More moves to reorganize the Army take effect today. The new Army Western Hemisphere Command will officially come into being with its headquarters at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The new organization combines the existing U.S. Army North, U.S. Army South and Army Forces Command under one umbrella before those organizations are formally disestablished next October. The new command will also absorb the Army’s 18th Airborne Corps, Air Traffic Services Command and the 1st Army.
Workforce reductions have become a top challenge at the Office of Personnel Management, according to an agency watchdog. OPM’s inspector general said the agency’s rapid staffing losses this year have created gaps in its ability to operate effectively. According to OPM, the reductions are meant to enhance efficiency. But a new IG report warns that the staffing losses could lead to significant challenges and disruptions in the agency’s work. OPM is on track to lose more than one-third of its entire workforce by the end of the year.
Close to two-thirds of Americans believe management of the federal government has been heading in the wrong direction. A majority also says the government is operating worse now than it was a year ago. The new findings from the Partnership for Public Service indicate that much of the public is pessimistic about the impacts of the Trump administration’s federal workforce cuts. In a recent survey from the Partnership, one-quarter of respondents said they believe the government is moving in the right direction.
Professional services contractors get ready: OASIS+ Phase 2 is here. The General Services Administration is adding five new domains to the existing multiple award contract and opening all new and existing functional areas for bids from new companies in January. GSA said the five new domains under OASIS+ Phase 2 will include business administration, financial services, human capital, marketing and public relations, and social services. Vendors should be on the look out for a pre-amendment notice on SAM.gov around December 16, which will detail the draft scorecards for all domains.
The Department of Health and Human Services is setting new restrictions on telework as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. A new HHS-wide reasonable accommodation policy says all requests for telework, remote work or reassignment must be reviewed and approved by an assistant secretary or a higher-level official. Frontline supervisors no longer have the authority to make those decisions. A memo from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says all telework related to reasonable accommodations will be repealed.
Unions are asking a federal court to reverse more layoffs than agencies have allowed so far. An amendment to an ongoing lawsuit asks a federal judge in San Francisco to reverse more reductions in force under a spending deal that ended the recent government shutdown. The continuing resolution states agencies can’t use federal funds to carry out RIFs between mid-November and the end of January. But agencies have only reinstated federal employees who received RIF notices between October 1 and November 12. The amended lawsuit seeks to force the departments of State, Education and Defense, as well as the Small Business Administration and the General Services Administration to rescind more RIFs.
The Pentagon inspector general’s long-awaited report on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the Signal app to discuss operational details concluded that Hegseth “sent sensitive, nonpublic, operational information” from his personal cell phone, which violates Defense Department rules that prohibit the use of personal devices and nonapproved apps for official business. The IG also determined that Hegseth’s use of a personal device for official work “risks potential compromise of sensitive DoD information, which could cause harm to DoD personnel and mission objectives.” The Pentagon only provided a partial copy of messages from Hegseth’s personal cell phone. The IG relied on the transcript of the public chat posted by The Atlantic for this investigation. The IG said Hegseth declined to be interviewed for this evaluation. Meanwhile, the Pentagon said the report is a “total exoneration” of Hegseth and that “the case is closed.”
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is urging agencies and industry to take action against a new cyber threat from China. At least eight organizations, including federal agencies, IT companies and critical infrastructure providers, have fallen victim to a new and sophisticated malware attack. CISA is telling all organizations to take action to protect their systems from BRICKSTORM. Nick Andersen, the executive assistant director for cybersecurity at CISA, said the malware could enable long term access, disruption and potential sabotage. "BRICKSTORM is a sophisticated malware," he said. "It has advanced functionality to conceal communications, move laterally and tunnel into victim networks. It can also automatically reinstall or restart the malware if disrupted." CISA issued a new analysis and recommendations yesterday for how organizations can protect themselves from BRICKSTORM.
The Pentagon’s plan to fix its decades-old material weaknesses — its inability to reliably track government property in the possession of contractors — is failing, a new inspector general evaluation finds.
The Pentagon IG concluded that the department’s corrective action plan — which calls on DoD components to use a software application called the Government Furnished Property Module within the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment — has stalled due to a lack of enforcement from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and slow adoption by the military services.
Auditors warn that if DoD components don’t implement the GFP module, the department risks missing its goal of achieving a clean audit opinion by 2028.
“The implementation of that GFP module is the key to getting this to work,” Mark Thomas, DoD IG’s supervisory auditor, told Federal News Network.
One of the technical challenges, Thomas said, is that each military service uses its own accountable property system of record, or APSR, to track government assets in the hands of contractors. The office of the secretary of defense, however, wants the services to connect their systems to the GFP module.
“That is something that the components have not been able to do yet. They’re still working to implement that. Each of the components has corrective action dates for that that are still into the future,” Thomas said.
“The goal would be to complete everything by 2028, preferably before 2028 so that the auditors, as they come in to do the work, that control environment has been established and been working before the auditors come in and start to do some of the work. That would be the best way to do it,” he added.
But some of the timelines to remediate this weakness stretch beyond the 2028 deadline.
“Unless there’s a change in those dates, then they’ll be at risk for missing the deadline,” Thomas said.
Each military service has its own reasons for lagging in implementing the department-wide solution, but most of those reasons center around the same issue — every component is grappling with its own longstanding material weakness in accounting for government property in the possession of contractors.
“They have their own systems which differ from component to component. So they have their own technical challenges and how their particular system in the Air Force functions and how it accounts for property versus how the Navy does it. Each group is kind of working on their own technical challenges and how they’re going to report this into their own APSR — they are busy doing that and they’re actively trying to clean that up so that they can all get opinions on their financial statements,” Thomas said.
But the IG found that this component-level focus has come at the expense of the broader, department-wide effort.
Thomas said the services have been receptive to adapting the department-wide solution, but each faces a number of technical challenges connecting their systems to the GFP module.
“They understand the importance of it, and they understand what this really would give us if there is a functioning GFP module across the department. This would really give the department a larger bird’s eye view of all of the property that they have in the possession of contractors. And it would provide that enterprise level look and ability to tell we have so much property at contractor x,” Thomas said.
Meanwhile, DoD leaders have not mandated the use of the GFP module, which is stalling the department’s efforts to remediate this material weakness. The audit found that the OSD could be “more forceful” in recommending and implementing the department-wide solution.
“They need to be more direct in saying that we will use this module, all the components will use this module. That was one of the areas that we thought was weak, that the department could improve their messaging, and they could improve to be more direct and require the use of this module,” Thomas said.
FILE - The Department of Defense logo is seen on the wall in the Press Briefing room at the Pentagon, Oct. 29, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf, File)
Tens of thousands of blue-collar Defense Department workers are slated to receive their long-delayed 2024 pay raises. The raises were stalled for nearly a year after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s purge of advisory committees halted the DoD Wage Committee’s ability to authorize new wage schedules.
The DoD Wage Committee met last week for the first time this year to approve publication of 2024 updates to about 1,600 wage schedules covering 250 wage areas.
These raises will match the General Schedule locality increases, and they will be applied retroactively according to when they should have taken effect last year. DoD workers could see the pay bump reflected in their next paychecks.
“It will probably be in the next paycheck, or possibly a separate check. It will depend on which payroll processor is being used,” Jacqueline Simon, American Federation of Government Employees’ director of public policy, told Federal News Network.
“There might be some other agencies, like the Bureau of Prisons, Social Security, even the Department of Veterans Affairs that might be more delayed. But I’m told the Defense Finance and Accounting Service says it will be the next paycheck,” she said.
For blue-collar federal employees under the Federal Wage System, the process of getting a pay raise is more complex than for most General Schedule employees. While the GS base pay schedule is adjusted annually each January with an across-the-board pay increase set by the president or Congress, FWS adjustments are based partly on that overarching raise and partly on wage surveys conducted by the DoD Wage Committee, which then votes to implement new schedules region by region throughout the year.
But in March, Hegseth launched a review of all advisory committees, requiring them to justify their existence. He instructed the committees to explain how their advice “benefited the DoD, the federal government, and the United States,” and how it aligned with President Donald Trump’s goals and the department’s priority of “restoring the warrior ethos.” Hegseth dismissed all members of the advisory committees in April.
The DoD Wage Committee — made up of three agency officials and two union leaders, and whose sole function is to approve wage schedules for FWS employees — has been unable to meet since then.
“We don’t provide advice per se. We look through all the data, at the way the calculations were done, make sure everything was done right, and then you vote that yes, this is okay. And sometimes it’s not okay. Sometimes there are errors and they’re found. But that’s what the DoD wage committee is,” Simon said.
“The surveys happened, the calculation and the new wage scales and wage rates were determined, but none of them could be actually implemented or paid because of the pause on the advisory committees. Everything was ready to go. So people who were due their raise in March and April and May, in June, July, August, September, none of them got their raises when they were supposed to,” she added.
Simon said the Office of the Secretary of Defense never offered any explanation of why the committee could not be exempted. “They just wouldn’t do it. They were not permitted to meet with us,” she said.
It appears that pressure from lawmakers eventually pushed the department to reverse its course.
“We certainly talked to a lot of lawmakers, and we talked to as many people in the administration as we possibly could and tried to put some political pressure on the secretary, and I guess he finally relented,” Simon said.
The delay, Simon said, has been deeply frustrating for workers. “Across the board, people were absolutely furious. There’s no way to overstate how angry and resentful people were that this was happening. And, of course, there was a hardship, of course there was the shutdown, and then this on top of it, and it was a terrible outrage.”
AFGE estimates that more than 118,000 DoD employees are paid through the Federal Wage System.
If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email anastasia.obis@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at (301) 830-2747.
Terry Gerton Virginia Tech has just launched a generative AI training program. Tell us about what the program is and why you decided to start it now.
Jamie Cogbill Okay, great. Well, this partnership between Virginia Tech and Amazon Web Services is really about preparing the next generation of national security leaders for an AI-driven world. As one of our nation’s six senior military colleges, Virginia Tech has had the chance to pilot AWS’s new generative AI training, which is the first of its kind, before it’s rolled out to nationwide, or at least to the other senior military colleges. It directly supports the recent White House call to make senior military colleges hubs of AI research and talent development. And our cadets are already finding it incredibly valuable training as they prepare to lead in a defense environment that’s rapidly being transformed by artificial intelligence.
Terry Gerton There’s a lot of AI courses out there. What sets this collaboration apart? What’s unique in terms of content or focus or tools?
Jamie Cogbill Okay. Well, this is the first generative AI training program of its kind offered specifically at senior military colleges. And it directly supports the recent White House AI Action Plan, which was released last July, which calls on senior military colleges to become hubs of AI talent and innovation. And our cadets are getting hands-on experience with the same AI tools and problem solving approaches that are being used in real defense and intelligence missions.
Terry Gerton You mentioned cadets a couple of times here. For folks who may not know that Virginia Tech has a Corps of Cadets, tell us a little bit about that and how many cadets are actually taking the course.
Jamie Cogbill Okay. So yes, Virginia Tech is, as I mentioned, is one of six senior military colleges, which means that they have a Corps of Cadets, just like Virginia Military Institute or the Citadel, or our closest comparison is Texas A&M. There’s currently close to 1,400 cadets in the Corps of Cadets at Virginia Tech. But for this first pilot, it was offered to a total of about 75 students, and the intent was that at least half of them be cadets. And in this case, it was. We had about 38 total cadets that participated in the program.
Terry Gerton And who filled the other seats?
Jamie Cogbill The other seats were mostly people who are affiliated with Virginia Tech’s National Security Institute, which is a hub for defense-related research, but also for preparing future national security leaders here at Virginia Tech. And so the advertisement went out to both cadets and to the students who are affiliated with the Virginia Tech’s National Security Institute.
Terry Gerton It sounds like you didn’t have any trouble filling the seats. What does that tell you about the interest in this topic from future military and civilian defense leaders?
Jamie Cogbill There’s definitely a huge interest and our cadets who I talked to after the training just found it to be very valuable for them with just learning about AI in general, because they know it’s going to be an important part of their future careers, but also learning how to use it more effectively through effective prompt engineering and other methods that they learned throughout the training.
Terry Gerton Talk to us about some of the specific defense AI applications that you’re covering in this course. We all think about Chat GPT and Copilot, but how are those topics specifically coming across in defense-related issues?
Jamie Cogbill That’s a great question. And I don’t know the exact answer to that, but I can say that it’s teaching the core Amazon Gen AI services, which is something they call Amazon Bedrock, which Department of Defense has partnered with Amazon Web Services in a lot of ways, so it’s likely already using some of these AWS services. And so some of the people who are participating in the training will likely go into defense- or national security-related careers and already be expected to use or quickly learn how to use AWS software and AI tools. But I think the big takeaway is just learning AI in general, which is clearly going to be part of their future in national security and defense.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Jamie Cogbill. He’s the deputy director of the Defense Civilian Training Corps at Virginia Tech’s National Security Institute. Well, we talk a lot about AI on this program and all of its different applications. One thing we do know about it is it’s powerful but it’s also risky. So in this kind of training, how are you preparing students not just to use the tools, but to really lead responsibly with AI when the risks could be pretty high?
Jamie Cogbill I don’t have specifics about how this training addressed those kind of risks. I haven’t taken the course myself. It was Amazon Web Services who provided it. Talking to my cadets, I think it was a pretty intense curriculum. They did have two different instructor-led sessions, both four hour sessions, and each session was about three hours of content and an hour lab. And then they had a final competitive kind of gamified lab at the end. It was another four hour session where they practiced with real world challenges and in using AI. So I would assume that some of the training in the instructor-led portions was related to the risks of using AI, how to avoid hallucinations that AI can provide. And but also, in the Department of Defense, a key thing is ensuring the use of responsible AI, or RAI as they call it. And so I imagine that was also covered in the curriculum.
Terry Gerton This is cohort one this fall, first time you’ve rolled out the course. What do you think happens next? Where does it go from here?
Jamie Cogbill So we’re hoping that, and this is partially up to Amazon Web Services, but AWS is actively exploring how to scale the program for our spring semester here at Virginia Tech, potentially bringing it back in the spring, but also for 2026 in general. AWS originally intended to expand this training to all six senior military colleges across the country. And I think the success here at Virginia Tech with the pilot proved that our cadets and probably other cadets across the nation are eager to learn and ready to lead in the AI space. And we’re hoping that it set the standard for what other programs could look like.
Terry Gerton Well, always in a pilot there are lots of lessons learned in the process. What do you at Virginia Tech and Amazon take away in terms of needing to improve or broaden the program as you tried it out?
Jamie Cogbill Well, I think as you mentioned earlier, I think the demand is there. So if we can scale it up even here at Virginia Tech and and offer it to more than just 75 cadets and students. But I think that the big takeaway is really that partnerships like this are essential. And AI is changing the nature of national security. And we need to ensure our future military and civilian leaders can lead confidently in that environment. And I think this program shows how academia, industry and government can come together to make that happen.
Terry Gerton AI is such a fast changing space. How do you imagine that the curriculum might have to adjust even from one semester to the next just to stay current?
Jamie Cogbill Absolutely. And I’m sure the folks at AWS are right there on the cusp of all that change. And so my guess is that they are constantly updating their curriculum to keep pace with that.
Terry Gerton Are you hearing from senior leaders in the Department of Defense about how they view the program and what their hopes for it are?
Jamie Cogbill So far, no, not directly. My guess is at the senior levels at AWS, they are talking to senior leaders in the Department of Defense and potentially at the most senior levels of our government, since it was a key goal of the White House AI Action Plan to offer this type of training.
The federal offices are back open and hundreds of thousands of federal workershave returned to work after the longest shutdown in history. But nothing is back to normal — federal workers say morale and trust in leadership are at an all-time low, tensions are high between furloughed staff and those who worked through the shutdown, schedules are slipping and projects are being pushed back, and more people are accelerating their retirement plans or leaving federal service altogether.
The recent shutdown, however, has just exacerbated the existing problems and added to what federal workers described as an already extremely trying year for the federal workforce.
“As if morale wasn’t already non-existent, it sure is now. I expect a surge of people to (quiet) quit and I expect the remaining players to be bombarded with work with no support or guidance from leadership,” one employee told Federal News Network.
“The mission is dead. Operations are barely running. Morale is toast,” another federal worker said.
“Everything about being a federal employee in 2025 has destroyed workforce morale — from constant [reduction-in-force] threats, to losing colleagues to early/forced retirements and firings, to the loss of any telework to facilitate work/life balance for working parents or senior caregivers, this is the worst professional year I have experienced in nearly 20 years of service to my country. Nothing about the current [Office of Management and Budget] approach to leadership has moved our country forward,” another employee said.
A Federal News Network survey, conducted online between Nov. 17-30, asked federal workers what it has been like going back to work after the 43-day government shutdown. Survey respondents were self-selected, and they self-reported information to verify their status as current federal employees.
Federal workers described the experience as disorienting — returning to thousands of unanswered emails and scrambling to catch up with partners who kept work moving during the shutdown. There was little to no guidance from top management; they reported overwhelming backlogs and project schedules going completely awry.
Many said overloaded or outdated IT systems, lapsed system access and computer issues made even basic tasks difficult.
“IT issues as devices are set to expire and become inactive after 30 days of non-use, supervisory chain is still not back to work and others are catching up on leave. There are large gaps within the higher chain of command, tremendous amount of confusion, no clear description of how to verify back pay and related deductions are accurate, statutory deadlines did not stop during the shutdown, so crushing workload to return to,” one employee said on Nov. 24.
“It is not so simple as flipping a switch. We are still waiting on funds to arrive and are unable to work on things until those funds arrive,” another federal worker said on Nov. 18.
“I engage in very technical work. A 1.5-month shutdown has thoroughly derailed my train of thought. It will take a long time to refamiliarize myself with what issues were being sorted out, what solutions I had been pursuing, even how any of my own code works,” another employee said.
Several federal workers said their agencies could face budget cuts due to not hitting mandatory spending benchmarks — goals that are “impossible to achieve” after a 40-plus day lapse in appropriations.
In addition, many employees now have to use their “use-or-lose” annual leave before the end of the year, which will further delay progress and extend timelines.
Nearly 1,500 people responded to the survey. Out of 739 federal workers who responded to this question, nearly 47% of respondents said it would take them more than two weeks to catch up on all the work missed during the shutdown.
“My program was halted immediately, but will take two months to ramp back up,” one worker said.
“Can you really ever catch up? Some work will just be lost — deprioritized in the chaos,” another federal employee said.
And the threat of another shutdown is looming — the bill President Donald Trump signed into law keeps the government open only through Jan. 30. The uncertainty, workers say, is making people reluctant to fully dive back into work.
“With holidays coming, this will set projects back months,” one employee said.
Federal employees who worked during the shutdown also expressed “apathy and annoyance” toward furloughed employees who did not work during the shutdown, saying the resentment has led to conflicts and made collaboration difficult.
“Expect operations to be negatively affected as the furlough has driven a wedge between those furloughed employees and those who remained on the job,” one federal employee said.
Receiving back pay
Most of the federal workers worked without pay during the shutdown, missing more than four weeks of pay.
When the government reopened on Nov. 13, the Office of Personnel Management said it would take several business days for workers to get their back pay.
Out of 728 individuals, 200 federal workers — about 27.5% — said they received their back pay within one-to-three days after returning to work. Another 200 said they were paid within four-to-seven days. For the remaining 323 individuals, it took more than a week to receive their back pay.
Source: Federal News Network November 2025 survey of 1,467 current federal employees.
Many employees told Federal News Network that there was a lot of confusion about how to process timesheets and guidance changed a few times the first two days, which had contributed to the delay in issuing our pay.
“Smithsonian still has not managed to get us paid. They are wasting time making sure everyone has the correct time codes rather than getting people paid. It’s more important to them that they take a couple weeks to record we were furloughed. Can’t pay the mortgage, but at least they’ll have the correct time code,” one employee said on Nov. 22.
One Interior Department employee told Federal News Network on Dec. 1 the agency had only paid them for 72 hours worked during the shutdown and had promised the remainder by Nov. 25 — they are still waiting on that payment. They added that none of the 69 civilian employees at the U.S. Park Police have been fully paid. Sworn officers, however, received a flat 80 hours per pay period, and while overtime and night-differential corrections were made, it’s not clear if that pay had been issued.
“We have not heard anything about when we will be paid beyond the deadline that passed a week ago, no reason has been provided to explain the delay,” the employee said. “I will be retiring early. While not the only reason, the recent hijinks played a role in my decision.”
One employee at INTERPOL Washington told Federal News Network on Dec. 1 that personnel there have received only partial back pay and some employees have only received pay for one pay period. The issue stems from the Justice Department’s decision to dismantle INTERPOL Washington and fold its remaining functions into the U.S. Marshals Service during the shutdown — while making changes in the pay system while payroll processing was underway.
The workers were initially told they would receive all of their back pay on Nov. 21, but instead received partial pay on Nov. 24. DOJ then promised the rest by Nov. 28, but only a handful of people were paid over that weekend. The agency now says it has finally identified the problem and that employees should be paid by Dec. 3.
“Every time that the DOJ claims to find a solution and puts another date out for when we should get paid, there is just another disappointment,” the INTERPOL Washington employee said.
Another Air Force civilian at Lackland Air Force Base, who was told they would be paid last week, is still waiting for their back pay now nearly three weeks after the shutdown ended. On Monday, they were told that “the comptroller squadron is working diligently to manually process over 3,000 timecards with an estimated completion date of Nov. 29.”
For many of those who received back pay, determining whether the amount was correct was nearly impossible.
Dozens of respondents said they were unsure if their payments were accurate because agencies did not issue accompanying paystubs for the affected pay periods. Several employees said since payroll providers such as the Defense Finance and Accounting Service do not provide leave and earnings statements for retroactive pay, meaning they will have to wait for the next pay period to verify whether the amount is correct.
“It seems to be off by a few hundred dollars, but I can’t determine where the discrepancy is,” one federal worker said on Nov. 26.
“We don’t know since it was a partial payment with no documentation,” another respondent said on Nov. 24.
“Many people at work say that their paychecks were less due to taxes on lump sum payouts,” another respondent said on Nov. 25.
More feds eyeing the exit
Federal workers were already overwhelmed, stretched thin and struggling with high levels of anxiety following the Trump administration’s push to reduce the size of the federal workforce. Now, the shutdown is pushing even more people out the door.
Out of 758 federal workers, 329 respondents — about 43.4% — said that the shutdown made them reconsider staying in federal service.
Source: Federal News Network November 2025 survey of 1,467 current federal employees.
Many said they are actively looking for an out, while for others the shutdown reinforced their decision to retire
“It is so untenable that I plan to quit in the next month or so. The situation has gotten even worse since returning,” one employee said.
“The shutdown did solidify that I will retire the first date I can,” a federal worker said.
“I have dedicated 20 years to serving my country, including service in the U.S. Army. It’s pretty thankless to be a federal civilian employee now. I used to encourage my children to pursue a similar career but now I am encouraging them to stay away from federal service,” another employee said.
Financial, mental health toll
More than half of federal employees — 58% of respondents — reported experiencing financial challenges during the shutdown, and nearly a third said they struggled to pay bills. Over 51% of federal workers said they had to rely on credit cards, loans or emergency savings to pay their bills, while 14% reported missing rent, mortgage or other payments. About 10% of federal workers said they needed outside assistance, such as food banks and relief programs. But notably, nearly 62% said the shutdown impacted their mental health.
Source: Federal News Network November 2025 survey of 1,467 current federal employees.
Several respondents said they dipped into retirement accounts or cleared out emergency savings to stay afloat, while others reported delaying Christmas shopping, postponing home repairs or borrowing from family members to cover basic needs. Younger workers and those in single-income households were hit especially hard.
And while some said they were fortunate enough to have savings or a second household income, many still described the experience as deeply destabilizing.
“Fortunately, we are a two-income, no-child household and good savers. But I did give a monetary gift to a colleague who is in a much more tenuous situation,” a federal worker said.
“I requested a skip loan payment on my car since I could without fees. I have paid for things out of savings and since I’m a bit older I can do that, but I’m depleting savings still as I continue to not be paid,” one employee said.
“Outsiders calling it a ‘free vacation’ don’t understand the effects the shutdown has on furloughed staff,” another employee said.
Workers described experiencing “constant dread and worry,” “incredible stress and anxiety” and “the feeling of absolutely no protections.”
“It was very stressful. I had to take a part-time job,” one employee said.
Ultimately, one worker said, the impacts were “cruel and petty and proved to be irrelevant to either side achieving their stated goals.”
If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email anastasia.obis@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at (301) 830-2747.
Terry Gerton: It is GivingTuesday and so I’m delighted to start this story with Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society. But as we sit here today, coming off of the longest shutdown in government history, walk us through how military families are doing right now. How did that shutdown affect them?
Robert Ruark: That’s an absolutely great question. I think the way military families feel is it can certainly affect their confidence in basically in the support of their families. And that’s the big thing is that if their pay is uncertain, then it is absolutely necessary that they have to have a backstop for that. So one of the things that’s come up with a lot of the banks that cater to the military is the Payroll Protection Plan, the PPP. So the banks like USAA, Navy Federal Credit Union, PenFed, PenAir, a lot of them to cater to the military, they have those. And where you can virtually, you got to get signed up for that if you’re basically active duty service member because they can guarantee a great part of that payday. But if you’re not, you talk about stress. I mean, there’s enough stress in military life between inflation, global conflict potential, unplanned deployments that are going on quite a bit right now, housing and gas prices and basic life events that happen to your families, especially when you’re raising a young family with children at a military base and you’re forced to relocate, deploy all the time, your spouse is trying to find work and it’s really difficult to do that. So to not pay a service member, to a service member, in my opinion, is a sin because of what they do for this nation because they’re not necessarily doing it for themselves. They’re doing it because they want to be part of something much bigger and that’s the country and the country that they love. There’s a very mutual relationship there. So you want that confidence. You don’t ever want to lose that confidence. So I think pay has to be there. We were taught when I was a young Marine: pay, mail and food. Pay, mail and chow is what we call it, but you need those three things. Those are rights. And so I think every military service member views it as a right to be paid on time.
Terry Gerton: People who aren’t familiar or haven’t lived a military lifestyle may not understand all of the things that you just walked us through. And that’s, I think, what makes this GivingTuesday campaign so interesting. Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society has partnered for the fourth year in a row with the other military aid societies for GivingTuesday. Tell us about that partnership and what it means for military families who may be facing some of the stresses you just described.
Robert Ruark: I think the best part about the partnership is, as everyone knows in the country that follows the armed forces, we consider ourselves a joint force. And so that should also apply to the military nonprofits. Unfortunately, most of the our nonprofit peers outside the military aren’t really partnered with a lot of people. There’s maybe a few exceptions, of course, but the bottom line is we thought we would do something about four years ago that would be really new. And so we decided to partner to benefit all of us because we fight together, we train together in a joint environment. So we decided on GivingTuesday, the last few years, to the four military aid societies, the Army Emergency Relief, Air Force Aid Society, Coast Guard Mutual Assistance and Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society, we would join forces to raise important funds to support military families in need through a different campaign each year. This year’s campaign is ‘Make Giving Your Superpower.’
Terry Gerton: Tell us about that campaign theme and why you chose it.
Robert Ruark: So the campaign is being conducted today on social media with the one-day goal to provide active duty service members and family members with vital emergency relief, financial support and education assistance. Those are the three things that we all have in common that we do to support everybody.
Terry Gerton: And how do you hope folks resonate with that superpower theme?
Robert Ruark: Well, the theme is a challenge to Americans to step up, suit up and make giving your superpower for the heroes who serve this country every day. All the donors need to do is visit the website missiongive.us. We believe our service members are truly superhuman in many ways and this is one way to honor their service. And the money goes straight to those different ways that we all support them. Financial assistance, education assistance, disaster assistance. And it goes primarily to those junior service members, the E-5s and below, with probably about five years or less service and a lot of them are married, they don’t make a lot of money and they’re looking to really improve their lives.
Terry Gerton: I’m speaking with retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bob Ruark. He’s the president and CEO of the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society. So something that’s really interesting with your campaign this year, you have a major matching gift partner. Tell us about Lockheed Martin’s role in this year’s campaign.
Robert Ruark: Lockheed Martin is the, of course, the global aerospace defense company. About three years ago, they started the $1 million match for all contributions, doubling the impact. That made this not only a competition, but a wonderful thing that very few nonprofits have. And so last year, we raised $1.3 million, which clearly doubled the impact. And so visiting missiongive.us is really what we ask, but that money will go right back out to the troops and especially those that are deployed, the families that are behind and help them with a lot of their needs. For example, financial assistance is our biggest need. And right now, the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society alone, we do $50 million of financial assistance a year, interest-rate loans and grants and we sit and we do budgets. We do financial education. We do everything we can to help them basically make the money or make the dollars go as far as they can.
Terry Gerton: But if someone wants to go beyond giving on GivingTuesday and get involved, what are the opportunities and how might someone become a volunteer with you?
Robert Ruark: Well, there’s enormous opportunities. They can visit one of our offices at one of those 52 major Navy and Marine Corps bases. They can go to nmcrs.org. They can call us. They can email us. We will always accept the volunteers. And the best part about that is the volunteers, in a lot of cases, get some great training. They become caseworkers in financial situations. They can get retail experience in our thrift shops. They can assist the visiting nurse program because it’s in such demand where we make 12,000 patient contacts each year, and they can learn budgeting and be able to do that financial education. So there’s enormous capabilities to grow and we know military spouse unemployment, I should say, is a huge issue. They can get some skills and then hopefully apply those to a real job.
Terry Gerton: Do your volunteers have to be connected to the military or can they be real-life civilians?
Robert Ruark: They can be real life civilians. It is so easy.
Terry Gerton: Well, give us the website one more time.
Robert Ruark: Ours is nmcrs.org and the GivingTuesday website to give to all of us to choose your favorite military aid society is missiongive.us and please thank Lockheed Martin in some way, shape or form because they’re making it happen with a billion-dollar match.
The Defense Department wants to shake up how it works with value-added resellers.
In a draft memo obtained by Federal News Network, the Pentagon would place a 5% cap on most fees charged by resellers starting with a specific special item number (SIN) for IT products. This cap would only apply to IT products sold through the General Services Administration’s schedule contract.
DoD says it spent about $2 billion in fiscal 2024 through the GSA schedule on these technology products.
The draft memo is one of two expected from the administration to address what it believes are higher than normal costs when buying IT products and services through resellers.
GSA initiated this review and proposed overhaul of the reseller market earlier this year. It started in June with a letter to 10 value-added resellers to collect data to better understand the role of such companies and what it would take for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to sell directly to the government. Then in early October, sources said GSA was close to issuing a memo that would establish such a cap on resellers.
While GSA has yet to issue such a memo, this undated draft memo from the undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Michel Duffey, offered more specifics into what this market cap and oversight process would look like.
Duffey references GSA’s plans in his draft memo.
Duffey wrote the initiative would “initially entail GSA contracting officers’ use new control measures to support their determinations of price reasonableness for products offered for sale under IT Special Item Number 33411. Specifically, GSA will more closely scrutinize pricing from entities that hold themselves out as resellers.”
It would focus on SIN 33411, which is for the purchasing of new electronic equipment, including desktops, laptops, servers, storage equipment, routers and switches and other communications equipment, audio and video equipment and even two-way radios.
Since this cap would only apply to purchases off the GSA schedule, DoD is returning to the idea that these prices are no longer automatically considered “fair and reasonable.”
This harkens back to 2014 when both DoD and NASA issued deviations to the Federal Acquisition Regulations that said schedule prices shouldn’t be automatically considered fair and reasonable. Several years later, DoD and NASA removed that deviation.
“When placing orders on IT contracts, I expect the department’s contracting officers to independently determine fair and reasonable pricing by considering the unique factors of a given acquisition in the same manner as GSA,” Duffey wrote in the draft memo. “Finally, and in general, we will apply the same common-sense approach to avoid paying excessive pass-through costs and avoid paying non or low-value added price markups across the complete range of the procurement.”
A third change DoD would require is for vendors to disclose in their price proposal the manufacturer or dealer price, the percentage markup from the OEM price. DoD also will require a description of the value provided that compromises the markup amount. Any markup more than 5% would require additional vendor justification and a higher level management attention. The memo doesn’t describe what either of those will look like.
Multiple emails to DoD seeking comment were not returned.
DoD’s reasoning for price caps questioned
Federal acquisition experts and resellers questioned the DoD’s rationale for applying price caps.
Three different executives who work for resellers as well as a former federal acquisition official, all of whom requested anonymity for fear of retaliation and to talk about a pre-decisional memo, said this approach flies in the face of what the Trump administration has been trying to do since January to relieve the burden of federal acquisition and encourage more vendors to participate.
One executive at a reseller says the first thing that DOGE went after was cost plus contracts. Now, DoD wants to take what this person called clean and simple transparent firm fixed price contracts for commercial products and turn these into cost plus type contracts, which the executive said makes no sense.
“Audits, narratives, justifications, additional steps and time, how is this simplifying acquisition and growing the industrial base?” the executive asked. “Are they going to cap gross profit on other items they buy like cars, furniture, office supplies, building materials, heating, ventilation and air conditions (HVAC) systems, lighting, plumbing, tools, safety gear and maintenance supplies next? Where does it stop? Why are we being targeted?”
The executive says there seems to be a big misunderstanding about the role of resellers and even how the market works.
“It’s competition, not price controls, that drive down price. If that’s the ultimate goal,” the executive said. “Capping margins would drive out the best, service-oriented partners that invest in engineering and innovation — leaving behind low-touch resellers who only process orders. This reduces competition, supplier diversity and access to expertise.”
Another executive at a reseller says determining what constitutes an “excessive mark-up” is subjective. The source said for an administration that wants to keep things moving in a timely pace, giving contracting officers discretion about what is an excessive mark-up will cause more problems than it will solve.
“They are assuming that the contracting officers have the appropriate knowledge and training to do that,” the executive said. “Unfortunately and frequently that isn’t what the contracting officers have. There is a lack of understanding that will end up causing confusion and delays.”
VARs solve problems
A third executive questioned how DoD, or any agency, would oversee this entire initiative.
They asked whether the resellers would not need a cost approved accounting systems? If so, that would add significant costs and burdens.
Finally, the former federal acquisition executive, who spent more than 25 years in the federal government, says resellers provide a lot of value to agencies, partly because OEMs traditionally don’t sell directly to the government nor do they want to, but also because the resellers solve problems for the agency.
“They know the technology. They know the OEMs and can tell you what will work or what will not work. Resellers are invaluable,” the former executive said. “In terms of their markup, you just have to negotiate better. If you get at least two resellers to bid, you will get a good price.”
Is capping profits even legal?
All the sources agreed that if DoD or GSA wants better prices, they should do two things: ensure there is competition at the task order level and train contracting officers and other acquisition workers to be better negotiators.
“If you don’t have contracting officers who can push for better pricing at the task order level, then how are you going to have contracting officers who can make these determinations of the value of the markups that are over 5%?” asked the third executive. “You are better off training contracting officers to go after better prices at the task order level. GSA has ways to help like the 4P tool that combs all over for publicly available prices. But applying caps on fees or profit goes against capitalism. It goes against common sense and it will be detrimental to the government and its industrial base.”
Aside from just questioning the rationale behind the price caps, experts also asked whether the memo would violate the FAR and even some federal laws.
One of the reseller executives highlighted five FAR provisions and/or laws this idea seems to violate.
The executive says this requirement seems to violate the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) in the sense that commercial Items are not subject to TINA, which requires contractors to provide certified cost or pricing data to the government during negotiations for other items because the commercial marketplace is presumed to be a competitive environment and should drive a reasonable price.
Another part of the FAR this initiative may violate is Part 2 for the acquisition commercial items. The executive said if the government is obtaining a “fair and reasonable” price, then the focus is not about contractor costs, reasonable mark-up, or profit, it’s about the price the agency is paying.
A third section of the FAR this may violate is under Part 15. This includes a prohibition on obtaining certified cost and price data for commercial items.
Cy Alba, a procurement attorney with the firm Piliero Mazza, said if the government is buying through a firm fixed price contract, then they are not supposed to be asking for cost or price information. He added if it’s awarded through the GSA schedule and it’s below the maximum order threshold then prices are determined to be fair and reasonable by GSA.
Alba also said if it’s a commercial item, or really anything that has adequate price competition, the market is supposed to make that determination that the price is fair and reasonable. He said if the government thinks the markup is too high, then they don’t have to buy the product or service from the vendor.
FILE - The Pentagon, the headquarters for the U.S. Department of Defense, is seen from the air, Aug. 20, 2025, in Arlington, Va. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
A new forecast projects that defense spending will keep rising through 2035, while civilian agencies face years of flat or shrinking budgets, continued cuts and growing pressure to scale back.
The Professional Services Council’s latest federal market forecast, compiled with input from more than 400 industry volunteers and subject-matter experts, predicts that in an environment where legislative logjam is likely to persist, defense spending will continue rising at roughly 2% annually after its first $1 trillion budget in fiscal 2026 — a one-time spike driven by reconciliation — while cuts will “continue to fall disproportionately on civil agencies until elections change the balance of power.”
“What this means in practical terms is that the fiscal environment for the next decade will be tight, competitive, highly dependent on supplemental funding, reconciliation and prone to crisis-driven appropriations. Base budgets alone will struggle to drive new initiatives, especially on the non-defense side. In this environment, as one of our interviewees suggested, it’s best to keep your customers close and your congressional supporters and lobbyists closer,” Mike Riley, a volunteer for PSC’s Vision Federal Market Forecast told reporters last week.
In the defense space, PSC volunteers said their discussions with defense stakeholders revealed a shift, or “strategic realignment,” in the Pentagon’s priorities. While the Indo-Pacific Command remains of “elevated importance,” the Northern Command and Southern Command are gaining new emphasis as the department puts greater focus on homeland, border security and expands its presence in Latin America and the Caribbean.
“This year was a bit of an interesting year for us. A lot of defense folks acknowledge the growing importance under this administration, but also a lot of consternation about the directions the administration might be going and just kind of the lack of clarity. There’s some continuing trends — deterring China, integrated deterrence, that pivot to the Pacific — that’s an ongoing thing that didn’t change from the previous administration. Of course, border security, the Department finds itself in an uncomfortable position,” Jason Dombrowski, a volunteer for PSC’s Vision Federal Market Forecast, said.
“They are getting a little bit more heavily involved in domestic politics than they would otherwise prefer to. Certainly, they always reiterated their intent to be responsive to the commander in chief. But historically, of course, the American military has tried to avoid a domestic role,” he added.
The department is also placing greater emphasis on the Golden Dome missile defense system, shipbuilding and munitions under this administration.
“I think everyone’s been paying attention to the news that there has been some very notable plus ups and focuses of this administration, most notably around shipbuilding, but also to include things like nuclear modernization, which in previous years we had highlighted as a potential toss up, but this year definitely moved into the winners category,” Dombrowski said.
Acquisition reform
The Defense Department also moves to implement Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s sweeping acquisition reforms, which emphasize greater competition, faster delivery and making commercial technology the default option. It’s unclear whether the department has the ability to implement those changes given deep personnel cuts across the contracting workforce.
“The contracting professionals — there seems to be a large reduction. How do we get this done? That fundamental capacity to get things done is really going to make a difference, whether you’re putting out contracts, supply chain, workforce throughput … It’s going to affect how we can actually help out the government. Adaptability is the name of the game,”Jim Kainz, a PSC volunteer, said.
In addition, the department’s new acquisition strategy promises to lower barriers to entry to encourage startups and non-traditional vendors to join the defense industrial base. Dombrowski said that while stakeholders are cautiously optimistic about the reforms, there is also a “healthy cynicism of saying, ‘How is this time any different?’”
“This administration has made a big priority of trying to attract new people, and we looked at the pros and cons of it. It’s probably worth noting that, aside from a few very notable successes that we can all figure out, there hasn’t really been much movement in this regard,” Dombrowski said.
“We’re very excited, certainly [Commercial Solutions Opening] and [Other Transaction Authority] and just a variety of things that should provide a lot of flexibility, but let’s see it,” he added.
Winner and losers
Dombrowski and Kainz said several areas emerged as clear “losers” in this year’s defense outlook, including the department’s buying power, which continues to erode as inflation and reshoring efforts drive up costs across programs.
Legacy systems and advisory and assistance services are facing cuts, and U.S. Africa Command and Central Command are being pushed lower on the priority list as resources shift toward European Command.
There is also uncertainty around operations and maintenance funding, which Dombrowski and Kainz said remains a major concern for both think tanks and potential customers. Sustainability initiatives appear to be split — the “green side of sustainability” will most certainly lose ground, while efforts tied to energy resilience may gain momentum.
Contested logistics, once considered a toss-up, is gaining traction as a priority, and scalability — the ability to rapidly increase production in a crisis — is emerging as a clear winner across the department.
Overall, research and development spending is increasing, but only in areas related to advanced weapon systems, technologies, drones and energy.
“However, there’s a belief and a growing expectation that the contracting community will bear more of those responsibilities,” Dombrowski said. “It’s really unclear where that line is going to be drawn between things that are really government exclusive where DoD is willing to pick up all costs associated to it. There are things we can all imagine, like fighter jets. But what about things that are more in the gray areas? Avionics, business process systems, back-office systems, things like that — definitely more of a sense that we are going to have to be developing those on our own.”
If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email anastasia.obis@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at (301) 830-2747.
Nearly two weeks after the record-long government shutdown ended, some Defense Department civilian employees say they have yet to receive the back pay they are owed.
The federal government reopened on Nov. 13 after President Donald Trump signed a bill to fund the government through Jan. 30, ending the 43-day shutdown and allowing tens of thousands of DoD civilians to return to work.
At the time, the Office of Personnel Management said that checks for DoD civilians were slated to go out on Nov. 16. DoD civilians, however, were told to expect payment sometime between Nov. 17 and Nov. 20.
But with Thanksgiving week now underway, many workers say they are still waiting for as much as four weeks of back pay.
One civilian employee at Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas, who was furloughed during the shutdown, told Federal News Network that more than 150 people in their unit of more than 400 civilians have not been paid.
“When everybody got back to work, we were told that the next week — or mid-week — we would get paid. And a lot of people did get paid, but a lot of us have not. They keep saying, ‘It’s going to take a few days,’” he said Wednesday.
The Air Force employee said there has been no official guidance or clear communication, but their supervisor told them Wednesday to expect back pay on Nov. 29.
“There’s nothing in writing,” the employee said. “It’s all the leadership just walking around telling us, ‘Expect to get paid.’ There’s no email traffic — it’s just their own interpretation of when they think we’re going to get paid. But there’s been nothing official sent out.”
A DoD spokesperson told Federal News Network that all civilians whose updated time and attendance have been received have been paid.
“It is essential that civilian employees review their time and attendance reports, and their Leave and Earnings Statements (LES) for accuracy. Civilians with questions or civilian pay issues should contact their local Agency Customer Service Representative (CSR) or immediate supervisor. [The Defense Finance and Accounting Service] will continue to work with the military components to resolve any remaining payment issues,” the spokesperson said.
Another Air Force civilian in San Antonio, who worked through the shutdown, said many civilians in their unit of police officers are still waiting for back pay.
“Nobody in leadership has put out any message other than when I inquired with my person who handles the payroll. She just said we should be getting paid on the 23rd or 24th, but that didn’t happen. Now, we are going into past Thanksgiving, who knows when it’s going to be,” the Air Force civilian told Federal News Network on Wednesday.
He said he has been trying for weeks to get answers for himself and the employees he supervises. When he asked his own supervisor for help, he was told to consider filing a congressional complaint.
“That’s just laughable to me because we have a GS-13, we have a commander and active-duty commander. There’s a whole bunch of people between me and my congressman that could probably provide answers. But going to your supervisor hasn’t worked,” the Air Force employee said.
“I don’t understand why they can’t just put out a simple explanation, because communication really helps, whether it’s good or bad, but at least they could explain why or what the problem is, but they haven’t. It’s frustrating,” he added.
The bill that Congress passed to reopen the government reaffirmed that both furloughed and excepted federal employees would receive back pay. The Office of Personnel Management official guidance stated the agency “is committed to ensuring that retroactive pay is provided as soon as possible,” and that the retroactive pay for excepted employees “must be provided at the earliest date possible after the lapse ends.”
A defense official told Federal News Network last week that “DFAS is running continuous pay cycles to expeditiously pay civilians a one-time retroactive lump sum payment for pay periods missed during the government shutdown. Civilians and service members who have questions regarding their pay may contact their local finance office or chain of command.”
The Department of the Air Force did not respond to questions about how many Air Force civilian employees are impacted, the cause of the delay or when civilians should expect back pay.
With pay stalled for weeks, many federal workers were forced to dip into savings, rely on credit cards, seek out no-interest loans or take on part-time work to make ends meet. Military families have been turning up at food banks in greater numbers — the Armed Services YMCA, for example, reported a 30% to 75% spike in demand at its food pantries near military installations since the shutdown began.
“I’ve joked with my family and my kids that if I don’t get back pay, we might have to push Christmas til maybe January, but the impending loom of another shutdown at the end of January, it can’t get worse,” the Air Force employee from Laughlin Air Force Base said.
Defense Department civilians aren’t the only ones still waiting for their back pay.
“Smithsonian still has not managed to get us paid. They are wasting time making sure everyone has the correct time codes rather than getting people paid. It’s more important to them that they take a couple weeks to record we were furloughed. Can’t pay the mortgage, but at least they’ll have the correct time code,” a federal employee told Federal News Network on Nov. 22.
At the Federal Aviation Administration, one air traffic control employee reported receiving only partial back pay through the end of November.
Meanwhile, federal workers who have received back pay told Federal News Network they cannot verify whether the pay was accurate as they have not received an accompanying Leave and Earnings Statement.
“Not sure if it is accurate, as no LES are being created for the back pay,” one federal employee said.
“Without a LES, I have no idea. I just hope it’s right. It feels like it might be right, but I don’t know,” another employee told Federal News Network.
Others reported major errors — an employee who received their back pay said it was “taxed so incorrectly that my first paycheck after returning was missing about $500 and only one of two missed health insurance payments were taken out.”
If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email anastasia.obis@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at (301) 830-2747.
FILE - The Pentagon in Washington, March 27, 2008. The Defense Department will install solar panels on the Pentagon as part of a Biden administration plan to promote energy conservation and clean energy. The Pentagon is one of 31 government sites that are receiving grants for the Energy Department program, which the administration says is intended to “reestablish the federal government as a sustainability leader” and promote President Joe Biden’s commitment to clean energy. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
D.C. National Guard members and their families lined up for free Thanksgiving meals at the D.C. Armory last week during an annual event hosted by Operation Homefront, a nonprofit that supports the military community.
As part of their Holiday Meals for Military program, the organization provided families with all the fixings for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner — stuffing, cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, pumpkin pie and more. Operation Homefront also distributed Harris Teeter gift cards so families could purchase their protein of choice, whether it’s turkey, ham or chicken. In total, the organization distributed 400 meal kits and grocery gift cards to pre-registered service members and military families.
With grocery prices rising and many service members still feeling the financial strain of the recent shutdown, the organization says demand for assistance has surged — food requests alone are up 57% this year.
“Our case work is up — quadruple — what it was 30 days ago. Undoubtedly, the economic times are difficult for everyone in our country, I think that’s greater with the military,” Vivian Dietrich, Operation Homefront senior director, told Federal News Network.
Operation Homefront, founded in 2002, serves military families nationwide by providing financial, emotional and social support through programs designed to keep households “strong, stable and secure,” Dietrich said. Financial assistance, however, is the backbone of the organization’s work, helping lower-ranking service members cover urgent expenses such as car repairs, rent and utility bills before these short-term problems spiral into long-term financial crises.
Through its Critical Financial Assistance program, Operation Homefront offers grants — not loans — and pays vendors on behalf of families. Caseworkers also review a family’s full financial situation to ensure they address the root of the problem.
“When we do our case work, often it’s somebody calling at the nth hour because the military is very proud. And generally, when they call, you’re at the point that you’re desperate, you need support, and our case workers are highly trained social workers. They spend time studying their finances. We work with them on how to manage their money and help them move forward,” Dietrich said.
But food remains the organization’s top request for assistance, Dietrich said.
Surveys conducted by organizations like Blue Star Families consistently find that food insecurity among active-duty families remains higher than the national average.
A number of factors contribute to military families’ financial vulnerability. Service members move dozens of times throughout their career, making it difficult for their spouses to find and maintain employment. Despite years of advocacy and policy efforts, the unemployment rate for active-duty military spouses has held stubbornly at around 22% for quite some time.
Service members also face significant upfront costs when moving to a new base — military families spend an average of about $8,000 out of pocket during each move, which causes them to dip into their savings or accrue credit card debt.
During the recent government shutdown, military families were turning up at food banks in greater numbers — the Armed Services YMCA, for example, reported a 30% to 75% spike in demand at its food pantries near military installations.
“Number one request for us is food — that has quadrupled right out of the top. But generally, it’s food, rent, maybe car payments, utilities — the day-to-day expenses that we all have. But it isn’t uncommon that there was some type of crisis that occurred that caused them to fall behind. A car would break down, or someone is sick and they had to miss work and they didn’t have pay. Or in the military, you can be deployed. You can be out on a training mission. And then if you have children, where’s the childcare?” Dietrich said.
“In general, it’s the basic expenses that we all live with, and if you don’t catch it at the very beginning, it really does become a crisis, and a crisis that can last for years. And our goal is to stay focused, get them strong, secure and stable,” she added.
Operation Homefront provides holiday meals for military families throughout the year, not just at Thanksgiving.
Nearly every service member living in privatized military housing has experienced at least one serious issue in their home — and an overwhelming number say their family’s health has been negatively impacted by their housing conditions. Nearly half said a medical provider had confirmed the connection, a new survey found.
The Change the Air Foundation recently conducted the Safe Military Housing Survey — one of the most comprehensive efforts yet to collect data the Defense Department has never been able to track accurately. The survey was designed to answer questions previous studies had overlooked and to provide Congress and the Pentagon with better data on what families across all branches and ranks are actually experiencing in military housing.
“We were hearing a lot of how many indoor air quality hazards and just housing hazards that these families were experiencing. But nobody was really ever asking, how is this affecting your physical health? How is this affecting your cognitive abilities? How is this affecting your mental and emotional health, and your and your personal finances? That’s a huge component of this survey,” Brandon Chappo, co-founder and director of public policy at the Change the Air Foundation, told Federal News Network.
Erica Thompson, a military spouse and the military families’ liaison for the Change the Air Foundation, lived in military housing for 10 months at Maxwell Air Force Base located in Montgomery, Alabama. Thompson said her family immediately noticed serious issues with the house, including a failing AC system they were told couldn’t be replaced. Once contractors opened the walls without any containment, the entire family — including their dog — began experiencing a cascade of medical issues. Her son started passing out in the house and the dog started having seizures; three of their children were later diagnosed with asthma and one was diagnosed with bilateral pediatric cataracts in both eyes.
“We saw a huge range of health implications across the board, throughout our whole family. And so I think using part of that, it was able to guide us through this questionnaire, some of those things that I wish offices knew. It was able to really give me insight into making some of these questions, because we would share our story with congressional offices, they would say, ‘How many more kids are there like yours?’ And I said, ‘I don’t know. There’s no data around that right now,’” Thompson told Federal News Network.
For decades, service members and their families living in privatized military housing have been exposed to hazardous conditions, including black mold, contaminated water, asbestos in ceilings and lead in walls. The survey found that mold, mildew or microbial growth were the most common issues, reported by 74% of respondents. More than half of respondents cited significant problems with temperature and humidity, pest infestations, water damage and HVAC failures.
“Mold and water damage can be extraordinarily hazardous to somebody’s health. That’s extremely dismaying,” Chappo said.
Overall, 76% of service members said their health has been negatively affected by housing conditions, and nearly half said a physician had confirmed their homes were making them sick.
The survey also revealed an alarming statistic — 47% of service members said their housing issues impacted their ability to perform their duties or maintain mission readiness. The problem was particularly prevalent among those stationed in Florida.
Three in five service members reported experiencing mental health challenges such as anxiety or depression, and roughly two in five service members said those issues affected their ability to attend work or training. One in six service members had to relocate — sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently — often leaving behind personal items that had been damaged.
“That is absolutely stunning. And so, if anything, it underscores the importance of trying to get these issues dealt with. It’s the fact that not only are our service members’ health and wellness being affected, it’s mission readiness. This is a national security issue, and we need to start talking about it in that light, and start really framing it in that way,” Chappo said.
While anxiety, depression, mood changes, cognitive issues, insomnia, headaches, migraines, brain fog and skin, eye and respiratory irritation top the list of reported health problems, the survey found the health impacts to be far more extensive than that.
“This is extraordinary. These [medical conditions] weren’t just in the low percentages. We’re talking in the 20, 30, 40 percentages for some of these. Even those alone, being as high as they are, really should catch the attention of, hopefully, the country, and of course, those in Congress,” Chappo said.
The survey found that Florida, Hawaii and Texas experienced housing-related issues at far greater rates and saw significantly higher rates of both health impacts and readiness concerns. Nearly 60% of service members stationed in Florida said housing issues impacted their ability to perform their duties. Health impacts were also higher than average — 84% of Florida service members said their families’ health had been impacted by house-related issues, compared with 83% in Hawaii and North Carolina.
“I think it’s got to do with lots of these states are on federal land, and they don’t have to follow the state regulations for building and code, and so that’s something that needs to be looked at. But Florida, Hawaii and Texas were exponentially higher on those stats for both readiness and really across the board. And those have some really big commands in those states as well that need to have some attention drawn to it,” Thompson said.
Marines reported the highest rates across all branches, with 85% saying their families were affected.
“We were displaced multiple times, with one displacement over 30 days. Relocation to a new home was requested, but we were denied a new home. We ultimately moved into a hotel on our dime after getting rid of everything we owned,” an active Marine service member in North Carolina told the Change the Air Foundation.
Gaps in current dispute resolution process
Whenever a housing-related issue arises, service members are supposed to follow a three-step tenant resolution process that includes built-in escalation steps.
The first step is to file a service call. If the issue isn’t resolved to the service member’s satisfaction, it can be escalated to the Military Housing Office or the government housing office on base, along with the service member’s chain of command to help elevate the issues. Thompson said that’s where most families drop out of the process.
The survey found that nine in ten service members always reported the issues they were experiencing, but only 7% made it all the way through the tenant resolution process — and of those, 72% said it still did not resolve their problem.
One in 14 service members were denied the tenant resolution process altogether.
“I want people to try to understand this, nine of 10 service members reported issues as they should to the proper authorities. Nine of 10 had to report the same issue multiple times. 66% of those had their issues marked resolved without a satisfactory result and over 50% of those went unresolved entirely. We have a situation here where the families are asking, calling, screaming for help. They’re upholding their end of the bargain, and the other side isn’t, and it’s failing,” Chappo said.
“Only 7% of service members actually made it through the entire dispute resolution process. That shows us that it’s broken. It’s failing. It’s not working,” he added.
In addition, the survey highlights major gaps in seven-year housing histories, with only 43% of service members receiving one — and most of those were incomplete.
“You’re able to turn down a house if you recognize or see something you’re not comfortable with. But if their service calls aren’t accurate, or it’s not reporting accurately, I think that screams to a bigger issue of what is going on? What’s the further issue? It’s not only for the service members, but it’s for DoD accountability,” Thompson said.
Out-of-pocket cost of privatized housing
Roughly half of service members reported paying an average of $1,680 out of pocket for costs such as pest control, mold inspections, hotel stays and medical bills .
“If they’re paying for pest control out of pocket, that’s not something that’s reimbursable. Our dehumidifiers and air purifiers are not reimbursable. You just end up paying out of pocket to do what you can, to try and make what you have work. And then same with medical bills, if you’re seeking extra time or care outside of the military, that’s out of pocket as well,” Thompson said.
Nearly all military family housing in the United States — about 99% — is owned and managed by private companies. These projects are built around 50-year ground leases and legal agreements that private partners use to secure financing and guarantee predictable revenue over decades, which limited the Defense Department’s ability to cancel or renegotiate agreements when housing conditions declined, creating oversight challenges that have persisted for decades.
Thompson, along with other advocates, have been advocating for several amendments to be included in the 2026 defense policy bill, including the proposed Healthy at Home on Base Act, which would require the Defense Department to study mold and its health effects in both military housing and barracks. Another amendment would direct the department to adopt uniform mold remediation standards across all barracks and family housing.
“We’re hearing a lot of congressional offices are starting to read the report, and they’re already asking for meetings to discuss these a little more closely, and then, of course, talk about some of the fixes and solutions. We’re having some feedback and some conversations with folks at the Pentagon who are kind of taking a closer look at this as well, and trying to come up with long term fixes, as opposed to band aid fixes,” Chappo said.
A sheet containing resources for U.S. military families affected by on-base housing water contamination from a jet fuel leak in 2021 is seen at the Dietz family's home on Monday, April 22, 2024, in Honolulu, Hawaii. (AP Photo/Mengshin Lin)
Two lawmakers want to fully exempt military compensation from federal income tax — a move that would deliver a significant pay boost for service members and mark one of the most sweeping tax changes for the military community.
The legislation, dubbed the Service Members Tax Relief Act, seeks to eliminate federal income tax on all active-duty and reserve pay, including enlistment, retention and education bonuses and all special and incentive pays.
The measure would go well beyond previous tax-exemption proposals, which largely focus on bonuses or specialty pays.
In May, for example, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the BONUS act, which would amend a section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to explicitly exempt all military bonuses from federal income tax.
“The bill builds on existing tax exclusions for certain military benefits and responds to long-standing concerns raised by troops, families and advocates who believe those who serve should not be taxed on the bonuses they earn in service to our country,” Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.), the sponsor of the BONUS act, said at the time.
Similarly, the No Tax on Bonuses Act, introduced in April, seeks to exclude service members’ enlistment and reenlistment bonuses from gross income.
Currently, service members deployed to combat zones receive tax-free income. In addition, most allowances that make up a significant portion of a service member’s total compensation, including basic allowance for housing and basic allowance for subsistence are tax-exempt. Veterans’ disability compensation is also exempt from federal income taxes. Together, these exemptions amount to roughly $30 billion a year in foregone federal income tax revenue each year.
Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) and Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.), who introduced the Service Members Tax Relief act this week, are also sponsoring the Tax Cuts for Veterans Act of 2025, a measure that would amend Section 122 of the Internal Revenue Code to exclude all military retirement pay and veterans’ benefits from federal income taxes. This includes all retired and retainer pay under Titles 10 and 14, as well as all VA monthly benefits, including disability compensation and survivor payments covered under Titles 37 and 38.
The two measures stand apart from prior proposals, as no recent bill has attempted a tax exemption of this scope.
“It is pretty sweeping… and it’s potentially a very expensive proposal. Now, there’s a reason why Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, provided these existing tax exclusions for military and veterans benefits — there’s a wide bipartisan appreciation for the fact that if you served our country, put your life and put your body on the line — you’re receiving benefits that you deserve for that service…I think any proposal that costs tens of billions of dollars per year, Congress is going to scrutinize,” Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told Federal News Network.
It is unclear what strategy the sponsors plan to pursue — standalone bills often face political hurdles, and lawmakers frequently try to attach such proposals to larger legislative packages like the annual National Defense Authorization Act to increase their chances.
“These bills are fiscally conservative in that they offer relief through the tax code instead of new spending. It is a win-win; the exemption instantly improves take-home pay, while helping with recruitment and retention, which in turn keeps our war fighters strong,” Hamadeh said.
Lautz pushed back on the idea that the bills are “fiscally conservative,” arguing that a dollar of a tax cut that isn’t offset adds to the deficit just as much as a dollar of new spending that isn’t paid for.
“If you’ve got $100 billion spending program or the $100 billion tax cut, and you’re not paying for that — that is not fiscally responsible. Now, Republican lawmakers have shown a preference for cutting taxes over increasing government spending, and Democrats vice versa, that is an unmistakable trend. But in terms of the fiscally responsible approach here, I think the message we’ve sent to both parties is that if you’re going to have a large tax cut or you’re going to have a large spending increase, you should pay for it with offsetting either spending cuts or tax increases,” Lautz said.
While the proposal would eliminate federal income taxes on military pay, active-duty and reserve personnel would still be paying payroll taxes on their income.
The Senate side of the Capitol is seen in Washington, early Monday, June 30, 2025, as Republicans plan to begin a final push to advance President Donald Trump's big tax breaks and spending cuts package. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
A new survey found that nearly every service member living in privatized military housing has experienced serious problems in their home. Many of those issues go unresolved. The Change the Air Foundation recently found 97% of service members reported at least one significant problem in their military-provided home, with mold, mildew and water damage cited most frequently. Out of 3,401 respondents, three-quarters said their family’s health had been negatively impacted by their housing conditions, and nearly half said a medical provider had confirmed the connection.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is too often missing out on its final chance to identify improper payments through contracting. A new report from the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general found CMS routinely fell short in properly closing out contracts. Auditors say this puts billions of dollars at risk of waste, fraud and abuse. While CMS concurred with the IG's recommendations, officials say the report overstated the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse during the audit's five-year review period. The IG said contract closeout has long been a challenge for CMS, dating back to reports from 2007.
A transgender employee with the National Guard is suing the Trump administration over its bathroom policies in federal buildings. The administration earlier this year banned transgender and intersex federal employees from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. Following the ban, the employee’s supervisors told her she could no longer use the women’s restroom. The employee, who is represented by attorneys with Democracy Forward, alleged that the administration’s policy is employee discrimination in violation of Title VII.
More federal employees who received layoff notices are looking to get their jobs back. Recently laid-off employees at the General Services Administration are calling on the agency to rescind their reduction-in-force notices, citing language in the recently passed continuing resolution that directed agencies to rescind the RIFs. Attorneys representing them say their clients received RIF notices before the government shutdown and were officially separated from the agency during the shutdown. Attorneys say lawmakers intended to reverse all RIF actions, not just RIF notices.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is pulling the plug on plans to install electric vehicle chargers at its facilities. The Biden administration directed the VA to divert $77 million dollars from its construction and technology budget to build solar-powered EV charging stations. But the department said it will now put those funds toward health care construction projects.
Senior Executive Service members have some new training opportunities. The Office of Personnel Management has launched two new training series centered on executive development. The trainings, available governmentwide, focus on topics like constitutional governance, budget, policy and human capital management. Executives who are interested in taking the classes can register on OPM’s website. The costs for the courses range from $1,500 to $8,500. OPM is also asking agencies to announce the availability of the trainings to their employees by Dec. 19.
The Defense Information Systems Agency said it needs to extend a legacy contract for software asset management, largely because of staffing issues. The agency is extending the multi-million dollar contract without competition, saying the program office that was supposed to be managing a new award has been hit hard by staff cuts, deferred resignations and hiring challenges. DISA’s justification and approval document adds another year to the contract, extending it for the second time this year. The underlying award has been in place since 2019.
The cloud security program known as FedRAMP is getting back on track after the shutdown. FedRAMP has finalized its requirements for cloud service companies wanting to participate in the phase 20x pilot. The program management office detailed seven key changes in a new blog post. These include limiting the number of pilot participants to 10 cloud servicer providers who want to achieve a moderate authorization in an expedited way. The PMO expects to name the 10 pilot companies by Jan. 9 and have them through the new process by March 31. Additionally, FedRAMP issued a new continuous monitoring playbook, consolidating nine standalone documents and eliminating about 100 pages of redundant or outdated content.
The Space Force is finalizing its first “objective force” blueprint, a 15-year plan that will lay out what space systems, infrastructure and manpower the service will need to counter future threats in space. Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman said “the bulk of the work is almost complete,” though stakeholders likely won’t see the final product until 2026. The goal for the document is to clearly and formally communicate the Space Force’s long-term needs to its stakeholders, including Congress, defense contractors, allies and partners.
The Army is taking the next step in its ambitions to start using small nuclear reactors to power critical infrastructure on at least some of its bases. This week, the service started the solicitation process for its Janus program via the Defense Innovation Unit, while also announcing some of the first bases that are most likely to host the new miniature nuclear generators.
Officials want to test the feasibility of using the microreactors to deal with what they say are several problems: frequent electrical outages, increasing power demands, and a limited menu of backup generation alternatives. The Army says it is convinced that the commercial technology behind the latest generation of reactors is viable — the big question is cost.
So this week, through the Defense Innovation Unit’s Commercial Solutions Opening, the Army released a solicitation asking vendors to propose microreactor designs that the service will use to test its resilience goals on nine separate bases between now and 2030.
“What resilience means to us is that we have power no matter what, 24/7, and right now, that resiliency is provided 100% by fossil fuels,” Dr. Jeff Waksman, the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment, told reporters at the recent Association of the U.S. Army conference in Washington. “With fossil fuels, you have a certain number of days of backup power, but that is a huge vulnerability, particularly if you start to look at like Arctic locations or Pacific locations. So the only technologies that we have now that could be possibly applied to Arctic or Pacific locations to provide 24/7 power for a long length of time is nuclear power. It’s the only option that we have right now.”
Cost considerations
Waksman said the Army is confident the commercial nuclear industry can support the service’s ambitions — and meet a Trump administration goal to have at least one Army-regulated nuclear reactor up and running on a domestic military base by 2028.
For now, the biggest question is cost. And for the time being, officials aren’t even sure exactly how to define the cost-effectiveness of a nuclear option.
“It’s a hard question, and it’s going to eventually be an Army senior leader discussion. And the question is, how much are we willing to pay for resiliency? That’s still an open question, and that’s going to be part of what we’re going to try to figure out here,” he said. “I don’t think we need to meet absolute parity with fossil fuels, but I think we’ve got to be reasonably close. But if you just go out to Hawaii or Alaska, they’re already paying upwards of 40 cents per kilowatt hour. So these reactors don’t need to be 10 or 12 cents a kilowatt hour to be parity. They need to be something like 40 or 50 cents a kilowatt hour. I think there’s going to be a big market for them. But exactly what the number is, that’s part of what we need to figure out for the next few years.”
Supply chain
But Waksman said there are other reasons for the Army to get involved now, beyond just determining the cost-effectiveness of commercial nuclear technologies.
He said the Army also wants to influence the development of the U.S. nuclear industry. And not necessarily with funding — there’s already plenty of that in private markets, with several companies having raised hundreds of millions of dollars to develop their reactor designs. He said the nuclear industry is already “very hot.”
“Now is the perfect time for the government to get involved, because there are multiple nuclear startups that have now gone public and have market caps of over a billion dollars. The problem is you have a dozen different companies with a dozen different supply chains, and there’s no way that that’s going to actually work — we’re going to have to neck this down,” he said. “For a comparison in aviation, Boeing and Airbus are vehement enemies, but they use a lot of the same supply chain, because having two fully parallel supply chains doesn’t make sense for airplanes. That’s part of the role that we’re going to play here, as these companies are developing their designs, is trying to help squeeze them into similar supply chains … that will not only give more options to these companies, but it also encourages these suppliers to actually expand and make assembly line components, because right now, nuclear reactor components tend to be one-off, custom, handmade components.”
As part of the partnership with DIU, the Army plans to use an iterative prototyping process, via other transaction agreements (OTAs), to test the reactor designs on nine bases, which were also announced this week. They are:
Fort Benning, Georgia
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Fort Campbell, Kentucky
Fort Drum, New York
Fort Hood, Texas
Fort Wainwright, Alaska
Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Tennessee
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama
At each of those sites, the companies selected are expected to start by building a “first of a kind” reactor, then use lessons learned to improve on that commercial design with a “second of a kind.”
Making nuclear “sexy” again
Waksman said there’s a precedent for that kind of government involvement — both in terms of technology and in workforce development. The Army is trying to emulate the model NASA used to spur development of the space industry through its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program.
“When NASA wanted to start commercial rocketry, they started at the COTS competition, and that was the competition that basically created SpaceX. SpaceX took an industry where the A students in engineering didn’t want to go into rockets, it wasn’t cool, and SpaceX made it cool again, and suddenly you had all the really smart engineers on campus wanted to get into space and rocketry,” he said. “Nuclear needs its SpaceX. There are these innovative, exciting startups, and we’re hoping to cultivate them in the same way that NASA cultivated SpaceX, make nuclear sexy again, and encourage more of the top young engineering talent to want to go in the field. Because right now, there’s a tremendous shortage.”
FILE - Reactors for Unit 3 and 4 sit at Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle nuclear power plant on Jan. 20, 2023, in Waynesboro, Ga., with the cooling towers of older Units 1 and 2 billowing steam in the background. Company officials announced Wednesday, May 24, 2023, that Unit 3 would reach full power in coming days, after years of delays and billions in cost overruns. (AP Photo/John Bazemore)
The Space Force is finalizing a strategic roadmap that will lay out what space systems, infrastructure and manpower it will need over the next 15 years to stay ahead of emerging threats.
Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman said most of the work on the document, known as the “objective force” is largely complete.
“I want to publish objective force 2025 before the end of the calendar year. That’s the task I’ve given the staff. And of course, they immediately push back saying we can’t possibly do that. I think they can. So I’m really trying to hold them. I think the bulk of the work is almost complete,” Saltzman said during a Center for Strategic and International Studies event Thursday.
Saltzman said the “objective force” is designed to be a living document, updated regularly and republished every five years. The 2025 version will outline what the service will need between now and 2040, but its purpose is not to list everything new that’s needed by 2040. Instead, it maps out which systems the service will need to sustain, phase out or bring online over the next 15 years.
“There are systems we are flying today that we will continue to use into 2040, so the objective force will account for that. There are some systems we use today that we will wean ourselves off of in the intervening years between now and 2040 — the objective force will say that, ‘Hey, we plan to sunset in the 2030 time frame, 2035 and the new system will be growing along the same time so we preserve that mission capability,’” Saltzman said.
“That’s the way you want to think about, it’s not what do we need for 2040, it’s what happens between now and 2040 to make sure we have that objective force we need,” he added.
The document, however, will go beyond simply cataloging the types of systems the service already has or will need in the future. It will also outline the broader infrastructure needed to sustain the mission, including how many bases and squadrons are required and whether new military construction will be necessary — offering a full roadmap for what it will take to build and maintain a future Space Force.
Saltzman acknowledged that circumstances and requirements will inevitably change, so the roadmap is meant to adopt along with them.
“There will be annual updates based on resourcing, obviously, and then every five years we will re-snap the chalk line and say, ‘So objective force 2030, we’ll be looking to 2045.’ It’ll be this rolling campaign of learning to make sure that we have the force documented that we think we’re going to need in the out years,” Saltzman said.
Clear demand signal
Saltzman said the Space Force needs to clearly and formally communicate what it needs long-term to its stakeholders, including Congress, defense contractors, allies and partners.
“We’ll try to lay all of that out, to publish it to the stakeholders so that they can see what our plan is and see a stable, comprehensive demand signal to what we need to buy, what approvals we need, how much resourcing we might need to put it in place,” Saltzman said.
While Saltzman had originally aimed to publish the document by the end of 2025, he said its release will most likely slip into 2026.
“I think while you may not see a published document before the end of December, I can pretty much tell you that the work will be complete by the end of December, and we will be in final approvals to say yes. We’ll take this to the secretary, obviously, and make sure that the whole staff understands what we’re trying to do,” Saltzman said.
“I think the work of the force design will be done in 2025, and then hopefully publish it again to stakeholders in early 2026. That’s kind of what I see as the current timeline,” he added.
House and Senate negotiators are racing to finalize the 2026 defense policy bill by the end of the week, with all House and Senate Armed Services Committee disputes resolved and only a few Senate jurisdictional details still holding the legislation’s advancement to the House floor in early December.
“I think what they’re doing is, there’s been a couple of pencils-down time frames, but it sounds like it’ll be done by the end of the week. That’s what the focus is. Get it done by the end of the week, and then to be on the floor the beginning of the second week of December,”Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told Federal News Network Tuesday.
The one big place where things are still going through the process, Wittman said, is with the other committees of jurisdiction. They can either decide to waive jurisdiction or refine the language in ways that ensure the “Big Four” on HASC and SASC will agree to include it in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
“It really is a Senate issue because the Senate has the rules where they can add some things that are not allowed under House rules. That’s really where the issue is right now, I think all the HASC and SASC issues have been taken care of,” Wittman said.
The Senate advanced its NDAA with broad bipartisan support in October, while the House version passed in September with mostly GOP support.
The two chambers were divided on topline funding — the Senate bill authorized nearly $925 billion for national defense, while the House version aligned with the White House’s $883 billion request.
Both bills are heavily focused on acquisition reforms, and while the two chambers target many of the same areas, they differ in approach and specific reforms.
“The House’s version really focused on achieving mission outcomes. It’s much more outcome-based. The Senate version was more about governance. How do we change the issues there of governance? Some of the things that we saw there that I think are really transformational is time frames,” Wittman said during the Defense One State of Defense Business Acquisition event on Tuesday. “The average acquisition process in the Pentagon is 800 days. This is going to change it to 90 to 120 days.”
Many of the acquisition reforms Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently rolled out as part of what he called a “war on Pentagon bureaucracy” mirror proposals in the House and Senate versions of the defense policy bill.
“Changing how we do modular open systems architecture — those things are going to be key, opening up the aperture even more, making it easier to use other transaction authorities, changing the [program executive officers] to [program acquisition executives], and then taking those billets that are now three-year billets and turning them into six-year billets,” Wittman said. “That’s actually a longer-term perspective for folks in those areas. I think this is the farthest-reaching effort in acquisition reform in the history of DoD. And a lot of what the House and Senate are doing is reflected in some of the things that the Pentagon is doing.”
Hegseth’s move to replace the current program executive offices with a smaller number of portfolio acquisition executives — giving these new portfolio leaders broader authorities, including the ability to shift funds among programs — is also part of the Senate’s acquisition reform proposals.
When asked whether officers who used to serve three years as PEOs would want to serve six-year tours as PAEs, Wittman wagered they would as long as it doesn’t interfere with the promotion process.
“We’ve been clear that this does not interfere with the promotion process,” he said. “There’s nothing that prevents somebody that goes into a PAE position as a two-star to come out as a three-star, or, for that matter, even a four-star.”
The change will also allow PAEs to take more risks in a culture that is deeply risk-averse. But it has to start with Congress, Whittman said.
“We can’t lecture and say, ‘Take risks,’ and then the first time there’s a failure, we call somebody up on Capitol Hill and bang the table and holler and scream and go, ‘How did you do this? How could this happen?’ That behavior will stop in a heartbeat when somebody goes, ‘You know what? I watched them grill this PAE up on Capitol Hill. I’m not going to do that, so I’m not going to take any risks,’” Whittman said.
The Defense Logistics Agency may have solved two problems every agency tends to struggle with — attracting new and innovative companies and changing the culture of its workforce to work with those firms.
DLA’s Tech Accelerator Team has shown it can do just that. Over the last several years it has been using what are considered traditional private sector methods to attract up-and-coming firms and take an agile approach to solving problems using interviews, data and market research.
David Koch, the director of research and development at DLA, said the agency launched the Tech Accelerator Team about six years ago with the idea of finding commercial technologies from non-traditional companies to solve their most pressing problems.
David Koch is the director of research and development at the Defense Logistics Agency.
“We don’t go into a problem with a solution in mind. We go into it solution agnostic,” Koch said in an interview with Federal News Network. “What is the problem that you want to solve? Then, let’s pull in a bunch of commercial folks that have tackled similar type of problems before. We usually do that through a request for information (RFI) that goes out to companies. We bring them in and we see what kind of solutions they throw up. We don’t go into it with a preconceived idea of how to solve this problem.”
Part of the challenge with this approach led by the Tech Accelerator Team was changing the way DLA leaders approached problems. Koch said they have done a lot of training around innovation to help DLA leaders and employees bring good ideas to fruition.
“It was more about, let’s interview senior leaders and let’s find a problem that we need to go solve. Now it’s really grown into a life of its own to where the program managers reach out and say, ‘Hey, I need a commercial solution for the problem that I have,’” he said. “I think a lot of times now it’s more internally focused, where we reach out to commercial solutions based on a problem that we know exists. We’ve become more aware of what’s going on across the organization. We know where those problem areas are, where there’s commercial opportunities to solve them.”
Koch pointed to an example of this approach in action with RGBSI Aerospace and Defense, a company providing engineering and technical support, around using digital twins differently. Koch said DLA had used digital twins for parts and for processes, but through this approach, the agency is using digital twins to improve its digital threads.
“You can pull in things like acquisition data, logistics data and manufacturing data, along with that thread so that you can pull in more industry partners and more people are available to make that part,” he said. “Now, what we do is we use a computer program to go in and follow where the data flows, and it maps the process for you. Sometimes you’re surprised when you find out how your process really works.”
The Tech Accelerator Team calls themselves “DLA’s innovation broker,” which works with other DoD and federal offices as part of a broad-based innovation ecosystem.
DLA spent $135 million in research and development in fiscal 2025 across three main portfolios:
Logistics
Manufacturing technology
Its small business innovation program
Koch said about $53 million went to manufacturing technology and about $17 million was for DLA business processes or logistics research and development. Additionally, DLA received about $44 million from Congress, most of which went into R&D for rare earth elements and other strategic materials.
Testing an automated inventory platform
Koch said heading into 2026, DLA will focus on four specific areas.
“The first one is strategic material recovery. We hosted [in September] our kickoff event for that being our newest manufacturing technology project. But that doesn’t mean that we’re just now starting strategic materials research. We’ve been doing it out of our SBIR for now for our last few years. It’s very timely, it supports the stockpile and we’ve had some really good success stories,” he said. “[The second one is] additive manufacturing and it’s really about mainstreaming. We call it the joint additive manufacturing acceptability. But mainstreaming additive manufacturing is part of the normal supply chain process that the military can use when they order parts from DLA.”
The two other areas are artificial intelligence transformation and automated inventory management. Koch said DLA is testing the Marine Corps Platform Integration Center (MCPIC) and also adding new technology to the platform to help improve how they manage products across 25 distribution centers.
“We have a lot of stuff that’s outside, think big strikers and tanks and stuff like that that are just out there in the open. So you need something like a drone that’s going to go around and capture that inventory. Then you have a lot of small things, think firearms and stuff like that that we have to do inventory. So that’s the backbone that we’re building it upon,” he said. “The idea is you walk down the aisle and your inventory populates on your laptop or your iPad. We think we can get there.”
He added that DLA is piloting the integrated technology platform at its distribution center in Anniston, Alabama.
“We spend tens of millions of dollars a year doing inventory, and it’s very people intensive. Our automated inventory project is all about automating that process,” Koch said. “The goal is that we can do 100% audit, totally automated, and save a lot of that funding, and then have that information feed into our warehouse management system. We’re definitely excited about the possibility.”
Businessman hand holding cloud computing online connecting to big data analytics. Block chain network technology and intelligence data storage develop smart decision in global business solution.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s acquisition system shakeup is being met with cautious optimism from acquisition experts who say the changes could meaningfully reshape how the Pentagon buys capabilities, manages programs and integrates emerging technologies — if the department can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
Stan Soloway, president and CEO of Celero Strategies and federal acquisition expert, said by and large the changes make a lot of sense — they could help to break down entrenched silos across the department’s acquisition enterprise and drive greater coordination and integration. They also expand on initiatives the department has tried before.
“There have been a lot of reform efforts over the years — and this one both incorporates similar themes and/or reflects a natural extension of them — and all faced similar challenges in both implementation and sustainability,” Soloway told Federal News Network.
But the success of Hegseth’s reforms will hinge on whether the department can change its culture and equip the workforce with the skills needed to operate differently. Otherwise, the system can quickly revert to its old ways.
“Change is not something that happens by dictate. As they and scores of case studies have shown, there has to also be an aggressive, intentional, and holistic approach to change management, prominently including how the relevant workforces are developed. Absent re-aligning those processes, real change will remain elusive,” Soloway said.
Hegseth’s new proposed structure, Soloway said, somewhat resembles the Integrated Product Teams the department created in the 1990s as part of a major acquisition reform push. There were early successes, but they eventually faded, mainly because the workforce and culture never fully adapted.
And whether the department has the workforce to support such a sweeping overhaul remains an open question. DoD has already lost 5% to 8% of its civilian workforce since the start of the Trump administration through various means such as the Deferred Resignation Program and the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority.
“I’m excited about what [Hegseth’s] speech will do to attract the interest of high talent — folks who might want to come in and help us do this job. We’re certainly always looking for good people to come in and help. We do have some need for additional personnel, at least in my office, and I suspect across the acquisition workforce,” Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael Duffey told reporters Monday.
In addition, while the new structures and consolidations seem promising, there is always a familiar risk that the reforms could end up adding new layers of bureaucracy rather than eliminating old ones.
“It will take particularly strong, forward leaning leadership on both the civilian and military side as well as new levels of collaboration between and among the services and, importantly, [the office of the secretary of defense],” Soloway said.
And then the reforms Hegseth is proposing will require significant funding — but there is very little mention of resources in the strategy the department recently unveiled.
“That’s one place where the rubber hits the road,” Soloway said.
“The next big thing will be the 2027 budget submission, because some of these things require prioritization, and prioritization requires resourcing. Some of the initiatives like a focus on exportability, focus on developing multi-sourcing for parts and components — these things require resourcing. Where are they going to be in the 2027 budget submission? Because that will show how important it is for the administration,” Jerry McGinn, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Center for the Industrial Base, told Federal News Network.
‘Speed to delivery’
Hegseth emphasized that speed will be at the center of this sweeping transformation the department is embarking on.
“The core principles of this transformation are simple: instill the warrior ethos in the acquisition workforce and enterprise, inject a sense of urgency and relentless focus on speed by empowering those directly responsible for delivery to make and own decisions, cut through unnecessary layers to focus the [Warfighting Acquisition System] on speed, accountability and mission outcomes, and prioritize flexible requirements and resource trades to enable timely delivery at the speed of relevance,” he wrote in a memo.
The focus on speed, Solloway said, may be more critical now than ever. But speed alone isn’t the point – the department has spent the past decade chasing speed through tools like other transaction agreements and rapid prototyping, but the real measure is whether capabilities are actually fielded.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth salutes as he and South Korean Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back inspect a guard of honor during a welcoming ceremony prior to the 57rd Security Consultative Meeting (SCM), at the defense ministry in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025. (Jeon Heon-Kyun/Pool Photo via AP)
Sean Gainey Fantastic, getting the opportunity to tell the Space and Missile Defense Command story, visit a lot with our industry partners and connect with a lot of old friends, so great few days so far.
Terry Gerton Speaking of the SMDC story, there’s been some changes for SMDC lately. You’ve picked up some new organizations. Tell us about the transfer of the Army Air and Missile Defense Commands (AAMDCs).
Sean Gainey Yeah, a lot of great opportunities inside of Space and Missile Defense Command with the Army’s Transformation Initiative. So as the Army transitioned to the Western Hemisphere Command, [that] presented an opportunity for 32nd Army Air and Missiles Defense Command that was previously under the Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) to move under Space and Missile Defense Command, and also it presented an opportunity for 263rd Air and Missile Defense Command, that was previously under [U.S. Army North (ARNORTH)] doing the homeland defense mission, set to move under SMDC. So now what you have is you have the Senior Army Air and Missile Defense Expertise Headquarters, now the higher headquarters for two of our homeland-based air and missile defense commands, one with a focus on the homeland and the other with a global force mission focus, particularly on the CENTCOM [area of responsibility], but with the opportunity to focus on the homeland. So therefore, putting the priority, the Secretary of War’s priority on the homeland with the alignment of these forces under Space and Defense Command.
Terry Gerton Is that a shift in focus and mission for those subordinate units now?
Sean Gainey The 263rd always had the homeland defense focus. They currently defend the National Capital Region mission set. So they will continue to focus on the homeland mission set. The 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command has had a focus in the CENTCOM AOR for the past several years based off of the mission sets in protecting our soldiers abroad. They’ve always maintained a global mission. Their service retained forces. So this gives Space and Missile Defense Command the opportunity to leverage 32nd in multiple capacities globally, also in the homeland.
Terry Gerton And you also mentioned this is really sort of a realignment for space and missile defense to a more homeland-based defense mission.
Sean Gainey Yeah, so it adds the warfighter component inside of our command. Our previous focus was, we’ve always had a focus on defending the homeland with our ground-based missile defense system, our [Ground-Based Interceptors] primarily in Alaska area. And so now this addition of the two AAMDCs and the redesignation of SMDC as the Army Service Component Command and for [Ground-Based Midcourse Defense] to now Army Service Component Command for all of AMD under the NORTHCOM commander right now.
Terry Gerton And what’s the timeline for this? Is it complete? Is it just underway in terms of transformation?
Sean Gainey First of October was the effective date, so we’ve moved out. We’ve been coordinating with these supporting elements for the past few months and we reached a point of 1 October is where we wanted to determine initial operating capability and we’ve done that and we’ll continue to progress on to full capability as we move forward in the future.
Terry Gerton It’s really an increase in span of control for you as the SMDC commander. Are you able to reinforce your staff to cover the additional responsibilities?
Sean Gainey It’s difficult because as we took on the additional elements, there are no additional resources provided, but we reorganized and we optimized inside of our command to meet this new mission set. For Space and Missile Defense Command in this organization, with the inherent expertise of space and missile defense that we have in the organization, we were properly suited and properly aligned to accept these two AAMDCs, and as the commander of SMDC, previously commanded a AAMDC and I have several senior leaders in my organization that have previously served in an Army Air and Missile Defense Command. My command sergeant major served as my command sergeant major in the Army Air and Missile Defense Command, so we understand the roles and responsibilities of an Army Air and Missile Defense Command so it was a smooth transition taking higher headquarters of those AAMDC.
Terry Gerton Tell us a little bit more about the shift to a primacy of focus on homeland defense. The Army’s always been fighting over there, right, to keep some distance between the enemy and the homeland. How is that changing how you’re organized, how you are focused, what the plans are?
Sean Gainey Yeah, so for Space Missile Defense Command, we’ve always had that homeland defense focus as I highlighted earlier. We defend the homeland with our GBI’s from an intercontinental ballistic missile and we’re the only ones that do that. And so having that previous focus and understanding with our role with NORTHCOM as Army Service Component Command for GMD at the time and now for [Air and Missile Defense (AMD)], working closely with 263rd who’s had the homeland defense mission inside of Space and Missile Defense Command, we assist in the role of that inside of protecting the [National Capital Region] with capability development. So we’ve always had a homeland focus, but we’ve also had a global mission. So our Army-Space forces have deployed globally in almost every [combatant command] over the past several years. And so recently, they’ve also started to do some of the homeland mission set. So for us, it’s a natural evolution as the administration shifts and as the Department of War shifts their focus. For us, it’s a easy shift. We see the homeland as priority number one and we will accommodate and adjust accordingly to put more emphasis on something we’ve previously been doing.
Terry Gerton So far we’ve talked mostly about missile defense, but space is the first word in your command. How is the Army engaging in a space mission?
Sean Gainey Yeah, so I’m often asked that question, and believe it or not, the Army is the largest consumer of space, and so to be able to protect our equities in space, to be able to enable our formations to fight in a current and future conflict where precision fires, being able to move and communicate are heavily reliant on space capabilities, it only makes sense to have those capabilities inside of the Army to enhance what we’re doing. And also as the Army moves into close fight, having space in the close fight and close support is critically important to enable our forces on the battlefield.
Terry Gerton Then it’s essentially a joint mission. So how do you integrate with Space Command and U.S. Space Force?
Sean Gainey Yeah, I’m very fortunate as the commander of SMDC, I am also the Army Service Component Command to SPACECOM. So we have the opportunity to work closely with the SPACECOM staff and with the other components from a joint perspective and really work through the equities of how do we provide that close space support and able to observe the Space Force as they do orbital warfare. So Space Command has the ability to, across all of the components and all the services, integrate, synchronize and properly use services capabilities to enhance the overall space mission set.
Terry Gerton And the Army’s creating a mission occupational specialty for space. Tell us how that’s going.
Sean Gainey We are: the 40D, and we’re very excited about that. So right now what the Army has been doing, you highlighted the Army having space. So we’ve been doing that on a borrowed manpower process. So we have been taking soldiers from the Air Defense branch, Signal Corps branch, Military Intelligence branch, bringing them into our space formations, teaching them how to do space operations and then put them in formations and we have three years to do this before they go back to their basic branch. So it’s a very difficult construct to be able to build, train and ready sustained forces and to build a non-professional, non-commissioned officer corps. So what we’ve done is we’ve taken the 40D and so now what we’ll do on October 26, we’re in the process of assessing soldiers into 40D, so now we have space experts that will do the space occupational moving forward and creating a professional Army space [Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)], to eventually create an Army space branch to move forward with, because of the future fight and the current fight, the reliance on space is so significant. Having the trained MOS and a space branch inside of the Army, now is the right time to do that.
Terry Gerton It’s a real shift in focus and a real challenge to build out a new MOS, but it seems to align with the Army’s air and missile defense strategy. So tell us about what that new strategy is for 2040.
Sean Gainey Yeah, we’re excited inside. So as you can see, there’s a lot going on in Space and Missile Defense Command.
Terry Gerton You’re not bored down there.
Sean Gainey No, we are not. And we are excited because the Army leadership has really invested in this command. And so when you look at things that the chief of staff of the Army, the secretary of the Army are constantly talking about continuous transformation, transformation in contact, that’s happening inside of Space and Missile Defense Command now. And strategy is an evolution of taking previous strategies and visions and look into the future. So we are in the probably the most significant missile fight that we’ve been in globally with what’s going on in Ukraine, what’s going on in Israel. We’re seeing the number of threat platforms, whether it’s ballistic missiles, cruise missiles or unmanned systems, drones, that we’ve ever seen in any conflict. And so looking at the lessons learned and looking at the complexities of how the threat is now employing, not in one salvo, but mixed salvos to create several complexities for the operator. We felt it was time to take the good work that’s been done in the past and move it forward with the integration of these lessons, learn how we’re going to fight in the future and what’s our path to fight in the future going to be, with the future systems and capabilities to get after this complex threat. So we’ve completed the strategy. We’re now working its way up to the chief of staff of the Army and secretary of the Army for their final approval. We believe that will happen in November time frame, but we’ve been working very closely with the force moving this forward and we’re excited to get that out to the larger force.
Brig. Gen. Sean Gainey, left, and Brig. Gen. Eric Sanchez stand during a change of command ceremony at Fort Shafter in Honolulu on Friday, Aug. 5, 2016. Gainey assumed command of the 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command from Sanchez during a ceremony. (AP Photo/Audrey McAvoy)
As Congress hammers out the final version of the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren is putting pressure on a leading industry group to stop opposing bipartisan right-to-repair efforts aimed at giving the Pentagon greater control over fixing its own equipment.
In a letter to the National Defense Industrial Association, the Massachusetts senator called the organization’s opposition to reform proposals in the House and Senate versions of the legislation a “dangerous and misguided attempt to protect an unacceptable status quo of giant contractor profiteering.”
“Your organization’s attacks are based on unproven conjectures and self-serving projections, making clear there is no real basis to oppose the defense right-to-repair effort other than to protect profits of some of the largest defense contractors in the country,” Warren said in the letter.
The reforms aim to help the Defense Department obtain more technical information to allow troops to repair their gear in theater, enhancing readiness, saving taxpayer dollars and strengthening innovation.
“NDIA’s last-ditch efforts to oppose commonsense and bipartisan legislation that is a Trump administration priority appears to be a desperate attempt to cling to a status quo that makes big defense contractors billions of dollars a year at taxpayer expense. Instead of fighting reform efforts, NDIA should commit to working with DoD to protect service members and promote a healthy and competitive industrial base,” she added.
The military services have long faced contract-imposed restrictions on how they can repair and maintain equipment and weapons, leaving them dependent on original manufacturers to conduct necessary fixes in the field, which is costly and time-consuming.
Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, for example, recently pointed to a Black Hawk helicopter part to show how contractor restrictions drive up costs. The original equipment manufacturer refuses to repair or replace a small screen-control knob that grounds the aircraft when it breaks — forcing the Army to purchase an entire new screen assembly for $47,000. Driscoll said the Army could make the knob for just $15.
The right-to-repair issue has been gaining momentum and bipartisan support from Congress — and both the House and Senate included provisions in their versions of the 2026 defense policy bills.
The House version of the bill includes a Data-as-a-Service Solutions for Weapon System Contracts provision, which would require DoD to negotiate access to the technical data and necessary software before signing a contract. That includes detailed manufacturing or process data, digital networks and models, software-related information, and operational and training information — all to be accessible as a service through various methods like online, in person or via machine-to-machine encryption.
Meanwhile, Senate lawmakers included a provision in their version of the annual bill that would require contractors to provide detailed instructions for repair and maintenance.
“The Defense Secretary may not enter into a contract or agreement for the procurement, sustainment, or subsequent modifications of covered defense equipment unless the contract or agreement requires that the contractor deliver, or offer as a negotiated price option, Instructions for Continued Operational Readiness to the secretary upon delivery of the equipment,” the provision states.
The contractor would have to provide the department with the rights to diagnose, maintain and repair the equipment — and the department could withhold payment to the contractor until the company delivers those instructions.
NDIA argues that the “instructions for continued operational readiness” that Congress wants DoD to have include “data, tools and software for operations, maintenance, installation and training, which could include sensitive and proprietary technical and manufacturing data and IP developed at the contractor’s private expense.” The group warns the proposal would allow DoD to provide those parts, tools and information to any authorized third-party contractor, including a company’s direct competitors under this proposal.
In its white paper, NDIA said these efforts will “hamper innovation and DoD’s access to cutting-edge technologies by deterring companies, including traditional contractors, nontraditionals, and small businesses, from contracting with the DoD over concerns of forcing disclosure of IP; increasing legal, safety, and compliance risks; and introducing contractual and licensing conflicts.”
Some stakeholders, however, remain unconvinced.
“I’ve talked to folks that crafted the Senate language, and they don’t agree with that characterization at all. We’re almost dealing with perceptions here. I don’t see any real separation between the objectives in the House or in the Senate versions, but it’s in the particulars on how they do it,” Jerry McGinn, the director of the CSIS’ Center for the Industrial Base, told Federal News Network.
In her letter to the industry group, Warren accused NDIA of “attacking these reforms with vague and threatening claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny,” including assertions that right-to-repair efforts would “hamper innovation.”
“The opposite is true. Small businesses have said that a defense right to repair law would create new business opportunities in the defense industrial base, not deter them from doing business with the military…Embracing competition will only grow the industrial base further,” Warren said.
“Your argument that such a right would deter companies from working with DoD is not supported by reality and appears to be a late-in-the game effort meant to confuse and scare members of Congress and muddy the terms of the debate,” she added.
In April, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Army to incorporate right-to-repair provisions in all new and existing contracts as part of the service’s sweeping transformation initiative.
Stan Soloway, president and CEO of Celero Strategies and federal acquisition expert, said the debate is just the latest iteration of the government’s decades-long tug of war with industry over intellectual property and data rights. Ultimately, those issues need to be resolved early in a program’s life cycle and not moments of crisis.
“It is true that there have been very difficult negotiations between the parties when the government has sought data it believes it needed. Historically, the government has too often treated IP and tech data as a zero-sum game, demanding access far more broadly than needed. Meanwhile, industry has sometimes been overly zealous in protection of its IP and tech data rights. The lack of trust is real and endemic,” Soloway told Federal News Network.
NDIA declined to comment and referred questions on the matter to their aforementioned white paper.
U.S. Army Pfc. Tess Sandoval assigned to 2nd Squadron, 6th Calvary Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade is one of two female attack helicopter repairers in the squadron located on Wheeler Army Airfield, Hawaii, Aug. 25, 2019. (Photo Credit: 1st Lt. Ryan DeBooy)
Login
