Interview transcript:

 

Terry Gerton Congratulations on being a newly elected fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. What does that honor mean to you?

Jamie Morin Well gosh, the number of folks that I have admired over the years who are fellows of the Academy is pretty impressive. And so it was it was humbling, but really a wonderful recognition. I was I was deeply honored.

Terry Gerton Well, it reflects a lifetime of service. Tell us about what motivated you to begin public service in the first place.

Jamie Morin  I take it back to family influence, for one. I was raised with a really strong tradition of making the community stronger. My mother’s a school teacher, has worked with autistic children for most of her career, still working in that field. And both my parents just had a really strong commitment to the community. So it starts with that, right? And then for me I grew up in the late Cold War, and that built in me a really strong interest in national security. And so I was struck that a meaningful way to serve and to strengthen the nation was to work in a career in national security. And it’s been just enormously rewarding and fulfilling.

Terry Gerton As you think back across that career — you served in the Air Force, you served at DoD level. What stands out as one of your most meaningful accomplishments in the public administration space?

Jamie Morin Well, you said accomplishments, but let me start with a moment. You know, I guess this will sound hopelessly naive in these cynical days, but the first chance I had to take the oath to uphold the Constitution — when as a graduate student, I guess I was 22 or 23 years old, I was offered the chance to work in the Pentagon on requirements and plans — to be pulled into something much bigger than yourself, to be pulled into incredibly consequential matters, and to do it with a devotion to those principles in the Constitution. Just being in that moment as a young person was a tremendously shaping experience for me. So that that’s where I would have to start. I’ve probably taken that oath personally six or seven times since. I’ve administered it dozens of times. I had the privilege of presiding at a graduation ceremony from basic military training with hundreds of young people starting a career in military service. But you keep coming back to: We are offered an opportunity in this nation to uphold a constitution that’s bigger than any of us, bigger than the politics of the moment. And that that’s a great starting point. You know, to the accomplishments, I’ve worked mostly in resource management, in making smart decisions with the taxpayers’ money. Chief Financial Officer for the Air Force, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation for the Department of Defense as a whole. So the biggest opportunities for impact in roles like that are when you can get something started on the right foot. And the things we do in national security, particularly in developing technology — it takes time. We’re trying to do really hard things. But I had the opportunity with both the Air Force and working for the Secretary of Defense to get a few really consequential and major programs started, thinking about the B-21 bomber for the Air Force, for example. It’d been a long time since the U.S. Air Force had been able to buy a bomber on something approaching planned cost and planned schedule. And it looks like we’re on a path to be pretty darn close to that on that program. And so that’s a tremendous thing to be able to look back and say, “hey, we’ve been working on this, it’s a big deal, billions of taxpayer dollars, critical to the success of the joint force. And I was able to have my fingers all over that at the outset.” So that’s a significant one. Moments of crisis. We’ve recently gone through a government shutdown. I had the challenge of operating through a few of those as Air Force CFO and working in OSD, and some close calls as well as actual shutdowns. Those are searing moments where leaders have to make tough decisions — again, with the Constitution first and foremost in our mind. Our system isn’t always perfect, but it is ours and it’s our responsibility to operate within it and to make it better. And then finally, I guess I would highlight people, in that the public service is an important calling. It demands things of people that are different than what we ask of people in the private sector. And because it’s sometimes hard for people to get their feet under them in the complexity of an organization like the Department of Defense or many of the other federal agencies, we have to make long-term investments in our people. So being able to be involved in hiring and developing talent and giving people an opportunity to really accomplish their potential and then to also send them forth to go do bigger and better things, whether in government or outside, those have been just tremendously rewarding for me.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Jamie Morin. He’s Vice President of Defense Strategic Space at the Aerospace Corporation and a newly elected fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. Jamie, you told some great stories there, but early in that last response, you mentioned the oath of office and allegiance to the Constitution. You’ve seen in your service firsthand how trust in government can be tested in times of fiscal uncertainty and strategic transition, and we’re certainly in that right now. How do you view the current state of public administration and what can it do to help increase public trust in government?

Jamie Morin I think approaching public administration as an exercise in continuous improvement is really important. We have to always be willing to question the “how” of how we get things done. Take advantage of new technology, take advantage of new concepts and approaches. We have to do that, still, with an eye to the core principles, right? Public service is a public trust. We have to conduct ourselves in public administration in such a way that there is no question about the integrity with which people work and that they are doing things with the right ends in mind. We’re talking about a nation approaching its 250th birthday. So the timelines and the time horizon that the public administration has to think about is different than what we as individual humans have to think about, or what even, you know, long-lived companies have to think about. We have to take that long-term perspective for the betterment of the nation. But again, you’ve got to balance that with responsiveness to changing needs. The needs that the public administration meets in a time are shaped by the time. They’re shaped by the technology, they’re shaped by the psychology of the citizens, they’re shaped by the external environment that we operate in. So continuous improvement, willingness to adapt, but founded on those core principles of what government is about and the constitution we uphold. I think that’s the bottom line for me.

Terry Gerton Well, and you also mentioned the importance of people. If you were speaking to someone just starting out in public service, perhaps in defense analysis or budgeting, what advice would you give them about building a career that really makes a difference?

Jamie Morin I would start with coming in for the right reasons. Every once in a while I run into people who are entering public service with a plan to sort of hop, skip and jump their way through it. I’m not sure that’s the right approach. I think that there are certainly great opportunities for people to come and depart from government service and have careers that cross those boundaries. I think that’s very useful. But, you know, it really should be about the mission of the agency and the national interest, not so much the personal interest. So I find that people that come in with that perspective generally do better. If you’re thinking about, how can I accomplish things for the citizens, how can I deliver on the promises of government? Those people are more likely to both enjoy themselves and have a positive impact than those who are, you know, kind of climbing their way up a ladder. But the other piece I would suggest is that reputation matters. People’s ability to get things done in complex environments, whether big bureaucracies or just very difficult missions with lots of factors that have to come together. It depends on credibility. It depends on creativity. It depends on being seen as a team player. Someone who’s willing to make sacrifices to get the right things done. And that’s a hard-earned reputation — and it’s one that’s also easy to lose if you make bad choices. As someone who is an adjunct professor at Georgetown now and teaches students who are really interested in public service, these are conversations I have all the time. I encourage people to look at the career and I encourage them to look at it from a mission accomplishment perspective, because that’s how it’s going to be most rewarding for them and for the mission that they’re trying to actually support.

The post Jamie Morin helped shape defense strategy from inside the Pentagon. Now he’s being honored for his contributions to public service first appeared on Federal News Network.

The IRS is setting new limits on telework for employees who are facing a variety of temporary hardships.

The agency said in an internal memo Monday that hardship-based requests for full-time telework that employees submitted, but were still awaiting approval, will be “closed,” effective immediately.

The memo, obtained by Federal News Network, cites the Trump administration’s return-to-office mandate for federal employees as the reason for the policy change.

“As a result of return to office, the current hardship program process and approvals will be adjusted to ensure compliance,” the memo states.

According to the memo, IRS employees are generally limited to five days of telework per calendar year.

Employees can still submit hardship-based telework requests, but approvals must come from the agency’s leadership or its human capital office, which is inundated with paperwork from employees retiring under the deferred resignation program.

The IRS lost more than a quarter of its employees this year through voluntary separation incentives.

Several IRS employees told Federal News Network that the IRS in the past has granted hardship-based telework to accommodate a range of emergencies, including employees facing domestic violence or employees who are immunocompromised following organ transplants.

It’s not clear how long employees will wait for hardship approvals under this policy change. Federal News Network has reached out to the IRS and the Treasury Department for comment.

The memo states that requests for short-term telework arrangements lasting fewer than 90 days will still be reviewed and considered on a case-by-case basis.

Short-term telework arrangements for less than 30 days must get approval from the agency’s human capital office. Hardship requests for more than 30 days of telework will require approval from the agency’s chief operating officer.

The new IRS policy comes as other agencies are setting restrictions on telework as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities.

The Department of Health and Human Services rolled out a new reasonable accommodation policy last week that required all telework, remote work, or reassignment requests to be reviewed and approved by an assistant secretary or a higher-level official — a decision that is likely to slow the approval process.

Meanwhile, IRS employees have been under scrutiny from an agency watchdog to ensure they are complying with the Trump administration’s return-to-office mandate.

Federal News Network reported in August that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration conducted an audit, at the request of the Treasury Department, to see if IRS employees were reporting to the office as often as they claimed.

The Trump administration, more broadly, has required agencies to collect data, including badge swipes into office buildings, to determine if federal employees are following the return-to-office mandate.

According to the National Treasury Employees Union’s 2022 national agreement with the IRS, when an employee is experiencing a temporary hardship, the agency “will make every reasonable effort to approve a temporary telework location,” including moving the employee to another office location.

Under this labor agreement, the IRS can approve a permanent hardship in cases where an employee or an immediate family member faces a “significant hardship” that threatens their life or livelihood. Examples include seeking specialized care for serious medical conditions that affect major life functions, a spouse faced with relocation or the loss of their job, or employees facing domestic violence or other similar “threats to life or limb.”

Temporary hardship requests are granted on a broader basis than permanent hardship requests. NTEU and the IRS included temporary hardship requests in their labor contract, based on discussions around medical issues impacting an employee’s immediate family members.

The 2022 agreement states the IRS may approve a temporary hardship for up to a year, depending on the circumstances of the hardship and “subject to staffing and workload needs.” Management can further extend a temporary hardship for a maximum of one more year.

IRS denials of hardship requests are supposed to be resolved through the union’s grievance procedure. The IRS, however, no longer recognizes NTEU, given the Trump administration’s rollback of collective bargaining rights across the federal workforce.

NTEU is leading a lawsuit challenging those executive orders targeting federal employee unions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments in the case next Monday.

The IRS memo states that the agency will still grant requests for “situational” telework for “unforeseen, non-recurring emergencies.”

Those include an employee dealing with an illness or medical appointment that would normally require sick leave, an employee needing to stay home to meet with a service provider for urgent home repairs, or a school or caregiving facility closure with less than 24 hours’ notice.

The memo states that IRS managers can provide up to 90 days of telework as an interim accommodation for employees waiting for the agency to process their request for reasonable accommodation.

Federal agencies are required under the Rehabilitation Act to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, as long as that accommodation does not result in an “undue hardship” for agencies.

“Treasury recognizes the role that limited telework can play to support achieving the mission and employees’ work-life balance,” the IRS memo states.

However, Tax Notes reported last week that the IRS faces a growing backlog of more than 8,000 reasonable accommodation requests.

The post IRS closes out ‘hardship’ requests for telework, citing return-to-office mandate first appeared on Federal News Network.

Despite its popularity and broad bipartisan support, right-to-repair provisions that would have given service members the ability to fix their own equipment in the field were stripped from the compromise version of the 2026 defense policy bill after industry pushback. 

The House’s Data-as-a-Service Solutions for Weapon System Contracts provision, which would have required DoD to negotiate access to technical data and necessary software before signing a contract, was removed from the final text of the annual legislation released over the weekend. The Senate’s provision requiring contractors to provide the military with detailed repair and maintenance instructions was dropped from the bill as well.

Instead, the legislation requires the Defense Department to develop a digital system that would track and manage all technical data and verify whether contractors and subcontractors comply with contract requirements related to technical data. The compromise version of the bill also requires DoD to review all existing contracts to determine what contractors were required to deliver and what data DoD can access. 

“It’s almost completely meaningless relative to ‘right to repair.’ It only addresses cases in which the contractors have failed to deliver or make available the data that is already in their contracts. It doesn’t address in any way whether the contracts themselves are sufficient to support service members’ right to repair,” Greg Williams, director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight, told Federal News Network.

While this is not the first time Congress has stripped right-to-repair language from the National Defense Authorization Act, the 2026 defense policy bill is likely the most high-profile attempt to block the reform — this year, the proposal had gained momentum and wide support from the Trump administration, the House and Senate, and senior DoD leaders.  

But defense lobbyists pushed back against the reform during the conference process. The National Defense Industrial Association, for example, said these bipartisan efforts would “hamper innovation and DoD’s access to cutting-edge technologies by deterring companies from contracting with the DoD.” 

Eric Fanning, former secretary of the Army and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, said the right to repair provisions would “cripple the very innovation on which our warfighters rely.”

“Given that we had support in the House and the Senate on a bipartisan basis, and we had the support of the Trump administration and the secretary of Defense, I don’t know how to interpret this, other than to say that industry prevailed in their influence over Congress, and the NDAA now reflects the interests of the business community instead of the American taxpayers and service members,” Williams said.

For years, the military has struggled with contract-imposed restrictions on repairing and maintaining its own equipment and weapons, forcing it to rely on original manufacturers to conduct necessary fixes in the field, which is costly and time-consuming. 

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, for example, has become an outspoken critic of large defense companies — he previously said that defense contractors have “conned the American people and the Pentagon and the Army.” Driscoll recently highlighted a Lockheed Martin Black Hawk helicopter part that costs the Army $47,000 to replace because the manufacturer refuses to fix a control knob the Army could make for $15.

 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mt.) said in a statement they “support the Pentagon using the full extent of its existing authorities to insist on right to repair protections when it purchases equipment from contractors.” 

Williams said while this is the chance for the Pentagon to exercise its existing authorities, without legislation that enforces consistency, it’s very unlikely that contracting officers will be able to effectively implement right to repair across thousands of contracts. 

“I don’t want to let the Pentagon off the hook either. I believe that if Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made this a high priority, he could ensure that we acquire adequate data. But he would have to make sure that every contract officer on every contract was way more diligent than they have been up to this point,” Williams said.

For now, the right-to-repair effort is likely stalled until next year. Lawmakers will vote on the NDAA one more time before it is sent to President Donald Trump for his signature.  

“We will keep fighting for a common-sense, bipartisan law to address this unnecessary problem,” Warren and Sheehy said.

The post Congress quietly strips right-to-repair provisions from 2026 NDAA despite wide support first appeared on Federal News Network.

The 8(a) small business contracting program is in a fight for its life.

From Capitol Hill to the courts to now the executive branch, the 47-year-old program is facing questions about its legitimacy and challenges to its true impact like never before.

Over the course of the last two weeks, the 8(a) program and firms taking part in the socioeconomic program have seen:

The Center for Individual Rights, a conservative public interest organization, and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in mid-November seeking to “force the repeal of an unconstitutional racial preference regulation that has been incorporated into many federal contract, loan, investment, and grant programs. “

The Small Business Administration send a letter to more than 4,300 8(a) firms seeking 13 different data, ranging from a list of the company’s employees to bank statements for the last three fiscal years to a copy of all 8(a) contracts, as part of its ongoing audit of the program.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), the chairwoman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, wrote a letter to 22 agencies yesterday calling on them to “to halt new 8(a) sole-source contract awards.” Ernst’s request comes after she introduced legislation that would suspend all 8(a) sole source contracts until SBA completes its audit.

Each of these on their own would be enough to put the 8(a) program under pressure, but taken altogether, experts say the program is under such an attack that it could mean the end of what many believe has been a successful contracting program.

“The administration has been targeting this program and wanting to shut it down since taking office,” said one former SBA executive, who requested anonymity in order to talk about the program. “They presume it is handouts and a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program.”

Ernst has been leading the charge over the past several months to address what she believes is wide-spread fraud in the 8(a) program. Her concerns come from two specific recent cases. In June, a U.S. Agency for International Development contracting officer and three owners of companies pled guilty for their roles in a decade-long bribery scheme involving at least 14 prime contracts under the 8(a) program worth over $550 million.

Then in October, a video from the O’Keefe Media Group, a right-wing activist organization, showing that an official from ATI Government Solutions admitted to defrauding the SBA’s 8(a) program.

Ernst highlighted these two cases and what she called the Biden administration’s “indifference toward the 8(a) program integrity” as the reasons for the need for agencies to review and Asuspend sole source contracts.

“The SBA’s 8(a) program is the largest set-aside program at the agency, which dished out $40-plus billion in contract awards during fiscal 2024 alone. Yet decades of Government Accountability Office (GAO), SBA’s Office of Inspector General, and Justice Department probes expose the same rot,” Ernst wrote to agencies. “Sloppy oversight and weak enforcement measures allow 8(a) participants to act as pass-through entities, snagging unlimited no-bid deals with little transparency. Every loophole guts public trust and rigs the system against honest competitors.”

Ernst is asking agencies to respond by Dec. 22 as to whether they plan to suspend 8(a) sole source contracting. She also wants agencies to review all sole source and set-aside contracts they awarded since 2020.

On Wednesday, Ernst will take a deeper look at the 8(a) program, holding a hearing  with witnesses ranging from the Project on Government Oversight to the Government Accountability Office to Open The Books, a non-profit government watchdog organization, to a reporter from the Daily Wire.

Ernst’s letter and hearing comes on the heels of the SBA requiring all 8(a) firms to submit 13 data sets as part of its ongoing audit of the program.

By Jan. 5, 8(a) vendors must send to SBA:

• General ledger for the last three full fiscal years (CSV files only)
• Trial balance as of the last day for each of the last three fiscal year-ends (CSV files only)
• IRS Form 4506 covering the last three full fiscal years (PDF files only)
• Bank statements as of the last day for each of the last three fiscal year-ends (PDF files only)
• Bank reconciliations as of the last day for each of the last three fiscal year-ends (PDF files only)
• Payroll register and reconciliation (including any distributions to any owner) monthly for the last three full fiscal years (PDF files only)
• List of all employees, broken out by contracts those employees are servicing, for the last three full fiscal years (PDF files only)
• List of all vendors (as well as all joint ventures) for the last three full fiscal years (PDF files only)
• Copy of all 8(a) contracts on which the firm is currently working for the last three full fiscal years (PDF files only)
• Subcontracting agreements related to the contracts in item 9 (for the last three full fiscal years) (PDF files only)
• Financial statements which include, at a minimum, the year-end balance sheet, YTD P&L, cash flow statement, and the statement of equity for each of the last three fiscal years (CSV files only)
• Financial statement reconciliation to the year-end Trial Balance for the last three fiscal years (CSV files only), and
• For each of the last three full fiscal years, a sub-ledger schedule tying to the year-end trial balance accounts for: all accounts receivable accounts, all accounts payable accounts and all P&L accounts (CSV files only)

“To the extent that your firm submitted any particular information in routine annual reporting, that particular information need not be submitted again,” wrote Wendell Davis, SBA’s general counsel, in the letter, which Federal News Network obtained. “Failure to respond to the SBA’s inquiry may result in a determination that your firm is not eligible for continued participation in the 8(a) Program and may result in further investigative or additional remedial action.”

Emails to SBA seeking more details on the audit were not returned.

Contracting experts say the fact the letter came from the General Counsel’s Office and not just the Office of Government Contracting and Business Development means that this is now a legal and compliance investigation, not an administrative refresh.

“By shifting the audit to SBA legal, SBA can look far beyond whether firms filed the right paperwork to get 8(a) certified. They can analyze contract execution, where most fraud occurs, and trace how money, control, and influence move between partners — including patterns involving [program managers, contracting officers, business opportunity specialists] and others,” wrote Robb Wong, a former associate administrator in SBA’s Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, on LinkedIn. “In short, they’re looking for tails that wag the dog: money flowing indirectly to parties who couldn’t receive it directly under the rules. If this sounds foreign to you, you’re probably fine. If it hits close to home — slow down, re-examine your documents, and make sure the story they tell still supports 8(a) ownership, control, and eligibility.”

Wong, who  is now managing executive at Deep Water Point & Associates, offered some guidance for companies:

• File on time. Miss the deadline and you’re out.
• Ensure your documents support ownership, control and continued eligibility.
• Verify your teaming agreements comply with limitations on subcontracting and actual workshare.
• Confirm your performance documentation matches what you proposed — and what you certified.
• Be thorough. The burden of compliance is on you; SBA can draw negative inferences from gaps in information and evidence.

The third piece of this probe is the lawsuit filed by the Center for Individual Rights in November. CIR isn’t new to challenging the 8(a) program, bringing the Ultima lawsuit to court in 2023 and eventually winning the case, which led to SBA requiring companies to provide a narrative as to why they are socially and/or economically disadvantaged.

CIR says this challenge is different because than the Ultima case.

“In Ultima, the SBA was harming our client, so we just addressed the SBA’s use of the rule. Now, the Center for Individual Rights, together with our colleagues at Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, represent clients who were harmed by other agencies applying the SBA’s rule. Because the SBA’s rule is woven throughout other race-based government programs, we are now challenging the rule itself,” said Mike Petrino, the organization’s lead attorney. “This case challenges the regulation issued by the Small Business Administration — because the SBA, not Congress, created the legal presumption that every individual who is a member of certain races and ethnicities is ‘socially disadvantaged.’ This case is also different [from previous challenges] because it addresses unlawful discrimination by more than one agency.  The SBA’s rule is at the heart of numerous race-based programs administered by different agencies. Instead of challenging each-and-every instance where an agency, applying the SBA’s rule, discriminates against someone, this lawsuit targets the source of the unlawful discrimination by addressing the rule itself.”

Petrino said CIR and the Wisconsin Institute don’t want to end the 8(a) program, but just remove any racial preferences that they say SBA inserted into the law.

“Section 8(a) as passed by Congress would still be in effect, and the SBA could try again to create a program that comports with the Constitution and Section 8(a),” he said.

The post SBA audit, lawsuit puts 8(a) program deeper in cross-hairs first appeared on Federal News Network.

The government’s dispersed systems for managing human resources for the federal workforce are on the verge of a major transformation, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

By January, OPM said it expects to award a federal contract that will eventually result in a cohesive HR system for all agencies to use. But in the short term, creating a governmentwide HR entity will mean working to consolidate the more than 100 systems agencies currently use for workforce management.

It’s not the first time OPM has attempted to merge the disparate HR IT systems across government. But Dianna Saxman, OPM’s associate director of HR Solutions, said the effort currently underway is “different.”

“We’re really leveraging the collective wisdom of the entire federal community,” Saxman said Tuesday during a public meeting of the Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council. “We’ve already brought experts from many different agencies into a steering committee that is helping us to set the strategy up front.”

Along with employing a steering committee at OPM, Saxman said many federal human capital leaders have started collaborating internally with other agency executives, like chief information officers and chief data officers, to plan the integration of the upcoming HR system.

“What we’re seeing in these agency engagements is a lot of enthusiasm and support for the overall effort,” Saxman said.

Once implemented, the new system will be the source for agencies, HR offices and federal employees to manage personnel records, payroll systems and performance data, while also having the capability to provide federal workforce analytics.

After OPM awards the HR IT contract in January, the agency will spend the next several months implementing the core HR system by the end of April. From there, OPM plans to work one-on-one with agencies to configure the platform to meet their unique needs.

All told, OPM’s end goal is to have the HR IT system fully adopted governmentwide by September 2027.

The value of the anticipated contract award in January is not yet clear. But it comes after OPM released a request for proposals (RFP) in October, detailing a specific plan of action to modernize and centralize the more than 100 current federal HR systems.

In May, OPM had previously released its initial RFP through the General Services Administration schedules program, which emphasized the need for interoperability in governmentwide human capital systems. The May RFP came just weeks after OPM initially announced a sole source award to Workday in early May, but then quickly canceled that award.

The expected timing for awarding the HR IT contract also “aligns beautifully” with the Trump administration’s newly released President’s Management Agenda, Saxman said. She highlighted three key goals in the new agenda that dovetail with the HR IT consolidation effort.

For one, a centralized HR IT platform would underly the administration’s goal of fostering a “merit-based” federal workforce, Saxman explained.

“As we look to foster greater merit, we’re able to do that by having an end-to-end HR IT capability that allows us really to see what’s happening with the federal workforce, with skillsets we have available [and] how people are being promoted and evaluated,” Saxman said. “This gives us that visibility.”

The Trump administration’s goal of making “buying power” more efficient calls for consolidated contract opportunities that are “smarter, faster, cheaper,” according to another component of the new PMA.

“A lot of the contracting processes in government are really decentralized, and there’s a lot of repetitive action there,” Saxman said. “This effort seeks to centralize the purchasing of a private sector core human capital capability at OPM — we would have one entity buying it on behalf of the entire federal government.”

On top of that, Saxman noted that OPM’s effort aligns with the goal of leveraging technology, as the PMA seeks to “consolidate and standardize systems,” while also incorporating “digital-first” government services and eliminating data siloes.

“We’re going to be consolidating over 100 systems into one, reducing the number of system integrations that are required and the complexity of managing all of these systems,” she said.

Saxman outlined what she said will eventually be an array of benefits for agencies, HR offices, federal employees and external stakeholders, once legacy HR systems are decommissioned and the new system is fully implemented.

“There are many manual data requests that come out from OPM, many different stakeholder groups,” she said. “But we’ll have an opportunity where the data will be readily available in dashboards, so we can have a real view of what’s happening with the federal workforce at any point in time.”

OPM also hopes to ease the workload for HR employees by eventually moving all personnel records to single files, even when employees transition between multiple agencies throughout their career. Currently many federal employees have personnel records that span across multiple different HR systems.

“Our goal here is to have one system that they can manage their employee record,” Saxman said.

For signs of success, Saxman said OPM will be measuring and looking for improvements in employee experience, cost savings and better data overall.

“A lot of our HR professionals are working with outdated, disparate technologies that are not serving them well, that are not serving our employees well,” Saxman said. “As a federal community, this is something that we have wanted to do for a long time.”

The post OPM’s plan to unify disparate HR systems taking shape first appeared on Federal News Network.

Interview transcript:

 

Terry Gerton OASIS+ enters Phase II with five new service domains and draft scorecards expected December 16, ahead of a January 12 solicitation date. The expansion could reshape competition and compliance for federal contractors, especially small businesses. Stephanie Kostro, president of the Professional Services Council, is here to share her insights. We’re going to focus a little bit more than we usually do today on things that are happening in the small business world. So let’s start with December 4th. GSA announced the launch of the OASIS+ Phase II expansion. First of all, tell us what’s noteworthy there.

Stephanie Kostro This is long anticipated, Terry, and I will say thank you very much for focusing on small business today. It has been an area where a lot of our contracting friends have looked for guidance and information from the executive branch and from the legislative branch, to be honest, about where small business policy is going. And so thanks so much for raising this important issue area. OASIS+ has been in the works for so many years now, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of vendors very interested in this expansion. And what I’ll tell you very quickly is Oasis+ had been eight domains or eight categories of services. It is now 13. And the five that they’ve added in this new tranche are very interesting. It is things like business administration, financial services, human capital, marketing and public relations, and social services. So this is a dramatic increase in the scope of Oasis+. It expands from eight domains, service domains to 13. And we have a lot of interest here in the contracting community about how they can support the executive branch through these new domains.

Terry Gerton Those new domains seem tailor made for small businesses. What are you hearing about how small business might be able to participate now?

Stephanie Kostro Again, it’s very exciting. It looks like the solicitations will be open here in January, mid-January of 2026. We’ll have to see what the actual words on the paper, if I can be that mundane about it, say about small business participation. But this is exactly the kinds of domains that small businesses excel. The marketing and PR, the human capital, financial services, etc., where they can partner with large companies in either in a joint venture or as a mentor-protege. So we’ll have to see what GSA decides will be the allowable partnering arrangements going forward. I would also note that this is a reflection of an executive order that the president signed out early on, and it was back in March, it was called Executive Order 14240, Eliminating Waste and Saving Taxpayer Dollars by Consolidating Procurement. So really this is the migration of some of the domains from other vehicles over to Oasis+, which really makes Oasis+ a must-have vehicle for contractors.

Terry Gerton What should small-business owners and leaders be looking at between now and January to help them prepare?

Stephanie Kostro They really should check out Oasis+ Phase I and see what came out in the solicitation documents for that. They should monitor the GSA websites very, very closely to see if any blog posts there will give them insight into what will be allowable. You know, a lot of times PSC has voiced concern about final requests for proposals not hewing very closely to the draft that they had released as an RFP. And so sometimes you have to scramble as a small business to figure out who can you partner with? Because the final RFP does not really look like the draft RFP. I’m hoping that GSA decides to move forward with a final RFP that looks very similar to a draft RFP so that our small businesses can plan accordingly. It has been a rough year in 2025 for small businesses. Some of them have seen contract terminations or de-scoping or rescoping. Some of them have been asked to offer up discounts that really cut into the muscle, not just the fat, if there was fat for a small business. But we need the innovation that comes from small businesses. And I think this is a great opportunity for them to provide an offer that is really beneficial to the government and to the small business community.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Stephanie Kostro. She’s the president of the Professional Services Council. Stephanie, speaking of small businesses, there was a bill that passed the House last week, the SBA IT Modernization Reporting Act. What are you watching here?

Stephanie Kostro Oh, now we can really dork out, Terry, on all of this stuff. So I as I mentioned in our previous conversation here, we’re talking about HR and financial services, or rather human capital and financial services, etc. The IT Modernization Reporting Act is a really interesting piece of legislation that looks at recommendations offered by the Government Accountability Office back in 2024 about reporting on agencies’ IT systems. And so they really want the Small Business Administration to help address risks tied to the Small Business certification platform that can help reduce the project risk, so that it can actually improve project risk management, establish a risk mitigation plan and resolve cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Now, Terry, as you know, we are seeing a host of cybersecurity requirements come out from the Department of War and their Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program, but also elsewhere. And it hits small businesses hard. You know, some of this is basic cyber hygiene, but some of it is really, really burdensome on small businesses that don’t have the resources and can’t spread resources out between, say, a commercial side and a government side. And so as we look at the implementation of this legislation, it’ll be interesting to see how small businesses can reduce the risk and reduce their vulnerabilities across and what SBA can do to support them in that.

Terry Gerton This is obviously the beginning of its legislative process. It still has to pass the Senate. It still has to get signed. But are there things that you would want small businesses to be looking at now with the expectation that this bill will eventually be passed?

Stephanie Kostro That is a great question, Terry, and it actually leads me to something that your listeners probably just learned about recently, which was the House and Senate released their National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2026, where that act, and it’s in its final stages, this is the conference bill, right? And so now it just has to pass House and Senate and get signed by the President. I say “just,” but it takes a few days for that to happen. That bill was released on December 7. And I would note that in it actually establishes more firmly Project Spectrum, which is a Department of War effort to help small businesses with their cybersecurity. I encourage small businesses to look at Project Spectrum if they are a Department of War contractor. But even if you’re not, take a look at what those offerings are. See what you can get the government to support you and to help pay for in terms of cyber hygiene and cybersecurity. I’m encouraging the companies to do that even in advance of any of this SBA IT Mod act. As we move forward, it’s going to be a huge cost for companies and anything the executive branch puts in place to mitigate those costs or help minimize those costs is going to be a good thing.

Terry Gerton Stephanie, you’ve already alluded to a couple of big changes that small businesses are facing as a result of so many of the new policies and programs coming out of the Trump administration this year; 2026 is going to look very different for small businesses than 2025. Give us a feel for the change in the business market, the government contracting market for small business, and what do you think the year ahead brings?

Stephanie Kostro Small businesses have, again, seen a lot of changes here in 2025, not least of which has been calling into question the socioeconomic set-asides that we have in place. There’s the 8(a) program, which is for disadvantaged businesses, but there are also women-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, hub zone, etc. So we have ratcheted back, as a nation, back to the statutory requirements. The Biden administration and others had grown the set-aside amounts and thresholds for these kinds of small businesses. Those are back down to the statutory requirements. In addition, we have heard about this audit of the 8(a) program, which was launched months ago, but more recently, contractors have been receiving documentation requests from their customers to help justify 8(a) program awards, etc. So they’ve seen that as well. As we go into 2026, I imagine we will see more of this audit-like activity to make sure the companies that certify themselves as small are in fact small and qualify for these set-asides. I would also say under the revolutionary FAR overhaul, which is this FAR rewrite we’ve been undergoing for a few months, all of the class deviations, part by part of the FAR, are out there. The agency supplements are being changed. We are awaiting formal rulemaking for some of these things. But it does appear that the “rule of two” upon which a lot of small businesses base their business strategies is also changing. I’ll just succinctly summarize it by saying right now, if the revolutionary FAR overhaul goes through the rulemaking process and nothing else is changed, that “rule of two” applies only to the contract level, not to the task-order level, which is a significant change. It also allows the contracting officers to have a little bit of flexibility in terms of what can be deemed for a set aside, and then also not necessarily requiring companies to recertify their status. And so a lot of these changes are going come to be executed in 2026, and it is again going to be a year a little of some upheaval for small businesses.

Terry Gerton So if you’re a small business owner or leader and you’re thinking about your strategy or your business plan for 2026, what are the key things that should be at the top of your consideration list?

Stephanie Kostro The first one is obviously to monitor everything that the government, the executive branch is saying in terms of what the requirements are for a small business. I would also make sure that if you have an opportunity to get on a vehicle yourself as an organic small business or as a joint venture, go ahead and get on, because I’m not sure what on-ramping opportunities are going to look like in the future for some of these larger vehicles. And also make sure that you have all of your documentation in a row, all your ducks in a row for documentation. And that includes not just, “hey, you’ve got an 8(a) contract award and you may be getting required to submit some documentation,” but to certify yourself to make sure that the platforms are in place where you can certify yourself quickly with the SBA and making sure that you have all of that documentation in line. This is also an interesting dynamic for any new entrants to the market who have not experienced what existing small businesses experienced here in 2025. They may look at this and go, the juice is not worth the squeeze. It’s too hard to do work with the federal government. I think it is a business decision that if folks want to come and talk to those of us at the Professional Services Council and we can give them a little bit of a taste of what the dynamics are, we’re happy to talk to them about, is this a good market for you to explore? I think it is. Particularly, for example, we talked about at the top of this discussion, the Oasis+ expansion. The new five domains are for services, are great for small businesses. How do you compete for that? Come talk to us and we can help you out.

The post GSA’s next-generation contract vehicle is expanding and small businesses need to pay attention first appeared on Federal News Network.

For years, the conversation about artificial intelligence in government focused on model development — how to train algorithms, deploy pilots and integrate machine learning into existing workflows. That foundation remains critical. But today, federal leaders are asking a different question: What does an AI-native government look like?

The answer may lie in AI agents — autonomous, adaptive systems capable of perceiving, reasoning, planning and acting across data environments. Unlike traditional AI models that provide insights or automate discrete tasks, AI agents can take initiative, interact with other systems, and continuously adapt to mission needs. These systems depend on seamless access to 100% of mission-relevant data, not just data in a single environment. Without that foundation — data that’s unified, governed and accessible across hybrid infrastructures — AI agents remain constrained tools rather than autonomous actors. In short, they represent a move from static tools to dynamic, mission-aligned infrastructure.

For federal agencies, this shift opens up important opportunities. AI agents can help agencies improve citizen services, accelerate national security decision-making, and scale mission delivery in ways that were once unthinkable. But realizing that potential requires more than adopting new technology. It requires building the digital foundations (data architectures, governance frameworks and accountability measures) that can support AI agents as core elements of federal digital infrastructure.

A new phase for AI: Why agents are different

Federal agencies have decades of experience digitizing processes: electronic health records at the Department of Veterans Affairs, online tax filing for the IRS, and digital services portals for immigration at Customs and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security. AI has expanded those capabilities by enabling advanced analytics and automation. But most government AI systems today remain tethered to narrowly defined functions. They can classify, predict or recommend, but they do not act independently or coordinate across environments.

AI agents are different. Think of them as mission teammates rather than tools. For example, in federal cybersecurity, instead of just flagging anomalies, an AI agent could prioritize threats, initiate containment steps and escalate issues to human analysts — all while learning from each encounter. In citizen-facing services, an AI agent could guide individuals through complex benefit applications, tailoring support based on real-time context rather than static forms.

This evolution mirrors the shift from mainframes to networks, or from static websites to dynamic cloud platforms. AI agents are not simply another application to bolt onto existing workflows. They are emerging as a new layer of digital infrastructure that will underpin how federal agencies design, deliver and scale mission services.

Building the foundations: Beyond silos

To function effectively, AI agents need access to diverse, distributed data. They must be able to perceive information across silos, reason with context and act with relevance. That makes data architecture the critical enabler.

Most federal data remains fragmented across on-premises systems, multi-cloud environments and interagency ecosystems. AI agents cannot thrive in those silos. They require hybrid data architectures that integrate separate sources, ensure interoperability and provide governed access at scale.

By investing in architectures that unify structured and unstructured data, agencies can empower AI agents to operate seamlessly across environments. For instance, in disaster response, an AI agent might simultaneously draw on Federal Emergency Management Agency data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather models, Defense Department logistics systems, and public health records from the Department of Health and Human Services — coordinating actions across federal entities and with state partners. Without hybrid architectures, that level of coordination is impossible.

The second layer: Governance, trust, transparency

Equally as important is governance. Federal leaders cannot separate innovation from responsibility. AI agents must operate within clear rules of transparency, accountability and security. Without trust, their adoption will stall.

Governance begins with ensuring that the data fueling AI agents is accurate, secure and responsibly managed. It extends to monitoring agent behaviors, documenting decision processes, and ensuring alignment with legal and ethical standards. Federal agencies must ask: How do we verify what an AI agent did? How do we ensure its reasoning is explainable? How do we maintain human oversight in critical decisions?

By embedding governance frameworks from day one, agencies can avoid the pitfalls of opaque automation. Just as cybersecurity became a foundational consideration in every IT system, governance must become a foundational consideration for every AI agent deployed in the federal mission space.

For the federal government, trust is also non-negotiable. Citizens are owed AI agents that act fairly, protect their data, and align with democratic values. Transparency through being able to see how decisions are made and how outcomes are validated will be essential to earning that trust.

Agencies can lead by adopting principles of responsible AI: documenting model provenance, publishing accountability standards, and ensuring diverse oversight. Trust is not a constraint; it is a mission enabler. Without it, the promise of AI agents will remain unrealized.

Preparing today for tomorrow

The question for federal leaders is not whether AI agents will shape the future of government service; it is how quickly agencies will prepare for that future. The steps are clear:

• Invest in data infrastructure: Build hybrid, interoperable architectures that give AI agents access to 100% of mission-relevant federal data, wherever it resides.
• Embed governance from the start: Establish frameworks for transparency, accountability and oversight before AI agents scale.
• Cultivate trust: Communicate openly with citizens, publish standards and ensure that AI systems reflect public values.
• Experiment with mission scenarios: Pilot AI agents in targeted federal use cases (cyber defense and benefits delivery, for instance) while developing playbooks for broader adoption.

We are at a turning point. Just as networks and cloud computing became indispensable layers of federal IT, AI agents are poised to become the next foundational layer of digital infrastructure. They will not replace federal employees, but they will augment them — expanding capacity, accelerating insight, and enabling agencies to meet rising expectations for speed, precision and personalization.

The future of the federal government will not be built on static systems. It will be built on adaptive, agentic infrastructure that can perceive, reason, plan and act alongside humans. Agencies that prepare today — by investing in hybrid architectures, embedding governance and cultivating trust — will be best positioned to lead tomorrow.

In the coming years, AI agents will not just support federal missions. They will help define them. The question is whether agencies will see them as one more tool, or as what they truly are: the next layer of digital infrastructure for public service.

Dario Perez is vice president of federal civilian and SLED at Cloudera.

The post AI agents: The next layer of federal digital infrastructure first appeared on Federal News Network.

Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton You have been in public service and in safety net programs for over 33 years. As we come out of this shutdown, it really exposed both the importance and the fragility of these programs. Give me a sense from your experience what you saw, and maybe, what did we learn about these programs in the last 43 days?

Clarence Carter Well, I hope what we learned is the essential nature of the these programs. The first couple of weeks of the shutdown were pretty lukewarm. But as it got to the place where we saw the potential challenges to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, things got serious. And quite frankly, I never thought it would get to the moment where we were not in a position to provide the most basic of the safety net services to the 42 million consumers that are desperately in need of those. I am glad that we were able to ultimately clean that up. But having that, if you would, anvil over the head of individuals that desperately need that most basic support I think showcased the importance of the safety net and of some of the programs we administer.

Terry Gerton You’ve just written a book called “Our Net Has Holes in It.” When you look at these programs, I know you’ve worked in housing assistance, now you’re supporting all kinds of human assistance programs there in Tennessee, what are the most enduring lessons that you want to bring forward about making sure these critical programs work for people?

Clarence Carter Terry, the most I would think enduring message that I have is that we clearly in this nation, we have a desire to help our neighbors that are living in the margins. We spend annually, and this is federal government alone, $1.49 trillion annually in service to vulnerable Americans. My argument, and “Our Net” lays out this argument, that what we have to do is shift our intention, shift our design, and shift our execution. It’s not about us not caring enough. It’s not about us not spending enough. It is about flawed intention, design and execution.

Terry Gerton As you think about those three principles, let’s take design first because that’s the structure that we’re working with.

Clarence Carter That’s right.

Terry Gerton What are the core features that need to be reformed?

Clarence Carter  The first core feature is that all of the 114 means-tested programs are, they were designed singularly to address one aspect of the human condition. And they weren’t designed to work in conjunction with anything else. But many of the consumers that the system serves has multiple challenges that need to be remediated. And the system wasn’t designed to take that kind of comprehensive approach. And so one of the first things that has to happen is the system has got to be reformed so that all of the programs can be enabled to operate as tools in a toolkit, but that can be connected to allow us to take a more comprehensive approach to the issue of human well being, not simply the administration of programs.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Clarence Carter. He’s currently the commissioner of human services for the State of Tennessee. Clarence, that’s a huge design issue. I want to talk also about execution because human services programs and assistance are state-federal partnerships. You’ve worked on both sides of that. What are the execution issues there and how can we overcome them?

Clarence Carter Okay, and so Terry, you lay that out perfectly. And the challenge is the states and localities administer the programs and utilize the funding with some state add-on. And the states administer the programs. And so what ends up at the state level is you end up executing the flaws of design of the federal system. And so the state doesn’t have an opportunity to do it differently. They have to administer the rules of the programs as they have been given. And so my life’s work has been a journey to call out the dysfunction of design that begins at the federal level and then works its way all the way down the food chain until it gets to the consumer, who then is quite frankly in a place where they are being served by a system with great intention, but really poor execution and design.

Terry Gerton Alright, so the third portion that you mentioned was intention and you’ve worked across party lines, you’ve worked with leaders of both parties across the partisan lines. One would think that vulnerable assistance would be an important bipartisan issue, but it gets tangled up in politics. How do we separate the value of the programs and the intent of the programs from the politics around the programs?

Clarence Carter Terry, I think that we have to do that by shifting our focus from the politics to the programs. And I feel like, and we lay this out in “Our Net,” it begins with intention. Our intention has to be that we meet our neighbor in their vulnerability with the intention to grow them beyond the vulnerability, not simply provide benefits, goods and services as long as they meet the criterion to be served. And I believe that if we begin with that intention, we can check our partisan weapons at the door and focus on, okay, if it’s our intention to grow people beyond, then how do we architect the system to achieve that objective? We have to begin with this shared vision of understanding that we will always have, every society known to humankind has, that we will always have neighbors amongst us that suffer from some manner of economic, social, developmental vulnerability. And so we have to design an efficient, effective system that understands vulnerability with the intention to grow our citizenry beyond that vulnerability, and success has to be in a system like that. Not that I delivered a benefit, good or service, but that the consumer got healthier for it. We measure right now, we measure outputs. I can tell you, as a administrator of the SNAP program, what I get held accountable for is, did I deliver the SNAP benefit to who was entitled to receive it? Did I deliver it in the right amount? And did I deliver it in the right time frame? Nobody asks me, did that family get to a place where we grew their capacity so that they don’t need it? I get judged on efficiency measures. I think that we need to add to efficiency measures, we need to add human wellbeing metrics, and that that needs to be the true determinant of success.

Terry Gerton Clarence, you’ve laid out a powerful vision there. What would be the top one or two or even three policy priorities that you would put on the table for Congress to help strengthen the safety net and achieve that vision of wellbeing?

Clarence Carter The first would be connectivity. And what I mean by that is that the 114 means-tested programs of the safety net need to be able to be connected so that they become tools in a toolkit to achieve the objective of growing people beyond. So connectivity is important. But before we get to connectivity, we have to begin with a shared vision. And that shared vision, our argument in “Net” is that that shared vision has to be helping individuals achieve the highest degree of freedom possible. And so if we set out with that intention to help individuals achieve the highest degree of freedom possible, and we connect the tools so that those tools can work together, then we can have a system and we measure what counts. We measure human capacity. Those things coming together can create a profoundly different system of public supports.

The post Can our safety net programs survive stress and deliver more than short-term relief? first appeared on Federal News Network.

• The nation’s largest federal employee union is urging Congress to vote against the House rule for the 2026 Defense policy bill. The American Federation of Government Employees said negotiators removed a bipartisan House provision that would have restored collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of Defense Department civilian employees. The union said removing that language means the legislation fails to protect basic rights of workers who maintain ships and aircraft and support service members. AFGE is calling on lawmakers to reject the procedural rule and restore the worker protections before the National Defense Authorization Act moves forward.
  (AFGE urges Congress to reject NDAA rule after union protections are removed - AFGE)
• The top Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is asking the Postal Service to ensure service members get holiday packages on time. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said hundreds of holiday care packages sent to troops overseas were returned to sender. About 100 of those care packages sent through the nonprofit Boxes to Boots are still missing in transit. Blumenthal is asking Postmaster General David Steiner to provide guidance to military families and organizations who are encountering similar obstacles and ensure timely delivery of these care packages.
  (Senator calls for Postal Service to guarantee holiday packages for service members - Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.))
• The Trump administration is trying to reduce the federal government’s real estate footprint. A congressional committee will take a closer look at those efforts on Thursday. A subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will hear from the acting head of the General Services Administration’s Public Buildings Service. It will also hear from the Government Accountability Office and the Public Buildings Reform Board which has helped GSA identify underutilized federal office space.
  (Subcommittee to hold hearing on consolidating federal real estate - House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee)
• The Technology Modernization Fund will expire in three days. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program remains on the shelf. Congress chose not to include reauthorization language for either program in the compromise version of the 2026 defense authorization bill released yesterday. House lawmakers pushed to get the TMF extension provision added during conference, but were unsuccessful. Meanwhile lawmakers are still at odds over the future of the SBIR program, which saw its authorization expire on September 30. Both chambers of Congress are expected to vote on the NDAA later this week.
  (NDAA forgoes extending TMF, reauthorizing SBIR - House Armed Services Committee )
• The President's Management Agenda is finally out. Eric Ueland, Office of Management and Budget deputy director for management, laid out eight initiatives across three broad categories that are the administration's key management reform objectives. The priorities include consolidating and standardizing systems, hiring based on skills and merit and finding cost-effective locations for agency buildings. A senior OMB official told Federal News Network that the PMA takes the president’s promises, as well as the administration’s work already underway, and creates a framework to “institutionalize” those end goals.
  (Trump’s government management vision centers on elimination, accountability - Federal News Network)
• A powerful senator is calling for agencies to stop all sole source 8(a) contracts. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), the chairwoman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, told 22 agencies to pause any further 8(a) sole source awards and review all current contracts for potential fraud. In a letter sent to agency leaders yesterday, Ernst said 8(a) sole source contracts are a fraud magnet. Ernst wants to know by December 22 from each agency whether they will suspend the program's sole source contracts. The letter comes two weeks after Ernst introduced legislation that would suspend all 8(a) sole source contracts until SBA completes its ongoing audit.
  (Ernst presses agencies to pause 8(a) sole source awards - Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa))
• A compromise version of the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act includes several key civilian personnel reforms that could change how the Defense Department hires and manages its civilian workforce. The draft text includes a provision that would allow the Defense Department to promote employees without having to satisfy minimum time-in-grade requirements before being eligible for promotion. The bill would also allow the Defense Department to use skill-based assessments to determine whether applicants are qualified for open positions. In addition, the legislation expands which positions DoD can hire using special cyber authorities, as well as significantly increases the maximum pay DoD can offer for cyber talent.
  (Compromise NDAA would let DoD promote civilians faster, increase cyber pay - Federal News Network)

The post AFGE urges Congress to vote against House rule for 2026 NDAA first appeared on Federal News Network.

Cyberthreats don’t stop nor do they stop evolving (and at a dizzying pace). Federal agencies are responding with smarter strategies, stronger partnerships and a focus on mission resilience.

Our latest ebook brings together insights from top government and industry experts shared on Day 1 of our Cybers Leaders Exchange 2025, presented by Carahsoft and Cisco. You’ll find tips, strategies and tactics on how to tackle today’s most complex cybersecurity challenges.

Featured voices include:

• Nick Andersen, executive assistant director for cybersecurity, CISA
• Darren Death, chief information security officer, Export–Import Bank
• Ollie Gagnon, chief homeland security advisor, Idaho National Laboratory
• Bart Larango, strategic industry advisor for federal, Splunk
• Michael Overstreet, director of security solutions engineering, U.S. public sector, Cisco
• Matthew Rogers, OT cyber lead, CISA
• Madhuri Sammidi, deputy associate CIO, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior Department
• Jason Warfield, head of solutions and adoption engineering, Cisco ThousandEyes

Explore how Carahsoft and its partners — Cisco, Splunk and Cisco ThousandEyes — are helping agencies stay secure, agile and mission ready.

Download the full ebook now!

The post Expert Edition: How to tackle complex federal cyber challenges first appeared on Federal News Network.

In the Army, a new acquisition bureaucracy is starting to take shape. It means new names for some longstanding Army organizations. But at its core, the reorganization is about letting Army officials manage the acquisition system as portfolios of capabilities with less of a focus on individual programs.

That idea’s been championed by outside reform advocates for years, including when the “Section 809 panel” on acquisition reform released its final report in 2019. The Congressional panel on Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Reform echoed the call as part of its recommendations. So did both the House and Senate in their respective versions of the latest Defense authorization bill. And last month, it got the explicit endorsement of the secretary of Defense.

“We will leverage taxpayer dollars in a more accountable, flexible and deliberate manner to maximize their value across capability portfolios,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during an address at the National War College. “We will shift funding within portfolios’ authorized boundaries swiftly and decisively to maximize mission outcomes. If one program is faltering, funding will be shifted within the portfolio to accelerate or scale a higher priority. If a new or more promising technology emerges, we will seize the opportunity and not be held back by artificial constraints and funding boundaries that take months or even years to overcome.”

In that address, Hegseth credited the military services with laying the groundwork for some of the reforms he wants to make department-wide. And the Army started its implementation work last month, naming six new “portfolio acquisition executives.” Each of those PAEs will oversee different “capability areas” with programs managed by what had, up until now, been called program executive offices (PEOs), and will now be called capability program executives (CPEs).

But there’s more in those portfolios than just the former PEOs, said Brig. Gen. Christine A. Beeler, the capability program executive for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (CPE STRI).

“The PAE is going to be able to wrangle all of those enablers, and we are just one enabler to the PAE,” said Beeler during a staff town hall late last month. “There are also folks up at big Army that are going to help us on the programming side … and you’ve got requirement folks. That can get combined and come to us in a single requirements community of practice, so that things that get decided at the PAE level will be easier to understand and make trades on.”

Last week, another of those former PEOs announced the details of its own internal reorganization. Leaders of the newly-dubbed Capability Program Executive for Command, Control, Communications, and Network say most of their changes will be at the program manager level — both to align with the Army’s broader acquisition “transformation” agenda, and to orient the office more explicitly around the Army’s plans for Next Generation Command and Control.

The changes there include four new program offices — one each for applications, data and AI, infrastructure and transport, plus changing roles for several other offices. CPE C3N officials expect to detail the changes during the next Army technical exchange meeting at Aberdeen Proving Ground next month.

Beeler said there will be program office changes within her organization as well, but the reorganization will take until the summer of 2027 to fully unfold. Along with that, she said, will be a reduction in senior officer positions.

“The key changes were a mandated reduction of command select list billets by 30% at both the O-6 and the O-5 level,” she said. “So that means, over time, we’re going to transition from three CSL billets to two CSL billets at the O-6 level, and from eight CSL billets eventually to five CSL billets at the O-5 level.”

And at the even more senior levels, Beeler says the end state of the Army’s acquisition reorganization is that the new PAEs will be two-star generals or the civilian SES equivalents. And the CPEs will be one-star positions.

But those details — like many others in the reorganization — are still subject to change.

“This is a very time and event-driven process,” she said. “We’re not jumping in tomorrow, both feet and everything’s changed. That wouldn’t make any sense, and we would lose the discovery part of how these pathfinder adjustments to the acquisition process are actually going to work. For the time being, we will be the Capability Program Executive STRI. We believe in the future we’re going to change the logo and we’ve got some ideas out there for how we’re going make other changes over time, but at the end of the day, this is what we’re going to do. We simulate the fight, we replicate the threat, and we’re going to make sure that the Army can win across all domains.”

The post Army begins to reshape its acquisition enterprise along portfolio lines first appeared on Federal News Network.

A compromise version of the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, released late Sunday, includes several key civilian personnel reforms that could change how the Defense Department hires and manages its civilian workforce.

Most notably, the draft text includes a provision that would allow the Defense Department to promote employees based on skills and qualifications without requiring them to satisfy minimum time-in-grade requirements before being eligible for promotion.

Ron Sanders, a former career human capital leader in government, said the provision is emblematic of the long-running debate to allow DoD to secede from the rest of the federal civil service due to the nature of its mission.

“It is a big deal, and it underscores a bigger issue … You should be able to promote people, regardless of time served, if they can do the job — promote them,” Ron Sanders, a former career human capital leader in government, told Federal News Network. “There have been numerous attempts to carve out more flexibilities for the DoD civilian workforce than the rest of the civil service had.”

“I’m of the mind, and I’m not alone in this, that the federal civil service should be broken up. It should be glued together by a series of standards and principles — there are some cross cutting government-wide principles that should always remain in effect. But DoD has a different mission than the intel community, and it has a different mission than FBI and the law enforcement and other aspects of Homeland Security. Trying to treat all of that as one-size-fits-all is problematic. And I think you’re seeing a continuation of the debate that DoD is different,” he added. 

The time-in-grade requirement is antiquated anyway, Sanders argued, and should be revisited for the rest of the federal civil service.

The bill would also allow the Defense Department to use skill-based assessments to determine whether applicants are qualified for open positions.

“If you sum it all up, DoD would basically have its own civilian personnel system, separate and apart from the rest of the federal civil service. I think we’ve gone to the other extreme, and we’ve been living there for decades now, and that is a one-size-fits-all mentality. What’s good for the SEC is good for DoD, and that’s just not true anymore,” Sanders said. 

In addition, if enacted into law, DoD would be able to share certificates of top candidates for various roles across the department. Certificates would remain valid for at least a year, and they are subject to agency-specific qualification checks.

This particular provision is not new, Sanders said. “If you have the applicant’s permission, sharing certificates, to me, is not a big deal, and it should have been done years and years and years ago, if it hasn’t been.”

Congress is also tightening the department’s ability to make workforce cuts by adding new analysis requirements, reporting mandates and restrictions on conducting reductions-in-force.

If passed, the bill would prohibit DoD from reducing its workforce levels or realigning functions if such changes involve more than 50 employees and occur outside the normal programming process, including ad hoc, immediate or unprogrammed workforce changes. The Defense secretary is also required to notify Congress about planned workforce reductions.

“I think it is part of a larger trend, and that is a growing realization that civilian personnel in DoD are important and they should be managed. If something affects 50 or more employees or some small number like that, that’s micromanaging,” Sanders said. “I don’t think that was in intent on the part of Congress to actually worry about 50 employees. I think it was just a failure to fully comprehend the full scope of the DoD civilian workforce, which is just plain huge.”

Lawmakers are also seeking to centralize and elevate civilian personnel management within each military service by placing it under senior uniformed leaders. If the measure passes, senior leaders who manage military manpower would also oversee the department’s civilian workforce.

“I think at least part of the reasoning is the necessity of having what I would argue are redundant staffs at the military department headquarters and at the major command level. There’s a pendulum here, and it goes back and forth. But at the end of the day, somebody really does need to take a hard look at the staffs that have emerged and decide whether they’re redundant and whether they could be centralized,” Sanders said. 

Cyber workforce

The legislation also expands which positions DoD can hire using special cyber authorities, as well as significantly increases the maximum pay DoD can offer for cyber talent.

Under current law, Cyber Excepted Services hiring authorities apply to U.S. Cyber Command, as well as certain cybersecurity and IT operations roles across the services. The 2026 defense policy bill could expand it to positions held in combatant commands, defense agencies, and field activities supporting CYBERCOM. DoD would also expand Cyber Excepted Services to 500 more cyber roles that don’t neatly fit into existing categories but are still vital and hard-to-fill jobs

The legislation would also give the defense secretary greater pay flexibility for cyber talent, allowing DoD to offer up to 150% of the maximum basic pay authorized for Executive Schedule Level I roles.

“Neither Homeland Security nor DoD has taken full advantage of the authorities that Congress gave them literally decades ago. In DoD case, I think the mandate, and I read this as a mandate, to put more people under CES is generally a good thing. It just again underscores whether DoD should be treated differently or whether you need a separate set of personnel flexibilities for all cyber ninjas at DoD,” Sanders said. 

Worker protections stripped

Meanwhile, the American Federation of Government Employees — the nation’s largest federal employee union — is urging Congress to vote against the House rule for the 2026 defense policy bill.

AFGE says negotiators removed a bipartisan House provision that would have restored collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of Defense Department civilian employees. The union says removing that language means that the legislation fails to protect basic rights of workers who maintain ships, aircraft and support service members. The union is calling on lawmakers to reject the procedural rule and restore the worker protections before the NDAA moves forward.

“If lawmakers are serious about supporting our military, they must send this bill back to conference, fix it, restore these protections, and then pass an NDAA worthy of the men and women who defend this nation every day,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement.

The post Compromise NDAA would let DoD promote civilians faster, increase cyber pay first appeared on Federal News Network.

The Trump administration has laid out its President’s Management Agenda, providing a framework for the administration’s overarching priorities to drive change in the federal government for the next few years.

The new PMA, which the Office of Management and Budget published Monday, includes three key priority areas, each of which contain several underlying goals the administration wants to meet, such as eliminating “woke” government, ending “over-classification” and “buying American.”

Many of the goals contained in the management agenda are already taking shape through a number of President Donald Trump’s executive orders and other changes to government the president has initiated since taking office.

“In his first months in office, President Trump already took bold and decisive actions to begin to reshape the federal government and end its weaponization against American citizens,” OMB Deputy Director for Management Eric Ueland wrote Monday in a memo to agencies.

A senior OMB official, speaking on background, said the PMA takes the president’s promises, as well as the administration’s work already underway, and creates a framework to “institutionalize” those end goals.

“Some of the previous PMAs have been all-encompassing and trying to be everything to everybody, whereas this PMA is very clearly tied to what President Trump promised the American people he would do when he got elected,” the official said in an interview with Federal News Network. “These are going to be priorities every agency focuses on for the full Trump administration.”

The Trump administration’s three PMA priorities are:

• Shrink the government and eliminate waste
• Ensure accountability for Americans
• Deliver results, buy American

The PMA has been a staple of presidential administrations for more than 20 years. Generally, each PMA aims to address systemic challenges in government management by setting goals and holding agency executives accountable. It’s a way for the White House to work with agencies to establish top priorities, then monitor progress toward priority-based goals.

Performance.gov, the website that hosts the administration’s PMA, so far contains only an outline of Trump’s management agenda. Details are missing on which federal leaders will be tasked with delivering on the goals, where there has already been progress, and how the administration will measure results for each priority.

An OMB official blamed the 43-day government shutdown for the limited details on the PMA website. Though confirming that more information would eventually be available, the official did not provide a specific timeline.

“We’ll work with the agencies and identify where they’re already making progress and start putting out — as PMAs in the past have — updates on the success that’s been had, what metrics we’re going to be looking at measuring and what agencies are going to be part of different leads for the individual goals,” the official said.

Shrinking the government

For the Trump administration, the first priority in the PMA focuses on shrinking the government and eliminating waste, particularly in programs that Trump has described as “woke” or “weaponized.”

To meet that end, the PMA’s first priority defines three key goals:

• Eliminate woke, weaponization and waste
• Downsize the federal workforce
• Optimize federal real estate

Already, the Trump administration has taken significant steps toward those goals. Agencies spent much of this year under a hiring freeze, while the administration simultaneously reduced the size of the federal workforce by more than 300,000 employees.

Going forward, the OMB official pointed to Trump’s latest executive order on federal hiring as a way to measure progress toward the PMA’s first priority. The Oct. 15 order called on agencies to form strategic hiring committees composed mainly of political appointees, as well as create staffing plans for the coming year.

“A key part of that will be making sure agencies are putting in place those hiring committees,” the official said. “They’re making very strategic decisions around who they’re hiring and what positions they’re hiring for, so we don’t just inflate the federal government again and overwhelm all the success we’ve had in reductions to date.”

Trump’s first priority area in the PMA is a clear departure from the Biden administration’s agenda, which had centered on strengthening the federal workforce and included efforts to increase federal hiring and workforce development.

On top of reducing the federal workforce, the Trump administration’s first PMA priority additionally focuses on removing programs related to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA), as well as ending a number of federal programs the administration described as “wasteful.”

That goal already began taking shape earlier this year, as the Trump administration directed agencies to end DEIA programs, and remove federal employees who worked on DEIA-related projects. The administration has also sought to shrink certain agencies, including USAID and the Education Department.

As a final piece of its first PMA priority, the administration said it plans to shrink the government’s real estate holdings by offloading “unnecessary” leases and federal buildings, as well as moving agency facilities to more “cost-effective” locations.

Trump has signed a number of executive orders this year focused on making federal architecture “beautiful,” and changing the way agencies prioritize federal building locations, while also requiring all federal employees to work on-site full time.

A focus on accountability

In addition to shrinking government, the administration will also be focused on driving “accountability” as the second PMA priority. The effort will impact federal employees, agency programs and government contractors, according to the agenda’s outline.

The underlying goals for achieving Trump’s second priority area are:

• Foster merit-based federal workforce
• End censorship and over-classification
• Demand partners who deliver

Many of the goals under the second PMA priority are familiar, as the administration has already attempted to reach those ends. For instance, the administration has created a new “Schedule Policy/Career” classification for federal employment, and altered performance management standards for federal employees.

“One benefit of the way that PMA is structured for this administration is it’s going to be easy to integrate this PMA into performance reviews for individual employees across the government and hold them accountable for delivering on the president’s priorities,” the OMB official said.

The Office of Personnel Management in May also issued a “merit hiring plan,” which in part called on agencies to question job applicants on how they will adhere to the president’s priorities.

“A lot of this is following up on executive orders and policy decisions made by the president early on,” the OMB official said. “We’re going to be having agencies strategically hiring [and] they need to do so following the merit hiring plan.”

The second priority area also includes a focus on implementing Trump’s orders related to collective bargaining and labor-management relations at agencies. On top of that, the administration also detailed goals of promoting transparency in the federal government, such as through “find[ing] and annihilat[ing] government censorship of speech.”

Additionally, the second PMA priority includes goals of changing government contracting by working with “the best businesses,” and tasking political appointees, rather than career employees, with leading grant processing work.

“It’s making sure that those receiving federal dollars were chosen based on merit, because they’re going to deliver the outcomes that are expected,” the OMB official said.

Modernize technology, “deliver results”

The third and final priority area in the Trump administration’s PMA focuses on consolidating federal procurement, as well as adopting more modern technology into government services.

The priority contains two key goals:

• Efficiently deploy the buying power of the federal government and buy American
• Leverage technology to deliver faster, more secure services

Attempting to advance technology in government has been a long-standing goal across multiple administrations and throughout many agencies. But the OMB official said for the Trump administration, the goal will be to focus on finding modernization initiatives that can be turned around in shorter timeframes, and “moving out of 10-year, 15-year efforts.”

“We are being more specific in where we’re focused and making sure that we’re tackling projects that we can get done, so that we get the results and the benefits of that,” the official said.

The third priority, once again, mirrors many steps that the administration has already taken, such as attempting to reshape the federal acquisition process.

The priority area also focuses on a familiar throughline from the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency of eliminating “waste.”

Some underlying goals in the PMA’s third priority area, for instance, focus on reducing the number of “confusing” government websites. Another focuses on removing “duplicative” data collections and eliminating data siloes.

“Instead of having dozens or hundreds siloed IT systems,” the OMB official said. “We’re going to be able to work off of consolidated IT systems that can operate in an integrated fashion.”

The post Trump’s government management vision centers on elimination, accountability first appeared on Federal News Network.

A top human resources official at the State Department, who played a major role in the agency’s widespread reduction in force this summer, is moving on to a new role within the agency.

Lew Olowski, the chief human capital officer for the Bureau of Personnel and Training, is stepping down from that role to become the senior bureau official for the Office of Foreign Missions, two sources familiar with the decision told Federal News Network. The State Department declined to comment.

In this role, Olowski oversaw layoffs of nearly 1,350 State Department employees in July. The department sent reduction-in-force notices to more than 1,100 civil service employees and nearly 250 Foreign Service employees who were based in the United States at the time.

Senior department officials later told Congress that the RIF was the largest and most complex workforce reduction of its kind, and that they carried out the layoffs in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management.

Politico first reported on Olowski’s new role within the State Department.

Most of the employees who received RIF notices this summer officially separated from the agency in September.

The State Department sought to finalize layoffs for nearly 250 Foreign Service officers and several civil service employees last week. But a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked the department from officially separating those employees.

The temporary restraining order signed last Thursday is part of an ongoing lawsuit unions filed on the eve of the government shutdown, which blocked the Trump administration from conducting widespread layoffs during a lapse in congressional funds.

The amended lawsuit states that several agencies, including the State Department, aren’t fully adhering to a provision in the shutdown-ending stopgap funding bill that temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out layoffs.

The nonprofit Democracy Forward, which is also part of the lawsuit, said the amended lawsuit seeks to reverse “other unlawful RIF actions” at the Small Business Administration and the General Services Administration, as well as the departments of Education and Defense.

A recent survey led by the American Foreign Service Association found the State Department’s diplomatic workforce, given sweeping changes happening under the Trump administration, felt overburdened, under-resourced and more likely to leave in the next few years.

In a survey of more than 2,100 active-duty Foreign Service employees, AFSA found that 98% of respondents reported reduced morale this year. About 86% of respondents said workplace changes since January have affected their ability to advance U.S. diplomatic priorities.

Before the Trump administration, about 17,000 active-duty Foreign Service officers worked for the State Department. AFSA estimates that nearly 25% of its workforce left this year — when counting layoffs, retirements and those who accepted deferred resignation offers.

AFSA said in April that it was “deeply concerned” by Olowski’s appointment to the department’s top HR role, which is typically held by career members of the Foreign Service with decades of relevant experience.

“The Foreign Service is a competitive, merit-based institution, built on a foundation of expertise, service, and nonpartisanship. Placing an untenured, entry-level officer who has only served one complete overseas tour into this critical role, even in an acting capacity, not only disregards that tradition but also sends a clear message about the value this administration places on experience and professional progression,” AFSA wrote.

The post State Department HR chief moving on to new role after carrying out layoffs this summer first appeared on Federal News Network.

• There's more discouraging news for the Pentagon’s prospects of obtaining a clean financial audit by the current 2028 deadline. A new evaluation by the Defense Department inspector general found the department’s plan to remediate one of its key, longstanding material weaknesses — an inability to keep track of government property in the possession of contractors — doesn’t appear to be working. DoD intended to fix the problem largely by tracking the contractor-managed property in a software module within the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment. But according to the IG, key DoD leaders haven’t mandated the use of that module, and the military services haven’t updated their own systems to properly interface with it.
  (DoD goal for clean 2028 audit in jeapardy - DoD Inspector General)
• Today marks the final day of Open Season. Enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program have until midnight tonight to make any desired changes to their health insurance options. The open enrollment period also applies to Postal Service employees, as well as those with dental and vision coverage. Any changes made during Open Season will take effect in January.
  (Final day of Open Season - Office of Personnel Management)
• Army Cyber Command has a new leader. Lt. Gen. Christopher Eubank officially assumed command during a ceremony on Dec. 3 at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Eubank took over for Lt. Gen. Maria Barrett, who is retiring after nearly 38 years of service and three years leading Army Cyber Command. Eubank previously served as special assistant to the commander of Army Space and Missile Defense Command. He also led the Army’s Network Enterprise Technology Command. In his new role, Eubank will lead Army cyber operations and provide Army forces to U.S. Cyber Command.
  (Eubank takes the helm of Army Cyber Command - Army.mil)
• The Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications and Network, or PEO C3N, is undergoing another major reorganization. As part of the Army and Defense Department-wide acquisition reform efforts, the program executive office is changing its name to the "Capability Program Executive Command, Control, Communications and Network,” or CPE C3N. The office is realigning its structure to better support the Army’s Next Generation Command and Control effort. Brig. Gen. Jack Taylor will continue to lead the organization as the capability program executive. As part of the overhaul, the organization is standing up new project offices focused on C2 applications, data and AI, infrastructure and transport.
  (Army to overhaul its PEO C3N - Army.mil)
• An appeals court has ruled in favor of President Donald Trump’s firings of two Democratic board members. The split 2-to-1 decision of the appeals court panel has no immediate effect, since the removals of Cathy Harris at the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Gwynne Wilcox at the National Labor Relations Board, were already finalized. But Friday’s decision comes as the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on whether to overturn a 90-year-old ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor. If the decision is overturned, it has the potential to expand the president’s power in shaping independent agencies and may further reinforce the outcomes of Harris' and Wilcox’s terminations.
  (Appeals court backs Trump’s firings of MSPB, NLRB members - Federal News Network)
• Palo Alto Networks is joining the ever-growing list of vendors signing up for GSA's OneGov program. The cybersecurity company will now offer agencies up to a 60% discount from its schedule prices for three of its cyber tools. Agencies can now buy Palo Alto's software next generation firewall, its secure access service edge (SASE) solution and its code to cloud platform for deep discounts through January 2028. This is GSA's fifteenth OneGov agreement since it launched the program in April. Last week, GSA also signed a similar deeply discounted deal with SAP.
  (Palo Alto Networks joins GSA's OneGov program - General Services Administration)
• Small businesses in the 8(a) program will now have a busy holiday season. The Small Business Administration is asking participants in the 8(a) contracting program for a trove of data as part of the agency's ongoing audit of the long-standing socioeconomic initiative. In a letter sent to more than 4,300 8(a) firms, SBA set a deadline of Jan. 5, 2026, for these companies to deliver 13 data sets. These include everything from a copy of the all 8(a) contracts for the last three fiscal years to full financial statements to their full general ledger. SBA said firms that fail to meet the deadline may lose their eligibility to participate in the 8(a) program and could face further investigative or remedial actions.
  (SBA moves to next phase of 8(a) program investigation - Small Business Administration )
• A top human resources official at the State Department who played a major role in the agency’s widespread reduction in force this summer is moving on to a new role. Lew Olowski, the chief human capital officer in the Bureau of Personnel and Training, is stepping down from that role to become the senior bureau official for the Office of Foreign Missions, according to two sources. The State Department declined to provide an on-the-record comment.
  (Lew Olowski, the chief human capital officer in the Bureau of Personnel and Training, is stepping down - State Department)

The post DoD goal for clean 2028 audit in jeopardy, IG finds first appeared on Federal News Network.

If 2025 felt like a whirlwind for regulatory compliance, you’re not imagining it. Between the finalization of Cybersecurity Model Maturity Certification 2.0 rules, the launch of FedRAMP’s 20x initiative promising faster authorizations, and new AI governance requirements from the Office of Management and Budget and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, organizations working with federal agencies faced enormous regulatory change.

As we head into 2026, the tempo isn’t slowing. The Defense Department is phasing CMMC into contracts to protect the defense industrial base. FedRAMP continues evolving as more agencies migrate critical systems to the cloud. And AI regulations are moving from principles to prescriptive requirements as governments grapple with the risks and opportunities of deploying AI at scale.

After leading hundreds of companies through compliance journeys and assessments — and going through them ourselves — we’ve learned that while each framework has nuances, three universal lessons apply.

Three lessons that apply to each framework

1) These frameworks are not like the ones you already know.

The biggest mistake? Treating CMMC like SOC 2 or assuming FedRAMP is “ISO 27001 for government.”

For example, CMMC Level 2 requires implementing all 110 NIST 800-171 requirements and 320 assessment objectives. Your system security plan alone could reach 200 pages. Budget more time, resources and specialized expertise than you think you need.

2) Scoping is a critical first step that organizations often get wrong.

Determining what’s in scope is one of the hardest and most important steps. I’ve seen companies believe 80% of infrastructure was in scope for CMMC, only to learn it was closer to 30%. Be ruthless about where controlled unclassified information actually lives. Every system you include can add months of work and tens of thousands in costs.

For FedRAMP, define your authorization boundary early. For AI governance, inventory every AI system, including embedded features in SaaS tools. Invest in scoping before implementing controls.

3) Automation is mission-critical, not optional.

Manual processes don’t scale when juggling multiple frameworks, and they leave you vulnerable to errors and inefficiencies. That’s why FedRAMP 20x and other frameworks today are evolving to put automation at the center of the process. Organizations that want continuous improvement must treat automation as core infrastructure, especially for monitoring controls, collecting evidence and surfacing real-time compliance data.

The real cost of playing catch-Up

Companies treating compliance as a last-minute sprint face hundreds of thousands of dollars in average costs for CMMC Level 2 alone. They scramble, rush documentation and often fail their first assessment — and non-compliance can come at a hefty price.

Organizations that delay addressing compliance gaps are vulnerable to security risks. IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report showed that noncompliance with regulations increases the average cost of a breach by nearly $174,000.

Regulatory actions are rising too. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights issued 19 settlements and over $8 million in fines for HIPAA violations this year to date, already the highest on record for a single year.

Organizations that start early spend less and use compliance as a competitive advantage. When you’re behind, compliance is a burden; when you’re ahead, it’s a differentiator.

What you need to know right now

For CMMC 2.0

If you’re a prime contractor, subcontractor handling CUI, or external service provider in the DoD supply chain, start now.

Identify what type of information you handle, what certification level you need, and define your scope. Build your system security plan early and categorize assets as CUI, security-protected, contract-risk managed or out of scope.

When selecting a C3PAO assessor, look for transparent pricing, strong references and clear data-handling processes. You can achieve conditional certification with a plan of action and milestones, but you have only 180 days to remediate and must score at least 80% in SPRS.

For FedRAMP 20x

Keep in mind that FedRAMP isn’t a one-time audit. The true 20x objective is not just to speed up authorizations, but to achieve smarter and stronger security — and this requires preparation.

These steps are non-negotiable:

• Build continuous monitoring infrastructure and processes from day one.
• Ensure your authorization boundary is correct and your architecture documentation is precise. Ambiguity causes delays that stretch timelines beyond a year.
• Automate evidence collection and continuous monitoring for monthly deliverables required to maintain authorization.

For AI governance

Federal AI regulations are quickly moving from principles to requirements. Establish AI governance councils now. Inventory AI systems comprehensively, document training data provenance, implement bias testing protocols and create transparency mechanisms.

As OMB and NIST frameworks take hold, AI governance will become a standard procurement requirement through 2026.

Five steps to start today

1) Start with an honest gap assessment.

Most companies are further behind than they think, particularly on incident response and supply chain risk management. Know your baseline before building your roadmap.

2) Treat documentation like code.

Your system security plan, policies and authorization package shouldn’t be static Word documents. Your documentation needs to be a living architecture that is version-controlled, regularly updated and, ideally, machine readable.

3) Build compliance into procurement.

Create vendor risk assessment processes that evaluate CMMC readiness, FedRAMP authorization status and AI governance practices before signing contracts. For CMMC, ensure vendors provide Customer Responsibility Matrices documenting which NIST 800-171 controls they are responsible for.

4) Invest in your people.

Build exceptional compliance programs by upskilling existing staff. Send operations teams to CMMC training. Have developers learn secure coding for FedRAMP environments. Create AI literacy programs. Make compliance competency a core skill.

5) Prepare for continuous monitoring.

CMMC includes provisions for ongoing assessments and affirmations of compliance. FedRAMP requires continuous monitoring. AI governance demands continuous bias testing. Invest in automation systems and tools like trust centers that are able to demonstrate your up-to-date security and compliance posture any day of the year.

The opportunity in the complexity

Despite the challenges, companies getting compliance right are winning work they couldn’t before. Defense contractors and small businesses can use CMMC certification to compete for prime contracts. Cloud service providers who achieve FedRAMP authorization can significantly accelerate their federal sales cycles, cutting months from procurement timelines. AI startups land pilots by demonstrating responsible AI practices.

The companies that thrive treat compliance as something they control, not something that happens to them. They build security-first cultures, invest in the right tools and training, and transform compliance from cost center to competitive advantage.

The best time to start was yesterday. The second-best time is today, because 2026 promises even more compliance complexity, and it’s coming faster than you think.

Shrav Mehta is the founder and CEO of Secureframe.

The post Getting ahead of CMMC, FedRAMP and AI Compliance before it gets ahead of you first appeared on Federal News Network.

Terry Gerton Well, as we speak, the shutdown is at least temporarily over, but it left some major disruptions in its wake and one of those programs that we want to talk about today is the National Flood Insurance Program. Can I ask you first to tell us what that program is, but then also talk about how the shutdown and the extension of the shutdown affected that program?

Nicole Upano Sure. The National Flood Insurance Program is an important program for single-family home buyers as well as multifamily owners and operators. It is a backstop to ensure that borrowers have flood insurance even in areas where there is elevated risk, and private insurance companies may be less likely to offer coverage in that area without having some sort of elevated cost because of their risk. So it’s a very important program for many Americans.

Terry Gerton  And it really provides a a stability in markets that are flood prone, right?

Nicole Upano That’s exactly right, Terry. It is an important program for many Americans. It provides stability in the market if there is a national disaster to ensure that money flows back into that community for rehabilitation and repair.

Terry Gerton And during the shutdown, NFIP’s borrowing authority dropped dramatically. What does that mean in terms of practical terms?

Nicole Upano That means that, as I had mentioned previously, this program is an important — or, flood insurance is an important part of home sales and multifamily sales. And without that borrowing authority, those purchases could not move forward since it is a contingency to home buying. And there also is that greater risk that if a natural disaster could occur, that there wouldn’t be an ability to fill those claims and push financing back into those communities.

Terry Gerton So the way that works then is in a disaster FEMA actually uses that borrowing authority to pay out the claims that it may receive. Is that correct? That’s right. So then how did the lapse in the NFIP operations affect home buyers who rely on that flood insurance to maybe close on a mortgage?

Nicole Upano We have certainly seen this across the federal government for many HUD-assisted or agency-assisted programs, that it put a pause in those home sales until the government is back up and running and doing the people’s business.

Terry Gerton So we’re in a continuing resolution now. Did the CR provide additional borrowing authority for FEMA through the National Flood Insurance Program?

Nicole Upano Yes, it sure did. It reauthorized it since September 30. And there is a piece of bipartisan legislation that was also offered that would reauthorize the program until 2026 to provide even greater certainty for homebuyers and and renters across the country.

Terry Gerton Does that mean that folks who were kind of in limbo for the last 40+ days of the shutdown can renew their policies or maybe submit their claims? Does that open the window back up? Yes, it certainly does.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Nicole Upano. She’s the AVP for housing policy and regulatory affairs for the National Apartment Association. So, Nicole, let’s go back to this, the program itself, even with existing policies still active, there were some limits. What do policy holders need to know about their coverage, their claims, and their change in funding if we should find ourselves in another funding lapse, perhaps?

Nicole Upano Sure. So if someone had a valid policy during the shutdown, those remained valid throughout the shutdown. But if in terms of a new policy or a renewal, that’s where the rub would be, as well as potentially processing any claims, there would be limitations on that.

Terry Gerton Did you see any misconceptions or misunderstandings on the part of policy owners about what services and coverage would be available to them during the shutdown?

Nicole Upano NAA represents professionally-owned and managed housing across the country. And so they kept the shutdown and any implications very much top of mind and continue to use NAA as a resource to get the most up to date information.

Terry Gerton And so you’re dealing with apartment owners, condo owners, those kinds of things. What are some of their biggest questions when it comes to the NFIT program?

Nicole Upano Well, for our members, they are looking across the federal government at all the implications. For example, HUD and FHA, they provide financing and backing not just for affordable housing but for market rate housing as well. So there was an issue with those closings. And while Section 8 and USDA rural housing — you know, rural housing benefits for renters and their families in rural areas — while those benefits did benefit from an advanced appropriation, there was that similar issue, similar to the NFIP, that renewals and new applications could not be processed and there would have been payment uncertainty for those renters and their families. And so having government back up and running and doing the people’s business is important to both housing providers and renters to ensure the stability of those properties and that renters in those communities remain stable.

Terry Gerton NAA is obviously very sensitive to the real estate market, especially in flood prone or disaster prone areas. Beyond NFIP itself, what does this moment really reveal about the fragility of our disaster response programs and how people can get relief if they’re affected?

Nicole Upano Sure, that’s a great question. Many of the federal government’s housing programs are not mandatory appropriations. And we’ve seen that with other industries, that they are seeking now opportunities to have a backstop if and when this happens again to ensure that agencies can access reserves or that they can expand their budget authority in these times, knowing that eventually the government will be back up and running. And folks will be repaid

Terry Gerton How should policymakers then or legislators be thinking about long-term resilience and continuity for programs like NFIP, especially as climate risks grow and shutdowns maybe remain a threat?

Nicole Upano We would certainly encourage policymakers to reevaluate whether some of these programs should have a mandatory appropriation so there won’t be disruptions. We never know what’s going to happen, certainly with climate risks and change across the country, and so having that certainty is critical.

Terry Gerton So what is NAA’s message then to housing providers and renters on navigating these kinds of disruptions? What do they do to stay informed? How do they make sure that they’re current? What’s your advice?

Nicole Upano Yeah, so NAA continued to release live updates on our website to our members. We continue to encourage our members to work with their residents as their business allows and provided them with resources and how to navigate those conversations. We were pleased to see that the the CR does include a reversal of the rifts that happened during the shutdown. And especially for folks in the DMV, this is extremely helpful to ensure there’s certainty for those residents and that housing providers can know they have a stop gap at the end of the day.

Terry Gerton And what are you hearing from lawmakers? Are they inclined to support those kinds of proposals?

Nicole Upano Yeah, as you can see from the bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the program in 2026, this program has long had bipartisan support. We just want to use this time to encourage policymakers to take that next step.

The post The federal flood insurance program is key to stable housing markets, the shutdown revealed its fragility first appeared on Federal News Network.

Interview transcript

Terry Gerton John, I wanna start with you. You’ve been with the shared services concept for a long time. You’ve seen Trump 1 and Trump 2. Tell us how their approach differs across the different administrations.

John Marshall Well, thanks, Terry. It’s a great question. We’re not really sure what the approach is for the current administration yet because they haven’t released a president’s management agenda, but we can get some signs from what we’ve seen out there and kind of reading the tea leaves a bit. But the first Trump administration had a very clear plan. It was announced in OMB Management Memorandum M-19-16 and included an innovative approach to creating a marketplace of shared services providers through four quality service management offices, or QSMOs, that were set up to manage financial management, human resources, cybersecurity, and grants marketplaces. Those were allowed to continue through the Biden administration. They weren’t really expanded or empowered very strongly or resourced, but they still have existed. But we haven’t seen the Trump administration, the second Trump administration, endorse or expand them. They seem to be continuing the financial management and grants. We’re not sure about cybersecurity and HR. So, a lot is yet to be seen. What we have seen from the new, the second Trump administration is a strong focus on centralization and consolidation of common services. They don’t seem to include some of the key features of shared services that we’d like to see, but they’re heading in a positive direction and we like most of what we’ve seen so far.

Terry Gerton Well Steve, let me turn that to you then because in addition to what John’s talking about the centralization approach, the Trump 2 administration has issued executive orders around acquisition, HR and financial management. Are you seeing that approach get traction in any particular way?

Steve Goodrich They are a little bit. As you know, GSA is also revamping the FAR and actually to include shared services within Section 8 of the new FAR when it’s issued. GSA is focused on procurement, OPM is focused on HR, Treasury is focused on finance. They all are starting to make traction in a centralization model, and they’re at at different levels or different stages right now. But they’re certainly getting there. OPM has their RFP out to try to develop a centralized approach for government-wide HR support services. GSA is pulling procurement into GSA more and more. And Treasury is at its beginning stages working with its QSMO actually to develop and make sure they have the systems and the foundation before they can start operations down the road.

Terry Gerton So John, in Trump 1 you made the point that there was a lot of it space for initiative and choice in the marketplace. Centralization seems to be pulling that back. Are you seeing agencies respond in a positive way?

John Marshall I don’t think we have really a lot of great feedback coming from the agencies yet. They haven’t been very communicative about their adoption or their plans for centralization to shared services. So a lot has yet to be seen. We’re kind of reading between the tea leaves right now and trying to determine how things are gonna sort out and what the agency responses will be.

Terry Gerton In market theory, markets will be more efficient than a centralization model. What do what do you have as an expectation here?

John Marshall Well, we have a lot of reasons to prefer a market-based approach because of competition, and particularly a marketplace would allow industry service providers to participate and compete with government service providers. We’re a little uncomfortable with the idea of just consolidating everything in centralized, government-delivered, government-operated functions because they tend to — over time they become monopolies and pretty bureaucratic. And so we like the idea of having a more open marketplace where competition can drive continuous innovation and customer choice and let the marketplace then sort out the winners and losers.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with John Marshall. He’s the founder and CEO of the Shared Services Leadership Coalition. And Steve Goodrich, [who] chairs the SSLC board. So Steve, let me come back to you then. Shared Services Leadership Coalition has proposed a more competitive standard-based model. Tell us about that and how your proposal differs from what you’re seeing the administration currently implement.

Steve Goodrich Well, the administration is trying to move fairly quickly right now and with technology solutions, frankly, before they get processing governance and policy and data reform in place. So they’re moving out fast. The centralization model, as John says, may not be the optimal model to get there. What we’re proposing is a strong mandate for shared services. Because as you know, it’s come and gone from over the last forty years from administration to administration. And to get there, we need Congress really to mandate it so we can consolidate the common services across government to get there. Two, we need a strong governance structure to be able to operate, lead this across agencies and get the right mandates and security and systems and so forth and so on. Within that, we then need to do the right analysis and design of the right approach to make sure we’re consolidating appropriately, that we’re getting the duplication of systems and processes down and we can actually measure the outcomes that we’re getting to make it happen and then have an effective transition process.

Terry Gerton Tell me about your governance model. Who would be in charge of oversight there?

Steve Goodrich Well, our proposed model we have the OMB DDM as the policy director, if you will, for this and the authority. We have GSA leading the operations through a management center. And then there’s roles for the PMC, there is roles for the agencies advisory going through this as well. And you have the operating centers to make sure this is done and done right.

Terry Gerton Are you hearing from any of those agencies that they’re interested in taking on that governance role?

Steve Goodrich There’s — GSA would have interest in getting there. As you know, OSP, which has been drawn back over the years, was the original design, as the M-19-16 says, is the coordinating element. But our proposed legislation would actually give it the authority it needs, led by a commissioner within GSA for government operations with which to get there.

Terry Gerton So John, let me come back to you because you mentioned something in your last response that I think ties in with this governance piece. When you get a government centralized service function, it tends to become a monopoly, but it’s also really hard to invest in technology modernization. How would you see this centralization model staying current and actually addressing the service concerns of the federal agency constituents?

John Marshall That is a great question. And I think that the flip side of that question sets up the response that we would like to see, which is the marketplace, because if you had a marketplace with industry and government service providers, you would have continuous competition across the service providers and customer choice, which would — which should provide the incentives to drive innovation in the marketplace by all those providers. So it’s a really important feature that we think ought to be incorporated. And we’re concerned that government centralized services haven’t had access to appropriations or technology modernization funds for modernization. So we’re concerned that they would follow the example that we’ve seen too often of centralized service providers not modernizing, not keeping up and becoming non-responsive and antiquated over time.

Terry Gerton Steve, you want to follow up?

Steve Goodrich Yeah, I would. You can look at good models like Canada, Texas has done a pretty good job of developing partnerships with industry. And so that moves away from the traditional FAR firm-fixed price contract approach, where as technology advances, as process or new policies advance, the companies involved, the partnership involved are responsible for the implementation and bringing those two new technologies to the forefront without contract change orders and things like that, it’s built into the process.

Terry Gerton So Steve, as you look forward, what sorts of policy or legislative change is SSLC recommending?

Steve Goodrich So, it really tees off what I was saying before, putting a piece of legislation in place that mandates shared services, that sets up the governance structure, that ensures that there is metrics, both performance and outcome metrics that are measured and reported back to Congress and the President that involves the PMC in this process and builds the strong demonstrated consolidation of common services across government to save money, to improve data, to reduce duplication, to get us there finally with a modernized system of policy, process and data.

Terry Gerton So John, I wanna wrap up with you. Legislative change is sometimes an interesting windmill to tilt at, but in the absence of that change, if the administration continues with its policy of centralization, what should agencies and industry partners be doing to prepare for that?

John Marshall Watching and seeing what comes out from the administration and and following suit. But we we’d like to see more interest in Congress and it’s hard to get legislation passed in this area. We’ve been trying at this for 10 years. We’ve seen the history of legislation, the CFO Act, GPRA and so many other landmark pieces of management legislation. They take a long time and the incubation period is a long time. So we’d like to see industry working with us and agencies showing support for a more fundamental transformational approach like we’re offering. And don’t forget, Terry, what we’re proposing is a mainstream business model that’s used by 80 or 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies for managing common services. And the potential savings are tremendous. We’ve estimated $75 to $100 billion dollars in potential savings. So that’s really what’s on the table for the value, not just improved services for employees and for customers of the government and taxpayers. This is a great opportunity that the government shouldn’t miss.

Terry Gerton Steve, let me give you the last word.

Steve Goodrich Yeah, John and I like to joke sometimes that — and it’s true, it’s not a joke — for over 40 years we’ve been sitting in meetings around shared services with OMB and oversight agencies, and it ebbs and flows from administration to administration, or they just dance around the edges. A bill passed and signed by the president will finally give it the energy and resources it needs to move it forward.

The post Centralization is back in vogue, but is it the right model for government shared services? first appeared on Federal News Network.

Terry Gerton This might be a big week on the Hill. The House is planning to bring the National Defense Authorization Act to the floor for a vote. It’s obviously a topic we talk a lot about, but last week there were a lot of let’s just say, conversations about what might be in it and how it might go. So tell us about what’s going on behind the scenes.

Loren Duggan Well, this bill is a must pass piece of legislation. They’ve been doing it for decades and they always want to get it done by the end of the year. And this year there aren’t a lot of other end-of-year vehicles, so it’s kind of become an attractive venue for discussions about a number of issues. So that’s kind of what’s been going on. It’s probably less about the core part of the NDAA and more about some of the ancillary things or related things that people want to get in there or keep out of there as the case may be. We saw a particularly big dust up you might be referring to between Elise Stefanik, who’s a member of leadership, but was mad at her own leader, Speaker Mike Johnson, about trying to keep something out. And in the end they worked something out and that was getting resolved toward the end of the week. But that was just one of the flashpoints that leaders were dealing with trying to assemble this very important bill.

Terry Gerton It is normally a bipartisan bill. Is there a chance that, you know, that that’s not going to be true this time, even with the slim majority in the House?

Loren Duggan It may still be bipartisan because they do try to work things out. And, you know, sometimes the initial versions that come out of the House are particularly partisan because of riders or language that the minority party might not like. But they were reaching for consensus here. They were trying to get the four corners to agree on things before they went in. That’s the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate committees, not just the defense committees in this case, but sometimes the other committees that had legislation that was in the mix. So they’re trying to get a bipartisan package that can get through because you might lose people on either side, but maybe you have the consensus you need to get something through. So we’ll be watching that vote counting very closely as they move toward the vote.

Terry Gerton Is there any aspect of the move forward on the NDAA that is also impacted by the hearings on the Hill last week about the counter drug operations in the Caribbean?

Loren Duggan Those two things seem to be on different tracks. I mean, obviously they’re related. It’s about the Defense Department and the defense secretary and what people might think there. But the legislation and setting policy is sort of moving in one direction, but some of the same players are also very much involved in reviewing what had happened with the ordering of these strikes and the chain of command and all the issues. We had the members watching the video over on the Senate side and reacting to that last week. I think that will continue. It may be brought up in the context of the debate or larger questions, but I think the bill will move regardless of that. And Congress can — because they do this every year — revisit it in next year’s NDAA or perhaps in other legislation because we’ve already seen members talking again about maybe war powers or other things they might tap into there.

Terry Gerton Well we’ll see how that comes about. But speaking of votes, there is also supposed to be a vote in the Senate this week on the health care premium subsidy extensions. What’s the prognosis there?

Loren Duggan Well, this was part of the agreement to reopen the government was that there would be a vote by I think December 12th was it, so Friday, on some sort of vote around the ACA extensions that are expiring at the end of the year. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said he’d aim for a three-year extension, which would take us obviously beyond the next election. That’s a different proposal and one of many proposals that are floating around. We’ll be watching to see, does the GOP answer with their own proposal, and what does this mean for the House, if anything? So, going toward the end of last week, there was still no consensus on how this would be fixed. It will have to be bipartisan, obviously, to get over the line and we may not be there by the end of the week. But maybe we’ll have some discussion and votes ahead of that.

Terry Gerton And Mike Johnson’s trying to put a package together on the House side as well, right?

Loren Duggan Right. And there’s more than just the ACA being talked about here. There’s health savings accounts ideas or other things that members might want to pursue. You kind of got this short term issue of, what do you do with the subsidies for next year, but then there are a lot of people who are trying to bring in, what does this mean overall about the Affordable Care Act, the nature of the markets, does there need to be a broader sweep of changes? … There’s not really consensus on anything broader than this. And we’ll have to see if there can even be consensus on the smaller question of what to do with the subsidies.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Loren Duggan, deputy news director at Bloomberg Government. Well, Loren, at this time of year, every time we talk, we talk about the status of the rest of the appropriations. Shutdown, or [the] continuing resolution expires at the end of January. What are you seeing in terms of the move forward on the other bills?

Loren Duggan I’m sort of seeing a kind of a whimper on that going into the end of the year. To be honest with you, January 30 is a long time away. There’s been a lot of talk about what would be in a next minibus package that the Senate might consider, but that hasn’t been moving forward. Votes haven’t been scheduled. And without that sort of end-of-the year deadline or mid-December deadline that often drives that activity, they have more time, and usually work expands to the time allotted. And I think we might see that here. So, not clear that we’ll get more votes by the end of the year on that. There are a lot of issues they’re trying to work through. But that will be, if they don’t do it now, obviously top of mind when they return in early January, ’cause the clock will be ticking.

Terry Gerton Loudly at that point. A different topic, and we don’t cover the court very often, but there’s a very important case on the Supreme Court docket for today dealing with the president’s effort to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Tell us what your team is watching there.

Loren Duggan Well, part of our organization is Bloomberg Law and they cover many court developments around the country and certainly at the Supreme Court. They’re watching this very closely because it has huge implication for independent regulators. As you mentioned, Kelly Slaughter, who was a FTC commissioner, was fired by the president and has had a court battle that’s now reached all the way up there. And it goes back to a precedent called, I think it’s Humphrey’s Executor — which there are many people in this building who are far more versed than I in that. But it’s gonna be closely watched because what is the nature of an independent regulator? What is their power vis-a-vis the rest of the executive branch? Big questions there that have effects on a lot of different institutions, and therefore a lot of different regulated entities by those institutions. So we’ll be watching the arguments and then the decision whenever that comes will be very closely watched.

Terry Gerton So what else are you watching for the coming week?

Loren Duggan Well, we’re watching the Senate try to move forward on another batch of nominees. I think it’s 90 or so. They tried to do it last week, but there was a procedural hiccup, so they’re starting over. But that would be, if they could get that done, another 90 Trump appointees on the job by the end of the year, which Republicans would like. And we’re also watching hearings. There’s a lot of other nominees going through and there’d be a flash of celebrity. Gene Simmons of KISS is actually scheduled to be up on the Hill. So we’d be watching to see what he brings. Always interesting when you have kind of that celebrity star power trying to shine light on an issue.

Terry Gerton That’s a hearing near and dear to the heart of radio broadcasters everywhere. So we’ll be watching it as well.

Loren Duggan Excellent.

The post House drama over the defense bill sets the stage for a high-stakes December on Capitol Hill first appeared on Federal News Network.

A three-judge panel ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s firings without cause of Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, Democratic members on the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board, were lawful.

The split 2-to-1 panel decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has no immediate effect, since both Harris and Wilcox’s firings were finalized in May. But Friday’s ruling comes as the Supreme Court is expected to soon hear arguments on whether to overturn a 90-year-old ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor — a decision that could expand Trump’s power to shape independent agencies.

In the 1935 Supreme Court ruling on Humprey’s Executor, the justices unanimously found that commissioners can be removed only for misconduct or neglect of duty, effectively limiting when presidents can fire board members.

But when Judges Gregory Katsas and Justin Walker ruled Friday in favor of Trump’s firings of Harris and Wilcox, they argued that MSPB and NLRB fall outside the limitations stemming from Humphrey’s Executor, and that the president can still “remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power.”

“The NLRB and MSPB wield substantial powers that are both executive in nature and different from the powers that Humphrey’s Executor deemed to be merely quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial,” the judges wrote. “So, Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members.”

Judge Florence Pan, the dissenting panel member and a Biden appointee, argued that the two agencies do fall under the scope of Humphrey’s Executor, and that maintaining the independence of MSPB and NLRB is critical. She wrote that the Trump administration’s “extreme view of executive power sharply departs from precedent.”

“We may soon be living in a world in which every hiring decision and action by any government agency will be influenced by politics, with little regard for subject-matter expertise, the public good, and merit-based decision-making,” she wrote.

The MSPB is an independent agency responsible for adjudicating appeals from federal employees who allege prohibited personnel practices by their agencies. The NLRB investigates unfair labor practices in the private sector and oversees union elections. Both boards are typically composed of members of both political parties.

Trump fired both Wilcox and Harris within his first few weeks in office, but did not point to a specific reason for the terminations. Wilcox and Harris, both of whom were Democratic board members, sued the president over their removals, arguing that they are protected by a federal law meant to ensure MSPB and NLRB’s independence from political considerations — and that the president can only remove them “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Though a federal judge initially ruled the two terminations were unlawful, the Supreme Court reversed that decision in May, effectively green-lighting the finalization of the board members’ firings earlier this year.

In its May decision, the Supreme Court indicated that it was likely “that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power,” which it said would make restrictions on the president’s ability to fire them unconstitutional. Friday’s panel ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s initial arguments.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments Monday on Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission — a case that may further influence the outcome of both Harris and Wilcox’s terminations.

The Associated Press contributed reporting.

The post Appeals court backs Trump’s firings of MSPB, NLRB members first appeared on Federal News Network.