Senators are divided on how to proceed with a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security, after federal immigration officials fatally shot a Department of Veterans Affairs nurse over the weekend.

Last Saturday in Minneapolis, a Border Patrol agent fatally shot Alex Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, during an altercation between federal immigration officials and protestors.

In a statement immediately following the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security said Pretti was shot after he “approached” Border Patrol officers with a handgun. Bystander videos of the shooting show Pretti holding a phone in his hand, but none appear to show him holding a gun. Pretti was licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

According to the Associated Press, Pretti is the sixth person to die during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign in the U.S.

VA Secretary Doug Collins confirmed on Sunday that Pretti was a nurse at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

“As President Trump has said, nobody wants to see chaos and death in American cities, and we send our condolences to the Pretti family. Such tragedies are unfortunately happening in Minnesota because of state and local officials’ refusal to cooperate with the federal government to enforce the law and deport dangerous illegal criminals,” Collins wrote.

VA employees expressed outrage over Pretti’s death. Coworkers remembered him as someone who cared for his patients.

An internal document obtained by Federal News Network shows that Pretti recently received a “VA gratitude” email message from his supervisors.

“Thanks for staying on your day off and helping out taking care of the veterans,” the email to Pretti states. “You are an invaluable member of the team!”

“Alex Pretti was a great nurse and researcher,” a VA employee told Federal News Network on Saturday.

Doug Massey, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 17, which represents VA Central Office employees, said members are “generally upset and very concerned following” the shooting. Massey said it was a “senseless” shooting, and that Pretti was trying to assist a protester on the ground moments before the shooting.

“I know a lot of nurses, and they tend to be that type where they like to help people. He saw the woman getting pushed down,” Massey said.

Daniel Amyx, a rehab and extended care nurse at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, said he spoke with some of Pretti’s ICU coworkers following the shooting, and that they described him as “very kind and gentle,” and a “great guy to work with.”

“Alex was a dedicated nurse. He was science-minded, evidenced by the fact that he moved from research into becoming a nurse, and I heard that he very much cared for his patients,” Amyx said in a virtual meeting hosted by the Federal Unionists Network on Sunday. Amyx said the Minneapolis VAMC is planning a memorial service for Pretti.

Sharda Fornnarino, a VA registered nurse in Colorado and secretary of the VA division for National Nurses United, called Pretti’s death a “blatant attack on federal workers.”

“VA workers, we’re shocked, stunned and now we’re getting angry,” Fornnarino said.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the shooting a “tragedy,” during a briefing with reporters on Monday, but said it “occurred as a result of a deliberate and hostile resistance by Democrat leaders in Minnesota.”

“This incident remains under investigation and nobody here at the White House, including the president of the United States, wants to see Americans hurt or killed and losing their lives in American streets,” Leavitt said

Matthew Silverman, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, said in a statement that “respect for lawful authority and adherence to the rule of law are essential to preventing further tragedies.”

“In an era of rising threats against law enforcement, it is critical that officers are supported, not second-guessed in real time, as they carry out their duties under extraordinary pressure,” Silverman said.

Before the shooting, a comprehensive spending deal for the rest of fiscal 2026 was slated for a full Senate vote. But following Pretti’s death, Senate Democrats are calling on the Senate to pull DHS funding from the six-bill package.

This package currently includes the full-year funding bills for DHS and the departments of Defense, Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services, State, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, as well as several other agencies. The House of Representatives approved these six bills last week.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), ranking member of the Senate Appropriation Committee’s subcommittee on commerce, justice, science and related agencies, called on the Senate to pull the DHS funding bill from the final package of spending bills for the rest of fiscal 2026.

Van Hollen told Federal Drive with Terry Gerton on Monday that this would allow lawmakers to “dive in and make necessary changes to the Department of Homeland Security budget.”

“There’s no reason that Republicans should hold all of those bills hostage as we work to rein in and dramatically reform the parts of DHS that need to be dramatically reined in. That will be the question — whether or not Republicans in the Senate are willing to do that,” Van Hollen said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Monday that Senate Democrats plan to advance five of the spending bills, separately from the DHS funding bill, before the Jan. 30 deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown.

“The responsibility to prevent a partial government shutdown is on Leader Thune and Senate Republicans,” Schumer said in a statement.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) urged her colleagues on Monday to vote for the full six-bill package that includes DHS funding, to “show that we can work together in a bipartisan manner to finish the job.”

“It is so important that we do so, because looming is a government shutdown — another harmful, unnecessary and disastrous government shutdown if we do not complete our work,” Collins said on the Senate floor.

Collins said more than 80% of the DHS spending bill covers non-immigration and non-border security functions — such as cybersecurity and funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration.

The post Senators seek pause on DHS spending bill, following fatal shooting of VA nurse by Border Patrol first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Adam Gray

The hits keep coming for federal consulting contractors.

First, the Trump administration questioned the value of these types of contracts, leading to a significant reduction in existing deals and the slow down of awards for new solicitations.

Now the Treasury Department is taking aim specifically at one of the biggest vendors. Treasury cancelled all 31 of its contracts with Booz Allen Hamilton. The department said these contracts total $4.8 million in annual spending and $21 million in total obligations. Booz Allen Hamilton won $7.5 billion in total obligations from agencies in fiscal 2025.

Treasury says the reason for cancelling these contracts is directly related to a former Booz Allen employee, Charles Littlejohn, who is serving five years in prison for disclosing thousands of tax returns without authorization.

“President [Donald] Trump has entrusted his cabinet to root out waste, fraud and abuse, and canceling these contracts is an essential step to increasing Americans’ trust in government,” said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in a statement. “Booz Allen failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect sensitive data, including the confidential taxpayer information it had access to through its contracts with the Internal Revenue Service.”

An email to Treasury seeking more information, including whether it was planning on suspending or proposing Booz Allen for debarment was not returned.

Littlejohn pleaded guilty in October 2023 to stealing and leaking confidential tax returns and return information of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers.

To date, the IRS determined that the data breach affected approximately 406,000 taxpayers.

“We have consistently condemned in the strongest possible terms the actions of Charles Littlejohn, who was active with the company years ago. Booz Allen has zero tolerance for violations of the law and operates under the highest ethical and professional guidelines. When Littlejohn’s criminal conduct occurred more than five years ago, it was on government systems, not Booz Allen systems. Booz Allen stores no taxpayer data on its systems and has no ability to monitor activity on government networks,” a Booz Allen spokesperson said in a statement. “Booz Allen fully supported the U.S. government in its investigation, and the government expressed gratitude for our assistance, which led to Littlejohn’s prosecution. We look forward to discussing this matter with Treasury.”

Treasury’s decision is unusual

In January 2025, Plaintiff Alarm Concepts filed a class action lawsuit because of Littlejohn’s actions against the IRS, Treasury and Booz Allen Hamilton, seeking “redress for the unlawful inspections and disclosures of their confidential tax returns and return information.”

“For over a decade, the IRS and Treasury Department have known that their cybersecurity safeguards for protecting confidential taxpayer information are woefully inadequate. Federal auditors repeatedly flagged the weaknesses and recommended stronger safeguards. Yet time and again, they failed to act, leaving taxpayers’ sensitive information vulnerable to unauthorized access and disclosure,” the plaintiffs wrote in their filing in the district court of Maryland. “Compounding these failures, Booz Allen, a consulting firm with billions in federal contracts, repeatedly failed to implement adequate safeguards of its own to protect the confidential taxpayer information it had access to through its contracts with the IRS and Treasury Department.”

The case hasn’t moved in the court since April.

Treasury’s decision to cancel all of its contracts with any one company is highly unusual, procurement experts said.

“It’s an overreaction. Even if Booz Allen did something that was subject to suspension or debarment, no one ever gets 100% wiped out from an agency,” said a former federal acquisition executive, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation. “You’ve seen agencies put a hold on new awards, but it’s unusual to do this with a broad brush stroke. I think Treasury will come back and rescind themselves.”

The former official said typically if an agency found evidence of a problem with a contract, they can issue a stop work order and investigate the issue before taking such dramatic action.

For example, back in 2012, the Air Force suspended Booz Allen’s San Antonio office after allegations emerged that it violated acquisition regulations by sharing sensitive procurement data. The Air Force conducted an investigation and lifted its suspension by April.

But the former executive said the Trump administration is much more reactive when it comes to taking significant actions.

“The administration has a tendency to take dramatic action. It’s all or none. You’ve seen that with many other examples like when they went after Raytheon for Defense Department profits,” the source said. “I do wonder what other agencies will do next and whether they will follow Treasury’s lead.”

Treasury isn’t a big customer for Booz Allen. Data from USASepending.gov shows civilian agencies go through the General Services Administration’s Federal Acquisition Service to contract with the company.

For example, Booz Allen won three task orders worth a total of $20.6 million in fiscal 2025 under the OASIS+ professional services contract. Treasury, through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, made one award last year, worth $3.5 million.

Under the Alliant 2 governmentwide acquisition contract, Booz Allen won 10 task orders worth $1.9 billion in 2025. Treasury made one award to Booz last year through Alliant 2 worth $24.3 million.

The Defense Department remains Booz Allen’s biggest federal customer.

Booz Allen brough in $2.6 billion in total revenue in its third quarter of 2026.

Heat turned up on consultants

Treasury’s decision to cancel its contracts with Booz adds to an already tumultuous year for the company. At its most recent earnings call in Jan. 23 for the third quarter of 2026, Booz Allen said its revenue was down 10.2% year-over-year.

It attributed a 15% reduction because of the 43-day government shutdown, and it said the federal government’s slower funding environment reduced its revenue by 35%.

“These factors drove a decrease in headcount, as well as a decline in billable expenses,” Booz Allen stated.

Booz Allen also was one of the first 10 consulting companies to come under scrutiny by GSA in February.

GSA said in May this approach has led to more than 2,800 consulting contract terminations valued at $23.2 billion in ceiling value and $10 billion in savings.

Additionally, both the Defense Department and the federal chief information officer have publicly warned agencies against depending too much on consulting contractors.

Greg Barbaccia, the federal CIO, said in June that his office would no longer meet with research, advisory and strategy consulting firms, and encouraged other agency CIOs to take the same approach.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in May told DoD leadership not to execute new IT consulting or management services contracts or task orders with integrators or consultants unless they first justify that the work cannot be performed in-house or acquired directly from a service provider.

The former executive said they would expect Booz Allen leadership and its lawyers already to be meeting with Treasury officials to resolve the situation.

“I suspect they will have to help the government save face and give something up, but they probably are trying to negotiate a deal. If they can’t, I would expect Booz Allen to take Treasury to court,” the executive said. “Treasury is a big agency and reputational losing them hurts.”

The post Treasury cuts ties with Booz Allen over tax records breach first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

For government oversight and accountability officials, 2025 was a year of deep change and uncertainty.

President Donald Trump fired 17 inspectors general within his first week back in office. He has also removed the heads of independent agencies like the Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. And the Trump administration has challenged the ability of the Government Accountability Office to review agency spending decisions.

But current and former officials say the oversight community is grappling with issues that aren’t exclusive to the Trump administration. The increasing size and complexity of government, rapid changes in technology, and a tightening of access to information are all long-term challenges for auditors and investigators.

During a Jan. 15 workshop hosted by Virginia Tech’s School of Public and International Affairs, members of the oversight community discussed the challenges, both near- and long-term.

“Where I stand, oversight is as important as ever, and I would argue, more important than ever,” Nicole Clowers, acting chief operating officer at the GAO, said during the workshop. “The federal government’s role is undergoing a significant transformation, and whether you agree with the policy changes that are being made, or you disagree with the policy changes that are being made, I think we all can agree that the changes will have a profound impact on how federal programs operate, at least for the near future, and maybe the longer term as well.”

To be sure, Trump’s removal of IGs, the 29 existing IG vacancies across government and reductions in staffing at offices of inspectors general were top of mind for many workshop attendees. Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, said that initial action set the tone for what has followed.

“When an administration walks in and fires 17 IGs for no good reason, that presents the evidence that speaks for itself, that our oversight capacity for our government is being harmed, and there are a lot of other actions that have taken place since then that unfortunately reinforce the challenge that is being presented to oversight and beyond,” Stier said.

A federal judge found those firings were unlawful because Trump did not provide the required 30-day notification to Congress about the removals. But the judge did not find reason to reinstate the IGs, and lawmakers have done little to reinforce the law they passed in 2022 requiring the president to provide that notification.

James-Christian Blockwood, president and CEO of the National Academy of Public Administration, compared the situation to flagging down a police officer when a driver is clearly speeding

“But what if the police officer is doing nothing? What if all the mechanisms you put in place, the speeding cameras, everyone’s seeing what’s happening, but nothing is happening. Nothing. There’s no consequence,” Blockwood said.

“We can go down and talk about what happened with the removal of IGs, and I would still go back to we need to make sure that there’s a consequence, and I think that’s where we need to be thinking about, where does that ultimate accountability lie?” Blockwood continued. “And how do we help those that have the responsibility to make sure that the things happen that need to happen, are doing that job.”

In September, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought also moved to defund the Council on Inspectors General For Integrity and Efficiency.

Congress created CIGIE in 2008 to provide a central organization that improves the integrity and effectiveness of IG offices. It offers training, provides centralized resources like website support and data on IG reports, and oversees investigations into potential IG wrongdoing.

When OMB defunded CIGIE, more than two dozen IG websites went dark. It was another shot across the bow for independent oversight within the executive branch.

“CIGIE has so many statutory responsibilities, but it also does things even beyond that, to help this community stay connected and to work as efficiently and effectively as possible,” Allison Lerner, former inspector general at the National Science Foundation, said during the workshop. “And if we don’t have a strong CIGIE … it’s really undermining the spine of what’s enabled us to come together over the last 15 years.”

OMB has since released some funding for CIGIE. But the White House says it’s conducting a “programmatic review of CIGIE’s activities.”

GAO’s role

The Trump administration hasn’t just targeted oversight within the executive branch. GAO is a legislative branch agency. But Vought is seeking to minimize its role and has said GAO shouldn’t exist in the first place.

The Trump administration has been at loggerheads with GAO over its role in enforcing the Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits agencies from withholding funds appropriated by Congress.

GAO has found several violations of the act over the past year. And its reports note that in some cases, agencies aren’t providing GAO with requested information.

But Clowers noted access issues aren’t a necessarily new problem for auditors

“We experienced them for decades under both parties various administrations, and so it’s not party specific or administration specific,” Clowers said. “So we do have some muscle memory and techniques that we use, but we’re certainly expanding on them.”

Clowers said GAO is training analysts to escalate any issues they have accessing information “very quickly” to general counsel’s office, which often resolves the issue.

GAO’s role has already gained a higher profile over the past year, and that’s likely to continue as the Trump administration reshapes the role of the federal government. Clowers noted that many government programs also continue to grow in both size and complexity, pointing to examples ranging from Medicare to cybersecurity and rare earth mineral supply chains.

And then there’s the brain drain. Roughly 300,000 employees departed government service over the past year, many of them longtime public servants. And Clowers said there’s been more turnover among congressional staff as well.

“You put that together, and you really have a mix for problems,” Clowers said. “You have an increased risk for fraud, waste and abuse. You also have an increased risk for mission failure, [and] the ability of the federal government to carry out its role is in question. And I think this goes to why I believe that the importance of oversight can’t be overstated.”

Opportunities to engage

Despite the immediate crises and long-term challenges, leaders also see the current moment as opportunity for the oversight community.

“I do think we now are in an era in which some of the challenges that I’ve been highlighting actually carry with them the opportunity to get people to pay attention and care more,” Stier said. “I believe that the most important, good thing that could come out of all the challenges that we are experiencing today is a public that cares about the nature of our government, understands our government.”

One of the major challenges for oversight organizations is communicating with stakeholders and the general public about their work. Blockwood said the community should consider how to make their work more relevant and timely.

“Can you be more real time in what you’re doing, the communication around it?” Blockwood said. “How do you offer more transparency and communication to what those findings are? We are well beyond where you can take months to do a study. You can still do that, and it will produce good information at the end, but you have to have other packages and products that have some early findings as to what to do with it.”

At GAO, for instance, officials are considering how to best position its “High Risk List.” The list is updated at the start of each new Congress and includes programs and operations “with serious vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement, or in need of transformation.” There are currently 38 areas highlighted on the list, ranging from defense acquisition and tax law to Medicare and the federal security clearance process.

“This is something that’s on our radar in terms of, how do we maybe better communicate what’s on[the list]  and draw attention?” Clowers said. “Because when you get to a list of 38, that even starts to feel like a lot, how to sort through that.”

GAO is leaning into the future amid a major transition for the agency: Longtime Comptroller General Gene Dodaro retired at the end of last year.  Before his final day, Dodaro appointed GAO veteran Orice Williams Brown to lead the agency as acting comptroller general.

Clowers said GAO’s new leadership team has developed a plan, informed by Dodaro. The agency’s priorities include embracing new technologies like artificial intelligence to help streamline GAO’s work. GAO is also focused on building relationships with both agencies and congressional offices, while working to “double down” on quality assurance, independence and nonpartisan work, Clowers said.

And as other workshop attendees alluded to, Clowers said GAO is considering how to best demonstrate its value and communicate with the public about its work through blogs, podcasts and other mediums.

“When you think about the challenges, when you think about the time that we’re at, we could make ourselves small and hope no one notices us and sort of weather things like that,” Clowers said. “Or we can continue to carry on our mission and do the right things, which has always been GAO’s goal. And I can’t speak for everyone, but I can assure you that at GAO, we’re focused on mission, and we’re singularly focused on achieving that mission, and will continue to be so.”

The post Oversight community wrestles with challenges to independence and more first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Government Accountability Office

OPINION — September is National Preparedness Month - when we check our emergency kits, review evacuation routes, and prepare for natural disasters. But this year, as I sat in conference rooms at the Eradicate Hate Global Summit in Pittsburgh, I couldn't stop thinking about a different kind of storm brewing in our communities. One that doesn't announce itself with weather alerts or sirens.

It targets our children in their digital third spaces - Discord servers where they chat with friends, Instagram feeds where they scroll for hours, Reddit forums where they seek community, gaming platforms where they unwind, and the sprawling ecosystem of social media where teenagers spend most of their waking hours.

In 2024, teenagers accounted for up to two-thirds of ISIS-linked arrests in Europe, with children as young as 11 involved in recent terrorist plots. But Islamic extremists aren't the only ones hunting in these digital spaces. White supremacist groups, neo-Nazi organizations, and other far-right movements have turned every corner of the internet where young people gather into potential recruitment centers.

What unites these predators across the ideological spectrum isn't their beliefs - it's their understanding that vulnerable children make easy targets. And while they've perfected their hunting techniques, we've dismantled our defenses.

The State Department issued a call for proposals in July 2025 to fund programs preventing terrorists from recruiting young people online. One month later, they canceled the entire initiative due to funding cuts. The very expertise needed to design and manage such responses had been dismantled when my office - the Office of Countering Violent Extremism - was shuttered along with similar prevention teams across the federal government.

We're watching the storm approach, and we're sending the meteorologists home.

The New Hunting Grounds

Every platform where teenagers gather has become a recruitment center for extremist movements. Neo-Nazi groups use gaming chats to spread white supremacist messaging. Islamic extremists exploit social media algorithms to target vulnerable youth. Far-right militias recruit through conspiracy theory forums. Anti-government extremists find followers in survivalist communities.

The tactics mirror those used by online predators - build trust, isolate targets, gradually introduce radical ideas, and exploit vulnerabilities. A teenager struggling with social isolation logs into Discord seeking connection and community. Instead, they find recruiters who validate their frustrations while slowly introducing conspiracy theories, hate-filled content, and calls for violence.

The progression is methodical. First comes the meme that seems edgy but harmless. Then the private message offering "real truth" about current events. Next, the invitation to a smaller, more exclusive group where radical content flows freely. Finally, the encouragement to take action—whether spreading propaganda, targeting individuals, or planning violence.

These aren't random encounters. Extremist recruiters study adolescent psychology, identifying kids who show signs of depression, social anxiety, or family conflict. They understand that teenagers are naturally questioning authority and seeking identity—normal developmental phases that can be exploited.

History's Warning Signs

This exploitation of youth isn't new - only the technology has changed.

The Hitler Youth movement systematically recruited children through youth organizations. The Red Army Faction in 1970s Germany drew from disaffected university students. The Irish Republican Army found fertile recruiting ground among marginalized teenagers in Belfast.

What these historical cases teach us is that extremist movements succeed when they fill voids left by failing institutions. When young people can't find meaning, purpose, or belonging through legitimate channels, they become vulnerable to those offering simple explanations for complex problems.

Today's digital environment amplifies these vulnerabilities exponentially. Where previous extremists recruited face-to-face in specific locations, online recruiters can reach millions simultaneously, test messaging in real-time, and operate across borders with minimal detection risk.

The Programs We Dismantled

The prevention infrastructure dismantled over the past year wasn't theoretical—it was saving lives.

At the State Department, our team worked with tech companies to identify recruitment tactics and develop content policies that protected legitimate speech while removing extremist material. We helped content moderators recognize subtle grooming techniques that avoid automated detection.

The Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships at DHS built relationships with schools and community organizations to identify early warning signs. Their approach was therapeutic, not punitive—providing intervention resources that addressed underlying issues rather than criminalization.

At the FBI, specialized teams tracked recruitment networks and distinguished between teenage edginess and genuine threats. The Department of Health and Human Services funded research into psychological vulnerabilities that informed prevention strategies.

All shared common principles: early intervention beats prosecution; community solutions work better than federal enforcement; understanding radicalization psychology is essential for prevention.

The Disinformation Amplifier

What makes today's threat environment particularly dangerous is how disinformation amplifies extremist recruitment while major platforms fail to enforce their own policies.

As I write this, Houthi-linked arms dealers openly sell weapons on verified X accounts, advertising Kalashnikovs and equipment marked "Property of U.S. Govt." The Tech Transparency Project identified 130 Yemen-based accounts advertising weapons, some with verification checkmarks. X even ran advertisements beneath these posts, generating revenue from terrorist-linked content.

A teenager exposed to election fraud conspiracies becomes more susceptible to political violence messaging. Young people fed disinformation about minority communities become easier targets for white supremacist recruitment. Disinformation serves as a gateway drug to radicalization.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

The Cost of Inaction

At the Pittsburgh summit, I heard from parents whose children had been radicalized online, officers investigating cases without prevention resources, and community leaders watching young people disappear into digital hate.

One mother found extremist content on her 14-year-old son's computer. When she sought help, local resources that might have provided intervention had lost federal funding. A police officer described investigating a high school attack plot that might have been prevented if early warning systems remained operational.

These costs are measured in broken families, traumatized communities, and young lives destroyed by preventable radicalization.

What Preparedness Really Means

We don't wait for hurricanes before planning—we build early warning systems and maintain emergency capabilities. The same logic should apply to extremist recruitment.

We need systems detecting concerning behavioral changes before they become threats. We need intervention addressing psychological vulnerabilities before recruiters exploit them. We need community responses providing support when families encounter these issues.

The good news: we know what works. Community-based prevention programs have demonstrated success in interrupting radicalization. EXIT programs in Germany and Sweden help individuals leave extremist groups through mentorship and psychological support. The Against Violent Extremism network connects former extremists with at-risk youth. Montreal's Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence has successfully intervened in over 1,000 cases through family counseling and community partnerships.

The Path Forward

Rebuilding prevention infrastructure requires immediate action and long-term commitment.

Congress must restore funding for prevention programs at State, DHS, FBI, and HHS. These aren't luxury programs—they're essential public safety capabilities protecting vulnerable citizens.

We must rebuild scattered expertise by bringing prevention professionals back from think tanks, universities, and private companies through sustained investment commitments.

We need stronger partnerships between agencies, tech companies, schools, and communities. Prevention works best at multiple levels simultaneously.

Parents and educators need training to recognize early warning signs. This means providing basic digital literacy and threat awareness to identify concerning behavioral changes.

Finally, we need counter-messaging strategies competing with extremist propaganda for young people's attention—empowering communities to tell better stories about identity, purpose, and belonging.

Field Notes

Prevention vs. Reaction: Preventing one radicalized individual costs approximately $30,000. Investigating, prosecuting, and incarcerating them after violence costs over $3 million—not counting human costs to victims and communities.

Community Resilience: The most effective programs work through trusted institutions—schools, religious organizations, sports teams, youth groups. Federal resources can support but can't replace local relationships and trust.

Reader Challenge

Check Your Circle: Talk with young people about their online experiences—not to interrogate, but to understand their digital worlds.

Support Local Programs: Find prevention resources in your community. School counselors and youth organizations often spot concerning trends before law enforcement.

Practice Digital Hygiene: Model good information consumption. Fact-check claims before sharing them. Ask questions about sources when your teen shows you "shocking" content. Demonstrate critical thinking by saying "That sounds concerning—let's look up where this information comes from" rather than immediately reacting emotionally. Young people learn more from observation than instruction.

As I flew home from Pittsburgh, I thought about my children and their digital world. The threats they face aren't visible from satellites or predictable through models. They emerge from the intersection of human psychology and technology in ways we're only beginning to understand.

But September's preparedness lessons still apply: early warning, community response, and sustained vigilance. The storms targeting our children won't announce themselves with sirens, but they can be detected, understood, and prevented—if we're willing to invest in the tools and expertise necessary to protect what matters most.

Cipher Brief Expert Dexter Ingram also publishes on Substack Code Name: Citizen

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.

Nigel Farage began his second news conference of the day alongside Suella Braverman by declaring: "The centre right is finally uniting." Really?

Two separate recalls of contaminated baby formula this month by Nestle and Danone originated from a shared ingredient supplier, the food safety watchdog has confirmed.

Interview transcript

Terry Gerton Let’s start our new year by digging into what’s happening with the 8(a) program. It is probably under the tightest scrutiny in its 47-year history. Why does this administration care so much? What are they looking for?

Emily Murphy I think that there are a few things that have converged right now and that have sort of put 8(a) in the spotlight. And part of it is actually what the Biden administration did with the 8(a) program. But if you remember, there’s a statutory goal that says 5 percent of prime contract dollars are supposed to be awarded to small, socially and economically disadvantaged businesses. And 8(a) is the primary tool for making those awards. But President Biden, via executive order and some memos out of OMB, raised that goal to 15 percent, which brought a lot more money into the program, brought a more interest and scrutiny into the program, and led to the first of the lawsuits that we’ve seen in, you know, serious lawsuits we’ve seen in about 20 years since post-Adarand, about the 8(a) program. There was the Ultima case that was decided in ’23 that said SBA could no longer presume certain categories were socially disadvantaged. So that’s what led to people starting to look at the 8(a) program and put things in flux. The other thing actually goes back maybe about 10 years further, which was Congress back in 2013, 2014 looked at limitation on subcontracting and how did you make sure, not just in the 8(a) program but in all the socioeconomic programs, that if you’re giving work, setting aside work to a type of companies, the work was actually being done by those companies. And the old rules always said that 51 percent of the cost of the labor or 51 percent of the costs of the goods had to be done by the small business getting the work, 8(a), woman-owned, HUBZone, service deal, veteran, but it was really hard to figure out if anyone was following that because small businesses don’t usually engage in cost accounting. They certainly don’t have the cost basis of their subcontractors to figure it out. So you never could really figure out whether anyone was complying. And it created weird requirements for small businesses that we were hoping would grow into large businesses where it said, just you’re better off not teaming with anyone, just go it alone because you’re not gonna get in trouble. But then as soon as you’ve become a large business or an other-than-small business, we want you to start contracting with other small businesses. So Congress came in and said, all right, rather than this 51 percent of cost basis, we’re just gonna look at the dollars that are awarded to the company. And if, and we’re gonna start saying that 50 percent of the dollars that are rewarded to a company under any contract may be subcontracted to companies that are not similarly situated. So if an award went to a small business, they and other small businesses had to keep 50 percent of the dollars, and that they could use non-small businesses to do the remaining 50 percent of the work. They could work with other 8(a)s to meet that 50 percent goal and then the remaining 50 percent, they could used small businesses or women in small businesses or large businesses. But the plan was then to use the electronic subcontracting reporting system to track that and see whether or not that was being applied with. That hasn’t happened. But the changes, and it took a while to get the regulations in place to implement those, have now given us some insight to how subcontracting is, it’s made it much more easy to audit whether or not all small businesses, but in this case, 8(a)s, are following those rules. And there was the O’Keefe Media Group where they caught one company on saying that they were subcontracting more than I think they were allowed to under the program. So you had these changes of the goals which President Trump rolled back very beginning of January of 2025, but that didn’t change the fact that a lot of new money had come into the program and so the program was gonna get a lot more scrutiny. It sort of led us to where we are now.

Terry Gerton Well, the Pentagon has just announced that they’re going to conduct their own line-by-line review. What does the administration hope to learn separately from the SBA investigation by the DOD? Taking a deep dive.

Emily Murphy When I saw the secretary’s announcement on that, I thought it was interesting that he was making two different points. The first one was he wanted to make sure that all the contracts that were being awarded using the 8(a) program were following limitations of contracting. But he said that they were really gonna focus on those that were above $20 million. Now, sole source contracts above $20 million don’t go to just your average 8(a) company. There’s a cap on sole source awards, and it depends on whether it’s for goods or services. But it’s less than half of that amount. The only companies getting $20 million sole source awards through the 8(a) program are Alaska Native corporations, Native Hawaiian organizations, tribally-owned organization. They don’t have the same affiliation restrictions that traditional 8(a)s have, don’t the same management restrictions. So it’s a special subclass of 8(a)s and they said that when they focused on those who have $20 million, I thought it was interesting that they seemed to be looking at the larger 8(a) companies, the ones that have taken on more and more of this work.

Terry Gerton Should we read anything particular into that focus?

Emily Murphy I would think that that was the distinction I saw between the general 8(a) reviews taking place at SBA, the requests for review that were put out by Sen. Ernst (R-Iowa) and Senate Small Business and the work that was happening at the Pentagon. I also thought it was interesting that the Pentagon said the other thing they wanted to do was make sure that these contracts were for things that align with their priorities. Now that’s always a good thing to do. You don’t want to be spending money on things that don’t align with your priorities. But I thought it was an interesting take from the secretary’s announcement that the contracts that he was focusing on were those that were tribal organization-owned 8(a) companies.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Emily Murphy. She’s senior fellow at the George Mason University Baroni Center for Government Contracting and a former GSA administrator. Emily, let’s turn to the other agency that’s digging into the 8(a)s, Treasury. They’re looking at $9 billion of performance-based contracts. Where does that fit in this puzzle?

Emily Murphy The Treasury’s looking at similar issues with task orders and others issued under the 8(a) program to whether or not they met the requirements, but also it’s also getting into limitation on sub-contracting. So you’re seeing similar trends across all of the investigations. Well, the Secretary of War was talking about beltway bandits and Administrator Loeffler was talking instead about just looking at all 4,000 plus 8(a)s, Treasury is looking specifically at those that they awarded and that’s a good place to start for them and to make sure that they’re actually meeting, once again, that you’re not having what they’re calling a pass-through where, now one thing I do think is interesting is that this is all focused only on the 8(a) program where the pass-thru issue exists for all small business contracts and so if I were a small business, I’d making sure that any work that I’m doing, I wouldn’t assume that this is going to stop with the 8(a) companies. I think that the 8(a)s, because of that 15% goal in the prior administration are getting a lot of focus. But I would be concerned if I were another small business to make sure that I was documenting that I was following limitation on subcontracting.

Terry Gerton Let’s dig into that a little bit because the all of this activity collectively has sort of raised the level of angst among the government contracting community. If you were a legitimate small business 8(a) provider, what should you expect as these reforms move forward?

Emily Murphy If you’re following the rules, this shouldn’t itself be a fundamental challenge, with two caveats on that. The first one being, pause in the work and awards made to any 8(a) is going to change your pipeline and whether or not you’re able to exist. So if your pipeline was based on sole source awards of $4 million, $5 million, and there is a freeze on awards. That’s gonna put you in a more difficult spot in terms of does the agency that was going to make the award have the capacity to go out and run a competition? Will they do it as an 8(a) set aside rather than as a sole source? Does it need to be removed from the 8(a) program first in order for that to happen? So there’s some contracting challenges that go with that. The other challenge you’ve got is that if you look at the model deviation to part 19 of the FAR that was issued last summer. It changed the basis of award for 8(a) as well and it said that if 8(a) companies are on a multiple-award contract that, instead of doing sole sources to those 8(a)s you should do a competitive award and that if something has previously been in the 8(a) program and you want to instead award it to another socioeconomic group, say serviceable veterans or women, you no longer need to go to SBA and ask their permission. You can go ahead and do it on your own. So those are the challenges I’d be focused on more if I were an 8(a) company that was convinced it was complying with the limitation on subcontracting.

Terry Gerton And what do you think the administration is anticipating on the other side when they get these investigations complete and they see the results are we going to see tighter rules? Are we gonna see a new version of the 8(a) something completely different

Emily Murphy Well, Congress hasn’t really gotten self-involved in the 8(a) program in decades now. SBA is somewhat constrained as to what can or cannot change in the program on its own. And there are stakeholders on both sides of the 8(a) issue in Congress. You’ve got the ranking member on the House Small Business Committee has been a long time champion at the 8(a) program. Senators from states that have a lot of tribal contracting tend to be supportive of the program because it brings work back, a revenue back to their states and to communities that they consider to be underserved. So how much flexibility the administration will have to make structural changes to the program it remains to be seen and how much collaboration that they’re going to get? Are they going to take the results of that investigation and go to Congress and ask for changes? Or are they just going to change the practice of how they use the tools? Because again, there’s a 5% goal for awarding contracts to socially and economically disadvantaged — companies owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. But there is no mandate that you must use the 8(a) program to do that. Does the administration then decide by administrative practice that they’re gonna pull back and they’re going to find other ways of meeting that goal?

The post A sweeping audit could reshape the 8(a) program and federal contractors are bracing for what comes next first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

In 2012, a Defense Department inspector general report raised concerns about the limits of signature-based antivirus tools. The Senate Armed Services Committee echoed those concerns, acknowledging that the military’s cybersecurity system could only detect threats it already knew about. Worse, the system consumed so much communications capacity that commanders in low-bandwidth environments faced an impossible choice between operational security and mission execution.

More than a decade later, federal agencies are paying the price for ignoring that warning. The signature-based defenses that Congress questioned in 2012 are still protecting critical systems in 2025, and at the same time, adversaries have leapfrogged ahead with automation, AI, and constantly shifting tactics designed specifically to evade detection. The government’s failure to heed that warning established a dangerous pattern: Reactive defenses are always one step behind evolving threats. Today, that same approach leaves federal agencies vulnerable across multiple fronts — and email, the most universal communication channel, has become the easiest entry point for nation-state actors to exploit.

Chinese hackers impersonated a U.S. congressman — and federal defenses failed

In July, the Chinese state-sponsored cyber threat group APT41 as part of a spear-phishing campaign targeting trade groups and law firms ahead of critical U.S.-China trade discussions. Posing as Moolenaar, attackers asked recipients to share their feedback as part of a ploy to gather information, and included malware disguised as a draft proposal.

It should give government security leaders pause that this email evaded detection and successfully reached its targets. With malicious AI tools at their fingertips, adversaries (and their tactics) are becoming increasingly sophisticated — and more challenging to detect.

For decades, email has remained the leading gateway that cybercriminals leverage to infiltrate federal agencies. Email is a universal communication mechanism, and for federal agencies who frequently engage with the public, it must remain open and available. But recent attacks have exposed a sobering reality: Our federal infrastructure isn’t adapting quickly enough to keep up with threats, and vulnerabilities are growing.

Despite ongoing security awareness efforts and phishing security tests, many people still fail to recognize the risk that can come from a simple email. After all, when you’re using official systems, it’s easy to assume that once a message lands in your inbox, it’s already passed all the necessary checks. And as AI has made traditional phishing red flags — like a suspicious attachment or poor grammar — mostly obsolete, it’s not surprising that a recent phishing is now the starting point for 77% of advanced attacks.

Why government can’t keep up

Government bureaucracy moves methodically but slowly. It’s often the result of complex coordination across layers of hierarchy and competing priorities from multiple stakeholders. But when it comes to cybersecurity, this deliberative pace can create critical security gaps that deepen technical debt.

The challenge isn’t for lack of effort, as the DoD and other agencies have made real investments in modernization. But the security landscape has changed faster than policy can adapt. Defenses must move from reactive to adaptive. Future-proofing federal cybersecurity means embracing tools and strategies that don’t just chase yesterday’s threats using the same methods, but anticipate tomorrow’s with adaptive and modern techniques.

Here are ways government agencies can start to enact this approach:

• Revise BOD 18-01. While the 2017 directive includes several still-relevant protections, it doesn’t fully defend against newer, more advanced threats, particularly those that leverage AI to bypass legacy detection methods. This policy should now be assumed as baseline hygiene, not the ceiling for email security. Updated guidance must reflect the role of AI and behavioral analysis in identifying novel threats with no known signatures.
• Employ purpose-built, AI-native solutions. This administration has loudly declared the intention to move forward on AI, and in the new fiscal year, agencies have a timely opportunity to invest in tools that deliver impact without added complexity. Purpose-built, AI-native solutions offer a practical path forward, helping teams solve a specific problem — like detecting and stopping advanced email threats — without raising additional governance or risk concerns.
• Adopt a multi-layered security approach. Foundational measures like security awareness training and multi-factor authentication are still an essential part of any modern security program. By combining them with advanced, AI-native technologies that can more precisely detect anomalies, provide more tailored, sophisticated training, and better identify malicious activity, these measures will help ensure long-term protection against novel threats.

In this fiscal year, agencies will be expected to more widely embrace AI — a daunting but necessary shift. The focus should be on operationalizing AI to solve specific, labor-intensive tasks that drive mission impact. Email may seem routine, but it’s a vital link in mission execution and public trust. The Pentagon warned us 13 years ago that reactive defenses would fail. They were right. The question now is whether federal agencies will learn from that mistake, or whether we’ll be writing the same warnings in 2038 about the AI-powered threats we’re ignoring today.

Yejin Jang is head of government affairs at Abnormal AI.

The post The federal government ignored a cybersecurity warning for 13 years. Now hackers are exploiting the gap. first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/WhataWin

OPINION — In the shadow of Mexico City's historic Palacio de Bellas Artes, global financial watchdogs will convene in February 2026 for the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Plenary and Working Group Meetings. In conference rooms far removed from South Asia’s violence, Pakistan will once again present itself as a responsible counterterrorism partner, armed with compliance reports, legislative amendments, and assurances of reform. On paper, Pakistan’s financial regulations increasingly resemble those of many developing democracies. On the ground, however, the networks that finance and enable terrorism continue to adapt and operate with troubling resilience. The widening gap between form and function is precisely what Western policymakers must confront as FATF prepares its next round of assessments.

The Compliance Illusion

Pakistan’s removal from the FATF grey list in 2022 was widely portrayed as a success story. Officials pointed to new anti-money laundering laws, terrorist financing prosecutions, and institutional reforms as evidence of a course correction. FATF itself acknowledged technical improvements, yet it also emphasized that effectiveness, not legislation, remains the ultimate benchmark. That distinction has proven critical.

Open-source reporting and documented financial intelligence patterns suggest that terrorist organizations such as Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) have not been dismantled but rather modernized. Recent documents reveal how these UN-designated outfits exploit humanitarian crises, such as the Gaza conflict, to funnel funds into terror activities. Under the guise of aid appeals and mosque reconstructions, figures like Hammad Azhar, son of JeM leader Masood Azhar, and Azhar’s brother Talha al-Saif orchestrate campaigns using digital wallets like EasyPaisa, SadaPay, and JazzCash, aggregating micro-donations and cryptocurrencies to evade detection. These efforts aggregate micro-donations and cryptocurrency transfers, often employing fragmented wallet structures and chain-hopping across platforms to avoid detection. Funds have reportedly supported militant infrastructure, including the establishment of more than 300 Mosques and the reconstruction of locations historically linked to LeT training facilities damaged during India’s 2025 Operation Sindoor.

This pattern reflects more than opportunism. Pakistan’s legal framework may align with FATF’s 40 recommendations on paper, but operational enforcement remains deeply inconsistent. Sanctioned individuals such as Hafiz Talha Saeed have led public rallies in Lahore under police protection, issuing threats against Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In 2025, senior Pakistani legislature Rana Muhammad Qasim Noon reportedly visited militant-affiliated reconstruction sites alongside local officials, revealing overt collaboration between state and non-state actors. Recruitment drives disguised as religious gatherings, often coordinated with Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam networks, have featured speeches praising Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, delivered by JeM commander Masood Ilyas Kashmiri at facilities such as Markaz Shohada-e-Islam in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Together, these cases point to a long-standing “management” model of extremism. Militant groups are not dismantled but rebranded, with political fronts such as the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League contesting elections while violence is normalized as a political instrument. As Greece-based policy analyst Dimitra Staikou has argued, this model exports instability through regional alignments and shields militancy behind formal democratic processes.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

Why Mexico City Matters

The February 2026 FATF meetings come at a moment when Pakistan’s engagement with the United States and Europe is deepening even as its internal security situation deteriorates. Militant violence has surged significantly, driven by attacks from the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and Baloch insurgent groups. Rather than prompting a clean break with all forms of militancy, this instability risks reinforcing the proxy logic that FATF scrutiny is meant to dismantle. For Western policymakers, the danger lies in conflating cooperation with convergence in security priorities. Intelligence sharing, access agreements, or economic partnerships do not necessarily reflect aligned counterterrorism priorities. As I argued previously in The Milli Chronicle, Pakistan’s strategic incentives continue to reward selective tolerance of militant actors, particularly those oriented toward India. FATF’s effectiveness framework exists to test whether states are willing to disrupt these incentives, not simply mask them with procedural compliance.

FATF’s 2025 Comprehensive Update on Terrorist Financing Risks underscores the urgency. The report highlights a marked increase in hybrid digital methods, consistent with Pakistan-linked entities shifting from banks to fintech platforms to evade oversight. Although Pakistan exited the grey list in 2022 after four years of economic strain, FATF President Elisa de Anda Madrazo warned in October 2025 that the removal was “not bulletproof,” citing unregulated digital transactions as a continuing vulnerability.

Mexico City should therefore serve as a turning point. US and EU delegations should press for outcome-based evaluations focused on sustained investigations, verifiable asset seizures, and the dismantling of facilitation networks. Particular scrutiny must be directed toward digital payment systems, informal charities, and micro-donation models that exploit regulatory blind spots. Western governments should also coordinate more closely to monitor cross-border flows linked to high-risk jurisdictions, ensuring that Pakistan’s reforms translate into measurable disruption rather than rhetorical reassurance.

Conclusion: Choosing Substance Over Stability Theater

Pakistan will argue that renewed scrutiny risks destabilizing a fragile state. That argument has been persuasive before, and it has failed before. Stability built on tolerated militancy is not stability at all; it is deferred risk. Western capitals should therefore anchor their engagement around two imperatives.

First, international partners should move beyond accepting legislative reforms and instead condition high-level diplomatic, security, and economic engagement with Pakistan on verifiable enforcement outcomes. This means tying cooperation to demonstrable actions such as sustained terrorist-financing prosecutions, asset freezes against UN- and US-designated individuals, and the disruption of digital fundraising networks linked to groups like JeM and LeT.

Second, Washington and Brussels should treat Pakistan-linked terrorist financing as a transnational financial integrity threat, not a regional security issue. This requires enhanced monitoring of fintech platforms, mobile wallets, charities, and micro-donation systems used by diaspora-linked networks in Europe and North America. FATF has repeatedly warned that terrorist groups increasingly exploit digital payments and new financial technologies to evade traditional controls. The EU and US should expand joint typology sharing, require higher due-diligence thresholds for transactions linked to high-risk jurisdictions, and protect activists and journalists targeted by transnational repression tied to Pakistan’s security apparatus.

In Mexico City, Pakistan will speak in the language of compliance and reform. Beyond the conference halls, the true test will be whether the networks that finance violence are finally dismantled or quietly allowed to endure. If Western governments choose substance over symbolism, this moment can mark a turning point. If not, the paperwork will pass, and the risks will return—more adaptive, more opaque, and more dangerous than before.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief, because national security is everyone’s business.

Kanye West has denied he is a Nazi and taken out a full-page advert in the Wall Street Journal to apologise for antisemitic comments. 

Footage from a hospital in Tehran shows at least 31 bodies piled inside and seven body bags outside.

The discovery of a crack on the Madrid-Barcelona line follows two recent deadly crashes in the country.

 

• A top House Republican is calling on Department of Homeland Security officials to testify in front of Congress. Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) formally requested testimony from the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Garbarino said he wants to make sure those agencies are effectively using their resources. His letter comes in the aftermath of another deadly shooting by a federal agent in Minnesota as part of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.
  (Garbarino requests ICE, CBP, USCIS testimony for upcoming oversight hearing - House Homeland Security Committee )
• A government watchdog has found that telework is not a main contributor to declines in agency customer service. Across three agencies used as case studies, a new report from the Government Accountability Office found that each had declines in customer service due to factors like staffing shortages or funding issues, not telework. Each agency that GAO researched also faced at least some level of recruitment challenges, where employees either left or considered leaving for a job with more telework flexibility. The report comes about a year after President Donald Trump ordered all federal employees to work in the office full-time.
  (Report on federal telework - Government Accountability Office)
• The Defense Department’s long-awaited National Defense Strategy is a sharp departure from the first Trump administration’s strategy that focused on deterring China as the country’s top priority. The new strategy, unusually political for a military document, shifts its focus toward defending the U.S. homeland and prioritizing dominance in the Western Hemisphere. It calls for securing U.S. borders, maritime approaches and airspace, including through the Golden Dome for America initiative and a renewed focus on countering unmanned aerial threats. U.S. allies and partners, the document said, will “have an essential role to play but not as the dependencies of the last generation.”
  (DoD’s long-awaited National Defense Strategy focuses on homeland - Defense Department)
• The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is helping agencies get ready for a post-quantum world. CISA has released a list of product categories that use post-quantum cryptography standards. The list shows that some hardware and software products, like cloud services and collaboration software, have adopted partially post-quantum encryption standards. Many other technology products are just starting the transition. CISA’s release of the list is an important step as agencies plan out their migration to the new cryptographic standards. Cybersecurity officials are concerned that a quantum computer in the not too distant future will be able to break traditional encryption methods.
  (CISA releases product categories list to propel post-quantum cryptography adoption - Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency)
• The federal agencies that saw the most employees leave in 2025, either voluntarily or involuntarily, were large departments like Defense and Agriculture. But according to data from the Office of Personnel Management, when looking at employee separations as a percentage of their total workforce size, USAID, the Office of the National Cyber Director and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service top the list.
  (The federal workforce changed drastically in 2025. Here’s how. - Federal News Network)
• The Army signed another enterprisewide software agreement directly with a software provider. The Army added Appian to its growing list of enterprisewide software contracts with original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs. The service agreed to a 10-year deal with the low-code, no-code platform provider that has a $500 million ceiling. The contract consolidates six existing contracts for Appian tools. The new deal includes any new software licenses, maintenance, support services and cloud services task orders. This contract comes four months after the Army signed a similar enterprisewide 10-year deal with Palantir that has a $10 billion ceiling.
  (Army consolidates contracts, signs deal with low-code, no-code provider - SAM.gov)
• Congress is once again raising concerns about rising costs, staffing levels and an expanding mission at the Pentagon’s cost assessment and program evaluation office. CAPE has faced scrutiny over the years for taking on an advocacy rather than advisory role. The House Armed Services Committee even proposed eliminating the office altogether. While Congress stopped short of shutting down the office, the fiscal 2024 defense policy bill required the Defense Department to overhaul how it operates. Now, lawmakers want Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to submit a detailed plan on how the department plans to streamline and optimize CAPE while reducing the number of contracted personnel within the office. Lawmakers said any effort to shrink the office cannot come at the expense of its core cost assessment functions.
  (Congress presses DoD to rein in growing costs, contractor reliance at CAPE - House.gov)
• NASA SEWP is implementing key sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation rewrite to let users set up blanket purchase agreements or BPAs on top of the governmentwide acquisition contract. The program office said under the new FAR Part 8, agency customers can create the BPAs for recurring purchases from one or more suppliers for pre-defined products and services. NASA said the benefits of establishing a BPA include streamlined ordering and cost savings through quantity discounts and reduced administrative requirements.
  (NASA now allows BPAs on SEWP V - NASA SEWP)

The post House Homeland Security Cmte Chairman calls for USCIS, CBP and ICE leaders to testify first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura

Interview transcript

Terry Gerton We’re going to talk about drones. The analyst market predicts a $355 billion drone market by 2026. That’s amazing. What is driving that massive increase?

James McDanolds I think the drive behind that massive increase is the fact that we are now getting to a point where the FAA rules for what’s called Part 108 is supposedly going to be released this year. And what that does is changes the scale and the way that drones are operated. In short, it allows drones to be operated beyond the pilot’s visual line of sight, and it allows multiple drones to operate by one operator or pilot. So what does that do? Well, with our current rules and regulations, you always have to have the pilot have eyes on the aircraft, unless you have a beyond visual line of site waiver. Now those are and far between. Now with standard rules to be able to fly beyond visual line of sight. Instead of me having to fly all the way out to, say, Scott City, Kansas to do wind turbine inspections, we could have a drone parked out there at the wind turbine farm. I could wake up from my bed, walk over to my computer, connect to the drone over the internet, and fly it from my home instead. But not just the drone at that one farm, it could be drones across multiple farms across multiple states. Now you don’t need to have a qualified operator be on location for every wind turbine inspection. You can have them be remote and operating multiple drones, making the operation more efficient. And not just one drone at a time, I could be flying maybe four or five, even 10, maybe even a hundred, doing turbine inspections all at once, which if you think about it, decreases the overall cost of operation.

Terry Gerton It seems like a recipe for attention deficit.

James McDanolds Well it does kind of transform in the past. I’ve been able to fly under a waiver that allowed one pilot to fly up to 10 aircraft at once. It does transition the mentality of a drone operator from just monitoring the aircraft and making sure everything’s working properly and being active, if need to, to being more of like an air traffic controller, but for drones instead of live aircraft and for the drones under your control, not necessarily for all the drones in the airspace. So it definitely changes the mentality a bit and it does take a lot of attention and a bit of multitasking for sure.

Terry Gerton And that’s different from the way we operate today because it’s one pilot per drone and mostly within a visual line of sight.

James McDanolds Correct.

Terry Gerton So this kind of opens up this concept of drones as a service. We’ve talked about software as a surface, but now people could buy drones as service. What would that mean in practice?

James McDanolds So it can mean different things. There’s different profiles that some companies are already working with under what we call a beyond visual line of sight or multi on-crewed aircraft systems waiver. And that means that you can now, say if someone wants to have a drone on a construction site and have that drone do a, what we call, project update photos and it takes photos and images once a week or maybe multiple times a week at that location. Well instead of having to have the operator come with it, you could have what’s called a drone in a box system. So there’s systems out there like a DJI dock or Percepto docking station or Skydio docks. So, essentially it’s this box that you power, you put a power connector to it or provide power to it. You plug in the ethernet or you have an internet wireless modem connected to it and it provides the ability for it to stay powered on 24/7. And you can connect to it over the internet at any time as needed. So instead of having the operator come out with the drone and all the equipment each time they need to do a flight at that location to the service provider, they could set the drone in a box at a location, set it, forget it, and then have the operator connect to that aircraft, fly the aircraft, collect all the needed data, and then provide that data to whoever is purchasing the use of that aircraft as a service.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with James McDanold’s. He’s the director of uncrewed technology programs at the Sonoran Desert Institute. So there are some countries that are already kind of modeling this approach. What should we learn from them in their early adoption?

James McDanolds There’s a lot of things to learn. We are in somewhat different environments for the countries that have adapted this faster than we have. And that is in cases like, Zipline is a good company. They are a drone delivery company and they have nationwide operations in a multitude of countries outside of the United States. They have some operations here in the United states that are under waiver that they’re conducting operations for but it’s not at the same scale. Now companies like those and others that have learned how to operate those drones at scale and beyond visual line of sight and multiple at once can take all those lessons learned and safety lessons learned, because now it’s not just one to one, it’s one to many, and it’s at a larger scale and it is in an airspace system that is now more complicated than the countries that they’ve operated in beforehand because countries that may have operated in maybe have two, three, four international flights with maybe some general aviation aircraft here and there. Now in the United States we have thousands of flights every day in the airspace as well as a lot of general aviation and hobbyist pilots out there. So that’s the reason the FAA has had to collect all this data and I think that is one challenge that will still be left is saying okay we’re going to integrate this as best we know with the data we have. We may need to make further increases in safety changes to make sure that we’re meeting that environmental change in comparison to where it’s been done overseas.

Terry Gerton It sounds like it increases security risks as well. Drones, unauthorized drones could be in different kinds of airspaces or for mega events. You may have drones all over the place and how will the FAA know which ones are supposed to be there and which ones aren’t?

James McDanolds So, I love that question, very good question. Right now, the FAA has what’s called Remote ID, and Remote ID is required for all drones, even ones that are not flying commercially under part 107. And what Remote ID does is put a small module on a drone that broadcasts the aircraft’s name, type, altitude, and location. And if a drone does not have that on board and it’s outside of what’s called a free zone, it’s an area where hobbyists can go that it’s pre-approved to fly out, most likely your aviation models, aeronautics club areas that are made for our radio controlled aircraft line as a hobby. If it’s not within that zone and it doesn’t have remote ID on it, it should not be there at all. It should not be allowed to fly at all, so that’s an identifier. There’s apps that you can see the remote IDs that are being broadcasted by drones. So that’s how currently both the public and the FAA can know who’s supposed to be there and who’s not.

Terry Gerton One thing to be able to identify them, it’s another to be able to eliminate them.

James McDanolds Yes, that is true. And that gets challenging as we’ve seen in conflicts over in Ukraine because both sides have been combating with, you know, frequency jamming and other things as well, but … now everyone’s referred to fiber optic lines and fiber optic cables that can be used to control these without necessarily jamming them. Well, when that becomes the case, the only other option is some form of kinetic or even — there’s individuals and companies that have created drones with netting capture systems where another drone will go up, track this other aircraft and deploy a net to capture it and then it’s hanging from this other drone and it brings that drone back. So there’s been some creative solutions that are coming out for those kinds of aircraft that aren’t supposed to be there. In a situation where obviously you don’t want them to be.

Terry Gerton You talked early on about part 108, the regulatory change that’s coming from the FAA. Are there other regulations that will need to go along with that or other processes to implement it that you’ll be watching for?

James McDanolds Yes, and one of them was just released near the end of last year, and that is the process for drone delivery companies when they want to start up a new operations area. They have to do essentially a site survey, a large-scale site survey to say, okay, what’s our airspace? What’s our ground environment look like? What’s the air traffic around the area? What are the obstacles that we have to contend with, both man-made and natural? That we have to evaluate for safety and then submit as a application almost, if you will, to the FAA to say, okay, we want to start operations here. Here’s the due diligence that we’ve done in order to start operation in that area. So even before anything, even before ground is broken, a safety evaluation must be done for the flight operation that they plan to conduct at scale under Part 108.

Terry Gerton You have said, though, that the real constraint here isn’t regulation, it’s talent. Tell us about what Sonoran Desert Institute is doing to train the folks who may be having to do these kinds of multi-drone controllers or other sorts of new technology management.

James McDanolds Well, certainly. So one of the things that we’re doing, and it’s not just about multi UAS controller beyond visual line of sight, recently on December 23, the Federal Communications Commission actually banned foreign-made drones from being sold in the United States. So now it’s not just about having competent pilots to expand to meet this new commercial need that’s coming into place because of part 108. It’s also more individuals who can build, design, flight test, and validate aircraft that are now going to have to be more built in the Unites States and for manufacturers in the Untied States. So that’s one of the key things we focus on is not just operations of, you know, visual line of sight, but operations and control for multitude of aircraft at once, how to handle that, how does that operation mindset look differently? And then even more importantly, how does one get into developing, validating, and producing on crewed aircraft systems? Because that is definitely a need that we have right now in the industry and we’ve had beforehand because there’s not a lot of suppliers out there or creators out there and it’s not just the drones themselves. It’s the components that go into the drones. Drones are like a cool little puzzle that have a ton of electronics and a ton of software that all come together to make these things fly and usable for different industries. So we try to train on that, not just for the drone itself, but also for those individual components and softwares as well.

The post The drone economy is about to take off fast, a $355B market and a new rule could make Drones-as-a-Service the next big thing first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

OPINION — The United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reported that 14,383 civilians were killed in Ukraine, 673 of them children, as of late 2025. Russia has intensified attacks on Ukraine’s power grid, generating facilities, and heating infrastructure, in efforts to disrupt electricity, heat, and water services – especially in winter. Clearly, Russia is targeting Ukraine’s civilian population.

The mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko, recently told Reuters that Kyiv, with a population of 3.6 million people, has only about half the electricity that it needs as it faces its most severe wartime energy crisis, following waves of Russian attacks on its infrastructure.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth year, Ukrainian casualties are estimated at around 400,000, with civilian casualties rising, according to the United Nations.

The Laws of War are clear: intentionally targeting civilians is prohibited; civilians should never be the objective of an attack. Even more specifically, a combatant should avoid or reduce harm to civilian infrastructure.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

The International Criminal Court has accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of war crimes for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied territories to Russia, while a few UN entities, and other civilian organizations monitoring the war in Ukraine, maintain that Mr. Putin is also guilty of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian infrastructure.

It’s clear: Russia has repeatedly targeted Ukraine’s power grid, generation facilities, and heating infrastructure, aiming to disrupt electricity, heat, and water services – especially in winter. These attacks are not isolated to the Kyiv, but, rather, part of a large, coordinated plan to target all regions in Ukraine.

Ukraine has reported tens of thousands of energy infrastructure facilities have been damaged since 2022, damaging generation plants, substations, heating plants, and transmission lines. And at least 18 major combined heat and power plants have been destroyed or seriously damaged, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Russian strikes have left hundreds of thousands of people with no central heating during sub-zero weather, a widespread development throughout Ukraine. Indeed, officials and humanitarian groups are warning that millions of Ukrainians are at heightened risk this winter due to lack of heat, electricity, and water amid the intense cold. UN officials described the situation as a worsening humanitarian crisis.

Russia has systematically targeted civilian energy and heating infrastructure, not just military sites, with repeated missile and drone strikes aimed at power plants, grids, and heating systems, affecting thousands of facilities. The result is widespread blackouts and heating loss for civilians, especially during harsh winter with sub-zero temperatures, creating a serious humanitarian situation.

Mr. Putin’s strategy is to target civilians with the intensification of bombings against Ukraine’s infrastructure that provides heat, water, and electricity to the Ukrainian people. These are violations of the Laws of War, and the International Criminal Court should immediately commence with hearings on Russia’s indiscriminate bombing of civilian infrastructure, resulting in the death of thousands of Ukrainian civilians. Clearly, Mr. Putin is targeting Ukraine’s civilian population, a war crime.

Joseph R. DeTrani

The author is the former associate director of national intelligence. All statements of fact, opinion or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the U.S. government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

This column by Cipher Brief Expert Ambassador Joseph DeTrani was first published in The Washington Times

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.

Like doctors and lawyers, all police officers will have to have a licence to practise under new Home Office reforms.

Ran Gvili was one of the first Israelis killed on 7 October 2023 when Hamas fighters poured into Israel and launched their ferocious attack.

Following an investigation some of the 16 detained last year are accused of planning to unseat President Bola Tinubu.

The incident happened in Salamanca, a city particularly subject to gang-related violence.

The White House has shifted how it talks about Alex Pretti's killing as more Republicans express concern over the deadly encounter.