What does mission-driven modernization really look like?
In our new Expert Edition, leaders from across federal and state government as well as industry share how agencies can align technology, data, security and workforce strategies with mission outcomes — not just modernization for modernization’s sake.
You will hear from:
Darren Death of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Ron Leidner of Maximus
Elizabeth McCarthy of Maximus
Retired Col. Randy Pugh of the Naval Postgraduate School AI Task Force
Doug Robinson of NASCIO
From AI adoption and data governance to outcome-based contracting and continuous security, their insights offer a practical roadmap for transformation.
The State Department didn’t just rename its procurement office as part of its reorganization. The new Bureau of Global Acquisitions is no longer buried inside the agency.
Mike Derrios, a former senior procurement executive at State, said too often the agency leadership didn’t have access to the acquisition offices and wouldn’t get the information to fully inform enterprise decisions.
Michael Derrios retired in October after spending five years as the senior procurement executive at the State Department.
“How you spend an agency’s money, what you’re spending it on, how you’re defining those requirements, how well you’re working with industry, again to get to those outcomes that you’re outsourcing for? What are you learning from that data? Times are tough financially for agencies and the more data that an acquisition line of business can offer and bring to the table, the better to help leadership think about things holistically,” said Derrios, who recently became the new executive director of the Greg and Camille Baroni Center for Government Contracting at the George Mason University, on Ask the CIO. “All of that is just incredibly valuable perspective that I don’t think is always leveraged if the voice can’t be heard. So it’s really just about getting that important seat at the table.”
State had been developing a plan to reorganize and elevate its acquisition office for several years, but the Trump administration accelerated the timeline. The new bureau became official at the end of the fiscal year.
Derrios said his team worked on the business case for the better part of five years and finally the political leadership included it as part of the broader State Department reorganization.
Bringing the procurement office deeper into the leadership suite was one of several ways Derrios drove change in State Department acquisition during his five-year tenure as the SPE. Derrios left federal service in October after more than 25 years.
“We set an ambitious course for ourselves to enact some significant changes. We rolled our sleeves up and we executed. My leadership approach has always been to galvanize people behind a vision and then challenge them to go beyond their own perceived limitations in pursuit of it. And that’s exactly what that staff did,” he said. “That is why that that organization was elevated to be a bureau, finally doing things to actually think about how the business is functioning. It’s not just how many contracts are we getting out there, but how well are we doing that work? How are we adding value to mission support? Are we thinking about how we’re improving our way of doing business and offering service to the customers, putting balance scorecards in place, you know, robust human capital plans, moving to a category management model? All of those things were just about how we were swinging for the fences.”
Driving toward category management
Derrios said moving State more toward a category management for buying common goods and services should be at the top of the next senior procurement executive’s agenda.
He said State has been working on collecting the data and developing the model over the last three years, so now is the time to move it into reality.
“We did some pretty heavy analytical work to realize that about 80% of the money was being spent in four major categories. So when you look at all the product service codes that we were obligating money on, they all fell in four big buckets so it just made sense for us to start to move in that direction in terms of how we were organized,” he said. “That gives us the opportunity to really look at the requirements in two different ways and in real time. There are opportunities with all the buyers to centralize around things like IT and professional services. They’re able to put better acquisition strategies in place, and if the work is flowing into the organization in terms of a category model, it gives us the opportunity to put a lens on the work in real time to figure out, ‘hey, do we have 20 customers all buying the same thing right now? Well, if so, let’s aggregate that demand before we go to market.’”
The four buckets of spending are:
IT
Professional services
Diplomatic security services like local guard and other security related services
Overseas construction
Derrios said the acquisition office will work with their partner offices to create specialized cadres of contracting officers to buy these specific categories of products or services.
For instance, he said if Consular Affairs has expertise in IT or professional services, they may lead the effort to buy for several organizations.
“I think what they’re going to get is contracting professionals that are building up reps, if you will, in terms of doing the same kind of contracting and building up deep market insight as a result of that. They are really understanding what’s late breaking in terms of where the market is going with technology, understanding the complexities of large services and how to help a contract or a program office avoid the pitfalls of setting up a statement of work in a way that won’t lend itself to the metrics a program office is trying to meet,” Derrios said. “There’s a ton of upside to this.”
Buying smarter through data
The other piece to category management is focused on the post-award environment. Derrios said it will let State line up their recompetes in a smarter and more efficient way.
“You can put a smarter structure in place that possibly standardizes some of their requirements and aggregates demand, so that when the recompete comes, you’re actually doing one contract again versus multiple. That was the intent behind category management,” he said. “It absolutely aligns with where the current administration is at on how to buy smarter and the skids are already greased in terms of all the process work that we did to make that shift happen. I think category management is a sea change for State Department.”
The impact from buying through category management may take some time, however. Derrios said his team did some initial analysis to determine possible cost savings, but he wasn’t ready to offer specific estimates.
Derrios said category management and other acquisition initiatives is helping the State Department become more strategic and less transactional.
“Procurement is one of the most important mission support functions in the government, and it can be very easy because of the pace and because of the high pressure environment that you’re in to fall into a place where you’re more focused on throughput rather than the strategic aspect of the work,” he said. “I think how you define your requirements, the strategy you plan to take to get to market, how you want to structure your contract and how you’re going to administer that contract to ensure it’s yielding those outcomes is where acquisition leaders should be placing the majority of their emphasis. Trying to modify your way to success after a bad contract was put in place is a recipe for disaster. I think you have to take the time up front to define what success looks like contract-by-contract.”
The IRS is moving about 1,000 IT employees out of its tech shop, as part of a reorganization plan that’s been underway for months.
Impacted employees say they have few details about what work they’ll be doing, and have been told by the agency to instead “focus on completing an orderly transition of your current work.” The notice they received last week states that they will no longer be working on IRS IT projects.
According to the notice, obtained by Federal News Network, the reassignments will go into effect on Dec. 28.
“As part of the IRS’s restructuring of the IT organization, approximately 1,000 positions across IRS IT are being reassigned,” the Dec. 11 notice states. “Your position is among those identified for a directed reassignment to the Chief Operating Officer.”
Employees who received the email have until Jan. 9 to complete an “orderly transition.” That includes wrapping up current work, offloading assignments and supporting project handoffs.
“You are not expected to take IRS IT project work with you into the COO organization,” the email states. “IRS IT project work will remain within IRS IT.”
Impacted employees told Federal News Network they’re not sure what kind of work they’ll be doing as part of this reassignment. Federal News Network spoke to four IRS employees. The IRS and the Treasury Department did not respond to requests for comment.
“While this is a permanent realignment out of the CIO organization, it is not a permanent realignment into COO,” a separate internal document states. “We will be collaborating with the Human Capital Office (HCO) to align and qualify employees for positions across IRS and Treasury.”
Reassigned employees are being asked to upload their resumes no later than Jan. 23, 2026.
Two employees who received reassignment notices told Federal News Network that they also received reduction-in-force notices during the recent government shutdown.
Those RIF notices were rescinded, as part of the stopgap spending bill Congress passed in November, ending the 43-day shutdown. Language in the continuing resolution bars agencies from carrying out layoffs through Jan. 30, 2026.
“Morale at the IRS is at an all-time low, and nobody trusts anyone,” one IRS employee told Federal News Network. “This administration is getting precisely what it wanted — to destroy the IRS from within.”
The IRS told employees that the reassignments “are based on organizational alignment decisions and is not a reflection of individual performance.” The agency notice also states that reassignment will not affect an employee’s pay, benefits or bargaining unit status.
“Still complete chaos, grievances being filed for unfair moves without explanation and just fueled by who you know and connections,” a second IRS employee told Federal News Network.
Last month, IRS IT directed hundreds of its employees to complete a “technical skills assessment.” According to two IRS IT employees, the test, conducted by HackerRank, consisted of several multiple-choice questions and a coding question that made up the majority of the overall grade. One employee said the questions “had zero to do with our jobs.”
“They did this to say, ‘Look, 98% of our people failed, so we are going to move you or RIF you,’” the employee said.
The Treasury Department RIF sent RIF notices to 1,377 employees during the shutdown. Court filings showed most of those notices went to IRS employees, especially those working in human resources and IT.
Sam Corcos, Treasury’s chief information officer and a Department of Government Efficiency representative, defended the IRS layoffs as “painful” in a recent podcast interview, but said they were a necessary tool to get the agency’s stalled IT modernization efforts back on track.
“It’s very hard to fire people. The only way that you can really reduce the size of government is through the reduction-in-force process,” Corcos said on an Oct. 9 episode of the Modern Wisdom podcast.
During the nearly three-hour interview, Corcos said much of his time as Treasury CIO has been focused on projects at the IRS, and that the agency’s IT workforce doesn’t have the necessary skills to deliver on its long-term modernization goals.
“We’re in the process of recomposing the engineering org in the IRS, which is we have too many people within the engineering function who are not engineers,” he said.
“The goal is, let’s find who our engineers are. Let’s move the people who are not into some other function, and then we’re going to bring in more engineers,” he added.
In March, the IRS removed 50 of its IT leaders from their jobs and put them on paid administrative leave. Corcos defended that decision, saying the IRS “has had poor technical leadership for roughly 40 years.”
During the interview, Corcos said the layoffs in the federal government are more restrictive than what’s allowed in the private sector. In practice, he said government RIFs often result in agencies losing younger employees with in-demand skills, but with less tenure — something he said should be corrected.
“When you do these reductions in force, it’s basically tenure. So it doesn’t matter who your top performers are. It’s effectively irrelevant to a RIF. If you want a 20% RIF, you can your 20% youngest people, who are often your top performers, and you’ve got to remove them,” Corcos said. “I think most people would probably say that performance-based RIFs is probably good instead of tenure-based. I’m sure that’s something people are pushing for, but that would make a really big impact.”
The IRS lost more than 25% of its workforce this year, largely through voluntary incentives, including early retirements and the deferred resignation program. Despite these widespread cuts, Corcos said the agency hasn’t seen “that much fallout yet,” because the agency had increased its staffing “to ahistoric levels” under the Biden administration.
“It’s a scalpel. It’s not a chainsaw,” he said.
The IRS, in a separate memo dated Dec. 15, told staff that it is moving ahead with a reorganization of its IT division, its first major restructuring in more than 20 years. IRS IT is replacing its associate chief information officers with four “mission-focused verticals” and five “foundational areas.”
Those four verticals are:
Taxpayer Services & Online Accounts: Jim Keith
Tax Processing: Miji Matthews
Compliance: Eric Markow
Filing Season & Legislative Deliver: Craig Drake
The five foundational areas are:
Strategy & Product Management: Courtney Williams
Data & Platform Engineering: Rob King
Infrastructure Tech Ops: Lou Capece
End User Digital Services: Tanya Chiaravalle
Cybersecurity: Houman Rasouli
“Each area is designed to support a specific part of the tax administration ecosystem and improve how technology and agency needs come together,” the memo states.
According to the internal notice, IRS IT has about 5,100 full-time employees. The agency wrote that reorganization offers a “simplified structure that strengthens the connection between technical work and the agency’s core functions.”
IRS Chief Information Officer Kaschit Pandya told employees this summer that IRS IT needed to “reset and reassess” in part because more than 2,000 IT employees have left the agency this year.
The memo states that approximately 94% of IRS IT employees work in technical roles. The remaining 6% work in operational or support staff roles — including planning, financial, contractual, governance and program work.
The Treasury Department announced in April that it is planning to consolidate IT, human resources, procurement, travel and other administrative functions carried out by multiple offices at its component agencies.
FILE - The exterior of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) building in Washington on March 22, 2013. The IRS is showcasing its new capability to aggressively audit high-income tax dodgers as it makes the case for sustained funding and tries to avert budget cuts sought by Republicans who want to gut the agency. IRS leaders said they collected $38 million in delinquent taxes from more than 175 high-income taxpayers in the past few months.(AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
Most civilian employees on the General Schedule are set for a 1% pay bump beginning in January, after President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday afternoon finalizing the 2026 federal pay raise.
The executive order aligns with Trump’s alternative pay plan from August, which also called for a 1% pay raise for the vast majority of federal employees. It’s the smallest annual increase civilian employees have received since 2021, when Trump directed a 1% increase during his last year in his first term in office.
The White House uploaded pay tables detailing the pay rates for various federal employee schedules. Unlike other recent years of pay raises, the president did not include an increase in locality pay for 2026. For most employees, the federal pay raise will officially take effect during the first full pay period after Jan. 1.
Law enforcement officers may receive bigger federal pay raises next year, although it’s not yet clear exactly which positions will see the larger pay bump. Trump’s order on Thursday directed the Office of Personnel Management to “assess whether to provide” up to a 3.8% raise for “certain federal civilian law enforcement personnel.”
Military members are also on track to receive a larger base pay raise of 3.8% for 2026. The White House proposed the pay boost for service members earlier this year, and Congress later included it in the annual National Defense Authorization Act. The White House has indicated Trump plans to sign the NDAA into law Thursday evening.
Trump’s sign-off on Thursday’s executive order marks the final step of the process to make the 2026 civilian pay raise official. Presidents have a Dec. 31 deadline to finalize the federal pay raise each year.
In past years, Congress has occasionally legislated a separate federal pay raise proposal. But this year, there was no alternative for the civilian federal pay raise included in any legislation.
Prior to 2021, the last time feds received a raise of 1% or lower was 2015, the final year of what had been a multi-year drought in civilian employee increases. More recently, most General Schedule employees received raises of 2.7% in 2022, 4.6% in 2023, 5.2% in 2024, and 2% in 2025.
This story was updated with additional details on military pay and locality pay.
FILE - This Oct. 24, 2016, file photo shows dollar bills in New York. Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said that the tight labor market is expected to remain tight in 2018. That means companies will be hard pressed to find and retain workers, and in turn, will likely raise pay. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)
For a region built on government stability, this is unfamiliar territory. And it has prompted many federal employees to ask a question they never expected to confront: What if government service is not the forever plan anymore?
The story beneath the headlines
But beneath the headlines, there is another story that should spark optimism. The private sector is not retreating from government; it is moving closer. Tech companies, especially those driving AI innovation, are expanding and deepening their presence across the Washington, D.C. region in ways we haven’t seen before.
Nvidia, now the world’s first $5 trillion company, brought its flagship GTC conference to the nation’s capital this year for the first time. The move signaled how central the region has become to the future of AI.
Google launched a public-sector division in 2022 with leadership based in the region. Since then, it has introduced Gemini for Government and hosted major public-sector events in D.C.
OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, is opening its first Washington D.C. office next year. Recent reporting suggests the company is preparing for a possible IPO that could value it at up to $1 trillion.
And Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg bought a home in Washington, D.C. to spend more time in the area “as Meta continues the work on policy issues related to American technology leadership.”
Why Washington, and why now
Washington, D.C. influences how technology is researched, funded and regulated. The companies shaping the next era of AI and other strategic industries will not do so alone, but in partnership with government.
This can be seen most clearly in the national security space. In today’s global strategic landscape, conversations about American strength include Nvidia and advanced computing as naturally as the Pentagon.
This is not new. The public and private sectors have long worked together toward shared goals. When then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once held up an iPhone and listed the federally backed technologies inside it — GPS, flat screens and voice recognition — she reminded us that government has always been a catalyst for innovation. That same spirit of shared purpose in innovation and national interest should include people, not just ideas and funding. Talented public servants should see private-sector service as equally legitimate, mission-aligned work.
Service, not sector
For decades, a federal career meant purpose, service and stability until retirement. That model is shifting. And while the transition is difficult, it presents an opportunity.
Federal employees are masters of judgment, complex systems, crisis decision-making and mission-driven leadership. These skills translate directly to work in the private sector.
A long federal career remains honorable. But for those navigating uncertainty, or simply curious about contributing in new ways, this moment calls for a new mindset. Service can take many forms. Mission transcends institutions. Public service is no longer confined to one path.
For anyone weighing a transition, the work does not start by translating a résumé into Silicon Valley speak. It starts by articulating how you think: how you assess risk, operate under pressure, and navigate complexity. It means embracing what makes you different, not trying to blend in. And it means making your expertise visible by building relationships, showing up in the right rooms, and contributing to the conversations shaping this next era.
Washington is not shrinking. It is shifting. And federal talent has never been more relevant.
Candice Bryant is a strategic communications leader with 20 years of experience at the CIA and Google.
Secure payment online digital wallet, mobile wallet safety, business 3D robot computer VPN virtual private network internet cyber security cyber crime protection.
Federal employees will get two additional days off next week, both on Dec. 24 and Dec. 26, according to an executive order President Donald Trump signed Thursday afternoon.
Federal employees already get Dec. 25 off for Christmas Day as a standard federal holiday.
Despite the additional days off for most, Trump’s executive order clarified that some agencies and offices may need to remain open, and that certain federal employees may still need to report for duty for “national security, defense or other public need.”
There is no guarantee that presidents will grant federal employees extra time off around Christmas, but many have done so in recent years. Former President Joe Biden gave federal employees Christmas Eve off in 2024. And during Trump’s first term in office, he gave federal employees an extra day off for Christmas Eve in 2020, 2019 and 2018.
This year is the first time in recent years that federal employees have received two additional days off around the holiday.
In 2014, former President Barack Obama gave federal employees the day off on Friday, Dec. 26, and in 2012, the former president gave employees the day off on Monday, Dec. 24.
Former President George W. Bush gave federal employees Monday, Dec. 24 off in both 2007 and 2001.
Terry Gerton There’s been a lot of talk lately, certainly from lawmakers, from senior military leaders about the topic of lawful and unlawful orders. Describe the current situation from your perspective.
Frank Rosenblatt Well, military members have special license to use violence in armed conflict but this license is not unrestrained. Otherwise, we would just have mobs working. So a professional armed force really depends on discipline, and a key ingredient of discipline is obedience. So military members, have to follow orders. If you don’t like what your boss says at Starbucks, then they can fire you, but they can’t prosecute you. It’s different in the military. There are consequences if you don’t obey what your superiors tell you to do. But at the same time, this doesn’t work like they tried to do at Nuremberg, where I was just following orders. We do not want or expect our military members to unthinkingly obey, so orders are presumptively lawful that they receive, but they also have a duty to disobey any orders that are manifestly unlawful.
Terry Gerton That can be a tricky situation in execution. Describe for me or define for me what makes an order lawful or unlawful.
Frank Rosenblatt Well, the standard of manifestly [unlawful] is that an ordinary person of reasonable sense and understanding would know right away, I’m just not allowed to do this. And the classic example people think about is the My Lai massacre when Capt. Medina supposedly told his lieutenant, Calley, go clear the enemy out of there. Lt. Calley then did his translation of this and said, kill everyone. And the soldiers who worked for Calley should have known. I think it’s helpful to look beyond the Calley example because I think the reality of orders is more complex. There’s a story about a dog handler at Abu Ghraib. He was trained in the use of the military working dog, but he was told by his superiors when he worked at the prison, we need you to derogate from your training a little bit. We want you to use these dogs to help us with interrogations and to scare the prisoners. And so he thought, sure, I’ll go ahead and do this because my superiors are telling him to. It’s questionable whether everyone in that situation would have said, I know this is wrong. But looking years later, the military court looked and said, nope, you shouldn’t have obeyed that order. It’s manifestly unlawful.
Terry Gerton So how does that differ from a personal disagreement? I don’t think that’s the right answer, but maybe it’s lawful, maybe it is not. How does a service member decide?
Frank Rosenblatt We do see this. Matters of conscience, religious belief, or politics are no excuse. You must follow the orders even if you don’t like the president, even if you find the mission to be wrong or even distasteful. We’re seeing a lot of this because, Terry, I work with an organization called The Orders Project. It’s ordersproject.com. It is part of our national institute. And we receive calls from people who have questions about their orders. And here we see the spectrum. People say, what if I’m asked to do this? Or I’m told that we’re going to Chicago. What should I do? And so the National Guard deployments are very interesting because the legal status of them changes by the day. We just saw a new decision on the National Guard deployments in Los Angeles. So let’s say we get a call from someone who says, I’m being told that I’m going to deploy to Chicago in a couple months. It would take a crystal ball, not legal analysis, to say that’s going to be lawful or unlawful. We just don’t know how the courts will decide. So in that hypothetical, we would say you do need to plan and go on this mission unless you have an opportunity to not re-enlist. That is something that you presumptively will have to do, even if deploying to Chicago wasn’t the reason why you decided to join the military.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Professor Frank Rosenblatt from the Mississippi College School of Law. He’s a recognized expert in military justice, a former U.S. Army JAG officer, and president of the National Institute for Military Justice. Frank, you were talking there about a situation where a service member has some lead time between what they’re being told they’re going to have to do and actually having to go do it. In some of these operations, though, they’re making decisions in real time. So what should folks be thinking about? You know, if they get an order to fire and they have seconds to decide whether to do that or not.
Frank Rosenblatt This is really happening. And I’ll tell you one scenario that people talk about that’s based on reality. Let’s say a senior elected official says, I want you to shoot protesters in the legs. Then you would think and know, OK, that’s not lawful. But it’s not as easy as that. Because if you say, sir, that’s unlawful, that might just pull you out of the picture and not be part of more consequential decisions. So that person does not have time to call a lawyer. And it’s really a test of their own judgment and mettle. What we would not expect would be direct compliance with that order. We think maybe we could seek clarification or interpret this in a way and give guidance to subordinates that excises that illegal element. You could take that and then translate that as we need to demonstrate our presence. We need to comply with the law. In other words, I’m saying that there are times when military members should disobey orders.
Terry Gerton Typically, it’s going to be a senior official who’s making the decision. We don’t necessarily rely on the junior operator to make this call in live action. But if they do refuse an order that later turns out to be lawful, or they execute an order that later turned out to unlawful, what are the repercussions?
Frank Rosenblatt This is why it’s so tricky. It’s really a high wire act that we’re asking our military members to do. We are putting them in legal jeopardy when we are boundary pushing in how we do military operations. On the one hand, if you push back on something and you don’t comply, and it turns out that was a lawful order, then you’re going to face consequences for that disobedience. Everything from administrative sanctions to being removed from your job, possibly even a court-martial. But if you do something that you find out later is unlawful, you can also be punished for that.
Terry Gerton So what is the role of the Orders Project in helping to clarify this really complicated conversation?
Frank Rosenblatt This topic obviously has received a lot of nationwide attention lately, and what that means is there are a lot voices out there that represent different religious beliefs, political beliefs, and they’re saying is we want to help soldiers. Sometimes they’re urging disobedience. That’s not what we do. What we’re trying to do is, you know, the National Institute, we’ve been around since 1991, we’re a collection of military law experts, and we want there to be some sort of source that is authenticated that military members know that when I call this, I’m going to get it straight. I’m gonna hear from somebody who, you know, thumbs through the judge’s bench book, the manual for courts martial, and can actually tell me and give me sound legal advice that’s actually based in military law and not based on, you know, some other agenda.
Terry Gerton I think we haven’t heard the end of this conversation, we’re going to continue to follow through on it. So are there reforms or education efforts that you would suggest that could help military service members, political appointees better understand the issues that are at stake here and make the right call from the beginning.
Frank Rosenblatt What I would like to emphasize is, you know, I’m a law professor and a former judge advocate, but I actually want to de-emphasize the role of lawyers in this. I think that the issues with orders come when we ask people on the fly to do something that they haven’t had the time to think through, rehearse, and train upon. I think these issues, Terry, of lawful and unlawful orders come down to if it’s not a legal briefing that’s going to solve everyone’s questions. But when they can practice and build their expertise and competence and see where the boundaries are of their behavior. Every time our military goes to do something, whether that’s operating in cities in Iraq or now in these boat strikes in the Caribbean, if we have the chance to practice this and work through contingencies, then our military members will be emboldened, they’ll be more confident, they’ll know exactly what the right and left limits are.
Terry Gerton It feels like the military is being asked to push a lot of boundaries right now. Would you say from your perspective, we’ve been in situations like this before? Are there lessons we can learn from the past that would help us better define the space right now?
Frank Rosenblatt When we think back to 9/11, for example, there was a strong demand to immediately begin military operations. And there wasn’t really a lot of chance to rehearse this and to know exactly what we were doing and to integrate all of the different perspectives. But I do think what’s important in this is that we have a process. At every military operational command, there are staff officers who each bring a different level of expertise. There are commanders who are trained. If we let them function, let them do their jobs, and we do this without trying to rush people or without political interference. Now sometimes we have to respond to emergencies and there isn’t that time. But we should trust and we should have a lot of confidence in our military members and our commanders. They want to do the right thing. Let’s give them the tools and the opportunity and they won’t let us down.
Terry Gerton Where do you hope this current discussion of lawful and unlawful orders takes us? What do you think the outcome will be?
Frank Rosenblatt In some sense, the temperature has been awful hot on this, and it’s not really, I think, wise for this to be a political issue. And actually, if you listen to Republicans and Democrats, they’re largely saying the same message about this, but they’re not trusting the motives of each other. But maybe the bright side of this, the opportunity here, is the attention on this will give a greater appreciation for the difficulty that we put military members in when we rush them to do things, and when we are really pushing the limits of what we have done before, whether that’s boat strikes in the Caribbean or National Guard deployments in cities.
Terry Gerton We touched base with NobleReach back in the summer. How is the program going and what are you learning from your first placements?
Arun Gupta It’s a great question, Terry. We’ve now had two cohorts, one that’s gone through and completed the program and one, second one that we’ve launched. We just had the second one back for their first quarterly session after being placed. And so let me give a little bit of context. the first one was entirely federal. So they were all in federal agencies across eight federal agencies, including Space Force, Navy, Commerce, CISA, HUD, FDA. And then the ones in our second cohort, as I talk about them, we’ve expanded into state and local as well. So they’re across 10 states. In the first one we had about 20, in the second one we have about 30. So in that context, with the ones that have gone through it, the first ones and have completed the program, I will say one can have a theory on the case about how it can change people’s lives, how it could change their perspective. It’s another thing to see it in action. You know, what we learned was the following. Look, this first cohort was there during a transition between administrations. So they started in the previous administration and obviously ended in this one. And what they found is that they were welcomed by both. They actually visited the White House with both administrations, and that’s a subtle but powerful thing to see, feel, and hear. That the idea of tech talent coming into government is not a political thing, it’s something that … is what’s good for the country. Second, I think what they all saw as well is that the kind of work and the types of problems that they were getting to work on were far more interesting and stimulating than when they looked at many of their peers at some of the more traditional kind of coming out of school jobs. So much so that when we talked to them after the cohort about how many of you want to stay in public service, over 80% of them were like, you know, they would to continue in public service in some capacity. So what we saw with this group is, you know, point one is that both administrations really welcomed them in the work that they were doing. Second, what they saw was the types of problems that they’re getting to work on were far more interesting than what they would see with their peers that are in the more traditional jobs, so much so that 80% of them continue wanting to stay in public service in the near term. Third, what we really saw with them as well was a sense of community. The importance of not just, you know, I think if each one had gone into their own agency on their own, it would have been a[n] okay experience. What made it really transformative was being part of a larger community as well, so that they can compare notes as to like, well, what’s Space Force doing versus Navy? And take those learnings back into the office. And I think that’s an important piece of it. Fourth, the mentorship that they got was greatly appreciated. And they talked about that and they talked about it in the context of not only mentors that were in public service, but a lot of the mentors that we assigned them or aligned them with had careers in both public and private. And I think that was really important, Terry, because I think they really noticed and saw that they’re not making a decision for life, but these are experiences that they are having and how they can benefit them over the course of their journey. Again, a very subtle but important aspect of like how we change the perception of coming into public services, not being something that you’re having to commit to for 30 years, but something that can be part of the fabric of your career journey.
Terry Gerton So you’ve talked to us a little bit about how the participants felt and what they learned. What kind of feedback did you get from the agencies? And can you talk a little more about some of the specific projects that your first and second cohorts are working on?
Arun Gupta Yeah, you know, look, I can give you the high-level kind of work that they did. You know, we actually do a net promoter score. And so we take it seriously to see like, how are the agencies looking at what we’re doing? And in that context, you now, they were off the charts and all the agencies came back very strong with what they really appreciated was being done with the work that was being. But more importantly, not only with their capability but with their attitude. And, you know, there’s an interesting anecdote … with a couple of people in Space Force. The problem their team was trying to address had been addressed at Navy. And the team at Space Force didn’t have contacts at the Navy, believe it or not. But our scholar, you know, knew one of our scholars is at the Navy and reached out to him. And they then connected and then, you know, weeks later you had those two groups collaborating on a somewhat meaningful project. And I say that because, you know, with that, you can create a level of collaboration that is an unintended benefit to what happens. And that’s what we saw. Justin Fannelli, who’s over at the Navy and the CTO there — he and I just did a panel with them at NDIA to their board. And we had one of our scholars there that worked with them and, you know, the work that he was getting to do and the fact that, you know, Justin now takes the scholar to all his AI meetings, right? You know, sitting down with three star generals and talking to them about what they’re doing to the point where, you know, other groups and agencies go like, how do I get one of them? Right. And when I say one of them, it’s not only, again, someone that’s versant and capable in technology and AI, but it’s also someone that has this sense of mission and purpose, and is looking to marry that with that capability and curiosity, right. And so they can ask some of the more obvious questions and that could be curious around like … Why do we do things this way? You know, which can be very simple and very basic, but at the same time can be profound when you can say like, oh, if we used AI, we don’t need, we could do it this way, right? And so it’s beyond even just the projects. It’s inculcating a different way of thinking.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Arun Gupta, he’s CEO of NobleReach. The problems that you’re talking about are things that the OPM director, Scott Cooper, has himself spoken about recently, hiring more tech talent, making it easier to move between private sector and public sector and back again. How is NobleReach in this scholar program working with OPM to really tackle some of the institutional barriers that make that mobility hard?
Arun Gupta That was a great question. And look, we’ve … been collaborating with Scott and his team and think highly of the way that they’re thinking about, you know, the talent issue and how we can support that. And, you know, what we’ve seen is that there’s an alignment around a vision that we have to change the narrative that people need to think about coming into government for, you know, 30 years, but they can come in for two to three, much like we have Teach for America and have a profound impact not only on them but then on the organization as well. And so you know ways that we’re collaborating and talking about things is just sharing the learnings that we’ve seen, you know, because we’ve had the benefit now of two years of being out there with programs seeing what works for the students. You know, like what it meant, the types of mentors, even not even just having mentors but which ones work, which ones resonate, right? What do you need to see in the agencies? You need a city that makes an experience a really meaningful one for the students. You know, we call it the scaffolding. But what is the scaffold? It’s not only connecting them to the job, but it’s supporting them while they’re there. And how do we build that community? A big lever for us here is that it’s not about a transactional recruiting connection to a young professional to a job. But it’s building a broader community of what we call dual citizens, public-private sector citizens. Right, people that have had experience in both the public and the private sector, that can speak the language of both, that have, you know, understand the culture of both. But then over time have networks in both. And thereby we rebuild trust because they’re trusted in both areas. And so I think, you now, those are various ways that we’re collaborating with Scott. You know, being able to identify which agencies can benefit from tech talent today, the kinds of projects that we can leverage and I think the interesting thing is, and he’s been a great partner here is, people assume that the bottleneck is getting young professionals to come in and it’s not what we’ve seen in our numbers as we’ve been recruiting is that young professionals want to serve, they want to be doing something meaningful right now. I think there’s a lot of change taking place in society, geopolitical, technological, environmental. And this is a group that’s lived through COVID. And I think when you have that kind of change and the ground feels unsettled, you don’t focus as much on yourself, but you reach out to others for stability. And I that’s what’s happening. And so in that context, I think where Scott and his team can also be helpful is helping us identify the agencies. Because right now we’re doing that relationship by relationship, but being able to more broadly go to agencies and saying, You know, look, we really think this is important.
Terry Gerton So what’s next for NobleReach? You’re talking about cohorts in the numbers around 20 or 30. Do you see a massive scaling up to classes of 100 or 150? New agencies, new exposure? What’s next?
Arun Gupta Yes and yes, Terry. You know, I think, look, our North Star has always been to scale. Our end game isn’t to have 20 or 30, which is nothing wrong with that. I just think if we want to have impact, which is what we’re trying to optimize on, scale’s important. So, you know, I think in this upcoming year, we’re looking at hundreds, a couple hundred, and that includes federal, state, and local, and we’re seeing a level of broader interest around that. You know, our goal is to continue to scale to multiple hundreds, you know, get to a thousand, and, you know, really build because I think that’s where you start to change the social narrative as well, Terry. Because there’s a broader objective here. And that is to start, you know, restoring a level of respect again, for going and serving in public service, as Wendy Kopp would say as well. Like, having students do that in the earlier part of their career has a force multiplier impact on the kinds of careers they have and the impact they have over the rest of their career. And I think we’re at that interesting inflection point where we have the potential to shift — you know, we use this term internally, like shift from why to wow. And what I mean by that is rather than people asking, when you go, say you’re going into government to do work in AI, going like, why would you do that when you can do all these other things? They go, wow, you got selected to do that, right? And it’s that initial reaction by your peers that I think starts to set a tone. And I think with the folks that we’re chatting with, partners that believe in the same thing, and we’re seeing that with governors, we’re seen that with agency heads, you see that with someone like Scott, leadership at OPM, Michael Kratios at OSTP, that there’s a real desire to kind of like get young folks energized about this, and so that’s what we’re looking to do, and I think that the potential’s there.
Group Adult Asia male, female freelance typing write prompt AI bot IT app smart program nomad, video game, terminal with coding language, designer, big data center on computer in night office.
There’s a new recruitment opportunity at Health and Human Services. The agency has just launched the Roy Wilkins Fellowship. It’s reserved for students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCUs, who are interested in public service. Many of HHS’s divisions will host career fairs to promote the new fellowship, including the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The opportunity comes in response to an executive order President Trump signed in April, on promoting innovation at HBCU’s.
The Senate passes the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. The bill authorizes roughly $900 billion in defense spending, about $8 billion more than the White House requested. The legislation includes a 3.8% pay raise for military personnel, bans diversity, equity and inclusion programs and cuts funding for climate-related initiatives. Lawmakers say the bill will deliver “the most significant acquisition reforms in a generation.” The measure now heads to President Trump for his signature.
A coalition of nonprofits is suing the Trump administration over its attempts to defund the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The lawsuit filed in federal court this week argues the Office of Management and Budget is illegally withholding funds from CIGIE. OMB first declined to apportion funding for CIGIE in late September. A spokesman said the group of IGs was corrupt without offering more detail. After bipartisan pushback, OMB apportioned limited funding for CIGIE through the end of January. The council provides support and training for I-G offices across government.
Agencies may soon have a new source for recruiting early-career tech talent. The Office of Personnel Management is planning to create a student volunteer program, called “semester of service.” OPM says it will partner with universities and trade schools to recruit students interested in one-semester internships in government. Part of the goal will be to make the program available across the country and outside the D.C. area. OPM is targeting an initial cohort of about 200 student interns interested in technology, with a potential to expand the program over time.
With the Senate's passage of the 2026 defense authorization bill, the much-hated Price Reduction Clause required for vendors under the GSA schedule might officially be dead. A provision in the bill changes the statutory standard for the schedule program to "best value" from "lowest overall cost alternative." The Price Reduction Clause required vendors to provide the government with their lowest price at all times. GSA requested this provision in the NDAA as part of its long-standing move away from the PRC and toward transactional data reporting. GSA says this change will increase competition and reduce the administrative burden on contractors.
The Trump administration's top IT priorities are starting to bear fruit. Federal CIO Greg Barbaccia detailed his top three priorities for 2026 in a new video posted on X. One is hiring a qualified technology workforce. Two is improving software licensing. "And three, securing the foundation. We will be setting one standard for how government technology works for the American people, from our websites to our use of artificial intelligence."
This foundation is starting to be seen in recently launched websites for the Tech Force initiative, the Merry Christmas.gov and Trump Accounts sites through the National Design Studio. Barbaccia says more details and the initial results of his first-year priorities will be released in the coming months.
Defense technology companies broadly agree on what secure software looks like but say the Pentagon lacks consistent and standardized methods for attestation processes. In response to the DoD chief information officer’s requests for information, industry overwhelmingly pointed to established cybersecurity frameworks such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Secure Software Development Framework for managing software and supply-chain risk. But 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.
House lawmakers say there should be an independent review into whether there was whistleblower retaliation at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. House Democratic leaders say the Office of Special Counsel should review whether FEMA staff who were reinstated and then put back on administrative leave were illegally retaliated against. In a letter to OSC, the lawmakers reference a finding by FEMA legal counsel that found the employees’ disclosure was protected by whistleblower laws and the FIrst Amendment. The employees were first suspended in August after signing their names to the Katrina Declaration, a public letter that warned about steep staff cuts and other changes at FEMA under the Trump administration.
The Postal Service is looking to open up its last-mile delivery network to more shippers, in a bid to bring in added revenue. USPS already has agreements with shipping giants like Amazon and UPS to get their packages to their final destination. But it’s giving other delivery companies an opportunity to strike similar deals. Last-mile delivery is the most expensive leg of deliveries and USPS goes to more addresses than its private-sector competitors. USPS will accept bids from companies in late January or early February.
A federal judge has ordered the reversal of hundreds of layoffs finalized during the recent government shutdown. A federal judge in San Francisco says she’ll reverse the terminations of hundreds of federal employees finalized during the recent government shutdown. Unions asked the court to rescind layoffs at the departments of Education and State, as well as the Small Business Administration and the General Services Administration. These agencies sent reduction in force notices to employees before the recent government shutdown. In most cases, separations were scheduled to take effect in October or November, during the shutdown. The preliminary injunction will cover about 680 federal employees.
FILE - In this July 6, 2021, file photo, an electronic signboard welcomes people to the Howard University campus in Washington. With the surprise twin hiring of two of the country's most prominent writers on race, Howard University is positioning itself as one of the primary centers of Black academic thought just as America struggles through a painful crossroads over historic racial injustice. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
President Donald Trump’s “Warrior Dividend” bonus for service members, which he suggested would be funded by tariff revenue, is actually a one-time basic allowance for housing stipend already approved by Congress, according to a senior administration official.
The $1,776 bonus payment Trump announced while addressing the nation Wednesday night will be paid using funds Congress appropriated to the Defense Department in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was passed into law in July, to supplement the basic allowance for housing.
Congress appropriated $2.9 billion to supplement the basic allowance for housing, and the Pentagon will disburse $2.6 billion of that funding as a one-time payment to roughly 1.28 million active-duty service members and 174,000 Reserve Component members.
“The Secretary of War directed the department to use some of the Basic Allowance for Housing funds to provide a one-time payment to service members during this holiday season to help improve their housing and quality of life,” a DoD official told Federal News Network.
Active-duty service members in pay grades O-6 and below are eligible for the payment, along with National Guard and Reserve members in the same grades who were on active-duty orders of 31 days or more as of Nov. 30.
This payment will be made outside of the regular pay cycle by Dec. 20.
The senior administration official told Federal News Network the Defense Department service members who are not currently receiving housing allowances are also eligible to receive the bonus.
The basic allowance for housing funding in the Big Beautiful Bill was originally intended to address rising housing costs and reduce service members’ out-of-pocket housing expenses.
Trump suggested during his speech that the bonuses would be funded by excess tariff revenues.
“We made a lot more money than anybody thought because of tariffs, and the bill helped us along. Nobody deserves it more than our military, and I say congratulations,” Trump said.
The White House needs congressional approval to redirect tariff revenue. Trump has previously floated the idea of sending $2,000 checks to millions of Americans using tariff revenue, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the move would require congressional authorization.
“We need legislation for that,” Bessent said on Nov. 16.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the payment would be tax-free and framed it as part of the department’s effort to improve quality of life for military families.
“This has never happened before … This warrior dividend serves as yet another example of how the War Department is working to improve the quality of life for our military personnel and their families. I can think of no better Americans to receive this check right before Christmas, whether it’s for pay, housing, … all elements of what we’re doing are to rebuild our military,” Hegseth said on social media platform X. “To the American warrior, President Trump and I and the entire war department, we have your back.”
The housing stipend is expected to reach service members’ accounts about a week before they receive a 3.8% pay raise authorized in the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill the Senate approved on Wednesday.
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.
Terry Gerton You have a recent article that warns about air traffic chaos, especially related to the shutdown that we saw in November. And once again, air traffic control was sort of the straw that broke the camel’s back. What were the key pain points that you saw?
Chris Edwards Well, when the federal government doesn’t decide on its annual budget and the appropriations process, sometimes we get a government shutdown, as most of your listeners know. And sometimes when shutdowns happen, it affects the air traffic control system because the air-traffic control system is run as part of the Department of Transportation, as kind of a regular bureaucracy. And so we’ve seen this sorts of interruptions on air traffic and control in previous shutdowns 2013 and 2018. And the recent one where the government shut down for a month and millions of American airline passengers were delayed and had their flights canceled.
Terry Gerton The Department of Transportation is now offering $10,000 bonuses to air traffic controllers who had perfect attendance. Is pay the key issue here?
Chris Edwards No, I think the problem is that the funding stream of our air traffic control system is the federal government budget. And I’ve written extensively about how other countries such as Canada and the U.K. Have taken their air traffic controls system and moved it out of the regular government budget and given it a dedicated funding stream. So in Canada, they set up a non-profit corporation. They put their air traffic controllers in there, and it’s funded separately by fees on airlines and airport landings. So the stream is insulated from political battles that may happen. Back in 2016, the House Transportation Committee here in the United States passed out a bill of, out a committee that would sort of set up a Canadian-style system where we’d set a non-profit corporate entity. We’d put the air traffic control in there, and we would fund that system separately from the regular government budget.
Terry Gerton That sounds similar to the way Amtrak is run, and they’ve certainly had their funding challenges there. How would it work differently for air traffic control?
Chris Edwards So Amtrak is still reliant on the federal government for money for capital investment. The way the Canadians and the British have set up their systems is that they are completely independently funded for both the operating and the capital purposes. So the Canadian and British air traffic control systems are not subsidized, which is the way I think it should be because aviation is an industry like any other. There’s no reason why users shouldn’t pay for services. Air traffic control is a service and I think that the cost should ultimately land on people who use the air traffic system.
Terry Gerton You mentioned capital investment there. Certainly, the FAA and Department of Transportation have spent, let’s say, tens of billions of dollars trying to modernize the next-gen air traffic control. And they haven’t been very successful yet. All of those funds would be passed on to passengers, right, airport passengers? How would we get enough capital investment to really move forward in those critical functionalities?
Chris Edwards So when you move the system to the private sector, like on the non-profit system, like in Canada, the system, of course, raises money through fees, as we talked about, but can also issue bonds to raise money for capital, just like private companies do. And that system has worked really well in Canada and Britain. In fact, both Canada and Britain, in some ways, their technology is more advanced than ours on air traffic control. You touched on the next gen system. As some listeners may know, the Government Accountability Office, the inspector general for the DOT has been complaining about FAA’s poor performance on its capital upgrades for years and years in fact for over two decades now there’s a long series of government reports criticizing the FAA For the excessive bureaucracy or the risk aversion. You know, they’re not getting the job done in terms of adding the advanced technology we need in our air traffic control system.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Chris Edwards. He occupies the Kiltz Family Chair in Fiscal Studies at the Cato Institute. I wanna explore a couple of other things about privatization with you because you’ve also made the argument that the TSA screening function should be moved out of government funding. Talk us through that logic.
Chris Edwards So the logic there again is, is partly that, I’d like to get the politicians and their micromanagement out of some of these functions where we can. I mean, to go back to the air traffic controllers for a minute, the Washington Post had a nice story a few weeks ago about how we only have one training academy for air traffic, controllers, and we have a short and a shortage now on a lot of air traffic control facilities. This is Partly because Congress hasn’t allowed the creation of an additional training academy for traffic controllers it seems to be that’s the sort of micro that the problematic micromanagement you get when congress tries to control these sort of functions. With airport screening the idea is you decentralize the screening to individual airports, you have the Department of Transportation do safety oversight like they like they do now but the actual screening would be controlled by airports. That would give airports more flexibility to meet the sort of individual demands and unique demands the airports face. And we wouldn’t get sort of system-wide problems. We wouldn’t these system- wide mistakes. We’d get different experiences in the airports. The airports could learn from each other. The way Canada does it is they contract out their services to big expert security agencies. And many European countries do this too. The British do this. And that system works well also.
Terry Gerton What does the airline industry have to say about these proposals to privatize?
Chris Edwards Well, back in 2016, the airlines, all of them, except Delta actually supported the privatization plan passed through the House Transportation Committee. So Delta was the outlier there. Most airlines were on board with privatization back then. I think that the airlines should rethink now that we’ve had another government shutdown. I worry that the budget battles in Washington are going to get bigger and nastier. Unfortunately, in coming years, because deficits and debt are going to keep growing, there’s going to be a lot of pressure to cut spending. So I think we need to — the airlines, the air traffic controllers union and others, the other stakeholders need to — rethink the funding for air traffic control because I think the budget battles are going to get worse in Washington.
Terry Gerton So if the airlines support privatization, what are the biggest political obstacles that you see that are keeping it from happening?
Chris Edwards Well, unfortunately in the American political system, you only sort of need, you know, one sort of veto point and a whole reform plan can go down. So back in 2016, the House Transportation Committee passes the reform bill through, but the Senate Transportation Committee wasn’t too excited about it. Back then President Trump in his first term supported the plan. His transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, supported it. And the air traffic controllers union supported this privatization back in 2016 as well because, again, they’re concerned about stable funding. And they looked at the Canadian system and they could see that it works very well. Indeed, back then in 2016, members of Congress went up to Canada, looked at this system and so did our air traffic controllers union. They all thought it worked very well and looked good, and that was sort of the basis for that reform bill. Today, I think we’ve had another government shutdown. There was very damaging. Millions of passengers were inconvenienced. The economy lost money from the shutdown. I think this is time, it’s time now for Congress to rethink the structure of our air traffic control system.
Terry Gerton Air traffic control is really a global industry. I mean, you get on a plane in Dallas and you fly to Frankfurt or in Seattle and you flight to Beijing. What are our international partners in air traffic control saying about the U.S. System and how they would like it to be improved?
Chris Edwards Well, the U.S. System, you know, works well. I don’t think we’re at the leading edge of technology anymore, but it does work well. We have a giant system, but I worry about the future. The skies are getting more crowded all the time. Aviation demand is going up. The skies you’re getting more congested. Our technology is falling behind. We hear that from the GAO consistently year after year. So we’re not at the crunch point yet, but I worry. We’ve got to invest more and move that technology ahead to make progress. I mean, just to give you one example on that, the U.K. And Canada are moving ahead with what are called remote towers. These are, rather than the traditional air towers you see at airports where you have the controllers up top looking at the airfields. Visually the new idea is you put a bunch of sort of fancy technology and cameras with different sort of visual wavelengths looking at airports and you have the controllers looking at the runways on big screens with all kinds of advanced technology. These systems save money and they’re safer. And London City Airport now has a system like this in place and Canada’s moving ahead with this as well. That’s the type of technology where the FAA has been really hesitant. I think because it’s a government agency, frankly, it’s a little too risk-averse. So I think by opening up air traffic control, we get more entrepreneurs in and more innovation. And just the last point on that is, we’ve seen this with NASA or the space agency, that by opening a little bit and letting entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos get in there with new ideas, new ways of doing things, I think it’s been very beneficial for America’s space agency. So I like that same sort of innovation in air traffic control.
Diverse Air Traffic Control Team Working in a Modern Airport Tower at Night. Office Room is Full of Desktop Computer Displays with Navigation Screens, Airplane Flight Radar Data for Controllers.
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.”
FILE - Former state Rep. Katie Arrington speaks to a crowd gathered to hear former President Donald Trump, March 12, 2022, in Florence, S.C. Arrington is facing incumbent Rep. Nancy Mace, whose 1st District runs from Charleston to Hilton Head Island in the Republican primary. (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard, File)
Senior House Democrats are calling on the Office of Special Counsel to investigate potential whistleblower retaliation after the Federal Emergency Management Agency renewed suspensions for FEMA employees who signed a public letter.
The FEMA staff were placed back on administrative leave despite an agency legal finding, referenced by the letter, that found the employees’ disclosure was protected by law.
In a Dec. 17 letter to acting Special Counsel Jamieson Greer, ranking members on several House committees said OSC should review the FEMA situation. OSC’s primary mission is to protect federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, especially whistleblower retaliation.
The letter comes after FEMA placed 14 signers of the “Katrina Declaration” back on administrative leave after briefly reinstating them earlier this month. At the time, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said the employees “were wrongly and without authorization reinstated by bureaucrats acting outside their authority,” and that “the unauthorized reinstatement was swiftly corrected by senior leadership.”
More than 190 current and former FEMA employees signed the letter in August. FEMA subsequently placed staff who signed the letter with their names on administrative leave.
“We expect that the Office of Special Counsel will find clear evidence of whistleblower retaliation, reinstate the FEMA employees, and pursue disciplinary action against all officials who retaliated against them,” the Democrat letter states. “Should FEMA or DHS refuse to comply with your recommended actions, we urge that the case be referred to the Merit Systems Protection Board for proper enforcement.”
The letter was signed by House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Rep. Greg Stanton (D-N.Y.), ranking member on the infrastructure committee’s subcommittee on public buildings, economic development and emergency management.
Their letter references a Nov. 25 email from an employee in FEMA’s human resources branch to the supervisor of one of the suspended staff members. The email, shared with Federal News Network, references a report of investigation (ROI) and recommends the FEMA manager close the issue without any disciplinary action.
“Although the ROI substantiated the employee’s involvement with the so-called Katrina Declaration, FEMA’s legal counsel has advised that the employee’s actions are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)) and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” the employee wrote.
“These protections ensure that employees can disclose information related to misconduct, abuse, or violations of law without fear of retaliation, provided the disclosure is made in good faith and aligns with statutory protections. As a result, my recommendation is that this matter be closed with no disciplinary action,” the employee continued.
FEMA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Staff who signed the letter and were placed on administrative leave have claimed DHS illegally retaliated against them. In September, they wrote OSC, congressional committees, and the DHS inspector general, urging them to investigate the situation.
The Katrina Declaration letter pushes back against many changes at FEMA enacted under the Trump administration and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. It warns that staffing cuts, a lack of experienced leadership, and other shake-ups at the agency have left it less ready to respond to a major disaster than at any time since Hurricane Katrina.
Noem shot back at the letter, arguing that “the same bureaucrats who presided over decades of inefficiency are now objecting to reform.”
A federal judge in San Francisco is reversing the terminations of hundreds of federal employees finalized during the recent government shutdown.
A preliminary injuction, signed Wednesday by Judge Susan Illston, orders the departments of Education and State, as well as the Small Business Administration and the General Services Administration, to rescind reduction in force notices for employees who were terminated between Oct. 1 and Nov. 12 — the start and end dates of the shutdown.
“Absent a contrary ruling from a higher court,” Illston is giving agencies until Dec. 23 to carry out the terms of her preliminary injunction.
“Defendants must do what the continuing resolution says. They may not take any further steps to implement or carry out a RIF through January 30, 2026, regardless of when the RIF notice first issued,” Illston wrote.
These agencies sent RIF notices to employees before the recent government shutdown. In most cases, separations were scheduled to take effect in October or November, during the shutdown.
The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, who are leading a lawsuit with other unions, argued agencies that finalized these RIFs during the government shutdown violated a stopgap spending bill passed by Congress that prohibited layoffs through Jan. 30, 2026.
The court issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month that blocked layoffs of nearly 250 Foreign Service officers from being finalized at the State Department. Those layoffs were originally scheduled for Nov. 10, but were pushed back to Dec. 5, and remain on hold.
The Trump administration has followed a narrower interpretation of the stopgap spending bill, and has only reinstated federal employees who received RIF notices between Oct. 1 and Nov. 12.
The continuing resolution Congress passed on Nov. 12 states that between Nov. 12, 2025 and Jan. 30, 2026, “no federal funds may be used to initiate, carry out, implement, or otherwise notice a reduction in force to reduce the number of employees within any department.”
It also states that “any reduction in force proposed, noticed, initiated, executed, implemented, or otherwise taken by an executive agency between October 1, 2025, and the date of enactment, shall have no force or effect.”
At a hearing before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Illston said she would grant the preliminary injunction requested by the unions, because the “chaotic nature of these RIFs has been continuing.”
“The continuing resolution, ending the longest shutdown the government has experienced to date, said that no federal funds would be spent RIF-ing people through Jan. 30. But that is not what is happening in some of these agencies,” Illston said.
The judge’s order will impact about 680 total federal employees. That includes nearly 250 Foreign Service officers at the State Department, 200 employees at GSA, 150 at the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, and nearly 80 at SBA.
During the hearing, Illston said she would consider the Justice Department’s request to delay her preliminary injunction from going into effect for a few days. This would give the Trump administration time to consider whether it will ask a federal appeals court to stay her ruling.
Illston said this would minimize some of the “whiplash” some federal employees have felt in other court cases, in which lower courts have reinstated them, only for an appeals court to allow layoffs to continue.
“They’d have to send a notice, and then another notice, and a notice saying, ‘Forget what we said yesterday.’ It would be terrible,” Illston said.
Brad Rosenberg, a DOJ attorney representing the Trump administration, said that rescinding layoffs now would be “logistically a big lift” for agencies, especially if the courts later allow those RIFs to proceed.
“If a RIF is rescinded, and if this court either decides at final judgment in this case, or if the government were to appeal, and an appellate court were to stay or vacate this Court’s preliminary injunction, government agencies would presumably have to start all over again with that, with that process, and it would be awfully hard to unscramble that egg,” Rosenberg said.
“That’s not going to provide the type of long-term relief that I suspect plaintiffs are seeking here,” he added.
Rosenberg argued that employees should bring their individual cases before the Merit Systems Protection Board. An appeals court recently allowed President Donald Trump to proceed with firing a Democratic member of the MSPB.
“This is merely the administration trying to carry out its policy objectives. And I realize that those policy objectives have consequences for individuals, and that they can be significant consequences, although we do think that those consequences can be remediated through proper channeling to the Merit Systems Protection Board,” he said.
Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing the plaintiff unions, said the “mandate was clear” from Congress, and that agencies should “nullify those RIFs.”
“We have Congress stepping in here and being incredibly clear about what the public interest needs in this very circumstance, and the public interest is in restoring these employees to their employment status and giving them clarity,” Leonard said. “Congress could have just said, ‘Stop.’ Congress could have just said, ‘Halt, let’s just freeze everything.’ They went further than that,” Leonard said.
Leonard said recently separated federal employees face “real and ongoing harm,” including eviction notices and unpaid bills.
“We have seen agencies exploit their lack of communication to keep employees in the dark, to keep them confused. They have not even told them whether they’re still employed when they directly ask. There absolutely has been harm,” she said.
AFGE National President Everett Kelley called Illston’s ruling “another victory for federal employees and for the rule of law.”
“When Congress voted to end the longest government shutdown in history, it spoke clearly and unambiguously that further reductions-in-force were prohibited, and any RIFs that occurred during the shutdown were required to be reversed. The administration’s continued defiance of that mandate is part of a troubling pattern of egregious actions against federal employees and the American public,” Kelley said.
John Dinkelman, president of the American Foreign Service Association, said Congress was clear that “reductions in force were prohibited” when it passed the continuing resolution, and that the administration’s efforts to proceed with RIFs were “unlawful.”
“Today’s ruling confirms this,” Dinkelman said. “We will continue to fight to ensure that Foreign Service professionals are treated with the respect the law demands.”
In outlining his top three priorities as the calendar turns into 2026, Federal Chief Information Officer Greg Barbaccia didn’t necessarily break new ground.
“One, fixing the talent pipeline. We’re making sure we hire, train and empower the technical experts we need. We have exciting new initiatives related to that happening right now. Two, buy smarter. No more paying top dollar for tools we don’t use or can’t connect. We’re eliminating waste, duplication and decades old rules that slow us down. Follow along as we go on that journey together. And three, securing the foundation. We will be setting one standard for how government technology works for the American people, from our websites to our use of artificial intelligence,” Barbaccia said. “Over the next few months, I’ll share exactly what we’re doing and the results we’ve already seen. America is long overdue for a major tech upgrade, and we’re delivering it. My promise is simple, government tech will be transparent, efficient and worthy of the United States of America.”
Earlier this year, I was honored to be appointed White House Chief Information Officer. What do we do? The White House CIO role is about ensuring technology works for taxpayers and agency employees alike, from secure systems to seamless services. pic.twitter.com/DfMzRFfF5l
What is new about Barbaccia’s top priorities is how the Trump administration is starting to turn initiatives and plans into reality.
Take the goal of fixing the talent pipeline. It’s been clear the so-called Department of Government Efficiency went too far in cutting probationary employees and pushing others to take the Deferred Resignation Program. Add to that the administration’s hiring freeze, and the need to bring technology talent, along with many other types of expertise, back into government is clear.
To that end, the Office of Personnel Management is leading a new recruitment initiative, the Tech Force, with a goal of hiring 1,000 new employees for agencies that include the departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture and Labor, as well as the IRS, OPM and the General Services Administration, among many others.
OPM Director Scott Kupor wrote on his blog that these early-career engineers will work “directly with the most senior leaders across cabinet-level government agencies to tackle our nation’s top technical challenges.”
“We are going to bootstrap a network effect to fuel the next 50+ years of government hiring by demonstrating the government offers brilliant engineers the opportunity to solve the world’s most challenging and largest scale technology projects and that the private sector values this experience by translating it into awesome post-government employment opportunities,” he wrote. “The more engineers we recruit into Tech Force, the more critical technical problems we will solve, the more Tech Force graduates take their skills to the private sector – that’s the flywheel that will enable us to grow a definitive, world changing pipeline of early-career talent into the federal government.”
Priority 2: Website modernization
The creation of the Tech Force also flows into Barbaccia’s third priority around securing the foundation and setting one standard for how government technology works for the American people.
OPM, working with the National Design Studio in the White House, launched the Tech Force website for potential engineers to learn more about the program and apply to join.
NDS, led by Joe Gebbia, who is the co-founder of Airbnb, has been rolling out an updated look to federal websites, starting with several new ones like Tech Force.
Gebbia, who President Donald Trump named as the nation’s first chief design officer in August, also recently unveiled merrychristmas.gov, which is highlighting 12 days of government design history. For example, day one, Dec. 14, focused on the Works Progress Administration’s Federal Art Project’s poster program during the Great Depression, and day two, Dec. 15, highlighted the Great Seal of the United States, created in 1782.
Additionally, Gebbia today launched the new website Trumpaccounts.gov during an event at the Treasury Department, using similar design principles.
Barbaccia kicked off the website modernization effort last spring by asking agencies to consolidate and update their public-facing platforms. Barbaccia asked agencies to submit data to OMB about their public-facing websites, including the underlying technological infrastructure they run on and the contracts that support them.
The resulting data call from July showed that the 24 largest departments and agencies inventoried more than 7,200 total websites. Documents obtained by Federal News Network show agencies plan to eliminate 332 of those websites — less than 5% of their total web presence.
Priority 3: Software licenses
The software inventory and consolidation priority has been the most public facing of the three up until now.
Laura Stanton, the deputy commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service at GSA, said at the recent ACT-IAC Executive Leadership Conference that 43 agencies already have taken advantage of the enterprisewide contracts for artificial intelligence, for example.
GSA also has made the specific OneGov agreements public through its IT Vendor Management Office and is providing agencies with fact sheets and help to use the new discounted deals.
Birgit Smeltzer, the acting director of the Office of IT Products within the Office of Information Technology Category (ITC) in GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, said at the ELC conference that her office is helping others find and make the most of those OneGov deals.
“The culture shift that I’m seeing is agencies will move away from doing their own thing and come to us to help them create those contracts and get those cost savings through the OneGov strategy,” she said. “What we are hopeful for is that when the renewals start to come out [for existing contracts], we can start collecting that information and help agencies save even more money than they can on their current contract and bring them into the OneGov fold.”
Terry Gerton When we first spoke back in May, the Impact Project was just launching. So now that you’re six months old, what have you learned since then about how people are using the tool and how the project has evolved?
Abby Andre We’ve learned a lot since we launched. When we started, we had about 5,000 instances of government change mapped on our impact map. And now we have over 250,000 individual instances of change, not just to cross sectors, which is where we started looking at the whole country, and the whole host of changes we were seeing. But we’ve done some really deep dives into impacts in public health, AmeriCorps and most recently the security map. And we’ve been seeing a lot of journalists use the map. But increasingly we are talking to those who are really focused on the future, who really want to start thinking about how to respond to cuts and changes in federal policy in a way that can help restore services and start thinking about some creative ways to approach public service and government if the federal government is going to step back. So who now is going to step in?
Terry Gerton So tell us about some of the trends that you’re seeing now that you have so many data points.
Abby Andre I think the scope of impact is still the biggest one that we really hope folks looking at our maps will understand. Federal dollars are inherent to service delivery in every county across the country. Federal workers and public servants live in every state and almost every county. And so these impacts have been felt everywhere.
Terry Gerton And when you talked about public health and AmeriCorps, are there other projects or programs where you’ve seen specific impact?
Abby Andre I’ve been struck by impacts in food in particular. Very early on we saw a couple of COVID-era food programs cut. Local Food for Schools was one of them. And a lot of these gave farmers somewhere to send their fresh produce and folks in need of food, either kids or folks who were strapped in their budget, ways to access that really fresh, healthy food. And we have seen kind of echoes of that throughout the year, stories about food banks being in short supply and pantries not being able to provide what they needed. And then the uncertainty that we had around SNAP benefits during the shutdown really heightened people’s insecurity and concern about where they might be getting their next meal from.
Terry Gerton And now that we’re coming into the holiday season, any of those indicators flashing red for you?
Abby Andre I remain extremely concerned about food access, particularly among our most vulnerable families. I also remain concerned about people’s access to heating and cooling as we get into the colder months, while LIHEAP, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, has not yet been fully cut, many of the staff have been lost and we’ve seen reports of interruption of services. And so I just continue to be really aware of the cumulative impact of cuts across sectors on families who rely on more than one type of government service, whether it’s food and health care, or food and energy and healthcare. If you see small cuts across those areas, it can have an outsized impact for those of us who are living paycheck to paycheck.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Abby Andre. She’s the founding executive director of the Impact Project. Abby, one of the newest features on the map is the security map. It’s a big new addition. Tell us about what prompted you to create it and how it fills a gap in understanding the kinds of threats that public servants are facing.
Abby Andre I launched this map in partnership with the Public Service Alliance, which is led by Isa Ulloa. She’s a former fed, she worked at DHS. And she and I share a real value of public servants. Humanizing public servants was one of the original goals of the Impact Project. Her work at Public Service Alliance offers more affordable resources in security and privacy to make it safer for public servants to serve. She and I came together and started talking last May about the threat landscape facing public servants, in addition to the other burdens that they’re experiencing with the ecosystem of change. And we really agree that public service is patriotism and core to our country and our values. We wanted to build a tool that would help the American people understand who public servants are, and why we should value them.
Terry Gerton And as you look at the security threats, are there any trends that you see or things that surprise you?
Abby Andre This map is a little different than the Impact Project’s other maps in that we looked at 10 years’ worth of stories. We went back to try to get a sense for whether or not threats were increasing. So we, importantly, partnered with a couple of experts in the field — the Bridging Divides Initiative out of Princeton, Insight out of the University of Nebraska at Omaha — and their data all shows an uptick of threats over time, using methodologies that are slightly different from our own. So we wanted to dig in and see if we saw something similar, and we did. Over time, we’ve observed an increase in threats overall across red and blue states, but also a real increase in threats at the local level. I think many of us a decade ago, if you were asked about who got threatened for their work for the government, you would think about judges and elected officials, right? Now we know, and particularly since the beginning of the pandemic, that school board officials, librarians, city council members are really at the frontline of this surge in threats that we’re seeing nationwide.
Terry Gerton The map draws on pretty sensitive data — court records, partner data sets. How do you ensure that this is accurate but also transparent when you’re compiling such sensitive information?
Abby Andre That’s a really important question. We have to balance the desire to make the tool accessible and a source of education with our overarching need to keep public servants safe. From our end, we only use publicly available records. So if something is in a newspaper article, we’re willing to map it, but we do a couple of things to try and protect the identity of the people that we’re talking about, even if the identity was in the newspaper article. We scrub for names. We never include the name of a threatened person, or a perpetrator for that matter. And we also don’t geocode to a person’s address or place of work. Instead, we geocoded — which means, how do we put the dot on the map? We put in the zip code or the county so that you can still get a sense for the geographic spread of the threats, but the dataset couldn’t be used to find people.
Terry Gerton Those threats to local public servants could have a real chilling effect on the future of public service writ large. We all rely on librarians and police officers and school board officials to make our communities function. Are you seeing that kind of impact as you look at those trends?
Abby Andre We absolutely are. And it’s one of the reasons we made the map. We’re seeing that threatened people resign. We’re speaking anecdotally to folks who are opting not to run for office, who feel called to serve but don’t feel safe. And oftentimes these threats not only impact public servants, but their family members, their children. There was a story out of Minnesota that I found particularly moving about an individual who’d spent four separate rounds as a public school board official and resigned in the middle of his fifth tenure because the threats against himself and his office mates had become so severe. So, we not only lose that person in his last term, but his institutional knowledge. We worry a lot that the chilling effect at the local level in particular will drive people away from service. And PSA is one answer to that. But we hope overall that this map is a real call for more research, more common-sense solutions, and a return to seeing public servants as what they are. And that’s someone that really sacrifices for the good of the community and should be valued that way.
Terry Gerton Abby, thank you so much for pulling all of this together. You mentioned a couple of actions there, or mindset shifts, that you help people engage in as they see this data. Are there policy actions or other sorts of specific steps you’d like to see communities and governments take?
Abby Andre We will be launching a new map in addition to this that is a little bit more forward-looking in the spring. And we’re already thinking about the laws, whether it’s privacy laws, criminal laws, or laws specifically tailored to things like doxing or swatting — when someone’s information is published online, a false call goes into the police and somebody shows up at a public servant’s house. We have not done a good job holistically across the board of taking steps to protect public servants in a tailored way. And so we hope that the coming map and the materials that go with it will help identify best practices and really elevate the need for lawmakers and communities to be having conversations about steps around privacy, security and education that can help lower the temperature.
The government’s growing enthusiasm for generative AI has produced a wave of pilots and proof-of-concepts, many accompanied by impressive-sounding metrics: thousands of users, millions of logins, glowing testimonials. Yet these numbers often say little about whether a tool is secure, compliant, scalable or delivering real mission impact.
Long story short: We’re measuring the wrong things.
Government GenAI adoption has become a numbers game, where participation metrics stand in for real impact. User counts and dashboard activity make for great talking points, but they rarely prove that the tool is even useful. It’s the digital equivalent of celebrating app downloads without asking whether anyone is successfully using it as intended.
Let’s break this down.
The illusion of progress
When agencies track logins or active users, they’re measuring engagement, not outcomes. A system can have ten thousand users and still fail to deliver the speed, accuracy or automation necessary to produce a mission advantage. Conversely, a small team using the right AI model securely and effectively can save millions, accelerate decisions and reduce workload.
The same goes for pilots. Pilots are meant to test and learn, not to be paraded as finished products. Yet too often, we treat pilots as production wins, announcing them before they’ve cleared compliance, accreditation or scalability hurdles. That’s not innovation. It’s optics.
A flashy dashboard showing usage spikes may build leadership’s confidence, but it masks deeper issues like technical debt, manual workarounds or models trained on the wrong data. We’ve confused visibility with value.
This issue is underscored by recent oversight reports, including the Government Accountability Office’s 2025 assessment of the Defense Department’s major technology programs. GAO found that despite the appearance of transparency through tools like the Federal IT Dashboard, many initiatives failed to include reliable data on cost and schedule, leaving leaders with a distorted view of progress and success.
Measuring what actually matters
If we’re serious about responsible AI, we need to measure four things that reflect real impact, not surface-level activity.
Workflow improvement: Did the GenAI reduce time-to-decision or automate manual tasks that actually move the mission forward? In many cases, the most valuable gains come from cutting hours or days off repetitive workflows, freeing up people to focus on higher-value analysis and strategy. That is measurable productivity, not just engagement.
Cost efficiency: Did it cut contract or operational costs without increasing risk? Generative AI that automates a labor-intensive process but still requires teams of contractors to monitor or correct it is not saving money; it’s shifting the spend. True efficiency shows up in leaner operations, fewer redundant tools, and measurable ROI against program budgets.
Security and compliance: Is it operating at the right Impact Level (IL) and compliant with FedRAMP, Federal Acquisition Regulations Part 12, and executive orders on trustworthy AI? Too often, pilots skip these steps, forcing rework or abandonment when systems can’t pass accreditation. Security and compliance are not afterthoughts. They’re the foundation of mission-ready AI.
Scalability and reuse: Can it expand across components, missions or agencies without a complete rebuild? The ability to deploy once and reuse securely across multiple environments is the difference between a science project and a true platform. Reuse drives standardization, lowers costs, and builds the kind of AI ecosystem government needs to sustain modernization.
These metrics are not as easy to brag about in a press release, but they tell the truth. They reveal whether an AI tool is improving decision cycles, strengthening compliance, and saving taxpayer dollars, not just generating impressive numbers.
Bridging the gap between pilots and progress
To move beyond surface-level experimentation, agencies must start investing in proven, secure solutions from day one. That means selecting tools that already meet enterprise standards for security, interoperability and governance rather than funding pilots that will never scale. Small, disconnected prototypes may demonstrate capability, but they do not deliver sustained mission impact — and impact is the only metric that matters.
True modernization requires a shift from experimentation to execution. Agencies should focus on shared architectures, reusable models and platforms that can integrate across missions. The goal isn’t more pilots, but measurable, sustainable performance that strengthens readiness, improves accountability, and delivers real returns on public investment.
The cost of complacency
As long as agencies reward activity over outcomes, taxpayers will keep paying for tools that look good but underperform. The private sector learned this lesson years ago: Dashboards and usage charts don’t pay the bills. Results do.
If the government wants to close the capability gap, it must apply the same rigor to AI performance that it applies to cybersecurity and acquisition. That means establishing clear metrics for speed to impact, mission alignment and security compliance. It means moving from “how many” to “how much better.”
Terry Gerton GAO has put out a new report looking at the Coast Guard’s Offshore Patrol Cutters program. In fact, they got an additional $4 billion for this program in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act from last summer. Let me ask you to start by telling us what is this program, what are these ships, and why is it such a high priority for the Coast Guard right now?
Shelby Oakley These ships are a very high priority for the Coast Guard because they’re a workhorse. They’re intended to provide and do a variety of missions like search and rescue, and migrant interdiction, drug missions as well. And so you might imagine that makes up a significant chunk of the Coast Guard’s mission areas. And they’re intended to replace a class of ships called the medium-endurance cutters. And those medium-endurance cutters are really old, and they’re having a lot of challenges. They had a design life of 30 years and they are all well past that 30-year design life. So the gap between those medium-endurance cutters and the Offshore Patrol Cutters is getting bigger.
Terry Gerton So what prompted you to look at the program now? Is it just the size of it or the duration?
Shelby Oakley Given that it is one of the Coast Guard’s highest-priority programs, between it and the Polar Security Cutter, makes up a significant chunk of the Coast Guard’s acquisition budget. And so we really try and focus our reviews on the highest-priority acquisitions within the Coast Guard. And this certainly qualifies for it. But this isn’t the first time we’ve looked at this program. This is our third review of the Offshore Patrol Cutter over the past 10 years, and we also assess it every year in our DHS assessment of major programs. So we’ve had our finger on the pulse of this program for a while and have consistently been watching progress and challenges that it has experienced. This was a good time to take another look at the program because of where they are at in terms of construction and progress in that regard.
Terry Gerton So was third time the charm? Are they making progress or did you find some still serious systemic problems?
Shelby Oakley The program is divided into various stages, and that occurred because the original program was awarded to Eastern Shipbuilding Group. They experienced a devastating hurricane in 2018 that basically trashed all their facilities and really affected their ability to make progress on this program. At that point, the Coast Guard divided the program into stages. So, Eastern Shipbuilding Group kept the first four ships; that’s Stage 1. Austal was then awarded the next 10 ships; that’s Stage 2. And then there’s Stage 3, which is yet to be awarded. That gets you to the 25 ships. So Eastern Shipbuilding Group has remained extremely challenged in constructing the first four ships. And in the spring, the Coast Guard decided that they were going to basically cut bait on ships three and four from Eastern Shipbuilding Group. They terminated those for default. More recently, and basically the week we were issuing our report, Eastern Shipbuilding Group announced that it would no longer work on ships one and two. And so those first four ships are now sitting there at Eastern Shipbuilding Group in various stages of completion, anywhere from 6% to 75%, with big question marks around what’s going to happen with them going forward.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Shelby Oakley. She’s a director in GAO’s Contracting and National Security Acquisitions team. Shelby, that seems like a big sunk cost to just walk away from. What did your findings tell you about how Coast Guard has managed the design of these ships and the cost of these ships?
Shelby Oakley We have we have pointed out for years, and reiterated again in this report, about a number of decisions that the Coast Guard made that led to some of these outcomes. One of the biggest things that we have pointed to is that Eastern Shipbuilding and now Austal have been authorized to begin construction on these ships before the design of them is even complete. So imagine that, for your listeners: Let’s just say you’re building a house, and you’re designing this house and you’re trying to lay out where everything in the house is going to go. The plumbing and the bathrooms and the kitchen and everything. And the builder comes to you and says, you know what, we don’t need to know any of that stuff. We’re just going to start building. It always comes back to bite you. And that’s what happened with Eastern Shipbuilding Group. It led to a lot of rework where progress was made, construction was done, but then the design changed or matured, and you realize, oh shoot we need to route those pipes somewhere different. That amount of rework that happened really ends up adding a lot of time and money to the effort. And that’s exactly what we saw. We saw an increase overall for this program, a 57% cost increase in this program from initial baselines. OPC-1’s delivery, that’s the first ship built by Eastern Shipbuilding Group, was delayed by five years. So certainly those are some of the challenges that we’ve raised. And we’ve raised concerns about the Coast Guard’s oversight of this program as well too, both from the perspective of those decisions allowing design to progress, but also from a cost perspective. There’s a lot of questions about the fidelity of the cost estimates and the schedule estimates in this program that I think have come to bear, in terms of them being outdated before or right after they’re initially re-baselined. And so we’ve made some recommendations to the Coast Guard to improve things like their schedule estimates to bring more fidelity and oversight to the cost estimates for the program. For example, by estimating cost per ship versus for the overall program. A number of things over the years we’ve recommended for them to do and they’ve taken some action, but not in every case.
Terry Gerton Is this a problem that’s unique to the Coast Guard? I mean, the Navy buys and builds ships all the time. Does the Coast Guard or the Department of Homeland Security not have that same sort of institutional knowledge here?
Shelby Oakley So there’s a couple of things, I think, that I would call your attention to. The Navy has its own challenges and certainly, for your listeners, with the announcement a couple weeks ago about the cancelation of the frigate program for the Navy, where they’ve spent $4 billion trying to design a ship and construct a ship. And now they’re going to walk away from it. It’s kind of indicative of the overall status of shipbuilding in this country, that it’s extremely challenged. And part of the reason why shipbuilding is challenged in this country is because of workforce and facilities. We had years of declining shipbuilding in this county that led to declining workforces. The people to be able to do the welding, and the design efforts on these ships, are no longer around. Both the Navy and the Coast Guard are working to rebuild that. I would say, secondly, the Coast Guard doesn’t always get the tier one shipyards that the Navy does to build its ships. For example, with ESG, this award for OPC was its first government contract. Imagine trying to figure out how to work within government bureaucracy to build your ship when you’re used to your commercial business where it’s a lot different. That was definitely a challenge for Eastern as it made its transition to this program. I think that led to a lot of issues on the program.
Terry Gerton Well, looking ahead as the Coast Guard moves to hopefully Stage 2 and then Stage 3, what is the most important of your recommendations that you hope they get a handle on quickly?
Shelby Oakley The bottom line recommendation that we’ve been reiterating for a number of years is: Get that design stable before you start constructing any more ships. You don’t have the time or the resources to waste reconstructing things because the designs change. One of our recommendations on Stage 2 was don’t authorize Austal to build any more ships until they’ve completed their design. And so that’s a big one. But then I think another really important recommendation that we made is this Stage 3 award is looming. They have to award the remaining 10 ships. And our contention is, maybe you should operationally test the ships that you’ve built and make sure they do the things that you want them to do before you authorize a whole other set of 10 to be constructed. We really focused on trying to push the Coast Guard to get that type of knowledge before they issue that RFP for that third stage. We also hope at that time that they can incorporate more of our leading practices that we see commercial companies do, like adhering pretty strictly to the existing design and not making changes, and really ensuring that everything’s modeled in this 3D model that allows for real-time work between the Coast Guard and the builder to understand the effects of any design changes on it. And a number of other things in terms of those leading practices. But those two things I think would really help the Coast Guard ensure that they put this program back on better footing.
Terry Gerton And have the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security been positive in their response?
Shelby Oakley They were positive in the response about the Stage 3 recommendation in terms of incorporating knowledge before. We’ll see if they actually adhere to that. They did not concur with the stabilizing the design for Stage 2 before authorizing additional ships. I think they feel confident enough in the design to feel like they’re good to go. But we’ve seen this story play out before both within the Coast Guard and the Navy where that confidence can be overstated sometimes, and so we’re hoping that they really take that one to heart.
FILE - In this Feb. 26, 2017 file photo, two U.S. Coast Guard fast boats carrying suspects detained in prior drug interdiction operations are transferred from the USCG cutter Mohawk, seen in the background, to the USCG cutter Stratton, in the eastern Pacific Ocean. The U.S. Coast Guard is teaming up with the Mexican and Colombian navies off South America's Pacific coast to go after seafaring smugglers, opening a new front in the drug war. (AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills, File)
Terry Gerton You have written a paper that asks a very provocative question. How many people can the federal government lose before it crashes? What’d you find?
Elaine Kamarck Well, we found that in the midst of all the DOGE chaos, people were figuring out that, wait a minute, they were making some mistakes. Some of these mistakes were absolutely clear from the get-go and were reversed in 36 to 48 hours. The one that I think everybody has heard about is when they fired a couple hundred nuclear safety engineers. And these are the people who watch over our nuclear stockpiles, and not only for readiness, but to make sure there’s no accidents. The stockpile are pretty old, as people in that area will tell you. And so the danger of something leaking, something going wrong is real, and you need people watching this all the time. And you can’t just immediately turn around and go to the help wanted ads and find a nuclear safety engineer. They aren’t a dime a dozen on the streets. So that created a huge outcry. And it was about 36 hours before they were rehired. And of course, the thing that happened there was that they had cut off all of their emails and contacts, so they had to really scramble to rehire these people. Now, that’s a very dramatic example. But there’s other ones where we are waiting to see what these cuts have done. And the fact that there’s — what we did when we put together this paper was we started watching carefully news sources like your own, like Government Executive, et cetera, that really cover the federal government and of course the traditional news sources, and looking for stories that talked about rehiring civil servants who were either fired or who were offered the deferred resignation. And in a lot of these cases, the agency took back the offer of the deferred resignation. So in other words, what was happening during really the whole of this year, was firings, dramatic firings sometimes, reductions in force, whatever, and then pullbacks as people began to realize, particularly the political appointees, I think, in the agencies, because they knew they were on the line. It’s no accident that the Transportation secretary, Secretary Duffy, was the first person to yell at Elon Musk in a cabinet meeting. Why? Because he knows that this, what they were doing to the FAA and to the air traffic controllers was going to result in trouble. It’s going to be an accident. And of course, who would be the face of that trouble? It would be the Secretary of Transportation, and of course ultimately the President. So, he stood up, he was the first one that really stood up to Musk in front of the President, and I think increasingly that’s been happening in less dramatic ways. People have been saying, wait a minute, you just cut too much.
Terry Gerton The latest numbers from OPM say that 317,000 people have left working for the federal government, but 68,000 have entered. It’s not clear if they left and then came back or if those 68,00 are new hires, but the administration’s contention has been that federal government is too big and too bureaucratic. At what point did these reductions stop being about efficiency and really start creating systemic risk?
Elaine Kamarck Oh, I think they’re already creating systemic risk. And that’s why you get the dramatic examples like the nuclear safety engineers. Then you have the longer term examples. So for instance, everything that’s going on at the CDC, at the Centers for Disease Control, is increasing the probability of pandemics and outbreaks. So you can imagine measles outbreaks in the coming months or years. You can even imagine polio coming back because of what they’ve been doing, the denigration of science, et cetera. And suppose you or your loved one is suffering from a really serious cancer. All right, well, there’s been laboratories defunded and they see what they’re doing. So they defund them and then they put the money back. And they’ve done this with some of Harvard’s laboratories recently. The problem is, you interrupt research and you lose months, if not years of research. The mice die. The tests, all that stuff that goes on in a laboratory, which is so complicated, when you close down a laboratory, you lose time. And if you’re somebody who has got a terrible cancer and is looking for a breakthrough cure, every minute counts.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Elaine Kamarck. She’s director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution. Elaine, another one of the administration’s assertions is that AI can replace these folks, or automation will replace them, or we can contract it out. Can they? Are there some of these functions that just really require a human in a government chair to do the work?
Elaine Kamarck Most of them, frankly, require a human in a government chair. AI has huge potential. And back 30 years ago when we did Reinventing Government, the internet was just coming online for many people, because we were there, remember 1993 to 1996. So, when I went into the White House in 93, we didn’t even have the use of the internet. So as we went on, absolutely the internet was able to replace people. The technology did replace people. I have no doubt that that would be the case in AI. The problem is that AI is not ready for prime time and the DOGE people did not go about this with any sort of plan for which functions would do it. So, let me give you an example. I mean, 30 years ago, we really were convinced that eventually, technology would help us really get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid fraud. We’ve always known there’s a lot of fraud in there, but it’s a massive payment system and you have to have something that can sort of look through and find the patterns that are unusual. AI is going to be great for that. But did they announce that? I mean, the chaotic way makes us, everybody, suspicious that they just cut without a plan. And eventually, maybe in the next couple years, they’ll get a plan to use AI in this piece, but let’s face it, you can’t use AI in every place.
Terry Gerton Elaine, you have seen administrations come and go. You mentioned Reinventing Government back in the 90s. But if this administration sees the reduction in the federal workforce as a political win, at what point might they face the risk of having unintentionally weakened government capacity to deliver services? When did the people that government is supposed to serve figure this out and what happens when they do?
Elaine Kamarck Well, let me tell you something. They’ve already figured it out. So polling on DOGE is very unpopular with the public. Most of the public thinks, in the polls we have so far this year, they’re all the same, which was by about a 10 point margin, people think the government has gone too far. They think the cuts have gone too far. Now, when they will really feel it is when, and they are, if you’re a senior, you’re feeling it right now, or God forbid you’re turning 67 years old this year, and you’re trying to sign up for your Social Security benefits. You have three-hour wait times on the telephone, you have offices closing, even though Social Security keeps denying that they’re closing offices, and then GSA puts on their site that they are doing reductions in office space. I mean, so you’ve got two different agencies saying two different things. People are already feeling it on the service end. We had a little bit of a show of this in Texas with those terrible floods at the 4th of July, when you not only had NOAA asleep at the switch, but you had FEMA asleep at this switch. And that now, fortunately for the people involved, the state of Texas is a big state, a wealthy state with pretty good emergency response capacity. But what if they had been completely overwhelmed and needed outside help? So there’s a lot of ways that this is going to go wrong. And I think the public is already understanding that the cuts have gone too far.
Terry Gerton What will you be looking for come January when everybody’s sort of back after all of the holidays and before maybe another shutdown? What will you be looking for? What do you expect in terms of policy or action?
Elaine Kamarck It’s hard to say. I think I will be looking for more rehires, what we called in our paper rehires. More places where the cabinet secretary goes to OMB or an undersecretary and says, look, we’re in danger of this falling apart unless you have rehires. I think we’re going to have that. The bill that ended the shutdown, as you know, prohibits any more layoffs until the end January. So we’re obviously not going to have any more layoffs. But as I say in the paper I did on this for Brookings, the real effect of this was to cause people to leave. Either they took the deferred resignation or they retired when they were sort of just thinking about it or they took an early retirement offer or they took an old-fashioned buyout, and that, I think, is the most serious consequence, because think about it, who leaves their job? Well, either somebody who’s got a retirement set up and says, okay, I was going to do it next year, I’m going to it this year, because this place is crazy. Or somebody who knows they can get another job quickly, which means that some of our most talented people, probably younger people, left because they said, this is a crazy place to work. Not to mention the fact that you have an OMB director who constantly says things like he wants to make the federal worker terrified of going to work. I mean, that’s your legal definition of a hostile workplace. They have created a hostile work workplace for 2 million people. And so no wonder people are leaving. And that I think is the biggest consequence. And, so, the question is, can they get people back? Now, seeing what you’ve seen, suppose you’re a terrific cybersecurity person, and you’ve just gotten out of college a couple years ago. You’ve got a great resume. You know that field. We know that for decades now, the government’s been desperate to hire cybersecurity people. You have your choice of going to Chase Bank and doing cyber or going to Social Security or IRS or some other big government agency. What are you going to do? I mean, at these entry-level jobs, as we know, the pay is pretty even. So it’s not a matter of the pay diverging until you get into the upper levels, but the federal government is now run by people who constantly demean the federal workforce. Now, that can’t help hiring. So even if you’re trying to hire back, I think that it’s going to be difficult for the federal government to do that. And we’ll see what happens in January. And then, of course, the court cases. I haven’t even written about the court cases because I’ve been focusing on the operations of government. But there’s about 20 absolutely critical court cases that are going to have to wend their way through the system. And we’re going to see how much of this can be done. Because the nut of the argument is, if Congress has the authority to appropriate, and Congress appropriates money, and says, do this, do that with this money, and the executive says, oh, okay, we’ll do this, we’re going to do this with five people, and it is absolutely clear that you can’t do this with five people, is that a violation of the separation of powers? And that’s what we’re headed to. That’s really the issue that everybody is going to have to get their head around. And we’ll see if the courts offer any clarity on this in the coming months.
Demonstrators rally in support of federal workers outside of the Department of Health and Human Services, Friday, Feb. 14, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
The Pentagon inspector general found the Defense Health Agency failed to issue finalized guidance defining roles, responsibilities and access-to-care standards after reorganizing the military health system. The average wait for urgent medical appointments at military medical treatment facilities outside the United States stretched as long as 21 days in some locations, while routine appointments were delayed by as much as 37 days. Auditors also said many overseas facilities were understaffed and personnel working in military clinics and hospitals experienced burnout and low morale. The inspector general recommended that the DHA director track data on why personnel are leaving military medical facilities.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should consolidate its scanning contracts to boost its records digitization efforts. That’s one recommendation from the USCIS ombudsman’s latest annual report. It also said USCIS needs to standardize its scanning operations to ensure documents are appropriately tagged with searchable metadata. The report touts how artificial intelligence could help the agency create fully searchable records. USCIS has been on a years-long journey to digitize its records, but it still manages approximately 171 million paper files.
The Treasury Department is looking for AI experts who can put their skills to the test. A new job posting is asking candidates to use these tools to write a 10-page analysis of metaphors used in The Great Gatsby, then summarize it into a 200-word summary. Candidates must then translate the essay into Spanish and Mandarin. They must also compare the book’s metaphors against three other novels of their choosing and then rewrite their essay in the style of a scientific paper.
Lawmakers dropped several quality-of-life reforms for service members and their families while compromising defense policy legislation. Members of Congress once again rejected a proposal to expand eligibility for the basic needs allowance by removing basic allowance for housing from income calculations. Most lower-income service members don’t qualify for the stipend due to their housing allowance pushing them above the income threshold. While the program has had a low participation rate from the start, the Pentagon’s own survey estimates that about one-in-four service members struggle with food insecurity. Lawmakers also rejected a Senate-backed pilot program proposal to provide coupons to junior enlisted service members to purchase food at commissaries.
Agencies will soon see a more streamlined process when giving bonuses to their employees. The Office of Personnel Management is transferring the approval process for pay incentives off of its own plate, and instead making it the responsibility of individual agencies. The goal is to make it easier to offer bonuses to employees, and free up time for OPM to focus on other priorities. Despite the process change, OPM said it “does not know” if agencies will actually offer more recruitment or relocation incentives as a result. The final rule implementing the changes comes after OPM first proposed regulations in 2023.
A new “Tech Force” hiring program from the Trump administration seeks to bring more technical expertise into the government’s ranks. The Office of Personnel Management said the new program will recruit 1,000 employees, for two years each, to work on IT modernization projects at various agencies. The new hiring initiative comes after more than 300,000 employees left government this year, due to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the workforce.
The future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is up in the air after a turbulent year. Former FEMA leaders said the agency needs clarity to move forward. Last week, the Trump administration delayed the release of the FEMA Review Council’s recommendations. Speaking at an event on Monday, former FEMA Administrator Pete Gaynor said the report was going to serve as a “north star” for the agency. “It was going to offer predictability to FEMA and to the entire emergency management enterprise that we were going to go somewhere transformative. And it hasn't happened, at least not yet. And I guess the biggest takeaway is, without the report, what happens next?” Gaynor said. White House officials canceled a scheduled FEMA Review Council meeting at the last minute on Friday. The council had been scheduled to vote on a draft of its final report.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is exploring workarounds to stricter rules on telework as a reasonable accommodation. CDC supervisors have instructed staff to email their medical documentation directly to Lynda Chapman, the agency’s chief operating officer, to “bypass” the traditional reasonable accommodation system. Chapman will decide if employees are eligible for 30 days of telework as an interim accommodation. Two CDC employees told Federal News Network that Chapman is only approving interim telework in a few circumstances, including recovery from surgery, pregnancy or chemotherapy.
Login
