With an impending winter storm expected to dump as much as 10 inches of snow — and then freezing rain on top of that — in the Washington, D.C. metro area, the Office of Personnel Management decided late Friday night to close federal offices on Monday and institute maximum telework.
OPM said in its weather status update that telework and remote workers are expected to work, but “non-telework employees generally will be granted weather and safety leave for the number of hours they were scheduled to work. However, weather and safety leave will not be granted to employees who are on official travel outside of the duty station or on an Alternative Work Schedule (AWS) day off or other non-workday.”
Additionally, OPM said emergency employees are expected to report to their worksite unless otherwise directed by their agencies.
Scott Kupor, OPM director, posted the decision on X.
Update (and the final one) – We have decided to close federal offices in the region for Monday. We will update the official status on the @USOPM website shortly. We hope that everyone stays safe (and warm) over the weekend. https://t.co/iJugsRw0iz
WTOP, Federal News Network’s partner station, said snow is expected to start in the DC metro area Saturday night and then get heavier into Sunday morning. Temperatures aren’t expected to climb out of the 20s, making the situation more difficult.
For federal employees outside of the DC metro area affected by the winter storm, each agency will make their operating status decision, according to the governmentwide dismissal and closure policy, which OPM updated in December.
“Federal field office heads generally make workforce status decisions for their agencies’ employees and report those workforce status decisions to their agencies’ headquarters,” the guidance stated. “Agencies located outside the ‘Washington capital beltway’ should consider governmentwide operating status announcements when developing local operating status announcements. Employees should always check their agencies’ operating status. Agency-issued operating status announcements should include procedures concerning telework, arrival and departure times, and leave requests.”
In previous years, the Federal Executive Boards (FEBs) coordinated weather and other emergency related closures. The Trump administration eliminated the FEBs in April.
The number of federal employees able to participate in situational telework or who are full-time teleworkers or remote workers is unclear. The Trump administration mandated federal employees return to the office on a full-time basis in January.
OPM did issue the fiscal 2025 telework report to Congress in December. In that report for 2024, 1.3 million, or 53%, of all employees were eligible to telework, which was a 2.2% decrease from 2023. Of those employees who were eligible to telework, 1 million, or 40%, participated in some form of telework, routine or situational. OPM said this was a decrease of 3.6% over 2023.
The Supreme Court appears poised to deliver a contradictory message to the American people: Some independent agencies deserve protection from presidential whim, while others do not. The logic is troubling, the implications profound and the damage to our civil service system could be irreparable.
In December, during oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, the court’s conservative majority signaled it would likely overturn or severely weaken Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission from at-will presidential removal. Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed Humphrey’s Executor as “just a dried husk,” suggesting the FTC’s powers justify unlimited presidential control. Yet just weeks later, during arguments in Trump v. Cook, those same justices expressed grave concerns about protecting the “independence” of the Federal Reserve, calling it “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” deserving special constitutional consideration.
The message is clear: Wall Street’s interests warrant protection, but the rights of federal workers do not.
The MSPB: Guardian of civil service protections
This double standard becomes even more glaring when we consider Harris v. Bessent, where the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December 2025 that President Donald Trump could lawfully remove Merit Systems Protection Board Chairwoman Cathy Harris without cause. The MSPB is not some obscure bureaucratic backwater — it is the cornerstone of our merit-based civil service system, the institution that stands between federal workers and a return to the spoils system that once plagued American government with cronyism, inefficiency and partisan pay-to-play services.
The MSPB hears appeals from federal employees facing adverse actions including terminations, demotions and suspensions. It adjudicates claims of whistleblower retaliation, prohibited personnel practices and discrimination. In my and Harris’ tenure alone, the MSPB resolved thousands of cases protecting federal workers from arbitrary and unlawful treatment. In fact, we eliminated the nearly 4,000 backlogged appeals from the prior Trump administration due to a five-year lack of quorum. These are not abstract policy debates — these are cases about whether career professionals can be fired for refusing to break the law, for reporting waste and fraud or simply for holding the “wrong” political views.
The MSPB’s quasi-judicial function is precisely what Humphrey’s Executor was designed to protect. This is what Congress intended to follow in 1978 when it created the MSPB in order to strengthen the civil service workforce from the government weaponization under the Nixon administration. The 1935 Supreme Court recognized that certain agencies must be insulated from political pressure to function properly — agencies that adjudicate disputes, that apply law to fact, that require expertise and impartiality rather than ideological alignment with whoever currently occupies the White House. Why would today’s Supreme Court throw out that noble and constitutionally oriented mandate?
A specious distinction
The Supreme Court’s apparent willingness to treat the Federal Reserve as “special” while abandoning agencies like the MSPB rests on a distinction without a meaningful constitutional difference. Yes, the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy with profound economic consequences. But the MSPB’s work is no less vital to the functioning of our democracy.
Consider what happens when the MSPB loses its independence. Federal employees adjudicating veterans’ benefits claims, processing Social Security applications, inspecting food safety or enforcing environmental protections suddenly serve at the pleasure of the president. Career experts can be replaced by political loyalists. Decisions that should be based on law and evidence become subject to political calculation. The entire civil service — the apparatus that delivers services to millions of Americans — becomes a partisan weapon to be wielded by whichever party controls the White House.
This is not hypothetical. We have seen this movie before. The spoils system of the 19th century produced rampant corruption, incompetence and the wholesale replacement of experienced government workers after each election. The Pendleton Act of 1883 and subsequent civil service reforms were not partisan projects — they were recognition that effective governance requires a professional, merit-based workforce insulated from political pressure.
The real stakes
The Supreme Court’s willingness to carve out special protection for the Federal Reserve while abandoning the MSPB reveals a troubling hierarchy of values. Financial markets deserve stability and independence, but should the American public tolerate receiving partisan-based government services and protections?
Protecting the civil service is not some narrow special interest. It affects every American who depends on government services. It determines whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspectors can enforce workplace safety rules without fear of being fired for citing politically connected companies. Whether Environmental Protection Agency scientists can publish findings inconvenient to the administration. Whether veterans’ benefits claims are decided on merit rather than political favor. Whether independent and oversight federal organizations can investigate law enforcement shootings in Minnesota without political interference.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during the Cook arguments, warned that allowing presidents to easily fire Federal Reserve governors based on “trivial or inconsequential or old allegations difficult to disprove” would “weaken if not shatter” the Fed’s independence. He’s right. But that logic applies with equal force to the MSPB. If presidents can fire MSPB members at will, they can install loyalists who will rubber-stamp politically motivated personnel actions, creating a chilling effect throughout the civil service.
What’s next
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to apply its principles consistently. If the Federal Reserve deserves independence to insulate monetary policy from short-term political pressure, then the MSPB deserves independence to insulate personnel decisions from political retaliation. If “for cause” removal protections serve an important constitutional function for financial regulators, they serve an equally important function for the guardians of civil service protections.
The court should reject the false distinction between agencies that protect Wall Street and agencies that protect workers. Both serve vital public functions. Both require independence to function properly. Both should be subject to the same constitutional analysis.
More fundamentally, the court must recognize that its removal cases are not merely abstract exercises in constitutional theory. They determine whether we will have a professional civil service or return to a patronage system. Whether government will be staffed by experts or political operatives. Whether the rule of law or the whim of the president will govern federal employment decisions.
A strong civil service is just as important to American democracy as an independent Federal Reserve. Both protect against the concentration of power. Both ensure that critical governmental functions are performed with expertise and integrity rather than political calculation. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence should reflect that basic truth, not create an arbitrary hierarchy that privileges financial interests over the rights of workers and the integrity of government.
The court will issue its decisions over the next several months and when it does, it should remember that protecting democratic institutions is not a selective enterprise. The rule of law requires principles, not preferences. Because in the end, a government run on political loyalty instead of merit is far more dangerous than a fluctuating interest rate.
Raymond Limon retired after more than 30 years of federal service in 2025. He served in leadership roles at the Office of Personnel Management and the State Department and was the vice chairman of the Merit Systems Protections Board. He is now founder of Merit Services Advocates.
The Supreme Court is seen during oral arguments over state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
Former Justice Department employees have an alumni network to turn to for help with looking for work. An employee organization called Justice Connection said it recently expanded its DOJ alumni network, aiming to help employees navigate transitions out of the agency. The organization is offering to connect current and recent DOJ employees with more than 100 agency alumni. They’ll be able to get informational interviews, advice and insights for how to continue on a specific career path, including attorneys, legal support staff and many others.
The House on Thursday passed the final group of spending bills needed before the Jan. 30 funding deadline. In a vote of 341 to 88, lawmakers approved fiscal 2026 funding for the departments of Defense, Labor, Education, Transportation and Health and Human Services. But due to Democratic opposition over ICE funding, the spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security passed with a much narrower margin, in a party line vote of 220 to 207. The appropriations package now heads to the Senate for consideration.
The Postal Service is now accepting bids from shippers for use of its nationwide last-mile delivery network. USPS already has agreements with shipping giants like Amazon and UPS to get packages to their final destination. But it’s looking to give other delivery companies an opportunity to strike similar deals. Last-mile delivery is the most expensive leg of deliveries, and USPS goes to more addresses than its private-sector competitors. USPS said winning bidders will be notified during the second quarter of this calendar year.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has officially lifted its hiring freeze, but staffing caps are still in place for a smaller workforce. The VA saw its first-ever workforce net decrease last year and is unlikely to hire its way to a higher headcount than what it currently has. VA’s Under Secretary for Health said the hiring freeze is over, but VA facilities generally can’t exceed staffing caps set for their regions. A report from Senate VA Committee Democrats said the VA lost more than 40,000 employees last year. About 10,000 of those employees worked in frontline positions that the department has struggled to fill.
Value-added resellers finally get a chance to weigh in on the concerns about their business model and the changes the General Services Administration has been considering. GSA issued a request for information yesterday seeking feedback from VARs and others to gain a clearer understanding of the value added by resellers, and the resulting impact of these services on pricing and the ability to meet the government’s requirements. The initial focus of the feedback is for companies in a specific special item number for IT hardware, 33411. Responses to the RFI are due by Feb. 9.
The Small Business Administration suspended nearly a quarter of all participants in the 8(a) program. The SBA has suspended more than 1,000 companies in the program. SBA made the decision after it deemed those small businesses non-compliant with its financial data request from December. An SBA spokesperson said these suspended firms have 45 days to file an appeal. At the same time, SBA issued new guidance yesterday clarifying how it will run the small business development program going forward. Among the changes is that SBA will administer the 8(a) program based on race-neutral requirements. It also will no longer approve the use of “socially disadvantage narratives” as a way to get into the program.
The Marine Corps has tapped GenAI.mil as its official enterprise generative artificial intelligence platform that will consolidate all duplicative, general-purpose GenAI usage into one system. Marines, civilians and contractors can start using GenAI.mil immediately. The platform is approved only for processing Controlled Unclassified Information, but the service plans to expand GenAI.mil to higher classification networks. The service also plans to integrate Marine Corps data sources and agentic AI development solutions in the future.
Congress wants the Space Force to organize its programs and people by mission area. One of the root causes of the Defense Department's failed acquisition system is the military rotation system, which often replaces program managers every two to three years. That turnover, lawmakers argue, prevents personnel from staying in place long enough to develop the technical expertise needed to manage increasingly complex systems. Now, Congress is directing the Pentagon to propose a Space Force pilot program that would keep personnel assigned to specific mission areas for substantially longer tours. The pilot program should also examine eliminating traditional occupational specialty categories, such as acquisition or operations, in favor of mission-focused specializations, such as missile warning or satellite communications.
Terry Gerton Let’s do first things first. Tell us about the Air and Space Forces Aid Society. What do you do?
Ed Thomas The bottom line, Terry, is we take care of airmen, guardians, and their families. We’ve been doing it since 1942, as World War II started to ramp up, all of the services have an organization like this. It is the official relief society of that service. Army emergency relief takes care of soldiers. Navy Marine Corps relief takes of marines and sailors. Coast Guard Mutual Assistance takes care of coasties. We take care in the Air and Space Forces, now the Air and Space Force’s Aid Society, we take care of airmen, guardians, and their families when they need us most.
Terry Gerton And what sort of format does that aid take?
Ed Thomas We do several things. At the most basic level we provide two basic forms of assistance. The first is grants, lots. We did $4.5 million in scholarships last year, we did almost $5 million dollars in disaster relief when hurricanes Helene and Milton and other natural disasters hit parts of the United States where we had our service member stationed. So we do grants we also do zero interest loans. Now we’re not a bank but the reason we do zero interest loans is in some cases, it prevents our young, particularly our most junior enlisted folks from going to a payday loan organization that’s going to charge them 30%, 39% interest. And we want to avoid that.
Terry Gerton Well, the big news for us in this conversation is that you’ve added Space Force to the organization’s name and logo. Tell us about why and what message you wanna send with that.
Ed Thomas Yeah, well, I would say, Terry, it is overdue that finally we have rebranded, renamed ourselves the Air and Space Forces Aid Society. You know, I was on the Air staff with Gen. Goldfein, Gen. Raymond, Secretary Wilson in 2019 on December 20th, when we stood up the Space Force and it wasn’t like a five-year planning ramp to create this new service. On day one, when President Trump signed the NDAA out of Andrews Air Force Base, we had a space force. It was a Space Force of one, Gen. Raymond, but now it’s ramped up to about 10,000 people. They’re going to be ramping up to almost three times that size in the out years, and we need to recognize as the official aid organization of the Department of the Air Force, who we serve. And we’ve been serving guardians since day one, but we just wanna make sure that we’re connecting with those people that we’re charged to help take care of and that airmen, guardians, and their families know that we were here for them.
Terry Gerton As you’ve built a support mechanism for guardians, are you finding that that force has needs that are different in scale or scope from airmen in general?
Ed Thomas No, I would say for the most part, the needs are very, very similar. You know, most of our support is focused on our most junior enlisted, E1s to E4s. And the kinds of difficulties that our young service members are experiencing, whether they’re Air Force, Space Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, they look very similar, It’s simple things like not having any savings in their account when a financial crisis hits. Their Hyundai Santa Fe, they lose their engine on their 8-year-old car. Very expensive to fix. Maybe one car for a family and they just don’t have the financial reserves. That’s where we come in, help them get them back on their feet. Hopefully they’ll never need us again, but we want to be there for these families, Space Force, Air Force, when they need us.
Terry Gerton Is there something about this group of service members that you think most Americans don’t understand? You’ve just mentioned some real significant financial challenges.
Ed Thomas Yeah, Terry, thanks. I think there are several things, but you know, I used to work for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, Gen. Dempsey, one of my favorite people in the world. And he would very often say, our people are called to lead uncommon lives. And they are uncommon lives. I mean, you take an 18, a 20, a 22-year-old, they move away from their family, sometimes to the other side of the world. They leave their community, they leave their support, sources of support. Often they end up with all the change happening at once that adds a lot of financial stress, often adds a lot of mental or emotional stress, and all things people learn to deal with. I spent 33 years on active duty in the military, plus four years as a cadet, and I grew up in an army family. I was kind of used to this. But we have a lot of people that are plucked out of their families and their homes across America thrown into this military life across the country, across the world. And there’s a lot unique challenges and stressors that they just might not be prepared for.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Ed Thomas, who leads the Air and Space Forces Aid Society. Are there particular needs in the Air Force and the Guardians that you’re meeting right now?
Ed Thomas Absolutely. Some of the biggest needs that we meet on a day-to-day basis, and we’re often doing them very quietly, is just basic living expenses. It’s those airmen or guardians or their families that meet an unexpected financial crisis, and they just don’t have the reserves to deal with it. Sometimes it’s rent, sometimes it’s mortgage, particularly in high cost living areas like New York or L.A. Where we’re asking people to go relocate to. Sometimes it is auto repair. So there’s a lot of those things that we’re doing. And then one of the other things that we do that people don’t often realize is just helping young airmen and guardians get back for emergencies. Let’s say they’re stationed in Kunsan, Korea, you know, an hour, hour and a from soul. And they lose a family member, they have a family that’s terminally ill. Our U.S. Government policies, while they’re great and they help take care of our people, they don’t pay for all of those things. So for a young airman to be able to … take off and travel from one of the side of the world to the other to get there for a family emergency, they often need help and they often need support. We’ll do that, we’ll work with them, we work with the Red Cross. We’ll pay for their flights, we’ll get them home and make sure they’re there when they need to be there. Or, in unfortunate cases, at least be there to say goodbye.
Terry Gerton As you look forward to 2026, what are the priorities? Beyond the name change, are there new programs or outreach initiatives or partnerships you’re really excited about?
Ed Thomas No, thanks. Yes to all of those things. We have probably made the biggest changes in the last, say, six or seven months that we’ve probably made in decades to the way we deliver our programs. And I’ll tie that to our number one strategic priority, and that’s just awareness. That’s just making sure that we create and enhance the awareness across the force, so when airmen, especially people who are relatively new to the force, hit a snag, they know who to turn to. So some of the things that we’ve done is we’ve dramatically increased our childcare support, money that goes to these young families to be able to help take care of children when they’re deployed, when they are doing a permanent change of station from one assignment to another. Car seats is another one. We buy car seats for every E1 to E5 when they have a new child. It’s $250 that gets Zelled straight into their account so that they can go get that car seat. We also just finished a program called Home for the Holidays, where we just spent more than a quarter million dollars getting young, single airmen from their location back to home to spend it with family and loved ones over the holidays. So that travel program is one of the things that we’re really proud of, and we wanna make sure that we can reunite our service members with their families, particularly at times like this.
Terry Gerton As we wrap up here, I wanna give you the opportunity to make a call to action. What can the public or industry do to help you move the needle?
Ed Thomas Well, the first thing I’d say, Terry, is the awareness piece. We, while we need funds and we need to fundraise, we want to make sure that all of our service members know that we’re here to help them. That’s where my passion is. And that’s where I want to make sure people know how to come to us in times of need. It’s not only good for those service members and their families, but it’s good for the readiness of the nation. Now, also, I’ll never turn down an opportunity for help. AFAS.org, If people go there, they can either click a button that says ‘hey I need help’ or click a button that ‘I want to support.’ There are certainly a lot of young junior airmen and guardians of their families that we can use with your help. So thank you Terry.
FILE - A solider wears a U.S. Space Force uniform during a ceremony for U.S. Air Force airmen transitioning to U.S. Space Force guardian designations at Travis Air Force Base, Calif., Feb. 12, 2021. Amid a freeze in military-to-military contacts, China is accusing the United States of militarizing outer space, a day after it protested the passage of a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft through the Taiwan Strait. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)
The Department of Veterans Affairs is officially lifting a hiring freeze on its health care workforce, after shedding tens of thousands of positions last year.
But the VA, which saw the first-ever workforce net decrease, is unlikely to hire its way to a higher headcount than what it currently has.
“Facility leadership in the field are still reporting denials and severe delays in hiring approvals for all positions from clinical staff to custodians to claims processors,” lawmakers wrote.
The report claims the VA lost more than 40,000 employees last year, and that 88% of them worked in health care. About 10,000 of those employees worked in frontline positions that the department has struggled to fill.
VA workforce data shows the department saw a net decrease of 3,000 registered nurses last year, a net decrease of 1,000 physicians and a net decrease of 1,550 appointment schedulers.
In a typical year, the VA’s workforce sees a net gain of about 10,000 employees. But under the Trump administration, the VA sought to eliminate 30,000 positions through attrition by the end of fiscal 2025. The department previously envisioned cutting 83,000 jobs in part through layoffs.
VA Press Secretary Pete Kasperowicz disputed several of the report’s findings. He said the VA achieved its headcount reduction goal of 30,000 employees, but didn’t lose 40,000 employees, as Senate Democrats claim. The VA also disputes the report’s claims that veterans, in some cases, are seeing longer wait times for VA mental health care appointments.
Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told reporters in a call that the report shows a “diminished” VA that is unable to keep up with the needs of veterans.
“The loss of talent is so deeply regrettable, and the results are basically longer wait times,” Blumenthal said.
Kasperowicz said in a statement that, “while Blumenthal stages political theater, VA is making major improvements for veterans under President Trump.”
The VA fired about 2,400 probationary employees last year, but largely reduced its workforce through voluntary separation incentives.
VA workforce data shows the department made about 21,000 hires last year, offsetting the total impact of these workforce cuts. The latest data from the Office of Personnel Management shows the VA saw a net reduction of more than 27,000 positions in 2025.
But Blumenthal said these new hires have done little to improve the VA’s capacity.
“They are not the same skilled people as have been either fired or lost because of the toxic environment that’s been created in many areas of the VA,” he said.
VA workforce data shows the department made about 21,000 hires last year, offsetting the total impact of these workforce cuts. The latest data from the Office of Personnel Management shows the VA saw a net reduction of more than 27,000 positions in 2025 (Source: OPM)In a memo last week, VA Under Secretary for Health John Bartrum told department leaders that “all hiring freeze restrictions” still in place at the Veterans Health Administration have been lifted.
Bartrum wrote in the memo that each Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) “has been allocated a baseline number of positions calculated on their budgeted FTE plus anticipated needs for growth,” and that requests to exceed that headcount must be approved by the VA Strategic Hiring Committee.
“Leaders and managers must manage operational needs within their cumulative full-time equivalent (FTE) budget and position thresholds,” Bartrum wrote.
The report claims veterans are seeing longer wait times for mental health care appointments. In early January, new-patient wait times for individual mental health care appointments in 14 states exceeded 40 days — twice the wait time threshold that allows veterans to seek treatment outside the VA’s health care network. Those states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia. According to the report, the national mean for new patients to sign up for individual mental health care appointments is 35 days.
However, Kasperowicz said VA data shows wait times for mental health care were under six days for established patients, and 19 days for new patients.
The VA eased requirements for veterans to seek care from non-VA “community care” last year, and has increased spending on community care. The department is embarking on a $1 trillion next-generation community care contract, one of the largest government contracts in U.S. history.
House VA Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-Ill.) said in a hearing Thursday that the contract, “if done properly,” would give the VA “unprecedented flexibility” to award contract and task orders that would lead to better health care outcomes for veterans.
In their report, Senate VA Committee Democrats found the VA last year cancelled about 2,000 contracts and let another 14,000 expire without plans to renew or replace those services.
VA Secretary Doug Collins has repeatedly defended his plans for a smaller workforce. He told lawmakers last May that increased staffing hasn’t always led to better outcomes for veterans.
Last year, the department decreased its backlog of benefits claims by nearly 60% despite a net decrease of about 2,000 VA claims processors.
Kayla Williams, a former VA assistant secretary and a senior advisor for the Vet Voice Foundation, said the department reduced the initial claims backlog, but has grown the volume of claims requiring higher-level review.
“These actions were never about efficiency or cost savings,” Williams said.
The VA anticipated a spike in the backlog after Congress passed the PACT Act, making more veterans eligible for VA health care and benefits, because they were exposed to toxic substances during their military service.
Lindsay Church, the executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said 1.2 million veterans have lost their VA providers under the Trump administration.
“Clinics can’t keep care teams staffed. Appointments are being canceled or delayed, and veterans who rely on consistent, trauma-informed care are being forced into instability and pressured into community care. Mental health access, which has always been a crisis for our community for decades, has deteriorated rapidly,” Church said.
Mary Jean Burke, the first executive vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees National VA Council, said that by the end of 2026, most VA facilities are on track to lose about 2-5% of their psychologists — and that locations, including Seattle and Buffalo, are on track to see “double-digit” attrition.
Burke said VA health care employees have left because the VA has slashed jobs, stripped away remote work and telework, and brought staff back into “overcrowded” spaces.
“These punishing policies haven’t just lowered morale, they end up compromising the quality of care we provide,” Burke said.
Collins is scheduled to testify before the Senate VA Committee next Wednesday, in a hearing about the department’s ongoing reorganization efforts.
For Gen Z military families, navigating life in their early-to-mid 20s means wading their way through unique challenges that can get overwhelming pretty quickly. Between frequent relocations, long deployments, unpredictable life schedules and limited early-career earnings, financial planning is more than a good idea — it’s essential for long-term stability.
According to the Congressional Research Service, 40% of active-duty military personnel are age 25 or younger, right within the Gen Z age group. Yet these same service members face the brunt of frequent moves, deployments and today’s rising cost of living.
This guide is designed specifically for Gen Z service members and their spouses, helping them understand their financial situations, insurance options, avoid common financial pitfalls and build stable careers, all while dealing with the real-world pressures of military life.
Financial pressures Gen Z military families face
While budgeting, insurance and retirement planning are critical, it’s also important to get a real sense of the actual financial stressors younger military families are grappling with:
Living paycheck to paycheck. Even with basic allowance for housing and basic allowance for subsistence, many junior enlisted families still find it hard to keep up with rising living costs. This becomes even more of a precarious situation when you add in dependents.
Delayed reimbursements during permanent change of station (PCS) moves, creating short-term cash crunches.
Limited emergency savings. The Military Family Advisory Network’s (MFAN) 2023 survey found 22.2% of military families had less than $500 in savings.
Predatory lending, with high-interest auto or payday lenders near bases disproportionately targeting young servicemembers.
Military spouse underemployment, leaving household income vulnerable when frequent moves disrupt career continuity.
MFAN also found that nearly 80% of respondents spend more on housing than they can comfortably afford, and 57% experienced a financial emergency in the past two years. These aren’t abstract concerns that most young servicemembers and their families can just ignore, hoping that they’ll never be impacted; these are everyday realities for Gen Z military families.
Insurance best practices
Adult life is just getting started in your 20s, and navigating insurance options can feel overwhelming. But taking the time to learn your choices will set your family up for a secure financial future.
Life insurance: Most servicemembers are automatically enrolled in Service Members’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI), with Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) extending coverage to spouses and children. Review coverage annually. Also, compare options across SGLI, FSGLI and trusted military nonprofits to find what fits your family best.
Disability insurance: Often overlooked, this protects your family if an injury prevents you from working, even off-duty. Supplemental private coverage can be wise if your lifestyle expenses exceed your military pay.
Renters insurance: Essential for families who move often; it protects your belongings through relocations.
Healthcare: TRICARE provides strong coverage, but learn the details on copays and referrals, especially when stationed overseas.
Common financial missteps and how to fix them
Mistake #1: Overbudgeting and lack of budgeting
BAH and BAS are designed to offset housing and food costs, not fund lifestyle inflation. Stick to a budget that keeps fixed expenses well below your income. Free tools from Military OneSource can help track spending.
Mistake #2: Not saving for retirement
Retirement may feel far away, but starting early has an outsized impact. Contribute at least 5% to your Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) — a military contribution retirement program similar to that of a 401k — to secure the full Defense Department match. Even small contributions now can grow into hundreds of thousands later.
Mistake #3: Misusing credit or loans
Predatory lenders near bases often target young servicemembers. Try to avoid any predatory or misleading lenders. Instead, consider a secured credit card or an on-base credit union to build credit responsibly. Always be sure to pay your balance in full.
Mistake #4: Skipping an emergency fund
PCS moves, car repairs or medical costs can’t always be predicted. Start small: Even $10 to $20 per week automatically transferred to savings helps to build a safety net. According to MFAN’s 2023 survey, enlisted families with children that have undergone recent PCS moves are most likely to face financial hardship, making an emergency cushion critical.
In addition to avoiding pitfalls, here are realistic strategies to strengthen your finances:
Tap military relief organizations like Army Emergency Relief (AER) or Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society (NMCRS) for interest-free loans or grants during emergencies.
Plan for post-military life: Keep in mind that SGLI and other benefits change once you leave active duty. Compare nonprofit alternatives early to avoid gaps.
Leverage nonprofits you can trust: Some offer competitive life insurance, savings products or financial counseling designed for servicemembers’ long-term interests.
Budget with inflation in mind: Rising costs are hitting Gen Z hard. Nearly 48% say they don’t feel financially secure, and over 40% say they’re struggling to make ends meet. Prioritize life’s essentials and be realistic about what you can afford outside of them.
Maintaining a career as a military spouse
Frequent relocations are undoubtedly disruptive, but they don’t have to end career growth. Military spouses may want to focus on careers that can easily move around with them, like healthcare, education, IT or freelancing.
Take advantage of programs like MyCAA, which offers $4,000 in tuition assistance for career training; Military OneSource, which offers resume assistance, free career coaching and financial counseling; and Hiring Our Heroes, which offers networking opportunities and job placement assistance for military spouses. These programs can help reduce underemployment and strengthen household stability, especially during tempestuous times like during and after a PCS move.
Putting it all together
Starting adulthood, a military career and a family all at once is an incredibly challenging undertaking. The financial pressures are real, but with the right knowledge and proactive steps, Gen Z military families can turn instability and uncertainty into long-term security.
By understanding insurance options, making smart money moves, tapping into military-specific resources and planning ahead for life after service, families can not only weather the unpredictability of military life, but also build strong financial foundations for the future.
Alejandra Cortes-Camargo is a brand marketing coordinator at Armed Forces Mutual.
Terry Gerton You have done some analysis looking at the pattern of senior military officers being relieved with very little explanation from the Department of Defense. We’ve all read some of the headlines, but what is it about this issue that concerns you?
Virginia Burger For me, the biggest concern was that, like you said, there’s little to no justification for many of these firings. Or if we get any, it’s very oblique references in tweets from senior leaders like Secretary Hegseth, and we’re never provided any follow-up or any true validation that the relief was actually warranted. And for me, that is a red flag because it seems like we’re probably politicizing a organization that is meant to be apolitical, right? The military was always supposed to be an apolitical body, it’s not supposed to serve a party, it is supposed to serve the people, and if we are firing the most senior leaders of that organization for overtly political reasons, which is what we are left to surmise, given lack of any other information, that should be a serious point of pause for all Americans.
Terry Gerton As I mentioned, we’ve seen some headlines, but we may not know about all of the reliefs. Can you talk about how widespread this has become?
Virginia Burger So obviously I think the ones that everyone’s probably most familiar with were right away, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General C.Q. Brown, was relieved and then the chief of naval operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, were both relieved. They were probably the two biggest ones that everyone saw. And again, Hegseth characterized it very generally as cleaning house. I need new leadership, new generation for context. Neither of them were due to be turned over at that point in time, they were both still, well — had several years left in their tenure in those positions. And everyone sort of was left to guess, well, maybe they relieved General Brown because he was African-American and maybe they relieved Admiral Franchetti because she was a woman. I don’t have a ton of familiarization with General Brown, but I know a lot of friends in the Navy who were incredibly proud [of] and respected Admiral Françhetti. She was considered the pick for CNO and so her relief was quite shocking to a lot of people because she was by far and way, if we’re gonna talk about merit for positions, she was the person for that position. Some other ones that have maybe not gone as noticed are in some lower, more subordinate commands, but certainly still across the board, there were several women relieved in the Air Force and the Army that were senior leaders, and also notably the head of the NSA was relieved, and that position was gapped for several months. In fact, the replacement was only announced in the last few weeks, and that was both concerning for, why was the person relieved, but also from a strategic decision. If the NSA doesn’t have a leader, that’s a hugely powerful arm of national security. That was a big bipartisan concern as well that many senators and representatives expressed concern over.
Terry Gerton Let’s follow that because you also documented some patterns about gaps in leadership and transition and readiness. Tell us more about that.
Virginia Burger So when a senior leader is relieved, and it’s not on the normal timeline, because most of these positions you hold for a period of usually two to three years, that’s the typical timeline for command, especially at those senior leader levels of lieutenant generals and vice admirals, generals and admirals. When one of those positions is relieved suddenly, you do not have a replacement lined up. And for a lot of these senior leaders the replacement has to be confirmed by Congress, right? For combatant commanders, for service chiefs, that person has to nominated, they have to be reviewed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and then voted on by the Senate. If you fire someone off timeline, that position is going to be gapped, and these are our most senior military leaders who are in the positions that are making the most pivotal decisions for our national strategy, and who are making the decisions that America’s sons and daughters in service are going to have to execute. And so when they’re fired very suddenly, that position is empty and there is a power vacuum, there is a void and naturally the executive officer, the deputy is going to step up and do their best and maybe they’ll rush to put in someone who’s acting. But you know, an acting person in that position does not have the same legal authorities. They don’t have the same authorities for command and it’s just going to cause headaches and issues that will roll all the way down the chain. And it can be very, very difficult for a unit to run. And then when we’re talking about people in positions of such amount of power, that’s going to have a lot of ramifications on national security, morale, and making sure our service members are well taken care of.
Terry Gerton So, Virginia, these positions that have been relieved have been at the top of chains of command. Have you heard any response from within the military or within DoD about the impact?
Virginia Burger I can only speak to like anecdotes I’ve been given from people I know. I haven’t seen any significant reports or anything from the DoD officially because they aren’t releasing any information like that, right? Like, Secretary Hegseth has not come out and said, hey, here’s a survey or here’s an investigation we did to see if the very dramatic relief of Admiral Franchetti had negative impacts to naval readiness. He’s not doing that kind of work or if he is, he’s not going to publish it. What I can say, and what I’ve heard, like I said, I spoke to several peers and friends of mine who are in the Navy, and it was quite a morale blow when she was relieved. I know many women in service, as a veteran myself, I still have many friends on active duty, and they have watched as many of those relieved look like them. They are women, and they’re sort of questioning, is there a future for me in this organization? I have friends who have sort of passed the 10-year mark, they’re trying to make it to 20, and they are looking to see, is that even really an option? Will I be able to continue to dedicate my life to this service that I’ve chosen? And that’s going to have ripple effects across the force and that’s not gonna have great implications when it comes to readiness, morale, etc.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Virginia Burger. She’s the senior defense policy analyst for the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight. Virginia, in your paper, you talk about some opportunities that Congress might have to have some more say in this. Walk us through your suggestions.
Virginia Burger Like I said earlier, Congress has to review these nominees for the senior positions, right? And we’re talking specifically about the highest ranking officers. These are three and four-star generals and admirals. So those are the positions that have to go before Congress, they have to be cleared by SASC, Senate Armed Services Committee, and then voted on before they can take their seat in that position. And so Congress, and specifically the Senate, exists in that advisory capacity to the president’s nomination. And that’s written in law. That’s in Title 10, which is the section of U.S. Code that governs the United States military. There is a specific section, Section 601, that talks about the appointment of these officers, and it also talks about the removal and the replacement of them in some level of detail, but without any mention of Congress’ role, because there isn’t one in law for their removal. My suggestion is that we actually amend Section 601, so that there is some official oversight. Now, granted, Congress has avenues for oversight over these decisions now, right? The Senate, congress, they have the ability to conduct hearings, open investigations. If they wanted to, they could open an investigation into the relief of General Brown or Admiral Franchetti and subpoena them or subpoena Secretary Hegseth and have them come in and answer questions about that incident. The Senate could do that tomorrow. Politics aside, with all of that, there are things they could do to change the law. So my recommendations would be that they include explicit requirements for formal congressional notification, right? So when a senior leader, one of these three or four stars, is relieved, within 24 hours, it should be in the law, within twenty four hours, Congress must be formally notified of that decision. Right? Because again, these are the people whose relief is going to have the biggest impact to our national security. Our legislative body should be told that. That is something that I think would be a no-brainer to include, in my opinion. Another one is make sure that the DoD has to show their work, right? There should be a full investigative report. You and I have both been executive officers, I think you, for a very large battalion. You’re aware that the military loves to investigate everything. Someone sneezes in the wrong direction and an investigation is triggered. My guess is there’s probably investigations when these reliefs happen, I would hope there is, at the very least. If there isn’t, that’s maybe another question that we need to also pull the thread on. But at the least, I think Congress should be in receipt of that investigative material. Whatever investigation was done at that command level for the relief of that general or admiral should be provided to them, along with a statement from either the service secretary or the secretary of defense as to the justification for the relief and an optional response from the relieved officer stating their perspective. And that, I believe, should be included in 601 as a requirement to be given to Congress following the relief of one of these officers within 30 days. That way, Congress has this information. Does it need to be public? Maybe not. You could argue if someone is relieved for maybe personal misconduct that they don’t want in the public eye, sure, then the Senate or Congress can handle that with discretion, but at the very least, those legislators need that information so that they can make sure that the Secretary of Defense, the service secretaries, are not engaging in overt politicization in the removal of these officers.
Terry Gerton Virginia, I want to push on that a little bit because those proposals would give Congress oversight, but it still doesn’t address the issue of remediation or reinstatement that Congress might have that authority, if they were to receive all of that information and find that, in fact, in their opinion, that individual should continue on active duty. How do we get to a corrective measure that might help address this problem, or are you thinking that the additional oversight is its own deterrent?
Virginia Burger I think the oversight would be a deterrent in its own right because, you know, my guess is the secretary of defense does not want to be hauled in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee to answer for these should the Senate read the report and realize that the decision was overtly political. But there are, you now, like you said, ways that we could do it. They could impeach the service secretary or the secretary of defense if they feel like they are making these political decisions. That’s available to them now. I believe articles of impeachment for Secretary Hegseth were put forward in the House I think last week in light of Venezuela, I think one of the representatives did. I don’t think they went anywhere, but it’s something that they could do any day of the week if they feel like they are inappropriately handling their position, right? So that’s something they could to enforce this. Unfortunately, a lot of the rules governing the appointment of officers are established through case precedence. It’s not necessarily reflective explicitly in Title 10 or in the Constitution. So, a lot of the limitations that say the president is the one who should be appointing officers comes from case law, specifically before the Supreme Court. So that gets a little bit murky when it comes into the reinstatement of officers. But certainly, in my opinion, the easiest way would be if we believe a secretary of defense is mishandling their position by relieving officers for political reasons. If you impeach them, potentially the next secretary could then reinstate them. And then it’s very clean because it’s the secretary and the president who are then reinstating them.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, from right, with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. CQ Brown gives his opening statement before the start of their meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Pentagon, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Terry Gerton A couple of months ago, we covered your first report in this disaster assistance high-risk series where you looked at the federal response workforce. You’re back with report number two, looking at state and local response capabilities. Talk to us about the headlines.
Chris Currie The headline for this report is that the capabilities of state and local governments across the country vary drastically for a disaster or other type of event. You know, what we did is we actually look at data that the states prepare and provide to FEMA as part of their justification for federal preparedness grants. It’s meant to be a very, very honest self-assessment of capabilities. And for that reason, we actually don’t provide states individually, we sort of roll it up and wrap it up anonymously because some of that information, as you imagine, could be sensitive. We looked at states that have been involved in major disasters over the last two to three years, and some of these states are very experienced, large states, and even they vary in terms of their capabilities. There’s actually 32 capabilities that FEMA sets in the National Preparedness System that you want to achieve to be prepared to respond for a disaster or a large event. And states vary. Some of the areas, they were less than 10% prepared — met less than 10% of those capabilities — and others, they were much more. So the reason that’s important right now is to understand that if you were to change the support that FEMA and the federal government provide to states quickly, then they’re going to have capability gaps that are going to have to get filled.
Terry Gerton Let’s talk about some of the support that FEMA does provide. One of the ways that they support the states is through preparedness grants, and those help build local capacity. What did you find as you dug into the preparedness grants?
Chris Currie Those preparedness grants started after 9/11, and since 9/11, there’s been over $60 billion provided to states. It’s the main way that the federal government transfers funds to state and local governments to get them ready to handle something bad that could happen, not just a natural disaster, but it could be a terrorist attack. And those grants have built capabilities tremendously over the years. But those capabilities change over time, and we identify through real-world events and exercises the gaps that still need to be addressed. So I’ll give you a great example. After Hurricane Helene and after other disasters, housing for disaster survivors is always a perennial challenge. Housing is a capability area that is assessed and we want to build up through these preparedness grants. It’s an area that states, even very experienced disaster states, still fall short of in terms of their capabilities. And the federal government kind of comes in after a disaster and provides a lot of that support because states don’t. So if the federal governments not going to provide it, then someone else is going to have to provide it. And that’s going to be someone at the state or local level.
Terry Gerton Talk to me about the flexibility and the allocation framework for these grants. Is it meeting requirements? Does it seem to be focused on the places that have the greatest need?
Chris Currie There’s a couple different ways they’re given out. There’s a portion of the grants that are supposed to go towards certain national priorities, and FEMA sets those targets. So think about things like election security or other national priorities. But then a large part of the grant, they’re discretionary, and the states can use them and they’re supposed to use them in the areas where they assess they have gaps. And that’s the data I was talking about earlier that we provided. For example, certain states may have gaps in their ability to handle a mass casualty situation or may struggle to house disaster survivors because they don’t have a lot of housing stock or rental. So those are things they’re supposed to identify and then target those grants towards those specific areas, which makes sense. You want to close your gaps so you’re ready to go when something happens.
Terry Gerton FEMA also provides a great deal of training and technical assistance. How effective has that been in helping states be ready?
Chris Currie This is, I think, one of the biggest success stories since Hurricane Katrina. If you remember Hurricane Katrina, the issue was the role of various levels of government was not clear, and thus, nobody stepped up and was proactive in responding to that event. And people lost their lives. Since that time, the National Preparedness System and FEMA leading that has been extremely effective through exercises, through training, through just regional relationships in taking care of a lot of those problems. So today we are way more proactive and responsive to disasters than we were 20 years ago in Hurricane Katrina. So that’s a huge success story. Having said that, a disaster is a disaster. There’s always going to be things that happen that you don’t expect. And there’s areas where states still have major gaps and require resources and people to address those. And the federal government comes in fills a lot of those gaps. Here’s a great example. Hurricane Helene happened and devastated a very remote part of our country in places like rural Tennessee and North Carolina and Virginia. States and localities don’t have the search and rescue assets for such a large swath of that kind of terrain. Federal government provided a lot of that. They provided a lot of the air support, the land support, the temporary bridges — Army Corps of Engineers. You know, the federal government really kicks in when something’s too big for a state or locality to handle.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Chris Currie. He’s director, Homeland Security and Justice at GAO. So Chris, all of this begs the question. This administration has been very clear that it wants states and localities to pick up more of the disaster response mission and that it wants a much smaller FEMA. Given what you found in your first study about the federal response workforce and the impacts of downsizing there, and now the variability in state and local readiness, what are the implications for national disaster response?
Chris Currie I want to make one thing really clear, because all I know is what we know now and the data that we’ve looked at. And I want it to be clear that nothing has changed in terms of FEMA’s responsibilities today. There’s been a lot of talk about it. There’s the president’s council that studied it. But there has been no change so far. So FEMA is still responsible for what it was responsible for two years ago. They have lost some staff. We looked at that in our first report, as you mentioned. They have lost about 1,000 staff, and maybe a little bit more than that, at this point, but they haven’t been cut drastically or cut in half as has been discussed. So they still have the same responsibilities and they’re still performing the same functions on disasters throughout the country, even though last year we didn’t have a huge land-falling hurricane. So what’s important about that is that everybody’s waiting to hear what the next steps are going to be and what’s going to happen to FEMA. One of the things we wanted to do in this report is we wanted to provide a comprehensive picture of preparedness to show what’s going to be necessary if that FEMA support is pulled back or FEMA is made smaller. And the bottom line is that states and localities are going to have to do more. However, it’s going to be critical that they have the time to prepare for that. For example, a lot of the assistance that’s provided to individual survivors, like cash payments and housing, that comes from the federal government. It does not come from the state or local government. So if FEMA is not going to be providing that, the state of the locality is going to have to fill that need. And that requires a lot of money and a lot preparation and planning that you can’t just turn on in a heartbeat. You don’t want to start figuring out programs to help people after a disaster happens.
Terry Gerton You bring up a good point on that time to prepare. As you did the survey, you talked to lots of state and local response officials. What did they tell you, beyond time to prepare, that they were going to need to be effective?
Chris Currie Very simple: Just tell us what we need to do. Tell us what were going to expect from you, the federal government. Nobody knows right now. The FEMA Council has not finished its work. There has been reform legislation introduced in the House and in the Senate, but nothing has passed yet. So the key message is, tell us what the roles and responsibilities are going to be so we know what to prepare for, so we don’t get caught flat-footed in the case of something really bad happening. One of my fears is that last year, like I said, we didn’t have a large land-falling hurricane. It was the first year in a long time we did not. We did not have a catastrophic disaster, other than Los Angeles fires early in the year. So my fear is that folks are going to look at last year and say, hey, things have gone pretty well. We don’t need to be thinking about it. And that is an absolute mistake. Because we’ve seen in years like 2017, 2018, 2024 — my fear is we’re going to have another situation this year or next with multiple concurrent disasters, and we’re just not going to the resources to deal with them.
Terry Gerton So what will you be watching for in the next few months to see if Congress and the federal government and the states have taken your recommendations on board?
Chris Currie Well, when the FEMA Council report comes out, I would like to see, in whatever the execution is for FEMA reform or the changes in how the system works now, an understanding of how this needs to be rolled out so states and localities can prepare and have as clear roles and responsibilities as possible. We’d also like to see them address many of the problems that we’ve pointed out. And to be clear, we’ve pointed out a number of issues with FEMA, particularly in the frustrating recovery phase. I want to see that they’re making sure that we don’t break what’s not broken and we fix the issues that are broken. And there are a number those things.
FEMA workers set up a new disaster recovery center in Manatee County, Florida, following Hurricane Milton. Survivors can meet with FEMA staff at centers to discuss their applications and available federal resources. (Photo credit: FEMA)
Agencies are getting more information on how to implement the recently finalized “rule of many.” The federal hiring strategy, several years in the making, aims to create broader pools of qualified job candidates while adding flexibility for federal hiring managers.
A series of guidance documents the Office of Personnel Management published earlier this month outlined the steps agencies should take to begin using the “rule of many” when hiring. OPM’s new resources also detail how the “rule of many” intersects with other aspects of the federal hiring process, such as shared certificates, skills-based assessments and veterans’ preference.
Under the “rule of many,” federal hiring managers score job candidates on their relevant job skills, then rank the candidates based on those scores. From there, hiring managers can choose one of several options — a cut-off number, score or percentage — to pare down the applicant pool and reach a list of qualified finalists to select from.
OPM’s new guidance comes after the agency finalized regulations last September to officially launch the “rule of many.” The concept was initially included in the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, and OPM during the Biden administration proposed regulations on the “rule of many” in 2023.
“Coupled with the use of functional skills assessments … the [rule of many] gives hiring managers the much-needed flexibility to distinguish candidates based on their demonstrated functional merit-based qualifications for the role in question,” OPM Director Scott Kupor wrote in a Sept. 8 blog post, the same day OPM issued the final rule.
The “rule of many” aligns with some aspects of the Trump administration’s merit hiring plan, OPM said, such as using technical assessments and shared certificates. OPM said the “rule of many” in particular aligns with skills-based hiring, since it can expand candidate pools with applicants who have more fitting skillsets.
The “rule of many” also encourages agencies to use more “comprehensive” assessments, like structured interviews or job simulations, OPM said in its new guidance. And it can “support improved hiring outcomes, particularly for nontraditional candidates, veterans and those with varied career paths,” OPM added.
But for many agencies, the actual adoption of the “rule of many” may be put on the back burner, according to Jenny Mattingley, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service. She said without enough funding or staffing, agencies are not likely to overhaul their current and already well-established hiring practices in the short term.
“The ‘rule of many’ is a good tool, but until those ingredients are all put together, I don’t think that you’ll see it rolled out immediately,” Mattingley said in an interview.
OPM’s finalization of the “rule of many” last September officially ended agencies’ ability to use the past “rule of three” hiring practice. The older candidate assessment technique already had been largely phased out, but previously restricted agencies to only selecting from the top three ranked applicants.
The “rule of many” also differs from most agencies’ current candidate-vetting technique, called “category rating,” which lets federal hiring managers assort job applicants into categories such as “qualified,” “better qualified,” and “best qualified,” then select a candidate for the job from the highest category.
When “category rating” was introduced years ago, it was an improvement over the “rule of three,” but Kupor said “category rating” created other challenges — namely, that all candidates within a single category would be considered equally qualified.
“In other words, the categories are minimum hurdles for consideration, but they don’t distinguish between applicants within a category,” Kupor said in September. “For example, if a score of 80% is the minimum hurdle to qualify into the ‘best qualified’ category, an applicant who scores 100% is treated no differently than one who scores 80%.”
OPM said in its new guidance that the “rule of many” uses the strengths of “category rating,” while adding flexibility to the process. It also allows for “finer distinctions” between candidates and broadens the range of applicants available for selection.
In most cases, OPM said the “rule of many” is preferable over “category rating.” But there are also best use cases for each hiring mechanism. Higher-level positions with more robust assessments will usually require the finer distinctions between candidates that the “rule of many” provides. But for more entry-level positions that don’t require highly technical qualifications, the “category rating” system may be just as effective.
Adopting the “rule of many” will also require a significant cultural shift at agencies, which the Partnership’s Mattingley said can be difficult. Existing strategies like skills-based hiring have not yet been fully adopted at agencies, which may indicate that the uptake of the “rule of many” will also be slow, she explained.
“Until agencies crack the nut on really leveraging skills-based hiring, I don’t think it’s going to be this big change in the immediate future,” Mattingley said. “You need skills-based hiring in order to leverage the rule of many, because you have to be able to make much finer technical assessments on the skills between candidates if you’re going to rank them in the way rule of many does.”
OPM’s “rule of many” guidance comes a few months after President Donald Trump officially lifted the governmentwide hiring freeze. But the White House has emphasized that when hiring, agencies should still focus on maintaining their now-smaller staffing sizes.
“Hiring is still a big question this year,” Mattingley said. “It does look like the administration is going to encourage agencies to hire, except at the same time, agencies are still facing budget uncertainty. They’re facing downward pressure on headcount.”
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s acting director testified that CISA is “getting back on mission,” but he provided few specifics after the agency lost nearly a third of its staff over the past year.
Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala testified in front of the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. Asked by Chairman Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) about reports of plans for a reorganization at CISA, Gottumukkala said there are no plans to reorganize the cyber agency.
“We do have a lot of changes in the last year, but we have not planned any organizational changes,” Gottumukkala said. “But we are continuing to look at how we rescope our existing work that we have so that we can get back on our mission of protecting the critical infrastructure. And if there is any organizational changes, I will assure that we will communicate with you.”
CISA has gone from roughly 3,400 staff at the start of last year to 2,400 employees at the end of December. Most of those who left departed under the Trump administration’s workforce reduction programs, with many leaving government service earlier than planned due to uncertainty at CISA under the Trump administration.
Gottumukkala is leading CISA as the Senate has yet to approve Sean Plankey to serve as director. During Wednesday’s hearing, Gottumukkala declined to provide details on recent reports that he failed a polygraph exam needed to access a sensitive cyber program and that he had worked to oust CISA’s chief information officer.
Gottumukkala also said multiple times that CISA was “getting back on mission.” But he said little about what the agency was doing differently with markedly less staff.
“The way we are supporting back on mission is to make sure that we are protecting our critical infrastructure from physical and cyber threats, and our divisions are properly equipped, and we are making sure that we are aligning our existing resources,” he said.
Asked by Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) about potential vacancies at CISA after the mass wave of departures, Gottumukkala said, “we have the required staff that is supporting the mission we do.”
Thompson said that was contrary to a November memo CISA shared with the committee. Lawmakers are advancing a homeland security spending bill that would provide CISA with funding to fill some “critical” positions. It would also stipulate that CISA “not reduce staffing in such a way that it lacks sufficient staff to effectively carry out its statutory missions.”
Gottumukkala was also asked by Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) how many cyber intrusions CISA expects from foreign adversaries as part of the 2026 midterm elections.
“We look at it as incident by incident, and we look at what the risks are. I don’t have a specific number in mind,” Gottumukkala said.
“Well, we should have that number,” Gonzales shot back. “It should first start by how many intrusions that we had last midterm and the midterm before that. I don’t want to wait. I don’t want us waiting until after the fact to be able to go, ‘Yeah, we got it wrong, and it turns out our adversaries influenced our election to that point.’”
CISA’s budget request for fiscal 2026 would eliminate its election security program. But the appropriations agreement released this week would continue funding CISA’s election security work.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) pressed Gottumukkala on whether CISA had analyzed if it could meet its mission with current staffing levels.
“The work that we do is mission focused, which means capability is measured by outcomes, not headcount,” Gottumukkala said.
Walkinshaw also asked about threats to state and local governments after CISA pulled funding for the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center in September. But Gottumukkala didn’t address the question head on, frustrating the Virginia lawmaker.
“You’ve managed to answer none of my questions. You haven’t answered a single question. But thank you for coming,” Walkinshaw said.
The federal government is preparing to undertake one of the most ambitious IT transformations in decades: Modernizing and unifying human resources information technology across agencies. The technology itself is not the greatest challenge. Instead, success will hinge on the government’s ability to establish an effective, authoritative and disciplined governance structure capable of making informed, timely and sometimes difficult decisions.
The central tension is clear: Agencies legitimately need flexibility to execute mission-specific processes, yet the government must reduce fragmentation, redundancy and cost by standardizing and adopting commercial best practices. Historically, each agency has evolved idiosyncratic HR processes — even for identical functions — resulting in one of the most complex HR ecosystems in the world.
We need a governance framework that can break this cycle. It has to be a structured requirements-evaluation process, a systematic approach to modernizing outdated statutory constraints, and a rigorous mechanism to prevent “corner cases” from derailing modernization. The framework is based on a three-tiered governance structure to enable accountability, enforce standards, manage risk and accelerate decision making.
The governance imperative in HR IT modernization
Modernizing HR IT across the federal government requires rethinking more than just systems — it requires rethinking decision making. Technology will only succeed if governance promotes standardization, manages statutory and regulatory constraints intelligently, and prevents scope creep driven by individual agency preferences.
Absent strong governance, modernization will devolve into a high-cost, multi-point, agency-to-vendor negotiation where each agency advocates for its “unique” variations. Commercial vendors, who find arguing with or disappointing their customers to be fruitless and counterproductive, will ultimately optimize toward additional scope, higher complexity and extended timelines — that is, unless the government owns the decision framework.
Why governance is the central challenge
The root causes of this central challenge are structural. Agencies with different missions evolved different HR processes — even for identical tasks such as onboarding, payroll events or personnel actions. Many “requirements” cited today are actually legacy practices, outdated rules or agency preferences. And statutes and regulations are often more flexible than assumed, but in order to avoid any risk of perceived noncompliance or litigation.
Without centralized authority, modernization will replicate fragmentation in a new system rather than reduce it. Governance must therefore act as the strategic filter that determines what is truly required, what can be standardized and what needs legislative or policy reform.
A two-dimensional requirements evaluation framework
Regardless of the rigor associated with the requirements outlined at the outset of the program, implementers will encounter seemingly unique or unaccounted for “requirements” that appear to be critical to agencies as they begin seriously planning for implementation. Any federal HR modernization effort must implement a consistent, transparent and rigorous method for evaluating these new or additional requirements. The framework should classify every proposed “need” across two dimensions:
Applicability (breadth): Is this need specific to a single agency, a cluster of agencies, or the whole of government?
Codification (rigidity): Is the need explicitly required by law/regulation, or is it merely a policy preference or tradition?
This line of thinking leads to a decision matrix of sorts. For instance, identified needs that are found to be universal and well-codified are likely legitimate requirements and solid candidates for productization on the part of the HR IT vendor. For requirements that apply to a group of agencies or a single agency, or that are really based on practice or tradition, there may be a range of outcomes worth considering.
Prior to an engineering discussion, the applicable governance body must ask of any new requirement: Can this objective be achieved by conforming to a recognized commercial best practice? If the answer is yes, the governance process should strongly favor moving in that direction.
This disciplined approach is crucial to keeping modernization aligned with cost savings, simplification and future scalability.
Breaking the statutory chains: A modern exception and reform model
A common pitfall in federal IT is the tendency to view outdated laws and regulations as immutable engineering constraints. There are in fact many government “requirements” — often at a very granular and prescriptive level — embedded in written laws and regulations, that are either out-of-date or that simply do not make sense when viewed in a larger context of how HR gets done. The tendency is to look at these cases and say, “This is in the rule books, so we must build the software this way.”
But this is the wrong answer, for several reasons. And reform typically lags years behind technology. Changing laws or regulations is an arduous and lengthy process, but the government cannot afford to encode obsolete statutes into modern software. Treating every rule as a software requirement guarantees technical debt before launch.
The proposed mechanism: The business case exception
The Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management have demonstrated the ability to manage simple, business-case-driven exception processes. This capability should be operationalized as a core component of HR IT modernization governance:
Immediate flexibility: OMB and OPM should grant agencies waivers to bypass outdated procedural requirements if adopting the standard best practice reduces administrative burden and cost.
Batch legislative updates: Rather than waiting for laws to change before modernizing, OPM and OMB can “batch up” these approved exceptions. On a periodic basis, these proven efficiencies through standard processes to modify laws and regulations to match the new, modernized reality.
This approach flips the traditional model. Instead of software lagging behind policy, the modernization effort drives policy evolution.
Avoiding the “corner case” trap: ROI-driven decision-making
In large-scale HR modernization, “corner cases” can become the silent destroyer of budgets and timelines. Every agency can cite dozens of rare events — special pay authorities, unusual personnel actions or unique workforce segments — that occur only infrequently.
The risk is that building system logic for rare events is extraordinarily expensive. These edge cases disproportionately consume design and engineering time. And any customization or productization can increase testing complexity and long-term maintenance cost.
Governance should enforce a strict return-on-investment rule: If a unique scenario occurs infrequently and costs more to automate than to handle manually, it should not be engineered into the system.
For instance, if a unique process occurs only 50 times a year across a 2-million-person workforce, it is cheaper to handle it manually outside the system than to spend millions customizing the software. If the government does not manage this evaluation itself, it will devolve into a “ping-pong” negotiation with vendors, leading to scope creep and vulnerability. The government must hold the reins, deciding what gets built based on value, not just request.
Recommended governance structure
To operationalize the ideas above, the government should implement a three-tiered governance structure designed to separate strategy from technical execution.
The executive steering committee (ESC)
Composition: Senior leadership from OMB, OPM and select agency chief human capital officers and chief information officers (CHCOs/CIOs).
Role: Defines the “North Star.” They hold the authority to approve the “batch exceptions” for policy and regulation. They handle the highest-level escalations where an agency claims a mission-critical need to deviate from the standard.
The ESC establishes the foundation for policy, ensures accountability, and provides air cover for standardization decisions that may challenge entrenched agency preferences.
The functional control board (FCB)
Composition: Functional experts (HR practitioners) and business analysts.
Role: The “gatekeepers.” They utilize the two-dimensional framework to triage requirements. Their primary mandate is to protect the standard commercial best practice. They determine if a request is a true “need” or just a preference.
The FCB prevents the “paving cow paths” phenomenon by rigorously protecting the standard process baseline.
The architecture review board (ARB)
Composition: Technical architects and security experts.
Role: Ensures that even approved variations do not break the data model or introduce technical debt. They enforce the return on investment (ROI) rule on corner cases — if the technical cost of a request exceeds its business value, they reject it.
The ARB enforces discipline on engineering choices and protects the system from fragmentation.
Federal HR IT modernization presents a rare opportunity to reshape not just systems, but the business of human capital management across government. The technology exists. The challenge — and the opportunity — lies in governance.
The path to modernization will not be defined by the software implemented, but by the discipline, authority, and insight of the governance structure that guides it.
Steve Krauss is a principal with SLK Executive Advisory. He spent the last decade working for GSA and OPM, including as the Senior Executive Service (SES) director of the HR Quality Service Management Office (QSMO).
A third-party arbitrator is ordering the Department of Health and Human Services to walk back its return-to-office mandate for thousands of employees represented by one of its unions.
Arbitrator Michael J. Falvo ruled on Monday that HHS must “rescind the return-to-office directive,” and must immediately reinstate remote work and telework agreements for members of the National Treasury Employees Union.
HHS rescinded those workplace flexibility agreements early last year, after President Donald Trump ordered federal employees to return to the office full-time.
Falvo found that HHS committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally terminating telework and remote agreements, without regard to its five-year collective bargaining agreement with NTEU. The labor contract, which covers 2023 through 2028, states the agency can only terminate telework and remote work agreements “for cause.” That includes emergency situations and cases when an employee falls short of a “fully satisfactory” performance rating.
The ruling will impact thousands of HHS employees represented by NTEU. Its members include employees at the Food and Drug Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Administration for Children and Families, the Administration on Community Living, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the National Center for Health Statistics and the HHS Office of the Secretary.
Falvo is also ordering HHS to post a signed notice, “admitting that the agency violated the statute by repudiating the collective bargaining agreement.” The arbitrator wrote that his ruling does not limit NTEU from “seeking additional remedies to the extent permitted by law.”
HHS officials argued that Trump’s return-to-office presidential memorandum supersedes the collective bargaining agreement. But the 1978 Federal Services Labor-Management Relations Statute makes it an unfair labor practice for an agency “to enforce any rule or regulation … which is in conflict with any applicable collective bargaining agreement if the agreement was in effect before the rule or regulation was prescribed.”
According to Falvo, the Federal Labor Relations Authority set a precedent in previous labor disputes that a presidential memorandum “is not a governmentwide rule or regulation that the employer is obligated by law to implement immediately upon issuance.”
“These cases compel the conclusion that the agency breached the agreement and violated the statute,” he wrote.
The arbitrator decided Trump’s return-to-office memo does not override telework and remote work protections outlined in NTEU’s collective bargaining agreement. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. NTEU declined to comment.
NTEU Chapter 282, which covers FDA headquarters employees, told members in an email that HHS is likely to appeal the arbitrator’s decision and has 30 days to do so. The union’s message states, “NTEU will push the agency to accept the ruling and restore your rights without delay.”
“This is a significant win that reaffirms that telework and remote work rights negotiated in a term contract cannot be unilaterally taken away,” NTEU Chapter 282 told members.
The Labor Department’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs recently told employees that some of its employees will be eligible for remote work, because the agency is “extremely challenged” covering rent expenses for a fully in-office workforce.
Meanwhile, a second arbitrator ruled that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “violated statutory obligations” to bargain with the American Federation of Government Employees over implementation of the administration’s return-to-office directive.
The arbitrator in this dispute determined CMS wasn’t required to negotiate with the union over the administration’s return-to-office mandate, but did have an obligation to ensure implementation complied with its collective bargaining agreement with AFGE.
The arbitrator ordered CMS to meet and negotiate with AFGE over the “effects of the implementation of the directive on work/life balance of employees.”
Trump touted his return-to-office mandate at a White House press briefing on Tuesday, where he looked back on the accomplishments of his first year in office.. Trump told reporters that when he took office last year, “we had so many of our federal workers who wouldn’t come into work.”
“We don’t want them sitting in their home, on their bed, working. We want them in an office that we’re paying for in Washington, D.C., or wherever it may be. And we’ve largely taken care of that mess,” Trump said. “I guarantee you they’re out on the ballfields. I guarantee you they’re out playing golf. And you can’t run a country or a company that way.”
Trump’s presidential memorandum directed agencies to terminate remote work and telework agreements, but also stated that the return-to-office mandate must be “implemented consistent with applicable law.”
“Reasonable persons could have different notions whether a presidential memorandum (or an executive order) is such a ‘rule or regulation’ under ‘applicable law.’ On January 20, 2025, what ‘applicable law’ required was not a matter of first impression,” Falvo wrote.
NTEU filed a grievance against HHS last February, after the agency issued a directive requiring all bargaining unit employees to report to the office on a full-time basis.
Union officials argued that HHS refused to negotiate with NTEU before the return-to-office memo took effect, and would agree to “post-implementation bargaining.”
HHS officials denied the grievance and told the union that an agency head “retains the statutory right to determine overall telework levels and to exclude positions from telework eligibility.”
Christina Ballance, the executive director of the agency’s National Labor and Employee Relations Office, told the arbitrator that HHS “was obligated to comply with the presidential memorandum.”
“Ultimately, the president is our chief, and if he directs that employees return to offices in person, the agency is required to do so,” Ballance said in her testimony.
HHS officials rejected NTEU’s claims that it terminated all telework and remote work agreements. They said the agency still allows situational and ad-hoc telework, as well as workplace flexibilities for military spouses and reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.
But Federal News Network first reported last month that a new HHS policy restricts employees with disabilities from using telework as an interim accommodation, while the agency processes their reasonable accommodation request.
HHS is also centralizing the processing of reasonable accommodation requests on behalf of its component agencies. As a result, it is inheriting a backlog of requests that HHS officials expect will take about six to eight months to review.
Congressional appropriators are backing the Pentagon’s push to speed up weapons buying, but warn that speed “must be factored alongside cost, performance, lethality and scalability.”
The House released the final 2026 minibus funding package early Tuesday, which includes money for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Health and Human Services. If passed, the bill would increase defense spending to more than $839 billion — roughly $8.4 billion above the White House’s fiscal 2026 request. House leaders plan to vote on the package later this week.
Congressional negotiators said they “strongly support” the Defense Department’s acquisition reforms, but pushed back on the Pentagon’s efforts to seek additional authorities or changes to its budget and appropriations framework until it fixes its internal processes.
“Rapid delivery of ineffective weapon systems at exorbitant cost will not serve the warfighter well,” the appropriators wrote.
Lawmakers also raised concerns about joint requirements process reform and deep cuts to the department’s acquisition workforce that could jeopardize its ability to carry out Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s acquisition reform agenda.
At the very end of the document, Hegseth instructed the department to “improve budget flexibility.”
“Where additional authorities are required, the [undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment], in coordination with the military departments, shall develop a legislative engagement plan to ensure Congress is informed of and aligned with proposed reforms requiring any statutory change,” Hegseth wrote. “All actions will comply with applicable statutes, appropriations law, and procurement integrity requirements.”
That language was likely to become a friction point with Congressional leaders, and now appropriators are saying that reforms laid out in Hegseth’s memo are “internal in nature,” and that the Defense Department needs to “demonstrate progress on these internal procedures and administrative measures” before pursuing additional budget flexibility.
For instance, lawmakers said above-threshold transfer and reprogramming requests are often slowed because “a significant amount of the subcommittees’ time is consumed by waiting for the department to provide requested additional details and justification for these requests.”
“Providing this information alongside the submission of the request would accelerate consideration and create a nimbler process without altering existing authority or reprogramming thresholds,” the appropriators said.
Congressional leaders urged the department’s comptroller and the services’ assistant secretaries to work with the House and Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittees to improve the amount of detail and justification provided in reprogramming submissions.
Congress gave the department some budget flexibility in 2024 but stopped short of granting broader authorities the department and reform advocates have been seeking that would allow DoD to move money more freely within its accounts without explicit congressional approval.
The Defense Department has also been pushing to change the hardware-centric budgeting model Congress uses to plan and execute the Pentagon’s spending by moving away from the traditional “colors of money” tied to different phases of weapons development. And while DoD has run several pilot projects to test the idea, lawmakers have been hesitant to authorize broader adoption of the approach due to the department’s inability to provide Congress with sufficient data showing the new approach would be more effective than traditional appropriation practices.
“To date, the agreement observes no new or compelling justification or quantitative analysis to support proposals that would alter the current appropriations framework, including with respect to reprogramming thresholds, notification requirements, new start guidelines, or consolidation into a single color of money,” the appropriators said.
“Consideration of legislative changes to the appropriations structure is premature until the Department has demonstrated full and effective use of its existing flexibilities and addressed persistent internal delays,” they added.
Army’s agile funding request rejected
While appropriators approved all 13 budget line-item consolidations requested by the Army in its fiscal 2026 budget, they flatly rejected the Army’s “agile funding” request to raise notification threshold for reprogramming or transfers from $15 million to $50 million for procurement programs and to $25 million for research and development efforts.
“The Department already has sufficient authorities to restructure its internal programming and budgeting processes, and many current challenges with execution can be solved by actions within the Department and do not require statutory change or congressional intervention … Increasing reprogramming thresholds alone is unlikely to improve program execution. Decisions to unilaterally move funding in the year of execution without sufficient oversight introduce uncertainty to both the programs impacted and the industrial base, increasing the risk of development and procurement delays,” the appropriators said.
“The House and Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittees discourage the secretary of defense and the service secretaries from submitting future requests of this nature,” they added.
Joint requirements reform risks
The Defense Department kicked off the process of dismantling its decades-old Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process last year — and Hegseth ordered the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), which oversees the process, to stop validating service-level requirements to the “maximum extent permitted by law.”
House and Senate appropriators said they support the reform but want more detail on how defense officials plan to mitigate potential risks, such as the military services potentially prioritizing service-specific solutions over joint ones or top-down decision-making stifling bottom-up innovation.
The deputy secretary of defense, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and service secretaries have 60 days to brief appropriators on how they plan to address those risks.
Workforce is the linchpin of acquisition reform
DoD leaders have long warned that the depth of this administration’s workforce cuts could cripple the department’s ability to execute Hegseth’s acquisition reforms.
Appropriators echoed those concerns, saying they are “concerned that recent reductions to the acquisition workforce, the effects of which have yet to be realized, will negatively affect the Department of Defense’s ability to achieve the initial speed and agility sought by this reform effort.”
Lawmakers directed the defense secretary along with service secretaries to submit an acquisition workforce strategy, including a comprehensive assessment of the personnel needed to execute Hegseth’s and Congress’ proposed acquisition reforms.
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.
As he marked one year since being sworn into office, President Donald Trump on Tuesday touted the actions of his administration — including praising the major reductions to the federal workforce throughout 2025.
“I don’t want to cut people, but when you cut them and they go out and get a better job, I like to cut them,” Trump said during a nearly two-hour press briefing, while also stating his administration “slashed tremendous numbers of people off the federal payroll.”
The White House on Tuesday also released a list of “365 wins” over the last year, commending the administration’s efforts to ensure a “merit-based” federal workforce. The list includes federal workforce actions overhauling the probationary period; eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion across government; requiring employees to work on-site full-time; slashing federal jobs; and limiting agencies to one new hire for every four employees who exit the civil service.
“I say, get rid of everybody that’s unnecessary, because that’s the way you make America great again,” Trump said. “When you have all these jobs where people are sitting around doing nothing and they get a lot of money from the government, it’s no good.”
But good government groups such as the Partnership for Public Service tell a much different story of the administration’s impact on the federal workforce. Max Stier, the Partnership’s president and CEO, described 2025 as “the most significant reduction in federal government capacity that we’ve ever experienced in our history.”
“And that reduction in capacity is best represented in our most important asset: our federal workforce,” Stier told reporters on a press call last week.
Governmentwide, federal workforce data shows that about 320,000 federal employees left government during 2025, while just tens of thousands joined the civil service. The Office of Personnel Management reported a net loss of about 220,000 federal employees over the course of the year.
“It tells a disturbing story about who we’ve lost in our government and what is actually happening to the workforce,” Stier said. “But it doesn’t tell you anything about what is truly most fundamental — their morale and what they think about what’s happening right now.”
The Partnership, a non-profit organization that advocates for non-partisan, “good government” reforms, released a report on Tuesday, noting that the Trump administration’s actions over the last year created “confusion, distrust and stress within the federal workforce.”
“There were large-scale layoffs of employees, cuts to government programs and the ending of many grants, altering how the government does — or does not — serve the public and the outcomes it can achieve,” the report states. “Not only did the government lose invaluable expertise, it became less responsive to public needs and less prepared to keep Americans safe.”
“It is impossible to gain a full picture of the layoffs and their impact,” the Partnership added. “The administration has provided few specifics about what positions have been eliminated and which personnel have been laid off or incentivized to resign.”
The Partnership’s report also detailed the specific impacts of federal workforce losses over the last year, including effects at agencies like the IRS, Social Security Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, FEMA and many others.
As a result of the governmentwide staffing cuts, the Partnership argued, agencies are less prepared to deliver disaster assistance during emergencies, and less efficient in administering crucial government programs, leading to delays in basic services and increased wait times.
By contrast, OPM Director Scott Kupor has argued that the Trump administration’s federal workforce overhauls will lead to better employee accountability, merit and performance across government. Kupor also touted the loss of one-third of OPM’s internal workforce during 2025, while saying the agency’s service delivery improved.
“President Trump was clear from day one: The federal workforce must be accountable, performance-driven and focused on serving the American people,” Kupor said in a Dec. 31 press release. “This year, OPM delivered on that vision — modernizing government operations, rewarding excellence and putting taxpayers first.”
But Rob Shriver, director of the Civil Service Strong program at Democracy Forward, questioned the Trump administration’s workforce reductions, saying there are no forward-looking plans for continuing to effectively deliver services after the cuts.
“The singular focus on headcount reduction as a blunt instrument reveals that DOGE was never about efficiency,” Shriver, a former acting director of OPM during the Biden administration, said in commentary on Tuesday. “It was about retribution and stifling dissent by intimidating federal workers into leaving their jobs or, if they decided to stay, intimidating them into not questioning their political leaders.”
At the same time, information on the federal workforce’s perspective over the course of 2025 will likely be limited. After months of postponing, OPM last year opted to cancel the 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. In an attempt to fill the data gap, the Partnership conducted its own federal workforce survey.
The results of the Partnership’s survey are expected to be released in March. But Partnership officials have said it will still be difficult as an external organization to replicate the depth of data OPM can attain through FEVS.
Going forward, the Trump administration is looking to make further changes for the federal workforce, including overhauls to the probationary period and federal hiring processes, as well as performance management and senior executive development.
OPM’s Kupor said the upcoming changes will make government “leaner,” while making federal employees more results-oriented, accountable and efficient.
But some painted a darker picture for federal employees throughout 2026.
“The harms caused by these cuts have already begun to play out, and we’ll see more and more of that in 2026, when the impacts of the thoughtless workforce cuts are felt more deeply around the country,” Shriver said.
The Trump administration is also expected to soon issue a final rule to implement “Schedule Policy/Career.” The forthcoming regulations will let agencies reclassify career federal employees in “policy-influencing” positions, in effect removing their civil service protections and making them easier to fire at-will.
“The change of our federal government into one that is a loyalist workforce, as opposed to a professional one, is a process that we anticipate moving forward in 2026,” Stier said. “As challenging as 2025 was, I think we can expect even harder days ahead in 2026.”
Lawmakers are moving to extend key cybersecurity information authorities and grant programs, while also providing funds for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to fill “critical” positions.
The “minibus” appropriations agreement released by House and Senate negotiators on Tuesday includes fiscal 2026 funding for the Department of Homeland Security. DHS funding could be a sticking point in moving the bill forward, as some Democrats want more restrictions around the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations.
The bill also extends the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA 2015) and the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program through the end of fiscal 2026. Both laws are set to expire at the end of this month.
Ross Nodurft, executive director of the Alliance for Digital Innovation, also applauded the extension of the Technology Modernization Fund included in the minibus.
“Reauthorizing the Technology Modernization Fund and the State and Local Cyber Grant Program for the rest of the fiscal year allows the government to invest money in new technology modernization and cyber security projects at the federal and state level while we work on more permanent, longer term reauthorizations and funding,” Nodurft said. “I am encouraged to see Congress put forward these stop gap measures and will continue to work with members to reauthorize these critical programs beyond 2026.”
CISA funding
The bill would include a cut for the agency CISA, with fiscal 2026 funding level set at $2.6 billion, about $300 million less than its current annual budget.
The appropriations agreement would specifically provide $20 million for CISA to hire additional staff to “critical positions,” according to the joint explanatory statement on the DHS appropriations measure.
That funding would be evenly split across five CISA programs: Threat Hunting; Vulnerability Management; Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation; Security Programs; and Security Advisors.
The bill would also require CISA to “not reduce staffing in such a way that it lacks sufficient staff to effectively carry out its statutory missions.” Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed concerns about CISA losing roughly one-third of its staff over the past year.
Secret Service burnout
Appropriators are also taking aim at burnout within the Secret Service’s ranks. The funding measure provides $3.3 billion for the Secret Service as it embarks on a major recruiting initiative over the next two years.
That total would allow the Secret Service to “maintain ‘zero-fail’ mission by funding aggressive recruitment and retention to eliminate officer burnout, while modernizing high-tech training facilities and armored fleets to stay ahead of evolving threats
to our nation’s leaders,” according to a DHS spending bill summary provided by Senate appropriators.
The bill includes an increase of $46 million for Secret Service hiring in fiscal 2026. It also provides the agency with advance funding to prepare for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles.
But appropriators also want updates on the Secret Service’s recruitment and retention efforts. The explanatory statement directs the agency to provide briefings on its employee resiliency program and hiring projections, respectively.
“The briefing shall also include ongoing efforts to decrease the time to hire and increase yield rates from applicants to hires, as well as the impact that these hiring efforts will have on overtime costs,” lawmakers wrote.
FEMA staffing
The spending agreement also includes a “rejection” of staffing cuts made at the Federal Emergency Management Agency in fiscal 2025, according to the joint explanatory statement. The bill would provide $32 billion for FEMA, including $26.4 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund.
FEMA lost more than 2,000 employees to workforce reduction programs last year. And the agency has undertaken further staff reductions by not renewing Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees (CORE) in recent weeks. FEMA headquarters officials have also contemplated cuts totaling up to 50% of its workforce as part of a planning exercise shared with agency leaders in December.
Now, appropriators want FEMA to provide monthly briefings on the agency’s staffing levels and workload requirements.
“Such briefings shall also include projected staffing levels for the remainder of the fiscal year in light of the agreement’s rejection of the position reductions implemented in fiscal year 2025,” the joint explanatory statement reads.
The bill also requires FEMA to maintain staff “necessary to fulfill the missions” required of the agency by six separate laws and various other authorities. That staffing requirement, lawmakers emphasize, also applies to FEMA reservists and CORE staff.
The Trump administration has moved to shift more emergency management responsibilities to state and local governments. FEMA staffing reductions and policy changes over the last year have sparked concerns that the administration is implementing that plan despite there being no changes in the agency’s lawful responsibilities.
FEMA team members in Martin County, Florida, canvas with local residents to help register them for assistance and help disaster survivors after Hurricane Milton. (Photo source: FEMA/Patrick Moore)
Congressional appropriators are one step closer to reaching a comprehensive spending deal for the rest of the fiscal year before a stopgap spending bill expires at the end of the month.
Members of the House and Senate appropriations committees released a four-bill “minibus” of fiscal 2026 spending bills on Tuesday.
Congress is roughly halfway to passing a spending plan for the rest of FY 2026. The current continuing resolution expires on Jan. 30.
The latest “minibus” covers annual appropriations for the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, as well as some smaller related agencies.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in a statement that the spending package delivers “results without waste.”
“At a time when many believed completing the FY26 process was out of reach, we’ve shown that challenges are opportunities. It’s time to get it across the finish line,” Cole said.
Here are a few highlights from the spending package:
3.8% pay raise for air traffic controllers
The spending deal would give the Federal Aviation Administration a $1.58 billion budget for fiscal 2026, as well as funding to hire 2,500 new air traffic controllers
The FAA is about 3,500 air traffic controllers short of its staffing goals. Many current air traffic controllers are working six days a week, including mandatory overtime.
As part of this budget plan, the FAA would receive $140 million to implement a 3.8% pay raise for air traffic controllers, as well as supervisors and managers who oversee air traffic.
The Trump administration approved a 3.8% pay raise for federal law enforcement personnel, which went into effect at the start of January. Air traffic controllers were not on the Office of Personnel Management’s list of positions receiving a higher pay raise.
The spending bill states that the 3.8% pay raise “shall be implemented for all such employees only to the extent that the administrator determines, in his sole discretion, that improvements in workforce scheduling, staffing utilization, or other operational efficiencies are achieved that contribute to addressing workforce shortfalls and enhancing aviation safety.”
If the FAA administrator determines these conditions, the pay raise would retroactively go into effect for the first pay period in January 2026.
Spending cuts for a smaller federal workforce
Republican appropriators applauded overall spending cuts in the spending bill that funds the Transportation Department, HUD and related agencies.
GOP lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee wrote that the spending deal “codified DOGE recommendations to reduce the federal bureaucracy” of Transportation, HUD and related agencies by 29%.
More specifically, GOP lawmakers said the spending package reflects a 24% reduction in HUD staffing achieved partially through layoffs last year.
Lawmakers said a smaller HUD workforce will save $348 million in salaries and related expenses.
Republican appropriators said the spending deal reflects the Transportation Department “right-sizing” its workforce through a 5% staffing reduction, “all without compromising transportation safety.”
President Donald Trump told reporters at a White House press briefing on Monday that his administration “slashed tremendous numbers of people off the federal payroll” during his first year in office.
Trump said downsizing the federal workforce was necessary, because “they had 10 people for every job,” and that terminated federal employees have moved on to higher-paying jobs in the private sector.
“I don’t feel badly, because they’re getting private sector jobs, and they’re getting sometimes twice as much money, three times as much money,” Trump said. “They’re getting factory jobs, they’re getting much better jobs and much higher pay.”
Higher HHS spending, proposed cuts rejected
The spending bill gives the Department of Health and Human Services $116.8 billion in discretionary spending — a $210 million increase in discretionary spending. By contrast, the Trump administration proposed a nearly 20% cut to HHS discretionary spending this year.
The congressional spending deal rejects the administration’s calls for deep cuts within HHS. The administration sought a 50% spending cut for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Instead, the compromise reached by lawmakers essentially keeps CDC funded at current levels, and includes funding increases for some of its pandemic preparedness programs.
The spending package would give $7.4 billion to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) a $65 million increase over current funding levels.
The bigger budget reflects increased spending to address a rise in opioid overdoses, especially from fentanyl, as well as boosts to substance abuse disorder prevention and mental health services.
Lawmakers rejected a 15% cut to SAMHSA funding proposed by the Trump administration. The spending deal also rejects the administration’s plan to reorganize SAMHSA into the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), a new office envisioned by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Democrats on the appropriations committees said the spending deal ensures SAMHSA remains its “own, independent agency to help ensure substance use and mental health remain a priority at HHS” and “includes new guardrails to ensure SAMHSA funds are allocated as intended.”
NPR reported last week that HHS briefly terminated $2 billion in addiction and mental health grants, but quickly walked back those cuts.
Education Department budget remains intact
Lawmakers are largely rejecting the administration’s proposal to dismantle the Education Department, and move many of its functions to other federal agencies.
The spending bill gives the department $79 billion in discretionary spending — a roughly flat budget compared to current spending levels.
The Trump administration proposed cutting the Education Department by $12 billion, or about 15% of its current discretionary budget.
The Education Department has already signed six interagency agreements to transfer some of its programs and employees to HHS and the departments of Labor, Interior and State.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon told employees last November that the department is soft-launching plans to reassign its work to other parts of the federal government, before calling on Congress to permanently shutter the agency.
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice President Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a statement that “Congress will not abolish the Department of Education, and the people’s representatives will have the final say on how taxpayer dollars get spent.”
Budget boost for Social Security
The Social Security Administration would see a higher budget under this spending plan.
Lawmakers propose giving SSA $15 billion for its administrative budget in fiscal 2026 — a $554 million increase compared to current spending levels.
Lawmakers from both parties agreed that the funding will help the agency improve customer service for the public. Democratic appropriators urged SSA to use these increased funds to resume hiring.
SSA currently has about 50,000 employees in total, according to the latest data from the Office of Personnel Management. The agency lost more than 7,000 employees through voluntary incentives last year. It also relocated many of its employees from its headquarters and regional offices to field offices.
SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano told staff at an all-hands meeting last week that the agency is continuing to hire, according to several employees in attendance. Those employees, however, said the agency still faces a hiring freeze.
Labor Dept. federal contractor watchdog spared from elimination
The spending bill provides $13.7 billion in discretionary spending to the Labor Department — a slight increase compared to its current $13.5 billion discretionary budget.
The department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs would receive a $101 million budget, about a 9% cut to current spending levels. OFCCP ensures federal contractors aren’t discriminating against their employees.
OFCCP, however, would remain largely intact, after the Trump administration proposed major staffing cuts. An earlier funding proposal from House Republicans also proposed fully eliminating OFCCP.
The agency sent layoff notices to 90% of its staff, but rescinded those layoffs last August. Instead of being reinstated to their jobs at OFCCP, the agency said impacted employees would be “reassigned to a new position” at the Labor Department.
Small agencies marked for closure stay open
The spending bill also includes funding for small, independent agencies marked for elimination by an executive order last year.
Lawmakers propose giving the Institute of Museum and Library Services a $292 million budget — a $3 million cut compared to current spending levels. The spending bill also proposes $3 million in funding for the Interagency Council on Homelessness.
President Trump signed an executive order last March, eliminating these agencies and five others “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”
A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered a permanent injunction last November, putting the Trump administration’s plans to shutter these small agencies on hold.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that the funding package “continues Congress’s forceful rejection of extreme cuts to federal programs proposed by the Trump administration.”
“Where the White House attempted to eliminate entire programs, we chose to increase their funding. Where the administration proposed slashing resources, we chose to sustain funding at current levels,” DeLauro said.
Terry Gerton I want to start with Secretary Hegseth’s Arsenal of Freedom tour. He’s taking his pitch on the road and recently spoke at the Lockheed Martin Air Force plant in Fort Worth, Texas. I know you’ve been following this, the developments in defense procurement for quite a while. What are you hearing at this point?
Stephanie Kostro So Terry, this “Arsenal of Freedom” is a month-long tour, and it really is Secretary Hegseth going around to various places. He started out in Newport News, here in Virginia, talking with shipbuilders about what it means to be part of the team, right? Being part of the arsenal of freedom and in making things faster, more efficiently, etc. He then went out to California and spoke with folks, and then most recently, just last week in Texas, visiting Lockheed Martin as you mentioned, but also SpaceX. And so talking to folks about, what does it mean to be part of the arsenal of freedom? This is building on his November 7th Arsenal of Freedom speech that he gave here at Fort McNair in the D.C. area. And it is really about reviving this team mentality of, “we are in this together.” Against that backdrop, of course, we have recent activity in acquisition transformation, but also an executive order that came out earlier this month about limiting executive compensation for defense contractors, limiting dividends and also share repurchases or stock buybacks. And so this is a very interesting time to be in the defense industry.
Terry Gerton Stephanie, with all of the changes in the FAR and the DFAR and now the Defense Appropriation Act that’s in law, do you think that DoD has the policy tools it needs and wants to accomplish its transformation?
Stephanie Kostro There are two elements of the answer here. One is, with the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which was just signed into law last month, they received a lot of new authorities, a lot of a sense from Congress about the ways in which this should be tackled. There is language there about technical data rights and intellectual property. There were things in there about how to define a nontraditional defense company, etc. But I don’t think that was sufficient; we still have work to do. And so does the department have all of the authorities and resources it needs to move forward? I think we’re going to see a lot of legislative proposals come out of the department for this next round of the NDAA, the fiscal year ’27 NDAA. And I think we’ll see things about acquisition workforce. We’re going to see things about working outside of the Federal Acquisition Regulation way of doing contracts. That is code for things like Other Transaction Authority or commercial solutions openings, etc. I don’t think they have everything they need. Part of the Arsenal of Freedom tour and the rollout of this acquisition transformation is to look at how the department can buy things more effectively and more efficiently. That’s time, not having cost overruns, etc. And so all of this is sort of coming together, in a way, to ultimately really transform the way the department buys. And I’m very excited to be part of this.
Terry Gerton Having the rules and authorities is only one piece. What’s your sense of whether the acquisition culture and workforce are aligned to actually accomplish the goals?
Stephanie Kostro Culture is the hardest element of any kind of transformation, right? I do think they’re trying to empower contracting officers and other key members of the acquisition workforce, program managers, contracting officer representatives, etc. This is a longer-term issue, and I think they are trying to tackle it through training programs, etc., letting folks know tools are at their disposal and giving them the authority to go ahead and use those tools. Now, folks don’t get into acquisition within the civil service because they’re risk-loving. A lot of times they get into it because they want to do things very smartly, very efficiently and oftentimes they look back on precedent to see how things were done before. Layer over that, Terry, the fact that we lost a lot of contracting personnel through deferred resignation programs, voluntary early retirement programs and reductions in force. So we are trying to rebuild the workforce in numbers as well as in training. I don’t think they’re there yet; I do think there’s a path to get them there. I’m eager for industry to work with the Department of War and others about how to train effectively and to let industry folks sit in the same training as the government folks, so everyone’s hearing the same thing.
Terry Gerton Stephanie, before we leave this topic, you touched on the executive order about defense contractors and compensation and buybacks. There’s a lot of unknowns still in how that will play out, but what are you hearing from your members?
Stephanie Kostro Our members were very eager to hear how the Professional Services Council would summarize that EO. So we did put out — based on the fact sheet from the White House, based from some interactions we’ve had with administration officials — our interpretation of it. That said, we’ve also asked our member companies, and we have 400 member companies and the majority of them do business with the Department of War and the intelligence community, “hey, what questions for clarification would you like us to ask?” And that list is growing. It is very long. It’s things like, is this really just for publicly traded companies? What about privately owned, or S corps and LLCs? The reason I mentioned that, Terry, is S corps and LLCs will often pay out a dividend to an executive at the company so that executive can pay taxes. They pay out of dividend, so it’s not only a dividend payment, it’s executive compensation, but it’s really just to go ahead and pay federal taxes. What do people do in that regard? How do they explain this? If they have a parent company that is overseas in Europe or elsewhere, how do they explain this executive order to those folks? And that executive compensation, there’s a limit if the company is underperforming, and all of this is predicated on the company’s underperforming — either cost overruns or schedule overruns. How do they explain this to folks? And is it really just about government contracts, or what if you’re a commercial and a government company and your executive compensation is based usually on both elements, commercial and government? So how do you go ahead and limit compensation there? This is a fascinating area to be engaged with the government on. We are all learning this together.
Terry Gerton As Secretary Hegseth tries to walk this tightrope between encouraging defense contractors to be on the team and work with us, and at the same time kind of tightening the screws on enforcement and compensation, the president has said he wants to spend $1.5 trillion on defense next year. That’s a lot of money. How is that going to get spent, do you think?
Stephanie Kostro Oh, it is an eye-catching number, right? $1.5 trillion when we are roughly $1 trillion now are just under, and it is a huge increase. Now, we’ve had large increases in the defense budget in other times in U.S. history. In the early 1950s with the Korean War, the Reagan buildup that some of us remember from the ’80s. Some of us who are listening may not remember it. They may not have been born yet, and that’s okay too. You know, there is some precedent for huge increases in the defense spend. The question here becomes, if the department and the military services are going for commercial-first mentality to prioritize speed of award and innovation, etc., they certainly can spend that money throughout the defense ecosystem. The question that we have is really, what is the organizing construct for this? What would we be spending the money on? Would it be shipbuilding, combat aircraft, the logistics piece, which always tends to be an issue? We also know operations and maintenance accounts are sometimes used and reprogrammed away if they’re not spent by a certain time, because it’s one-year money at the department, it gets reprogramed away. It’s going to be an interesting mathematical problem to tackle. In addition, I would mention, we had the reconciliation bill, the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act that passed and was signed into law last July. That infused a bunch of cash into both the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. I understand some of that money hasn’t been apportioned and provided to the departments yet, but we are now at this point in January of 2026 talking about, what would a reconciliation bill look like for 2026? Congress can pass one per fiscal year. The one that was passed last July was the one for fiscal ’25. What happens this year? There are a lot of different mechanisms to get that money through Congress and over to the government to apportion to the department.
Terry Gerton Well, speaking of 2026 appropriations, it looks like Homeland Security and Defense will be two of the last bills out, hopefully before the end of this month. What are you hearing from folks on the Hill?
Stephanie Kostro I’m hearing that they’re trying really, really hard to avert a shutdown. And I think we’re going to get there. I’m not a betting person, Terry, you know, I’ve talked about that in the past. And I’m not in this case, either. The chance for a shutdown is never zero. That said, the experience that we all had back in October and November last year would indicate that there really is no appetite for a shutdown this year. The National Defense Appropriations Act and the DHS [bill] I think are probably the last because they want to get everything done before they tackle those. Those are the two departments that received the lion’s share of the money from the reconciliation bill, One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, and they are looking to get more money in a reconciliation bill this year. So I’m not surprised to hear that those are last, but I actually don’t think that indicates that they’re very far apart on the numbers.
Terry Gerton And on those two departments, PSC is sponsoring a trip in January to the border to do some on-site research. Tell us about that plan.
Stephanie Kostro I am so excited about this. PSC has not typically done this. I do know other entities have done this, I used to be at a think tank where we would do things like this. We are bringing almost 30 different companies out to California next week, Jan. 28 and 29, to do a behind-the-scenes access with the Customs and Border Protection folks who are out there. And the ports of LA and Long Beach, the ports at entry, the land ones over at San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, really talking with folks on the ground there about what their requirements are. This is really focused on technology. How do we use technology and the art of the possible to protect our borders? Now, I would hasten to add, Terry, border security is not a partisan issue in many, many ways. The Biden administration, the Obama administration, the previous Trump administration all focused on border issues in different ways. Our companies really want to mention to folks on the ground, here is technology that you may not have experience with that is up-and-coming. How can we leverage it to better secure our borders? Talking about cargo screening, etc. I think this is a really good opportunity for companies to sit down with folks who are in the field and hear about what they need.
FILE - Containers with Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation, a Taiwanese container shipping company, are stacked up at the Port of Los Angeles with the the Long Beach International Gateway Bridge seen in the background on Wednesday, April 9, 2025 in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)
Terry Gerton There’s been a lot of controversy around polygraphs in government over the past few months. So let’s start with some of the basics. Why do agencies like CISA and DoD continue to rely on polygraphs for certain positions?
Dan Meyer So that’s a great starting point. The first thing we have to recognize is that polygraph technology is so questionable that it’s generally not admissible in courts. So as evidence, it’s pretty thin, and that’s been a generational trend. It used to be accepted far more back in the 1930s and 40s than it is now. So we use polygraphs in the United States for counterintelligence. That’s what it’s for, reliability of the workforce. We want to be able to test and employ statements, various questions against some empirical basis of truth. The challenge with the polygraph is that it measures not truth, but physiology. It measures the way the body reacts. And science, over the years, has started to show that women and men, for instance, don’t react the same. They don’t have the same physiology. That’s why we have to do different types of medical research now, because women were traditionally ignored, because we always thought that men were the baseline, and everybody would be the same as men. Well, that turned out not to be true. The same situation exists with polygraphs, and there can be differences across the board which polygraphers can never accept, and they can’t accept because that starts to undermine their position within the professional community. So that’s the challenge, is that it measures physiology and not actual truth or veracity of the individual. At some point we’ll be out of this problem because we’ll have a tool that’s better than the polygraph and I do think that artificial intelligence will create it, but we in the United States use the polygraph to catch spies, other countries don’t. And that’s our only tool we really have. We’re not good at actually doing assessment of human potential from other types of analysis. So we’re stuck with it. It’s the only tool that we’ve got and it’s the one we use. And if you’re in the intelligence community or if you are in law enforcement, the chances are you’re going to be under a polygraph at some point in your career, if not your entire career.
Terry Gerton There was a recent controversy around the acting CISA director’s failure of a polygraph test. Can you fill us in a little bit on what went on there?
Dan Meyer I’m not privvy to the exact details of his particular case, but the alarming part of that is it was CISA. CISA is the heart of our cyber defense, and for much of the Biden administration, it was under very, very close scrutiny from a variety of congressional oversight authorities. Senator Grassley, at one point, was doing an inquiry. So there was concerns that CISA was being used politically. So on top of that concerns, the Trump administration came in with a commitment to reform it. And then you have this problem. And the problem seems to have developed around two questions. One is, did the individual fail a polygraph? You really don’t fail a polygraph, either there’s a detection or a non-detection. It’s really not like a test you can fail. But clearly did not pass, to use the vernacular, according to the reports. And then there’s the open question about whether that individual should have been under a polygraph, and there’s this allegation out there in the press that somehow he was set up. And so those are the two concerns there. The second one is kind of unique in that polygraphs are given based on the position and what’s called the criticality of the position. So it’s really about the classification of one’s job that determines whether you get a polygraph. So there really should be no question as to whether a person should have a polygraph or not have a polygraph, so if there was an open question, that should have been elevated to the appropriate authority to decide that. My understanding is that’s the DNI, is the DNI is in charge of reliability issues, security clearance issues across the board for the president in her capacity as the DNI, but not as the spymaster in the United States. It’s a collateral duty. That should have been resolved and it should not be at the point now where employees are being accused and somebody who’s now being seen as a victim of a wrongful polygraph process, that’s ugly. We should have never gotten to that point. That should have been raised and clarified before the polygraph went forward. The second use goes back to my original comment about physiology. People can fail polygraphs for a variety of reasons. There’s the famous guilt-grabber complex, which is that an individual is very at attention in their thoughts, very self-reflective, very self-aware. People who are that way about events in their lives may start to have feelings of guilt. Feelings of guilt can trigger physiology. And sometimes your feeling of guilt that you didn’t feed the cat on time this morning can bleed over into a question that when you were asked whether you committed an act of terrorism against the United States. Well, let’s put it this way. If you’re a sociopath, the chances are you’re going to pass a polygraph because the way you’re constructed in your behavioral mental health diagnosis is ideally suited to not triggering the physiology cues that exist for the polygraph. But if you’re a deeply religious person or spiritual person, it’s in the community, this is known as the Jewish and Catholic issue. People who are Jewish and Catholic all had a Jewish or a Catholic mother. You were taught to always think you were doing something wrong. I’m laughing because I was raised by a Catholic mother, and so I was always looking at my behavior and always questioning my behavior. That can be a disaster on a polygraph.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Dan Meyer, he’s an equity partner at Tully Rinckey. With all of the challenges with the polygraph that you’ve just articulated for us, if an employee or a contractor is facing one for their position, what are the best practices to prepare and protect themselves?
Dan Meyer Okay, so on the big picture, let’s talk about from the administration perspective. We ought not to have separate rules for separate people about polygraphs, we’ve got to stick with the structure. If the position requires it, it has to be performed. There should not be special exceptions. I know you always want to have special exceptions, but that’s a bad idea. For the individual, the first thing you do is do not watch videos and do not study the polygraph because you are going to be asked questions that ask you if you did that, and then you’re going to be in the awkward situation of trying to explain whether you adopted countermeasures to make it look like you’re telling the truth when you’re not telling the truth. Do not try to game the polygraph because if the polygraph has trouble figuring out truth or falsity, it does not have trouble figuring it out whether you’re gaming it, and that’s a huge reason why people fail polygraphs. It’s good to retain a law firm to get advice on your security profile to help you understand where your liabilities are and how to accurately report them. The whole key to the security paradigm is you’ve got to be comfortable with the way you resolve the issues in your life so that when you talk to security officials and you talk about those issues, you’re open and candid and there’s a complete and transparent flow of information between those people about that situation. Then you won’t fail the polygraph, then you’re going to do fine on your security review. The challenge we have in American culture at this point in time is everybody thinks you have to withhold information to game the process. Game the process in our commercial lives as consumers, game the process in our private lives as family members. This is an evil that has drifted into American culture, and it really is harmful on the polygraph. So you’ve got to think through about whether you’re open and honest about your life, and you’ve got to incorporate that principle into your job application.
The Office of Personnel Management extended the deadline to apply for the U.S. Tech Force, due to what it said has been “tremendous interest and a recent surge in applications.”
The Tech Force program initially launched in December, as a way to temporarily hire technologists into government for two-year stints to work on critical tech challenges across agencies. Those interested now have until Feb. 2 to apply for a spot in the program, according to a Thursday social media post. OPM is targeting 1,000 recruits to the program by March.
It’s not clear how many individuals have so far submitted applications to Tech Force. But OPM Director Scott Kupor said more than 35,000 people expressed initial interest in the program.
“We’re working through our funnel now of how many of those people will give us a resume, how many people will do the application,” Kupor said Wednesday during an event hosted by Washington AI Network. “From my perspective, the interest is phenomenal.”
The federal tech recruitment program incorporates skills-based hiring practices by not requiring candidates to have a college degree to apply for the program. It is also targeted in large part toward hiring early-career talent — something the government has struggled with for years.
“If we do nothing, basically, we have a pending problem where we’re going to have a ton of people retiring over the next five or 10 years, and we’ve done absolutely nothing to actually replenish the pipeline,” Kupor said. “So, to us, this is the perfect opportunity. We can fill a talent gap in the technology area, and we can also start to solve what we call the early-career problem in government.”
Early-career staffing in government, however, has declined over the last year due to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce. Currently, 7.9% of the federal workforce is under age 30, compared with 8.9% a year ago. In contrast, about 41% of the federal workforce is over age 50, and 13.5% of federal employees are eligible to retire, according to OPM workforce data.
“You saw a disproportionate number of young, tech-savvy federal employees being shown the door,” Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, told reporters Thursday. “The federal government has had a history of insufficient generationally diverse talent, and that went down even further over the course of the past year.”
Additionally, as part of the more than 320,000 federal employees who left government last year, OPM workforce data shows that agencies lost nearly 13,000 IT managers governmentwide. That includes a net loss of about 4,300 IT managers in the Defense Department, and 1,400 IT managers at the IRS.
But through the Tech Force program, Kupor said his goal of creating more flexibility for technologists to move between jobs in the federal and private sectors may lead to better recruitment of early-career federal employees.
“If you’re an early-career person, you don’t need to make a 40-year decision as to whether you’re going to be in government or be in the private sector,” Kupor said. “I think it would be healthy, both for the government and for the private sector, if we had more people who come in and out … We want to create a fluid career track, particularly for early-career folks.”
Kupor expressed interest in scaling up the initial 1,000-member Tech Force cohort over time. He also discussed the possibility of expanding the federal recruitment program to other fields, such as HR specialists and financial analysts.
To recruit talent for Tech Force, OPM is collaborating with various private sector companies, along with the NobleReach Foundation — a non-profit organization with an existing STEM scholarship program targeted toward public service. The organization is expected to work with OPM to help connect agencies with Tech Force recruits in AI, cybersecurity, data science and more.
“We’re at a transformational time right now — how people think about their careers is going to be very different,” NobleReach CEO Arun Gupta said Wednesday during the Washington AI Network event. “You may decide you want to stay, you may decide to leave, but we celebrate both options. We want them to be ambassadors for understanding what public service is about and stay connected to public service.”
The Tech Force hiring effort is far from the first time the government has created a short-term program seeking to recruit technologists and early-career talent. Initiatives during past administrations have included the U.S. Digital Service, now called the U.S. DOGE Service, as well as the U.S. Digital Corps.
“Some of what we’re seeing right now, frankly, is duplicating stuff that used to exist that no longer does … and we did see an outflow of a lot of tech talent in the federal government,” Stier said. “It is obviously better that they’re now trying to bring more tech talent in, but it’s going to be more difficult given the track record that they’ve had in shutting down preexisting programs that were intended to solve for the same problems.”
Stier also emphasized the importance of integrating the temporary Tech Force employees with the current federal workforce to maximize technological progress in agency programs.
“It is not really possible to achieve significant long-term improvement by trying to strap on some external force that parachutes in for a short period of time,” Stier said. “You really need to invest in the people that are already there, that have deep knowledge not only about the subject matter of the programs, but also about the way government works.”
Nearly a year after President Donald Trump directed nearly all federal employees to return to the office full-time, new exceptions to the policy have emerged.
An agency within the Labor Department is allowing some of its employees to work remotely. At the Department of Health and Human Services, an arbitrator is directing one of its agencies to consult with one of its unions over more exemptions to the in-office mandate.
A recent memo from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) states that some of its employees will be eligible for remote work later this month.
OWCP Deputy Director Douglas Pennington told employees in the memo that, as the agency “vigorously implemented” Trump’s mandate for a full-time return to office last year, “we determined that OWCP will be extremely challenged to cover rent expenses.”
According to the Jan. 6 memo, the Labor Department will allow “100% remote work” for OWCP employees who perform adjudicatory work and perform payment processing work.
Pennington wrote that while most of the agency’s positions benefit from in-person collaboration, “certain OWCP positions do not engage in collaborative interactions, but benefit from focused time free of distractions, and therefore would benefit from remote work and allow a reduction in rent expenses.”
Eligible employees will be able to request full-time remote work starting Jan. 26. If employees are not approved for remote work, they must continue to show up to the office full-time. The memo states that increased telework “is not an option.”
Pennington wrote that allowing a subset of agency employees to work remotely, while having the rest of the workforce in the office full-time, is the “most cost-effective way to accomplish a reduction in rent expenses and continue performing OWCP’s mission.”
Meanwhile, a third-party arbitrator is directing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to meet with the American Federation of Government Employees to discuss exemptions to the administration’s return-to-office mandate.
The arbitrator, Timothy Buckalew, wrote in his opinion that CMS “was not required to negotiate over return to in-person work,” but found that the agency “violated statutory obligations to bargain with the union over the implementation of the work in-person directive.”
Buckalew found that Trump’s return-to-office presidential memorandum (PM) allowed remote work to continue in some limited cases, including medical need.
However, the arbitrator determined CMS has not made any exceptions to its return-to-office policy.
“For reasons not apparent in the record, agency management declined to use the discretion allowed in the PM to make exemptions to the wholesale return to work or to submit the issues of impacts to bargaining as required by law as protected in the PM,” Buckalew wrote.
HHS has recently set new restrictions on telework as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities.
The arbitrator is ordering CMS to meet and negotiate with AFGE over the “effects of the implementation of the directive on work/life of employees.”
According to Buckalew, AFGE Local 192 President Anita Marcel Autrey stated that CMS “unilaterally repudiated” parts of the union’s collective bargaining agreement, and that implementation of the agency’s return-to-office policy was “inconsistent and erratic.”
Autrey told the arbitrator that CMS employees in Chicago and San Francisco have not fully returned to the office because of a lack of office space.
Meanwhile, about 60 financial management employees were granted an exemption to keep working remotely because their work was considered essential to a new budget bill.
About 90% of CMS employees had telework agreements before the second Trump administration.
Donna O’Dowd, director of the workforce compliance division of the CMS Office of Human Capital, told the arbitrator that the presidential memo was a governmentwide rule that “left the agency with no discretion but to follow such directives.”
Federal News Network has reached out to OWCP and CMS for comment.
Login
