Former Justice Department employees have an alumni network to turn to for help with looking for work. An employee organization called Justice Connection said it recently expanded its DOJ alumni network, aiming to help employees navigate transitions out of the agency. The organization is offering to connect current and recent DOJ employees with more than 100 agency alumni. They’ll be able to get informational interviews, advice and insights for how to continue on a specific career path, including attorneys, legal support staff and many others.
The House on Thursday passed the final group of spending bills needed before the Jan. 30 funding deadline. In a vote of 341 to 88, lawmakers approved fiscal 2026 funding for the departments of Defense, Labor, Education, Transportation and Health and Human Services. But due to Democratic opposition over ICE funding, the spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security passed with a much narrower margin, in a party line vote of 220 to 207. The appropriations package now heads to the Senate for consideration.
The Postal Service is now accepting bids from shippers for use of its nationwide last-mile delivery network. USPS already has agreements with shipping giants like Amazon and UPS to get packages to their final destination. But it’s looking to give other delivery companies an opportunity to strike similar deals. Last-mile delivery is the most expensive leg of deliveries, and USPS goes to more addresses than its private-sector competitors. USPS said winning bidders will be notified during the second quarter of this calendar year.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has officially lifted its hiring freeze, but staffing caps are still in place for a smaller workforce. The VA saw its first-ever workforce net decrease last year and is unlikely to hire its way to a higher headcount than what it currently has. VA’s Under Secretary for Health said the hiring freeze is over, but VA facilities generally can’t exceed staffing caps set for their regions. A report from Senate VA Committee Democrats said the VA lost more than 40,000 employees last year. About 10,000 of those employees worked in frontline positions that the department has struggled to fill.
Value-added resellers finally get a chance to weigh in on the concerns about their business model and the changes the General Services Administration has been considering. GSA issued a request for information yesterday seeking feedback from VARs and others to gain a clearer understanding of the value added by resellers, and the resulting impact of these services on pricing and the ability to meet the government’s requirements. The initial focus of the feedback is for companies in a specific special item number for IT hardware, 33411. Responses to the RFI are due by Feb. 9.
The Small Business Administration suspended nearly a quarter of all participants in the 8(a) program. The SBA has suspended more than 1,000 companies in the program. SBA made the decision after it deemed those small businesses non-compliant with its financial data request from December. An SBA spokesperson said these suspended firms have 45 days to file an appeal. At the same time, SBA issued new guidance yesterday clarifying how it will run the small business development program going forward. Among the changes is that SBA will administer the 8(a) program based on race-neutral requirements. It also will no longer approve the use of “socially disadvantage narratives” as a way to get into the program.
The Marine Corps has tapped GenAI.mil as its official enterprise generative artificial intelligence platform that will consolidate all duplicative, general-purpose GenAI usage into one system. Marines, civilians and contractors can start using GenAI.mil immediately. The platform is approved only for processing Controlled Unclassified Information, but the service plans to expand GenAI.mil to higher classification networks. The service also plans to integrate Marine Corps data sources and agentic AI development solutions in the future.
Congress wants the Space Force to organize its programs and people by mission area. One of the root causes of the Defense Department's failed acquisition system is the military rotation system, which often replaces program managers every two to three years. That turnover, lawmakers argue, prevents personnel from staying in place long enough to develop the technical expertise needed to manage increasingly complex systems. Now, Congress is directing the Pentagon to propose a Space Force pilot program that would keep personnel assigned to specific mission areas for substantially longer tours. The pilot program should also examine eliminating traditional occupational specialty categories, such as acquisition or operations, in favor of mission-focused specializations, such as missile warning or satellite communications.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is officially lifting a hiring freeze on its health care workforce, after shedding tens of thousands of positions last year.
But the VA, which saw the first-ever workforce net decrease, is unlikely to hire its way to a higher headcount than what it currently has.
“Facility leadership in the field are still reporting denials and severe delays in hiring approvals for all positions from clinical staff to custodians to claims processors,” lawmakers wrote.
The report claims the VA lost more than 40,000 employees last year, and that 88% of them worked in health care. About 10,000 of those employees worked in frontline positions that the department has struggled to fill.
VA workforce data shows the department saw a net decrease of 3,000 registered nurses last year, a net decrease of 1,000 physicians and a net decrease of 1,550 appointment schedulers.
In a typical year, the VA’s workforce sees a net gain of about 10,000 employees. But under the Trump administration, the VA sought to eliminate 30,000 positions through attrition by the end of fiscal 2025. The department previously envisioned cutting 83,000 jobs in part through layoffs.
VA Press Secretary Pete Kasperowicz disputed several of the report’s findings. He said the VA achieved its headcount reduction goal of 30,000 employees, but didn’t lose 40,000 employees, as Senate Democrats claim. The VA also disputes the report’s claims that veterans, in some cases, are seeing longer wait times for VA mental health care appointments.
Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told reporters in a call that the report shows a “diminished” VA that is unable to keep up with the needs of veterans.
“The loss of talent is so deeply regrettable, and the results are basically longer wait times,” Blumenthal said.
Kasperowicz said in a statement that, “while Blumenthal stages political theater, VA is making major improvements for veterans under President Trump.”
The VA fired about 2,400 probationary employees last year, but largely reduced its workforce through voluntary separation incentives.
VA workforce data shows the department made about 21,000 hires last year, offsetting the total impact of these workforce cuts. The latest data from the Office of Personnel Management shows the VA saw a net reduction of more than 27,000 positions in 2025.
But Blumenthal said these new hires have done little to improve the VA’s capacity.
“They are not the same skilled people as have been either fired or lost because of the toxic environment that’s been created in many areas of the VA,” he said.
VA workforce data shows the department made about 21,000 hires last year, offsetting the total impact of these workforce cuts. The latest data from the Office of Personnel Management shows the VA saw a net reduction of more than 27,000 positions in 2025 (Source: OPM)In a memo last week, VA Under Secretary for Health John Bartrum told department leaders that “all hiring freeze restrictions” still in place at the Veterans Health Administration have been lifted.
Bartrum wrote in the memo that each Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) “has been allocated a baseline number of positions calculated on their budgeted FTE plus anticipated needs for growth,” and that requests to exceed that headcount must be approved by the VA Strategic Hiring Committee.
“Leaders and managers must manage operational needs within their cumulative full-time equivalent (FTE) budget and position thresholds,” Bartrum wrote.
The report claims veterans are seeing longer wait times for mental health care appointments. In early January, new-patient wait times for individual mental health care appointments in 14 states exceeded 40 days — twice the wait time threshold that allows veterans to seek treatment outside the VA’s health care network. Those states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia. According to the report, the national mean for new patients to sign up for individual mental health care appointments is 35 days.
However, Kasperowicz said VA data shows wait times for mental health care were under six days for established patients, and 19 days for new patients.
The VA eased requirements for veterans to seek care from non-VA “community care” last year, and has increased spending on community care. The department is embarking on a $1 trillion next-generation community care contract, one of the largest government contracts in U.S. history.
House VA Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-Ill.) said in a hearing Thursday that the contract, “if done properly,” would give the VA “unprecedented flexibility” to award contract and task orders that would lead to better health care outcomes for veterans.
In their report, Senate VA Committee Democrats found the VA last year cancelled about 2,000 contracts and let another 14,000 expire without plans to renew or replace those services.
VA Secretary Doug Collins has repeatedly defended his plans for a smaller workforce. He told lawmakers last May that increased staffing hasn’t always led to better outcomes for veterans.
Last year, the department decreased its backlog of benefits claims by nearly 60% despite a net decrease of about 2,000 VA claims processors.
Kayla Williams, a former VA assistant secretary and a senior advisor for the Vet Voice Foundation, said the department reduced the initial claims backlog, but has grown the volume of claims requiring higher-level review.
“These actions were never about efficiency or cost savings,” Williams said.
The VA anticipated a spike in the backlog after Congress passed the PACT Act, making more veterans eligible for VA health care and benefits, because they were exposed to toxic substances during their military service.
Lindsay Church, the executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said 1.2 million veterans have lost their VA providers under the Trump administration.
“Clinics can’t keep care teams staffed. Appointments are being canceled or delayed, and veterans who rely on consistent, trauma-informed care are being forced into instability and pressured into community care. Mental health access, which has always been a crisis for our community for decades, has deteriorated rapidly,” Church said.
Mary Jean Burke, the first executive vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees National VA Council, said that by the end of 2026, most VA facilities are on track to lose about 2-5% of their psychologists — and that locations, including Seattle and Buffalo, are on track to see “double-digit” attrition.
Burke said VA health care employees have left because the VA has slashed jobs, stripped away remote work and telework, and brought staff back into “overcrowded” spaces.
“These punishing policies haven’t just lowered morale, they end up compromising the quality of care we provide,” Burke said.
Collins is scheduled to testify before the Senate VA Committee next Wednesday, in a hearing about the department’s ongoing reorganization efforts.
Terry Gerton You have done some analysis looking at the pattern of senior military officers being relieved with very little explanation from the Department of Defense. We’ve all read some of the headlines, but what is it about this issue that concerns you?
Virginia Burger For me, the biggest concern was that, like you said, there’s little to no justification for many of these firings. Or if we get any, it’s very oblique references in tweets from senior leaders like Secretary Hegseth, and we’re never provided any follow-up or any true validation that the relief was actually warranted. And for me, that is a red flag because it seems like we’re probably politicizing a organization that is meant to be apolitical, right? The military was always supposed to be an apolitical body, it’s not supposed to serve a party, it is supposed to serve the people, and if we are firing the most senior leaders of that organization for overtly political reasons, which is what we are left to surmise, given lack of any other information, that should be a serious point of pause for all Americans.
Terry Gerton As I mentioned, we’ve seen some headlines, but we may not know about all of the reliefs. Can you talk about how widespread this has become?
Virginia Burger So obviously I think the ones that everyone’s probably most familiar with were right away, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General C.Q. Brown, was relieved and then the chief of naval operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, were both relieved. They were probably the two biggest ones that everyone saw. And again, Hegseth characterized it very generally as cleaning house. I need new leadership, new generation for context. Neither of them were due to be turned over at that point in time, they were both still, well — had several years left in their tenure in those positions. And everyone sort of was left to guess, well, maybe they relieved General Brown because he was African-American and maybe they relieved Admiral Franchetti because she was a woman. I don’t have a ton of familiarization with General Brown, but I know a lot of friends in the Navy who were incredibly proud [of] and respected Admiral Françhetti. She was considered the pick for CNO and so her relief was quite shocking to a lot of people because she was by far and way, if we’re gonna talk about merit for positions, she was the person for that position. Some other ones that have maybe not gone as noticed are in some lower, more subordinate commands, but certainly still across the board, there were several women relieved in the Air Force and the Army that were senior leaders, and also notably the head of the NSA was relieved, and that position was gapped for several months. In fact, the replacement was only announced in the last few weeks, and that was both concerning for, why was the person relieved, but also from a strategic decision. If the NSA doesn’t have a leader, that’s a hugely powerful arm of national security. That was a big bipartisan concern as well that many senators and representatives expressed concern over.
Terry Gerton Let’s follow that because you also documented some patterns about gaps in leadership and transition and readiness. Tell us more about that.
Virginia Burger So when a senior leader is relieved, and it’s not on the normal timeline, because most of these positions you hold for a period of usually two to three years, that’s the typical timeline for command, especially at those senior leader levels of lieutenant generals and vice admirals, generals and admirals. When one of those positions is relieved suddenly, you do not have a replacement lined up. And for a lot of these senior leaders the replacement has to be confirmed by Congress, right? For combatant commanders, for service chiefs, that person has to nominated, they have to be reviewed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and then voted on by the Senate. If you fire someone off timeline, that position is going to be gapped, and these are our most senior military leaders who are in the positions that are making the most pivotal decisions for our national strategy, and who are making the decisions that America’s sons and daughters in service are going to have to execute. And so when they’re fired very suddenly, that position is empty and there is a power vacuum, there is a void and naturally the executive officer, the deputy is going to step up and do their best and maybe they’ll rush to put in someone who’s acting. But you know, an acting person in that position does not have the same legal authorities. They don’t have the same authorities for command and it’s just going to cause headaches and issues that will roll all the way down the chain. And it can be very, very difficult for a unit to run. And then when we’re talking about people in positions of such amount of power, that’s going to have a lot of ramifications on national security, morale, and making sure our service members are well taken care of.
Terry Gerton So, Virginia, these positions that have been relieved have been at the top of chains of command. Have you heard any response from within the military or within DoD about the impact?
Virginia Burger I can only speak to like anecdotes I’ve been given from people I know. I haven’t seen any significant reports or anything from the DoD officially because they aren’t releasing any information like that, right? Like, Secretary Hegseth has not come out and said, hey, here’s a survey or here’s an investigation we did to see if the very dramatic relief of Admiral Franchetti had negative impacts to naval readiness. He’s not doing that kind of work or if he is, he’s not going to publish it. What I can say, and what I’ve heard, like I said, I spoke to several peers and friends of mine who are in the Navy, and it was quite a morale blow when she was relieved. I know many women in service, as a veteran myself, I still have many friends on active duty, and they have watched as many of those relieved look like them. They are women, and they’re sort of questioning, is there a future for me in this organization? I have friends who have sort of passed the 10-year mark, they’re trying to make it to 20, and they are looking to see, is that even really an option? Will I be able to continue to dedicate my life to this service that I’ve chosen? And that’s going to have ripple effects across the force and that’s not gonna have great implications when it comes to readiness, morale, etc.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Virginia Burger. She’s the senior defense policy analyst for the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight. Virginia, in your paper, you talk about some opportunities that Congress might have to have some more say in this. Walk us through your suggestions.
Virginia Burger Like I said earlier, Congress has to review these nominees for the senior positions, right? And we’re talking specifically about the highest ranking officers. These are three and four-star generals and admirals. So those are the positions that have to go before Congress, they have to be cleared by SASC, Senate Armed Services Committee, and then voted on before they can take their seat in that position. And so Congress, and specifically the Senate, exists in that advisory capacity to the president’s nomination. And that’s written in law. That’s in Title 10, which is the section of U.S. Code that governs the United States military. There is a specific section, Section 601, that talks about the appointment of these officers, and it also talks about the removal and the replacement of them in some level of detail, but without any mention of Congress’ role, because there isn’t one in law for their removal. My suggestion is that we actually amend Section 601, so that there is some official oversight. Now, granted, Congress has avenues for oversight over these decisions now, right? The Senate, congress, they have the ability to conduct hearings, open investigations. If they wanted to, they could open an investigation into the relief of General Brown or Admiral Franchetti and subpoena them or subpoena Secretary Hegseth and have them come in and answer questions about that incident. The Senate could do that tomorrow. Politics aside, with all of that, there are things they could do to change the law. So my recommendations would be that they include explicit requirements for formal congressional notification, right? So when a senior leader, one of these three or four stars, is relieved, within 24 hours, it should be in the law, within twenty four hours, Congress must be formally notified of that decision. Right? Because again, these are the people whose relief is going to have the biggest impact to our national security. Our legislative body should be told that. That is something that I think would be a no-brainer to include, in my opinion. Another one is make sure that the DoD has to show their work, right? There should be a full investigative report. You and I have both been executive officers, I think you, for a very large battalion. You’re aware that the military loves to investigate everything. Someone sneezes in the wrong direction and an investigation is triggered. My guess is there’s probably investigations when these reliefs happen, I would hope there is, at the very least. If there isn’t, that’s maybe another question that we need to also pull the thread on. But at the least, I think Congress should be in receipt of that investigative material. Whatever investigation was done at that command level for the relief of that general or admiral should be provided to them, along with a statement from either the service secretary or the secretary of defense as to the justification for the relief and an optional response from the relieved officer stating their perspective. And that, I believe, should be included in 601 as a requirement to be given to Congress following the relief of one of these officers within 30 days. That way, Congress has this information. Does it need to be public? Maybe not. You could argue if someone is relieved for maybe personal misconduct that they don’t want in the public eye, sure, then the Senate or Congress can handle that with discretion, but at the very least, those legislators need that information so that they can make sure that the Secretary of Defense, the service secretaries, are not engaging in overt politicization in the removal of these officers.
Terry Gerton Virginia, I want to push on that a little bit because those proposals would give Congress oversight, but it still doesn’t address the issue of remediation or reinstatement that Congress might have that authority, if they were to receive all of that information and find that, in fact, in their opinion, that individual should continue on active duty. How do we get to a corrective measure that might help address this problem, or are you thinking that the additional oversight is its own deterrent?
Virginia Burger I think the oversight would be a deterrent in its own right because, you know, my guess is the secretary of defense does not want to be hauled in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee to answer for these should the Senate read the report and realize that the decision was overtly political. But there are, you now, like you said, ways that we could do it. They could impeach the service secretary or the secretary of defense if they feel like they are making these political decisions. That’s available to them now. I believe articles of impeachment for Secretary Hegseth were put forward in the House I think last week in light of Venezuela, I think one of the representatives did. I don’t think they went anywhere, but it’s something that they could do any day of the week if they feel like they are inappropriately handling their position, right? So that’s something they could to enforce this. Unfortunately, a lot of the rules governing the appointment of officers are established through case precedence. It’s not necessarily reflective explicitly in Title 10 or in the Constitution. So, a lot of the limitations that say the president is the one who should be appointing officers comes from case law, specifically before the Supreme Court. So that gets a little bit murky when it comes into the reinstatement of officers. But certainly, in my opinion, the easiest way would be if we believe a secretary of defense is mishandling their position by relieving officers for political reasons. If you impeach them, potentially the next secretary could then reinstate them. And then it’s very clean because it’s the secretary and the president who are then reinstating them.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, from right, with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. CQ Brown gives his opening statement before the start of their meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Pentagon, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Agencies are getting more information on how to implement the recently finalized “rule of many.” The federal hiring strategy, several years in the making, aims to create broader pools of qualified job candidates while adding flexibility for federal hiring managers.
A series of guidance documents the Office of Personnel Management published earlier this month outlined the steps agencies should take to begin using the “rule of many” when hiring. OPM’s new resources also detail how the “rule of many” intersects with other aspects of the federal hiring process, such as shared certificates, skills-based assessments and veterans’ preference.
Under the “rule of many,” federal hiring managers score job candidates on their relevant job skills, then rank the candidates based on those scores. From there, hiring managers can choose one of several options — a cut-off number, score or percentage — to pare down the applicant pool and reach a list of qualified finalists to select from.
OPM’s new guidance comes after the agency finalized regulations last September to officially launch the “rule of many.” The concept was initially included in the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, and OPM during the Biden administration proposed regulations on the “rule of many” in 2023.
“Coupled with the use of functional skills assessments … the [rule of many] gives hiring managers the much-needed flexibility to distinguish candidates based on their demonstrated functional merit-based qualifications for the role in question,” OPM Director Scott Kupor wrote in a Sept. 8 blog post, the same day OPM issued the final rule.
The “rule of many” aligns with some aspects of the Trump administration’s merit hiring plan, OPM said, such as using technical assessments and shared certificates. OPM said the “rule of many” in particular aligns with skills-based hiring, since it can expand candidate pools with applicants who have more fitting skillsets.
The “rule of many” also encourages agencies to use more “comprehensive” assessments, like structured interviews or job simulations, OPM said in its new guidance. And it can “support improved hiring outcomes, particularly for nontraditional candidates, veterans and those with varied career paths,” OPM added.
But for many agencies, the actual adoption of the “rule of many” may be put on the back burner, according to Jenny Mattingley, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service. She said without enough funding or staffing, agencies are not likely to overhaul their current and already well-established hiring practices in the short term.
“The ‘rule of many’ is a good tool, but until those ingredients are all put together, I don’t think that you’ll see it rolled out immediately,” Mattingley said in an interview.
OPM’s finalization of the “rule of many” last September officially ended agencies’ ability to use the past “rule of three” hiring practice. The older candidate assessment technique already had been largely phased out, but previously restricted agencies to only selecting from the top three ranked applicants.
The “rule of many” also differs from most agencies’ current candidate-vetting technique, called “category rating,” which lets federal hiring managers assort job applicants into categories such as “qualified,” “better qualified,” and “best qualified,” then select a candidate for the job from the highest category.
When “category rating” was introduced years ago, it was an improvement over the “rule of three,” but Kupor said “category rating” created other challenges — namely, that all candidates within a single category would be considered equally qualified.
“In other words, the categories are minimum hurdles for consideration, but they don’t distinguish between applicants within a category,” Kupor said in September. “For example, if a score of 80% is the minimum hurdle to qualify into the ‘best qualified’ category, an applicant who scores 100% is treated no differently than one who scores 80%.”
OPM said in its new guidance that the “rule of many” uses the strengths of “category rating,” while adding flexibility to the process. It also allows for “finer distinctions” between candidates and broadens the range of applicants available for selection.
In most cases, OPM said the “rule of many” is preferable over “category rating.” But there are also best use cases for each hiring mechanism. Higher-level positions with more robust assessments will usually require the finer distinctions between candidates that the “rule of many” provides. But for more entry-level positions that don’t require highly technical qualifications, the “category rating” system may be just as effective.
Adopting the “rule of many” will also require a significant cultural shift at agencies, which the Partnership’s Mattingley said can be difficult. Existing strategies like skills-based hiring have not yet been fully adopted at agencies, which may indicate that the uptake of the “rule of many” will also be slow, she explained.
“Until agencies crack the nut on really leveraging skills-based hiring, I don’t think it’s going to be this big change in the immediate future,” Mattingley said. “You need skills-based hiring in order to leverage the rule of many, because you have to be able to make much finer technical assessments on the skills between candidates if you’re going to rank them in the way rule of many does.”
OPM’s “rule of many” guidance comes a few months after President Donald Trump officially lifted the governmentwide hiring freeze. But the White House has emphasized that when hiring, agencies should still focus on maintaining their now-smaller staffing sizes.
“Hiring is still a big question this year,” Mattingley said. “It does look like the administration is going to encourage agencies to hire, except at the same time, agencies are still facing budget uncertainty. They’re facing downward pressure on headcount.”
Lawmakers are moving to extend key cybersecurity information authorities and grant programs, while also providing funds for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to fill “critical” positions.
The “minibus” appropriations agreement released by House and Senate negotiators on Tuesday includes fiscal 2026 funding for the Department of Homeland Security. DHS funding could be a sticking point in moving the bill forward, as some Democrats want more restrictions around the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations.
The bill also extends the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA 2015) and the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program through the end of fiscal 2026. Both laws are set to expire at the end of this month.
Ross Nodurft, executive director of the Alliance for Digital Innovation, also applauded the extension of the Technology Modernization Fund included in the minibus.
“Reauthorizing the Technology Modernization Fund and the State and Local Cyber Grant Program for the rest of the fiscal year allows the government to invest money in new technology modernization and cyber security projects at the federal and state level while we work on more permanent, longer term reauthorizations and funding,” Nodurft said. “I am encouraged to see Congress put forward these stop gap measures and will continue to work with members to reauthorize these critical programs beyond 2026.”
CISA funding
The bill would include a cut for the agency CISA, with fiscal 2026 funding level set at $2.6 billion, about $300 million less than its current annual budget.
The appropriations agreement would specifically provide $20 million for CISA to hire additional staff to “critical positions,” according to the joint explanatory statement on the DHS appropriations measure.
That funding would be evenly split across five CISA programs: Threat Hunting; Vulnerability Management; Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation; Security Programs; and Security Advisors.
The bill would also require CISA to “not reduce staffing in such a way that it lacks sufficient staff to effectively carry out its statutory missions.” Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed concerns about CISA losing roughly one-third of its staff over the past year.
Secret Service burnout
Appropriators are also taking aim at burnout within the Secret Service’s ranks. The funding measure provides $3.3 billion for the Secret Service as it embarks on a major recruiting initiative over the next two years.
That total would allow the Secret Service to “maintain ‘zero-fail’ mission by funding aggressive recruitment and retention to eliminate officer burnout, while modernizing high-tech training facilities and armored fleets to stay ahead of evolving threats
to our nation’s leaders,” according to a DHS spending bill summary provided by Senate appropriators.
The bill includes an increase of $46 million for Secret Service hiring in fiscal 2026. It also provides the agency with advance funding to prepare for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles.
But appropriators also want updates on the Secret Service’s recruitment and retention efforts. The explanatory statement directs the agency to provide briefings on its employee resiliency program and hiring projections, respectively.
“The briefing shall also include ongoing efforts to decrease the time to hire and increase yield rates from applicants to hires, as well as the impact that these hiring efforts will have on overtime costs,” lawmakers wrote.
FEMA staffing
The spending agreement also includes a “rejection” of staffing cuts made at the Federal Emergency Management Agency in fiscal 2025, according to the joint explanatory statement. The bill would provide $32 billion for FEMA, including $26.4 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund.
FEMA lost more than 2,000 employees to workforce reduction programs last year. And the agency has undertaken further staff reductions by not renewing Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees (CORE) in recent weeks. FEMA headquarters officials have also contemplated cuts totaling up to 50% of its workforce as part of a planning exercise shared with agency leaders in December.
Now, appropriators want FEMA to provide monthly briefings on the agency’s staffing levels and workload requirements.
“Such briefings shall also include projected staffing levels for the remainder of the fiscal year in light of the agreement’s rejection of the position reductions implemented in fiscal year 2025,” the joint explanatory statement reads.
The bill also requires FEMA to maintain staff “necessary to fulfill the missions” required of the agency by six separate laws and various other authorities. That staffing requirement, lawmakers emphasize, also applies to FEMA reservists and CORE staff.
The Trump administration has moved to shift more emergency management responsibilities to state and local governments. FEMA staffing reductions and policy changes over the last year have sparked concerns that the administration is implementing that plan despite there being no changes in the agency’s lawful responsibilities.
FEMA team members in Martin County, Florida, canvas with local residents to help register them for assistance and help disaster survivors after Hurricane Milton. (Photo source: FEMA/Patrick Moore)
Terry Gerton There’s been a lot of controversy around polygraphs in government over the past few months. So let’s start with some of the basics. Why do agencies like CISA and DoD continue to rely on polygraphs for certain positions?
Dan Meyer So that’s a great starting point. The first thing we have to recognize is that polygraph technology is so questionable that it’s generally not admissible in courts. So as evidence, it’s pretty thin, and that’s been a generational trend. It used to be accepted far more back in the 1930s and 40s than it is now. So we use polygraphs in the United States for counterintelligence. That’s what it’s for, reliability of the workforce. We want to be able to test and employ statements, various questions against some empirical basis of truth. The challenge with the polygraph is that it measures not truth, but physiology. It measures the way the body reacts. And science, over the years, has started to show that women and men, for instance, don’t react the same. They don’t have the same physiology. That’s why we have to do different types of medical research now, because women were traditionally ignored, because we always thought that men were the baseline, and everybody would be the same as men. Well, that turned out not to be true. The same situation exists with polygraphs, and there can be differences across the board which polygraphers can never accept, and they can’t accept because that starts to undermine their position within the professional community. So that’s the challenge, is that it measures physiology and not actual truth or veracity of the individual. At some point we’ll be out of this problem because we’ll have a tool that’s better than the polygraph and I do think that artificial intelligence will create it, but we in the United States use the polygraph to catch spies, other countries don’t. And that’s our only tool we really have. We’re not good at actually doing assessment of human potential from other types of analysis. So we’re stuck with it. It’s the only tool that we’ve got and it’s the one we use. And if you’re in the intelligence community or if you are in law enforcement, the chances are you’re going to be under a polygraph at some point in your career, if not your entire career.
Terry Gerton There was a recent controversy around the acting CISA director’s failure of a polygraph test. Can you fill us in a little bit on what went on there?
Dan Meyer I’m not privvy to the exact details of his particular case, but the alarming part of that is it was CISA. CISA is the heart of our cyber defense, and for much of the Biden administration, it was under very, very close scrutiny from a variety of congressional oversight authorities. Senator Grassley, at one point, was doing an inquiry. So there was concerns that CISA was being used politically. So on top of that concerns, the Trump administration came in with a commitment to reform it. And then you have this problem. And the problem seems to have developed around two questions. One is, did the individual fail a polygraph? You really don’t fail a polygraph, either there’s a detection or a non-detection. It’s really not like a test you can fail. But clearly did not pass, to use the vernacular, according to the reports. And then there’s the open question about whether that individual should have been under a polygraph, and there’s this allegation out there in the press that somehow he was set up. And so those are the two concerns there. The second one is kind of unique in that polygraphs are given based on the position and what’s called the criticality of the position. So it’s really about the classification of one’s job that determines whether you get a polygraph. So there really should be no question as to whether a person should have a polygraph or not have a polygraph, so if there was an open question, that should have been elevated to the appropriate authority to decide that. My understanding is that’s the DNI, is the DNI is in charge of reliability issues, security clearance issues across the board for the president in her capacity as the DNI, but not as the spymaster in the United States. It’s a collateral duty. That should have been resolved and it should not be at the point now where employees are being accused and somebody who’s now being seen as a victim of a wrongful polygraph process, that’s ugly. We should have never gotten to that point. That should have been raised and clarified before the polygraph went forward. The second use goes back to my original comment about physiology. People can fail polygraphs for a variety of reasons. There’s the famous guilt-grabber complex, which is that an individual is very at attention in their thoughts, very self-reflective, very self-aware. People who are that way about events in their lives may start to have feelings of guilt. Feelings of guilt can trigger physiology. And sometimes your feeling of guilt that you didn’t feed the cat on time this morning can bleed over into a question that when you were asked whether you committed an act of terrorism against the United States. Well, let’s put it this way. If you’re a sociopath, the chances are you’re going to pass a polygraph because the way you’re constructed in your behavioral mental health diagnosis is ideally suited to not triggering the physiology cues that exist for the polygraph. But if you’re a deeply religious person or spiritual person, it’s in the community, this is known as the Jewish and Catholic issue. People who are Jewish and Catholic all had a Jewish or a Catholic mother. You were taught to always think you were doing something wrong. I’m laughing because I was raised by a Catholic mother, and so I was always looking at my behavior and always questioning my behavior. That can be a disaster on a polygraph.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Dan Meyer, he’s an equity partner at Tully Rinckey. With all of the challenges with the polygraph that you’ve just articulated for us, if an employee or a contractor is facing one for their position, what are the best practices to prepare and protect themselves?
Dan Meyer Okay, so on the big picture, let’s talk about from the administration perspective. We ought not to have separate rules for separate people about polygraphs, we’ve got to stick with the structure. If the position requires it, it has to be performed. There should not be special exceptions. I know you always want to have special exceptions, but that’s a bad idea. For the individual, the first thing you do is do not watch videos and do not study the polygraph because you are going to be asked questions that ask you if you did that, and then you’re going to be in the awkward situation of trying to explain whether you adopted countermeasures to make it look like you’re telling the truth when you’re not telling the truth. Do not try to game the polygraph because if the polygraph has trouble figuring out truth or falsity, it does not have trouble figuring it out whether you’re gaming it, and that’s a huge reason why people fail polygraphs. It’s good to retain a law firm to get advice on your security profile to help you understand where your liabilities are and how to accurately report them. The whole key to the security paradigm is you’ve got to be comfortable with the way you resolve the issues in your life so that when you talk to security officials and you talk about those issues, you’re open and candid and there’s a complete and transparent flow of information between those people about that situation. Then you won’t fail the polygraph, then you’re going to do fine on your security review. The challenge we have in American culture at this point in time is everybody thinks you have to withhold information to game the process. Game the process in our commercial lives as consumers, game the process in our private lives as family members. This is an evil that has drifted into American culture, and it really is harmful on the polygraph. So you’ve got to think through about whether you’re open and honest about your life, and you’ve got to incorporate that principle into your job application.
The Office of Personnel Management extended the deadline to apply for the U.S. Tech Force, due to what it said has been “tremendous interest and a recent surge in applications.”
The Tech Force program initially launched in December, as a way to temporarily hire technologists into government for two-year stints to work on critical tech challenges across agencies. Those interested now have until Feb. 2 to apply for a spot in the program, according to a Thursday social media post. OPM is targeting 1,000 recruits to the program by March.
It’s not clear how many individuals have so far submitted applications to Tech Force. But OPM Director Scott Kupor said more than 35,000 people expressed initial interest in the program.
“We’re working through our funnel now of how many of those people will give us a resume, how many people will do the application,” Kupor said Wednesday during an event hosted by Washington AI Network. “From my perspective, the interest is phenomenal.”
The federal tech recruitment program incorporates skills-based hiring practices by not requiring candidates to have a college degree to apply for the program. It is also targeted in large part toward hiring early-career talent — something the government has struggled with for years.
“If we do nothing, basically, we have a pending problem where we’re going to have a ton of people retiring over the next five or 10 years, and we’ve done absolutely nothing to actually replenish the pipeline,” Kupor said. “So, to us, this is the perfect opportunity. We can fill a talent gap in the technology area, and we can also start to solve what we call the early-career problem in government.”
Early-career staffing in government, however, has declined over the last year due to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce. Currently, 7.9% of the federal workforce is under age 30, compared with 8.9% a year ago. In contrast, about 41% of the federal workforce is over age 50, and 13.5% of federal employees are eligible to retire, according to OPM workforce data.
“You saw a disproportionate number of young, tech-savvy federal employees being shown the door,” Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, told reporters Thursday. “The federal government has had a history of insufficient generationally diverse talent, and that went down even further over the course of the past year.”
Additionally, as part of the more than 320,000 federal employees who left government last year, OPM workforce data shows that agencies lost nearly 13,000 IT managers governmentwide. That includes a net loss of about 4,300 IT managers in the Defense Department, and 1,400 IT managers at the IRS.
But through the Tech Force program, Kupor said his goal of creating more flexibility for technologists to move between jobs in the federal and private sectors may lead to better recruitment of early-career federal employees.
“If you’re an early-career person, you don’t need to make a 40-year decision as to whether you’re going to be in government or be in the private sector,” Kupor said. “I think it would be healthy, both for the government and for the private sector, if we had more people who come in and out … We want to create a fluid career track, particularly for early-career folks.”
Kupor expressed interest in scaling up the initial 1,000-member Tech Force cohort over time. He also discussed the possibility of expanding the federal recruitment program to other fields, such as HR specialists and financial analysts.
To recruit talent for Tech Force, OPM is collaborating with various private sector companies, along with the NobleReach Foundation — a non-profit organization with an existing STEM scholarship program targeted toward public service. The organization is expected to work with OPM to help connect agencies with Tech Force recruits in AI, cybersecurity, data science and more.
“We’re at a transformational time right now — how people think about their careers is going to be very different,” NobleReach CEO Arun Gupta said Wednesday during the Washington AI Network event. “You may decide you want to stay, you may decide to leave, but we celebrate both options. We want them to be ambassadors for understanding what public service is about and stay connected to public service.”
The Tech Force hiring effort is far from the first time the government has created a short-term program seeking to recruit technologists and early-career talent. Initiatives during past administrations have included the U.S. Digital Service, now called the U.S. DOGE Service, as well as the U.S. Digital Corps.
“Some of what we’re seeing right now, frankly, is duplicating stuff that used to exist that no longer does … and we did see an outflow of a lot of tech talent in the federal government,” Stier said. “It is obviously better that they’re now trying to bring more tech talent in, but it’s going to be more difficult given the track record that they’ve had in shutting down preexisting programs that were intended to solve for the same problems.”
Stier also emphasized the importance of integrating the temporary Tech Force employees with the current federal workforce to maximize technological progress in agency programs.
“It is not really possible to achieve significant long-term improvement by trying to strap on some external force that parachutes in for a short period of time,” Stier said. “You really need to invest in the people that are already there, that have deep knowledge not only about the subject matter of the programs, but also about the way government works.”
Terry Gerton Fors March has studied military recruiting for years. And I think we’re at a point now of saying, let’s look at national service more broadly, not just military service, but civilian federal service, for example, or volunteer programs. What are you seeing in the space? What are the trends that you’re watching?
Brian Griepentrog Oh, wow. Big, big, big question, right? I think anytime we start talking about public service, national service, military service, I focus in on the second word there, the service part, right. And it truly is, it’s a, what are some of the associations that job prospects have with this kind of umbrella term of service? And I think we’ve done a lot of our own research. We are good consumers of research from monitoring the future to other types of important federal surveys that ultimately show that as we talk about the associations that applicants, prospects have about, frankly, federal and public service, there’s a lot of misperceptions there and those attitudes, they’re strong, they are resilient. And I think for us, it has provided a real significant challenge, which is how do you combat that without just masses of money that, frankly, on the public side don’t seem to be there.
Terry Gerton Are there differences in age? And I’m thinking, we often talk about recruiting recent college grads, but there’s a lot of talk about permeability of the workforce in the military and on the civilian side, people being in the private sector coming into the public sector going back. Do the attitudes about public service change as people age?
Brian Griepentrog Well, one of the things that I think is really important that you hit upon is just that the window of employability, what I might say is as we’ve matured our understanding over the past 25 years, we see some societal changes. And frankly, what that means is that the idea of young adults, whether it be getting a full-time job, moving out of their parents’ home, getting married, having kids, kind of solidifying their life. Those have all shifted to the right. That’s very well known. What that means for a lot of employers, frankly, is that that window at which you are recruiting, that also shifts to the, you talk about the permeability. I would also say that that just means that the focus can’t be just on a college graduate or a high school graduate. We understand that those individuals are not landing that long time first job. And we see that over 50% of young adults and that kind of that age group of 16 to 24 and sometimes 16 to 28, they tend to have multiple jobs. And that’s not always the case that they’re wanting that, that’s something that, the gig economy is something that they have control over. Yes, there’s a desire for flexibility. Yes, There’s a desire for comfort, but it’s well recognized that over half of these young adults frankly feel as though they’re in great financial hardship.
Terry Gerton We’ve been hearing that sort of younger Americans really are motivated to service, to community service or helping each other, and yet you mentioned that we’re having a hard time translating the message of national service into this generation. What are some of the things that you’ve looked at that would help the federal government maybe shape its message better or find different channels to reach these folks?
Brian Griepentrog I think that’s a really important point here, right? It’s when we ask young adults, what are the factors that are most important to them as they’re making a decision? Maybe that’s during high school and they’re make a decision after high school or that’s individuals in that college age and what do you plan to do after? It’s fairly consistent in some of the answers that they provide. And I think we hit upon some of those, right. I kind of mentioned a work-life balance and flexibility. This idea of kind of lifestyle, comfort, safety, the ideas of, frankly, of purpose and of kind of career growth and stability, those are pretty consistent. But I will say that the idea of wanting to provide for and wanting to engage in national service, it’s usually about 40% of young adults are kind of endorsing that. And that has dropped over the past 25 years. One of the big misperceptions, and I hit upon this at the top, is the service element, which is service doesn’t have to mean sacrifice. And I think when it does, it really is challenging, because frankly, that idea of fear of missing out, the idea of putting your life on hold, stepping aside, that’s the language that we get to hear from young adults. And frankly, that becomes a huge limiter for national service, public service, and military service that ultimately do see themselves as providing career acceleration, purpose, passion, connection. So that’s one of those that comes out. And it’s not just the military service, also the work that we’ve done with AmeriCorps, that we done with DHS, that we have done with some of the DOD civilian agencies. It’s a common thread.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Dr. Brian Griepentrog. He’s the president of research and advisory services at Fors Marsh. Brian, I wanna follow on with that because you mentioned some of the civilian agencies and we’re seeing groups like the DOD cyber workforce or the National Park Police or Customs and Border Protection offering huge signup bonuses. You’ve done a lot of research with the military who’s very practiced in the idea of enlistment bonuses. What do you expect the outcome of these incentive programs to be? Are more people going to take them and say, yes, I want to serve in the National Park Police?
Brian Griepentrog I can answer that from both the research that I am aware of, as well as from some of our own experiences, right? That’s Fors Marsh. And it’s first to note that when we look at this mix of kind of levers that you have in terms of, one, should we spend resources identifying who to target? Right? Who? Who should we be really trying to bring into our organization? Who do we want to make sure that they know our story, that they knew our message, right? That’s one aspect and it’s kind of the marketing element. Then we have the element of, how do we wanna induce them? What are the incentives? And we can also talk about some of those elements of frankly, some of our recruiting, our sales force, not to mention how efficient all of those are. And what I’ve seen time and again is that the element of the inducements of the incentives are the least cost efficient of those three. And frankly, the focus of resources on those individuals who might be most interested and who might to be qualified, that and then in tandem with a strong handoff to a sales force that can follow up on that, I’ve seen has tended to be the most effective route because. ultimately. we’ve also, and I’ve been a part of some of this research as well, with my colleague, Jen Gibson and Sean Marsh, where we’ve seen that some of those, frankly, some of these transactional job characteristics, something like job pay and incentive, those individuals tend to not re-up, re-enlist, stay for longer periods of time. So it might address a short-term need, but it might also have, from a labor force projection, a challenging multi-year outlook.
Terry Gerton That’s really helpful insight because 2025 has been a tough year for the federal workforce and lots of people have left and there’s been a federal hiring freeze in place for most of the year. But now the agencies have submitted their workforce plans, OPM is looking at that and expectations are that hiring may open up. So what advice would you have for OPM and the federal agencies with all the things that we’ve just covered. What should they be looking for? What processes should they have in place that would really help motivate the best hires going forward?
Brian Griepentrog Another great question, Terry. I think having some caution, going into this with some caution, that the idea of flipping the switch is not necessarily expectation of having this just a windfall of candidates, right? I think that’s number one. I think number two is that some of the same challenges that existed two years ago are gonna exist in two weeks. So as we start thinking through who’s interested, who’s motivated, who’s qualified, what is the experience of the candidate? I think all of those elements, I mean, they’re, they’re still working in very much a competitive landscape with a lot of private sector organizations that also want the most talented individuals. And frankly, I would suggest that the past year has not been the greatest from a branding and association for those individuals to come in with the motivation element to this. And so I do think that a lot of attention should be given to how are we communicating our brand, our story, and what it looks like as an employer.
Bipartisan lawmakers are seeking to secure a 35% federal pay raise for correctional officers at the Bureau of Prisons, in an effort to address longstanding staffing shortages across the agency.
The Federal Correctional Officer Paycheck Protection Act, which both House and Senate lawmakers introduced this week, would implement a 35% increase to the base pay rates for BOP correctional officers in the 0007 job series, as well as certain correctional officers on various other government pay scales.
“Persistent and often dangerous staffing shortages at federal prisons nationwide cause safety concerns for BOP personnel and incarcerated individuals alike,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), one of the bill’s original cosponsors, said in a statement. “Our bill will help to ensure that staff within our federal prisons are paid adequately for the critical work they do across this country.”
A bipartisan companion bill in the House comes from Reps. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.) and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who said that pay rates for correctional officers fall short of other similar federal law enforcement personnel. In turn, that leads to low staffing levels, coupled with excessive use of overtime to try to compensate for the vacancies.
“This strains workforce morale, disrupts inmate programming and creates unsafe conditions inside Bureau of Prisons facilities,” Bresnahan said in a statement.
The new bill comes shortly after BOP correctional officers received a 3.8% federal pay raise, as part of President Donald Trump’s orders for a larger 2026 pay increase for certain law enforcement personnel.
The American Federation of Government Employees said it “appreciates” the 3.8% raise for law enforcement, including BOP correctional officers. But AFGE added that for the BOP, “the one-time pay bump simply isn’t enough to make up for decades of pay disparity.”
Brandy Moore White, national president of the AFGE Council of Prison Locals, expressed support for the new legislation.
“This reform is critical. It will align BOP compensation with federal law enforcement standards, stem the loss of experienced officers and attract qualified applicants in an increasingly competitive hiring market,” Moore White said in a statement. “Most importantly, it will help restore safe staffing levels across federal institutions, reduce violence, protect staff and ensure mission readiness.”
The introduction of the bill also comes shortly after BOP Director William K. Marshall III announced upcoming retention-based pay incentives for certain correctional officers and other BOP positions seeing consistent staffing shortages. The new pay incentives, which are expected to take effect in February, will give some agency employees a temporary pay boost between 5% and 25%, depending on their job position and geographic location.
For years, BOP has attempted to stave off poor recruitment and retention levels by using pay-based recruitment and retention incentives as a way to try to keep federal correctional officers in their jobs. But because the pay incentives are a temporary fix, many have advocated for a larger and permanent federal pay raise for the BOP workforce.
A Justice Department Office of Inspector General report from February 2024 said the BOP workforce uses excessive overtime hours and staff “augmentation” to try to compensate for persistent understaffing. But the OIG wrote that those factors “overburdened existing staff and potentially contributed to staff fatigue, sleep deprivation, decreased vigilance and inattentiveness to duty.”
Recent federal workforce data also shows that BOP correctional officers’ attrition levels over the last year have resulted in 1,700 officers leaving their jobs, including more than 1,100 correctional officers who have either quit or retired since January 2025. Over the same time period, the agency had about 1,200 new officers join the ranks, resulting in a net loss of nearly 500 correctional officers over the last year.
Under the new legislation, the 35% pay increase would initially last for five years. Within the last six months of that timeframe, the bill would require the Justice Department OIG to assess the progress BOP has made toward improving recruitment and retention levels, as well as reducing overtime hours and staff augmentation. If that OIG assessment shows BOP has made progress as a result of the federal pay raise, the 35% salary boost would remain in place.
The Department of Homeland Security’s inconsistent hiring practices present major challenges at a time when DHS is surging recruitment across its law enforcement components, according to the department’s watchdog.
The DHS inspector general, in an annual report on top management and performance challenges, flagged “fragmented law enforcement hiring” as one of the department’s top three issues.
The IG warns that those longstanding issues have been amplified by a recent influx of funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last year. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the Secret Service have all embarked on major hiring initiatives over the past year, backed by billions of dollars in funding.
“There is overlapping, competitive, law enforcement hiring among ICE, CBP, and USSS,” the report warns. “These competing interests can undermine the hiring process when conducted without departmentwide planning. Law enforcement hiring will endure additional stresses in the coming years due to the OBBBA, which funds an increase in departmental law enforcement personnel.”
DHS recruiting is “further complicated by inconsistent vetting requirements and application processes” across law enforcement agencies, according to the report.
“These inconsistencies make it difficult to implement a more centralized, efficient hiring process, resulting in duplication of effort, higher costs, and slower onboarding across the department,” the IG states.
The report comes as the Trump administration touts ICE’s hiring of 12,000 new employees in less than a year. However, the vetting and training of ICE officers has come under increasingscrutiny amid the rapid hiring blitz.
Cyber and AI hiring
The IG report also highlights challenges with DHS’s hiring of cybersecurity, IT and artificial intelligence specialists. For instance, DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Coast Guard, respectively, face administrative challenges in recruiting personnel with AI-related skillsets, according to the IG.
Those types of challenges could delay key DHS AI projects, the report states.
“These challenges are magnified by inconsistent hiring practices across components, pay disparities with the private sector, and complex clearance requirements,” it continues.
Meanwhile, DHS’s Cyber Talent Management System has not met its original goal to help recruit thousands of cyber experts. Hiring using CTMS has reached just several hundred staff since the system was launched in 2021.
“Although there has been some success using CTMS, the department continuously improves it in partnership with hiring managers to make it a more effective tool,” the IG report states.
Furthermore, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency last year terminated many probationary staffers who were part of CTMS, further shaking confidence in the novel talent system.
Still, the IG report recommends DHS deepen centralized hiring efforts like CTMS to address its tech talent gaps.
“These centralized hiring efforts are a step in the right direction,” the report states. “However, it is unclear that these hiring efforts are sufficient to meet the hiring surges required by the OBBBA or keep pace with evolving Department needs as AI and machine learning are integrated into all operations. Since previous hiring surges did not achieve intended outcomes, DHS should pivot to more successful recruitment methods.”
FILE - Customs and Border Patrol agents question occupants of a vehicle they pulled over, during an immigration crackdown in Kenner, La., Dec. 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File)
Andy’s story is an all too familiar one for many executives leaving federal service.
Andy — not his real name — found what he thought was the perfect fit in the private sector after leaving federal service earlier this year. It was with a big company, in a sector he was intimately familiar with and the opportunities across the federal sector were growing.
But less than a year into his new position, Andy is joining the ever growing number of former federal employees who are hanging out their own shingle as a consultant.
“There was a little bit of a mismatch in expectations, probably both on my part and on the company’s part. I thought the role I would fill would make use of my background and skills at a policy level. But the company was looking for someone who was more technical and could help out at the tactical level,” said Andy, who requested anonymity in order to talk about his experience with a federal contractor. “Too many times people in these private sector companies don’t actually understand how to leverage government executives and government executive expertise.”
Andy’s story likely will be repeated by hundreds of federal executives over the next year.
If you’ve spent any time on LinkedIn over the last month, you may have seen what seems to be a constant stream of executives leaving federal service. Whether they’re retiring or they took the deferred resignation program or it’s just through normal attrition, the exodus of federal executives feels more acute than ever before.
Just take a look at the numbers:
There are 551 fewer Senior Executive Service (SES) members in 2026 than in 2025, according to the Office of Personnel Management’s new workforce data website. The number of SESers dropped to 7,336 as of Jan. 8, 2026, from 7,887 in August 2024.
Meanwhile the pipeline of people at the General Schedule, or GS-14 and GS-15 levels, who are in line to become SESers, also saw significant one-year reductions.
The reduction of employees at the GS-14 level comes after years of growth. For example, in 2019, agencies had 117,600 GS-14s, but the 8,000 drop between 2024 and 2025 basically erases all the growth since 2023.
The changes to employees at the GS-15 level are less dramatic, but still erases growth, albeit smaller growth, since 2021.
The reduction of senior leaders isn’t all that different than what agencies saw across the board last year. There are 219,000 fewer federal employees in 2025 than in 2024.
Interestingly enough, OPM says the median age of the federal worker remains at 47 years old, but the percentage of federal employees who are eligible to retire dropped to 13.5% from 15%. The Small Business Administration and NASA have the largest percentage of employees, more than 25% respectively, who are eligible to retire.
OPM says 105,858 retired from federal service in 2025. The Defense Department saw the largest number of employees leave via retirement at 31,689, while the departments of Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Justice, Treasury and Health and Human Services all saw more than 6,000 employees leave via retirement.
Pipeline of future leaders narrows
Concerns over the impending retirement wave isn’t new. Good government groups and employee organizations have been highlighting their concerns for decades. But with the combination of retirements, employees taking the DRP, the administration firing probationary employees and people just plain quitting, there is more concern than ever about the pipeline of current and up-and-coming federal managers.
Michelle Sutter, the director of the Senior Executives Association board, spent over 15 years in government before leaving last year under the DRP. Sutter said the one-year reductions in SESers, as well as GS-14s and GS-15s, is worrisome for several reasons.
“In conversations with our members, a consistent theme that we hear is that we have executive-level employees that are literally, at times, doing the jobs of three to four people, and that’s unprecedented, because it tells us that regardless of whether you’re at the operational level or the executive level, you’ve got people functioning in roles sometimes that are outside of their daily operations that they would normally do,” Sutter said in an interview with Federal News Network. “The effect of this is it puts stress on the leaders. It makes it difficult to focus on mission delivery. If you’re having a tough time focusing on mission delivery, it makes it difficult to provide services to the American people. It also creates a stressful situation and leads to burnout because leaders are in a position where it’s difficult to lead effectively when you’re trying to manage daily operations, doing multiple roles yourself, and then you’re expected to lead teams and manage programs and make sure that you meet the needs of the agencies.”
Sutter said GS-14s and GS-15s, who are more at the operational level, are facing similar challenges.
While these GS-14 and GS-15s may now have more opportunities to step into acting or temporary roles that would help them prepare to move into the SES, burnout, cuts to training and education opportunities and the need to deal with constant change remain a big challenge for these employees.
Sutter said the pipeline of senior managers who are ready to move into the SES has also been narrowed.
“We need to really focus on our career senior executives. I think over the next year, success is really going to depend on stabilizing leadership teams being disciplined about the use of different roles, whether they be acting or permanent, and really investing in executive development and recognizing that executive effectiveness is critical to mission delivery,” Sutter said. “This is not about routine federal leadership as it was in the past. How agencies support career executives now will absolutely shape continuity, performance and leadership capacity well beyond the transition.”
Sutter added that SEA was pleased to see OPM coming out with new training and education programs. She said SEA hopes agencies have the funding and give employees the time to take advantage of these courses.
Advice for those joining the private sector
For those executives jumping on the wave of leaving federal service, the private sector may be just as challenging. But the experiences of Andy and others demonstrate what executives need to consider as they move into industry.
“The job market is pretty tough for a lot of people today. It’s flooded. It’s kind of a buyer’s market at the moment,” Andy said. “It’s easy to say, you really need to make sure that, that you’ve got the right fit. But for somebody who really needs a job and needs the income, that may be easier said than done. But I would say, ideally, you really should be conscious about that fit aspect. The one thing that I found as I talked to other government executives, who had worked with industry, is they made a similar comment that they thought part of the challenge was that a lot of times people in these companies don’t actually understand how to leverage government executives and government executive expertise.”
Tim Teal, the CEO and founder The Bellwether Group and a former National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command official, posted some solid advice on LinkedIn about what federal executives should keep in mind as they are leaving government.
Teal said most of the exits he’s seen were not about competence. They were about mismatched expectations. “The executive thinks they are there to advise and shape strategy. The company expects immediate impact,” he said. “In government, authority is derived from role, statute, and mission. In industry especially government contracting sector, authority is derived from revenue, margin and growth.”
Another rule of thumb Teal highlighted was about reputation. He said if you think your reputation will protect you from layoff or other challenges, you are incorrect. Teal said reputations open doors. Performance keeps them open.
“The most successful former government leaders I know didn’t cling to status. They learned the business. They tied their value to outcomes. And they never confused respect with immunity,” he wrote to Federal News Network in an email. “The biggest mistake I see is people negotiating the title before they understand the business. If you do not know how the company makes money, who buys from them and where they are hurting, you are walking in blind. Don’t accept roles with vague charters. If no one can clearly explain what success looks like in six months, that role probably will not last six months.”
As for Andy, who is now going out on his own as a consultant, he said while his experience was definitely eye opening, he doesn’t blame the company or himself for things not working out. But he does offer one piece of advice: “Trust your gut. I did have some sort of ticklish feelings in my gut, like, that’s not the answer that I was looking for.”
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is offering retention-based federal pay incentives to correctional officers and other critical frontline positions, in an attempt to address longstanding understaffing across the agency.
The upcoming retention bonuses will take effect in February, according to an all-staff message BOP Director William K. Marshall III sent Monday.
“These retention incentives are about keeping the experience in our institutions while we throw everything we have to deliver reinforcements and bring relief to an exhausted workforce,” Marshall wrote in the Jan. 5 email, viewed by Federal News Network.
The BOP for years has faced significant workforce challenges, including persistent understaffing and high use of overtime. The Government Accountability Office once again named the management of the federal prison system as an item on its 2025 high-risk list, in part due to the workforce issues at BOP.
Retention incentives are one way federal agencies can try to address challenges with keeping employees in their jobs — and it’s a tactic that BOP has used for years. Generally, agencies provide the pay incentives to federal employees in positions that are considered hard to fill. The pay increases are distributed over a certain time period and up to a certain percentage, as long as the employee meets the incentive requirements.
“We will continue to pursue special salary rates for hard to fill positions where they make sense and will have the greatest impact,” Marshall wrote.
Using retention incentives is a temporary pay fix — federal regulations state that agencies must review the bonuses annually to determine if they are still needed. Agencies are required to terminate incentives when the conditions that warranted the incentives in the first place no longer apply.
Because the incentives are susceptible to being revoked, some have advocated for larger pay fixes for the BOP workforce. A representative with the American Federation of Government Employees, speaking anonymously for fear of professional retaliation, called for the implementation of an across-the-board, permanent federal pay increase for all frontline BOP staff.
“While the retention incentives are appreciated, it’s doing nothing for us long-term. You’re attracting them, but you’re not retaining them. Within two years, they could say, ‘I’ve met my requirement,’ and then leave us to go to a different agency,” the union representative told Federal News Network. “We have to fix the pay structure to incentivize people to stay.”
The new incentives also come as BOP correctional officers are expected to receive a 3.8% federal pay raise, as part of President Donald Trump’s orders for a larger 2026 pay increase for certain law enforcement personnel.
But the AFGE official said that leaves other critical BOP positions, such as psychologists and nurses, with the smaller 1% raise — something that will likely sow tension among the frontline employees.
“The agency is putting a divide in our workforce — a lot of people in the field are just genuinely frustrated that the agency would take one group and pay them a certain amount and not the others,” the union official said. “This causes such a wedge.”
The upcoming federal pay incentives are a departure from BOP’s actions last March, when the agency reduced, and in some cases fully removed, retention incentives for certain correctional officers and other BOP staff. At the time, BOP said the decision to remove the incentives was made in an effort to address budget shortfalls. But the resulting pay cuts led some employees to leave their jobs.
Now, the value of the upcoming retention pay incentives depends on the employee’s position and location, as well as the staffing levels at that specific BOP facility. BOP defined three “tiers” of institutions, based on staffing levels, to determine the size of the bonus.
“Tier 1 and tier 2 institutions represent our most critically understaffed locations and will receive the strongest support,” Marshall wrote.
For instance, correctional officers at “tier 1” institutions will receive a 10% pay bonus, while correctional officers at “tier 2” institutions will receive a 5% pay bonus.
Meanwhile, all mid-level practitioners and psychologists — regardless of location — will receive a 25% retention bonus, the BOP email shows. All lieutenants, registered nurses and special education teachers will receive a 10% bonus.
Any BOP employees who are eligible for a new retention incentive, but who are already receiving an incentive, will maintain only the higher of the two values, at least until the end of September.
In his all-staff message, Marshall encouraged more BOP staff members to become correctional officers, saying that “those who choose that path will be eligible for the same special salary rates and location-based incentives while gaining the critical skills necessary to strengthen the security of our institutions.”
FILE - In this Aug. 26, 2020, file photo, the federal prison complex in Terre Haute, Ind. The federal Bureau of Prisons will begin allowing inmates to have visitors again in October, months after visits were suspended at the 122 federal prisons across the U.S. The visitation plan is detailed in an internal memo issued Monday, Aug. 31, and obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy, File)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s workforce continues to face uncertainty amid abrupt cuts to disaster response staff and planning emails that show FEMA has been contemplating deeper reductions.
Late last month, FEMA sent non-renewal notices to 50 Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees (CORE) whose terms ended between Jan. 1 and Jan. 4. CORE employees are hired for two-to-four year terms, but they are often renewed to continue ongoing disaster work. CORE staff make up the majority of FEMA’s workforce, constituting 39% as of 2022.
FEMA did not respond to a request for comment. In other stories on the CORE cuts, a FEMA spokesman has characterized them as “a routine staff adjustment of 50 staff out of 8,000.”
But a current FEMA supervisor and former FEMA supervisor, who were granted anonymity to candidly discuss the situation, both disputed the characterization of the terminations as “routine.”
They said FEMA CORE staff are almost always renewed due to demand for staff to respond to an increasing rate of disasters and other agency tasks in recent years.
CORE staff are often among the first FEMA employees to be deployed in a disaster, according to Rafael LeMaitre, a former FEMA director of public affairs who now serves on the advisory council for the advocacy group Sabotaging Our Safety.
“While they serve two-year contract terms, those are routinely renewed, because the number of disasters that the nation has been dealing with has not gone down,” LeMaitre said. “If anything, it’s increased, both in the number of disasters and the severity of disasters, given changes to the climate, and frankly, additional pressures that FEMA has been put under to respond to non-traditional types of emergencies.”
But the FEMA supervisors also described how, contrary to the recent non-renewals, decisions about extending CORE appointments are typically done on a case-by-case basis. The process typically includes an analysis of the employee’s workload and the need for them to continue working on a given disaster.
“We never fire people just because their renewal dates happened to fall in a given time frame,” the current FEMA supervisor said.
The renewal process typically starts 90 days before the employee’s “not-to-exceed” date, which refers to when their term ends.
But in early December, emails show FEMA divisions and regions received a tasking from the agency’s chief human capital office to submit justification packages for every CORE staff with an NTE date falling in January.
Those packages were submitted, but FEMA CORE staff with renewals falling Jan. 1-4 still received termination letters in late December.
It’s unclear what will happen to other FEMA CORE staff whose terms expire in January. With approximately 9,000 total FEMA CORE staff, hundreds could be up for renewal in any given month.
Earlier this week, FEMA leaders received new direction to submit justification packages for CORE staff whose terms expire in February, according to the current supervisor.
“This is not a targeted workforce reduction – this is using a sledgehammer when you should be using a scalpel,” the current FEMA supervisor said.
CNN first reported on FEMA’s CORE cuts.
Workforce reductions exercise
The cuts and uncertainty around CORE staff renewals come as FEMA has been analyzing much deeper cuts to its workforce, agency emails show.
In a Dec. 23 email viewed by Federal News Network, FEMA’s chief human capital office sought leadership input on a “Workforce Capacity Planning Exercise.” The email references how the exercise is “consistent” with a recent executive order and corresponding White House guidance on federal hiring.
The email included a “draft workforce plan” with a table laying out FEMA’s workforce totals as of Sept. 30 and fiscal 2026 “target” reductions.
The reductions listed in that table include a 50% overall reduction to FEMA’s total workforce of 23,000, including a 15% reduction the permanent full-time workforce and a 41% reduction to the disaster full-time workforce, which includes CORE staff.
The email states that the exercise is “pre-decisional in nature” and that “no staffing actions or personnel decisions are being directed or implemented as part of this request.”
But current and former FEMA staff say it would be highly unusual to conduct such an exercise without planning for some form of workforce reductions.
The Washington Post first reported on the workforce planning email.
FEMA cuts criticized
The latest FEMA cuts come after a year of turmoil at the agency that saw more than 2,000 employees depart through voluntary programs and some terminations. Those departures included two dozen senior leaders, according to the Government Accountability Office.
However, both President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have expressed a desire to eliminate or downsize FEMA, and instead shift more disaster recovery responsibilities to state and local governments.
Democrats in Congress were quick to criticize the latest FEMA CORE cuts and reports of deeper potential reductions.
“Even considering cuts of this scale is more evidence of the Trump administration’s reckless and dangerous behavior and sends a clear message that the administration is willing to gamble with Americans’ lives and violate federal law that Congress passed to ensure readiness for disasters,” House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said in a statement.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) is among the lead sponsors of a bipartisan bill to overhaul FEMA. The legislation would notably remove FEMA out from under the Department of Homeland Security and have it report directly to the president.
“After multiple Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearings, we keep concluding FEMA needs more staff to meet the response needs of more frequent and severe disasters — like the recent flooding in my district,” Larsen said in a statement. “Cutting CORE staff will leave remaining FEMA workers scrambling and disaster survivors waiting longer for assistance. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. The administration must reverse this decision.”
FILE - A sign for the Federal Emergency Management Agency is pictured at FEMA headquarters, April 20, 2020, in Washington. (Al Drago/The New York Times via AP, Pool)
Clearer numbers on the federal workforce are coming into view, after the Office of Personnel Management launched a major update to one of its largest data assets on Thursday.
A new federal workforce data website from OPM aims to deliver information on the federal workforce faster, with more transparency and more frequent updates, than its predecessor, FedScope.
“This is a major step forward for accountability and data-driven decision-making across government,” OPM Director Scott Kupor said Thursday in a press release.
OPM’s new platform also reaffirms the significant reshaping the federal workforce experienced over the last year. The latest workforce data, now publicly available up to November 2025, shows governmentwide staffing levels at a decade low. According to OPM’s numbers, the government shed well over 300,000 federal employees last year, impacting virtually all executive branch agencies. When accounting for hiring numbers, there has been a net loss of nearly 220,000 federal employees since January 2025.
Data on federal employees’ bargaining unit status has also shifted significantly under the Trump administration. OPM’s new data platform shows that the share of the federal workforce represented by unions dropped from about 56% to about 38% over the last year, as a result of President Donald Trump’s orders to end collective bargaining at most agencies.
And agencies reported a 75% decrease in telework hours between January and October 2025, due to Trump’s on-site requirements for the federal workforce, which the president initiated on his first day in office.
The new website is the result of a major update to OPM’s legacy data asset, FedScope, which had been in need of significant modernization for years. In a report from 2016, the Government Accountability Office recommended that OPM update the FedScope platform and improve the availability of workforce data.
Users of OPM’s new public-facing website can filter the workforce data by geographic location, agency, age, education level, bargaining unit status — and much more.
Additional data that was not accessible on the legacy FedScope platform is also now readily available, including information on retirement eligibility, telework levels, performance ratings and hiring activities for the federal workforce.
Information on race and ethnicity across the federal workforce, however, is not featured on OPM’s new platform. That’s due to Trump’s executive order last year to eliminate diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) across government.
OPM had been working to update several of its workforce data assets since at least the end of the Biden administration. Federal News Network reported in early January 2025 that the agency was already in the process of building out its data management capabilities for FedScope and the Enterprise Human Resources Integration system (EHRI).
OPM, under the Trump administration, then announced plans last July to relaunch FedScope with “immediate enhancements.”
“OPM will continue releasing new data, visuals and features on the site each month and will iterate on the platform as user feedback is received,” OPM said in its press release Thursday. “This launch represents just the beginning, with regular updates and new enhancements planned on an ongoing basis.”
The Secret Service is aiming to boost its ranks by thousands of officers over the next two years, part of a still swelling recruiting push across federal law enforcement agencies.
The Secret Service is aiming to hire 4,000 new employees by 2028, an agency spokesman confirmed. That would bring the Secret Service’s ranks to 6,800 law enforcement personnel and 10,000 total employees.
The Secret Service currently employs about 8,300 staff, according to agency budget figures. That includes 3,200 special agents and 1,300 uniformed division officers, per the Secret Service website.
“Last year, the agency launched a dynamic recruitment strategy aimed at both reducing inefficiencies in the hiring process and increasing the visibility of agency jobs to audiences with the requisite knowledge, skills and abilities to perform the mission,” the Secret Service spokesman said. “We are focusing on targeting our recruitment efforts to individuals with a demonstrated track record of excellence, teamwork and trustworthiness — this includes former military, law enforcement, and top university graduates.”
The agency is also aiming to retain retirement-eligible agents, the spokesman added. Group retention incentives are being offered to special agents, uniformed division officers, cybersecurity professionals and specialty teams.
The Secret Service has long struggled with morale and attrition issues. A 2021 National Academy of Public Administration study found the agency’s mission demands have grown, while staffing levels have not kept up, requiring agents and officers to work longer hours.
But the Secret Service has been unsuccessful in previous attempts to grow its ranks to 10,000 employees.
The agency is now focused on streamlining the hiring process, including through new Accelerated Candidate events. The Secret Service says the events reduce the time to job offer by up to 120 days. The current average from application to entry-on-duty is 326 days for special agents and 256 days for the uniformed division.
The Washington Post first reported on the details of the Secret Service’s hiring goals.
In a post on X Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel said 2025 was a “huge year” for recruiting.
Patel didn’t cite how many employees the FBI hired. But he said the agency received 45,000 special agent applications and 30,000 professional staff applications in fiscal 2025.
He also said the FBI expanded the Reserve Service Program for retired FBI special agents to work as criminal investigators in field offices.
“These RSP-Special Agents will fill critical field office needs with experienced investigators – the first group will begin their assignments in January 2026,” Patel wrote.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security this week announced that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has already hired more than 12,000 officers and agents over the last 11 months. The recruiting drive, backed by billions in funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, has spiked ICE ranks from 10,000 to 22,000 law enforcement personnel, DHS said.
Though the Trump administration’s original goal was to hire roughly 10,000 new ICE agents, DHS said this week that ICE is continuing to accept job applications.
Customs and Border Protection is also on a recruiting drive, aiming to hire 5,000 customs officers and 3,000 border patrol agents through 2029. Both CBP and ICE are offering massive recruitment and retention incentive packages.
The widespread recruiting push across federal law enforcement agencies is expected to put a strain on classes at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. FLETC itself announced in September it was hiring 100 new instructors to support the “onboarding of thousands of new law enforcement officers nationwide.”
09 July 2024, USA, Washington: Police officers from the Secret Service stand in front of the White House in the early morning before the start of the NATO summit. The NATO summit begins in the capital with celebrations to mark the 75th anniversary of the defense alliance. Photo by: Kay Nietfeld/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
After a year of upheaval for federal employees, the Trump administration appears to be only getting started on its plans for overhauling the career civil service.
Further federal workforce changes are expected to continue into 2026 and beyond, according to the goals the administration recently laid out in its President’s Management Agenda.
Many of the priorities, as the Office of Management and Budget outlined, either already have — or soon will — significantly impact federal employees.
Here are three workforce changes from the Trump administration that federal employees should look for in the new year:
Future federal staffing plans
The sheer size of the federal workforce changed considerably over the past year, with executive branch agencies losing a cumulative total of more than 300,000 federal employees, according to numbers from the Office of Personnel Management.
With those staffing cuts in place, agencies are beginning to assemble future-looking plans to further reshape their workforces over the next few years.
As a months-long hiring freeze starts to thaw, the Trump administration has required all agencies to submit annual staffing plans for the coming year, subject to review and approval by OMB and OPM officials. The administration also directed agencies to form strategic hiring committees, composed mainly of political appointees, to oversee all recruitment efforts.
Agencies’ staffing plans must “consider efficiencies” of organizational restructuring and consolidation, removal of “unnecessary management layers,” the elimination of “unnecessary” jobs and contractor positions, managing the performance of underachieving employees — and much more, Trump administration officials explained in November guidance.
Until OMB and OPM approve the staffing plans, agencies will have to stick to a four-to-one ratio of removing to hiring employees, according to the guidance.
An OMB senior official speaking on background recently told Federal News Network that the administration will measure agencies’ progress toward fulfilling the first PMA priority by seeing how they adhere to Trump’s latest executive order on federal hiring. The goal over the next few years is to ensure that while hiring does take place, it’s in a way that maintains the smaller size of the current federal workforce.
“A key part of that will be making sure agencies are putting in place those hiring committees,” the official said. “They’re making very strategic decisions around who they’re hiring and what positions they’re hiring for, so we don’t just inflate the federal government again and overwhelm all the success we’ve had in reductions to date.”
In past administrations, there have been efforts to dramatically downsize the federal workforce — most recently during the Clinton administration in the 1990s. But a recent report from the Federation of American Scientists said those prior efforts had “decidedly mixed results,” and cautioned the Trump administration not to make the same mistakes.
“The cuts came before changes to agency to-do lists that never materialized,” FAS wrote. “It will be important for this administration to learn lessons from the past to avoid some of the long-term damage wrought by the Clinton years, for which agencies are still paying.”
Many experts have also raised concerns of the loss of federal workforce expertise, due to the reductions that have already taken effect. Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, warned that the loss of institutional knowledge will worsen over time.
“The forced exodus of over 212,000 civil servants has created dangerous gaps in food safety inspection, Social Security processing, veterans’ healthcare and disaster response,” Stier told Federal News Network. “This loss of expertise directly harms Americans’ access to critical services and will take decades to repair.”
Going forward, Robert Shea, a former OMB official in the George W. Bush administration, said doing more work with significantly fewer employees is both a challenge, and a possible opportunity.
“Agencies that rely on existing processes will fail. Agencies that rethink how work gets done may actually improve,” Shea told Federal News Network. “The upside of AI and automation only materializes if feds are given the authority, training and political cover to use these tools.”
“Accountability” of federal employees
A focus on “accountability” has been another common theme for the Trump administration’s federal workforce changes — it’s an area of emphasis in the PMA, and likely to strengthen and expand in 2026 and beyond.
Already, “accountability” has appeared as a priority in the administration’s efforts to remove protections for career federal employees in “policy-influencing” positions, make reforms to the Senior Executive Service, and create a new governmentwide recruitment plan.
Heading into 2026, OPM has also estimated that around 50,000 career federal employees will be reclassified as “Schedule Policy/Career,” a move that would make the impacted workers at-will and easier to fire.
The Trump administration touted Schedule Policy/Career as a way to drive “accountability” in the federal workforce, while offering agencies more flexibility. But critics of the policy, formerly known as “Schedule F,” have warned that it will politicize the non-partisan career civil service.
“Ultimately, this ‘trauma’ leads to the federal government’s loss of talent and institutional knowledge, which damages our national security and makes us more vulnerable to bad actors; reduces government accountability to its citizens; and generates even more loss of trust in government,” said Raymond Limon, a former member of the Merit Systems Protection Board and career-long federal executive in human capital.
Going forward, the Trump administration’s efforts on expanding these plans are “on track to get more severe,” according to the Partnership’s Stier.
“The expansion of Schedule Policy/Career authority threatens career protections, creates a climate of fear that drives talented professionals to leave government and further diminishes the services received by the public,” Stier told Federal News Network.
All told, the administration’s overhauls will lead to a “collapse of long-standing assumptions about civil service protections,” according to Shea.
“Constraints on removing career employees that were once treated as untouchable have been challenged directly,” Shea said. “Regardless of how courts ultimately rule, the impact will be long lasting.”
In 2026, federal employees are also facing significant changes in the way agencies measure performance, another way that OPM has said it is looking to increase “accountability” of employees.
OPM is looking to change performance management standards for federal employees. OPM Director Scott Kupor argues that “performance culture” in government is broken, and far too many federal employees are rated as high performers at their agencies.
“We have rampant ratings inflation and a lack of accountability for poor performers that fails to meaningfully differentiate between excellence, successful achievement of one’s objectives and poor performance,” Kupor wrote in a Dec. 5 blog post.
In June, OPM outlined plans to end “inflation” in performance ratings, and more strictly delineate between different levels of performance for employees. The changes also call on agencies to swiftly remove poor performers — and not substitute a suspension, for instance, when a full removal is more appropriate.
Forthcoming final regulations are expected to cement the emphasis of “accountability” in the administration’s changes to employee performance evaluations.
The idea of “accountability” also appears in the President’s Management Agenda, as part of a goal of fostering a “merit-based federal workforce.”
“The president’s executive orders and the PMA, together, call for revolutionary change, and together with OPM, we’re delivering,” OMB Deputy Director for Management Eric Ueland said in a Dec. 9 CHCO Council meeting. “The president directed agencies to reform the workforce, to maximize efficiency and productivity … Federal agencies have created meaningful efficiencies, allowing them to laser focus on their statutory duties.”
“Merit-based” workforce reforms
Finally, the Trump administration is calling for a focus on “merit-based” hiring across the federal workforce. It’s a top priority of the administration’s President’s Management Agenda, but also something that has appeared across multiple efforts from OPM.
In May, OPM first issued the administration’s new “merit hiring plan,” setting goals for reducing the government’s time-to-hire, as well as focusing on skills-based recruitment and a streamlined process.
The hiring guidance also required all agencies to assess candidates on USAJobs on how they plan to support the administration’s priorities when applying for open positions.
But in 2026, the goals of the “merit hiring plan,” in combination with the Trump administration’s PMA priority, are expected to take further effect, as agencies move forward with their new annual staffing plans.
“Moving forward, hiring will be based on merit and focused on practical skill, competence and dedication to the Constitution,” OMB’s Ueland said.
Combined, the merit hiring plan, performance changes, and newly required annual staffing plans will significantly reshape the federal workforce going forward.
“For those of you who have been in the private sector, much of this will seem like motherhood and apple pie,” Kupor wrote in a Nov. 21 blog post. “We are now inviting the federal government to join the planning party.”
OPM’s new “Tech Force” recruitment initiative, as an example, will embed the “merit hiring” principles as agencies look to onboard private-sector technologists and early-career talent through the new program.
But some of the hiring changes are common across recent presidential administrations. Recruitment strategies such as skills-based hiring and the use of shared certificates appeared in the Trump administration’s hiring guidance, similar to prior efforts from the Biden administration.
The FAS report noted, “the perennial need to hire federal employees more quickly and efficiently … have appeared in every PMA to date.”
Let’s start with the good news: artificial intelligence may NOT be the buzzword for 2026.
What will be the most talked about federal IT and/or acquisition topic for this year remains up for debate. While AI will definitely be part of the conversation, at least some experts believe other topics will emerge over the next 12 months. These range from the Defense Department’s push for “speed to capability” to resilient innovation to workforce transformation.
Federal News Network asked a panel of former federal technology and procurement executives for their opinions what federal IT and acquisition storylines they are following over the next 12 months. If you’re interested in previous years’ predictions, here is what experts said about 2023, 2024 and 2025.
The panelists are:
Jonathan Alboum, federal chief technology officer for ServiceNow and former Agriculture Department CIO.
Melvin Brown, vice president and chief growth officer at CANI and a former deputy CIO at the Office of Personnel Management.
Matthew Cornelius, managing director of federal industry at Workday and former OMB and Senate staff member.
Kevin Cummins, a partner with the Franklin Square Group and former Senate staff member.
Michael Derrios, the new executive director of the Greg and Camille Baroni Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University and former State Department senior procurement executive.
Julie Dunne, a principal with Monument Advocacy and former commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service.
Mike Hettinger, founding principal of Hettinger Strategy Group and former House staff member.
Nancy Sieger, a partner at Guidehouse’s Financial Services Sector and a former IRS CIO.
What are two IT or acquisition programs/initiatives that you are watching closely for signs of progress and why?
Brown: Whether AI acquisition governance becomes standard, templates, clauses, evaluation norms, 2026 is where agencies turn OMB AI memos into repeatable acquisition artifacts, through solicitation language, assurance evidence, testing/monitoring expectations and privacy and security gates. The 2025 memos are the anchor texts. I’m watching for signals such as common clause libraries, governmentwide “minimum vendor evidence” and how agencies operationalize “responsible AI” in source selections.
The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) phased rollout and how quickly it becomes a de facto barrier to entry. Because the rollout is phased over multiple years starting in November 2025, 2026 is the first full year where you can observe how often contracting officers insert the clause and how primes enforce flow-downs. The watch signals include protest activity, supply-chain impacts and whether smaller firms get crowded out or supported.
Hettinger: Related to the GSA OneGov initiative, there’s continuing pressure on the middleman, that is to say resellers and systems integrators to deliver more value for less. This theme emerged in early 2025, but it will continue to be front and center throughout 2026. How those facing the pressure respond to the government’s interests will tell us a lot about how IT acquisition is going to change in the coming years. I’ll be watching that closely.
Mike Hettinger is president and founding principal of Hettinger Strategy Group and former staff director of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management.
The other place to watch more broadly is how the government is going to leverage AI. If 2025 was about putting the pieces in place to buy AI tools, 2026 is going to be about how agencies are able to leverage those tools to bring efficiency and effectiveness in a host of new areas.
Cornelius: The first is watching the Hill to see if the Senate can finally get the Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets (SAMOSA) Act passed and to the President’s desk. While a lot of great work has already happened — and will continue to happen — at GSA around OneGov, there is only so much they can do on their own. If Congress forces agencies to do the in-depth analysis and reporting required under SAMOSA, it will empower GSA, as well as OMB and Congress, to have the type of data and insights needed to drive OneGov beyond just cost savings to more enterprise transformation outcomes for their agency customers. This would generate value at an order of magnitude beyond what they have achieved thus far.
The second is the implementation of the recent executive order that created the Genesis Mission initiative. The mission is focused on ensuring that the Energy Department and the national labs can hire the right talent and marshal the right resources to help develop the next generation of biotechnology, quantum information science, advanced manufacturing and other critical capabilities empower America’s global leadership for the next few generations. Seeing how DOE and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) partner collaboratively with industry to execute this aspirational, but necessary, nationwide effort will be revelatory and insightful.
Cummins: Will Congress reverse its recent failure to reauthorize the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF)? President Donald Trump stood up the TMF during his first term and it saw a significant funding infusion by President Joe Biden. Watching the TMF just die with a whimper will make me pessimistic about reviving the longstanding bipartisan cooperation on modernizing federal IT that existed before the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
I will be closely watching how well the recently-announced Tech Force comes together. Its goal of recruiting top engineers to serve in non-partisan roles focused on technology implementation sounds a lot like the U.S. Digital Service started by President Barack Obama, which then became the U.S. DOGE Service. I would like to see Tech Force building a better government with some of the enthusiasm that DOGE showed for cutting it.
Sieger: I’m watching intensely how agencies manage the IT talent exodus triggered by DOGE-mandated workforce reductions and return-to-office requirements. The unintended consequence we’re already observing is the disproportionate loss of mid-career technologists, the people who bridge legacy systems knowledge with modern cloud and AI capabilities.
Agencies are losing their most marketable IT talent first, while retention of personnel managing critical legacy infrastructure creates technical debt time bombs. At Guidehouse, we’re fielding unprecedented requests for cybersecurity, cloud architecture and data engineering services. The question heading into 2026 is whether agencies can rebuild sustainable IT operating models or whether they become permanently dependent on contractor support, fundamentally altering the government’s long-term technology capacity.
My prediction of the real risk is that mission-critical systems are losing institutional knowledge faster than documentation or modernization can compensate. Agencies need to watch and mitigate for increased system outages, security incidents, and failed modernization projects as this workforce disruption cascades through 2026.
Sticking with the above theme, it does bear watching how the new federal Tech Force hiring initiative succeeds. The federal Tech Force initiative signals a major shift in how the federal government sources and deploys modern technology talent. As agencies bring in highly skilled technologists focused on AI, cloud, cybersecurity and agile delivery, the expectations for speed, engineering rigor and product-centric outcomes will rise. This will reshape how agencies engage industry partners, favoring firms that can operate at comparable technical and cultural velocity.
The initiative also introduces private sector thinking into government programs, influencing requirements, architectures and vendor evaluations. This creates both opportunity and pressure. Organizations aligned to modern delivery models will gain advantage, while legacy approaches may struggle to adapt. Federal Tech Force serves as an early indicator of how workforce decisions are beginning to influence acquisition approaches and modernization priorities across government.
Dunne: Title 41 acquisition reform. The House Armed Services Committee and House Oversight Committee worked together to pass a 2026 defense authorization bill out of the House with civilian or governmentwide (Title 41) acquisition reform proposals. These reform proposals in the House NDAA bill included increasing various acquisition thresholds (micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds and cost accounting standards) and language on advance payments to improve buying of cloud solutions. Unfortunately, these governmentwide provisions were left out of the final NDAA agreement, leaving in some cases different rules the civilian and defense sectors. I’m hopeful that Congress will try again on governmentwide acquisition reform.
Office of Centralized Acquisition Services (OCAS). GSA launched OCAS late this year to consolidate and streamline contracting for common goods and services in accordance with the March 2025 executive order (14240). Always a good exercise to think about how to best consolidate and streamline contracting vehicles. We’ve been here before and I think OCAS has a tough mission as agencies often want to do their own thing. If given sufficient resources and leadership attention, perhaps it will be different this time.
FedRAMP 20x. Earlier this year, GSA’s FedRAMP program management office launched FedRAMP 20x to reform the process and bring efficiencies through automation and expand the availability of cloud service provider products for agencies. All great intentions, but as we move into the next phase of the effort and into FedRAMP moderate type solutions, I hope the focus remains on the security mission and the original intent to measure once, use many times for the benefit of agencies. Also, FedRAMP authorization expires in December 2027 – which is not that far away in congressional time.
Alboum: In the coming year, I’m paying close attention to how agencies manage AI efficiency and value as they move from pilots to production. As budgets tighten, agencies need a clearer picture of which models are delivering results, which aren’t, and where investments are being duplicated.
I’m also watching enterprise acquisition and software asset management efforts. The Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets (SAMOSA) Act has been floating around Congress for the last few years. I’m curious to see whether it will ultimately become law. Its provisions reflect widely acknowledged best practices for controlling software spending and align with the administration’s PMA objective to “consolidate and standardize systems, while eliminating duplicative ones.” How agencies manage their software portfolios will be a crucial test of whether efficiency goals are turning into lasting structural change, or just short-term fixes.
Derrios: I’ll be watching how GSA’s OneGov initiative shapes up will be important because contract consolidation without an equal focus on demand forecasting, standardization and potential requirements aggregation may not yield the intended results. There needs to be a strong focus on acquisition planning between GSA and their federal agency customers in addition to any movement of contracts.
In 2025, the administration revamped the FAR, which hadn’t been reviewed holistically in 40 years. So in 2026, what IT/acquisition topic(s) would you like to see the administration take on that has long been overlooked and/or underappreciated for the impact change and improvements could have, and why?
Cummins: Despite the recent Trump administration emphasis on commercialization, it is still too hard for innovative companies to break into the federal market. Sometimes agencies will move mountains to urgently acquire a new technology, like we have seen recently with some artificial intelligence and drones initiatives. But a commercial IT company generally has to partner with a reseller and get third-party accreditation (CMMC, FedRAMP, etc.) just to get access to a federal customer. Moving beyond the FAR rewrite, could the government give up some of the intellectual property and other requirements that make it difficult for commercial companies to bid as a prime or sell directly to an agency outside of an other transaction agreement (OTA)? It would also be helpful to see more FedRAMP waivers for low-risk cloud services.
Cornelius: It’s been almost 50 years since foundational law and policy set the parameters we still follow today around IT accessibility. During my time in the Senate, I drafted the provision in the 2023 omnibus appropriations bill that required GSA and federal agencies to perform comprehensive assessments of accessibility compliance across all IT and digital assets throughout the government. Now, with a couple years of analysis and with many thoughtful recommendations from GSA and OMB, it is time for Congress to make critical updates in law to improve the accessibility of any capabilities the government acquires or deploys. 2026 could be a year of rare bipartisan, bicameral collaboration on digital accessibility, which could then underpin the administration’s American by Design initiative and ensure important accessibility outcomes from all vendors serving government customers are delivered and maintained effectively.
Derrios: The federal budgeting process really needs a reboot. Static budgets do not align with multi-year missions where risks are continuous, technology changes at lightning speed, and world events impact aging cost estimates. And without a real “return on investment” mentality incorporated into the budgeting process, under-performing programs with high sunk-costs will continue to be supported. But taxpayers shouldn’t have to sit through a bad movie just because they already paid for the ticket.
Brown: I’m watching how agencies continue to move toward the implementation of zero trust and how the data layer becomes the budget fight. With federal guides emphasizing data security, the 2026 question becomes, do programs converge on fewer, interoperable controls, or do they keep buying overlapping tools? My watch signals include requirements that prioritize data tagging/classification, attribute-based access, encryption/key management and auditability as “must haves” in acquisitions.
Alboum: Over the past few years, the federal government has made significant investments in customer experience and service delivery. The question now is whether those gains can be sustained amid federal staffing reductions.
Jonathan Alboum is a former chief information officer at the Agriculture Department and now federal chief technology officer for ServiceNow.
This challenge is closely tied to the “America by Design” executive order, which calls for redesigned websites where people interact with the government. A beautiful, easy-to-use website is an excellent start. However, the public expects a great end-to-end experience across all channels, which aligns directly with the administration’s PMA objective to build digital services for “real people, not bureaucracy.”
So, I’ll be watching to see if we meet these expectations by investing in AI and other technologies to lock in previous gains and improve the way we serve the public. With the proper focus, I’m confident that we can positively impact the public’s perception and trust in government.
Hettinger: Set aside the know and historic challenges with the TMF, we really do need to figure out how to more effectively buy IT at a pace consistent with the need of agencies. Maybe some of that is addressed in the FAR changes, but those are only going to take us so far (no pun intended). If we think outside the box, maybe we can find a way to make real progress in IT funding and acquisition in a way that gets the right technology tools in the hands of the right people more quickly.
Dunne: I think follow through on the initiatives launched in 2025 will be important to focus on in 2026. The formal rulemaking process for the RFO will launch in 2026 and will be an important part of that follow through. And now that we have a confirmed Office of Federal Procurement Policy administrator, I think 2026 will be an important year for industry engagement on topics like the RFO.
Sieger: If the administration could tackle one long-overlooked issue with transformative impact, it should be the modernization of security clearances are granted, maintained and reciprocally recognized for contractor personnel supporting federal IT initiatives.
The current clearance system regularly creates 6-to-12 month delays in staffing critical IT programs, particularly in cybersecurity and AI. Agencies lose qualified contractors to private sector opportunities during lengthy adjudication periods. The lack of true clearance reciprocity means contractors moving between agency projects often restart the process, wasting resources and creating knowledge gaps on programs.
This is a strategic vulnerability. Federal IT modernization depends on contractor expertise for specialized skills government cannot hire directly. When clearance processes take longer than typical IT project phases, agencies either compromise on talent quality or delay mission-critical initiatives. The opportunity cost is measured in delayed outcomes and increased cyber risk.
Implementing continuous vetting for contractor populations, establishing true cross-agency clearance reciprocity, and creating “clearance portability” would benefit emerging technology areas such as AI, quantum, advanced cybersecurity, where talent competition is fiercest. From Guidehouse’s perspective, we see clients are repeatedly unable to staff approved projects because cleared personnel aren’t available, not because talent doesn’t exist.
This reform would have cascading benefits: faster modernization, better talent retention, reduced costs and improved security through continuous monitoring rather than point-in-time investigations.
If 2025 has been all about cost savings and efficiencies, what do you think will emerge as the buzzword of 2026?
Brown: “Speed to capability” acquisition models spreading beyond DoD. The drone scaling example is a concrete indicator of a broader push. The watch signals for me are increased use of rapid pathways, shorter contract terms, modular contracting and more frequent recompetes to keep pace with technology change.
Cornelius: Governmentwide human resource transformation.
Julie Dunne, a former House Oversight and Reform Committee staff member for the Republicans, a former commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service at the General Services Administration, and now a principal at Monument Advocacy.
Dunne: AI again. How the government uses it to facilitate delivery of citizen services and how AI tools will assist with the acquisition process, and AI-enabled cybersecurity attacks. I know that’s not one word, but it’s a huge risk to watch and only a matter of time before our adversaries find success in attacking federal systems with an AI-enabled cyberattack, and federal contractors will be on the hook to mitigate such risks.
Cummins: Fraud prevention. While combating waste, fraud and abuse is a perennial issue, the industrial scale fraud revealed in Minnesota highlights a danger from how Congress passed COVID pandemic-era spending packages without the same level of checks and balances that were put in place for earlier Obama-era stimulus spending. Federal government programs generally still have a lot of room for improvement when it comes to preventing improper payments, such as by using better identity and access management and other security tools. Stopping fraud is also one of the few remaining areas of bipartisan agreement among policymakers.
Hettinger: DOGE may be gone, or maybe it’s not really gone, but I don’t know that cost savings and efficiencies are going to be pushed to the backburner. This administration comes at everything — at least from an IT perspective — as believing it can be done better, faster and cheaper. I expect that to continue not just into 2026 but for the rest of this administration.
Derrios: I think there will have to be a focus on how government needs and requirements are defined and how the remaining workforce can upskill to use technology as a force multiplier. If you don’t focus on what you’re buying and whether it constitutes a legitimate mission support need, any cost savings gained in 2025 will not be sustainable long-term. Balancing speed-to-contract and innovative buying methodologies with real requirements rigor is critical. And how your federal workforce uses the tools in the toolbox to yield maximum outcomes while trying to do more with less is going to take focused leadership. To me, all of this culminates in one word for 2026, and that’s producing “value” for federal missions.
Sieger: Resilient innovation. While 2025 focused intensely on cost savings and efficiencies, particularly through DOGE-mandated cuts, 2026’s emerging buzzword will be “resilient innovation.” Agencies are recognizing the need to continue advancing technological capabilities while maintaining operational continuity under constrained resources and heightened uncertainty.
The efficiency drives of 2025 exposed real vulnerabilities. Agencies lost institutional knowledge, critical systems became more fragile, and the pace of modernization actually slowed in many cases as talent departed and budgets tightened. Leaders now recognize that efficiency without resilience creates brittleness—systems that work well under ideal conditions but fail catastrophically when stressed.
Resilient innovation captures the dual mandate facing federal IT in 2026: Continue modernizing and adopting transformative technologies like AI, but do so in ways that don’t create new single points of failure, vendor dependencies or operational risks. It’s about building systems and capabilities that can absorb shocks — whether from workforce turnover, budget cuts, cyber incidents or geopolitical disruption — while still moving forward.
Alboum: Looking ahead, governance will take the center stage across government. As AI, data and cybersecurity continue to scale, agencies will need stronger oversight, greater transparency and better coordination to manage complexity and maintain public trust. Governance won’t be a side conversation — it will be the foundation for everything that comes next.
Success will no longer be measured by how much AI is deployed, but by whether it is secure, compliant and delivering tangible mission value. The conversation will shift from “Do we have AI?” to “Is our AI safe, accurate and worth the investment?”
Federal contractors face a critical challenge in 2026: the growing gap between what cleared professionals demand and what traditional government contracts can deliver. After a difficult 2025 marked by budget uncertainty, a government shutdown and stalled hiring, the year ahead promises continued pressure on talent acquisition.
The post-pandemic workforce has shifted expectations. Cleared professionals now expect remote flexibility, tech sector compensation and modern workplace cultures. Many government contracts still operate under rigid models constrained by bid ceilings, onsite mandates and fixed pricing.
But 2026 also presents opportunities. A stronger pipeline of junior technical talent and transitioning veterans could stabilize workforces if contractors move fast enough. Success requires faster decision-making, modernized employee value propositions, and year-round community-based recruiting beyond proposal-driven cycles.
The widening expectations gap
Cleared technical professionals now benchmark against commercial tech companies, not other contractors. They demand rapid salary progression, permanent remote work (where possible), continuous upskilling and transparent compensation structures.
Government contracting remains constrained by customer requirements, fixed labor categories, and proposal locked pricing. Contractors who creatively address these expectations within structural constraints, through enhanced benefits, clearer promotion pathways, or robust training programs, will gain significant competitive advantages.
The tale of two talent markets
Nearly impossible to fill:
Cloud security architects with active clearances
AI/ML engineers in the cleared space
Senior program managers with technical expertise and clearances
The cybersecurity shortage remains acute with a 4.8 million global gap. Professionals with these skills command premium compensation, often choosing private sector opportunities. Clearance requirements add friction: Candidates won’t wait through 12+ months of adjudications without guaranteed compensation.
Increasingly accessible:
Traditional IT support roles (help desk, desktop support, systems administration)
Junior technical positions where clearances can be sponsored
Entry level cybersecurity roles
Expanding pipelines from apprenticeship programs, technical schools and military transitions provides opportunities to “grow your own” cleared workforce through clearance sponsorship and training.
Speed as competitive advantage
Clearance processing delays have always been problematic, but contractor response time may be equally damaging in 2026. Organizations that move candidates from interest to offer in days, not weeks, will win both talent and contracts.
Fast hiring offers multiple advantages: enhanced proposal credibility with pre-identified talent, more accurate pricing, higher win rates and improved candidate experience. To achieve this speed, maintain prequalified talent pools, streamline internal approvals, and prioritize relationship building over reactive posting.
Beyond job boards: Where cleared talent lives
While ClearanceJobs.com remains a standard resource, contractors will find greater success by combining it with other targeted recruitment channels. Successful contractors will diversify their strategies through sophisticated employee referral programs, cleared talent communities, technical forums, veteran transition programs, security conferences and thought leadership initiatives.
The common thread? Relationship-based recruiting that prioritizes ongoing engagement over transactional postings. Cleared professionals trust peer recommendations and community reputation over job board advertisements.
Maintain talent relationships between contracts, invest in technical content, and participate authentically in cleared communities, not just when positions open.
Strategic imperatives for 2026
Organizations that succeed will take these actions:
Build always-on talent communities: Replace reactive hiring with year-round relationship management. Maintain engagement even without immediate openings.
Modernize the employee value proposition: Where compensation flexibility is limited, compete on career development, technical training, meaningful work and work-life balance.
Accelerate internal processes: Reduce time to offer from weeks to days. Empower hiring managers with clearer authority.
Invest in junior talent development: Build clearance sponsorship programs and structured training. Growing your own cleared workforce is more sustainable than competing for experienced professionals.
Leverage data: Track time to fill, offer acceptance rates, and source effectiveness to continuously refine your approach.
The cleared talent market won’t ease in 2026, but contractors who take a strategic, relationship-driven approach can turn challenge into a competitive advantage. The market is distinguishing between those who merely adapt and those who innovate. 2026 will reveal which category your organization occupies.
As a tumultuous year for the federal workforce comes to a close, many employees are in a much different position now than they were at the start of 2025.
The Trump administration’s efforts to reduce staffing across agencies resulted in the loss of more than 317,000 federal employees governmentwide. It’s a 13.7% decrease compared with September 2024 workforce numbers, Office of Personnel Management data shows.
At the same time, 68,000 new federal employees joined the civil service during 2025, according to OPM Director Scott Kupor. Combining both attrition and hiring data, the administration’s changes over the course of 2025 amounted to a net staffing decrease of about 10.8%.
Kupor touted the results as exceeding the administration’s goals, saying relatively few losses were due to reductions in force (RIFs) and firings of probationary employees. Out of all employees who left their jobs in the last year, “over 92% did so voluntarily,” he said, mainly via the deferred resignation program (DRP).
“None of this is to minimize the impact of anyone losing a job, but the ‘mass firing’ headlines do not in fact tell the full story,” Kupor wrote in a Dec. 10 post on X.
But some federal workforce experts argue that the administration’s reductions in 2025 amounted to a “forced exodus.” Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, pointed to what he said have become “dangerous gaps” in key federal services, like food safety inspection, Social Security processing, veterans’ healthcare and disaster response.
“This loss of expertise directly harms Americans’ access to critical services and will take decades to repair,” Stier told Federal News Network.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) also pushed back against the idea of the administration’s DRP being “voluntary.” He said many feds who left government felt they had no choice — they felt threatened they would be fired anyway, if they did not leave through the DRP.
“Federal workers were hit with DOGE, watched agencies shutter, were threatened with imminent reductions in force, demagogued and bombarded with those mindless ‘5 things’ emails,” Walkinshaw said Dec. 11. “Nothing about that was voluntary — the ‘fork in the road’ was coercion.”
Still, the workforce cuts so far align with the Trump administration’s overall goal to “downsize the federal workforce,” as the Office of Management and Budget recently laid out in the new President’s Management Agenda. Specifically, the administration said it is targeting cuts of “unnecessary positions” and “poor performers,” while emphasizing more efficiency.
“We’ve seen significant success in right-sizing the federal workforce and addressing performance issues,” Eric Ueland, OMB’s deputy director for management, said during a Dec. 9 Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council meeting.
The workforce reductions hit some agencies harder than others. The top three agencies facing staffing reductions are the departments of Defense, Agriculture and Treasury — with Treasury’s reductions mostly concentrated within the IRS, according to research from the Partnership for Public Service.
By scale, DoD has seen the largest staffing reduction across government. The department lost over 61,600 employees during 2025 — a total of about 8% of its total workforce.
Following just behind DoD, the Treasury Department lost more than 31,600 employees, yielding a staffing reduction of nearly 28%.
And at USDA, the loss of more than 21,600 employees over the last year amounted to a roughly 22% staffing decrease overall.
But other agencies, such as USAID and the Education Department, saw even deeper cuts to their workforces, despite being smaller agencies by volume.
Governmentwide, the loss of more than 300,000 federal employees has shown up in a multitude of ways. At the IRS, for instance, an agency watchdog warned there will likely be issues with the 2026 tax filing season, as a direct result of the 25% cut to the IRS workforce. And at USDA, the staffing reductions are affecting the work of some of the department’s underlying agencies.
The Partnership for Public Service said the cuts are harming communities as well. An analysis of more than 530 stories on the federal government throughout 2025 shows the impacts of the federal workforce reductions across the country.
“Notably, more than 45% of these stories involve harms to science-related sectors, including agricultural research, healthcare and public land management,” the Partnership said. “Together, they show the direct, tangible consequences these changes are having on individuals, organizations and communities.”
Over the course of 2025, the impacts also continued to spread. In a survey the Partnership conducted in September, 46% of respondents said they or someone they know had been impacted by the government cuts. That’s up from 29% of respondents who said the same in March.
Still, there are many who view the Trump administration’s changes positively. About 80% of those who are supportive of the federal workforce overhauls said they believe the changes will make their communities and lives better, the Partnership’s September survey found. But even among those who were supportive of the changes, 41% still expressed concerns about a loss of experience and knowledge in the federal workforce in the short term.
The changes are impacting many who have stayed in their jobs as well. Federal employees are experiencing disruptions in the workplace at a rate far higher than the national average, according to a recent Gallup survey.
Close to one-third — about 29% — of federal employees say their workplace has been disrupted “to a very large extent.” That’s nearly triple the 10% of U.S. employees who say the same, Gallup found. Across the federal workforce, it’s leading to increases in stress and loneliness, as well as a decline in employee engagement.
Robert Shea, a federal workforce policy expert and former OMB official from the George W. Bush administration, said the workforce changes have had a “chilling effect” on leaders across the career civil service — something he believes will continue into 2026 and beyond.
“Many career officials are now more cautious about how, when and whether they offer professional advice,” Shea told Federal News Network. “That’s particularly when that advice could be perceived as resistance rather than implementation.”
At the Department of Homeland Security, where you stand at the end of 2025 depends on where you sit.
With the Trump administration emphasizing border security and mass deportations as top priorities, DHS components that work in those areas saw both major funding increases and workforce boosts.
Meanwhile, other DHS components were swept up in the administration’s workforce reduction efforts. Some of those components were also in the crosshairs of new political leadership for program and funding cuts.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” tax and reconciliation measure passed in July only deepened those differences.
The legislation provided billions in additional funding for select DHS components like Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Meanwhile, other offices such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have been hit by workforce reductions and funding cuts, ending support for programs and services like CISA’s Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center.
Workforce fluctuates
DHS is one of the only departments to gain a net increase in employees over the last two years, according to an analysis of agency shutdown contingency plans compiled by the Partnership for Public Service.
While most agencies saw staffing reductions driven by the Department of Government Efficiency, DHS’s workforce grew by 6%, to 271,927 employees listed in its 2025 contingency plan.
The Trump administration’s high-profile focus on immigration enforcement operations brings with it more funding and personnel for agencies like ICE and CBP. According to shutdown contingency plans, ICE’s workforce increased by more than 500 employees between June 2024 and September 2025. CBP’s workforce grew by more than 1,500 employees over the same period.
The Coast Guard’s workforce has swelled by nearly 2,000 as part of a recruiting campaign started by the Biden administration and further boosted under the Trump administration through the “Force Design 2028” initiative.
Many positions at DHS, including law enforcement positions, were exempt from workforce reduction efforts like deferred resignations and earlier retirements.
But some components, including CISA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, underwent stark staff reductions driven by program cuts and voluntary departures.
CISA’s workforce has dropped by nearly one-third, from 3,400 employees in June 2024 to 2,500 staff as of May 31, 2025, according to the contingency plans. More CISA employees may have departed since the latest tally.
FEMA, meanwhile, has seen the number of active employees decrease from roughly 25,800 at the start of the year to 23,350 as of June 1, according to the Government Accountability Office. That includes 24 FEMA senior executives, “widely respected agency leaders who departed voluntarily given the uncertainty around the agency’s future,” GAO noted.
The Trump administration has also proposed some cuts to the Transportation Security Administration. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is further moving to eliminate TSA employees’ collective bargaining rights.
It includes $4.1 billion for CBP to hire 5,000 customs officers and 3,000 border patrol agents over the next four years, and $8 billion for ICE to hire 10,000 new officers. DHS says ICE has already reached that goal as 2025 comes to a close.
The bill also includes billions in funding for new immigration detention facilities, border security infrastructure, training facilities, vehicles, Coast Guard ships and more.
Industry will be watching closely as DHS’s spend plans for the reconciliation bill come together.
Senior leaders
With Year 1 of the second Trump administration nearly complete, many presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed positions at DHS remain vacant or filled by acting personnel. Trump has yet to nominate a FEMA administrator, a TSA administrator or a DHS under secretary for management, among other positions.
Meanwhile, Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Troy Edgar will soon depart DHS after being nominated to serve as U.S. ambassador to El Salvador. The administration has not yet named a replacement.
CISA has been without a permanent director since January. Sean Plankey was nominated to serve as CISA director in March, but his nomination has been held up in the Senate over multiple issues unrelated to concerns about his appointment.
FILE - Police officers block a street as demonstrators march at a protest opposing "Operation Midway Blitz" and the presence of ICE, Sept. 9, 2025, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Erin Hooley, File)
Login
