence Force” meant to coordinate the government’s engagement with various organizations, critical infrastructure providers and AI companies. The Trump administration has begun referring to AI as “super intelligence” after the president signed an executive order late last month calling for federal agencies to use the new phrasing.

According to its charter, the task force will create plans to handle AI-enabled threats, streamline breach notifications and improve government response capacities while aiming to avoid overregulation. Its creation follows growing public concerns over AI safety and cybersecurity risks, as well as heated political discussions over data center buildouts that power many of today’s AI systems.

“The risk of not being first is high,” Clayton told the Wall Street Journal in a Saturday exclusive that discussed the task force. “Not being first increases the identified, and unidentified, risks, particularly from our adversaries,” he said. “Being first will better enable us to address those risks on behalf of the American people.”

The task force features three vice chairs: Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael, Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson. Its members include Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other senior advisors, alongside external advisors like venture capitalist David Sacks — who previously worked as Trump’s AI and crypto czar early in the administration — and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It will have 120 days to report on the risks and opportunities of AI and establish a plan for the federal government to tackle it.

The panel’s establishment marks a shift for an administration that has predominantly maintained a hands-off approach toward AI governance. But officials have faced mounting pressure over the past six months to respond as a new generation of sophisticated, autonomous AI models demonstrating advanced cybersecurity capabilities have repeatedly circumvented or escaped established technical safeguards.

Its creation highlights a steady group of voices in the administration and tech industry that believe the time for AI safeguard discussions should begin, though Trump and other officials have largely continued to lean toward a more relaxed approach to regulating the technology.

In public discussions, officials and researchers typically frame AI development as a trade-off between slowing down for safety and accelerating to maintain an edge over foreign adversaries pursuing AI for military and economic gains.

China has especially become a major player in the global AI race. Clayton’s appointment to the task force appears to signal a shift by the administration to cast AI as a geopolitical and national security subject area.

His dual role is a unique move for the White House, placing the current DNI — who oversees all 18 U.S. spy agencies — at the helm of broad domestic technology and economic policy discussions. Clayton brings a background as a corporate lawyer and former SEC chairman, making him a unique pick compared to people with more tech-focused backgrounds that hail from Silicon Valley.

The U.S. intelligence enterprise is poised to benefit from advanced AI adoption. Integrating AI has already transformed how spy agencies digest vast troves of collected data and build intelligence products, among other things.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that he welcomed the administration’s attention toward the fast-evolving technology but said Clayton’s new title lacks a coherent strategy.

“We still do not know what authority this new role will have, whether it will include developing safety standards or reviewing the most advanced models, or how it fits into the administration’s broader approach to AI,” Warner said in a statement. “That lack of clarity is especially concerning as leading AI companies themselves are confronting increasingly capable systems that can evade safeguards and exploit cybersecurity vulnerabilities.”

“I hope this appointment is an opportunity for the administration to move beyond slogans and toward a serious, coordinated national strategy for AI,” he added.

]]>

Transportation works to ease fears about its new AI air traffic control tool

Edward Graham — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:00:00 -0400

The Transportation Department’s request to receive an additional $30 billion from Congress to push its massive air traffic control modernization project across the finish line would include new funding to finish overhauling existing IT systems and deploying new artificial intelligence capabilities.

Reactions to the recent rollout of new AI capabilities at Washington, D.C.-region airports, however, have underscored some of the broader national concerns about relying more on advanced technologies, with officials having to go out of their way to ease worries about the tools.

Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, which is overseeing the ambitious effort to modernize management of U.S. airspace, announced on Sept. 21 that they officially rolled out a new AI-powered tool for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Dulles International Airport and Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport that combines 200 different data streams into one system that can provide better flight traffic management.

FAA said at the time that the Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes and Trajectories — or SMART — tool synthesizes information like flight paths and weather patterns “to provide a comprehensive visualization of where planes are going, how much traffic the system can handle, and where congestion or weather could cause challenges.”

During a Monday press conference announcing the department’s request for $30 billion, Transportation Secretary Duffy cited SMART’s recent deployment and said it is “giving different tools to be predictive in what we not just see at this moment, but what we see in the future, because we want to deliver better for the American people, reduce their delays and reduce their cancelations.”

Duffy added, however, that while new tools like SMART can help enhance air traffic control management, the FAA's continued reliance on outdated systems means that more underlying tech modernization efforts are needed.

“I can operate SMART on that old operating system, but I want a new operating system so I can give new tools to the air traffic controllers,” he said.

Despite Transportation’s excitement about further deployments of the SMART tool, the fact that it is AI-powered has led to some unease from lawmakers and others.

Last month, prior to SMART’s rollout, Politico reported that airline industry officials had been “panicking” about the tool’s integration with other air traffic control systems before the FAA ultimately alleviated their concerns about the new capability.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., who represents the congressional district in which Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is situated, expressed similar concerns and released a statement the day the SMART tool was set to be deployed that called for its impending rollout to be suspended, saying that “the FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system.”

In an interview with Nextgov/FCW following SMART’s rollout at the D.C.-area airports, Beyer referenced growing global concerns about the capabilities of more advanced AI models and said his office received feedback expressing similar misgivings about the tool’s deployment.

“If it was just the constituents it would be one thing, but then the air traffic controllers were jumping in saying, ‘Hey, we don't know anything about this. We've not been part of the design. We didn't see anything ahead of time. We found that at the same time you did that it’s going to suddenly be made operational,’” he said.

Beyer said he subsequently spoke with FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford to share his concerns and had “a good conversation” with him about the SMART tool, including how it was created.

In a statement to Nextgov/FCW, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association said it “has not been involved in the design, testing or implementation of SMART and therefore cannot speak to its effect on the air traffic control workforce at this time.”

But Beyer said Bedford was reassuring and told him that the tool was designed by air traffic controllers who aren't in the towers right now but are the “30- and 40-year guys who've been doing it all their lives.” He added that Bedford also said SMART is operating at the D.C. region’s Terminal Radar Approach Control facility in Warrenton, Virginia, and not within the towers at Dulles or National airports.

“I think the feedback was you almost need big, busy airports in order to generate enough information to make AI relevant,” Beyer said about SMART first being deployed for the large airports in the Washington, D.C. region, instead of being piloted at smaller airports.

He added that he told Bedford “it would have been good to explain that to the American public,” particularly given the current global discussion around new AI capabilities.

In response to a request for comment, Transportation pointed to a Sept. 22 tweet from Duffy, in which he reposted Beyer’s release expressing concerns about the tool’s deployment and wrote: “Here’s the truth: HUMANS still control the airspace and HUMANS still make the calls. With SMART, we are giving air traffic controllers new technology and better data to make critical decisions.”

In a Fox News clip that was shared with the post, Duffy called SMART “a tool that’s used to better manage traffic” and said air traffic controllers “are the ones who will always manage airspace.”

Recent high-profile incidents where frontier AI models have taken undirected action — including one case in which OpenAI agents escaped from their testing environment and hacked into Hugging Face on their own volition — have exacerbated concerns from tech executives, lawmakers and others about whether guardrails are needed on advanced AI technologies.

President Donald Trump has been vocal about his desire to not overregulate the AI sector to ensure that the U.S. continues to outpace China in development of the technologies.

Duffy has previously drawn a distinction between the frontier models that have raised alarms from some sectors and the AI tools being used to help modernize the nation’s air traffic control systems.

During an event hosted by the National Artificial Intelligence Association in Washington, D.C. last month, Duffy said the air traffic control system upgrades are “going to be driven not by the most complicated AI, but AI that will provide information to [controllers], and will, I think, have a huge impact on the flying public.”

He also stressed that AI capabilities will never replace human air traffic controllers — a sentiment that the National Air Traffic Controllers Association similarly expressed.

“NATCA believes any new technology should complement and not replace the experience, training, and professional judgment of air traffic controllers who are responsible for the safety of the National Airspace System,” the association said.

]]>

State Department appeals board, now with limited authority, gains new members

Jory Heckman — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 17:39:40 -0400

Updated at 6:15 p.m.

The State Department is putting a new slate of individuals in charge of a panel that weighs the appeals of Foreign Service employees challenging firings and other disciplinary measures.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently appointed 14 members to the Foreign Service Grievance Board, keeping the appeals board running with a full roster. The board was half-staffed before these appointments, and the terms for all previous board members expired on Sept. 30.

The board’s former chairman warned Rubio in July that without new appointees, it would “cease to function” in fiscal 2027.

The Foreign Service Grievance Board, 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.

The Trump administration, however, recently undermined some of the board’s authority to challenge employee removals and other adverse personnel actions.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, in a legal opinion released in August, determined that the board violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because it had “unreviewable authority" over the secretary of state.

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.”

One of the board’s new members, Trenton Douthett, wrote on LinkedIn that the board’s work “matters because the people who serve overseas, often in difficult conditions and far from home, need confidence that disputes about their employment will be resolved fairly, impartially, and on the record.”

The American Foreign Service Association said in a statement that the Trump administration violated the Foreign Service Act by not giving the union an opportunity to approve the nominees.

“Congress required our participation, yet the agencies proceeded without it, rejecting a statutory safeguard designed to protect the board’s independence. Never in the board's history has AFSA been excluded from the process.”

More than a third of the board’s new members are members of the Ben Franklin Fellowship. According to a post on its website, the nonprofit fellowship was created in 2024 to give former Foreign Service employees an opportunity to promote “meritocracy — not DEI and wokeism — in diplomatic service.”

The New York Times recently reported on the fellowship’s influence on the upper echelons of the State Department. House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., wrote in a letter in May that 25 out of 92 total Ben Franklin fellows appear to hold senior roles within the State Department.

Phillip Linderman, chairman of the Ben Franklin Fellowship, said in a statement that the new members of the Foreign Service Grievance Board "bring decades of Foreign Service, State Department, and Federal government experience, including at senior levels, as well as much needed diversity and new perspectives to the FSGB."

"Any suggestion that the new appointees will not fulfill their responsibilities to consider employee grievances in a professional manner because some are affiliated with a conservative foreign policy group is absurd," Linderman said.

Other grievance board members who are not Ben Franklin fellows have supported the rollback of DEI programs on social media. Robin Keller, the board’s new chairwoman, defended the Trump administration’s decision to shutter USAID in a comment to a LinkedIn post last year.

“Please don’t lecture those making efforts to cut the knot on seemingly insoluble problems you wring your hands about and then carry on as usual,” Keller wrote. “Birthright citizenship when abused and other illegal immigration initiatives, the lawless USAID, and so-called diversity initiatives (which don’t enhance diversity) are corrupt and are not supported by the majority. Read the election results."

In a LinkedIn post about the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling overturning affirmative action in higher education admissions, Thomas Moran, another of the board’s new members, commented that the “racial spoil system just took a well deserved hit.”

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."

Amb. Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, the State Department’s first chief diversity and inclusion officer, told Government Executive that during her tenure, “there was frequent dissatisfaction” with the board’s decisions – “so much so that our office met with them to better understand how they landed where they did.”

“We learned there was a strict adherence to the law and little room for interpretation,” Abercrombie-Winstanley said. “Many of the puzzling, often upsetting decisions came down to HR or officers not documenting adequately or as instructed.”

“What we’ll see with the new Board (regardless of makeup) is whether they follow the law,” she added. “If they do, there shouldn’t be any major differences in outcomes.”

In April, the State Department recently signed a nearly $1 million contract with the company Military Hire, a subsidiary of the employment firm RedBalloon, which calls itself “America’s non-woke job board.”

Military Hire CEO Andrew Crapuchettes said in an interview that the goal is to recruit 600 to 1,000 candidates to take the Foreign Service Officer Test. The State Department sent layoff notices to nearly 1,350 employees in July 2025. About 200 of them were Foreign Service employees.

This story was updated to include a statement from the chairman of the Ben Franklin Fellowship.

]]>

Housing finance agency chief moves to slash watchdog’s budget, leading Democrats to demand his resignation

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 15:06:58 -0400

Congressional Democratic leaders on Thursday called on Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte to resign after he moved to cut the housing regulator’s watchdog office budget to a level that the inspector general warned would “substantially inhibit” its ability to conduct independent oversight.

On Wednesday, FHFA announced that its IG office would be scaled back after a review found that its budget and staffing were “extraordinary outlier[s]” compared with “peer OIGs.”

“FHFA's decision reflects its responsibility to ensure that every dollar is used responsibly, efficiently and for a clearly documented purpose,” the agency said in a press release. “FHFA fully supports the independence and mission of the Office of Inspector General.”

In a letter sent to lawmakers that same day, however, James Hodge, who is performing the duties of the FHFA IG, argued that the watchdog office’s budget is warranted because of the housing agency’s role as regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“OIG’s budget determination process directly derives from the unique mission and authorities of FHFA,” he wrote. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a combined asset total exceeding $7.8 trillion and OIG is the primary law enforcement entity responsible for ensuring that mortgage fraud in this market is investigated and prosecuted.”

The president’s fiscal 2027 budget, which was released in April, proposed $55 million for the FHFA IG. Hodge wrote that he wasn’t informed by the agency that it would be reduced to $20 million until Aug. 31. The new fiscal year began on Thursday.

In response, Hodge said that the agency will need to cut its staffing by up to 80%, close all field offices and “eliminate our capacity to effectively conduct criminal investigation of mortgage, bank and other fraud schemes involving the entities FHFA regulates.”

The IG head reported that the office’s criminal enforcement program has yielded more than 1,270 convictions and nearly $75 billion in monetary results since 2011. The Trump administration has launched several initiatives to combat fraud in federal programs.

FHFA and its OIG are not funded through congressionally approved appropriations; rather, the entities receive money from assessments on entities they regulate.

Senior congressional Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., criticized FHFA’s decision to cut the IG’s funding.

“Pulte’s corrupt crusade to protect himself and President Trump from accountability will likely result in the firing of approximately 40 law enforcement personnel who protect families from mortgage fraud,” they said in a statement. “Bill Pulte should resign, and if he does not, Congress must hold him accountable.”

Likewise, Mark Lee Greenblatt, the former Interior IG who was fired when Trump removed nearly 20 of the watchdogs at the start of his second term, said in a video posted to LinkedIn that: “Everyone should be up in arms about this unilateral move by an agency head which, as far as I know, is unprecedented in the 50-year history of the inspector general community.”

Last year, the president removed the former acting FHFA IG reportedly after he shared information with the prosecutor’s office investigating New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud and was planning to notify Congress that the agency was not cooperating with IG investigators.

Pulte issued criminal referrals against several of Trump’s political opponents, including James, Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. And the president has replaced acting IGs at several agencies.

Earlier this year, Pulte had a roughly six-week tenure as acting national intelligence director that was marked by several rounds of staff cuts.

]]>

Federal employees’ health insurance premiums to rise by double digits for third straight year

Erich Wagner — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 14:38:10 -0400

This story has been updated Oct. 3 at 11:26 a.m.

Federal employees and retirees will pay an additional 10.9% on average toward their health insurance premiums in 2026, the third straight year of double-digit increases, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

The government’s share of Federal Employee Health Benefits Program premiums will increase by an average of 8.6% in 2026, making the overall cost increase 9.3%. This year, the increase in employees’ share of insurance premiums was 12.3%, and in 2025 that increase apexed at 13.5%.

On average, feds in “self only” plans will pay an additional 13.37 per biweekly pay period, and employees enrolled in “self plus one” coverage will see their premiums rise by an average of $33.87 per pay period. Federal workers in family plans will pay $40.25 on average more on a biweekly basis next year.

For enrollees in the nascent Postal Service Health Benefits Program, premiums are expected to rise 8.2% on average, while the government’s contribution towards those benefits will increase 6.0%. In 2026, postal employees and annuitants saw their share of premiums increase by an average of 9%.

Postal workers enrolled in “self only” coverage will pay $9.86 more on average per biweekly pay period, while those with “self plus one” plans will pay an additional $24.71. PSHB enrollees in family plans will see premiums rise by $23.96 on average per pay period.

The Federal Employee Dental and Vision Insurance Program will see average premium increases of 1% for dental and 1.6% for vision next year.

In a press release announcing Open Season, which will run from Nov. 9 through Dec. 14, OPM highlighted that premium growth has “slowed” for the second straight year. Officials attributed premium increases to industry-wide cost increases, increased use of behaviorial and mental health, and the ballooning adoption of GLP-1 drugs for weight loss.

“For the second year in a row, OPM has been able to reduce the average rate of premium increases for federal employees and annuitants,” said Matthew Kiley, the agency’s associate director for health care and insurance. “This is just the start of a more comprehensive set of programs to ensure that we deliver great health plan options to our enrollees while preventing them from getting priced out of the market.”

A new requirement beginning with this fall’s Open Season is that when a federal worker or annuitant adds a new family member to their insurance coverage, they must submit supporting documentation to verify their eligibility, part of OPM’s implementation of the 2025 FEHB Protection Act. And beginning next year, the government will require employees seeking a prescription for a GLP-1 drug to undergo “12-22 intensive behavioral therapy sessions per year” prior and during treatment.

As in past years, OPM encouraged federal workers to shop around from among the more than 100 insurance plan offerings and to take advantage of using pre-tax money to pay for out-of-pocket costs via a flexible spending account. New for next year is the availability of a debit card via FSAFEDS, reducing some of the administrative burden of needing to submit paperwork and receipts for reimbursement.

Kevin Moss, a senior editor with Consumers’ Checkbook’s Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees, said it is more important than ever to actually follow that advice. That’s because hidden behind the average premium increase figures are a number of wide swings on the individual plan level.

For instance, premium increases for the largest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, are below the 10.9% average. But the cost for MHBP, which itself was a haven for many feds when Blue Cross had higher premium increases during last year’s Open Season, will increase 63% for self plans, 83% for family plans, and 105% for self-plus-one coverage.

“You know, very few people actually switch plans from one year to the next—it’s only like 5%,” Moss said. “If there’s any upside here—and overall, I think there isn’t because a double-digit increase is tough to take—it’s that sometimes it takes something negative to motivate people to do the thing they should have done every year. Take a look at the plan, the benefits you plan to use, and see if it all fits your needs, while doing research to see if there’s another plan that could offer a better value.”

Organizations representing federal employees and retirees said the news from OPM underscore the need for Congress to override President Trump’s plan to freeze most federal workers’ pay next year.

“Federal employees are already being squeezed by rising costs and are now facing a double-digit increase in what they pay for health insurance,” said Doreen Greenwald, national president of the National Treasury Employees Union. “A 10.9% increase in health insurance premiums makes the proposed pay freeze even more unacceptable. Federal employees cannot afford to keep paying more while their paychecks fall further behind. Congress must reject the pay freeze and deliver a meaningful pay raise in 2027.”

“Federal employees have often chosen the call of public service over the prospect of financial reward offered in the private sector,” said Bill Shackelford, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. “But the commitment to service does not eliminate the need for a decent-paying job sufficient to cover rising costs for yourself and your family. I worry how the cumulative impact of rising costs and damaging workforce policies will impact the ability to recruit and retain the workforce needed to meet the nation’s needs and serve the public interest.”

This story has been updated to include additional information from OPM detailing average premium increases on a biweekly basis.

]]>

GSA memo to set AI-specific acquisition rules

Christian Robles — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 05:04:00 -0400

The General Services Administration is adjusting its acquisition regulation to include language aimed at protecting government data that contractors process in large language models.

Buried on page 129 of an agency memo signed by GSA Senior Procurement Executive Jeffrey Koses is a section titled “Basic Safeguarding of Data within Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence Systems.” The section details what data protections contractors and subcontractors must include when their LLMs process government data.

For example, the rules state contractors cannot use government data to train LLMs, inform advertising or sell to a third party. Contractors must also implement data handling procedures, including encrypted data transmission and audit logging systems. The memo clarifies the language does not apply to LLMs that contractors use internally for business purposes or products where the LLM functionality is “incidental to” its primary purpose.

The memo is originally from January, but states GSA signed off on the section with the LLM acquisition language in July and that it takes effect on Oct. 19.

GSA had sought to enact a similar draft LLM acquisition rule through a public comment period but ran into intense pushback from industry groups even after a round of modifications. Several stakeholders welcomed the memo’s take on LLM acquisition safeguards.

"GSA’s final AI terms and conditions mark a significant improvement from prior draft versions, and establishes a stronger foundation for safeguarding government data in AI systems,” Quinn Anex-Ries, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said in a Thursday statement.

Anex-Ries praised the rule for “almost entirely” removing language requiring contractors to adhere to “unbiased AI principles.” That language was one of the most controversial provisions of GSA’s draft rule, with some industry groups warning the agency there’s no clear way to test for compliance.

“The AI clause changed in ways industry asked for. It self-deletes when LLM use stays inside the contractor's own back-office systems, or when LLM functionality is incidental to a product the Government isn't using for AI. Flowdown reaches only subcontractors who design, develop, deploy or operate the model,” Kevin Martin, GSA program manager at Government Acquisitions Inc, wrote on LinkedIn.

However, “the workload that remains is still substantial for anyone whose product has LLM functionality in scope: a 120-day disclosure deadline, 72-hour incident reporting, deletion of embeddings and fine-tuned weights at closeout, 30 days of notice and concurrent access before a major model swap, and Government rights to benchmark the deployed model for bias and truthfulness,” he added.

]]>

Tax chief pushes 'AI-first IRS' to get more out of agency's workforce

Jory Heckman — Thu, 01 Oct 2026 18:52:19 -0400

The IRS is looking to move more aggressively to adopt artificial intelligence tools, with the goal of being more responsive to taxpayers seeking help – while also ensuring individuals and businesses pay what they owe the tax agency.

IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano told employees in an all-staff meeting Wednesday that an “AI-first IRS” will make its workforce more productive, after the agency cut more than a quarter of its headcount under prior leadership last year. He said AI won’t replace IRS employees' jobs, but will “deliver larger collections and better client service to the American public.”

“It has the benefit of improving every employee's job. It is not designed to eliminate jobs," Bisignano said, according to a transcript and audio recording obtained by Government Executive.

Bisignano and other senior IRS officials said greater adoption of AI tools will also reduce wait times for taxpayers, and shrink the “tax gap” between the revenue the IRS collects every year, and the amount individuals and companies actually owe.

The IRS cut tens of thousands of jobs last year — more than a quarter of its workforce — and fell short of its hiring goals for this year’s filing season. Bisignano told lawmakers the IRS carried out a successful filing season this year, despite losing more than 25,000 employees.

He told employees that IRS has “added to the ranks of the workforce,” and is focused on “getting more tech out the door.”

“I feel good about where staffing is, and anybody who reports to me always submits whatever they need to get the resources they need,” he told employees.

IRS Chief Human Capital Officer Alex Kweskin said the IRS made more than 4,000 hires this year, but that when accounting for retirements and attrition, the agency’s headcount remains mostly unchanged.

“Our headcount started the year at 74,000, and we are ending the year at 74,000. It's remained effectively flat all year long,” Kweskin said, adding that the agency will “continue to hire” ahead of the filing season.

Former IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, Trump’s first-term pick to run the agency, told lawmakers in 2021 that the tax gap could be as much as $1 trillion a year, and that the agency is often too “outgunned” in terms of staffing and resources to go after tax cheats.

“When you think about the tax gap, obviously our ability to do a better job there through technology will be big,” Bisignano said. “Five years from now, I mean, if you look at the speed of change, what I see is an IRS that has a mid-90s compliance rate,” he said.

The IRS' most recent estimate of the voluntary tax compliance rate is about 85%. The New York Times recently reported that the IRS, under the second Trump administration, has fallen behind on producing annual tax-gap estimates. The IRS last estimated in October 2024 that about $700 billion in taxes owed went uncollected in 2022. The Yale Budget Lab estimated that last year’s staffing cuts resulted a $861 billion decrease in revenue collected by the IRS.

The IRS all-staff meeting came a day after the Trump administration unveiled America.gov, a website that uses an AI chatbot to point users to services provided by federal agencies. At the event, President Donald Trump signed an executive order mandating that agencies ensure public-facing services integrate directly with America.gov as soon as possible.

Bisignano spent much of last year rolling out his playbook for a “digital-first IRS,” focused in part on reducing the total number of phone calls the IRS receives, and instead moving taxpayers onto online, self-service platforms.

The IRS recently rolled out a new mobile app, which Bisignano described as a “great example of work we're doing to meet taxpayers where they want to be met.”

The IRS had a busier time than usual preparing for last year’s tax filing season, because of changes from Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill Act. But next filling season will be even more complicated, because more tax filing changes from the legislation will go in effect starting in 2027.

“This year for filing season ‘27, it is twice as complex,” IRS Chief Information Officer Kaschit Pandya told employees. “We have twice as many provisions to implement for filing season ‘27 than we did for filing season ‘26.”

Pandya said the IRS is already using AI to process amended tax returns more quickly. The agency receives about 5 million amended tax returns annually, and that the IRS is using AI to accelerate the processing of “hundreds of thousands” of returns.

The IRS in February put about 1,500 IT and human resources employees on involuntary details to frontline taxpayer service jobs. Among their duties, employees were directed to help reduce a “huge backlog” of amended tax returns.

Pandya said that previously, an amended individual return “might take multiple weeks to process.”

“[The] average time can be 12, 14, 16 weeks. Through AI and automation, we have seen that go down to under three days,” he said.

]]>

TSP funds were back in the negative in September

Erich Wagner — Thu, 01 Oct 2026 15:35:16 -0400

Nearly all of the portfolios in the federal government’s 401(k)-style retirement savings program lost value last month, as the broader investment market encountered broad volatility.

The small- and mid-size businesses in the Thrift Savings Plan’s S Fund saw the worst decline, falling 3.86% in September. Since January, the S Fund is up 11.62%. The C Fund’s common stocks nearly broke even, finishing the month just 0.35% in the red. So far this year, the C Fund has grown 12.73%.

The fixed income (F) fund fell 2.59%, bringing its 2026 performance to 2.75% in the negative. And the international investments of the I Fund dropped 2.30% in September, bringing its gains since January down to 16.45%.

The only TSP fund to post gains was the government securities of the G Fund, which grew at a statutorily mandated rate of 0.40%. So far this year, the G Fund has grown 3.41%.

Each of the TSP’s lifecycle funds, which shift toward more conservative investments as participants get closer to retirement, similarly lost ground last month. The L Income Fund, designed for those who have already begun making withdrawals, fell 0.28%; L 2030, 0.78%; L 2035, 1.02%; L 2040, 1.15%; L 2045, 1.25%; L 2050, 1.34%; L 2055, 1.48%; L 2060, 1.48%; L 2065, 1.48%; L 2070, 1.49%; and L 2075, 1.49%.

Since January, the L Income Fund has grown 6.04%; L 2030, 8.92%; L 2035, 10.02%; L 2040, 10.59%; L 2045, 11.09%; L 2050, 11.62%; L 2055, 13.86%; L 2060, 13.86%; L 2065, 13.85%; L 2070, 13.85%; and L 2075, 13.85%.

]]>

Retiring in 2027? Picking the right date could pay off

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 01 Oct 2026 15:00:00 -0400

Download the 2027 Best Dates to Retire Calendar

If you’re thinking about retiring from federal service in 2027, you’ve probably spent plenty of time figuring out when you’ll be eligible and whether you’ll have enough money to make the jump. But there’s one more decision worth giving some thought to: exactly when to walk out the door.

Picking a retirement date isn’t just about choosing a Friday that feels right. The date you choose can affect when your retirement annuity begins, how much you receive in your lump-sum payment for unused annual leave and how much of that leave you’re able to cash out at your current salary rate.

There are some dates that are especially attractive for federal employees, depending on whether you’re covered by FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset. The timing of the end of a pay period, the end of the month and the end of the leave year can all come into play. And because those calendars don’t always line up neatly, choosing a retirement date can be a little more complicated than it might seem.

For example, a FERS employee generally wants to retire at the end of a month if they want their annuity to begin as soon as possible. But the rules governing the payment of unused annual leave can make the end of the leave year especially important, too. For CSRS employees, some of the timing rules are different.

That means there isn’t necessarily one magic retirement date that works for everyone. The best date depends on your retirement system, your leave balance and what you’re trying to maximize.

As we do every year, we’ve gone through the 2027 calendar to identify the dates that can give retiring federal employees the best financial advantages. Here's our annual "Best Dates to Retire" calendar to help you plan for retirement in 2027.

]]>

Pentagon update on National Defense Strategy cites progress, omits key threats

Patrick Tucker — Thu, 01 Oct 2026 00:41:40 -0400

The Pentagon’s latest report about its implementation of the National Defense Strategy notes progress on accelerating weapons production, cutting red tape, and persuading European governments to boost defense spending—but is light on problems such as Russia’s increasing aggression in Europe and the high cost of U.S. wars in the Middle East.

The report to Congress, dated Sept. 22 but pushed out on Defense Department social media on Tuesday, argues that the Trump administration has made “significant progress implementing the 2026 National Defense Strategy’s guidance” in several areas. It cites a historically large budget request that includes funding for undersea forces, long-range air forces, long-range ground fires, and satellites for communication and intelligence; and $53 billion to accelerate the development of munitions.

The report arrives one day before Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s scheduled “State of the Force” address at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. He is likely to talk about some of the update’s key themes, according to one person familiar with the matter.

The update cites progress made in the Golden Dome for America, or GDA, effort to build a continental defense against drones and missiles. “DoW has already conducted our first live-fire event, during which we successfully demonstrated key aspects of GDA command-and-control (C2) as well as integration of other key capabilities,” it says.

The update says the Pentagon has worked with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to ease the development and testing of counter-drone defenses. “We have created a first-of-its-kind process for the rapid coordination and safe incorporation of next generation C-UAS technology” into the National Airspace System, it says.

The update touts the administration’s effort to persuade European allies to spend more on their militaries and contribute more to plans for the continent’s defense. At least one alliance defense leader—Paweł Ksawery Zalewski, secretary of state at Poland’s Ministry of National Defence—has said the NATO 3.0 concept should not be misunderstood as a harbinger of a U.S. retreat from the alliance. “Polish armed forces and American armed forces have never been so close and so good and so deep as today,” Zalewski told a U.S. audience last week.

But the report glosses over conditions that have worsened since the National Defense Strategy was published in January—in part, because of President Trump’s decision to start a war on Iran.

For instance, while the NDS holds as a goal the replenishment of the U.S. arsenal, the new report doesn’t mention that Operation Epic Fury and other Middle East operations have set back that goal by “'months and years,” as a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies put it in May. Nor does the report mention the NDS’ warning against “endless wars, regime change, and nation building”—the latter two being among the many justifications given by the Trump administration for its war on Iran.

It skips the fact that the NDS said regional allies should deter Iran and that it said further military action to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon would be unnecessary in the wake of June 2025’s “Midnight Hammer” bombing.

Instead, the update asserts that the Defense Department “anticipated that such a need [for strikes against Iran’s nuclear program] might be forthcoming.”

But perhaps the report’s most significant omission, which it shares with the NDS itself, concerns Russian actions: hybrid and kinetic action against NATO members, military assistance to Iran, and intensifying the war on Ukraine.

Instead, the update notes that the United States reduced the number of manned brigade combat teams in Europe from “five to three, returning us to the level of BCTs in Europe in 2021.”

Max Bergmann and Otto Svendsen, writing for the Heinrich Böll Foundation on Sept. 24, say that “a potential U.S. force posture reduction in Europe will leave the continent vulnerable to further Russian aggression.”

]]>

EPA union sues management over contract termination

Erich Wagner — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:22:23 -0400

Updated at 10:40 a.m. ET on Oct. 1, 2026.

A union representing workers at the Environmental Protection Agency became the latest labor group to sue agency leadership over the 2025 cancellation of its collective bargaining agreement, alleging that EPA violated both its members’ First Amendment Rights and a law requiring the federal government conduct reasoned decision-making.

The American Federation of Government Employees Council 238 represents around 8,000 workers at the EPA, one of the more than two dozen agencies targeted by President Trump’s 2025 executive orders banning collective bargaining on national security grounds. EPA management terminated its contract with the labor group in August 2025, after a federal appellate court lifted an injunction blocking its implementation upon AFGE locals but before the Office of Personnel Management amended guidance to greenlight such an action.

While efforts challenging the legality of Trump’s executive orders have largely stalled in federal appellate courts, the union’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, mirrors other cases that scrutinized agencies’ implementation of those edicts. Success in those cases have come from a combination of discrete alleged First Amendment violations at those agencies, as well whether management has fulfilled its duty under the Administrative Procedure Act to provide a reasonable explanation for its decision.

“Supreme Court precedent makes clear that even if the [executive] order was lawful, a question not raised in this case, and even if EPA was not legally required to maintain a CBA with the union, the agency had to comply with the APA’s reasoned decision-making requirements in terminating the existing agreement,” AFGE’s lawsuit states. “Moreover, under no circumstances is the agency permitted to terminate the CBA in order to suppress protected speech or retaliate against those who voiced concerns over the administration’s policies.”

In its filing, the union accused the agency of waiting to mete out discipline against employees who signed a June 2025 open letter criticizing EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s leadership of the agency for nearly two months until after management terminated the CBA so that provisions protecting employees’ scientific integrity and governing disciplinary procedures would no longer apply.

“They just didn’t want to face any accountability in front of the Federal Labor Relations Authority or a third-party arbitrator, quite frankly,” said Justin Chen, president of AFGE Council 238. “Had this happened with the recognition of our union contract, we would have filed grievances on behalf of all of these people, taken them to an arbitrator and then the FLRA. So there was no accountability in terms of labor standards or employees’ statutory labor rights.”

Union officials said agency leaders continue to chill protected speech by employees, both on and off duty. The agency has begun requiring union officials, who previously would have performed representational work using official time, to request authorization to do union-related work on their own time. Chen said that although he is aware of only one instance when the agency has rejected a request, it has caused friction in otherwise day-to-day workplace interactions.

“The agency has at times taken a nearly limitless view of [union activities] in an attempt to silence speech by plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. “[AFGE] Local 704 President Nicole Cantello was summoned by agency management and directed to answer questions about a conversation she had during her lunch hour with a longtime friend and coworker on the ground that it constituted a ‘union meeting.’”

Chen described management’s insistence that there is “no union at EPA,” while closely policing union officials in the workplace, is borne of a “Kafkian contradiction.”

“There’s this heightened suspicion; someone’s a local president but we’re also just colleagues and friends with the people in our union,” he said. “Not every conversation is a consultation that would require official time, but they bring it up and try to make an issue out of it. Like, fine, you don’t recognize the union, but why are you attacking us, claiming we’re trying to use official time? I thought we don’t exist in your eyes.”

Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that the EPA had never denied a union official's request to perform representational work while off duty. Since publication, Chen said he has learned of one such instance.

]]>

Trump’s new Education IG nominee continues dizzying run of leadership changes at the watchdog office

Sean Michael Newhouse — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 16:01:00 -0400

President Donald Trump swapped out the nominee to head the Education Department inspector general office, a watchdog agency that has experienced frequent leadership turnover since the start of his second administration.

On Monday, the president nominated Mark Priebe to be the Education IG. Until recently, the nominee served as the department’s acting IG. Trump withdrew the nomination of Heidi Semann, who also had a stint as acting Education IG, for the position on Sept. 17.

Priebe has been a senior official at the Education OIG since 2017 and previously worked as an auditor for other agencies. Government Executive reported when he became acting IG in 2025 that he appears to have shared social media posts supporting Trump.

The nominee also said during a panel in July that he wasn’t concerned about the president’s firing of nearly 20 IGs: “If a new administration comes in and says we want all of our own IGs, that's fine. I really think that the executive branch should have some say over their policies and their procedures and how they enact that.”

Education’s IG position opened up after Trump fired Sandra Bruce as part of the mass firing of IGs at the start of his second term. Deputy Education IG René Rocque then became acting IG, but she was replaced in summer 2025 after notifying Congress that auditors “experienced unreasonable denials and repeated delays” from department officials during a review of staff reductions that halved the agency’s workforce. The administration is seeking to dismantle Education.

The OIG did issue a report in June, while Priebe was acting head, that layoffs at Education during the first two months of Trump’s second term resulted in the agency being unable to perform legally required activities. Auditors wrote that the department did not provide all requested information or allow “unfettered” access to staffers, which restricted the review.

Last year, Rocque was swapped out for Heidi Semann, a senior special agent who came from the Federal Reserve Board OIG. The president is allowed to replace an acting IG, but he is limited to selecting an employee of any OIG.

Semann’s tenure as acting Education IG came to a close at the end of 2025, after which Priebe took over, due to time limits on acting officials in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. But the president in May then submitted her nomination, which he has since withdrawn, for the position.

In response to a request for comment, the OIG told Government Executive that Priebe left the agency on Monday and that Rocque is, once again, the acting Education IG. Nominees generally cannot serve in an acting capacity for a position after they’ve been nominated.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the nomination swap.

The Rhode Island Current reported that Priebe on Monday withdrew his application to serve as that state’s IG.

Also on Monday, the president nominated Robert Steinau to serve as the IG for NASA. According to his biography on the office’s website, Steinau is the assistant IG for investigations at the space agency and has been with that OIG since 2009.

While many of Trump’s initial IG nominees previously served in his first or second administration, raising concerns about independent oversight, some of his recent picks, including Priebe and Steinau, have experience working in an OIG. That being said, the president last month nominated Dennis Kirk, a co-author of the conservative presidential transition initiative Project 2025, to serve as IG at the Interior Department.

]]>

Judge extends temporary pause in USDA relocations as he considers indefinite freeze

Jory Heckman — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:46:34 -0400

A federal judge in San Francisco is weighing whether or not to block the Agriculture Department from carrying out its sweeping reorganization plans.

“I’m not firmly decided as to whether I'm going to grant the preliminary injunction motion or not,” U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria told both parties in a hearing Tuesday. But Chhabria is directing both parties to draft proposed language for a potential injunction by Oct. 7.

He’s also extending an administrative stay until Oct. 13, which will continue to put a temporary hold on deadlines for all “management directed reassignment” letters USDA has issued so far. The initial administrative stay was scheduled to expire on Oct. 2.

A preliminary injunction in this case would indefinitely bar USDA from carrying out relocation plans for about 2,600 employees while the court continues to review the merits of the case.

Chhabria said he anticipated that if he issues an injunction, the Trump administration may immediately try to appeal it.

“If I issue a preliminary injunction, I'm not going to stay it,” he told DOJ attorneys representing the administration. “If you want to rush to the Ninth Circuit to get a stay or whatever, you need to be ready to do that.”

Plaintiffs argued that the relocations are a veiled attempt for USDA to further shrink its workforce. USDA already cut its workforce by about 20,000 employees largely through voluntary separation incentives last year – about a fifth of its total workforce.

A coalition of federal employee labor unions, nonprofits and local governments argue that USDA is trying to circumvent guardrails on USDA reorganization established by Congress. Lawmakers included a provision in the fiscal 2026 appropriations bill for USDA that blocked officials from reorganizing or relocating offices or employees without approval from the House and Senate appropriations committees.

Chhabria spent much of Tuesday’s hearing questioning the extent of authority Congress and its appropriations committees have over USDA’s reorganization decisions.

“I think what carries the greatest weight is the actual language of the appropriations legislation, which says you can't do this,” he said. “The default is that you’re not allowed to do it.”

While Congress controls funding for federal agencies, Chhabria said the specific mechanism lawmakers included in the FY 2026 spending package was “obviously unconstitutional,” and that “Congress must have known that it was unconstitutional.”

“If Congress knows full well that the committee permission provision is unconstitutional, then is there an argument for just treating it as if it never happened? As if Congress did nothing to ratchet up the restriction on agency action?” he said.

A Congressional Research Service report in April notes that “courts generally have upheld congressional notification requirements, sometimes called ‘report and wait’ provisions” in prior spending bills, but that the requirement to obtain committee approval prior to completing a reorganization “raises legal issues concerning Congress's use of a ‘legislative veto.’”

In a written order on Tuesday, Chhabria stated that it was “significant that Congress added an approval requirement” to the FY 2026 spending bill, “after it had been on the books as a notice-and-wait provision for many years.”

“Congress did not want USDA to be spending money on these kinds of reorganization activities, unless it got permission from the committees,” he said during Tuesday’s hearing. “And so, if you take away the committee-approval provision, then what you're left with is Congress doesn't want the USDA to be engaging in spending this money on these kinds of reorganization activities, unless it goes and gets legislation passed to create an exception to the prohibition.”

Justice Department attorney Taylor Pitz told the judge that USDA “has substantive legal authority to reorganize.” Agency officials, she added, have notified lawmakers about USDA’s reorganization plans, but aren’t looking for congressional approval to proceed with those plans.

“The agency has not considered itself bound to accept congressional approval in order to proceed,” Pitz said.

She argued that the appropriations committees included language in the FY 2026 spending package that only restricted a “reprogramming, transfer of funds, or reimbursement.”

“It's really just a limitation of the department's appropriations tools to affect a reorganization. It's not, ‘you can't reorganize unless you get approval.’ It’s, ‘can't move money around a certain way,’” she said.

Pitz also said Congress didn’t include additional language to block USDA reorganization in a recently passed continuing resolution keeping the federal government funded through Dec. 11.

“It could have very easily, specifically prevented the use of funds for these activities. Congress has chosen not to do that. Congress is well aware of all of these reorganization activities, and it has not stepped in or otherwise changed the language in the appropriations going forward,” Pitz said.

Corrine Johnson, an attorney for plaintiffs, argued that USDA moving around funds to carry out its reorganization is exactly what Congress sought to block.

“They are reprogramming these funds to use them for a different purpose than which they were allocated for. So it falls under the definition of reprogramming,” Johnson said.

Chhabria questioned whether USDA has adequately prepared for attrition in cases where employees quit rather than opt for relocation — and whether that level of attrition could make it harder for USDA component agencies to carry out their work.

“Even if it's with an eye towards having a better organization — you know, a more modern, less bloated organizational structure or whatever – if, when you're making that transition, you're going to lose a bunch of key personnel who provide support to the people in Tahoe National Forest to protect against fires and things like that, that might interfere with the ability of the agency to perform its functions,” he said.

DOJ attorneys told the court in August that USDA hadn’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."

Pitz said all of the changes that the agency is proposing are “with the goal of how do we deliver services more effectively,” and that only about 2% of USDA’s total workforce is being asked to relocate.

“I think that itself demonstrates the agency is very carefully considering potential attrition and trying to mitigate the effects of it,” Pitz said.

Johnson said some USDA components are more disproportionately impacted by relocations than others. The Food and Nutrition Service, which USDA has now rebranded as the Food and Nutrition Administration, is looking to relocate about 700 of its approximately 1,200 employees — about 65% of its total workforce. The agency administers 16 nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

“That is a huge impact on the workforce if there is any appreciable level of attrition,” Johnson said, adding that some offices are “severely understaffed,” and that “workers are already overburdened.”

Johnson said the Foreign Agriculture Service and other component agencies are also facing “similarly high levels of relocations.”

USDA agencies saw major staffing losses when they 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.

Johnson added that “high attrition of people being relocated was likely” with USDA’s current relocation plans, “given the previous experience with the relocations to Kansas City.”

In an Aug. 28 court filing, Mary Pletcher Rice, USDA’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for administration, stated that 725 USDA employees have received relocation letters so far, and that 64% of them have accepted reassignment.

Some USDA 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.

USDA 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.”

]]>

GSA is losing a key digital modernization leader

Frank Konkel — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 10:38:16 -0400

Updated at 1:14 p.m. ET

Mike Lynch, deputy administrator for the General Services Administration, will be leaving his role and returning to the private sector, according to an email sent to staff Wednesday morning by GSA Administrator Ed Forst.

“Mike has been a part of the Administration since January 20, 2025, and I want to thank him for his service to the agency and the American people,” Forst wrote in the email. “During this time, Mike has led initiatives to advance our strategic priorities, strengthen oversight of internal operations, and support effective delivery of our mission. Mike has also helped accelerate GSA’s efforts to increase technology adoption across the agency and the federal government, supporting our customers, workforce and efforts to streamline how we operate.”

“Deputy Administrator Lynch has been a great partner, and has served GSA with distinction," a GSA spokesperson said. "Throughout his tenure, he has made valuable contributions to the agency. We appreciate his leadership, his commitment to GSA’s mission, and his service to the American people. We wish him all the best in his future endeavors.”

Lynch’s departure date is unclear.

Lynch, in an email to staff sent later Wednesday morning, said he was proud of his time in the Trump administration, grateful to Forst “for his leadership, trust and partnership” and described his 20-month tenure in public service as “incredibly rewarding.” He added the decision was “the right one for me and my family.”

“When I arrived at GSA in January 2025, one of my priorities was to help modernize how government operates — leveraging emerging technology, reducing duplication, and improving delivery for the American people. Over the past 20 months, we have made meaningful progress and built a strong foundation for this work to continue,” he wrote.

Prior to his government service, Lynch was the chief executive officer at UK-based medical technology firm Zedsen, and after joining GSA, he quickly became the public face of the agency’s increased role in AI and technology adoption and driving efficiencies across the federal government.

Lynch championed GSA’s OneGov program, through which GSA negotiated substantial discounts on AI and other software on behalf of the entire federal government, with accumulated savings to agencies now exceeding $1.7 billion. Several of those discounts have been extended in recent weeks, including deals with Google, OpenAI and Anthropic.

Meanwhile, more than two dozen agencies are using GSA’s USAi platform to access commercial AI models produced by frontier AI firms.

Within GSA, Lynch led the execution against two core efforts that are now making a dent in challenges faced by other agencies. In early 2026, the agency launched a “million hours challenge” to save and automate one million hours of workload across the agency. The agency is pacing to exceed that goal by year’s end, according to multiple GSA officials. Insights and lessons learned in attempting to accomplish the feat later served as the backbone for its Eliminate, Optimize and Automate, or EOA Playbook. GSA released the playbook publicly to all agencies in June to serve as a step-by-step guide to cut, automate and streamline work.

Lynch, who said the Trump administration “has looked to GSA to lead” on approaches to make government more efficient and responsive, evangelized the agency’s internal efforts through a governmentwide Emerging Technology Showcase attended in-person and online by thousands of federal employees on July 30.

“That's really a core to GSA's mission and a convening function that we've heard: a lot of demand and interest throughout government to expand what we were doing internally and offer it up more broadly,” Lynch said during GovExec’s Government Efficiency Summit on July 16.

Behind the public-facing tech efforts, Lynch was known as a steady hand for GSA’s workforce, which — like many agencies — faced force reduction in 2025. Lynch helped launch GSA Labs, a program designed to identify high-performers in the early-to-mid career level and place them into small teams with executive sponsorship to tackle the agency’s toughest problems.

“Mike was the guy working with the [GSA chief human capital officer] to make this make sense,” one senior GSA official told Nextgov/FCW. “He’s been trying to keep things steady for employees. He’s the one heading up all the GSA labs, and made them a positive for employees. He really cared about [workplace] culture and performance management.”

Lynch’s departing email acknowledged pride in GSA Labs, the EOA Playbook and Million Hour Challenge, expanding OneGov agreements and launching USAi, but also called out the agency’s key resource: it’s people.

“I have also appreciated the opportunity to visit GSA employees across the country,” Lynch said. “Those visits reinforced that GSA’s greatest strength is its people and their commitment to serving our agencies and the American public. It’s been an honor to serve alongside you.”

]]>

White House launches AI-powered ‘America.gov’ digital front door

Christian Robles — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 17:58:23 -0400

The Trump administration launched an artificial intelligence-powered one-stop shop for citizens interested in federal services and information on Tuesday with the help of former Department of Government Efficiency employees.

The website currently allows users to ask a chatbot questions about everything from qualifying for Medicare to finding a job to renewing a passport, without ever creating an account. Users receive AI-generated answers derived only from official federal sources.

America.gov, which sifts through 29,000 websites to pull responses, states it is free to use and “never includes ads, and keeps your privacy protected.”

Phase two of America.gov, which is set for early 2027, will allow Americans to apply for, enroll in and track progress of benefits such as Social Security directly within the chatbot.

“One of the most revolutionary product launches of all time. It really is,” President Donald Trump said at a launch event in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. “We’re putting power and control back into the hands of the people, right where it belongs,” he added.

At the event, Trump signed an executive order mandating that agencies ensure public-facing services integrate directly with America.gov as soon as possible.

A fact sheet on the order states that services integrating with America.gov will “include public-facing federal services that serve more than 100,000 users in a 12-month period and can be accessed or applied for online. Tax filing services provided by the Internal Revenue Service and national-security-sensitive services provided by the Department of War and the Intelligence Community are excluded.”

The order also directs the head of the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance to agencies on implementing their covered services into America.gov.

America.gov does not include web-tracking technologies, save conversations or use specific locations to share information, according to its privacy page.

The National Design Studio, a Trump administration creation that includes former DOGE employees, designed and engineered America.gov. The General Services Administration is operating the website amid a major shakeup to its web design system staff.

Approximately 40 million people visit government websites each day, Joe Gebbia, the National Design Studio’s chief design officer, said at the event.

Under phase two, Americans will be able to upload and send marriage certificates to federal agencies of their choice through the chatbot, according to a presentation Gebbia shared at the launch event.

Gemini and Grok models are powering America.gov, Gebbia told CNBC Tuesday morning. Grok has faced backlash for creating millions of sexualized deepfakes of women and children last year, Nextgov/FCW previously reported.

Americans will also be able to use login.gov to digitally verify their identities and send that information to agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to a presentation CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz shared at the event.

Oz touted America.gov’s ability to show verified users the locations of doctors near them who accept Medicare and enables them to schedule medical appointments. The website also allows users to pull information about drugs they take, compare medication costs and find local pharmacies that carry the medications.

Oz argued the new website will be more useful than informational Medicare packets CMS sends Americans each year, costing approximately $100 million. Oz previously flirted with using AI to help Medicare beneficiaries find health plans and doctors.

“For 165 million Americans, you get Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare. We want these systems eventually to integrate and be able to help so many Americans,” Oz said of America.gov.

Oz told reporters he is pushing for CMS to be as transparent “as possible” about Medicare plans highlighted on America.gov and “make it hard” for insurance companies “to game” information.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio showed that Americans can apply for a passport after signing in with login.gov. The service will launch in December 2026, according to a presentation Rubio gave at the event. The State Department already has an online passport renewal platform that has issued millions of passports.

“By the end of 2027, our goal is for the vast majority of Americans to be able to apply for a passport or passport card on America.gov,” Rubio said.

Rubio also unveiled the 2028 U.S. passport, which he said the State Department created alongside the National Design Studio.

Two civic technologists cautioned that America.gov has not yet proven itself to be the watershed website that Trump administration officials heralded.

“This isn't any big leap forward over the other ‘one-stop shops’ that have been tried before. What remains to be seen is how it could be integrated with any agency program,” Mikey Dickerson, former administrator of the U.S. Digital Service and senior advisor to Democratic-aligned Tech Viaduct, told Nextgov/FCW.

“My first read [of America.gov] is that like many other [National Design Studio] websites, the real functionality is ‘coming soon’ — I tested a VA disability claim and it directs me to the VA site. It claims to be able to do that in 2027, but that’s a significantly heavier lift than building an LLM wrapper,” Christopher Whitaker, executive director of the Alliance of Civic Technologists and a Tech Viaduct contributor, posted on social media.

Other top Trump administration officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, General Services Administrator Edward Forst, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and former Federal Chief Information Officer Greg Barbaccia, attended the launch event.

Private sector leaders, including former DOGE leader Elon Musk and NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, are set to speak Tuesday afternoon.

Trump thanked Musk for “initially envision[ing] the transformation of government with technology” during his remarks, despite squabbling with the former DOGE leader in 2025.

Trump argued that America.gov highlights the need for the SAVE America Act, a federal bill requiring voters to provide photo ID at the time of voting that has stalled in Congress.

Trump said he will soon sign an executive order changing the name of AI to “super intelligence,” a new term he has recently coined; he claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping supports the renaming. The America.gov order Trump signed refers to AI as super intelligence.

“We don't want to hear artificial because it's not artificial. It's very powerful. It's very brilliant,” Trump said.

The Washington Sun first reported on plans for America.gov earlier this month.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to include additional info about the models powering America.gov.

]]>

Dozens of federal immigration employees stayed in sensitive positions despite security concerns, inspector general reports

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 15:54:50 -0400

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services let dozens of its employees stay in national security positions even after they were determined to be ineligible for the roles due to security concerns or damaging information about them was uncovered, according to a new watchdog report. The Homeland Security Department, however, countered that the inspector general overstated its conclusions.

“Employees found to have criminal records, financial instability or anti-government ideologies may be more susceptible to coercion, blackmail or foreign influence,” auditors wrote. “Allowing employees whom USCIS deemed a security risk to remain in positions where they may access highly sensitive information undermines USCIS’ mission. Further, such employees could make immigration decisions that gravely damage national security.”

In total, the IG reported that, as of April 2025, 10 USCIS staffers held national security positions for an average of about seven years after they were disqualified from holding a sensitive position or a security clearance. For example, one individual stayed in such a position for more than a dozen years after their security clearance was denied.

But Jeffrey M. Bobich, a senior DHS official, asserted in a letter attached to the report that USCIS employees without a security clearance were barred from accessing classified information or conducting sensitive work while they appealed their clearance revocation. The IG, however, said that it could not verify this because the agency did not provide documentation.

Auditors also found 13 USCIS employees working in national security positions without a decision on file regarding their suitability for the role. A suitability determination is a step in the federal government’s personnel vetting process to gauge, after an investigation, if a staffer’s “character or conduct” is appropriate for the position.

“These employees were left in place despite USCIS possessing derogatory information [about them] such as marriage fraud, tax evasion, potential money laundering and ongoing contact with individuals illegally residing in the United States,” they wrote.

The Office of Personnel Management this year finalized a rule expanding suitability determinations, which previously only applied to federal job applicants, to current civil servants. Under the regulation, the HR agency can fire feds for post-appointment conduct.

While the IG included details about the security clearance denial cases in the report, some of the information is blacked out. Investigators included a note on the report’s front page that: “OIG determined that some of the department’s requested redactions lacked adequate justification and we were unable to resolve the matter with the department. To avoid further delay of the report, we have redacted the contested material pursuant to the department’s request and marked it with an asterisk.”

Investigators argued that DHS policy does not clearly assign roles for various officials when it comes to determining what to do when an employee is deemed ineligible for a national security position.

“USCIS’ approach reflects a pattern of giving individuals extended time and benefit of the doubt, even when the information warrants disqualification under federal adjudicative guidelines,” they wrote.

The IG made several recommendations, including that USCIS reevaluate the employees in national security positions without eligibility or a clearance and set timeframes for removing or reassigning employees after they’ve exhausted their appeal rights.

While DHS concurred with all of the recommendations, officials also contended that the report “omit[s] key information, circumstance and context.” For example, they wrote that the agency removed or reassigned 48 employees after they were determined to be ineligible for sensitive positions and an additional 52 staffers left during the appeals process.

DHS also said that the employees in the report were subject to continuous vetting under Trusted Workforce 2.0, a background check modernization initiative.

“It is simply incorrect to suggest that these employees occupied national security positions for years without appropriate vetting,” Bobich wrote.

Personnel vetting is not just a problem at USCIS. The government-wide security clearance process is on the Government Accountability Office’s high-risk list of federal programs “with serious vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement or in need of transformation.”

]]>

Agencies withheld records needed to verify DOGE data safeguards, GAO says

David DiMolfetta — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 13:58:43 -0400

Six federal agencies failed to provide records needed to determine whether Department of Government Efficiency personnel appropriately accessed and protected government systems, leaving Congress and the public without assurances that sensitive information was secured, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday.

The watchdog’s report details unanswered requests for system access records, user activity logs and evidence that DOGE personnel met security requirements. Some agencies explicitly refused further cooperation, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disputing GAO’s authority to conduct the review.

Four agencies reported giving DOGE teams access to more than 23 systems collectively, including tools for managing contracts, grants, finances and personnel. But auditors could not independently establish the full extent of that access. The other two agencies — the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration — did not provide the information needed to identify which systems DOGE personnel could use.

“Without the ability to examine the requested information, Congress and the public lack assurance that these agencies implemented controls needed to ensure DOGE team members appropriately secured information,” GAO wrote.

The review covered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Education Department, NOAA, SEC, SBA and VA, with audit work running from March 2025 through September 2026.

SEC and NOAA challenged GAO’s authority to conduct the review, while Education cited litigation and privacy concerns as reasons for not providing records. VA declined to provide records or explain why, and SBA left requests unanswered. GAO said those objections did not override its statutory authority or right to obtain records.

CFPB called the review a “fishing expedition” and said further requests were burdensome. Both CFPB and SEC reported no DOGE-related security or privacy incidents, but GAO said it lacked access to records needed to verify those assurances.

At CFPB, officials reported granting access to 19 systems. One DOGE team member could view, modify and delete information in the bureau’s primary human resources system. Three had full access to a Microsoft system used to manage user access.

CFPB said DOGE staff did not access systems containing market monitoring, supervision, enforcement or fair lending information. However, the report notes that two team members had sufficient permissions to grant themselves or others access to those systems, though the bureau said they did not do so.

At Education, one DOGE member reportedly received limited access to two Federal Student Aid systems and an administrative account on the department’s network. Auditors could not determine what privileges that administrative account provided.

NOAA said one detailee received permission to create, change and delete internal website content to remove material related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Other detailees received access to contract and grant systems, but GAO could not confirm the complete scope of their permissions.

The review shows that questions about DOGE’s access to sensitive government information remain unresolved more than a year after its teams entered and sought to overhaul the federal enterprise. Resistance from agency officials highlights the obstacles Congress’s watchdog faces in independently verifying how that access was used and controlled.

The review also left unanswered questions about basic personnel safeguards. Agencies supplied some training records and signed security agreements, but not enough to establish compliance across their DOGE teams.

The findings follow an April GAO review of DOGE access to Treasury payment systems that identified failures to follow security procedures, including an instance in which a DOGE employee improperly shared unencrypted information. The new report says Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service had not implemented any of the six recommendations from that review as of September.

Although the executive order establishing DOGE set a July 4, 2026, termination date for its temporary organization, GAO noted that it did not terminate the broader U.S. DOGE Service — a rebrand of the U.S. Digital Service established under the Obama administration.

Congress’ watchdog has repeatedly faced difficulties obtaining basic information about DOGE’s personnel and activities. A tally of 10 agencies and the Executive Office of the President had not supplied records GAO requested to verify whether DOGE employees completed ethics training and financial disclosures, according to an earlier oversight report. Missing information also prevented auditors from determining the appointment types of more than 150 personnel.

]]>

‘Nobody knows anything.’ Displaced IRS staff move from one project to another with few details why

Jory Heckman — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 06:00:00 -0400

Updated Sept. 29 at 3:15 p.m.

Mid-career IRS employees involuntarily moved to entry-level jobs they had no prior experience doing are getting new assignments, as part of the agency’s latest shakeup.

The IRS in February put IT and human resources employees on 120-day details to work in taxpayer services. They were assigned entry-level roles answering inquiries from taxpayers and processing tax returns. The National Treasury Employees Union estimates that about 1,500 IRS employees were placed on these details.

Many of these temporary details to taxpayer services were extended for another 120 days in May, but impacted employees weren’t sure what job – if any – they’d have with the agency in the long-term. Displaced IT employees have been told they aren’t allowed to return to the agency’s tech shop.

That next role at the IRS is coming into focus. IRS employees moved off taxpayer services details are being reassigned to one of three “ONE IRS Readiness” teams.

IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano has repeatedly outlined his “One IRS” vision for running the agency more efficiently. Bisignano, who also serves as the Senate-confirmed commissioner of the Social Security Administration, also reassigned many SSA employees from field offices to answer calls to its 1-800 number.

Bisignano told employees in a Jan. 12 meeting that “we should be able to move any talent wherever is the best place,” as part of a “One SSA” strategy.

Joseph Ziegler, the IRS’ chief of internal consulting, described this latest agency reorganization in an email to employees as a “Reporting and Organizational Correction.”

“These corrections will serve as the basis for improved roster management, workload alignment, reporting integrity, and cross-business unit coordination,” Ziegler wrote in an email obtained by Government Executive.

The rollout of these changes, he told employees, “represents a major step forward in strengthening the accuracy and consistency of our foundational data” across the agency’s IT, human resources, and time and attendance systems.

Government Executive reported last week that the IRS asked some on-detail employees to stay in taxpayer services for a third tour of duty. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration is investigating these temporary reassignments to taxpayer services as part of an audit of the agency’s attempts to reshape its workforce.

“I don’t think many volunteered to extend their details a third time,” said one IRS employee who’s been reassigned to one of these new readiness teams. “Everyone’s old details have expired, so we are all starting fresh. I’m happy to finally have something to do.”

Impacted employees have been assigned to one of three readiness teams. It’s not clear what work these teams will be performing or how team assignments have been decided.

“Nobody knows anything else,” the IRS employee said.

“Team A” will be led by Fred Wade, an IRS IT executive who oversaw the agency’s rollout of a modernized electronic tax filing platform.

“Team B” will be led by Gregg Zurmühlen. His LinkedIn page states that he currently serves as the IRS’ director of enterprise cybersecurity operations and standards.

“Team C” will be led by Adela Gresham, an IRS IT executive who recently returned to work after being placed on administrative leave for more than a year.

“After being placed on administrative leave 15 months ago, I was not quite sure if I would or wanted to return to federal service. I was recently given an option and after much prayer, I decided to jump back in to continue the journey,” Gresham wrote in a recent LinkedIn post.

Gresham is one of 50 IRS IT leaders the agency put on paid administrative leave in March 2025. Government Executive confirmed that another IRS IT executive previously placed on administrative leave has been brought back to work at the IRS.

Treasury Chief Information Officer Sam Corcos defended putting these officials on administrative leave. In a podcast interview last October, he said the IRS “had poor technical leadership for roughly 40 years.”

The Trump administration spent nearly $10 billion placing more than 100,000 federal workers on paid administrative leave for extended periods last year, a sixfold increase from two years prior, according to the Government Accountability Office. That spike was driven largely by the administration’s deferred resignation program aimed at encouraging feds to quit public service.

A second IRS employee said he has also been assigned to a ONE IRS Readiness team after he was recently released from his detail to taxpayer services.

“They let a few of us out, and then eventually they released even more people. Everybody was happy to get out. Most of the people who are still there, I don't know if they wanted to stay. You really had to raise some hell to even get out,” the employee said.

The second IRS employee said he’s relieved to be done with his detail to taxpayer services, but he’s not sure what this new assignment will entail.

“As soon as we got back from taxpayer services, they’re trying to send us off for another detail,” he said.

The second IRS employee, who previously worked in IRS IT, said the agency’s tech shop is backfilling the jobs and his colleagues previously performed.

IRS Chief Information Officer Kaschit Pandya said in March that his office planned to hire up to 175 IT employees, after permanently moving 1,200 employees out of the tech shop. Pandya said in February that the IRS lost 40% of its IT workforce and nearly 80% of its leadership last year.

“They hired people to replace us,” the second IRS employee said. “They really just disappeared us and threw us away.”

The second IRS employee described his detail in taxpayer services as “chaos.” He said there was “no clear direction of who was actually your manager,” and that detailees were rushed into frontline roles with minimal training.

“We were thrown directly into these IRS systems and processing tax returns. We had no idea of that – how to do it. The people who had been doing it had been doing it for years.”

The second IRS employee said many full-time taxpayer services employees were “resentful” of detailees brought on to the same jobs, but retaining their old salaries. Detailees were making about two or three times what these frontline jobs normally pay.

“Many of us were [GS]-13s, [GS]-14s, [GS]-15s,” the IRS employee said. “You had people who were [GS]-3s, [GS]-4s and [GS]-5s who were managing you, telling you what to do, and they had no idea of management.”

The second IRS employee said workers placed on details were disproportionately racial minorities, women and people with disabilities.

“The overwhelming majority of these people are black, brown, and minorities who have been just rushed off in this detail,” he said. An IRS official strongly disputed the notion that reassignments were based on demographics.

The second IRS employee said he’s not clear why the agency keeps reassigning him, and why he was removed from his IT job in the first place. He said he chose a career in the federal government over the corporate world because of job stability – but said upheaval at the IRS has challenged that idea.

“What is the point of this? What is the business purpose of this? It's just like DOGE,” he said. “All the savings they talked about, it wasn't real savings.”

This story was updated to include a comment from an IRS official

]]>

OpenAI agents accessed Census, SEC data and tried to hack Education website

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 17:12:40 -0400

UPDATED Saturday, Sept. 26

OpenAI’s artificial intelligence agents accessed Census Bureau data using developer keys found online and reposted public Securities and Exchange Commission information on another website, the company confirmed. Researchers separately identified a failed attempt by agents linked to OpenAI to hack an Education Department website.

The details identify specific U.S. agencies following the company’s Friday disclosure that government websites were among the outside systems involved in its investigation of agents acting beyond their assigned tasks or intended methods during training and testing.

The New York Times reported Friday⁠ that researchers at the AI research organization Transluce identified the unsuccessful attempt to hack Education’s website to obtain data from its civil rights office. An Education spokesperson told the newspaper that reviews found no evidence of an impact on its website or databases.

OpenAI said its models accessed only public information from Census and the SEC. In the Census case, agents used Census Data API developer keys found in public GitHub repositories during internal training tasks. Those keys authenticated read-only requests for public demographic and economic data, the company said.

OpenAI said it found no access to Census accounts or key-management functions, and no ability to modify agency data or systems.

At the SEC, agents retrieved information available to any visitor to SEC.gov and Investor.gov, then posted some of it on another public webpage. OpenAI said it found no use of SEC credentials, access to accounts or nonpublic information, changes to agency systems, or evidence of a compromise or vulnerability.

The company said it notified both agencies and shared technical findings. The SEC told the Times it was unaware of unauthorized access to nonpublic information, while Commerce said no private Census data was accessed.

“As we previously announced, we’re conducting an extensive review of misaligned model activity and notifying organizations when we identify potential impacts to their systems,” an OpenAI spokesperson told Nextgov/FCW. “We expect to make additional notifications as that work continues.”

The company has notified dozens of organizations as it reviews activity that may have bypassed security controls, disrupted services or otherwise negatively affected websites. Sites involved include those operated by governments, universities and public agencies.

Nextgov/FCW reported in August⁠ that former officials and cybersecurity experts saw an increasing risk of unintended AI intrusions into federal systems. They cited aging technology, insufficient separation between networks and contractor connections as potential routes into systems the agents were never authorized to enter.

The newly detailed U.S. activity does not establish that federal networks were breached. It offers a broader picture of how government websites can become caught up in AI experiments conducted outside their control, raising questions about developers’ ability to contain agents pursuing routine tasks.

The disclosures could also intensify debate over whether safeguards can keep pace with increasingly capable systems, amid concerns that similar failures could have more serious consequences for sensitive government networks or critical infrastructure.

In Australia, officials revealed this week that an OpenAI agent — autonomous software that uses an AI model to plan and complete tasks — gained unauthorized access to a government health statistics portal in June.

The agent was researching public medicine spending when it accessed infrastructure behind the Medicare Statistics Reporting Service portal, government officials said Thursday⁠. After a request for information was denied, it circumvented the portal’s restrictions.

Officials said the information involved aggregated statistics and that no individual medical records were accessed. The portal was separate from systems handling Medicare claims, payments and personal information.

OpenAI discovered the June activity in August and notified Services Australia on Sept. 10. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese raised concerns directly with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Australian officials announced a task force to examine the incident, government network security and whether existing laws adequately address such activity.

OpenAI cautioned that its notifications should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of significant security incidents. Most cases identified so far were of low severity, with limited or no evidence of meaningful impact, it said.

The company said some organizations may conclude the information accessed was intentionally public or the interaction was not concerning, while others may identify a weakness to address.

The review follows OpenAI models’ July breach of AI platform Hugging Face during an internal cybersecurity evaluation. The company has since broadened its investigation to examine agents’ interactions with outside websites.

“Most of the activity we’ve reviewed so far involved routine research tasks, such as accessing public web content to answer questions,” the OpenAI spokesperson said. “Some involved government websites because our models often turn to them as authoritative sources of public information.”

OpenAI said the review will take months to complete. It is sharing technical findings with affected organizations and generally leaving decisions about public disclosure to them.

The company separately disclosed Friday⁠ that research agents had transmitted training and evaluation data to outside services. It identified 53 instances in which user-provided images were posted to image-hosting sites through links that were not publicly listed. Most of that content has been removed, OpenAI said, and it is working with hosting providers to remove the rest.

]]>

SSA’s lead had set a goal of 200M online accounts this year — experts say that might prove challenging

Christian Robles — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 16:14:14 -0400

The Social Security Administration hit its target of reaching 105 million 'my Social Security' accounts — an online portal Americans use to access services — by the end of the month, an agency spokesperson told Nextgov/FCW on Friday. The agency now aims to reach 110 million by the end of next September, per a strategic plan released in August.

But that 110 million goal is far less lofty than the target SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano told Congress about last year: 200 million online accounts by the end of 2026.

The SSA spokesperson said the agency continues to strive for 200 million my Social Security account holders, but they did not offer a target date.

Boosting the number of my Social Security accounts is central to Bisignano’s push to transform SSA into a “digital-first” agency.

Nextgov/FCW spoke to over half a dozen lawyers, former SSA officials and other experts about the challenges the agency faces in reaching 200 million my Social Security accounts. Among them are the limited value of making an account for some Americans, a lack of awareness and account creation difficulties.

Amid the issues, lawyers and SSA employees are increasingly encouraging seniors and disability claimants to make online accounts.

“I see [my Social Security accounts] becoming, step by step, more and more relevant to the disability claim process as more is provided in there to the claimant,” David Camp, senior policy advisor and general counsel for the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, told Nextgov/FCW.

Account adoption challenges

Only 44% of adults report having a my Social Security account, including 66% of those aged 65 and older and 29% of those ages 18 to 49, according to AARP survey results published last month.

Adults generally interact with SSA in very specific moments of their lives, which explains much of the tepid adoption in the younger age bracket, Arabella Crawford, a civic tech consultant and Tech Viaduct contributor, told Nextgov/FCW. Those moments include turning 65, being diagnosed with a disability or changing their legal name, she explained.

Over 75 million Americans received Social Security benefits, Supplemental Security Income or both in August 2026, according to SSA data.

“I do not understand why you would expect the majority of Americans to create an account,” Crawford said.

The agency uses public service announcements, social media posts, targeted email and text outreach, agency notices and customer contacts to encourage Americans to make my Social Security accounts.

But even within the subset of Americans who do actively interact with SSA, other barriers to reaching the account goal exist.

Last year, attorneys at the Georgia Legal Services Program, a nonprofit law firm focused on serving rural Georgia, hosted four clinics to explain what my Social Security accounts are and helped about 100 clients make one.

Each clinic had at least two attorneys and was sometimes staffed by as many as five attorneys, Brittany Pasley, the firm’s public benefits specialist and a supervising attorney at the firm’s Augusta regional office, told Nextgov/FCW.

The program noticed that much of its clientele did not know about my Social Security accounts.

Many clients are also not technologically savvy, lack internet access or have disabilities that make it difficult to use technology, Pasley said.

Clients ran into issues using my Social Security accounts’ digital identity verification services, she explained. For example, some clients found it difficult to use video proofing on ID.me — a digital identity validation service used across several agencies — while others had to wait for the government’s in-house option, Login.gov, to send codes through the mail, she said.

Crawford told Nextgov/FCW that online digital identity verification services present a roadblock for other Americans.

The services can be hard to use for Americans who lack a current photo ID, are unhoused or face other difficult circumstances, she said, and the services can sometimes fail to verify someone’s identity through data matching.

Americans struggling with my Social Security’s digital identity verification services can use alternative options to create an account, including in-person verification at USPS locations for Login.gov and remote “trusted referee” video calls for ID.me.

Promoting online accounts

Though Americans face challenges in creating my Social Security accounts, lawyers are increasingly encouraging clients who interact with the agency to use the portal.

“In the past, we rarely encouraged clients to set up an SSA account — it was challenging to set up, and once you were in, the information available on the account was limited,” wrote Stephanie Akpa, head of policy and public affairs at law firm Atticus, to Nextgov/FCW. The firm represents about 100,000 disability claimants each year.

“That started to change last year. SSA made logging in easier, improved the user interface, and started showing more case status details online. Now we have a reason to encourage clients to make accounts, and we’re doing just that,” Akpa added.

In July, SSA announced that disability claimants can submit certain adjudication forms and track the status of their case online. Online account holders can also access proffer letters, which detail when new evidence is added to a case after a hearing, and 26 different kinds of notices. About 79% of Social Security customer transactions with the agency have occurred online this year, according to the most recent SSA performance data.

“SSA is continuing to expand my Social Security so that beneficiaries and other members of the public can complete more routine business securely and conveniently online,” an agency spokesperson told Nextgov/FCW.

But my Social Security still lacks some digital features. The bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board called for improvements to online wage reporting tools and a mobile-friendly app for Supplemental Security Income recipients in a July report.

Pasley said that, while the firm does not have immediate plans to host more clinics, attorneys continue to encourage clients to create online accounts.

SSA employees are also pushing Americans to create accounts.

Since last September, SSA has required teleservice center and field office employees to strongly encourage Americans to do so, according to Rich Couture, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 215.

Under the initiative, SSA employees offer to send callers and visitors information about creating my Social Security accounts after checking a system to see if the person has one.

But it’s “common” for callers and visitors to decline the employee’s offer, Couture told Nextgov/FCW.

The agency maintains it wants customers to have the option to be served through field offices and phone calls, though SSA has lost thousands of employees under the Trump administration, according to Office of Personnel Management data.

]]>

$25,000 bonuses for top-performing feds? OPM makes it easier for agencies to award them

Sean Michael Newhouse — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 15:29:29 -0400

The Office of Personnel Management last week delegated to agency heads the authority to award bonuses of up to $25,000 to “highly exceptional and unusually outstanding” civil servants.

Previously, agency heads first had to seek approval from the federal government’s HR agency to distribute awards between $10,000 and $25,000.

“A performance management system that makes meaningful distinctions in performance must also deliver meaningful rewards,” OPM Director Scott Kupor wrote in the memo. “Agencies should use this authority to provide larger awards to their highest performers, ensuring that the employees who contribute most to agency missions and results receive recognition commensurate with their contributions.”

OPM announced the bonus delegation change the same day that it set a 40% cap for fiscal 2026 on the share of federal employees that can receive the top two performance ratings.

“I think you could view this as part of a package to limit the number of people who are achieving the highest ratings and getting bonuses, but sweetening the pot a little bit in terms of the size of the bonuses,” said Alan P. Balutis, who worked in the federal government for nearly three decades and is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration.

Likewise, Kupor posted on social media in August that, for OPM’s internal awards, the agency reduced the number of categories but tripled the honor’s monetary value “in-line with our efforts to create a high performance culture across government.”

Balutis also argued that giving agency heads the authority to award these bonuses “seems logical.”

“They're running multi-billion-dollar budgets and programs and [for them] to have the authority to give employees what is — certainly compared to the private sector — a relatively modest annual bonus makes imminently good managerial sense,” he said.

The Partnership for Public Service — a good government nonprofit that has criticized many of the Trump administration’s federal workforce reforms, especially the removal of civil service protections for around 8,000 positions in “policy-making” roles through the Schedule Policy/Career job classification — contended that “streamlining the approval authority for the awards process may be a step in the right direction, [but] it fails to address the core problem that agencies still lack the incentives, tools and culture needed to meaningfully reward high performance.”

“Building a truly high performing workforce requires holistic reform to performance management as opposed to the piecemeal tweaks we continue to see from this administration," said Jenny Mattingley, the organization’s vice president for public policy and stakeholder engagement, in a statement to Government Executive.

OPM canceled the fiscal 2025 presidential rank awards, a program to honor outstanding members of the Senior Executive Service that includes a financial award component, for no specified reason. At the start of this year, however, the agency said the awards would return for fiscal 2026.

While OPM has delegated its authority over federal worker bonuses, it has recently taken several actions to centralize power over the civil servant removal process.

]]>

Lawmaker warns intelligence contractors' Trump ballroom donations may be scrutinized

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 15:10:08 -0400

The House Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat warned Monday that intelligence contractors could face congressional scrutiny over donations to President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project, including whether the contributions were connected to government contracts or access to senior officials.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., wrote to the National Defense Industrial Association asking it to remind member companies of their obligations to respond to congressional oversight. He said lawmakers were likely to pursue investigative steps concerning the donations and other dealings between contractors and the administration.

“At times, the Administration has appeared to inappropriately fuse the government contracting process with the attempted extraction of political or private favors,” Himes said in the letter to NDIA President and CEO David Norquist.

The notice signals potential scrutiny in the coming months of the financial relationships between the White House and companies that serve the nation’s vast array of spy agencies.

Nextgov/FCW has asked NDIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for comment.

The White House announced the ballroom project in July 2025, saying private contributions would cover its construction rather than congressionally appropriated funds. The White House has identified donors like Booz Allen Hamilton, Palantir Technologies and Lockheed Martin, alongside technology companies like Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

Himes said some publicly named donors belong to NDIA and have significant intelligence community contracts. His letter did not name specific companies or identify any contract awards he believes warrant examination.

He outlined questions about how donations were solicited, who participated in those discussions and whether contributions were linked to obtaining or retaining government business, presidential access or other benefits. Potential investigative steps could include requests for documents, communications and transcribed testimony.

The warning comes as Democrats appear increasingly well positioned to regain the House in November. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report said Friday that Republicans are on track to lose their majority. A Democratic takeover would give the party control of committee investigations when the new Congress convenes in January.

Under the panel’s current rules, subpoenas compelling documents or testimony require authorization from the chairman, after consultation with the ranking member, or a vote of the full committee.

The inquiry could also examine whether the donations create actual or apparent conflicts of interest or national security risks, and whether Congress should impose additional disclosure requirements or other safeguards.

He framed the issue, in part, as a concern about pressure on contractors, asking whether companies providing national security services were being pushed into arrangements that compromised the contracting process.

“Intelligence Community contractors provide valuable services to the nation, and to the extent they are being pressured in ways that corrupt the contracting process, Congress has a vital oversight interest,” Himes wrote.

The potential scrutiny extends beyond the ballroom. Himes said lawmakers may also seek information about other “unusual dealings” involving the White House, senior administration officials and NDIA members, though he did not identify additional transactions.

“I intend to ensure this matter is thoroughly investigated,” he wrote.

]]>

Shutdown mass-layoff policy rescinded as part of settlement with unions

Jory Heckman — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 17:57:59 -0400

The Trump administration is withdrawing its authorization of widespread layoffs across the federal workforce during a government shutdown.

Federal employee unions reached a settlement with the administration on Friday, putting a pause on a lawsuit that challenged widespread layoffs carried out during a 43-day government shutdown last year.

The lawsuit will be held in abeyance until the end of the year, giving unions the ability to reopen the case if another shutdown occurs, and if the administration uses the funding lapse to terminate more employees.

The Trump administration threatened widespread layoffs as a bargaining chip to avoid a government shutdown last fall, and sent reduction in force notices to thousands of federal employees during the lapse in funding.

RIF notices that agencies issued during last year’s 43-day government shutdown have been rescinded, and employees separated by RIFs issued during that period have been reinstated to their positions.

Congress passed a continuing resolution keeping the federal government funded through Dec. 11, postponing the threat of a government shutdown until after the midterm elections.

As part of the settlement, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget will have 30 days to notify agencies that earlier guidance making reductions in force a shutdown-exempt activity has been rescinded.

Agencies will also be instructed to remove RIF authorization from their own shutdown contingency plans.

“Within 30 days, Federal Agency Defendants will remove any language from their operative contingency plans for a lapse in appropriations that (1) provides for initiation of RIFs during a lapse in appropriations, or (2) authorizes employees to perform work necessary to administer a RIF process during a lapse in appropriations as an excepted activity, unless performing such work during a lapse in appropriations is expressly authorized by statute,” the settlement agreement states.

Under the settlement, agencies must give a 30-day notice to plaintiff unions if they plan to modify their plans to exempt initiating or administering RIFs during a future shutdown. Agencies will also have to publicly post those updated shutdown plans.

About 4,200 RIF notices were sent to employees at the departments of Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and Treasury, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency.

A federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction blocking agencies from issuing or enforcing those RIFs. A spending package Congress passed to end the shutdown further prohibited agencies from carrying out RIFs. A subsequent funding bill kept those layoff protections in place through mid-February 2026.

Federal employee layoffs are not typical during a government shutdown. During most shutdowns, employees are either working — with or without being paid immediately — or are furloughed, meaning they are not working during the funding lapse.

OPM updated its guidance last year, exempting agency RIF procedures from the shutdown. Furloughed employees usually aren’t permitted to use their government-provided devices – including phones and computers – during a shutdown, but OPM said in its now-rescinded guidance that furloughed feds could use those devices to check for RIF notices or “additional RIF information.”

Just before the shutdown, OMB told agencies to draw up plans for RIFs in programs that wouldn’t have alternative funding sources during a lapse in appropriations, and that “are not consistent with the president’s priorities.”

In the early days of the shutdown, President Donald Trump posted an AI-generated video on Truth Social portraying OMB Director Russ Vought as the Grim Reaper targeting federal employees.

Everett Kelley, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees said in a statement the Trump administration “tried to turn a shutdown into an excuse to fire the public servants who kept this country running without a paycheck on payday.

“We fought back, we held the line, and they backed down,” Kelley said.

]]>

Following court order, OPM replaces 'favorite EO' question for jobseekers

Erich Wagner — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 17:39:54 -0400

The controversial essay prompt asking federal job seekers about their favorite Trump administration policy or executive order is officially on the way out, in the wake of a court ruling earlier this month finding it likely violated applicants’ First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole ordered the Office of Personnel Management to halt federal agencies’ use of the question, which critics described as a “loyalty test,” finding that it “directly links” jobseekers’ personal views with their potential duties as a federal employee. O’Toole issued a stay blocking agencies from including the question on federal job applications going forward but said he could not require the reconsideration of hiring actions that already occurred while the question was being distributed.

In a message last week, OPM instructed agencies to cease considering responses to the favorite executive order question for “any open vacancy,” but said they do not need to reopen previous hiring actions or repost job announcements, provided they close by Friday.

For existing job postings that remain open into next week and new job postings, agencies must now ask a new “Question 3,” one more tailored toward avoiding First Amendment concerns.

“In this role, you will be expected to professionally and efficiently implement executive direction,” the prompt states. “Provide an example where you implemented leadership direction on a strategy or policy decision that differed from your own recommendation.”

The memo also posits a new fifth essay question, tasking agencies with choosing between one and three “agency-wide priorities” and asking applicants how they would help the agency advance those initiatives.

“Agencies should populate the bracketed text with important priorities drawn from the agency’s strategic plan, annual performance plan, or other current agency priorities,” OPM wrote. “The text must be the same for all announcements within the agency.”

Although OPM’s essay questions, which the HR agency has stressed are optional, no longer explicitly query job applicants’ personal political views, Don Kettl, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland and former dean of its School of Public Policy, said the questions still create friction that will hurt federal hiring.

“The administration has been arguing strongly that they are using purely objective measures to measure the merit of potential employees in the application process,” Kettl said. “But when you start introducing essays that are inherently subjective both in the way they are framed and in the way they are graded, you run counter to the other thrust of this. OPM wants to be able to say, ‘This is just another measure,’ but to have essays graded subjectively in a process that is aimed at being objective creates an inherent contradiction.”

]]>

Watchdog won’t discipline agencies over partisan shutdown posts but warns against ‘derogatory’ messaging

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 14:32:59 -0400

The Office of Special Counsel on Friday said that it is not pursuing disciplinary action over widespread messaging from agencies blaming the fall 2025 government shutdown on Democrats because officials misconstrued an earlier Hatch Act decision that they thought permitted the communications. But OSC staffers were not able to correct that misinterpretation at the time because they were furloughed due to the funding lapse.

The Hatch Act is an ethics law enforced by OSC that limits the political activities of federal employees. Specifically, civil servants are not permitted to engage in political activity while on duty or in their official capacity.

In the report, OSC said that it received more than 1,000 complaints about partisan messages from the White House and 37 agencies during the record-breaking shutdown, which ended in November.

At the time, Democratic lawmakers and good government nonprofits pointed to banners on agency websites blaming congressional Democrats for the shutdown and furloughed Education Department employees reporting that their out-of-office messages were modified to express the same sentiment as examples of Hatch Act violations.

OSC also cited a satirical webpage from the White House called “mysafespace” that pretended to be a social media profile for congressional Democrats.

“That fake profile contained a biography section that included, ‘Hey we’re Democrats in the House and Senate. We love DEI, transgender for everyone, and handing out taxpayer benefits to illegal immigrants,’ listed as heroes ‘anyone who identifies as a radical leftist[,] transnational gangs, [and] illegal immigrants,’ and made multiple references to the shutdown.”

Agencies generally defended these messages to OSC by referencing a 2024 advisory opinion finding that former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona did not violate the Hatch Act when he sent a letter to federal student loan borrowers criticizing lawsuits from “Republican elected officials” that temporarily blocked certain student debt forgiveness plans.

In that opinion, OSC staffers determined that there wasn’t evidence suggesting Cardona intended to influence election results and that the agency historically hasn’t considered references to a political party in discussions of pending legislation or government policy to constitute prohibited political activity.

OSC employees in Friday’s report said that the earlier opinion was not intended to be applied so broadly but that agencies’ interpretation was “understandable, especially because agencies could not consult OSC for clarification during the shutdown because OSC’s Hatch Act Unit staff was furloughed.”

“Because of agencies’ reasonable reliance on the 2024 advisory, OSC has determined that disciplinary action is neither warranted nor appropriate in the shutdown messaging cases,” they wrote. “Further investigation to determine facts like how the communications were developed and the roles of individual employees would tax OSC’s limited resources and not materially change the outcome.”

The agency clarified, however, that similar partisan messaging in the future still could run afoul of the Hatch Act.

“Some of the shutdown messaging had the clear non-electoral purpose of influencing pending legislation — namely the pending appropriations bills that would have restored government funding — while others had the non-electoral purpose of conveying operational impacts. Neither is prohibited under the Hatch Act,” staffers wrote. “But the derogatory tone and broad dissemination of some communications might weigh in favor of finding that their purpose went beyond influencing legislation to affecting the outcome of future elections, a purpose the Hatch Act prohibits.”

The Senate in August confirmed Charles Baldis, a former GOP Senate staffer, as special counsel, though he’s been leading OSC since spring 2025 as the designee of the former acting chief. In 2025, the president removed the former special counsel — Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by President Joe Biden — before the end of his five-year term.

In August, the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to OSC criticizing the length of time it is taking to complete Hatch Act investigations into six senior administration officials, five of which have been pending for more than 10 months. In response, the agency said that it “doesn’t comment on open cases.”

]]>

FDA nominee faces bipartisan scrutiny over vaccines and abortion drug

Jennifer Shutt, States Newsroom — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 06:00:00 -0400

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration appeared to disappoint senators from both political parties Thursday with how she answered questions about medication abortion access during her confirmation hearing.

Dr. Heidi Overton also faced skepticism from committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., about her work on vaccine policy during the current administration, indicating she may not have the support needed to secure the job.

“You're a medical doctor. Of course, that resonates with me. You've seen patients. You have a deep understanding of the healthcare system and health policy, but I have concerns,” he said. “You were behind the president in the Oval Office when he signed an executive order to break up the vaccine schedule into more doses, completely ignoring the reality of families today struggling to make life affordable.”

Cassidy said that executive order was “based on zero scientific evidence” and would require parents to spend more time and more money taking their children to medical appointments to receive vaccine shots.

Overton, he said, needed to convince him and others on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that if confirmed by the full Senate, she would be “radically honest.”

“You'll also need to ensure that uninformed ideologies do not influence FDA's decisions on whether to approve individual products, even if the president is pressuring you,” Cassidy said.

In response to a question from Cassidy about the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, Overton said she believed it as well as “every vaccine on the U.S. market right now” is safe and effective.

She added the MMR vaccine remains “our best tool right now in the public health response to the measles outbreak” and that it is “97% effective in stopping transmission of the virus after two doses.”

Questions on medication abortion

In addition to several questions about vaccine and food safety, senators pressed Overton about her personal views on mifepristone, one of two prescription pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion.

Senate confirmation would place Overton as the head of the agency conducting a safety review of the drug, though she declined to say how she would handle that process.

“Mifepristone was approved by the FDA as having met its safety and efficacy standard,” she said in response to a question from Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

The senator then referenced a policy brief that Overton wrote with Matias Perttula for the America First Policy Institute that was published in February 2023.

The co-authors began by writing that “Abortion is corrosive to children, women, and society broadly because it devalues and extinguishes innocent human life.” They later added that medication abortion, which is approved for up to 10 weeks’ gestation, had become “the most common method of terminating a pregnancy” and that it “deserve(d) greater medical scrutiny.”

Overton declined to answer a question from Murray about whether an IUD counts as an abortifacient, saying that if confirmed she would be “fully briefed on all their prior decisions and make determinations according to the standards of safety and efficacy.”

Hawley presses on FDA position

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley also questioned Overton on her statements during the hearing about mifepristone, saying they didn’t match what the Trump administration was arguing in ongoing legal cases.

“I want to get to the bottom of this. I want to be sure that the FDA is not changing its position. I think this could be news to the court,” Hawley said. “So, are you saying that the FDA's position is now that the drug is safe and effective and appropriately labeled?”

Overton replied that the current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, which changed during the Biden administration to allow for it to be prescribed via telehealth appointments and shipped to patients, is under FDA review.

“That safety study is ongoing and very important. Women's health and women's safety is a critical piece of this. So there is no change in position,” she said. “The FDA does need to do that safety study to look at the internal data that has not been looked at since a REMS change was made.”

The FDA wrote in a statement to States Newsroom that “Due to active litigation, the FDA and HHS cannot comment” on the safety review.

Murkowski sees 'political pressure'

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski also didn’t ask Overton any questions about mifepristone, but said she believes there was “political pressure” on FDA officials to “revisit the approval status of certain products.”

“We're going to be in a very challenging position in a very rural state like Alaska if in fact the move to require in-person dispensing of the medication as opposed to telehealth appointments is the direction,” Murkowski said. “You have effectively taken about ... 80% of the communities in the state, and put them in a very challenging position in terms of access to providers, access to this FDA-approved drug.”

Murkowski added that she didn’t ask Overton a specific question on the issue since it appeared she would “go down this same rabbit trail and probably get the exact same very specific technical responses that you have provided the committee.”

]]>

ICE’s $45 billion detention expansion is littered with costly missteps, watchdog reports

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:19:41 -0400

The Trump administration does not have a plan on how to spend billions in additional funding for building and otherwise purchasing new facilities to detain migrants “resulting in wasted, or potentially wasted, resources,” according to a Government Accountability Office report that was published on Thursday.

“In the absence of a comprehensive strategic plan to guide detention expansion, [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has wasted funds on unsuccessful detention initiatives and lacks important information about the long-term affordability of its investments,” auditors wrote.

For example, ICE reported purchasing 11 warehouses for $1.07 billion to repurpose as detainment facilities, but, as of June, officials are now working to sell seven of those properties.

In addition to spending more than $20 million on nonrecoverable costs (e.g. zoning) and ongoing utilities, GAO also warned that the warehouses could lead to additional waste if ICE sells the buildings for less than the $707 million they purchased them for.

Auditors also reported that the Homeland Security Department reimbursed Florida for $608.4 million through a Federal Emergency Management Agency grant program for the detention center nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz.” Earlier this month, the DHS inspector general reported that the center, which closed in June, “did not provide detainees with sufficient living space, creating cramped conditions for detainees who spent most of their time in their housing units, which may harm detainees’ physical and mental health.”

Specifically, GAO faulted ICE for not entering into an agreement with Florida before the facility opened.

“ICE typically negotiates detention facility costs before it enters into contracts or agreements for detention facilities. However, according to ICE officials, senior leadership directed implementation of this initiative,” auditors wrote. “As a result, ICE did not follow its normal process of entering into a contract or intergovernmental service agreement with the state of Florida and, as a result, did not negotiate costs for [Alligator Alcatraz].”

Auditors also flagged that ICE spent about $43 million from the start of fiscal 2025 through June 30, 2026, on detaining migrants at Guantanamo Bay. While the administration at one point had plans to house 30,000 individuals there, the average daily population of noncitizens at the naval station in fiscal 2026 was 16.

The congressional watchdog also criticized an agreement between ICE and the Bureau of Prisons to house migrants, as the median bed rate at the eight participating BOP facilities was $182 daily per detained noncitizen in fiscal 2026 compared with a median bed rate of $92 for ICE centers. And the auditors referenced a June GAO report that found an immigration detention facility that opened in 2025 on a military base in Texas generated millions in waste, such as paying for meals when there were no detainees, and experienced other issues that “posed serious risks to the safety and security of both detained noncitizens and staff in the facility.”

As the Trump administration pursues mass deportations, ICE received $45 billion through fiscal 2029 in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to increase detention capacity. In comparison, the agency got about $3.8 billion in fiscal 2025 annual appropriations for detention facilities.

Likewise, ICE’s average daily population of detained noncitizens increased 71% between Jan. 20, 2025, and July 30, 2026, going from around 39,300 migrants to nearly 67,200.

GAO recommended that ICE develop a strategy for its efforts to increase the number of detention facilities. DHS concurred and provided an estimated completion date of Aug. 31, 2027, but the auditors cautioned that “given ICE’s unprecedented multi-year detention funding and the potential for continued waste of taxpayer dollars, more timely completion may be warranted.”

Last week, the White House withdrew the nomination of Richard “Lance” Schroyer, a former Oklahoma state trooper, to lead ICE.

The current acting director of ICE is David Venturella, a longtime federal immigration official and former vice president of the private prison company GEO that has received billions through federal contracts by detaining immigrants at its facilities across the country. The last time the Senate confirmed someone to lead ICE was 11 years ago.

]]>

VA’s contracting crackdown gave some staff hours to do hundreds of reviews

Jory Heckman — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:11:15 -0400

The Veterans Affairs Department moved quickly to eliminate hundreds of contracts last year at the Department of Government Efficiency’s urging – in some cases, giving officials only a few hours to review contracts marked for elimination.

VA’s Office of Inspector General found in a report this week that the agency terminated 435 contracts last year, valued at $1.1 billion. About 86% of those cancelled contracts were for consulting services. VA OIG reviewed 2,210 contracts in total.

These contracts were “terminated for convenience,” meaning the VA determined it was in the federal government’s best interest to end them. The report also found VA contracting officers terminated another 100 contract actions, but eventually reinstated them.

The watchdog office, led by a former senior adviser to VA Secretary Doug Collins, noted VA reviewed these contracts quickly under strict deadlines, but found contracting officials generally complied with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements for terminating contracts.

“Despite a challenging and fast-paced process, VA officials implemented procedures to review contracts before terminating them, which reduced the risk of terminating critical services,” the report states.

VA has the second-largest acquisition budget in the federal government. It obligated more than $78 billion in contracts in fiscal 2025.

VA Press Secretary Quinn Slaven told Government Executive in a statement that “thanks to the methodical and careful review process VA put in place, these contract cancellations had no negative impact whatsoever on VA care and benefits.”

“Instead, the department is reinvesting these massive savings to make landmark improvements to VA care and benefits,” Slaven added.

At the request of officials from DOGE and the General Services Administration, VA created a list of professional services and consulting contracts that the agency should consider eliminating.

VA contracting staff were instructed to complete a questionnaire for each contract marked for termination. The OIG report notes these contracts were culled by VA officials, “not a Department of Government Efficiency artificial intelligence program." ProPublica reported last summer that a DOGE official developed an error-prone AI tool to assist VA in its review of contracts to terminate.

According to the OIG report, senior VA officials set up a process to reduce the risk of terminating critical contracts. Offices were required to justify keeping critical contracts and identify the potential impact of veterans’ healthcare and benefits if certain contracts were terminated.

Officials were required to fill out questionnaires for contacts deemed essential. The questionnaire asked officials to consider whether the contracted tasks could be performed by VA employees, how soon it would take the VA workforce to take over this work, and whether these contracts provided specialized skills that VA could not easily hire on its own.

The IG office wrote that the “speed and volume” of these contract reviews created challenges for VA staff. In some cases, VA officials had two weeks, or “only a few hours,” to review hundreds of contracts.

According to the VA OIG, some officials were given less than 11 hours to complete their review, obtain approval from deputy undersecretaries, deputy assistant secretaries or senior leaders, and submit responses to the Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction (OALC).

A VA Category Management Support Office director told OIG auditors that VA senior advisers and DOGE officials directed VA employees to terminate contracts on Feb. 25, 2025, regardless of "incomplete reviews.”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office last year eliminating “diversity, equity, and inclusion” activities in the federal government. By February 2025, Collins ordered a review of all VA contracts.

VA submitted two lists of terminated contracts to Congress – one in May 2025, the other in July 2025. The OIG determined that “both lists of terminated contracts were incomplete and inaccurate.”

The report determined that “officials who contributed to the information provided to Congress were unfamiliar with contracting and acquisition terminology, which may have caused the mischaracterization of the data.”

The May 2025 list reported that VA terminated 446 contract actions worth about $120 billion. A contracting official told the OIG that VA created a dashboard to track the terminated contracts, but miscalculated the contract values. A VA official told the OIG that DOGE representatives also “wanted to claim credit for any contacts that ended, including those that simply reached the end of their performance period.”

“VA has since provided Congress with updated and clearer information on the contracts that it terminated,” VA OIG wrote.

VA OIG began its audit last summer at the request of Senate VA Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, a member of the committee.

Blumenthal said in a statement that the OIG report shows the cancellation of contracts at the VA was driven by DOGE and political leadership, not subject-matter experts at the VA.

“Secretary Collins owes us answers on how VA will replace lost services and how much this fiasco has cost taxpayers in arbitration, settlements, and reinstatements. Veterans and taxpayers deserve transparency and a full public accounting,” Blumenthal said.

]]>

GSA claims it found $1.2B in suspected COVID-related contracting fraud

Christian Robles — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:02:38 -0400

The Trump administration claims it found more than $1.2 billion in suspected fraud and stopped $41 million more across five COVID-related contracts, according to a Wednesday press release from the General Services Administration.

GSA said although the COVID-19 national emergency and related acquisition flexibilities were cancelled in 2023, unnamed federal contractors continued to receive funding. The alleged fraud was uncovered in collaboration with the Health and Human Services Department and under the direction of the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud.

“The COVID emergency ended over three years ago, yet fraudsters continue to weaponize outdated emergency contracts to abuse taxpayer dollars,” GSA Administrator Edward Forst said in the release. “GSA will continue to work with the Vice President’s task force to stop improper payments, refer suspected fraud to law enforcement, and fight to recover every dollar.”

GSA estimates that about 93% of the contract funding — which would have been distributed for COVID vaccines and other pandemic-related services — has not yet been distributed to vendors, while roughly 6.78% has already been expended, according to a Fox News exclusive attached to the release. The agency has suspended payments to contractors, although the uncovered funding is not currently tied to criminal charges for contractors, the outlet reported.

“We're not after the honest contractors who did real pandemic work — we're after the leftover contracts hiding behind a crisis that no longer exists. The emergency is over. So is the free pass,” said Scott Brady, executive director of the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, in the GSA press release.

The alleged COVID-related contracting fraud comes roughly a month after GSA said it found $13 billion in suspected procurement-related fraud since March 2026. At the time, an expert told Nextgov/FCW the alleged procurement-related fraud is a “trust but verify situation” and cautioned that fraud suspicions are different from adjudications.

In announcing suspected procurement-related fraud, GSA said it was reviewing 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.

The administration claims it has uncovered about $260.7 billion in fraud since January 2025, including $96.4 billion at HHS and $13.9 billion at GSA, according to its fraud.gov ledger.

]]>