When the Defense Department received a $23 billion down payment for the Golden Dome initiative through a reconciliation bill, lawmakers demanded a detailed plan for how the Pentagon plans to spend that money.

Six months later, lawmakers are still waiting for the Pentagon to provide “complete budgetary details and justification of the $23,000,000,000 in mandatory funding.” That includes a comprehensive deployment schedule, cost, schedule and performance metrics and a finalized system architecture. 

As a result, Congressional appropriators were unable to conduct oversight of Golden Dome programs for fiscal 2026.

The department’s $175 billion Golden Dome initiative President Donald Trump first ordered last January aims to build a network of satellites — possibly numbering in the hundreds or even thousands — that would detect, track and intercept incoming missiles. Pentagon officials have described the program as a “top priority for the nation.”

The effort has been shrouded in secrecy, and lawmakers’ demand for more detail on how the Pentagon plans to spend the initial tranche of funding is another sign of Congress’s limited visibility into the program’s early spending plans.

“Due to insufficient budgetary information, the House and Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittees were unable to effectively assess resources available to specific program elements and to conduct oversight of planned programs and projects for fiscal year 2026 Golden Dome efforts in consideration of the final agreement,” appropriators wrote.

Elaine McCusker, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said it is not unusual or surprising for lawmakers to seek complete budget information for a complex program like the Golden Dome that pulls in multiple complex ongoing efforts and includes classified components.

“Congress often requests new budget exhibits and supplementary information for evolving, complicated programs with potentially high price tags so they can better understand what is existing and ongoing funding and what is really new or accelerated in the budget request,” McCusker told Federal News Network.

But Greg Williams, director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight, said Congress’ request for complete budgetary information highlights a broader challenge with how the administration has rolled out major initiatives without providing sufficient detail.

“Golden Dome is an extraordinarily complex and ambitious program, for which we should expect extraordinarily comprehensive information. Instead, the American people and Congress have the opposite. The fiscal 2026 Defense Appropriations Act and its explaining document appear to appropriately reflect that disparity,” Williams told Federal News Network.

The House passed the final 2026 minibus funding package Thursday, which includes money for the Defense Department. If the spending bill becomes law, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, along with Gen. Michael Guetlein, the Golden Dome director, will have two months to provide a comprehensive spend plan for the initiative. Lawmakers want to see planned obligations and expenditures by program, descriptions, justification and the corresponding system architecture mission areas for fiscal 2025 through 2027. 

The Pentagon comptroller would also have to submit a separate budget justification volume annually beginning in fiscal 2028.

McCusker said Congress bears some responsibility for the delay — budget uncertainty has complicated the department’s efforts to develop the program.

“The Pentagon is pursuing new ideas in how it partners with industry to rapidly develop, build and deploy the myriad systems that make up Golden Dome while also navigating annual delays and uncertainty in getting its budget,” she said. “Congress has an understandable thirst for information on high profile defense programmatic priorities and may perceive a delay in getting the level of detail it seeks, but failing to pass annual appropriations on time has become so common it is a perpetual factor to mitigate. Congress has to accept responsibility for this and be willing to take some risk in providing funds in advance of all the information it needs.”

President Donald Trump said in May that the Golden Dome’s architecture had been “officially selected,” but details about the initiative remain scarce and the Pentagon has restricted officials from publicly discussing the initiative.

McCusker said that Congress’ request for detailed planning, performance and budget information doesn’t say much about the program itself other than “its level of complexity and maturity and the need to develop and convey the overall strategy and projected timeframe for its execution.”

There is no single “Golden Dome” line item in the 2026 spending bill, though it includes billions for related programs that will most likely support the broader system.

The Pentagon leadership received its first official briefing on the Golden Dome architecture in September, and an implementation plan was expected to be delivered in November.

Williams said producing a detailed plan of this complexity in a short period of time is understandably difficult, but added that crafting a plan that credibly explains how its goals will be achieved is “likely impossible according to many experts.”

“Golden Dome is a program of unprecedented, arguably reckless, complexity and ambition.” Williams said. 

“The lack of information is also a result of Congress’s choice to use reconciliation to increase defense spending: The reconciliation process does not provide for the formal submission of budget request materials from the executive branch and so risks exactly this kind of lack of information. Congress should return to the statutory process for clean Defense authorization and appropriations acts to ensure adequate information,” he added.

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.

The post Golden Dome got $23 billion, but lawmakers still don’t know how it will be spent first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

Interview transcript

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.

The post An organization’s new name signals a broader mission to support both Airmen and Guardians first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

GM Defense has launched GM Defense UK, establishing a dedicated British presence to support the United Kingdom’s defense priorities and lead engagement with the UK Ministry of Defence, the company announced this week. The new entity will operate from General Motors facilities in Leamington Spa and Silverstone and will serve as the focal point for […]

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.

The post Navigating insurance, maintaining careers and making smart money moves as a Gen Z military family first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/wichayada suwanachun

• Lawmakers are still waiting for the Defense Department to provide details on how it plans to spend $23 billion already approved for the Golden Dome effort. Congressional appropriators say the Pentagon has not provided key budget information such as deployment schedule, cost, schedule and performance metrics, as well as a finalized system architecture. The White House has estimated the project could cost as much as $175 billion over the next three years. As a result, House and Senate appropriators were unable to conduct oversight of Golden Dome programs for fiscal 2026. Lawmakers want Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to submit a detailed spending plan within 60 days of the bill’s enactment.
  (DoD failed to provide budget details to Congress for $23 billion Golden Dome effort - House.gov)
• GSA is giving agencies access to a software to develop AI capabilities. The General Services Administration signed an enterprise agreement with Broadcom, becoming the 24th deal under its OneGov strategy. GSA says agencies can receive up to a 64% discount off Broadcom's schedule prices for access to several platforms, cybersecurity and development tools. Agencies can purchase software packages from Broadcom ranging from VMWare's data intelligence platform to its vDefend cybersecurity tools to its Tanzu starter kit to speed up AI prototyping and deployment. The OneGov deal will be in place through May 2027. GSA's agreement with Broadcom is the third OneGov deal since January and sixth since December.
  (GSA signs 24th OneGov deal - General Services Administration)
• Senate Democrats want to bar political appointees from moving into leadership positions at agency watchdogs. A new bill called the Inspectors General Independence Act would prevent presidents from nominating their own political appointees as Inspectors General. The legislation comes after recent reporting showing that many of Trump’s confirmed IGs were previously political appointees in his administration. Senator Tammy Duckworth, who introduced the bill, says it would help restore public trust and keep IG offices free from conflicts of interest.
  (Inspectors General Independence Act - Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.))
• The acting director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency faces questions about steep staffing cuts at his agency. Acting CISA Director Madhu Gottumukkala told lawmakers that there are no reorganizations in the works at CISA. But he offered few specifics on how the cyber agency would continue to meet its mission after losing roughly one-third of its staff last year. During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing yesterday, Gottummukkala said CISA was getting back on mission and that he would communicate with lawmakers about any future reorganizations.
  (Lawmakers press acting CISA director on workforce reductions - Federal News Network)
• The IRS is abandoning a customer service metric it’s been using for the past 20 years. An independent watchdog within the IRS told Congress last year that this old metric is “misleading” and that it doesn’t “accurately reflect the experience of most taxpayers who call” the IRS. Agency leadership says it will use a new measurement that better reflects its interactions with the public. The IRS is pursuing these changes as part of a broader shakeup of its senior ranks less than a week out from the start of the tax filing season.
  (Ahead of filing season, IRS scraps customer service metric it’s used for 20 years - Federal News Network)
• Agencies have more guidance on how to implement the “rule of many.” But actually adopting the new federal hiring practice may still be put on the backburner. Without enough funding or staffing, agencies are not likely to overhaul their current and already well-established hiring practices in the short term. That’s according to Jenny Mattingley, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service. “The rule of many is a good tool, but until those ingredients are all put together, I don’t know that you’ll see it rolled out immediately,” Mattingley said. The “rule of many,” a change that’s been several years in the making, aims to create broader pools of qualified candidates for federal jobs, while adding flexibility for agency hiring managers.
  (OPM details expectations for the ‘rule of many’ in federal hiring - Federal News Network)
• President Donald Trump has turned to the Marine Corps to find the next leader of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Trump this week nominated Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James Adams to serve as director of DIA. Adams is currently deputy commandant for programs and resources at Marine Corps headquarters, where he helped lead the Marines to achieving two clean financial audits. DIA has been without a permanent leader since Trump ousted its former director, Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, last August.
  (General officer announcements - Defense Department)
• A third-party arbitrator ruled the Trump administration’s return-to-office memo doesn’t override telework protections in a union contract. The arbitrator is ordering the Department of Health and Human Services to rescind its return-to-office directive and restore telework and remote work agreements for thousands of employees represented by the National Treasury Employees Union. The arbitrator says HHS committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally terminating these agreements without regard to its five-year collective bargaining agreement with NTEU. HHS officials argued a return-to-office memorandum signed by President Trump on his first day in office supersedes its collective bargaining agreement with the union.
  (Trump’s return-to-office memo doesn’t override telework protections in union contract, arbitrator tells HHS - Federal News Network)
• While the full impact of operating under continuing resolutions is difficult to quantify for the Defense Department, the Government Accountability Office says the funding lapses have led to delays, increased costs, administrative burdens and operational challenges. GAO found that at Joint Base San Antonio, the cost of a facilities sustainment contract more than doubled after CR-related delays in fiscal 2024. Officials told GAO the contract, which was originally estimated at around $580,000, increased to $1.45 million after a final appropriation was passed. U.S. IndoPacific Command said a funding lapse in 2024 disrupted training and exercises. F-35 program officials told GAO that roughly 20% of their financial management staff’s time is spent adjusting budgets to manage through CR constraints.
  (Continuing resolutions cause delays, increased costs across Pentagon programs - Government Accountability Office)
• The Defense Department is putting some details behind Secretary Pete Hegseth's decision to audit the 8(a) small business contracting program. In a new memo released yesterday, DoD is giving combatant commanders, military services and defense agencies until Jan. 31 to identify three types of contracts: 8(a) sole source, 8(a) set-aside and any small business set-aside contract worth more than $20 million. Once identified, Hegseth says these contracts will undergo further reviews by DoD's DOGE team to ensure they are not pass-throughs to larger firms or to ensure they are critical to DoD warfighting capabilities. That review is scheduled to be completed by Feb. 28.
  (Hegseth lays out plans for 8(a) audit reviews - Department of Defense)

The post DoD failed to provide Congress with details on $23B Golden Dome first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

Interview transcript

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.

The post Quiet firings with big consequences, why the lack of transparency when relieving military leaders matters first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

The Defense Logistics Agency — an organization responsible for supplying everything from spare parts to food and fuel — is turning to artificial intelligence and machine learning to fix a long-standing problem of predicting what the military needs on its shelves.

While demand planning accuracy currently hovers around 60%, DLA officials aim to push that baseline figure to 85% with the help of AI and ML tools. Improved forecasting will ensure the services have access to the right items exactly when they need them. 

“We are about 60% accurate on what the services ask us to buy and what we actually have on the shelf.  Part of that, then, is we are either overbuying in some capacity or we are under buying. That doesn’t help the readiness of our systems,” Maj. Gen. David Sanford, DLA director of logistics operations, said during the AFCEA NOVA Army IT Day event on Jan. 15.

Rather than relying mostly on historical purchase data, the models ingest a wide range of data that DLA has not previously used in forecasting. That includes supply consumption and maintenance data, operational data gleaned from wargames and exercises, as well as data that impacts storage locations, such as weather.

The models are tied to each weapon system and DLA evaluates and adjusts the models on a continuing basis as they learn. 

“We are using AI and ML to ingest data that we have just never looked at before. That’s now feeding our planning models. We are building individual models, we are letting them learn, and then those will be our forecasting models as we go forward,” Sanford said.

Some early results already show measurable improvements. Forecasting accuracy for the Army’s Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, for example, has improved by about 12% over the last four months, a senior DLA official told Federal News Network.

The agency has made the most progress working with the Army and the Air Force and is addressing “some final data-interoperability issues” with the Navy. Work with the Marine Corps is also underway. 

“The Army has done a really nice job of ingesting a lot of their sustainment data into a platform called Army 360. We feed into that platform live data now, and then we are able to receive that live data. We are ingesting data now into our demand planning models not just for the Army. We’re on the path for the Navy, and then the Air Force is next. We got a little more work to do with Marines. We’re not as accurate as where we need to be, and so this is our path with each service to drive to that accuracy,” Sanford said.

Demand forecasting, however, varies widely across the services — the DLA official cautioned against directly comparing forecasting performance.

“When we compare services from a demand planning perspective, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.  Each service has different products, policies and complexities that influence planning variables and outcomes. Broadly speaking, DLA is in partnership with each service to make improvements to readiness and forecasting,” the DLA official said.

The agency is also using AI and machine learning to improve how it measures true administrative and production lead times. By analyzing years of historical data, the tools can identify how industry has actually performed — rather than how long deliveries were expected to take — and factor that into DLA stock levels.  

“When we put out requests, we need information back to us quickly. And then you got to hold us accountable to get information back to you too quickly. And then on the production lead times, they’re not as accurate as what they are. There’s something that’s advertised, but then there’s the reality of what we’re getting and is not meeting the target that that was initially contracted for,” Sanford said.

The post DLA turns to AI, ML to improve military supply forecasting first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

The 8(a) small business contracting program is coming under the microscope of its biggest user.

The Defense Department is joining a growing list of agencies auditing the use of sole source contracts through the 8(a) program.

Experts warn that DoD’s decision to launch this new audit signals that this 40-year-old small business development program is teetering further on the edge.

“It’s not a death knell, but it’s absolutely going to leave a mark. It’s absolutely going to hinder our ability to bring some of that new technology, that new manufacturing capability to the federal marketplace. That’s probably my bigger concern,” said Norm Abdallah, executive vice president at Hui Huliau, a Native Hawaiian-owned firm in the 8(a) program, in an interview with Federal News Network. “We’re behind in terms of the ability to manufacture here in the U.S., and have outsourced that beyond what one should in the defense of their own country, and so hindering the ability for us to help bring some of that to bear in the U.S. marketplace is probably the biggest concern.”

Abdallah said the 8(a) program is an avenue for companies to enter the market, obtain past performance experience in the federal sector and learn the ropes so DoD, and really every agency’s, ongoing distrust and scrutiny of the program is likely going to impact the government in bigger ways than expected.

Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a video on X on Friday explaining that the Pentagon is worried about two main things: The 8(a) program is a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program, and it’s wrought with fraud.

We are taking a sledgehammer to the oldest DEI program in the federal government—the 8(a) program. pic.twitter.com/c9iH8gcqG7

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) January 16, 2026

“Providing these small businesses with opportunities is a laudable goal, but over the decades, as it happens, the 8(a) program has morphed into swamp code words for DEI, race-based contracting. And here’s the worst part, in many, many instances, these socially disadvantaged businesses, they don’t even do work. They take a 10%, 20%, sometimes 50% fee off the top, and then pass the contract off to a giant consulting firm, commonly known as beltway bandits. For decades, this program, 8(a) has been a breeding ground for fraud, and this administration is finally doing something about it,” Hegseth said. “Effective immediately, I’m ordering a line-by-line review of every small business sole source, 8(a) contract that is over $20 million, and we’ll look at everything smaller than that too. The Department of War has the biggest chunk of 8(a) spending by far, 10 times more than any other agency. So our cleanup, it’s going to be 10 times tougher.”

DoD’s audit will include two phases. Hegseth said if a contract doesn’t make meet the DoD’s goal of increasing lethality, they will terminate it.

“We have no room in our budget for wasteful DEI contracts that don’t help us win wars, period, full stop. Second, we’re doing away with these pass through schemes. We’ll make sure that every small business getting a contract is the one actually doing the work, and not just some shell company funneling your money to a giant consulting firm,” he said. “This approach is, of course, not meant to hurt small businesses, and that’s not the point. America is full of great, amazing small businesses. This is part of a larger effort to transform our acquisition ecosystem into one that makes sense for the threats we face in the 21st century.”

An email to DoD seeking more details about the audit and a timeline for the audit wasn’t returned.

Experts say Hegseth’s decision to review sole source contracts worth at least $20 million is directed at Native American, Alaskan Native, Hawaiian Native and other tribal companies. Congress raised the sole source threshold for these firms to $100 million from $22 million in 2020. Firms not belonging to one of these groups have a sole source threshold of $5.5 million for manufacturing and $8.5 million for non-manufacturing contracts. These non-tribal or native firms can receive a sole source contract up to $20 million with certain justifications and approvals.

While experts say Congress may not act to change the law, the ongoing audits by the Small Business Administration, the Treasury Department, the General Services Administration and now DoD are sending signals that, at least for sole source contracts, the program doesn’t work.

A former DoD acquisition executive, who requested anonymity because their current company still does business with DoD, said he believes federal small business goals are at risk across the board, and while they may not be affected this year, in two to four years, agencies will see a huge reduction in their industrial base.

The former DoD executive said the administration is sending an inconsistent message to the federal contracting community. The audits and the reduction of staff in small business offices are sending one message that small businesses aren’t important. But then the White House, and DoD particularly, are expressing the desire to attract new participants to the federal market, including non-traditional companies. The executive said these companies typically depend on small business offices and programs like 8(a) to help them get a foot in the door.

John Shoraka, a former associate administrator of government contracting and business development at SBA and now the co-founder and managing director of GovContractPros, an advisory services firm specializing in federal procurement, said DoD’s audit is part of a concerted effort by the administration to undermine the 8(a) program.

“I think if you look at the dollars in the 8(a) program, especially at DoD, some will point to the fact that they actually went up in 2025. But the challenge that we saw across a lot of our clients was that offer letters that have to go through the district office in order for a sole source award to happen were being held up and or never being processed. So we saw a slowdown in sole source awards,” he said. “I think given what we’ve seen with respect to the SBA audit, given what we’ve seen with respect to the number of 8(a)s being approved, in 2024 there was something like 500 plus 8(a)s approved. In 2025, I think the last count I saw was 66 approved. So given the audits, the slowdown in processing, I think contracting officers are looking over their shoulders. I think in the short term, given the current administration and the current congressional makeup, if you will, we will see a trend away from the 8(a) program.”

DoD’s decision to audit the 8(a) program comes after Treasury and SBA announced similar audits earlier this fall. SBA is looking at the entire program and companies had to submit data to the agency by Monday.

The SBA general counsel’s office is driving the audit, which is unusual because usually these things are either done by the inspector general or program office.

Fraud, DEI concerns unfounded

Shoraka said while the questions being asked by SBA, and now eventually DoD, are legitimate questions, the approach is causing some chaos.

“A lot of our clients reached out to their district office and the district office was actually unaware that those letters had originally gone out with respect to the audit, so there was a disconnect there. The field offices aren’t sure how the data is going to be used, or who’s going to use it, or what they’re looking at,” he said. “From my perspective, given the types of questions that were asked, I think it leads to the question, are there pass throughs happening? Because there was a lot of questions with respect to, who are your subcontractors, who are your vendors, et cetera. So the question is, and I think what SBA was looking at is, are there pass throughs and who’s really in control? Is the disadvantaged individual really owning, operating and benefiting from the 8(a) company? And I think those are legitimate questions. But again, there are legitimate processes and mechanisms to monitor that, including the annual review, which occurs every year on every single 8(a) company.”

The former DoD acquisition executive said while there are concerns about the use of sole source awards over $20 million to tribal companies, the allegations of fraud and the belief that the 8(a) program is a DEI program are unfounded. He said DoD should go to Congress and change the law to reduce the risk of large sole source contracts turning into pass throughs.

Experts agreed that while no program is perfect and there probably are some challenges, the 8(a) program is typically well overseen and maintained.

In fact, Abdallah, from Hui Huliau, said most 8(a) firms spend a lot of time meeting the compliance requirements. But he said it’s also a shared responsibility for oversight with the government.

“There are several folks that have responsibility in there. The first one is the contracting officer. In some cases, they’ve got to approve subcontracts. But more basically, with SBA, we go through a review every year where we have to submit our financials, what work did we do and what work happened?” he said. “They worry about the business mix, how much of your work was set aside versus not set aside? Quite honestly, what means you got the work by some means other than the 8(a) program, be that a subcontractor to another straight commercial, et cetera. So there are lots of hooks to watch it. Do they audit the books, per se, to check for percentages? That’s less common. But it’s part of your overall review.”

Shoraka added there are a significant number of regulations or requirements to mitigate the risk of pass throughs, and most rules allow for legitimate subcontracting.

One thing all of the experts pointed out is that the program is set up to help the 8(a) firm grow and learn, but they still have to do at least 51% of the work under services contracts and 15% of the work under construction contracts.

Shoraka said what is being lost in this entire discussion is there is more fraud in non-small business socio-economic programs across government than there are in the 8(a) and other small businesses initiatives.

The post 8(a) program pushed further to the edge by DoD audit first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Kevin Wolf

Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton There’s a lot to talk about, but it strikes me as strange that here we are two weeks before all of the continuing resolutions expire. The Senate is out this week. The House is planning to be out next week. Are they going to finish in time?

Loren Duggan There’s a path for them to do so and unlike other deadlines, when they’re approaching, everyone’s hair on fire — we haven’t felt that dynamic on this one. The House and Senate appropriators, they’re reaching deals, releasing packages, processing them through the House in the Senate, and there’s a way to get this all done by Jan. 30, or if they need a week or something, appropriators are already saying we could do another short-term. But there’s not a panic about this deadline that’s only two weeks away or so.

Terry Gerton Well, let’s recap, which bills are through and who would you say are the big winners in those bills?

Loren Duggan So we had the three bills go through last year. We’ve had another three-bill package get through both chambers this year. The House sent another two-bill package over to the Senate, who can deal with that when they come back. And then there’s this four-bill package, the remaining outstanding ones that they still need to tackle and get through both chambers. So there’s a lot of progress there. The last one’s big — Defense, Labor, HHS — and thorny in the case of the Homeland Security Department, given everything that’s going on there with ICE in Minnesota and concerns about lawmaker oversight there.

Terry Gerton Well, Homeland and Defense both got big chunks of money in the summer that they’re continuing to operate. So does it feel like maybe there’s a little less urgency around those bills?

Loren Duggan A little less urgency on the Defense side, where I think if you put that together with the reconciliation bill, it’s like $1 trillion. Of course, the president wants to take that to $1.5 trillion next year. We can deal with that another time. And Homeland, that extra pool of money has helped. They’ve used that to hire staff, to open centers. But there was a little controversy because DHS said if an ICE facility is funded with the reconciliation dollars, some of the oversight is different there than if it was regular appropriations. So we’ve seen a distinction made there. But definitely having that money earlier, locking that in for the administration, was really key to their plans for the year.

Terry Gerton What are the big controversies that are still on the table that are going to have to be hashed out before that last bill package gets through?

Loren Duggan DHS has been the sticking point. That was initially supposed to be in the last package; it ended up only being two bills instead of three as they worked through some of these discussions. And you could see a deal being made there and getting that through, maybe both chambers. But there could be a fight on that one in either chamber, depending on what you need. What we have seen are very bipartisan packages where the votes have been widespread, some opposition obviously, but they’ve gotten through very comfortably after all the fights that we went through ahead of this point in time.

Terry Gerton It does also seem, at least on the bills that have gotten through so far, that Congress has largely rejected the cuts that the administration proposed for 50% reductions are higher. Most of the reductions are very minor. So since agencies have already been downsized in many cases, what does this mean? How will relative increases, I guess, compared to where they’re operating today — how will that come into effect?

Loren Duggan In some cases, it’s less than they had last year, but still more than the administration wanted and more than House Republicans wanted in their initial versions. So we’re seeing a classic compromise being hashed out here between the House and the Senate, enough money for Democrats to support these bills, not the drastic cuts. And they’ve hastened to say “no poison pills” when they’ve released these different packages. But we’ll see how the agencies respond to more money. That’s been a fight over the course of the administration, where they’ve wanted to impound funds, rescind them, but if you put them back out there the agencies can use them. And even something like foreign aid is going to the State Department now, rather than USAID, after USAID was disestablished by the administration.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Loren Duggan. He’s deputy news director for Bloomberg Government. Loren, outside of the appropriations, what other sorts of legislative discussions are taking place on the Hill these days? ACA subsidies still on top?

Loren Duggan ACA subsidies has been a big driver of discussion. We are now at the end of open enrollment without an answer to what to do with these credits, if they’ll be extended. I assume the senators are still talking this week and when they come back. Donald Trump’s proposal last week didn’t necessarily change the dynamic too much. But one thing that might: We’re going to see insurance company executives brought to the Hill before two different House committees this week. They’ll have to answer some tough questions. Probably get a little beaten up by both sides in this case, because both parties have some concerns with them. So we’ll see how that plays out. The ACA, that’s now a deadline that’s passed; they’re still trying to figure out how to resolve that debate.

Terry Gerton There was also a lot of news last week about the crypto bill in the Senate. Tell us what’s going on there.

Loren Duggan There were markups that had been scheduled in two committees, and then they got pulled back as they continue to work through the issues and deal with the industry feedback. I think it was the Coinbase CEO who was up there weighing in pretty directly with lawmakers. So they pulled back, didn’t move forward, and they’re going to recalibrate the bill. This is the market structure bill, not to be confused with the stablecoin legislation, which is part of the crypto universe. This is a broader market structure bill, who has regulatory authority. I assume they’ll rejoin that debate when they return next week, if they’re not working up while they’re gone. But there’s big interest, big money, big stakes in this legislation.

Terry Gerton All of the things we’ve talked about so far are sort of normal order: appropriations bills, although late, getting through other sorts of legislative activities. Let’s talk about Greenland for a minute, because it seems like it has the potential to really upend all kinds of conversations and agreements that are going on. President Trump made tariff threats over the weekend. We have a congressional delegation on the ground in Denmark. What does this all mean when it comes back to domestic politics?

Loren Duggan We’ll have to see, there hasn’t been a ground swell against this. There are some members of Congress who concede it might be a good idea if Greenland was part of the United States, given its geostrategic importance. But then there’s other members of Congress who have said, maybe we’ll have to impeach Trump if he goes too far on this, so there’s not a consensus. There’s definitely a lot of range of opinions on this one. And it’s something that Donald Trump’s going to hear directly from other world leaders when he goes to Davos, Switzerland, this week and he’ll be side-by-side with some of the people who he’s threatened to tariff or have strong opinions on this, given their proximity to Denmark.

Terry Gerton We usually focus here on domestic politics, but this seems like it will flow over into lots of conversations. What are you expecting to hear out of Davos as that conversation gets started?

Loren Duggan Well, we had expected a domestic announcement with the president talking about his home ownership plan, maybe taking money from 401(k)s to make a down payment, part of his broader affordability discussion, home ownership discussion. So that’s a domestic thing, but we’re definitely going to hear the global things. Not just Greenland, but his “Board of Peace” that he’s talked about, where he wants world leaders to chip in money and be part of this arrangement. I’m sure those discussions will continue and there’ll be lots of feedback, given the compact nature of Davos and everyone who will be there. There’s a little bit of domestic, but it’s more of a foreign play given who’s there. It is the World Economic Forum after all, and the world will be there and talking to Donald Trump directly.

Terry Gerton When everybody gets back, what will you be watching for on the Hill?

Loren Duggan We’ll see if they can wrap up the spending debate and then they’ll be turning to February and eventually the fiscal ’27 process is right there. We’ll just get done with this one and really have to turn the page pretty quickly.

The post Crypto overhaul, Greenland, ACA subsidies, spending bills: Lawmakers’ January juggling acts first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

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.

Budget flexibility

Hegseth recently unveiled a plan to overhaul the department’s acquisition system — some of those reform proposals made it into the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill, which became law in December.

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.

The post Congress pushes back on parts of DoD’s acquisition reform agenda first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/Westy72

 

Interview transcript:

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.

The post Can key visits to cities anchoring U.S. national security spur a new American “arsenal”? first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

Kimwolf botnet exploits smart gadgets for DDoS attacks, highlighting security lapses in device protection and supply chains.

The post What’s On the Tube Or Rather in the Tube: Kimwolf Targets Android-based TVs and Streaming Devices  appeared first on Security Boulevard.

A freshly belligerent China is flexing its muscles in ways not seen since the USSR during the Cold War, forging a new illiberal alliance with Russia and North Korea. But the latent battlefield is farther reaching and more dangerous in the information age.

As we now know, over “a years long, coordinated assault,” China has stolen personal data from nearly every single American. This data lets them read our text messages, listen to our phone calls, and track our movements anywhere in the United States and around the world — allowing China to build a nearly perfect intelligence picture of the American population, including our armed forces and elected officials.

This state of affairs leaves corporate leaders, democracy advocates and other private citizens vulnerable to blackmail, cyber attacks and other harassment. Even our national leaders are not immune.

Last year, China targeted the phones of President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the course of the presidential campaign, reminding us that vulnerabilities in the network can affect even those at the highest levels of government. The dangers were drawn into stark relief earlier this year when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth used his personal phone to pass sensitive war plans to his colleagues, along with a high-profile journalist. That incident underscored what we’ve seen in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb drone attacks on Russia, and on front lines the world over: Modern wars are run on commercial cellular networks, despite their vulnerabilities.

Many Americans would be surprised to learn that there is no impenetrable, classified military cellular network guiding the top-flight soldiers and weapons we trust to keep us safe. The cellular networks that Lindsay Lohan and Billy Bob Thornton sell us during NFL games are the same networks our troops and national security professionals use to do their jobs. These carriers have a long, shockingly consistent history of losing our personal data via breaches and hacks — as well as selling it outright, including to foreign governments. So it’s no wonder that, when the Pentagon asked carriers to share their security audits, every single one of them refused.

This isn’t a new revelation. Twenty years ago, I served as a Special Forces communications sergeant in Iraq. There, U.S. soldiers regularly used commercial BlackBerries — not because the network was secure, but because they knew their calls would connect. It’s surreal that two decades later, our troops are still relying on commercial phones, even though the security posture has not meaningfully improved.

A big part of the reason why this challenge persists stems from an all-too-familiar issue in our government: a wall of red tape that keeps innovative answers from reaching public-sector problems.

In this case, a solution to the Pentagon’s cell network challenge already exists. The Army requested it, and our soldiers need it. But when they tried to acquire this technology, they were immediately thwarted. Not by China or Russia — but by the United States government’s own bureaucracy.

It turns out that the Defense Department is required to purchase cellular service on a blanket, ten-year contract called Spiral 4. The contract was last renewed in early 2024 to AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and a few others, about a year before a solution existed. Yet despite this, rigid procurement rules dictate that the Pentagon will have to wait … presumably another eight years until the contract re-opens for competition.

The FCC recently eliminated regulations calling on telecoms to meet minimum cybersecurity standards, noting that the focus should instead be collaboration with the private sector. I agree. But to harness the full ingenuity of our private sector, our government should not be locking out startups. From Palantir to Starlink to Oura, startups have proven that they can deliver critical national security technologies, out-innovating entrenched incumbents and offering people services they need.

The Pentagon has made real, top-level policy changes to encourage innovation. But it must do more to ensure that our soldiers are equipped with the very best of what they need and deserve, and find and root out these pockets of stalled bureaucratic inertia. Because America’s enemies are real enough – our own red tape should not be one of them.

John Doyle is the founder and CEO of Cape. He previously worked at Palantir and as a Staff Sergeant in the Special Forces.

The post China hacked our mobile carriers. So why is the Pentagon still buying from them? first appeared on Federal News Network.

© (Courtesy of Military OneSource)

The Army is updating its software directive and scrapping its existing policy on software funding that has routinely hindered software projects across the service. 

Michael Obadal, the service’s undersecretary, said the new software directive will be released “in the coming weeks.” The service plans to revise the document annually to keep pace with the rapidly changing environment. 

Meanwhile, canceling its existing policy governing how the service pays for software will allow the Army to “apply the appropriate type of money to the applicable use case.” 

“For many years, as many of you know, we’ve been trapped by the color of money. We try to buy modern, agile software with rigid funding authorities. Predictably, it doesn’t work,” Obadal said during the AFCEA NOVA Army IT Day event on Thursday.

This shift will give the Army greater flexibility in how it uses its operations and maintenance, procurement and research, development, testing and evaluation funds for software.

While flexible use of different colors of money will offer the service some relief, it is still not “the most effective method” for funding software. Obadal said the Army ultimately plans to pursue Budget Activity 8 (BA-8), which will allow program managers to move away from the hardware-centric budgeting model and instead draw funding from an appropriations category specific to software.

“We’re going to pursue Budget Activity 08 for our software, which would realign funding from various appropriations to new software and digital technology in its own budget activity,” Obadal said.

The Defense Department has long struggled with software acquisition for a number of reasons, but the rules that govern how the department pays for software have possibly been one of its major obstacles. The model Congress and the Pentagon have used to plan and execute the Pentagon’s spending was originally built for long-term hardware acquisition. But this structure doesn’t apply well to the agile software development model. 

The department has been experimenting with using a separate appropriations category for software. The idea started to gain traction in 2019, when the Defense Innovation Board found that “colors of money tend to doom” software programs. “We need to create pathways for “bleaching” funds to smooth this process for long-term programs,” the board wrote in its report. 

But lawmakers have been hesitant to authorize broader adoption of this pathway beyond a small number of pilot programs until the Defense Department is able to produce data comparing this approach to traditional appropriation practices.

“Agile funding … we have to have that in the right focus area to be able to apply it to modern software, and it’s a little more difficult than we think because it involves Congress … But these are the steps we’re taking,” Obadal said.

Obadal also urged industry to “build [systems] to scale, don’t build it to demo.”

“What we’re asking from industry as we tackle those things is the confidence in your solution to scale, not just demo … That means that you have to take extra steps, and you have to think about what happens in a year or two years for you. Open architectures, interoperable designs, secure by design software, not bolted-on cybersecurity. That’s another incredibly important one, is your design and a willingness to align with Army timelines and with our operational realities,” he said.

The post Army to update its software directive, pursue new funding category for software first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

Interview transcript

Terry Gerton You’ve got a new project coming out, and we’ll talk about it in detail, to protect war fighters from gamma radiation. I have to say, when I think of gamma radiation, I think of the Incredible Hulk. So tell us a little bit more before we get started about what gamma radiation is, where it comes from, and why we need protection from it.

Terry Thiem Sure. Gamma radiation is a result of radioactive decay of elements. It can be either natural or produced through a nuclear explosion. Gamma radiation is a form of radiation that is very penetrating and therefore when our warfighters have the potentiality of being exposed to it on the battlefield, they need to be able to be protected from it. So If I look at Gamma radiation and why are we doing this research and what the threat is, this program will address two of the five strategic goals of the assistant secretary of war for nuclear deterrence and chemical and biological defense who is funding this research. And that is, one, to enable the joint force freedom of maneuver in a chemical, biological, and radiological environment, as well as develop capabilities to counter these threats and respond to and manage the consequences of a weapons of mass destruction event where gamma radiation may be present.

Terry Gerton So we’re worried about deploying soldiers into a nuclear contaminated battlefield.

Terry Thiem That is correct. Or we could also be exposing them to a dirty bomb, where a radiological material is dispersed by a high explosive and spread radioactive contamination as well.

Terry Gerton And so what is your team hoping to achieve with this project? We’ll get into the specifics of it in a minute, but what’s the big goal?

Terry Thiem The big goal is to be able to provide a level of protection to our war fighters from gamma radiation. Currently, the war fighters have what’s known as a JSLIST, a Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology that provides them absolutely outstanding protection against chemical, biological, and alpha and beta radiation. But unfortunately, because of the penetrating effects of gamma radiation. That suit is not adequate to protect them in a nuclear environment. So what we’re looking at doing here is looking at what is the state of the science in this particular field? Where is the next generation of this suit going to be coming out? Where can we include some of these new materials that are being developed throughout the world, really, to incorporate into this suit to provide additional protection for our warfighters.

Terry Gerton Talk us through some of those scientific developments that you’re expecting might have impact in this study.

Terry Thiem Traditionally, for gamma radiation, the ways to protect a person from gamma radiation are time, distance, and shielding. Unfortunately for the commanders on the battlefield, a lot of times they don’t have the luxury of having time or distance because of the operational environment that they’re in. So they are very dependent on the shielding. Traditional shielding for gamma radiation is lead shielding. Lead has great ability to shield, but unfortunately lead also has some toxicity issues. So a lot of the work that’s currently being done in this field is looking at alternatives to lead for gamma protection. That includes materials such as bismuth, barium, and tungsten, which are also very, very good at doing it. They are just a little bit more expensive than lead is.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Dr. Terry Thiem. He’s the director of medical countermeasures at the National Strategic Research Institute at the University of Nebraska. As I just said there in the title, you’ve also got medical countermeasures in your focus area. How are you thinking about the combination of both shielding protection, but also medical treatment if someone isn’t affected?

Terry Thiem That’s a great point, Terry. What we wanna do is we wanna create some trade space for the commander in the field. So task one of this project is the development of or evaluation of new materials for personal protective equipment. Task two focuses on what we can do in combination with that personal protective equipment and prophylactic and therapeutic medical countermeasures that are in development. This is where NSRI and the University of Nebraska’s expertise in drug development is extremely valuable. Instead of a war fighter having to wear 60 pounds of radiation shielding, we could maybe reduce that to a significantly lower amount and provide them with a prophylactic medical countermeasure. This potentially provides a fourth option to the commander to reduce the effects of radiation exposure. Time, distance, shielding, and then also medical count measures to enhance the safety of our warfighters.

Terry Gerton When you say a prophylactic medical countermeasure, talk us through what that might be, some kind of pill that they would take in advance of deployment.

Terry Thiem That is correct. It would be a pill or a subcutaneous injection that would be given to the warfighter prior to them, the possibility of them being exposed to a radiological event.

Terry Gerton And you just talked about the weight of the suit. I’ve worn a JSLIST and I can testify that it is heavy. You do not want to have to move far in it. Are there other advances in material science that can help make that?

Terry Thiem Absolutely. I think everybody out there has been to the dentist office and has gotten bite wing x-rays and it’s had a lead apron put on top of them. That is for x-ray. X-rays are a step down in energy level from gamma radiation. So the need for gamma radiation protection actually would be thicker and heavier than that. So there are a lot of really good materials that are out there. Polymers, some new polymers that have come out that offer some lightweight ability to do shielding, as well as the bismuth, tungsten, and barium are also all less dense or less heavier than lead components would be. So all those would offer some ability to reduce the weight of the shielding that is required to reduce the radiation effects of gamma radiation.

Terry Gerton What sort of criteria will you use to determine whether or not these materials and or the medical countermeasures are ready to be developed?

Terry Thiem I think that, again, looking at manufacturability of materials is going to be critical. The ability to put these materials, incorporate them into the fibers is something that the University of Nebraska is already working on at the University of Nebraska Omaha, incorporating levels of these high atomic weight materials such as bismuth and tungsten into materials already and then spinning those into fabrics that can be used for making a protective equipment that our warfighters can actually wear.

Terry Gerton Right, so that manufacturability is its own separate challenge, right? What are the obstacles or the opportunities if you’re optimistic of getting from materials to actual suits?

Terry Thiem I think we’re very, very close already. Looking at some of the work that’s already been done at the University of Nebraska Omaha, we have already produced sections of materials that will be usable, and we’ve already started testing those against gamma radiation sources to see how protective they are. One of the things about radiation that’s different than chemical or biological threats, chemical and biological threats, I think we are at 100% protection. I’ve been through the live agent training at Fort Leonard Wood, we’re in the JSLIST where we’ve been exposed to nerve agent and the suit protects you absolutely 100%. Unfortunately with gamma radiation, I don’t think we’ll ever get there. It would require too heavy of a suit and too thick of suit. It would operationally degrade the ability of our warfighters to do their mission. So that’s where we’re looking at that combination of personal protective equipment and medical countermeasures to, one, reduce the amount with the personal protective equipment, but then provide another layer of protection to the warfighter with that medical countermeasure as well.

Terry Gerton So once your study is complete, what are the next steps? Will that influence the Department of Defense’s production strategy or acquisition strategy?

Terry Thiem It should. We will provide our assessment of the current state of the science and then a list of materials that we feel are the most, the highest technology readiness level that is available to them to start manufacturing materials from. So again, I think that there’s an incredible amount of research that’s going on out there. I’ve reviewed over 250 articles so far. On different materials, different concepts for doing shielding for both X-ray and gamma radiation. So I think that the ability to do it is out there. It is just the manufacturability and a couple other things that need to be worked out before we can get to a final product that will be able to be purchased commercially by our Department of War.

The post New tech could shield warfighters from one of the deadliest threats on the battlefield: gamma radiation first appeared on Federal News Network.

© U.S. Energy Department via AP

• The Coast Guard has a new leader. Admiral Kevin Lunday officially assumed command of the service on Thursday during a ceremony at Coast Guard headquarters. The Senate confirmed Lunday last month after his nomination was temporarily delayed due to a controversy over the service’s policy regarding hate symbols. He had been serving as acting commandant since January, following the dismissal of Admiral Linda Fagan by President Donald Trump. Lunday previously led Coast Guard Cyber Command. He also held a senior leadership role at U.S. Cyber Command.
  (Coast Guard finally gets its permanent leader - U.S. Coast Guard)
• Early-career employment in the federal workforce is trending downward. Currently, about 8% of federal employees are under age 30. That’s a 1% decrease since this time last year, likely due to the Trump administration’s workforce reductions. The federal workforce has struggled for years with its ability to recruit and retain younger employees. The average age of a federal worker is 47, and about 13% of the federal workforce is currently eligible for retirement.
  (Federal workforce age data - Office of Personnel Management)
• Lawmakers are halfway done with a comprehensive spending deal for the rest of the fiscal year. The Senate passed a “minibus” of spending bills covering the departments of Justice, Interior, Commerce and Energy, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and NASA. The House passed the same three-bill package last week. Congress still has other spending bills it needs to pass. The continuing resolution keeping many agencies funded at last year’s spending levels is set to run out on Jan. 30.
  (Senate Cloakroom update - Social media platform X)
• A watchdog at the Department of Veterans Affairs said generative AI tools used to help treat patients pose a potential safety risk. VA’s inspector general office said the department’s IT shop, National AI Institute and National Center for Patient Safety, lack a formal mechanism to identify, track or resolve risks associated with generative AI. The VA has approved AI chat tools to support medical decision-making when VA clinicians treat patients and to copy information into the department’s electronic health record system. The IG’s office said its review of these tools remains ongoing.
  (Review of VHA’s Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence - VA Office of Inspector General )
• Thrift Savings Plan participants will soon have the option of making Roth in-plan conversions in their TSP accounts. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board has finalized regulations that will allow participants to convert money from their traditional or pre-tax TSP balances into their Roth or after-tax TSP balances. The in-plan conversion option will be available to all participants starting Jan. 28.
  (Final rule on Roth in-plan conversions - Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board)
• The Army is updating its software policy once again. Two years after issuing its call to move to an agile approach to software development, the Army is ready to move into the second phase of this modernization effort. In the coming weeks, the service will update its policy to emphasize the use of "colorless" money for software development. Army CIO Leo Garciga said program offices and commands have met the initial goals of creating iterative development platforms outlined in the March 2024 policy. He said the new policy will now focus on improving how the Army estimates the cost of software projects and will fine tune the use of low-code/no-code platforms.
  (Army to update 2-year-old software policy - AFCEA Nova)
• The cloud security program known as FedRAMP is seeking feedback from agency and industry experts on six different framework documents. These include everything from expanding the marketplace to using external frameworks to creating machine-readable packages. Pete Waterman, the FedRAMP director, wrote in a blog post that the RFCs are the culmination of nearly a year of planning, testing and community input, marking a significant milestone in realigning FedRAMP with the FedRAMP Authorization Act and OMB implementation memo. Comments are due anytime from mid-February to early March. The PMO also will host a series of community sessions to discuss each of the documents.
  (FedRAMP in final throes of updating underlying framework documents - FedRAMP)
• The Army is chipping away at its legacy system. The service once operated more than 800 independent business systems, many of which didn’t communicate with the broader enterprise and were built with limited technology at the time. Army officials said the number of those systems has now been reduced to fewer than 300. The service however, continues to operate 58 separate human resources management systems and 42 independent training and readiness systems. Under Secretary of the Army Mike Obadal said while they are “not even close to where they need to be,” change is coming. The undersecretary said the advantage in modern conflict “does not come from having more platforms but from infusing our hardware with right technologies.”
  (Army consolidates hundreds of antiquated systems - Army IT Day)

The post The Coast Guard officially has a new leader first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Jessica Hill

OPINION — U.S. defense planning rests on the assumption that wars are fought abroad, by expeditionary forces, against defined adversaries. For decades, those assumptions held. But today, many of the most consequential security challenges facing the United States violate all three. They occur closer to home, below the threshold of armed conflict, and in domains where sovereignty is enforced incrementally.

The shift has exposed a chronic mismatch between how the United States defines its defense priorities and how it allocates resources and respect. While defense discourse continues to stubbornly emphasize power projection and high-end conflict, many of today’s challenges revolve around the more modest and rote enforcement of U.S. territorial integrity and national sovereignty—functions that are vital to U.S. strategic objectives yet lack the optical prestige of winning wars abroad.

Sitting at the center of this gap between prestige and need is the U.S. Coast Guard, whose mission profile aligns directly with America’s most important strategic objectives—the enforcement of sovereignty and homeland defense—yet remains strategically undervalued because its work rarely resembles the celebrated and well-funded styles of conventional warfighting. In an era of increased gray-zone competition and persistent coercion, the failure to properly appreciate the Coast Guard threatens real strategic fallout.

In the third decade of the 21st century, U.S. defense planning remains heavily oriented toward expeditionary warfighting and high-end kinetic conflict. Budget conversations still revolve around Ford-class supercarriers, F-35 fighters, and A2/AD penetration. This orientation shapes not only force design and budget allocations, but also institutional prestige and political capital. The services associated with visible combat power, with the Ford-class and the F-35, continue to dominate strategic discourse—even as many of the most persistent security challenges confronting the United States unfold close to home, in the gray-zone, without the need for fifth-generation air power or heavy armor.

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

At the most basic level, any nation’s military exists primarily to defend territorial integrity, enforce sovereignty, and protect the homeland. Power projection, forward presence, and deterrence abroad are important—but they are secondary functions derived from the primary purpose of homeland defense. Yet U.S. defense discourse often treats homeland defense as a background condition when it should be revered as the first priority. The result is a blind spot in how security resources are evaluated and allocated.

The Coast Guard operates at a unique point where law enforcement, military authority, and sovereign enforcement all converge. On any given day, the Coast Guard may board foreign-flagged vessels suspected of sanctions violations, police maritime borders against illicit trafficking, secure ports that underpin global supply chains, and maintain a persistent presence in contested spaces, like the Arctic, without inviting escalation. The Coast Guard is equipped to intercept illegal fishing fleets, escort commercial shipping through sensitive waterways, and assert jurisdiction in legally ambiguous areas. These activities rarely resemble traditional warfighting, they rarely result in a Hollywood blockbuster, and they can be accomplished without nuclear-powered submarines or intercontinental ballistic missiles. But these are not peripheral activities—they are arguably amongst the most important daily functions the U.S. military undertakes.

Distinct among the military branches, the Coast Guard operates under a legal framework that is uniquely suited to today’s security environment. Under Title 14 status, the Coast Guard falls within the Department of Homeland Security, conducting law enforcement and regulatory missions on a daily basis. Yet, when needed, the service can transition to Title 10 status, under the Department of Defense, and operate as an armed service when required. This agility allows the Coast Guard to remain continuously engaged across the spectrum of competition, whether enforcing U.S. law in peacetime, managing escalation in gray-zone encounters, or integrating seamlessly into military operations. Few other elements of U.S. power can move so fluidly between legal regimes.

Still, despite such strategic relevance, the Coast Guard suffers from a persistent optical problem. U.S. defense culture has long privileged services and missions associated with visible, kinetic combat—those that lend themselves to clear narratives of victory, sacrifice, and heroism. The Coast Guard’s work rarely fits that cinematic mold. Its success is measured not in territory seized or targets destroyed, but in disruptions prevented, borders enforced, and crises that never materialize. Inherently quiet work with outcomes that reflect a force operating exactly as designed, although without generating institutional prestige or political support. In a system that rewards the loudest and the brightest, the Coast Guard’s quiet enforcement of sovereignty is easy to overlook.

Need a daily dose of reality on national and global security issues? Subscriber to The Cipher Brief’s Nightcap newsletter, delivering expert insights on today’s events – right to your inbox. Sign up for free today.

Continuing to overlook the value of the Coast Guard carries strategic consequences. Specifically, persistent underinvestment in the Coast Guard weakens maritime domain awareness, reduces sustained presence in key waterways, and narrows the set of tools available to manage gray-zone competition. As adversaries increasingly rely on legal ambiguity, deniable actors, and incremental pressure to test U.S. resolve, gaps in enforcement become opportunities. In this environment, the absence of credible, continuous sovereignty enforcement invites probing behavior that becomes harder to deter over time.

Advocacy for the Coast Guard does not require reassigning prestige, or elevating one service at the expense of others. It is merely an argument for strategic alignment. If territorial integrity, sovereignty enforcement, and homeland defense are truly core national-security priorities, then the institutions most directly responsible for those missions should be treated accordingly. As competition increasingly unfolds in the gray-zone between peace and war, the United States will need forces designed not only to win conflicts—but to prevent them from starting in the first place.

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

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

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

Traditional firewalls can’t stop modern DDoS attacks. Learn why high-volume, multi-layer attacks overwhelm perimeter defenses—and how to build real DDoS resilience.

The post Why Traditional Firewalls Fail Against Today’s High-Volume DDoS Attacks  appeared first on Security Boulevard.

The nation’s newest military service still has a lot of work to do to chart its future. The Space Force had been planning to use a new “Futures Command” to handle that work, and it was supposed to be up and running by last year. That didn’t happen as scheduled, but the idea’s not dead either.

Leaders say they’re still planning a new organization to help shape the service’s future, but they also needed to make sure it aligns with the new administration’s priorities.

The Space Force first unveiled its plans for a new Futures Command almost two years ago. The idea at the time was to combine the existing Space Warfighting Analysis Center and the Concepts and Technologies Center with a new Wargaming Center. Those plans were put on pause late in 2024 when it became apparent new political leadership was on the way.

But Gen. Chance Saltzman, the chief of space operations, said Air Force Secretary Troy Meink is on board with the overall idea.

“Secretary Meink 100% understands what we were trying to accomplish with Futures Command and the importance of it,” he said during the annual Spacepower conference in Orlando, Florida, last month. “How are we looking at the future? How are we categorizing and characterizing the threats we’re going to face, the missions we’re going to be asked to do, and how are we going to respond so that we can put the force in place to meet those challenges? We will look at concepts, we will do the war gaming, we will do the simulations, we will do all the manpower assessment, we will do the military construction surveys to figure out what facilities are needed, and then document that so that everybody can see what we’re progressing towards. It is this idea of establishing a command that’s focused on what is it we’re going to need in the future and making sure all the planning is done, synchronized with the resources so we get that right.”

And while the Space Force certainly isn’t the first military service in recent years to contemplate a new command as part of big organizational changes, it is the first time in modern history that a service is having to do that from scratch.

“In December of 2019, the law said, ‘There is a Space Force,’ and nothing could have been further from the truth,” Saltzman said. “It legally made there be a Space Force, but it was still in work. It was a thought process, it was pulling things together as rapidly as possible. So I think the hardest thing is overcoming this mentality that there’s been a Space Force for decades, that we’ve got all this figured out. These are hard things to do on a government scale with government oversight and government resources. And so convincing people that we had to start from scratch on almost every process we had, on every decision we make, that was unprecedented. Convincing people that we don’t really have anything to fall back on. If I don’t deliver a service dress [uniform], then we’re using an Air Force service dress — there wasn’t something else. We had plenty of uniform changes when we were growing up, but there was always an Air Force uniform before those changes that we were in until we transitioned. Not the case for the Space Force. We had to start from scratch. We’re not just enhancing the Space Force, we’re actually creating one. And that’s been a real challenge.”

New leadership education initiatives

The Space Force traces most of its roots to the Air Force, and until now, it’s leaned heavily on its sister service within the Department of the Air Force for combat support and other functions. But it’s increasingly working to build infrastructure, doctrine and culture of its own.

As one example, Saltzman said just last month, the Space Force launched its own Captains Leadership Course. That initiative is a partnership with Texas A&M University and led by the Space Force’s Space Training and Readiness Command.

“The bottom line is each service brings something unique in terms of what it focuses on for professional military education. I remember General [Jay] Raymond, when he stood up the service, talked about some of the things that services have to do. You have to have your own budget, you have to have your own doctrine, you have to develop your own people. And that’s kind of stuck with me,” he said. “We have to develop our Guardians for the specifics of the Space Force. And this basic understanding at the captain’s level is going to be foundational to what follows in the rest of their career. And so while we need to find ways to give them experience with other services, I wanted to make sure that the service had a core offering at that grade to educate our officers on the Space Force. Now we’re going to include joint doctrine, will include communications and leadership. But they need that foundational understanding of the service first before they start to branch out and figure out how they integrate with the other services.”

First Space Force OTS graduates

And in 2025, the service graduated its first group of newly-minted officers from officer training school. Those first 80 officers, Saltzman said, represent a mentality within the service that seeks to build “multidisciplinary” leaders. The enlisted force, he says, will be tactical experts, while officers will need expertise in “joint integration.”

“Do we need deep expertise? Absolutely. Do we need people that broadly understand how to integrate with a joint force? Absolutely. How do you do both? This is the tough part of the job, you have to get that balance just right,” he said. “If you go down to kind of the micro management side of this and ask how you develop a single Guardian to best perform, then you get caught in that conundrum. I have to think about what I need the entire service to be able to do. Do I need deep experts? Yes. Do I need broad integrators? Yes. So we have to find a way to, across the entire service, create opportunities to maximize what people can do, what they do best, and fill the jobs that are required based on those skills and those competencies. You have to make sure you think about it from an enterprise perspective, and what might apply to any one Guardian doesn’t necessarily have to apply to all Guardians.”

The post Despite delay, Space Force still plans futures command to guide force design first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Staff Sgt. Kayla White/U.S. Air Force via AP

Interview transcript

Terry Gerton The industrial base and supply chains are getting a lot of attention these days, whether it’s from tariffs or recovery still from the pandemic. You’ve got a recent report out that suggests we need a better definition of the national defense and national security industrial base. What do you see as the problem with the current definition?

Michael O’Hanlon Hi, Terry. Well, thanks for the question. And my co-authors, Marta Wosinska and Mark Muro and Tom Wright, what we wanted to do was to look at areas where the country’s basic functioning and basic safety of its people could be threatened, even if the military or the military’s manufacturing base per se was not. So we define national security to be something that could threaten the basic functioning of the country or its territory or large numbers of its people in a physical way, real, you know, real acute danger and so we try to make that definition broader than just defense but also fairly tight we didn’t want everything to be labeled national security. For example, I don’t think it’s that important where my flat screen television is made that’s not national security. And I don’t even think it’s that important that we dominate every single industry because unless being denied access to foreign goods could quickly put Americans, large numbers of Americans, at acute risk and unless there is a single potentially hostile foreign supplier that dominates, I don’t think we have to use the term national security to deal with that concern. There may be other reasons to want to promote a certain industry or certain part of our economy, but not for national security. So we’re trying to broaden it, but within reason. And so that led us to a certain specific methodology.

Terry Gerton It sounds like you might say that things both like shipbuilding and pharmaceutical manufacturing would be included there.

Michael O’Hanlon Yeah, those are good examples. So for shipbuilding, I don’t really think that it matters that much where the United States gets its commercially traded goods from and what ships are carrying those goods and where they’re built. But in the event of a prolonged conflict or even deterrence of conflict, like right now, when we’re trying to build more ships than we currently own and the size and capability and capacity of the ship building base is one of the constraints on our ability to, let’s say, build more attack submarines, then yes, I do think the shipbuilding manufacturing sector should be considered part of the national security industrial base. Commercial shipbuilding can sort of be your backup, your latent capability that you can transform into military shipbuilding in the event of prolonged need. And therefore, even commercial shipbuilding can be encompassed within this definition of a national security industrial base. With pharmaceuticals, it sort of all depends, you know, in the sense that if the medications are made, we buy them from abroad and they’re crucial to keeping Americans alive, let’s say antibiotics, and they are made in Germany or Canada, I don’t have any concern that we’re going to be cut off in a crisis. But if large numbers are either made in China or depend on precursor chemicals made in China, then we could be in trouble. As my colleague, Marta Wosinska, who’s really an expert on this stuff — she really did the hard work for us and taught the rest of us, as well as, you know, authoring the key part of the paper on this subject — and China indeed is the source of a lot of generic medications because it’s good at making things at low cost. And actually, it produces a lot of the precursor chemicals. Often, the final medications are produced in India or someplace else, but China is still potentially the bottleneck if they chose to be. And some people might say, well, would China really ever cut off medications or chemicals for medications upon which millions of American lives depend? Let’s say, again, antibiotics being a good example. And I think in a war, they might. I mean, in a war, we bombed cities in World War II. In war, as the saying goes, all the rules are off. There are no rules in love and war. And if you’re really pitted in an existential struggle of two countries duking it out — heaven forbid we ever have that conflict with China — but of course, here we’re thinking about deterrence and being a credible way to deter the war as our goal. There’s no reason to think China would supply those medications just out of the goodness of its heart. So I think that’s a vulnerability. Maybe not for Excedrin or aspirin or things that, you know, are really medications of convenience. I mean, sure, they’re important to keeping people comfortable. But I’m talking more about medications that keep people alive. And on those, I don’t think we want too many foreign dependencies when it involves a country like China.

Terry Gerton Your paper talks about three specific criteria for identifying critical supply chains. Walk us through those and how they fit together.

Michael O’Hanlon Well, we say that, and this builds on what you and I have been discussing, are large numbers of lives potentially at risk? Is there a dependence on foreign supply where one potentially hostile foreign supplier in particular could choose to cut off supply? And then could we react quickly and find alternatives, substitutes, or build up our own manufacturing capacity within the relevant time scale to avoid serious harm? And if you can’t do that, and you do have a dependency on a potentially hostile foreign actor and a put-off or an interruption of the supply could lead to many thousands or even millions of Americans lives being at risk or the economy breaking down or the military being non-functional, then you’ve got a problem. So if those three criteria give you sort of the wrong answer on each point you need to take remedial action for your own manufacturing base and your alternative sources of supply right now rather than wait for the crisis

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Michael O’Hanlon. He’s a senior fellow and director of research and foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. You looked at 16 critical infrastructure sectors, which emerged as perhaps most vulnerable.

Michael O’Hanlon Yeah, well, the Department of Homeland Security helped us out here, specifically the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, because they had created this framework of 16 areas of critical infrastructure, basically the same kind of criteria being used to develop that that we use. Where are their large numbers of lives potentially at risk from damage to that infrastructure? Where could the economy become nonfunctional or the military become nonfunctional, or the country be vulnerable? So we went through, and there are some areas, let me just give a couple examples, like for example, stadiums and gathering places. You know, no one really cares in terms of national security if, let’s say, you’ve got a dependence on China for huge flat-screen TVs for, you know, the Washington Commander Stadium, and then that’s cut off in a crisis. Well, heaven forbid, you know. We don’t have to see as many replays of our beloved commanders losing for a few months. I’m being a little facetious, but you see my point. The reason why that kind of a category is established is because terrorists could strike it and a lot of lives could be quickly lost and that’s why it’s critical infrastructure. But it’s not the supply chain, it’s not the manufacturing or the sourcing of key equipment that’s going to potentially be interrupted and therefore put the nation’s security at risk. But an example of where you could have that kind of a vulnerability beyond pharmaceuticals or military manufacturing that we’ve already discussed might be, let’s say, agriculture. If you really depend on foreign suppliers for fertilizer, insecticide, pesticide, etc., and then that was cut off, you might not have people starving the next day, but within a few months, fundamental disruption could occur to crop production here in the United States and you could have big shortages. Now maybe there are ways to substitute potatoes for corn or what have you, but you need to do some detailed analysis because if there are certain chemicals upon which we depend heavily on China’s manufacturing base and then if you can then determine that those chemicals, if cut off, the absence of them would produce a crisis in food production within months, that’s pretty serious. And that’s, by the way, an example where there’s nuance and shades of gray, and we don’t claim to have definitively answered that question in our study. We didn’t have the capacity to do that with the four of us. But we did say there do seem to be some chemicals, especially with some insecticides, pesticides, where we have a high dependence on China. And we probably need to do some more work to see, in a hypothetical scenario, what would result if China cut off those pesticides and insecticides due to a national security crisis. How fast could we build alternative supply? How could we do crop rotation or substitution so that we didn’t depend as much on those chemicals, etc.? So that’s an example of where there probably is some excessive dependency. Maybe not enormous, but worth looking at.

Terry Gerton Your report suggests some action steps. Can you walk us through those and who would be responsible for them?

Michael O’Hanlon Well I think you would do it a little bit sector by sector and so I just mentioned agriculture. I would think the Department of Agriculture would know how to assess, you know, these kinds of hypothetical disruptions to supply chains much better than I would, as a more traditional national security analyst, for example. The Pentagon already does its own assessments, and they’ve gotten much better at the assessments. I’m not sure they fixed all the problems, but they’ve done much better with the assessments in the last few years. Of course, we’ve had big national debates in recent years on semiconductor production, and I think that’s been led by a number of agencies, probably the National Science Foundation and probably the Department of Energy and places that have some expertise in this kind of manufacturing and this kind of high precision, you know, technology. And so with that one, and maybe National Institutes of Standards and Technology. So there might be three or four. And with health and pharmaceuticals, it might be HHS, you might be CDC, NIH. So for each one, you would designate a lead agency within the federal government and try to work through, starting with this broad framing approach that we suggested or something similar, sort of narrow down your realm of more detailed investigation and then try to look through and see where you’ve got these dependencies that really could put national security at some risk. And then you use a common — if you find something you’ve gotta fix, you use combination of subsidies and various inducements and maybe direct regulation to try to change that situation and create alternative sources of supply, either here in the United States or from friendly nations. And that’s sort of the toolkit.

Terry Gerton Is this all an administrative approach in the executive branch or would you need the legislative branch to get involved here too and create some statutory frameworks?

Michael O’Hanlon I think you certainly need resources from the legislative branch, so you need appropriations. And you also would want state and local governments to help out in thinking about certain kinds of either vulnerabilities to their manufacturing sector or places where they could contribute to helping create new capability. And by the way, we’re looking at supply chain interruption. There are two other big ways in which critical infrastructure could be threatened — at least two, but one would be cyber attack. Whether you got the technology from abroad or not, if a foreign actor is able to access the technology through the internet, as we know China has with its Volt Typhoon malware that it’s implanted in a lot of infrastructure, you got to worry about that vulnerability too. So states can look into where they might have those sorts of vulnerabilities and could improve their resilience. And then, so you’ve got cyber, and then you’ve supply chain, and then, you’ve the possibility of physical damage either from natural catastrophe or from terrorist attack, so let’s say a dam or a single production facility where we make a lot of our IV fluid, for example, has happened during one of the hurricanes in 2024 in a facility I think in North Carolina was rendered incapable of producing that and it accounted for more than half the country’s total supply. So states and localities and the private sector can look into where they might have vulnerabilities of one of those types. Again, not the main focus of our paper, but you want to look at this all together and try to develop a national strategy for greater resilience in supply chains as well as against catastrophe or attack.

The post Resilient supply chains start with knowing what really matters, and what doesn’t first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network