Interview transcript

Terry Gerton There’s so many headlines coming out of Congress, I can’t even keep track, but let’s get to funding. Rumor has it that the NDAA is going to get a vote soon. What are you hearing?

Loren Duggan That’s what we’re hearing as well. This has been a target to do something by the end of the year. Both chambers passed versions and sent them to informal talks where they’re trying to come up with a compromise and the big four, the chairman and ranking members of the committees have been sitting down and hashing that out. We first need to see texts. They’ll come up an agreement and post this text. We’ll be pouring over it and seeing what it says. And they had hoped for votes in early December, once they all get back to town after Thanksgiving and get that through and onto President Trump, because it is a big bill every year. They always do it. No one wants to fail at doing it. And so we’re likely to see a compromise and some votes in December on that.

Terry Gerton Any surprising additions over the last few weeks?

Loren Duggan Well, I think the big thing that’s been introduced to the debate has been whether or not to preempt state AI regulation using language in this bill. That was something that had come up in the summer around the reconciliation or the one big, beautiful bill act where they had inserted it in the house, took it out in the Senate and it’s come back as an issue and would talk around maybe a draft executive order on AI policy or some sort of legislative language to address that. So that’s, been one of the things that’s come up. And you know, the bill like that always attracts everything from contracting policy to defense questions to war and peace and things like that. So, you know I think the compromise that comes out will have broad support among the folks who need to vote on it. So that might mean some things drop out of the conversation, but … until we see that language, we won’t know what makes the cut.

Terry Gerton Well, it’s good to hear that it’s moving forward on that end of the year timeline. Let’s move to appropriations bills. When we got the shutdown settlement, we got a small minibus of bills with full-year appropriations. But now they’re talking about some other combinations. What are you hearing and what’s the progress before January 30th?

Loren Duggan Right, so the continuing resolution that reopened the government had three of the bills for agriculture and FDA, legislative branch, and military construction and VA. So those are all set, but there’s still nine to go. And one of the questions is, how do you package them? What do you do? And which chambers vote on things next? So what we have been anticipating is a package in the Senate that would be the Senate bills, not necessarily a compromise, but at least to move the ball forward, package together four or five bills. I think the keys to that would be defense and then the labor HHS education bills, which are kind of like your guns and butter combination, plus some other bills that have come out of the appropriations committee. Likewise, the appropriators, the top ones in the House and the Senate sat down and tried to find their own path forward. You know, what talks can we have? Do we want to wait for the Senate? So there’s been some talk and some activity, but the January 30th deadline gives them a little bit of wiggle room. They may try to get something done. Before the end of the year, but obviously they don’t have to do another thing until January 30th.

Terry Gerton Let’s talk about that first bundle you mentioned, Defense, Labor, H[ousing], and Education. The Trump administration has been announcing its dismemberment of the Education Department, not its disestablishment, but its dismemberment. If they pass an appropriations bill that treats the department like it always was, how do you put Humpty Dumpty back together again in those circumstances?

Loren Duggan I mean, this sort of goes back to the executive action on a lot of different things where Congress had asked — I mean let’s go back to the beginning of this year where USAID was a fully funded agency and was slowly phased out and some of its responsibilities diffused elsewhere. So, you know, the education department, as you mentioned, they took some steps last week, announced some, you know, spidering out of its duties across the government as they’d like to see. Congress would probably have to pass a bill to completely disestablish the department, but we’ll see what they say in these bills. I mean, they’ve written, to my knowledge, the education portion of that Labor-HHS-Education bill is as though the department was what it was when they approved that bill. So, you know, Congress may push back on a complete dismemberment of the department, but that’s part of the kind of ongoing dynamic here that we’ve seen all year.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Loren Duggan, he’s deputy news director at Bloomberg Government. Loren, a couple other things I want to take up with you. One, discharge petitions seem to be having a moment in the house. Talk to us about why that is happening and what it means in terms of regular order.

Loren Duggan So discharge petitions matter most when there’s a really narrow majority. And you know, there’s the majority party and the majority of a day. And the majority of a day means you get 218 to sign onto one of these petitions and you can pull forward legislation, even if leaders don’t want. And to your point, we’ve seen that a couple of times this year. We saw it on proxy voting for parents. We saw it on most recently — we saw it on the Epstein case, obviously, which was one that had dragged out for a while. And then Jared Golden, a Maine Democrat, got it on a labor-related bill, and he attracted enough Republican support. And that’s what it means here. There are a lot of Democrats, but you need at least a few Republicans. They cross over. You can control the floor or at least push your bill forward. Historically, this existed because the speaker had an iron grip on the House agenda and members banded together and created this process. There is some talk now, some pushback. Do we need to change this process, make it harder? And we’ll see if there’s any traction for that, but as long as the majority is as narrow as it is, and you get enough members to band with you, you can kind of control the agenda for a brief period of time.

Terry Gerton Well, it does at least seem to be moving some things forward.

Loren Duggan It definitely is moving things around. I mean, the Epstein vote had been wanted by people for a long time and then they finally got it. And what was even more interesting there is you went from like a bare majority signing onto the discharge petition to all but one of those who voted voting yes in the end. So, you know, the dynamics there are really interesting.

Terry Gerton So there’s one more topic that I want to take up with you, and it bundles several recent headlines together. We had a federal judge who ruled that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia was illegal. We had some members of both houses of Congress create a video talking about why the military doesn’t need to obey illegal orders, and a response from the White House on that. And then we’ve got Ukraine and Venezuelan operations that continue to circulate. I don’t want to dig into any of those specifically, but collectively, Congress has a responsibility here when it comes to military operations and deployment. Do all of these things perhaps portend a more active engagement from either the Senate or the House on these issues of military operations?

Loren Duggan I mean, we’ve seen some of that, obviously there’s pushback a lot of times from Democrats on what this administration is doing, but there is Republican pushback as well. We’ve seen that on some of the foreign policy questions, whether it’s terrorists or, attacking Venezuela, preventing an attack on land in Venezuela, dealing with the boats. So Congress is asserting itself in some places, but, you know, controlling the hearings right now, that’s all Republicans. And if they want to avoid a hearing that would perhaps raise some of these questions. But at the same time, if you get a a nominee for a defense job in front of some senators, they may ask some tough questions and likewise in the house. So I think we’ll see some discussions, some pushback on some of these things. The defense debate that we’ve talked about having both on the spending side and the authorization side, there could be discussion around all those topics in there as well. So, you know, we see Congress asserting itself in different ways and outside of Congress too, using social media channels, using the media to get their message across or try to push back on what they don’t like.

Terry Gerton So what are you anticipating will be at the top of the agenda when Congress gets back after the Thanksgiving holiday?

Loren Duggan One thing that’s going to surge back is this ACA enhanced premium tax credit issue, how to prevent increases in what people are paying for their health insurance under Obamacare. Going into the recess, there was no consensus. They’re going to try to push for it. Senators agree to vote by the end of the year on something. We’ll be looking to see what that something ends up being. But that’s really driving a lot of the discussion on and off the floor right now.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Loren Duggan, deputy news director at Bloomberg Government. Loren, thanks as always. Thank you. We’ll post this interview at federalnewsnetwork.com slash federal drive. Here at the federal drive on your schedule, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

The post What’s happening with the 2026 appropriations bills? first appeared on Federal News Network.

Artificial intelligence has quickly become a centerpiece of cybersecurity strategy across government and industry. Agencies are under pressure to modernize, and AI promises to accelerate response times, automate enforcement, and increase efficiency at scale.

But there is a critical risk that’s not getting enough attention. Automation without visibility doesn’t eliminate complexity. It multiplies it. And for federal agencies operating under stringent mandates and oversight, that creates a dangerous blind spot.

When AI turns enforcement into chaos

Consider an organization that turned to AI to manage firewall rules. The idea was simple: Allow the AI to continuously generate and enforce rules, so that the network remained secure in real time. On paper, it worked. The AI delivered consistent enforcement and even a solid return on investment.

But when auditors stepped in, they discovered a problem. Instead of consolidating rules, the AI had simply layered them on repeatedly. What had been a 2,000-line ruleset grew into more than 20,000 lines. Buried within were contradictions, redundancies and overlaps.

For operators, the network functioned. But for compliance officers, it was a nightmare. Demonstrating segmentation of sensitive environments, something federal mandates and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards both require, meant combing through 20,000 rules line by line. AI had streamlined enforcement, but it had rendered oversight almost impossible.

This is the irony of AI in cybersecurity: It can solve problems while simultaneously creating new ones.

Masking complexity, not removing it

Federal IT leaders know that compliance is not optional. Agencies must not only enforce controls, but also prove to Congress, regulators and oversight bodies that controls are effective. AI-generated logic, while fast, often can’t be explained in human terms.

That creates risk. Analysts may be right that AI is enabling “preemptive” security, but it’s also masking the misconfigurations, insecure protocols and segmentation gaps that adversaries exploit. Worse, AI may multiply those issues at a scale human operators can’t easily trace.

In short, if you can’t see what AI is changing, you can’t secure it.

Federal mandates demand proof, not promises

Unlike private enterprises, federal agencies face multiple layers of oversight. From Federal Information Security Modernization Act audits to National Institute of Standards and Technology framework requirements, agencies must continuously demonstrate compliance. Regulators won’t accept “trust the AI” as justification. They want evidence.

That’s where AI-driven enforcement creates the most risk: It undermines explainability. An agency may appear compliant operationally but struggle to generate transparent reports to satisfy audits or demonstrate adherence to NIST 800-53, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certificaiton or zero trust principles.

In an environment where operational uptime is mission-critical, whether for Defense communications, transportation systems or civilian services, losing visibility into how security controls function is not just a compliance risk. It’s a national security risk.

Independent oversight is essential

The solution is not to reject AI. AI can and should play a vital role in federal cybersecurity modernization. But it must be paired with independent auditing tools that provide oversight, interpretation and clarity.

Independent auditing serves the same purpose in cybersecurity as it does in finance: verifying the work. AI may generate and enforce rules, but independent systems must verify, streamline and explain them. That dual approach ensures agencies can maintain both speed and transparency.

I’ve seen agencies and contractors struggle with this first-hand. AI-driven automation delivers efficiency, but when auditors arrive, they need answers that only independent visibility tools can provide. Questions like:

• Is the cardholder or mission-critical data environment fully segmented?
• Are insecure protocols still running on public-facing infrastructure?
• Can we produce an auditable trail proving compliance with NIST or PCI requirements?

Without these answers, federal agencies risk compliance failures and, worse, operational disruption.

The federal balancing act

Federal leaders also face a unique challenge: balancing security with mission-critical operations. In defense, for example, communication downtime in the field is catastrophic. In civilian agencies, outages in public-facing systems can disrupt services for millions of citizens.

This creates tension between network operations centers (focused on uptime) and security operations centers (focused on compliance). AI promises to keep systems running, but without visibility, it risks tipping the balance too far toward operations at the expense of oversight.

The federal mission demands both: uninterrupted operations and provable security. AI can help achieve that balance, but only if independent oversight ensures explainability.

Questions federal security leaders must ask

Before integrating AI further into their cybersecurity posture, federal leaders should ask:

1. What visibility do we have into AI-generated changes? If you can’t explain the logic, you can’t defend it.
2. How will we validate compliance against federal frameworks? Oversight bodies won’t accept black-box answers.
3. What happens when AI introduces errors? Automation multiplies mistakes as quickly as it enforces controls.
4. Do we have independent tools for oversight? Without them, auditors, regulators and mission leaders will be left in the dark.

Don’t trade clarity for convenience

AI is transforming federal cybersecurity. But speed without clarity is a liability. Agencies cannot afford to trade explainability for convenience.

The warning is clear: AI is quietly building operational debt while masking misconfigurations. Without independent oversight, that debt will come due in the form of compliance failures, operational disruption or even breaches.

Federal leaders should embrace AI’s benefits, but not at the cost of visibility. Because in cybersecurity, especially in government, if you can’t see what AI is changing, you can’t secure it.

Ian Robinson is the chief product officer for Titania.

The post AI is solving problems it’s also creating first appeared on Federal News Network.

• Transgender Air Force and Space Force servicemembers are suing the Trump administration for rescinding pensions that had been previously granted by the Air Force secretary. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January that banned transgender people from serving in the military. In June, the Air Force approved retirement orders for the Airmen named in the lawsuit, but two months later the service reversed the course, informing airmen, each with at least 15 years of service, that they would be separated without retirement benefits under the ban. The lawsuit argues that revoking those retirement orders violates Air Force policies and procedures. Transgender servicemembers affected by this will lose an estimated $1 to 2 million over the course of their lifetimes, the lawsuit says. It will also strip them of lifetime access to TRICARE health coverage.
  (Transgender veterans sue Trump administration for denying retirement benefits - U.S. Court of Federal Claims)
• The bill to re-open the federal government would also extend a critical cybersecurity law. The continuing resolution passed by the Senate would extend the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 until the end of January. The law’s authorities expired on Oct. 1. Experts say CISA 2015 provides crucial liability and privacy protections that encourage companies to share data about cyber threats. Government officials say companies have continued to share information following the law’s expiration. But they say a longer-term lapse could derail public-private collaboration on cyber threats.
  (CR bill text - Senate Appropriations Committee )
• A bipartisan bill would require the Labor Department to keep track of AI-related layoffs happening across the federal workforce. The bill would also require the department to collect data on AI’s impact on jobs at major companies. Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are leading the bill. They say the legislation would give the federal government a clearer picture of which jobs are impacted the most by AI and which new jobs are being created.
  (Hawley, Warner to introduce bipartisan legislation revealing number of jobs lost to AI - Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.))
• A Senate-passed spending deal to end the government shutdown also sets staffing targets for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The spending bill gives the VA 90 days to provide the House and Senate appropriations committees with a staffing model that will ensure it can provide timely health care and benefits. The VA previously planned to eliminate more than 80-thousand positions, but scrapped plans for a department-wide reduction in force, and instead planned to eliminate 30,000 positions through attrition by the end of fiscal 2025. The spending bill specifically bars the VA from reducing staffing levels, hours of operation or services at the Veterans Crisis Line or any of its other suicide prevention programs.
  (Senate-passed spending deal sets VA staffing targets amid reorganization - Federal News Network )
• Violent threats against public servants have been escalating over the last decade. A new report from the Public Service Alliance and The Impact Project found that threats of doxxing, harassment and physical attacks have all been on the rise since 2013. The two non-profit groups recently released a “security map,” showing not only an increase in volume, but also an expansion of who is targeted.
  (New dataset on threats to public servants reveals over a decade of danger - Public Service Alliance and The Impact Project)
• Federal employees have a new opportunity to share more about their experiences in the workplace this year. The Partnership for Public Service has launched a new governmentwide survey for federal employees, in an effort to fill a major gap in workforce data. The initiative comes after the Trump administration canceled the 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey earlier this year. Current civilian federal employees can take the Partnership’s Public Service Viewpoint Survey between now and Dec. 19. The topline results will be released in early 2026.
  (Amid data gap, an alternative to FEVS emerges for federal employees - Federal News Network)
• After a banner recruiting year, the Coast Guard is identifying locations for a new training center. The service released a request for information on Monday to identify facilities that could lodge 1,200 new recruits. The Coast Guard is planning to add 15,000 personnel to its ranks in the coming years. It recruited more than 5,200 new service members last year — well above its annual target of 4,300 recruits. The deadline to respond to the Coast Guard’s training center RFI is Dec. 8.
  (Coast Guard solicits potential locations for additional training center - Coast Guard )
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is putting pressure on a leading industry group to stop opposing bipartisan right-to-repair efforts that would allow service members to fix their own equipment. In a letter to the National Defense Industrial Association, Warren called the organization’s opposition to reform proposals in the House and Senate versions of the annual defense policy bill a “dangerous and misguided attempt to protect an unacceptable status quo of giant contractor profiteering.” NDIA argues that the provision would allow the Defense Department to provide parts, tools and information to any authorized third-party contractor, including a company’s direct competitors. The industry group said these efforts will “hamper innovation” and “deter companies from contracting with the DoD.” Warren said that “the opposite is true” and that the argument “appears to be a late-in-the game effort to confuse and scare members of Congress and muddy the terms of the debate.”
  (Senator accuses defense industry of blocking Congress’ right-to-repair reforms - Federal News Network)

The post Transgender servicemembers are suing the Trump administration for rescinding pensions first appeared on Federal News Network.