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.

© AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Put "AI" in your name and watch the stock price climb.

Mahri Stainnak got the call the day after President Donald Trump took office: the Office of Personnel Management’s human resources office was putting them on administrative leave “effective immediately,” while the agency “investigates your radical and wasteful DEI activity.”

Stainnak was surprised by the news. Before the Trump administration, they served as OPM’s deputy director of the governmentwide Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility. But now they worked as the director of OPM’s talent innovation group, a human resources job focused on recruiting and retaining talent across the federal government.

“I said, ‘Wait a minute, I’m not in diversity, equity and inclusion.’ I started a new role in a job that has nothing to do with diversity, equity and inclusion.’ So I felt incredibly shocked and confused,” Stainnak said.

The second call came 48 hours later: Stainnak, a nonbinary person who had worked in the federal government for more than 16 years, received a reduction in force notice, as part of the Trump administration’s plan to root out DEI programs across the federal government.

Stainnak is now part of a class-action lawsuit filed this week in the D.C. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The lawsuit, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C., claims the Trump administration unlawfully targeted and fired federal employees perceived to be associated with DEI work — even if their current jobs had nothing to do with it.

Mary Kuntz, an attorney at the law firm Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch, P.C. who is representing the former employees, said the administration’s actions “clearly” violate the Civil Service Reform Act, because employees like Stainnak were fired for previous work in DEI positions.

“You can’t RIF somebody from a position they’re not in,” Kuntz said. “They sought to punish Mahri [Stainnak] for previous DEI work. That’s a violation of the First Amendment.”

Kuntz said the lawsuit claims that the administration’s push to “eviscerate” DEI programs also had a disproportionate impact on people of color, women, non-binary individuals, and violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“The DEI folks were working on behalf of people with disabilities, people who are non-native speakers of English. They were advocating for protected groups,” she said.

On the campaign trail last year, President Donald Trump pledged to “eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the entire federal government,” and characterized these programs as promoting “un-American” ideology.

On his first days in office, Trump signed executive orders that directed agencies to create lists of employees associated with DEI going back to Nov. 5, 2024 — the date of the presidential election.  The complaint says agencies were directed to remove those employees, “regardless of their current roles or duties.”

“President Trump’s directives did not merely represent a change in presidential priorities — a normal occurrence when presidential administrations change. Rather, they were targeted actions intended to punish perceived political enemies, as well as to eliminate from the federal workforce women, people of color, and those, like plaintiffs, who advocated for or were perceived as advocating for protected racial or gender groups,” the complaint states.

The complaint says agencies set competitive levels for the RIFs so narrowly that federal employees were unable to compete for retention, and that those impacted by RIFs were not considered for reassignment to other jobs.

“I absolutely feel targeted on the basis of what the Trump administration believes my beliefs are, because I was not working in a diversity, equity and inclusion role in any way at the time when the new administration came in, or at the time I was placed on administrative leave,” Stainnak said.

For all the Trump administration’s actions to strip DEI out of the federal workforce, Kuntz said the president’s executive orders don’t go into any detail to define DEI.

“He characterizes them as illegal and discriminatory and various other things … but does doesn’t define them,” Kuntz said. “You can’t decide that somebody is a different party than the party in the White House and decide to fire them on that basis.”

The lawsuit states that the total number of federal employees impacted by the DEI rollback fis unknown, but says news reports suggest it could be “potentially in the thousands.”

The complaint states that at least 40 women or non-binary individuals, and more than 40 people of color received layoffs in connection with the Trump administration’s directives.

Stainnak and their colleagues filed an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board in March, but Kuntz said that appeal and similar cases brought before the Office of Special Counsel and agencies’ Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices, have stalled.

In their last role, Stainnak helped agencies recruit top talent into the federal workforce. But they said the Trump administration’s purge of DEI workers has pushed out individuals who worked on bipartisan projects.

Former federal employees leading the lawsuit include a former operations manager at the Department of Veterans Affairs who “helped ensure that veterans were not inhibited from accessing earned benefits due to cultural or socioeconomic barriers,” a Department of Homeland Security Employee who led language competency efforts at the border to advance intelligence gathering and the safety of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

“By illegally targeting people based on the Trump administration’s assumptions about our political beliefs, or by targeting us based on who we are, this administration actually is hurting the people who work and live in this country, because now these dedicated, hardworking federal servants are not in their jobs providing the critical services that they do, whether it’s responding to emergencies like hurricanes and making sure folks have drinking water and shelter, or making sure our transportation systems are safe and timely. This action is really hurting the people who live in this country,” Stainnak said.

The post Federal employees who left ‘DEI’ roles still fired under Trump administration purge, lawsuit claims first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

I usually defend Excel come hell or high water. However, when it comes to regular expressions (regexes), even I admit that open-source LibreOffice Calc is superior: it treats them as native search rules, simplifying conditional tasks to a single, clean formula.

As Microsoft continues giving everyone reasons to drop Windows in favor of a more reliable and open platform, there's no better time to explore what Linux has to offer. Here are a few good apps worth your time if you've got a Linux computer to play with this weekend.

PhonePe has shut down its Pincode app over two years after its debut. The company said it will now focus on working with offline retailers by expanding its B2B offerings.

Balancing schoolwork with gaming usually means finding a laptop that can do a little bit of everything. The best gaming laptops aren’t just built for high frame rates. They also need to handle long days of writing papers, running productivity apps and streaming lectures without slowing down. A good machine should feel reliable during class and powerful enough to jump into your favorite games once homework is out of the way.

There’s a wide range of options depending on how much performance you need. Some students prefer a slim, lightweight model that’s easy to carry to school, while others want a new gaming laptop with enough GPU power to handle AAA titles. If you’re watching your budget, there are plenty of solid choices that qualify as a budget gaming laptop without cutting too many corners.

It’s also worth looking at features that help with everyday use. A bright display makes long study sessions easier on the eyes, and a comfortable keyboard is essential if you type a lot. USB-C ports, decent battery life and a responsive trackpad can make a big difference during the school day. We’ve rounded up the best laptops that strike the right mix of performance, portability and value for both gaming and schoolwork.

Table of contents

• Best laptops for gaming and school in 2025

• Best laptop for gaming and schoolwork FAQs

Best laptops for gaming and school in 2025

Best laptop for gaming and schoolwork FAQs

Are gaming laptops good for school?

As we’ve mentioned, gaming laptops are especially helpful if you're doing any demanding work. Their big promise is powerful graphics performance, which isn't just limited to PC gaming. Video editing and 3D rendering programs can also tap into their GPUs to handle laborious tasks. While you can find decent GPUs on some productivity machines, like Dell's XPS 15, you can sometimes find better deals on gaming laptops. My general advice for any new workhorse: Pay attention to the specs; get at least 16GB of RAM and the largest solid state drive you can find (ideally 1TB or more). Those components are both typically hard to upgrade down the line, so it’s worth investing what you can up front to get the most out of your PC gaming experience long term. Also, don’t forget the basics like a webcam, which will likely be necessary for the schoolwork portion of your activities.

The one big downside to choosing a gaming notebook is portability. For the most part, we'd recommend 15-inch models to get the best balance of size and price. Those typically weigh in around 4.5 pounds, which is significantly more than a three-pound ultraportable. Today's gaming notebooks are still far lighter than older models, though, so at least you won't be lugging around a 10-pound brick. If you’re looking for something lighter, there are plenty of 14-inch options these days. And if you're not into LED lights and other gamer-centric bling, keep an eye out for more understated models that still feature essentials like a webcam (or make sure you know how to turn those lights off).

Do gaming laptops last longer than standard laptops?

Not necessarily — it really depends on how you define "last longer." In terms of raw performance, gaming laptops tend to pack more powerful components than standard laptops, which means they can stay relevant for longer when it comes to handling demanding software or modern games. That makes them a solid choice if you need a system that won’t feel outdated in a couple of years, especially for students or creators who also game in their downtime.

But there’s a trade-off. All that power generates heat, and gaming laptops often run hotter and put more strain on internal components than typical ultraportables. If they’re not properly cooled or regularly maintained (think dust buildup and thermal paste), that wear and tear can shorten their lifespan. They’re also usually bulkier and have shorter battery life, which can impact long-term usability depending on your daily needs.

Gaming laptops can last longer performance-wise, but only if you take good care of them. If your needs are light — browsing, writing papers and streaming — a standard laptop may actually last longer simply because it’s under less stress day-to-day.

What is the role of GPU in a computer for gaming and school?

The GPU plays a big role in how your laptop handles visuals — and it’s especially important if you’re using your computer for both gaming and school.

For gaming, the GPU is essential. It’s responsible for rendering graphics, textures, lighting and all the visual effects that make your favorite titles look smooth and realistic. A more powerful GPU means better frame rates, higher resolutions and the ability to play modern games without lag or stuttering.

For schoolwork, the GPU matters too — but its importance depends on what you're doing. If your school tasks mostly involve writing papers, browsing the web or using productivity tools like Google Docs or Microsoft Office, you don’t need a high-end GPU. But if you’re working with graphic design, video editing, 3D modeling or anything else that’s visually demanding, a good GPU can speed things up significantly and improve your workflow.

Georgie Peru contributed to this report.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/computing/laptops/best-laptops-for-gaming-and-school-132207352.html?src=rss

©

© Engadget

The Department of Health and Human Services is setting new restrictions on telework as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities.

A new, departmentwide reasonable accommodation policy shared with employees this week states that all requests for telework, remote work, or reassignment must be reviewed and approved by an assistant secretary or a higher-level official — a decision that is likely to slow the approval process.

The new policy, as Federal News Network reported on Monday, generally restricts employees from using telework as an “interim accommodation,” while the agency processes their reasonable accommodation request.

“Telework is not appropriate for an interim accommodation, unless approved at the assistant secretary level or above,” the new policy states.

The updated reasonable accommodation policy, signed on Sept. 15 by HHS Chief Human Capital Officer and Deputy Assistant Secretary Thomas Nagy, Jr., replaces a more than decade-old policy, and applies to all HHS component agencies.

“This policy is effective immediately and must be followed by HHS component in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and departmental policy,” the policy states.

It’s not clear how long it will take HHS to review each individual reasonable accommodation request. But HHS, which now handles all reasonable accommodation requests from its component agencies, faces a backlog of more than 3,000 cases — which it expects will take six to eight months to complete.

The new policy allows frontline supervisors to grant “simple, obvious requests” without consulting with an HHS reasonable accommodation coordinator, but prohibits them from granting telework or remote work.

“Telework and reassignment are not simple, obvious requests,” the policy states.

The policy also directs HHS to collect data on the “number of requests that involve telework or remote work, in whole or in part.”

A memo from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that “all telework related to RAs will be repealed,” and that CDC leadership will no longer be allowed to approve telework as an interim accommodation.

“Staff currently on an agreement will need to report back to the worksite,” the memo states.

The CDC memo states employees can still request telework as a reasonable accommodation, but “until they are reviewed and approved by HHS they must report to the worksite.”

It also states that employees can request what was previously known as “medical telework,” which can be approved by the CDC chief operating officer for around six months in length.

According to the memo, CDC can temporarily grant medical telework to employees who are dealing with recovering from chemotherapy, hip replacement surgery or pregnancy complications.

If HHS rejects a reasonable accommodation, the CDC memo states an employee can challenge the decision before an appeal board. The CDC, however, expects that appeal will “also take months to process,” and that employees must continue to work from the office while the appeal is pending.

“We know this is going to be tough, especially on front-line supervisors,” the CDC memo states.

HHS Press Secretary Emily Hilliard said in a statement that the new reasonable accommodation policy “establishes department-wide procedures to ensure consistency with federal law.”

“Interim accommodations may be provided while cases move through the reasonable-accommodation process toward a final determination. The department remains committed to processing these requests as quickly as possible,” Hilliard said.

Jodi Hershey, a former FEMA reasonable accommodation specialist and the founder of EASE, LLC, a firm that helps employers and employees navigate workplace accessibility issues, said the new policy suggests HHS is “playing fast and loose with the Rehabilitation Act, and what’s required of them” under the legislation.

“This is the most inefficient way to handle reasonable accommodations possible. By centralizing reasonable accommodation-deciding officials, you’re removing the decision from the person who knows the most about the job. The immediate supervisor or manager knows what the job is, how the job is normally performed. They know the employee. When you remove that level of familiarity from the process, and you move it up the chain … that person has no idea what the job even is. They don’t know the person that they’re dealing with. They don’t know the office. They don’t know the particulars at all,” Hershey said.

In a message obtained by Federal News Network, Cheryl Prigodich, principal deputy director for the CDC’s Office of Safety, Security and Asset Management, told an HHS employee that because their one-year reasonable accommodation had expired, they needed to submit a new request for approval.

“The timeframe for approval on your request is not known at this time. In the interim, however, we are not allowed to approve telework as an interim accommodation for a reasonable accommodation,” Prigodich said.

Prigodich told the employee that, according to HHS, employees must either use annual leave, 80 hours of annual ad hoc telework available to each HHS employee, take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act or report to the workplace “with the possibility of another acceptable accommodation (work tour, physical modifications to the workplace, etc).”

Prigodich directed the employee to submit their request to renew their reasonable accommodation request to the HHS assistant secretary for administration, but recommended that they “efficiently summarize your concern and request (with appropriate documentation) into no greater than a single-page memo.”

“The ASA will not want to comb through previous emails or too many attachments,” Prigodich said.

The one-page request, she added, should include “why no other alternative accommodation will work,” documentation of the disability, and records showing the previously approved reasonable accommodation.

“I know this is frustrating. We are certainly frustrated too — and this represents a significant policy change for a great number of people who rely on this type of accommodation for their personal health and needs,” Prigodich said.

The post CDC tells staff telework reasonable accommodations ‘will be repealed,’ as HHS sets stricter rules first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

The Office of Personnel Management is trying to address what it says are concerns from some managers and supervisors who worry they may be held personally liable for disciplining federal employees deemed poor performers.

In response to those concerns, a Nov. 21 memo from OPM clarified that managers and supervisors are generally acting on behalf of an agency when they “manage employees’ job performance and address unacceptable performance.” There is an “extremely limited scope” where managers or supervisors would be held individually responsible for those actions, OPM said.

When a manager puts an employee on a performance improvement plan, demotes an employee or removes an employee from their job for poor performance, that’s technically considered the action of the agency, OPM said, and not the individual manager’s responsibility. If an employee challenges one of those actions, OPM said that the agency, not the manager, would be responsible for responding.

“In the unusual event that a manager or supervisor is sued personally for actions within the scope of their employment, the Department of Justice (DOJ) typically provides representation,” the memo reads.

But if a supervisor or manager misuses their authority — for example through discrimination, harassment or whistleblower-related prohibited personnel practices — OPM said the individual can then be held personally accountable for their actions.

In its memo, OPM also reminded supervisors and managers of the availability of professional liability insurance, which may help protect them in the rare cases where they may be held liable. Supervisors and managers are usually eligible for a government reimbursement amounting to up to half the cost of the insurance.

“But even in these situations Congress did not give employees the right to hold their managers or supervisors personally liable for any performance or conduct-related adverse action,” OPM said.

OPM’s clarification comes after the Trump administration earlier this year set new expectations for measuring federal employees’ job performance. In June, OPM told agencies they don’t have to use “progressive discipline” and that they should not substitute a suspension when a full removal of an employee from their job “would be appropriate.”

The administration’s new performance management standards also attempt to more strictly delineate between different levels of employee performance and encourage agencies to rate fewer employees as high performers.

OPM Director Scott Kupor has repeatedly argued that the government has inflated performance ratings, and has targeted the rating system as a key area for OPM to update.

“In the real world we are not all equally successful and differences in performance from one person to the next are in fact real,” Kupor wrote in a Sept. 15 blog post. “We simply can’t all get A’s because not everyone’s contributions to the success of the organization are the same. Some people simply perform better than others — whether by luck or skill.”

More recently, OPM also announced a new mandatory training program for all federal supervisors, intended to educate supervisors on how to better manage performance of federal employees. The one-hour online course will cover topics including recognition, awards, hiring, firing and discipline of federal employees, according to a memo OPM sent to agencies Wednesday.

“At the end of the training, supervisors will be ready to set clear expectations, deliver quality feedback, document fairly, reward excellence, and take timely action when needed—all while building an engaged, high-performing team through transparency, accountability, and collaboration,” the memo stated.

Federal supervisors are required to complete the training by Feb. 9, 2026, OPM said.

The required supervisor training comes shortly after OPM also launched two optional training programs, designed to educate senior executives in the federal workforce, while incorporating common themes from the Trump administration on “accountability,” performance management and adherence to the president’s priorities.

The post OPM attempts to ease manager concerns in addressing federal employees’ performance first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/Jirsak

A federal judge in San Francisco is temporarily blocking the State Department from finalizing hundreds of employee layoffs.

Judge Susan Illston approved a temporary restraining order on Thursday, preventing the department from officially terminating more than 200 employees, most of them Foreign Service officers.

Separately, federal employee unions are asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to reverse more layoffs than agencies have allowed under a spending deal that ended the recent government shutdown.

The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association filed the emergency request for a temporary restraining order to bar the “imminent and unlawful execution” of reduction in force notices the State Department sent this summer.

“The severe threats to the public presented by the imminent State Department actions necessitate a temporary pause to protect the status quo for plaintiffs and the employees they represent who are adversely impacted by these imminent separations,” the emergency request states.

The emergency request is part of an ongoing lawsuit that 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 spending 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.

“Those RIFs would violate the federal legislation that ended the federal government shutdown, which prohibits implementation of any RIFs through January 30,” the amended complaint states.

The continuing resolution Congress passed on Nov. 12 states that “any reduction in force proposed, noticed, initiated, executed, implemented, or otherwise taken by an executive agency between October 1, 2025, and the date of enactment, shall have no force or effect.”

It also states that between Nov. 12, 2025 and Jan. 30, 2026, “no federal funds may be used to initiate, carry out, implement, or otherwise notice a reduction in force to reduce the number of employees within any department.”

Agencies, however, have followed a narrower interpretation of the stopgap spending bill, and have only reinstated federal employees who received RIF notices between Oct. 1 and Nov. 12. The amended lawsuit states that interpretation of the continuing resolution “is significantly under-inclusive.”

Agencies recently told a federal court that they rescinded shutdown-era RIF notices for more than 3,600 employees.

The State Department sent RIF notices to nearly 1,350 employees in July. Most of those employees were officially separated from the agency in September.

But this Friday, Dec. 5, the department plans to officially remove nearly 250 Foreign Service employees and several civil service employees whose separation dates were postponed, because they recently gave birth or faced medical issues.

The State Department claims that the continuing resolution’s layoff protections only apply to RIF notices that went out after Oct. 1.

“Defendants are wrong,” the amended complaint states. “The plain language of the continuing resolution prohibits any actions implementing any RIFs of any employees at any agency between November 12, 2025 and January 30, 2026, and requires recission of any previously issued RIF notices (regardless of when they were issued) if the RIFs were implemented during the shutdown.”

The amended lawsuit also takes issue with how the State Department modified the official separation date for impacted employees.

Foreign Service employees were originally told they would be separated from the agency on Nov. 10,  when the agency was still affected by the government shutdown. But on that date, employees received a notice from the department’s human resources offices that said they would remain on administrative leave so the agency could correct “administrative errors.”

On Monday evening, employees received a notice that said they will be officially separated from the State Department this Friday.

“The RIF notices were not reissued, and employees received nothing further from the State Department regarding the now-expired RIF notices until December 1, 2025,” the amended lawsuit states.

The State Department’s notice to employees cites “formal written guidance” from the Office of Management and Budget and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel regarding RIFs that had been issued prior to the shutdown, but further implemented during or after the shutdown. The unions leading the lawsuit say that formal written guidance hasn’t been made publicly available.

“During the shutdown, the State Department continued to implement the stages of these RIFs in preparation for final separation of the employees, including by processing personnel paperwork in advance of the planned separations,” the amended complaint states.

The unions claim that without a temporary restraining order, State Department employees and their families will suffer “irreparable harm,” including a loss of income and health insurance benefits.

“For many of these employees, the imminent loss of employment means a sustained loss of income and benefits in a job market already flooded with unemployed former State Department and USAID employees,” the amended complaint states.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement that “Congress clearly stated that no federal employees should lose their jobs due to a reduction-in-force for the duration of the continuing resolution.”

“This means that no RIF should be issued or acted upon, and any RIF terminations that occurred during the shutdown must be reversed,” Kelley said.

AFSA President John Dinkelman said in a statement that these “unlawful separations reveal a callous indifference to the rule of law and the people who carry out America’s diplomatic mission every day.”

The post Federal judge blocks imminent State Dept layoffs, as unions seek to reverse RIFs at other agencies first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File

• The Office of Personnel Management is requiring all federal supervisors to enroll in a new training program on performance management. A new memo said the mandatory training will cover how to both reward and discipline employees, as well as how to create effective performance plans. All supervisors are required to complete OPM's new training by Feb. 9, 2026.
  (New governmentwide supervisory training - Office of Personnel Management)
• The Missile Defense Agency has tapped more than 1,000 companies to support the Golden Dome initiative. The first round of awards under the agency’s Scalable Homeland Innovative Enterprise Layered Defense, or SHIELD, contracting vehicle went to 1,014 “qualifying offerors.” Vendors that receive task orders will draw funds from a pool worth up to $151 billion. Officials say those order competitions won’t begin until all companies in the competitive range get the chance to "engage in meaningful discussions” with the agency.
  (MDA selects over 1,000 companies for Golden Dome SHIELD contract - SAM.gov)
• The top Democrat on the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation, Space and Innovation is pressing Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to give a majority of the FAA workers a bonus. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said it was unfair to limit who received the $10,000 bonus when all 20,000 air traffic controllers and technicians worked during the 43-day shutdown. The FAA is giving a $10,000 award to approximately 2.4% of the air traffic controller workforce and to roughly 6% of the technician workforce. Duckworth said this creates a "perverse and dangerous incentive" that threatens to weaken national airspace system safety during future shutdowns.
  (Senator presses FAA to give more workers shutdown bonuses - Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.))
• Senate Democrats are ringing the alarm bells about the new deputy general counsel at the General Services Administration. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and five other members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee are calling for the White House to reverse its appointment of Paul Ingrassia to be the GSA deputy general counsel. The lawmakers say Ingrassia is unqualified for the position because of his very limited legal experience and because of his lengthy and public record of offensive statements. The Trump administration withdrew Ingrassia's nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel after statements he made became public about him having a "Nazi streak from time to time" and on other questionable topics. The Senators want a briefing from GSA and the White House Office of Presidential Personnel by Dec. 9.
  (Democrat Senators ring alarm bells over GSA deputy counsel - Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee)
• The Pentagon inspector general said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the messaging app Signal to discuss operational details of airstrikes in Yemen created a risk of exposing U.S. tactics and endangering service members. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell pushed back on the finding, and pointed to the “flawless execution and success” of Operation Rough Rider. Parnell also noted that the inspector general determined that no classified information was shared. “Case closed,” he said on social media platform X. CNN first reported the watchdog’s findings.
  (Pentagon IG says Hegseth’s use of Signal risked troops safety, DoD pushes back on the findings - Social media platform X)
• Former EPA employees are challenging the Trump administration, saying they were fired illegally. After being fired for signing a letter criticizing the Trump administration, six former EPA employees argue the agency’s actions violated the First Amendment. The employees were some of the 140 workers who signed the “declaration of dissent,” which resulted in around 20 employees being fired, and dozens more facing two-week suspensions. The fired feds are appealing their case to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
  (Fired EPA employees challenge agency, alleging free speech violations - Federal News Network)
• A recent survey shows most Americans agree agencies should make secure data-handling a top priority for the services they provide. But only 41% of those surveyed say they trust the government’s handling of their personal data. In a survey of more than 1,500 people conducted by Gartner, more than half say more transparency in how their data is used would improve their level of trust with the federal government’s online services.
  (Survey shows 61% of U.S. citizens rate secure data handling as extremely important for government digital services - Gartner)
• The State Department’s diplomatic workforce is feeling 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, the American Foreign Service Association found 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 a quarter of them left this year when counting layoffs, retirements and those who accepted deferred resignation offers.
  ('A workplace crisis:' Nearly all Foreign Service employees report lower morale in union-led survey - Federal News Network)

The post There’s a new performance management training program for federal supervisors first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AFP via Getty Images/MANDEL NGAN

A Linux distribution known for its security and stability, Alpine Linux, has released version 3.23 with several improvements and upgrades to its package base. It's the first major point release since May, and it carries on support a wide range of computer architectures.

Amazon is the USPS' biggest customer, and the e-commerce giant's potential break from the postal agency comes as the two sides are negotiating a new deal.

Let me be upfront: I genuinely love Obsidian. It's an incredible application with all the features you would need for note-taking. But, despite all the amazing things Obsidian offers, it had one big, persistent flaw that created a major roadblock in my daily workflow: the way it handles file navigation.

Cannabis operators are staring down a confusing policy landscape. To find profit, they'll need to navigate it until it changes.

How much should marijuana operators risk? is a post from: MJBizDaily: Financial, Legal & Cannabusiness news for cannabis entrepreneurs

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge's Sean Hollister If you wrote off the Steam Frame as yet another VR headset few will want to wear, I guarantee you're not alone. But the Steam Frame isn't just a headset; it's a Trojan horse that contains the tech gamers need to play Steam games on the next Samsung Galaxy, the next Google Pixel, perhaps Arm gaming notebooks to come. I know, because I'm already using that tech on my Samsung Galaxy. There is no official Android version of Hollow Knight: Silksong, one of the best games of 2025, but that doesn't have to stop you anymore. Thanks to a stack of open-source technologies, including a compatibility layer called Proton and an emulator called Fex, games that were developed for x86-based Windows PCs can now run on Linux-based phones with the Arm processor architecture. With Proton, the Steam Deck could already do the Windows-to-Linux part; now, Fex is bridging x86 and Arm, too. This stack is what powers the Steam Frame's own ability to play Windows games, of course, and it was widely reported that Valve is using the open-source Fex emulator to make it happen. What wasn't widely reported: Valve is behind Fex itself. In an interview, Valve's Pierre-Loup Griffais, one of the architects behind SteamOS and the Steam Deck, tells The Verge that Valve has been quietly funding almost all the open-source technologies required to play Windows games on Arm. And because they're open-source, Valve is effectively shepherding a future where Arm phones, laptops, and desktops could freely do the same. He says the company believes game developers shouldn't be wasting time porting games if there's a better way. Remember when the Steam Deck handheld showed that a decade of investment in Linux could make Windows gaming portable? Valve paid open-source developers to follow their passions to help achieve that result. Valve has been guiding the effort to bring games to Arm in much the same way: In 2016 and 2017, Griffais tells me, the company began recruiting and funding open-source developers to bring Windows games to Arm chips. Fex lead developer Ryan Houdek tells The Verge he chatted with Griffais himself at conferences those years and whipped up the first prototype in 2018. He tells me Valve pays enough that Fex is his full-time job. "I want to thank the people from Valve for being here from the start and allowing me to kickstart this project," he recently wrote.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

If you exclude certain companies like Peloton, the world of cycling technology is surprisingly open. It’s not perfect by any means, but there are enough open or open-ish standards for many different pieces of technology from different brands to interoperate with each other, from sensors and bike computers and even indoor trainers to some extent. This has also made it possible for open source software to exist in this realm as well, and the GoldenCheetah project has jumped in for all of us who value FOSS and also like to ride various bicycles from time to time.

GoldenCheetah focuses on gathering data from power meters, allowing cyclists to record their rides and save them in order to keep track of their training performance over time. It works well with sensors that use the ANT+ protocol, and once it has that data it can provide advanced analytics such as power curves, critical power modeling, and detailed charts for power, heart rate, and cadence. It can display and record live indoor-training data, and in some situations it can even run interval workouts, although not every indoor trainer is supported. There are no social features, subscriptions, or cloud requirements which can be refreshing in the modern world, but is a bit of a downside if you’re used to riding with your friends in something like Zwift.

All in all, though, it’s an impressive bit of software that encourages at least one realm of consumer electronics to stay more open, especially if those using bike sensors, computers, and trainers pick ones that are more open and avoid those that are proprietary, even if they don’t plan to use GoldenCheetah exclusively. And if you were wondering about the ANT+ protocol mentioned earlier, it’s actually used for many more things that just intra-bike wireless communications.

Tens of thousands of blue-collar Defense Department workers are slated to receive their long-delayed 2024 pay raises. The raises were stalled for nearly a year after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s purge of advisory committees halted the DoD Wage Committee’s ability to authorize new wage schedules.

The DoD Wage Committee met last week for the first time this year to approve publication of 2024 updates to about 1,600 wage schedules covering 250 wage areas. 

These raises will match the General Schedule locality increases, and they will be applied retroactively according to when they should have taken effect last year. DoD workers could see the pay bump reflected in their next paychecks.

“It will probably be in the next paycheck, or possibly a separate check. It will depend on which payroll processor is being used,” Jacqueline Simon, American Federation of Government Employees’ director of public policy, told Federal News Network. 

“There might be some other agencies, like the Bureau of Prisons, Social Security, even the Department of Veterans Affairs that might be more delayed. But I’m told the Defense Finance and Accounting Service says it will be the next paycheck,” she said. 

For blue-collar federal employees under the Federal Wage System, the process of getting a pay raise is more complex than for most General Schedule employees. While the GS base pay schedule is adjusted annually each January with an across-the-board pay increase set by the president or Congress, FWS adjustments are based partly on that overarching raise and partly on wage surveys conducted by the DoD Wage Committee, which then votes to implement new schedules region by region throughout the year.

But in March, Hegseth launched a review of all advisory committees, requiring them to justify their existence. He instructed the committees to explain how their advice “benefited the DoD, the federal government, and the United States,” and how it aligned with President Donald Trump’s goals and the department’s priority of “restoring the warrior ethos.” Hegseth dismissed all members of the advisory committees in April.

The DoD Wage Committee — made up of three agency officials and two union leaders, and whose sole function is to approve wage schedules for FWS employees — has been unable to meet since then.

“We don’t provide advice per se. We look through all the data, at the way the calculations were done, make sure everything was done right, and then you vote that yes, this is okay. And sometimes it’s not okay. Sometimes there are errors and they’re found. But that’s what the DoD wage committee is,” Simon said.

“The surveys happened, the calculation and the new wage scales and wage rates were determined, but none of them could be actually implemented or paid because of the pause on the advisory committees. Everything was ready to go. So people who were due their raise in March and April and May, in June, July, August, September, none of them got their raises when they were supposed to,” she added.

Simon said the Office of the Secretary of Defense never offered any explanation of why the committee could not be exempted. “They just wouldn’t do it. They were not permitted to meet with us,” she said.

It appears that pressure from lawmakers eventually pushed the department to reverse its course.

“We certainly talked to a lot of lawmakers, and we talked to as many people in the administration as we possibly could and tried to put some political pressure on the secretary, and I guess he finally relented,” Simon said. 

The delay, Simon said, has been deeply frustrating for workers. “Across the board, people were absolutely furious. There’s no way to overstate how angry and resentful people were that this was happening. And, of course, there was a hardship, of course there was the shutdown, and then this on top of it, and it was a terrible outrage.”

AFGE estimates that more than 118,000 DoD employees are paid through the Federal Wage System.

If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email anastasia.obis@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at (301) 830-2747.

The post DoD employees under Federal Wage System to get long-delayed pay raise first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Associated Press/Federal News Network

Former Environmental Protection Agency employees who were fired after signing a letter criticizing the Trump administration are now appealing their dismissals before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The six former EPA employees, who were among roughly 140 workers who signed a “declaration of dissent” in June, argued their firings were not only an illegal response to exercising their First Amendment rights, but also a form of retaliation for “perceived political affiliation,” and executed without cause.

The former employees are represented by attorneys at several law firms in the MSPB case, including the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER, said Wednesday. “EPA is not only undermining the First Amendment’s free speech protections by trying to silence its own workforce, it is also placing U.S. citizens in peril by removing experienced employees who are tasked with carrying out EPA’s critical mission.”

An EPA spokesperson declined to comment, stating that the agency has a longstanding practice of not commenting on pending litigation.

The June dissent letter from EPA employees warned that the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin were “recklessly undermining” the agency’s mission, and criticized the administration’s policies on public health and the environment. The letter led EPA to launch an investigation into employees who signed the letter, resulting in at least eight probationary employees and nine tenured career employees receiving termination notices. Dozens more who signed the declaration were suspended without pay for two weeks, according to the American Federation of Government Employees.

Justin Chen, president of AFGE Council 238, which represents EPA employees, said the firings of these employees added to a “brain drain” at EPA, on top of other workforce losses stemming from the deferred resignation program (DRP) and other actions from the Trump administration this year.

“These were subject matter experts — extremely talented people who were working on behalf of the American public to protect them,” Chen said in an interview. “The loss of these people will be felt for quite some time. And honestly, the intent of this action is to put a chilling effect on the rest of the civil service.”

A termination notice delivered to one of the EPA employees shows that in response to concerns of free speech and whistleblower protection violations, the agency’s general counsel office stated that it believed the issues raised “do not outweigh the seriousness of your offense.”

“The Agency is not required to tolerate actions from its employees that undermine the Agency’s decisions, interfere with the Agency’s operations and mission, and the efficient fulfillment of the Agency’s responsibilities to the public,” the termination letter reads. “You hold a trust-sensitive position that requires sound judgement and alignment with the Agency’s communication strategies.”

Despite the employee having a high performance rating and a lack of disciplinary history, the termination letter stated that “the serious nature of your misconduct outweighs all mitigating factors.”

“I also considered that you took no responsibility for your conduct, which reflects a lack of acknowledgment of the seriousness of your actions and raises concerns about your ability to exercise sound judgment and undermines your potential for rehabilitation,” the letter reads.

In August, EPA leadership also canceled all its collective bargaining agreements and told its unions it would no longer recognize them. The decision came after an appeals court allowed agencies to move forward with implementing President Donald Trump’s March executive order to terminate union contracts at a majority of federal agencies.

“If we still had our collective bargaining rights, none of this would have happened in the first place. We would have immediately filed grievances,” Chen said. “[With the MSPB appeal] our hope is that these employees get everything back — that they will have full reinstatement and full back pay.”

The post Fired EPA employees challenge agency, alleging free speech violations first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Interview transcript: 

Terry Gerton Virginia Tech has just launched a generative AI training program. Tell us about what the program is and why you decided to start it now.

Jamie Cogbill Okay, great. Well, this partnership between Virginia Tech and Amazon Web Services is really about preparing the next generation of national security leaders for an AI-driven world. As one of our nation’s six senior military colleges, Virginia Tech has had the chance to pilot AWS’s new generative AI training, which is the first of its kind, before it’s rolled out to nationwide, or at least to the other senior military colleges. It directly supports the recent White House call to make senior military colleges hubs of AI research and talent development. And our cadets are already finding it incredibly valuable training as they prepare to lead in a defense environment that’s rapidly being transformed by artificial intelligence.

Terry Gerton There’s a lot of AI courses out there. What sets this collaboration apart? What’s unique in terms of content or focus or tools?

Jamie Cogbill Okay. Well, this is the first generative AI training program of its kind offered specifically at senior military colleges. And it directly supports the recent White House AI Action Plan, which was released last July, which calls on senior military colleges to become hubs of AI talent and innovation. And our cadets are getting hands-on experience with the same AI tools and problem solving approaches that are being used in real defense and intelligence missions.

Terry Gerton You mentioned cadets a couple of times here. For folks who may not know that Virginia Tech has a Corps of Cadets, tell us a little bit about that and how many cadets are actually taking the course.

Jamie Cogbill Okay. So yes, Virginia Tech is, as I mentioned, is one of six senior military colleges, which means that they have a Corps of Cadets, just like Virginia Military Institute or the Citadel, or our closest comparison is Texas A&M. There’s currently close to 1,400 cadets in the Corps of Cadets at Virginia Tech. But for this first pilot, it was offered to a total of about 75 students, and the intent was that at least half of them be cadets. And in this case, it was. We had about 38 total cadets that participated in the program.

Terry Gerton And who filled the other seats?

Jamie Cogbill The other seats were mostly people who are affiliated with Virginia Tech’s National Security Institute, which is a hub for defense-related research, but also for preparing future national security leaders here at Virginia Tech. And so the advertisement went out to both cadets and to the students who are affiliated with the Virginia Tech’s National Security Institute.

Terry Gerton It sounds like you didn’t have any trouble filling the seats. What does that tell you about the interest in this topic from future military and civilian defense leaders?

Jamie Cogbill There’s definitely a huge interest and our cadets who I talked to after the training just found it to be very valuable for them with just learning about AI in general, because they know it’s going to be an important part of their future careers, but also learning how to use it more effectively through effective prompt engineering and other methods that they learned throughout the training.

Terry Gerton Talk to us about some of the specific defense AI applications that you’re covering in this course. We all think about Chat GPT and Copilot, but how are those topics specifically coming across in defense-related issues?

Jamie Cogbill That’s a great question. And I don’t know the exact answer to that, but I can say that it’s teaching the core Amazon Gen AI services, which is something they call Amazon Bedrock, which Department of Defense has partnered with Amazon Web Services in a lot of ways, so it’s likely already using some of these AWS services. And so some of the people who are participating in the training will likely go into defense- or national security-related careers and already be expected to use or quickly learn how to use AWS software and AI tools. But I think the big takeaway is just learning AI in general, which is clearly going to be part of their future in national security and defense.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Jamie Cogbill. He’s the deputy director of the Defense Civilian Training Corps at Virginia Tech’s National Security Institute. Well, we talk a lot about AI on this program and all of its different applications. One thing we do know about it is it’s powerful but it’s also risky. So in this kind of training, how are you preparing students not just to use the tools, but to really lead responsibly with AI when the risks could be pretty high?

Jamie Cogbill I don’t have specifics about how this training addressed those kind of risks. I haven’t taken the course myself. It was Amazon Web Services who provided it. Talking to my cadets, I think it was a pretty intense curriculum. They did have two different instructor-led sessions, both four hour sessions, and each session was about three hours of content and an hour lab. And then they had a final competitive kind of gamified lab at the end. It was another four hour session where they practiced with real world challenges and in using AI. So I would assume that some of the training in the instructor-led portions was related to the risks of using AI, how to avoid hallucinations that AI can provide. And but also, in the Department of Defense, a key thing is ensuring the use of responsible AI, or RAI as they call it. And so I imagine that was also covered in the curriculum.

Terry Gerton This is cohort one this fall, first time you’ve rolled out the course. What do you think happens next? Where does it go from here?

Jamie Cogbill So we’re hoping that, and this is partially up to Amazon Web Services, but AWS is actively exploring how to scale the program for our spring semester here at Virginia Tech, potentially bringing it back in the spring, but also for 2026 in general. AWS originally intended to expand this training to all six senior military colleges across the country. And I think the success here at Virginia Tech with the pilot proved that our cadets and probably other cadets across the nation are eager to learn and ready to lead in the AI space. And we’re hoping that it set the standard for what other programs could look like.

Terry Gerton Well, always in a pilot there are lots of lessons learned in the process. What do you at Virginia Tech and Amazon take away in terms of needing to improve or broaden the program as you tried it out?

Jamie Cogbill Well, I think as you mentioned earlier, I think the demand is there. So if we can scale it up even here at Virginia Tech and and offer it to more than just 75 cadets and students. But I think that the big takeaway is really that partnerships like this are essential. And AI is changing the nature of national security. And we need to ensure our future military and civilian leaders can lead confidently in that environment. And I think this program shows how academia, industry and government can come together to make that happen.

Terry Gerton AI is such a fast changing space. How do you imagine that the curriculum might have to adjust even from one semester to the next just to stay current?

Jamie Cogbill Absolutely. And I’m sure the folks at AWS are right there on the cusp of all that change. And so my guess is that they are constantly updating their curriculum to keep pace with that.

Terry Gerton Are you hearing from senior leaders in the Department of Defense about how they view the program and what their hopes for it are?

Jamie Cogbill So far, no, not directly. My guess is at the senior levels at AWS, they are talking to senior leaders in the Department of Defense and potentially at the most senior levels of our government, since it was a key goal of the White House AI Action Plan to offer this type of training.

The post Virginia Tech and Amazon Web Services are teaming up to train the next generation of national security leaders in generative AI first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network