Defense technology companies broadly agree on what secure software looks like. Less consistent, though, is industry-wide understanding of the Defense Department’s mechanisms for demonstrating security compliance. Instead, stakeholders generally see a lack of “consistent and standardized methods for attestation processes,” according to recent industry feedback.

A new summary document released by Acting DoD CIO Katie Arrington compiled and analyzed industry responses to three separate DoD requests for information on advancing and securing software for the federal government.

“Overall, there was a strong call for the DoW to define a legitimate attestation, identify what is required to complete an attestation, and to ensure consistency of these standards across the DoW,” the document states. “Additional hurdles such as resource constraints, difficulties managing supply chain opacity, and cultural barriers further underscore the intricacies of enforcing a robust secure software development practice.”

In response to the DoD CIO’s requests for information under the office’s recently launched Software Fast Track Initiative, industry overwhelmingly pointed to established cybersecurity frameworks such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Secure Software Development Framework and the widely used Open Worldwide Application Security Project standards for managing software and supply-chain risk. More than 75% of respondents said they rely on NIST’s secure software framework, which aligns with DoD’s approach to software security and risk management.

But companies told Pentagon IT leadership that uncertainty around compliance remains a major obstacle. Vendors said it is unclear what qualifies as a valid attestation, what documentation must be included in a body of evidence, how often attestations are required and whether companies are allowed to self-attest to security practices or must rely on third-party assessments. Since NIST’s secure software guidance is designed as a framework rather than a checklist, vendors warned that compliance is open to interpretation and risks inconsistent application across the department.

Arrington announced the Software Fast Track, or SWFT Initiative, in April with the aim to reform the ways DoD buys, tests and authorizes secure software. Arrington has argued that the Pentagon’s existing processes for approving software are too slow. Since returning to the Pentagon in March in acting CIO capacity, she has pushed to overhaul the department’s legacy processes for buying software, namely the Risk Management Framework (RMF) and the authority to operate (ATO) approval process. She previously said she is “blowing up the RMF” and that she hopes ATOs are “something I never hear about again.”

The SWFT effort intends to shift away from rigid checklist processes toward dynamic, continuous authorization to operate. To inform the shift, the CIO office issued three requests for information asking vendors for insights around tools in use, external assessment methodologies, and how automation and artificial intelligence could help the department accelerate secure software adoption.

Not only did the first RFI, focused on Software Fast Track tools, reveal that companies are concerned about inconsistent attestation requirements, responses also flagged challenges with integrating the secure software framework into existing workflows. 

“The amount of evidence required for NIST SP 800-218 compliance would likely require automation and integration of multiple tools within existing infrastructure. Similarly, integrating manual documentation and effort into existing logical processes and workflows could be challenging,” the Software Fast Track RFI summary reads. 

At the same time, about 90% of respondents said they would provide software bills of materials — detailed inventories of the components used to build a software product — to the department. Most said those SBOMs would cover their own software.

Nearly all companies said they already perform software risk assessments and would provide DoD officials with risk assessments artifacts. Most said those artifacts are generated through automated tools, and the majority made clear “their willingness to provide these artifacts in an efficient manner through standardized formats and secure exchange processes.”

To that end, companies recommended allowing vendors to submit artifacts directly into DoD platforms such as Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service (eMASS) through application programming interfaces to expedite software security reviews.

External assessments

Industry respondents said most companies already rely on a mix of internal and external audits to assess software security.

Internal audit functions typically include continuous monitoring, code reviews and regular red-teaming exercises designed to identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Meanwhile, external assessments are often conducted by third-party auditors or independent penetration testers to provide objective validation of a company’s security posture. 

Top compliance regimes include the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, NIST cybersecurity standards and Service Organization Control (SOC), which “further evidences a mature security posture among organizations.”

At the same time, companies stressed that any external assessment functions would require clear guardrails. Respondents said assessment organizations should demonstrate relevant experience in high-security environments, secure data handling methodologies, established quality management and high degree of independence. Moreover, such assessments should be conducted by qualified personnel with industry-recognized certifications and a strong understanding of DoD security frameworks.

Applying automation and AI tools

Industry respondents said automation and artificial intelligence could deliver the biggest gains in speeding DoD software risk assessments, particularly by reducing manual paperwork and enabling continuous monitoring. Companies emphasized that automation and AI serve different purposes, with automation best suited for executing repetitive, rule-based tasks, while AI can “make decisions and learn to perform tasks with a human-like intelligence.”

Companies also warned about significant challenges in applying automation and AI. Vendors cited concerns around AI explainability, data quality and model reliability, noting that authorizing officials must be able to understand how risk determinations are made. 

Arrington said the Software Fast Track Initiative is on track to roll out early next year.

“People that think SWFT wouldn’t happen — joke’s on you. If it wasn’t for the furlough, that would have gone live in the beginning in November. So look in early January,” Arrington said during the Defense Information Systems Agency’s annual Forecast to Industry event on Dec. 8. “Software Fast Track: so you can ingest software and we can get it approved in days, not months and years. Making sure that we have a baseline called eMASS that can make sure that if an ATO is granted, then an ATO is reciprocated. We have the Software Assurance playbook. If anybody doesn’t know about that one, it’s when software has vulnerabilities. We work through them to remediate them, blowing up the RMF. We’re already starting to do it using continuous monitoring, the ten tenants of what it needs to be.”

The post Industry flags DoD’s lack of standardized software attestation processes first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

Lawmakers dropped several incentive pay and quality-of-life reforms for service members and their families from compromise defense policy legislation, including a proposal to expand eligibility for the basic needs allowance by removing basic allowance for housing from income calculations.

Congress first authorized the basic needs allowance in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Bill to address food insecurity among military families. But almost immediately, advocates and lawmakers flagged the program’s major flaw – many lower-income service members didn’t qualify for the stipend due to the inclusion of the basic allowance for housing in income calculations, pushing many families above the program’s eligibility threshold. 

The program had a low participation rate from the start — DoD estimated that there would be about 2,500 people eligible to receive the stipend at a cost of roughly $10 million. Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s own 2023 survey estimated that about one in four service members — or approximately 286,000 troops — struggled with food insecurity. 

The fiscal 2025 defense policy bill proposed expanding eligibility for the basic needs allowance by raising the eligibility threshold from 150% of the poverty line to 200% and excluding basic housing allowance from the calculation of gross household income. While Congress adopted the higher poverty threshold provision, lawmakers dropped the basic housing allowance proposal from the final bill.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the two proposals combined would have expanded BNA eligibility to 61,000 service members and cost the department $260 million in 2025 and $1.4 billion over the 2025-2029 period. 

The Biden administration said at the time that excluding basic housing allowance would “result in a much less targeted expansion of payments and come at a cost of $2.8 billion in FY 2025 that is not provided.”

The House tried to reform the basic needs allowance once again in the 2026 defense policy bill, but the proposal was ultimately stripped from the measure.

In the joint explanatory statement, lawmakers said that “quality of life measures, including increases in allowances, are addressed elsewhere in this Act.”

Lawmakers also rejected a Senate-backed pilot program proposal to provide coupons to junior enlisted service members to purchase food at commissaries. Members of Congress said the Defense Department already maintains “multiple, comprehensive food-security initiatives across the enterprise,” including a department-wide working group and congressionally mandated data collection and reporting requirements.

“These efforts collectively provide a robust framework for assessing and addressing food insecurity among servicemembers and their families, as well as existing annual reporting to Congress,” the lawmakers said. 

Also omitted is a House proposal to permanently expand the Pentagon’s authority to temporarily adjust housing allowance rates in high-cost areas. While Congress has given the department temporary authority to raise basic allowance for housing in places where costs jump by more than 20% in a single year, the authority is too limited to allow DoD to respond to rapid and frequent housing cost increases in many military communities. 

The bill would have lowered the threshold for mid-year temporary BHA increases from 20% to 15% of the overall increase in cost of living from the previous year.

Incentive pay provisions dropped

The House version of the defense policy bill sought to establish a five-year pilot program to assess whether offering incentive pay to enlisted service members with college degrees related to their military specialties would improve retention. Under the program, the department would have paid monthly incentives to enlisted service members with less than four years of service who hold a degree in their military specialty and are committed to reenlisting. 

While the Senate version of the bill contained a similar provision, both proposals were dropped from the final measure.

“We note that the military departments possess broad authorities…to provide special and incentive pays to meet service-specific personnel needs. These authorities enable the military departments to recognize critical skills or qualifications, including academic expertise where appropriate,” the lawmakers said in the joint explanatory statement.

The House also tried to overhaul cyber assignment incentive pay by requiring a standardized, department-wide framework. The proposal would have defined uniform eligibility criteria, established a tiered pay structure based on proficiency levels, ensured pay parity across services and protected incentive pay during permanent change of station moves. The provision was ultimately dropped from the bill.

Reimbursement for specialty care travel expenses

A House-backed proposal sought to increase access to specialty care by lowering the threshold for travel reimbursement for medical appointments from 100 miles to 50 miles. The final version of the bill, however, adopted a 75-mile threshold.

The Senate cleared a key procedural hurdle on Monday, moving the must-pass bill closer to final passage.

The post Lawmakers drop several quality-of-life reforms from final defense policy bill first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

A group of lawmakers found the Pentagon has diverted at least $2 billion intended for barracks repairs, school upgrades for children of service members and training programs to support the southern border mission.

In a report released last week, Democratic members of Congress say the Pentagon redirected funding from a range of military construction and infrastructure projects to support immigration operations, including elementary schools at Fort Knox, a medical and dental facility at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Washington, Marine Corps barracks in Japan and a jet-training facility in Mississippi. 

Funds originally allocated for the now-cancelled jet-training facility at Columbus Air Force Base and overseas barracks were reprogrammed to construct roughly 20 miles of border wall. In total, about $1 billion was shifted from barracks repairs to support border operations. 

The report, based on the Pentagon’s reprogramming requests to Congress and open source information, is the first comprehensive account to date of the known costs associated with using the military for immigration operations.             

In addition to the cost breakdown associated with providing military support to immigration enforcement, the lawmakers warned that military readiness “will suffer as a direct result of diverting” DoD resources for immigration enforcement, arguing that the role is “not consistent with DoD’s mission and that service members have neither signed up nor been trained for.”

For instance, the 10th Mountain Division had recently been trained and certified to conduct large-scale combat operations in a multi-domain operational environment, but hundreds of its soldiers were deployed to the southern border in early 2025, where the division assumed control of the mission. The Army later rotated in the 101st Airborne Division — the service’s only air assault division — to replace the 10th Mountain Division at the border. 

“Instead of standing ready for true national security missions, deployment-ready units are being sent to Texas and other states to control the U.S. southern border in support of [U.S. Customs and Border Protection],” the lawmakers said.

Some of those costs are also intangible, the lawmakers argue. During peak fire season, for example, the California National Guard’s firefighting unit was understaffed due to nearly half its members being deployed to Los Angeles to “protect [ICE] in the execution of their duties,” according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The lawmakers say it is unclear whether the Pentagon has assessed the impacts of shifting these funds and resources on the department’s readiness. The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment on whether such an analysis has ever been conducted.

The cost of military involvement in immigration enforcement

President Donald Trump has pushed to expand the military’s role in immigration enforcement since taking office, including by deploying National Guard and active-duty troops to the southern border and U.S. cities; transferring federal land along the border to DoD control; conducting military deportation flights; permitting the detention of noncitizens on military installations within the U.S. and overseas; and allowing military lawyers to serve as immigration judges.

The lawmakers found that approximately $1.3 billion — the largest share of the diverted funds — was used to pay for the deployment of troops to the southern border. 

“Many of these troops at the border may be doing little more than ‘standing around.’ Yet their presence has not been cheap: earlier this year, DoD’s own data showed it was spending an estimated $5.3 million per day on its border operations,” the lawmakers said. 

More than $420 million was redirected to support immigration detention operations on U.S. military installations and at overseas bases, including Guantánamo Bay in Cuba and Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti.

The Trump administration began detaining noncitizens at Fort Bliss, an Army post in Texas, in August. By September, the department had spent more than $363 million to support the Fort Bliss Montana Avenue facility in El Paso and a related Customs and Border Protection processing center. The facility initially opened with about 1,000 beds, with plans to expand its capacity to 5,000 by 2027 at an estimated cost of up to $1.2 billion. ICE’s detention oversight unit found the unfinished facility was already in violation of at least 60 federal immigrant detention standards, according to the report.

The lawmakers also found that the department diverted at least $40.3 million to pay for military flights used to deport noncitizens, which are a lot more costly to operate than civilian aircraft. While it costs $28,500 an hour to fly a C-17, which was used to conduct deportation flights, a flight contracted by the Department of Homeland Security costs $8,500 an hour. 

By the end of September, the Trump administration had conducted at least 88 deportation stops along 63 flight routes using military aircraft.

“Before this administration, military aircraft appear to have never been used for deportations,” the lawmakers said. 

In addition, the report found that domestic deployments of National Guard and active-duty troops to Los Angeles; Portland, Oregon; Memphis, Tennessee; and Chicago cost at least $258 million.

“As the number of mobilizations grows, so will the financial costs of paying, transporting, housing, feeding, and equipping troops — as well as the mounting personal costs to the individuals who serve in their state National Guards, and to their families. These servicemembers are being pulled from their homes, families, and civilian jobs for indefinite periods of time to support legally questionable political stunts,” the lawmakers said.

Hegseth also approved a plan to detail up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department as temporary immigration judges earlier this year — an effort aimed at easing a backlog of roughly 3.5 million cases that has grown in recent years.

While the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion advising the Justice Department to reimburse the Defense Department for military lawyers serving as temporary immigration judges, it is unclear whether DoJ has begun the process.

The lawmakers said the information obtained for this report “confirms that the vast majority of these DoD funds have not been reimbursed to date — even though DHS recently received an unprecedented influx of $170 billion, giving ICE a budget bigger than any other law enforcement agency in the United States and bigger than many countries’ militaries.”

“Allowing DHS to continue to pick DoD’s pockets puts our military readiness at risk,” the lawmakers said.

While the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill fully funds deployments of National Guard and active-duty troops to support the southwest border mission, the Defense Department is forced to divert funding from other military accounts in the meantime. The defense policy bill also fully funds the establishment and enforcement of National Defense Areas along the southwest border and authorizes the department to provide additional support to CBP through the use of private contractors.

The post Pentagon diverted over $2 billion from barracks, schools to fund border mission first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Identity, credential and access management, a foundational pillar of zero trust, centers on three key elements: widespread use of phishing-resistant multifactor authentication, elimination of unnecessary administrative privileges and continuous monitoring and authorization. 

Tony Goulding, cyber evangelist at Delinea, said one area where agencies are seeing the most success is deploying phishing-resistant MFA.

The Office of Management and Budget’s M-22-09 memo and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s accompanying guidance expect agencies to use phishing-resistant multifactor authentication whenever possible. 

While CISA’s guidance is somewhat flexible, emphasizing that “any form of MFA is better than no MFA,” it still reinforces that phishing-resistant methods should be the end goal for ICAM and zero trust.

“In a perfect world, and really aligning with the spirit and the direction of OMB as well as CISA, it means that you’ve really got to try hard to get this MFA in place,” Goulding said during Federal News Network’s Industry Exchange Cloud 2025.

Making progress on multifactor authentication

But some applications and use cases simply cannot support phishing-resistant MFA, particularly older systems that were never designed to accommodate hardware tokens, he pointed out. Temporary contractors also pose hurdles since agencies often cannot easily issue full Personal Identity Verification or Common Access Card credentials.

And in other cases — including legacy environments or remote devices — the technical limitations make deploying modern authentication methods challenging.

“Those are scenarios where organizations are employing, pretty much across the board, a migration plan to replace or migrate their applications and their systems to more modern systems that can accommodate fishing-resistant MFA. Of course, there’s an element of cost and logistics in doing that because you’re going to have to spend money to do it. You’re going to have to update processes. But it is a path that the majority of the organizations that we deal with are actually taking,” Goulding said. 

Doing away with excessive access privileges

The second key element of ICAM — eliminating standing administrative privileges — is forcing agencies to reevaluate the thousands of high-privileged accounts scattered across their networks. Privileged identities, often created out of convenience, represent one of the most exploited attack vectors, Goulding said.

Many organizations, particularly those running Linux and Unix environments where the administrators create local privileged accounts, typically have full privileges and are rarely monitored, making them a prime target for attackers, he said.

“The first step is eliminating those that are unnecessary and then allowing the administrator to use their existing identity. They may have an ID account, for example, that becomes the only account that they will use, and it needs to have minimum rights,” Goulding said. “The third thing is that you then give them the ability to elevate their privileges when they need to elevate their privileges for a legitimate administrative purpose.”

He added, “Those are three of the key things that we’re seeing agencies make tremendous strides in deploying.”

Embracing real-time continuous monitoring

The final must do, Goulding pointed out, is continuous monitoring and authorization. Admittedly, this remains a persistent challenge across the agencies, he said.

“No more point-in-time checks — you want to move more toward evidence-driven, ongoing verification,” Goulding said.

“We’ve actually been very successful in enabling our customers, both agencies and commercial, because our solution generates a stream of identity and access and privileged access signals. Things like elevation request: Elevation is important because if you’re doing least privilege, then you’ve got to give legitimate administrators the ability to elevate privilege just in time — when it’s necessary to do that.”

Session recording — long considered valuable but rarely used due to lack of staff to review recordings — is another area where monitoring is evolving. Goulding said artificial intelligence now allows agencies to automatically scan session recordings on Linux and Windows systems, flagging unusual behavior such as if shadow accounts are created or attempts are made to add additional privileges to a low-privileged, compromised account.

“These session recordings are gold, but they’re never actually reviewed. So automation can really help in making sure that that happens,” he said.

Looking ahead, Goulding warned agencies about “not falling into the trap of trying to cherry pick best-of-breed parts of a solution.” Instead, he recommended that agency teams embrace modern cloud-native software as a service platforms that can scale, update and integrate easily.

Discover more articles and videos now on our Industry Exchange Cloud 2025 event page.

The post Industry Exchange Cloud 2025: Delinea’s Tony Goulding on how to achieve 3 pillars of ICAM first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

Service members will see a 4.2% average increase in their basic allowance for housing in 2026 — a smaller boost than the 5.4% increase they received in 2024 and 2025. 

But the actual increases military households will receive will vary depending largely on where they are stationed and their pay grades. While the increase is higher in some areas, the rates decrease in several areas, including Phoenix, Arizona, and Brownsville, Texas. Service members stationed in areas where rates go down are protected and get to keep their existing BAH. 

Look up your 2026 BAH rate here.

The Defense Department calculates the annual rates based on surveys of rental costs and utilities in each market. Data sources include Census Bureau surveys, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index, commercial subscription rental cost databases, major online rental listing websites, and input from the services and local installation housing offices.

The calculation of the allowance is built to cover approximately 95% of average costs for an off-base housing and utilities, leaving roughly a 5% out-of-pocket expense for service members. In 2026, these amounts range from $93 to $212. 

Since the annual rates are based on 2025 data, they may not fully reflect rapid increases in actual rental costs.

The new housing allowance rates will take effect Jan. 1, 2026.

The department estimates it will pay $29.9 billion in housing allowances to approximately one million service members in 2026.

Basic Allowance for Housing is one of the largest components of cash compensation for service members, second only to basic pay. The fiscal 2026 defense policy bill, passed by the House on Wednesday, requires the Defense Department to “conduct a study to improve the calculation of BAH to ensure it keeps up with rising rental costs.” The bill also extends the Defense Department’s authority to issue temporary increases to BAH for one more year in areas hit by disasters or where housing costs differ from current rates by more than 20%.

The 2026 BAH increase comes as service members are also poised to receive a pay raise — the legislation approved a 3.8% increase in basic pay for service members. The must-pass legislation now heads to the Senate. The bill will then go to President Donald Trump for his signature. 

In 2023, BAH rates went up an average of 12.1% after housing costs had spiked the previous year.

The post Service members are set to receive a 4.2% boost in housing allowance in 2026 first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Amelia Brust/Federal News Network

For months, congressional leaders have been working to deliver what they have described as “the most significant acquisition reforms in a generation.” But several key provisions — including measures on pricing transparency, oversight of major programs and Other Transaction Authorities — were ultimately dropped from the final version of the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill.

Both the House and Senate sought to close the loophole that allows companies to submit cost and pricing data after contract price is agreed upon. 

The House version of the defense bill included a provision that would prohibit contractors from using cost or pricing data that is more than 30 days old as a defense against defective pricing allegations. Lawmakers backing the proposal said it would “empower the Defense Department to enter into contracts with sufficient pricing information.”

The Senate version of the bill contained a similar provision, but both proposals were removed from the final bill. 

Instead, lawmakers directed DoD officials to examine whether late disclosures of cost or pricing data is a systemic problem and recommend ways to fix it. 

“We note that the sweeps process under the Truth in Negotiations Act is a post-price agreement review requiring contractors to disclose any updated cost or pricing data in their possession for certification before contract award. We are aware of concerns that contractors may not be providing disclosures of cost or pricing data in their possession prior to a price agreement, opting to disclose such data only after agreement and immediately before contract award,” the lawmakers said in the joint explanatory statement. “This practice may result in upward adjustments to contract pricing without providing time for sufficient review due to factors such as the expiration of funds or urgent military needs for the products or services.” 

House-led efforts to rein in cost overruns and strengthen oversight of major defense acquisition programs were also blocked during the conference process. The proposal would have accelerated the Pentagon’s reporting timeline, requiring the department to alert Congress within 30 days of any significant or critical cost overruns.

Also omitted is a House proposal to curb the outsized influence of tech giants over the cloud computing and artificial intelligence defense contracting spaces. The measure would have directed DoD to ensure there is a competitive award process when procuring cloud computing, data infrastructure and AI capabilities.

OTA reforms 

While other transactions are intended to move innovative technologies out of the lab and into production, lawmakers said it remains unclear how often these agreements actually lead to follow-on production contracts. 

But a House proposal that would have required Pentagon officials to provide a report on detailing use of follow-on agreements made under Other Transaction Authorities between 2022 and 2025 did not make it into the bill.

Instead, the Government Accountability Office was directed to conduct a review of how OTAs are used, including whether follow-on agreements deliver long-term capability.

The House also sought to require large OTA-funded projects to follow the same oversight rules as major defense acquisition programs, but that proposal was ultimately dropped from the final bill as well.

Small business and workforce provisions left out

A House provision aimed at expanding opportunities for veteran-owned small businesses was stripped from the bill — the measure would have required DoD to set annual contracting goals for small businesses owned by veterans. Moreover, it would have allowed the Pentagon to use noncompetitive procedures when awarding certain contracts to veterans.

“We note that veteran-owned small businesses are an important part of the defense industrial base and we encourage the Secretary of Defense to continue supporting veteran-owned small businesses,” the lawmakers said.

The House’s proposal to create a standardized Schedule V for reporting veteran employment and retention data across all DoD contracts and grants was also dropped from the final bill.

Another House provision would have required the department to ensure contractors are meeting the federal 7% disability hiring requirement.

Portfolio management reforms

While the move to a more portfolio-centric approach to acquisition is a feature of the defense policy bill, negotiators dropped a Senate proposal to establish “capstone requirements” for future portfolio acquisition executives. The shift in strategy for defining needs aimed to improve speed and innovation by revising programs in consultation with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.  

The House also tried to address DoD’s longstanding high turnover in key acquisition leadership roles by requiring a six-year minimum assignment for bosses formerly known as program executive officers, but the effort failed to advance. Instead, the final bill directs the Pentagon to brief Congress next year on “actions taken to strengthen stability in program management and tenure for critical acquisition positions.”

Legislators did endorse the spirit of the foiled measure.

“Stable, milestone-aligned tenure is essential to program continuity, accountability, and cost and schedule performance. Short-term assignments can incentivize short-sighted decision-making by officials who will not be present to manage long-term consequences,” they said. “Longer tenure strengthens accountability by ensuring that the same leaders who initiate major acquisition decisions remain responsible for their execution and outcomes. Frequent rotations disrupt long-term planning, erode institutional knowledge, and hinder the Department’s ability to deliver capabilities to the warfighter on time and within budget.” 

The House passed the annual defense bill on Wednesday. The legislation now heads to the Senate.

The post Here are key acquisition reforms dropped from the 2026 NDAA first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/Mika Makelainen

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.

© 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.

© Staff Sgt. Tracy Smith

The Pentagon’s plan to fix its decades-old material weaknesses — its inability to reliably track government property in the possession of contractors — is failing, a new inspector general evaluation finds.

The Pentagon IG concluded that the department’s corrective action plan — which calls on DoD components to use a software application called the Government Furnished Property Module within the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment — has stalled due to a lack of enforcement from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and slow adoption by the military services.

Auditors warn that if DoD components don’t implement the GFP module, the department risks missing its goal of achieving a clean audit opinion by 2028.

“The implementation of that GFP module is the key to getting this to work,” Mark Thomas, DoD IG’s supervisory auditor, told Federal News Network.

One of the technical challenges, Thomas said, is that each military service uses its own accountable property system of record, or APSR, to track government assets in the hands of contractors. The office of the secretary of defense, however, wants the services to connect their systems to the GFP module.  

“That is something that the components have not been able to do yet. They’re still working to implement that. Each of the components has corrective action dates for that that are still into the future,” Thomas said. 

“The goal would be to complete everything by 2028, preferably before 2028 so that the auditors, as they come in to do the work, that control environment has been established and been working before the auditors come in and start to do some of the work. That would be the best way to do it,” he added.

But some of the timelines to remediate this weakness stretch beyond the 2028 deadline. 

“Unless there’s a change in those dates, then they’ll be at risk for missing the deadline,” Thomas said. 

Each military service has its own reasons for lagging in implementing the department-wide solution, but most of those reasons center around the same issue — every component is grappling with its own longstanding material weakness in accounting for government property in the possession of contractors. 

“They have their own systems which differ from component to component. So they have their own technical challenges and how their particular system in the Air Force functions and how it accounts for property versus how the Navy does it. Each group is kind of working on their own technical challenges and how they’re going to report this into their own APSR — they are busy doing that and they’re actively trying to clean that up so that they can all get opinions on their financial statements,” Thomas said. 

But the IG found that this component-level focus has come at the expense of the broader, department-wide effort. 

Thomas said the services have been receptive to adapting the department-wide solution, but each faces a number of technical challenges connecting their systems to the GFP module. 

“They understand the importance of it, and they understand what this really would give us if there is a functioning GFP module across the department. This would really give the department a larger bird’s eye view of all of the property that they have in the possession of contractors. And it would provide that enterprise level look and ability to tell we have so much property at contractor x,” Thomas said. 

Meanwhile, DoD leaders have not mandated the use of the GFP module, which is stalling the department’s efforts to remediate this material weakness. The audit found that the OSD could be “more forceful” in recommending and implementing the department-wide solution.

“They need to be more direct in saying that we will use this module, all the components will use this module. That was one of the areas that we thought was weak, that the department could improve their messaging, and they could improve to be more direct and require the use of this module,” Thomas said.

The post DoD’s plan to track contractor-held property is failing, putting 2028 audit goal at risk first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

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

The federal offices are back open and hundreds of thousands of federal workers have returned to work after the longest shutdown in history. But nothing is back to normal — federal workers say morale and trust in leadership are at an all-time low, tensions are high between furloughed staff and those who worked through the shutdown, schedules are slipping and projects are being pushed back, and more people are accelerating their retirement plans or leaving federal service altogether.

The recent shutdown, however, has just exacerbated the existing problems and added to what federal workers described as an already extremely trying year for the federal workforce. 

“As if morale wasn’t already non-existent, it sure is now. I expect a surge of people to (quiet) quit and I expect the remaining players to be bombarded with work with no support or guidance from leadership,” one employee told Federal News Network. 

“The mission is dead. Operations are barely running. Morale is toast,” another federal worker said. 

“Everything about being a federal employee in 2025 has destroyed workforce morale — from constant [reduction-in-force] threats, to losing colleagues to early/forced retirements and firings, to the loss of any telework to facilitate work/life balance for working parents or senior caregivers, this is the worst professional year I have experienced in nearly 20 years of service to my country. Nothing about the current [Office of Management and Budget] approach to leadership has moved our country forward,” another employee said.

A Federal News Network survey, conducted online between Nov. 17-30, asked federal workers what it has been like going back to work after the 43-day government shutdown. Survey respondents were self-selected, and they self-reported information to verify their status as current federal employees.

Federal workers described the experience as disorienting — returning to thousands of unanswered emails and scrambling to catch up with partners who kept work moving during the shutdown. There was little to no guidance from top management; they reported overwhelming backlogs and project schedules going completely awry.

Many said overloaded or outdated IT systems, lapsed system access and computer issues made even basic tasks difficult.

“IT issues as devices are set to expire and become inactive after 30 days of non-use, supervisory chain is still not back to work and others are catching up on leave. There are large gaps within the higher chain of command, tremendous amount of confusion, no clear description of how to verify back pay and related deductions are accurate, statutory deadlines did not stop during the shutdown, so crushing workload to return to,” one employee said on Nov. 24. 

“It is not so simple as flipping a switch. We are still waiting on funds to arrive and are unable to work on things until those funds arrive,” another federal worker said on Nov. 18. 

“I engage in very technical work. A 1.5-month shutdown has thoroughly derailed my train of thought. It will take a long time to refamiliarize myself with what issues were being sorted out, what solutions I had been pursuing, even how any of my own code works,” another employee said. 

Several federal workers said their agencies could face budget cuts due to not hitting mandatory spending benchmarks — goals that are “impossible to achieve” after a 40-plus day lapse in appropriations.

In addition, many employees now have to use their “use-or-lose” annual leave before the end of the year, which will further delay progress and extend timelines.

Nearly 1,500 people responded to the survey. Out of 739 federal workers who responded to this question, nearly 47% of respondents said it would take them more than two weeks to catch up on all the work missed during the shutdown.

“My program was halted immediately, but will take two months to ramp back up,” one worker said. 

“Can you really ever catch up? Some work will just be lost — deprioritized in the chaos,” another federal employee said. 

And the threat of another shutdown is looming — the bill President Donald Trump signed into law keeps the government open only through Jan. 30. The uncertainty, workers say, is making people reluctant to fully dive back into work. 

“With holidays coming, this will set projects back months,” one employee said. 

Federal employees who worked during the shutdown also expressed “apathy and annoyance” toward furloughed employees who did not work during the shutdown, saying the resentment has led to conflicts and made collaboration difficult. 

“Expect operations to be negatively affected as the furlough has driven a wedge between those furloughed employees and those who remained on the job,” one federal employee said.

Receiving back pay

Most of the federal workers worked without pay during the shutdown, missing more than four weeks of pay. 

When the government reopened on Nov. 13, the Office of Personnel Management said it would take several business days for workers to get their back pay.

Out of 728 individuals, 200 federal workers — about 27.5% — said they received their back pay within one-to-three days after returning to work. Another 200 said they were paid within four-to-seven days. For the remaining 323 individuals, it took more than a week to receive their back pay.

Many employees told Federal News Network that there was a lot of confusion about how to process timesheets and guidance changed a few times the first two days, which had contributed to the delay in issuing our pay.

“Smithsonian still has not managed to get us paid. They are wasting time making sure everyone has the correct time codes rather than getting people paid. It’s more important to them that they take a couple weeks to record we were furloughed. Can’t pay the mortgage, but at least they’ll have the correct time code,” one employee said on Nov. 22.

One Interior Department employee told Federal News Network on Dec. 1 the agency had only paid them for 72 hours worked during the shutdown and had promised the remainder by Nov. 25 — they are still waiting on that payment. They added that none of the 69 civilian employees at the U.S. Park Police have been fully paid. Sworn officers, however, received a flat 80 hours per pay period, and while overtime and night-differential corrections were made, it’s not clear if that pay had been issued. 

“We have not heard anything about when we will be paid beyond the deadline that passed a week ago, no reason has been provided to explain the delay,” the employee said. “I will be retiring early. While not the only reason, the recent hijinks played a role in my decision.”

One employee at INTERPOL Washington told Federal News Network on Dec. 1 that personnel there have received only partial back pay and some employees have only received pay for one pay period. The issue stems from the Justice Department’s decision to dismantle INTERPOL Washington and fold its remaining functions into the U.S. Marshals Service during the shutdown — while making changes in the pay system while payroll processing was underway.

The workers were initially told they would receive all of their back pay on Nov. 21, but instead received partial pay on Nov. 24. DOJ then promised the rest by Nov. 28, but only a handful of people were paid over that weekend. The agency now says it has finally identified the problem and that employees should be paid by Dec. 3.

“Every time that the DOJ claims to find a solution and puts another date out for when we should get paid, there is just another disappointment,” the INTERPOL Washington employee said.

Another Air Force civilian at Lackland Air Force Base, who was told they would be paid last week, is still waiting for their back pay now nearly three weeks after the shutdown ended. On Monday, they were told that “the comptroller squadron is working diligently to manually process over 3,000 timecards with an estimated completion date of Nov. 29.” 

For many of those who received back pay, determining whether the amount was correct was nearly impossible. 

Dozens of respondents said they were unsure if their payments were accurate because agencies did not issue accompanying paystubs for the affected pay periods. Several employees said since payroll providers such as the Defense Finance and Accounting Service do not provide leave and earnings statements for retroactive pay, meaning they will have to wait for the next pay period to verify whether the amount is correct.

“It seems to be off by a few hundred dollars, but I can’t determine where the discrepancy is,” one federal worker said on Nov. 26. 

“We don’t know since it was a partial payment with no documentation,” another respondent said on Nov. 24. 

“Many people at work say that their paychecks were less due to taxes on lump sum payouts,” another respondent said on Nov. 25.

More feds eyeing the exit

Federal workers were already overwhelmed, stretched thin and struggling with high levels of anxiety following the Trump administration’s push to reduce the size of the federal workforce. Now, the shutdown is pushing even more people out the door. 

Out of 758 federal workers, 329 respondents — about 43.4% — said that the shutdown made them reconsider staying in federal service.

Many said they are actively looking for an out, while for others the shutdown reinforced their decision to retire

“It is so untenable that I plan to quit in the next month or so. The situation has gotten even worse since returning,” one employee said.

“The shutdown did solidify that I will retire the first date I can,” a federal worker said.

“I have dedicated 20 years to serving my country, including service in the U.S. Army. It’s pretty thankless to be a federal civilian employee now. I used to encourage my children to pursue a similar career but now I am encouraging them to stay away from federal service,” another employee said. 

Financial, mental health toll

More than half of federal employees — 58% of respondents — reported experiencing financial challenges during the shutdown, and nearly a third said they struggled to pay bills. Over 51% of federal workers said they had to rely on credit cards, loans or emergency savings to pay their bills, while 14% reported missing rent, mortgage or other payments. About 10% of federal workers said they needed outside assistance, such as food banks and relief programs. But notably, nearly 62% said the shutdown impacted their mental health.

Several respondents said they dipped into retirement accounts or cleared out emergency savings to stay afloat, while others reported delaying Christmas shopping, postponing home repairs or borrowing from family members to cover basic needs. Younger workers and those in single-income households were hit especially hard.

And while some said they were fortunate enough to have savings or a second household income, many still described the experience as deeply destabilizing. 

“Fortunately, we are a two-income, no-child household and good savers. But I did give a monetary gift to a colleague who is in a much more tenuous situation,” a federal worker said.

“I requested a skip loan payment on my car since I could without fees. I have paid for things out of savings and since I’m a bit older I can do that, but I’m depleting savings still as I continue to not be paid,” one employee said.

“Outsiders calling it a ‘free vacation’ don’t understand the effects the shutdown has on furloughed staff,” another employee said. 

 Workers described experiencing “constant dread and worry,” “incredible stress and anxiety” and “the feeling of absolutely no protections.”

“It was very stressful. I had to take a part-time job,” one employee said. 

Ultimately, one worker said, the impacts were “cruel and petty and proved to be irrelevant to either side achieving their stated goals.”

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 ‘The mission is dead’: Federal workers say the shutdown made an ‘extremely trying year’ worse first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

A new forecast projects that defense spending will keep rising through 2035, while civilian agencies face years of flat or shrinking budgets, continued cuts and growing pressure to scale back. 

The Professional Services Council’s latest federal market forecast, compiled with input from more than 400 industry volunteers and subject-matter experts, predicts that in an environment where legislative logjam is likely to persist, defense spending will continue rising at roughly 2% annually after its first $1 trillion budget in fiscal 2026 — a one-time spike driven by reconciliation —  while cuts will “continue to fall disproportionately on civil agencies until elections change the balance of power.”

“What this means in practical terms is that the fiscal environment for the next decade will be tight, competitive, highly dependent on supplemental funding, reconciliation and prone to crisis-driven appropriations. Base budgets alone will struggle to drive new initiatives, especially on the non-defense side. In this environment, as one of our interviewees suggested, it’s best to keep your customers close and your congressional supporters and lobbyists closer,” Mike Riley, a volunteer for PSC’s Vision Federal Market Forecast told reporters last week.

In the defense space, PSC volunteers said their discussions with defense stakeholders revealed a shift, or “strategic realignment,” in the Pentagon’s priorities. While the Indo-Pacific Command remains of “elevated importance,” the Northern Command and Southern Command are gaining new emphasis as the department puts greater focus on homeland, border security and expands its presence in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

“This year was a bit of an interesting year for us. A lot of defense folks acknowledge the growing importance under this administration, but also a lot of consternation about the directions the administration might be going and just kind of the lack of clarity. There’s some continuing trends — deterring China, integrated deterrence, that pivot to the Pacific — that’s an ongoing thing that didn’t change from the previous administration. Of course, border security, the Department finds itself in an uncomfortable position,” Jason Dombrowski, a volunteer for PSC’s Vision Federal Market Forecast, said.

“They are getting a little bit more heavily involved in domestic politics than they would otherwise prefer to. Certainly, they always reiterated their intent to be responsive to the commander in chief. But historically, of course, the American military has tried to avoid a domestic role,” he added.

The department is also placing greater emphasis on the Golden Dome missile defense system, shipbuilding and munitions under this administration.

“I think everyone’s been paying attention to the news that there has been some very notable plus ups and focuses of this administration, most notably around shipbuilding, but also to include things like nuclear modernization, which in previous years we had highlighted as a potential toss up, but this year definitely moved into the winners category,” Dombrowski said.

Acquisition reform

The Defense Department also moves to implement Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s sweeping acquisition reforms, which emphasize greater competition, faster delivery and making commercial technology the default option. It’s unclear whether the department has the ability to implement those changes given deep personnel cuts across the contracting workforce.

“The contracting professionals — there seems to be a large reduction. How do we get this done? That fundamental capacity to get things done is really going to make a difference, whether you’re putting out contracts, supply chain, workforce throughput … It’s going to affect how we can actually help out the government. Adaptability is the name of the game,”Jim Kainz, a PSC volunteer, said.

In addition, the department’s new acquisition strategy promises to lower barriers to entry to encourage startups and non-traditional vendors to join the defense industrial base. Dombrowski said that while stakeholders are cautiously optimistic about the reforms, there is also a “healthy cynicism of saying, ‘How is this time any different?’” 

“This administration has made a big priority of trying to attract new people, and we looked at the pros and cons of it. It’s probably worth noting that, aside from a few very notable successes that we can all figure out, there hasn’t really been much movement in this regard,” Dombrowski said. 

“We’re very excited, certainly [Commercial Solutions Opening] and [Other Transaction Authority] and just a variety of things that should provide a lot of flexibility, but let’s see it,” he added.

Winner and losers

Dombrowski and Kainz said several areas emerged as clear “losers” in this year’s defense outlook, including the department’s buying power, which continues to erode as inflation and reshoring efforts drive up costs across programs.

Legacy systems and advisory and assistance services are facing cuts, and U.S. Africa Command and Central Command are being pushed lower on the priority list as resources shift toward European Command.

There is also uncertainty around operations and maintenance funding, which Dombrowski and Kainz said remains a major concern for both think tanks and potential customers. Sustainability initiatives appear to be split — the “green side of sustainability” will most certainly lose ground, while efforts tied to energy resilience may gain momentum. 

Contested logistics, once considered a toss-up, is gaining traction as a priority, and scalability — the ability to rapidly increase production in a crisis — is emerging as a clear winner across the department.

Overall, research and development spending is increasing, but only in areas related to advanced weapon systems, technologies, drones and energy. 

“However, there’s a belief and a growing expectation that the contracting community will bear more of those responsibilities,” Dombrowski said. “It’s really unclear where that line is going to be drawn between things that are really government exclusive where DoD is willing to pick up all costs associated to it. There are things we can all imagine, like fighter jets. But what about things that are more in the gray areas? Avionics, business process systems, back-office systems, things like that — definitely more of a sense that we are going to have to be developing those on our own.”

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 Defense spending will continue to climb as civilian agencies brace for years of cuts, new forecast projects first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Derace Lauderdale/Federal News Network

As the Defense Department moves to implement Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s sweeping acquisition reforms, Space Force leaders warn that the depth of workforce cuts is threatening to cripple the service’s ability to execute them.

“You have to have a strong, vibrant workforce to do the work and we’re in a really interesting time and a troubling time. There is a strong, motivated force but there have been an incredible amount of pressures on them this past year,” Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy, acting assistant secretary for space acquisition and integration at the Department of the Air Force, said Nov. 20 during a Center for Strategic and International Studies event. 

“We have a looming increase in acquisitions coming down the pike, and so that presents us with a really difficult situation of where we need to double down on our acquisition workforce, our acquisition training. We are in a situation where we barely have enough acquirers to do all of the work that we have now,” he added.

Purdy said the service has spent the last few years implementing the acquisition tenets set by Frank Calvelli, who stepped down as assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration in January. Calvelli pushed the service to “build smaller satellites and smaller ground systems and minimize non-recurring engineering or new design.” He also preferred to use fixed-price contracts when possible. Calvelli’s “tenets” were a back-to-basics formula meant to fix chronic problems in space programs.

“We’ve built upon that this last year. We haven’t let grass grow under our feet as we’ve kind of taken over in January. And we’ve built upon that foundation and moved on out and really done a lot this year that kind of foreshadowed [Hegseth’s] acquisition reforms. But the workforce question is really the key piece,” Purdy said.

The Trump administration push to reduce the size of the federal workforce through initiatives such as the deferred resignation program and voluntary early retirement has had an “outsized impact” on the Space Force. In May, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman told Congress the service had lost nearly 14% of its civilian workforce — much of it coming from Space Systems Command, the Space Force’s acquisition hub.

“I’m worried about replacing that level of expertise in the near term as we try to resolve it and make sure we have a good workforce doing that acquisition,” Saltzman told the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time. 

When asked about the acquisition workforce, Saltzman told reporters that these workforce reduction efforts have taken civilian experts “out of play,” leaving gaps in the institutional knowledge and technical skills.

As the Space Force begins implementing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s acquisition overhaul, which calls for using commercial technology as the default option, great competition and faster delivery, Purdy warned the service may not have the workforce needed to shift to the new way of doing business. 

“If you look at [Hegseth’s] acquisition reforms that he’s laid out, a bunch of great initiatives and things we need to get after. But … you need the numbers of people, and you need the quality to understand. If you say ‘go commercial,’ and if you say, go after ‘new manufacturing mechanisms’ and take advantage of all of the new space companies that are out there, you need a larger number of people just to even track that activity. You need to be able to understand all that’s going on. You need to understand the incentive structure,” Purdy said.

The strain is particularly acute in contracting since the service simply doesn’t have enough contracting officers to handle a much larger workload created by recent acquisition reforms.

“In the past, if we had an acquisition program and we would go 20 years and it would be with one prime, we would maybe have one or two contracts, an R&D contract and a production contract. Pretty simple. One prime, a couple contracts. Now, with some of our programs there’ll be a five-year program, but we’ll probably have 20 contracts because I’m dealing with 10 or 15 different contractors in industry, which is literally what acquisition reform is telling us to do,” Purdy said.

“We have a serious issue here at a federal level on contracting and it’s just the numbers of folks. We do not have the numbers of contractors that we need at a federal level. Every federal agency has problems, and so we do not have the right numbers that we need,” he added.

Saltzman said the service is trying to ease the strain by requesting waivers to the hiring freeze that has been in place since the start of the Trump administration, as well as hiring authorities to fill essential acquisition and contracting roles.

The service also recently launched its first acquisition training course.

Kay Sears, vice president and general manager of space, intelligence and weapon systems development at Boeing, said that while the Space Force acquisition community is more open and collaborative than ever, it is also apparent that the service’s workforce is stretched thin.

“You can tell that they’re stressed. You can tell that they’re overworked. And then when you get into that contracting element that’s really where I see the slowdown, the, ‘Hey, I’ve only got one playbook — I’m going to go follow the playbook,’ and we really start to lose sight of the mission objective,” Sears said.

Acquisition experts have said that while the proposed acquisition changes could meaningfully reshape how the Pentagon buys capabilities, the success of Hegseth’s reforms will hinge on whether the department can equip the workforce with the skills needed to operate differently. 

“Scores of case studies have shown, there has to also be an aggressive, intentional and holistic approach to change management, prominently including how the relevant workforces are developed. Absent re-aligning those processes, real change will remain elusive,” Stan Soloway, president and CEO of Celero Strategies and federal acquisition expert, told Federal News Network.

The post Deep personnel cuts jeopardize Space Force’s ability to implement Hegseth’s acquisition reforms first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

Nearly two weeks after the record-long government shutdown ended, some Defense Department civilian employees say they have yet to receive the back pay they are owed. 

The federal government reopened on Nov. 13 after President Donald Trump signed a bill to fund the government through Jan. 30, ending the 43-day shutdown and allowing tens of thousands of DoD civilians to return to work.

At the time, the Office of Personnel Management said that checks for DoD civilians were slated to go out on Nov. 16. DoD civilians, however, were told to expect payment sometime between Nov. 17 and Nov. 20. 

But with Thanksgiving week now underway, many workers say they are still waiting for as much as four weeks of back pay.

One civilian employee at Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas, who was furloughed during the shutdown, told Federal News Network that more than 150 people in their unit of more than 400 civilians have not been paid.

“When everybody got back to work, we were told that the next week — or mid-week — we would get paid. And a lot of people did get paid, but a lot of us have not. They keep saying, ‘It’s going to take a few days,’” he said Wednesday. 

The Air Force employee said there has been no official guidance or clear communication, but their supervisor told them Wednesday to expect back pay on Nov. 29.

“There’s nothing in writing,” the employee said. “It’s all the leadership just walking around telling us, ‘Expect to get paid.’ There’s no email traffic — it’s just their own interpretation of when they think we’re going to get paid. But there’s been nothing official sent out.”

A DoD spokesperson told Federal News Network that all civilians whose updated time and attendance have been received have been paid.

“It is essential that civilian employees review their time and attendance reports, and their Leave and Earnings Statements (LES) for accuracy. Civilians with questions or civilian pay issues should contact their local Agency Customer Service Representative (CSR) or immediate supervisor. [The Defense Finance and Accounting Service] will continue to work with the military components to resolve any remaining payment issues,” the spokesperson said.

Another Air Force civilian in San Antonio, who worked through the shutdown, said many civilians in their unit of police officers are still waiting for back pay. 

“Nobody in leadership has put out any message other than when I inquired with my person who handles the payroll. She just said we should be getting paid on the 23rd or 24th, but that didn’t happen. Now, we are going into past Thanksgiving, who knows when it’s going to be,” the Air Force civilian told Federal News Network on Wednesday. 

He said he has been trying for weeks to get answers for himself and the employees he supervises. When he asked his own supervisor for help, he was told to consider filing a congressional complaint.

“That’s just laughable to me because we have a GS-13, we have a commander and active-duty commander. There’s a whole bunch of people between me and my congressman that could probably provide answers. But going to your supervisor hasn’t worked,” the Air Force employee said.

“I don’t understand why they can’t just put out a simple explanation, because communication really helps, whether it’s good or bad, but at least they could explain why or what the problem is, but they haven’t. It’s frustrating,” he added.

The bill that Congress passed to reopen the government reaffirmed that both furloughed and excepted federal employees would receive back pay. The Office of Personnel Management official guidance stated the agency “is committed to ensuring that retroactive pay is provided as soon as possible,” and that the retroactive pay for excepted employees “must be provided at the earliest date possible after the lapse ends.”

A defense official told Federal News Network last week that “DFAS is running continuous pay cycles to expeditiously pay civilians a one-time retroactive lump sum payment for pay periods missed during the government shutdown. Civilians and service members who have questions regarding their pay may contact their local finance office or chain of command.” 

The Department of the Air Force did not respond to questions about how many Air Force civilian employees are impacted, the cause of the delay or when civilians should expect back pay.

With pay stalled for weeks, many federal workers were forced to dip into savings, rely on credit cards, seek out no-interest loans or take on part-time work to make ends meet. Military families have been turning up at food banks in greater numbers — the Armed Services YMCA, for example, reported a 30% to 75% spike in demand at its food pantries near military installations since the shutdown began. 

“I’ve joked with my family and my kids that if I don’t get back pay, we might have to push Christmas til maybe January, but the impending loom of another shutdown at the end of January, it can’t get worse,” the Air Force employee from Laughlin Air Force Base said.

Defense Department civilians aren’t the only ones still waiting for their back pay. 

“Smithsonian still has not managed to get us paid. They are wasting time making sure everyone has the correct time codes rather than getting people paid. It’s more important to them that they take a couple weeks to record we were furloughed. Can’t pay the mortgage, but at least they’ll have the correct time code,” a federal employee told Federal News Network on Nov. 22.

At the Federal Aviation Administration, one air traffic control employee reported receiving only partial back pay through the end of November. 

Meanwhile, federal workers who have received back pay told Federal News Network they cannot verify whether the pay was accurate as they have not received an accompanying Leave and Earnings Statement.

“Not sure if it is accurate, as no LES are being created for the back pay,” one federal employee said.

“Without a LES, I have no idea. I just hope it’s right. It feels like it might be right, but I don’t know,” another employee told Federal News Network. 

Others reported major errors — an employee who received their back pay said it was “taxed so incorrectly that my first paycheck after returning was missing about $500 and only one of two missed health insurance payments were taken out.”

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 Some DoD civilians are still waiting for back pay weeks after shutdown’s end first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

D.C. National Guard members and their families lined up for free Thanksgiving meals at the D.C. Armory last week during an annual event hosted by Operation Homefront, a nonprofit that supports the military community. 

As part of their Holiday Meals for Military program, the organization provided families with all the fixings for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner — stuffing, cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, pumpkin pie and more. Operation Homefront also distributed Harris Teeter gift cards so families could purchase their protein of choice, whether it’s turkey, ham or chicken. In total, the organization distributed 400 meal kits and grocery gift cards to pre-registered service members and military families. 

With grocery prices rising and many service members still feeling the financial strain of the recent shutdown, the organization says demand for assistance has surged — food requests alone are up 57% this year.

“Our case work is up — quadruple — what it was 30 days ago. Undoubtedly, the economic times are difficult for everyone in our country, I think that’s greater with the military,” Vivian Dietrich, Operation Homefront senior director, told Federal News Network. 

Operation Homefront, founded in 2002, serves military families nationwide by providing financial, emotional and social support through programs designed to keep households “strong, stable and secure,” Dietrich said. Financial assistance, however, is the backbone of the organization’s work, helping lower-ranking service members cover urgent expenses such as car repairs, rent and utility bills before these short-term problems spiral into long-term financial crises.

Through its Critical Financial Assistance program, Operation Homefront offers grants — not loans — and pays vendors on behalf of families. Caseworkers also review a family’s full financial situation to ensure they address the root of the problem.

“When we do our case work, often it’s somebody calling at the nth hour because the military is very proud. And generally, when they call, you’re at the point that you’re desperate, you need support, and our case workers are highly trained social workers. They spend time studying their finances. We work with them on how to manage their money and help them move forward,” Dietrich said. 

But food remains the organization’s top request for assistance, Dietrich said. 

Surveys conducted by organizations like Blue Star Families consistently find that food insecurity among active-duty families remains higher than the national average.

A number of factors contribute to military families’ financial vulnerability. Service members move dozens of times throughout their career, making it difficult for their spouses to find and maintain employment. Despite years of advocacy and policy efforts, the unemployment rate for active-duty military spouses has held stubbornly at around 22% for quite some time.  

Service members also face significant upfront costs when moving to a new base — military families spend an average of about $8,000 out of pocket during each move, which causes them to dip into their savings or accrue credit card debt.

During the recent government shutdown, military families were turning up at food banks in greater numbers — the Armed Services YMCA, for example, reported a 30% to 75% spike in demand at its food pantries near military installations. 

“Number one request for us is food — that has quadrupled right out of the top. But generally, it’s food, rent, maybe car payments, utilities — the day-to-day expenses that we all have. But it isn’t uncommon that there was some type of crisis that occurred that caused them to fall behind. A car would break down, or someone is sick and they had to miss work and they didn’t have pay. Or in the military, you can be deployed. You can be out on a training mission. And then if you have children, where’s the childcare?” Dietrich said.

“In general, it’s the basic expenses that we all live with, and if you don’t catch it at the very beginning, it really does become a crisis, and a crisis that can last for years. And our goal is to stay focused, get them strong, secure and stable,” she added.

Operation Homefront provides holiday meals for military families throughout the year, not just at Thanksgiving. 

The post Operation Homefront distributes holiday meals to Guard members as food requests surge first appeared on Federal News Network.

© U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Angelina Tran

Nearly every service member living in privatized military housing has experienced at least one serious issue in their home — and an overwhelming number say their family’s health has been negatively impacted by their housing conditions. Nearly half said a medical provider had confirmed the connection, a new survey found. 

The Change the Air Foundation recently conducted the Safe Military Housing Survey — one of the most comprehensive efforts yet to collect data the Defense Department has never been able to track accurately. The survey  was designed to answer questions previous studies had overlooked and to provide Congress and the Pentagon with better data on what families across all branches and ranks are actually experiencing in military housing. 

“We were hearing a lot of how many indoor air quality hazards and just housing hazards that these families were experiencing. But nobody was really ever asking, how is this affecting your physical health? How is this affecting your cognitive abilities? How is this affecting your mental and emotional health, and your and your personal finances? That’s a huge component of this survey,” Brandon Chappo, co-founder and director of public policy at the Change the Air Foundation, told Federal News Network. 

Erica Thompson, a military spouse and the military families’ liaison for the Change the Air Foundation, lived in military housing for 10 months at Maxwell Air Force Base located in Montgomery, Alabama. Thompson said her family immediately noticed serious issues with the house, including a failing AC system they were told couldn’t be replaced. Once contractors opened the walls without any containment, the entire family — including their dog — began experiencing a cascade of medical issues. Her son started passing out in the house and the dog started having seizures; three of their children were later diagnosed with asthma and one was diagnosed with bilateral pediatric cataracts in both eyes. 

“We saw a huge range of health implications across the board, throughout our whole family. And so I think using part of that, it was able to guide us through this questionnaire, some of those things that I wish offices knew. It was able to really give me insight into making some of these questions, because we would share our story with congressional offices, they would say, ‘How many more kids are there like yours?’ And I said, ‘I don’t know. There’s no data around that right now,’” Thompson told Federal News Network.

For decades, service members and their families living in privatized military housing have been exposed to hazardous conditions, including black mold, contaminated water, asbestos in ceilings and lead in walls. The survey found that mold, mildew or microbial growth were the most common issues, reported by 74% of respondents. More than half of respondents cited significant problems with temperature and humidity, pest infestations, water damage and HVAC failures.

“Mold and water damage can be extraordinarily hazardous to somebody’s health. That’s extremely dismaying,” Chappo said.

Overall, 76% of service members said their health has been negatively affected by housing conditions, and nearly half said a physician had confirmed their homes were making them sick. 

The survey also revealed an alarming statistic — 47% of service members said their housing issues impacted their ability to perform their duties or maintain mission readiness. The problem was particularly prevalent among those stationed in Florida. 

Three in five service members reported experiencing mental health challenges such as anxiety or depression, and roughly two in five service members said those issues affected their ability to attend work or training. One in six service members had to relocate — sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently — often leaving behind personal items that had been damaged. 

“That is absolutely stunning. And so, if anything, it underscores the importance of trying to get these issues dealt with. It’s the fact that not only are our service members’ health and wellness being affected, it’s mission readiness. This is a national security issue, and we need to start talking about it in that light, and start really framing it in that way,” Chappo said. 

While anxiety, depression, mood changes, cognitive issues, insomnia, headaches, migraines, brain fog and skin, eye and respiratory irritation top the list of reported health problems, the survey found the health impacts to be far more extensive than that.

“This is extraordinary. These [medical conditions] weren’t just in the low percentages. We’re talking in the 20, 30, 40 percentages for some of these. Even those alone, being as high as they are, really should catch the attention of, hopefully, the country, and of course, those in Congress,” Chappo said. 

The survey found that Florida, Hawaii and Texas experienced housing-related issues at far greater rates and saw significantly higher rates of both health impacts and readiness concerns. Nearly 60% of service members stationed in Florida said housing issues impacted their ability to perform their duties. Health impacts were also higher than average — 84% of Florida service members said their families’ health had been impacted by house-related issues, compared with 83% in Hawaii and North Carolina. 

“I think it’s got to do with lots of these states are on federal land, and they don’t have to follow the state regulations for building and code, and so that’s something that needs to be looked at. But Florida, Hawaii and Texas were exponentially higher on those stats for both readiness and really across the board. And those have some really big commands in those states as well that need to have some attention drawn to it,” Thompson said. 

Marines reported the highest rates across all branches, with 85% saying their families were affected.

“We were displaced multiple times, with one displacement over 30 days. Relocation to a new home was requested, but we were denied a new home. We ultimately moved into a hotel on our dime after getting rid of everything we owned,” an active Marine service member in North Carolina told the Change the Air Foundation. 

Gaps in current dispute resolution process

Whenever a housing-related issue arises, service members are supposed to follow a three-step tenant resolution process that includes built-in escalation steps.

The first step is to file a service call. If the issue isn’t resolved to the service member’s satisfaction, it can be escalated to the Military Housing Office or the government housing office on base, along with the service member’s chain of command to help elevate the issues. Thompson said that’s where most families drop out of the process.

The survey found that nine in ten service members always reported the issues they were experiencing, but only 7% made it all the way through the tenant resolution process — and of those, 72% said it still did not resolve their problem.

One in 14 service members were denied the tenant resolution process altogether.

“I want people to try to understand this, nine of 10 service members reported issues as they should to the proper authorities. Nine of 10 had to report the same issue multiple times. 66% of those had their issues marked resolved without a satisfactory result and over 50% of those went unresolved entirely. We have a situation here where the families are asking, calling, screaming for help. They’re upholding their end of the bargain, and the other side isn’t, and it’s failing,” Chappo said.

“Only 7% of service members actually made it through the entire dispute resolution process. That shows us that it’s broken. It’s failing. It’s not working,” he added.

In addition, the survey highlights major gaps in seven-year housing histories, with only 43% of service members receiving one — and most of those were incomplete.

“You’re able to turn down a house if you recognize or see something you’re not comfortable with. But if their service calls aren’t accurate, or it’s not reporting accurately, I think that screams to a bigger issue of what is going on? What’s the further issue? It’s not only for the service members, but it’s for DoD accountability,” Thompson said. 

Out-of-pocket cost of privatized housing

Roughly half of service members reported paying an average of $1,680 out of pocket for costs such as pest control, mold inspections, hotel stays and medical bills .

“If they’re paying for pest control out of pocket, that’s not something that’s reimbursable. Our dehumidifiers and air purifiers are not reimbursable. You just end up paying out of pocket to do what you can, to try and make what you have work. And then same with medical bills, if you’re seeking extra time or care outside of the military, that’s out of pocket as well,” Thompson said. 

Nearly all military family housing in the United States — about 99% — is owned and managed by private companies. These projects are built around 50-year ground leases and legal agreements that private partners use to secure financing and guarantee predictable revenue over decades, which limited the Defense Department’s ability to cancel or renegotiate agreements when housing conditions declined, creating oversight challenges that have persisted for decades.

Thompson, along with other advocates, have been advocating for several amendments to be included in the 2026 defense policy bill, including the proposed Healthy at Home on Base Act, which would require the Defense Department to study mold and its health effects in both military housing and barracks. Another amendment would direct the department to adopt uniform mold remediation standards across all barracks and family housing.

“We’re hearing a lot of congressional offices are starting to read the report, and they’re already asking for meetings to discuss these a little more closely, and then, of course, talk about some of the fixes and solutions. We’re having some feedback and some conversations with folks at the Pentagon who are kind of taking a closer look at this as well, and trying to come up with long term fixes, as opposed to band aid fixes,” Chappo said.

The post Privatized military housing is making service members and their families sick at alarming rates, survey finds first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Mengshin Lin

Two lawmakers want to fully exempt military compensation from federal income tax — a move that would deliver a significant pay boost for service members and mark one of the most sweeping tax changes for the military community.

The legislation, dubbed the Service Members Tax Relief Act, seeks to eliminate federal income tax on all active-duty and reserve pay, including enlistment, retention and education bonuses and all special and incentive pays.

The measure would go well beyond previous tax-exemption proposals, which largely focus on bonuses or specialty pays.

In May, for example, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the BONUS act, which would amend a section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to explicitly exempt all military bonuses from federal income tax.

“The bill builds on existing tax exclusions for certain military benefits and responds to long-standing concerns raised by troops, families and advocates who believe those who serve should not be taxed on the bonuses they earn in service to our country,” Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.), the sponsor of the BONUS act, said at the time.

Similarly, the No Tax on Bonuses Act, introduced in April, seeks to exclude service members’ enlistment and reenlistment bonuses from gross income.

Currently, service members deployed to combat zones receive tax-free income. In addition, most allowances that make up a significant portion of a service member’s total compensation, including basic allowance for housing and basic allowance for subsistence are tax-exempt.  Veterans’ disability compensation is also exempt from federal income taxes. Together, these exemptions amount to roughly $30 billion a year in foregone federal income tax revenue each year. 

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) and Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.), who introduced the Service Members Tax Relief act this week, are also sponsoring the Tax Cuts for Veterans Act of 2025, a measure that would amend Section 122 of the Internal Revenue Code to exclude all military retirement pay and veterans’ benefits from federal income taxes. This includes all retired and retainer pay under Titles 10 and 14, as well as all VA monthly benefits, including disability compensation and survivor payments covered under Titles 37 and 38. 

The two measures stand apart from prior proposals, as no recent bill has attempted a tax exemption of this scope.

“It is pretty sweeping… and it’s potentially a very expensive proposal. Now, there’s a reason why Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, provided these existing tax exclusions for military and veterans benefits — there’s a wide bipartisan appreciation for the fact that if you served our country, put your life and put your body on the line — you’re receiving benefits that you deserve for that service…I think any proposal that costs tens of billions of dollars per year, Congress is going to scrutinize,” Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told Federal News Network.

It is unclear what strategy the sponsors plan to pursue — standalone bills often face political hurdles, and lawmakers frequently try to attach such proposals to larger legislative packages like the annual National Defense Authorization Act to increase their chances. 

“These bills are fiscally conservative in that they offer relief through the tax code instead of new spending. It is a win-win; the exemption instantly improves take-home pay, while helping with recruitment and retention, which in turn keeps our war fighters strong,” Hamadeh said.

Lautz pushed back on the idea that the bills are “fiscally conservative,” arguing that a dollar of a tax cut that isn’t offset adds to the deficit just as much as a dollar of new spending that isn’t paid for.

“If you’ve got $100 billion spending program or the $100 billion tax cut, and you’re not paying for that — that is not fiscally responsible. Now, Republican lawmakers have shown a preference for cutting taxes over increasing government spending, and Democrats vice versa, that is an unmistakable trend. But in terms of the fiscally responsible approach here, I think the message we’ve sent to both parties is that if you’re going to have a large tax cut or you’re going to have a large spending increase, you should pay for it with offsetting either spending cuts or tax increases,” Lautz said.

While the proposal would eliminate federal income taxes on military pay, active-duty and reserve personnel would still be paying payroll taxes on their income.

The post New bill seeks to exempt military pay from federal income tax first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

The Space Force is finalizing a strategic roadmap that will lay out what space systems, infrastructure and manpower it will need over the next 15 years to stay ahead of emerging threats.

Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman said most of the work on the document, known as the “objective force” is largely complete. 

“I want to publish objective force 2025 before the end of the calendar year. That’s the task I’ve given the staff. And of course, they immediately push back saying we can’t possibly do that. I think they can. So I’m really trying to hold them. I think the bulk of the work is almost complete,” Saltzman said during a Center for Strategic and International Studies event Thursday.

Saltzman said the “objective force” is designed to be a living document, updated regularly and republished every five years. The 2025 version will outline what the service will need between now and 2040, but its purpose is not to list everything new that’s needed by 2040. Instead, it maps out which systems the service will need to sustain, phase out or bring online over the next 15 years.

“There are systems we are flying today that we will continue to use into 2040, so the objective force will account for that. There are some systems we use today that we will wean ourselves off of in the intervening years between now and 2040 — the objective force will say that, ‘Hey, we plan to sunset in the 2030 time frame, 2035 and the new system will be growing along the same time so we preserve that mission capability,’” Saltzman said.

“That’s the way you want to think about, it’s not what do we need for 2040, it’s what happens between now and 2040 to make sure we have that objective force we need,” he added.

The document, however, will go beyond simply cataloging the types of systems the service already has or will need in the future. It will also outline the broader infrastructure needed to sustain the mission, including how many bases and squadrons are required and whether new military construction will be necessary — offering a full roadmap for what it will take to build and maintain a future Space Force. 

Saltzman acknowledged that circumstances and requirements will inevitably change, so the roadmap is meant to adopt along with them. 

“There will be annual updates based on resourcing, obviously, and then every five years we will re-snap the chalk line and say, ‘So objective force 2030, we’ll be looking to 2045.’ It’ll be this rolling campaign of learning to make sure that we have the force documented that we think we’re going to need in the out years,” Saltzman said.

Clear demand signal

Saltzman said the Space Force needs to clearly and formally communicate what it needs long-term to its stakeholders, including Congress, defense contractors, allies and partners. 

“We’ll try to lay all of that out, to publish it to the stakeholders so that they can see what our plan is and see a stable, comprehensive demand signal to what we need to buy, what approvals we need, how much resourcing we might need to put it in place,” Saltzman said. 

While Saltzman had originally aimed to publish the document by the end of 2025, he said its release will most likely slip into 2026.

“I think while you may not see a published document before the end of December, I can pretty much tell you that the work will be complete by the end of December, and we will be in final approvals to say yes. We’ll take this to the secretary, obviously, and make sure that the whole staff understands what we’re trying to do,” Saltzman said.

“I think the work of the force design will be done in 2025, and then hopefully publish it again to stakeholders in early 2026. That’s kind of what I see as the current timeline,” he added.

The post Space Force to finalize 15-year force design this year, with release expected in 2026 first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/Neal McNeil

A government watchdog is sounding the alarm about a growing national security threat online. Rather than a traditional cyberattack, however, this one comes from the everyday digital footprints service members and their families leave across the internet. 

A new Government Accountability Office report warns that publicly accessible data — from social media posts and location tracking to Defense Department press releases — can be pieced together by malicious actors to identify military personnel, target their families and disrupt military operations.

According to GAO, while the Pentagon has taken some steps to address the threat, its efforts remain scattered, inconsistent and lack coordination. 

“We found that the department recognized that there were security issues, but they weren’t necessarily well-prepared to respond to them because it was new, because it didn’t necessarily neatly fit into existing organizational structures or policies or doctrines, and that’s a consistent story with the department,” Joe Kirschbaum, director of the defense capabilities and management team at GAO, told Federal News Network. 

To understand the risks posed to DoD personnel and operations that come from the aggregation of publicly accessible digital data, the watchdog conducted its own investigation and built notional threat scenarios showing how that information could be exploited. GAO began by surveying the types of data already available online and also assigned investigators to scour the dark web for information about service members. 

In addition to basic social media posts, investigators found data brokers selling personal and even operational information about DoD personnel and their families — information that can be combined with other publicly available data to build a more complete profile. 

“Once you start putting some of these things together, potentially, you start to see a pattern — whether it’s looking at individuals, whether it’s the individuals linked to military operational units or operations themselves, family members. Nefarious actors can take these things and build them into a profile that could be used for nefarious purposes,” Kirschbaum said. 

One of GAO’s threat scenarios shows how publicly accessible information can expose sensitive military training materials and capabilities. Investigators found that social media posts, online forums and dark-web marketplaces contained everything from military equipment manuals, detailed training materials, and photos of facility and aircraft interiors. When combined, these digital footprints can reveal information about equipment modifications, strategic partnerships or potential vulnerabilities, which can be used to clone products, exploit weaknesses or undermine military operations. 

And while DoD has identified the public accessibility of digital data as a “real and growing threat,” GAO found that DoD’s policies and guidance are narrowly focused on social media and email use rather than the full range of potential risks from aggregated digital footprints. 

For instance, the DoD chief information officer has prohibited the use of personal email or messaging apps for official business involving controlled unclassified information. But that policy doesn’t address the use of personal accounts on personal devices for unofficial tasks involving unclassified information — such as booking travel, accessing military travel orders, or posting on social media — activities that can pose similar risks once aggregated.

In addition, DoD officials acknowledged that current policies and guidance do not fully address the range of risks created by publicly accessible digital information about DoD and its personnel. They said part of the challenge is that the department has limited authority to regulate actions of DoD personnel and contractors outside of an operational environment.

“In general, except for the operation security folks, the answer was they didn’t really consider this kind of publicly available information in their own sphere. It’s not like they didn’t recognize there’s an issue, but it was more like, ‘Oh yeah, that’s a problem. But I think it’s handled in these other areas.’ Almost like passing the buck. They didn’t understand, necessarily, where it was handled. And the answer was, it should probably be handled collectively amidst this entire structure,” Kirschbaum said. 

The officials also said that while they had planned to review current policies and guidance, they “had not collaborated to address digital profile risks because they did not believe the digital profile threat and its associated risks aligned with the Secretary of Defense’s priorities,” including reviving warrior ethos, restoring trust in the military and reestablishing deterrence by defending the homeland. 

“One of our perspectives on this is we know we’re not sure where you would put this topic in terms of those priorities. I mean, this is a pretty clear case where it’s a threat to the stability and efficacy of our military forces. That kind of underlines all priorities — you can’t necessarily defend the homeland with forces that have maybe potential operational security weaknesses. So it would seem to kind of undergird all of those priorities,” Kirschbaum said. 

“We also respect the fact that as the department’s making tough choices, whether it’s concentrations of policy, financial and things of that nature, they do have to figure out the most immediate ways to apply dollars. For example, we’re asking the department to look across all those security disciplines and more thoroughly incorporate these threats in that existing process. The extent they’re going to have to make investments in those, they do have to figure out what needs to be done first and where this fits in,” he added.

GAO issued 12 recommendations to individual components and agency heads, but at its core, Kirschbaum said, is the need for the department to incorporate the threat of publicly available information into its existing structure. 

“In order to do that, we’re asking them to use those existing structures that they do have, like the security enterprise executive committee, as their collaborative mechanism. We want that body to really assess where the department is. And sometimes they’re better able to identify exactly what they need to do, rather than us telling them. We want them to identify what they need to do and conduct those efforts,” he said.

The post DoD failing to address growing security threats posed by publicly available data first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

House and Senate negotiators are racing to finalize the 2026 defense policy bill by the end of the week, with all House and Senate Armed Services Committee disputes resolved and only a few Senate jurisdictional details still holding the legislation’s advancement to the House floor in early December.

“I think what they’re doing is, there’s been a couple of pencils-down time frames, but it sounds like it’ll be done by the end of the week. That’s what the focus is. Get it done by the end of the week, and then to be on the floor the beginning of the second week of December,” Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told Federal News Network Tuesday. 

The one big place where things are still going through the process, Wittman said, is with the other committees of jurisdiction. They can either decide to waive jurisdiction or refine the language in ways that ensure the “Big Four” on HASC and SASC will agree to include it in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

“It really is a Senate issue because the Senate has the rules where they can add some things that are not allowed under House rules. That’s really where the issue is right now, I think all the HASC and SASC issues have been taken care of,” Wittman said. 

The Senate advanced its NDAA with broad bipartisan support in October, while the House version passed in September with mostly GOP support.

The two chambers were divided on topline funding — the Senate bill authorized nearly $925 billion for national defense, while the House version aligned with the White House’s $883 billion request. 

Both bills are heavily focused on acquisition reforms, and while the two chambers target many of the same areas, they differ in approach and specific reforms. 

“The House’s version really focused on achieving mission outcomes. It’s much more outcome-based. The Senate version was more about governance. How do we change the issues there of governance? Some of the things that we saw there that I think are really transformational is time frames,” Wittman said during the Defense One State of Defense Business Acquisition event on Tuesday. “The average acquisition process in the Pentagon is 800 days. This is going to change it to 90 to 120 days.”

Many of the acquisition reforms Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently rolled out as part of what he called a “war on Pentagon bureaucracy” mirror proposals in the House and Senate versions of the defense policy bill.

“Changing how we do modular open systems architecture — those things are going to be key, opening up the aperture even more, making it easier to use other transaction authorities, changing the [program executive officers] to [program acquisition executives], and then taking those billets that are now three-year billets and turning them into six-year billets,” Wittman said. “That’s actually a longer-term perspective for folks in those areas. I think this is the farthest-reaching effort in acquisition reform in the history of DoD. And a lot of what the House and Senate are doing is reflected in some of the things that the Pentagon is doing.” 

Hegseth’s move to replace the current program executive offices with a smaller number of portfolio acquisition executives — giving these new portfolio leaders broader authorities, including the ability to shift funds among programs — is also part of the Senate’s acquisition reform proposals.

When asked whether officers who used to serve three years as PEOs would want to serve six-year tours as PAEs, Wittman wagered they would as long as it doesn’t interfere with the promotion process.

“We’ve been clear that this does not interfere with the promotion process,” he said. “There’s nothing that prevents somebody that goes into a PAE position as a two-star to come out as a three-star, or, for that matter, even a four-star.” 

The change will also allow PAEs to take more risks in a culture that is deeply risk-averse. But it has to start with Congress, Whittman said. 

“We can’t lecture and say, ‘Take risks,’ and then the first time there’s a failure, we call somebody up on Capitol Hill and bang the table and holler and scream and go, ‘How did you do this? How could this happen?’ That behavior will stop in a heartbeat when somebody goes, ‘You know what? I watched them grill this PAE up on Capitol Hill. I’m not going to do that, so I’m not going to take any risks,’” Whittman said.

The post Lawmakers to finalize NDAA by week’s end, bring the bill to the floor in early December first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network