Government Executive - Management

Inside the competing federal efforts behind America’s 250th anniversary plans

Ashley Murray, States Newsroom — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:00:00 -0400

Parties, protests, displays of historic documents and odes to the Founding Fathers, along with a large political rally by the president, will mark a divided nation’s 250th anniversary on this Fourth of July.

Pomp and circumstance will abound for the semiquincentennial as the similarly named America250 and Freedom 250 offer different slates of programming on Independence Day and beyond.

A countdown and ball drop will ring in the holiday across the eight time zones in the United States and its territories. The milestone birthday celebration will close with an “unprecedented pyrotechnic spectacle” in the skies above the National Mall, livestreamed.

In Philadelphia, a time capsule, to be opened in 2276, will be buried beneath Independence National Historical Park. The capsule contains contributions from each state and territory, sports memorabilia including an Olympic gold medal, a 1GB digital archive from the Library of Congress and a pocket Constitution signed by each Supreme Court justice, among hundreds of other items.

Visitors to the nation’s capital can watch and anyone across the country and the world can tune in to a live dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence at 10 a.m. Eastern at the National Archives.

The public also will be invited to typically restricted spaces. The Federal Circuit Center for Innovation & Law will open its doors July 3. Guests, who must register ahead of time, will get the opportunity to don a judge’s robe and take part in a mock trial inside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s courtrooms.

Federal judges will be on hand to answer questions, and Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore hopes the experience will “show how courts, public service, discovery and history continue to shape the American story,” she told States Newsroom in a statement.

The court complex, which is connected to the residence of first lady Dolley Madison, the wife of President James Madison, will also showcase various highlights of American history. Visitors can see Dolley’s parlor and learn that NASA was headquartered there from 1958 to 1961. Space suits and a 3.9-billion-year-old moon rock will be on display.

America250 vs. Freedom 250

Two separate celebrations of America’s big year are similarly named but feature different programs that stretch beyond Independence Day.

America250, a 24-member bipartisan commission created by Congress a decade ago, has spearheaded nationwide initiatives for school students, corporate employees and young entrepreneurs.

The commission has organized July Fourth events, including the ball drops, time capsule burial and simultaneous block parties in Charleston, South Carolina; Fort Campbell, Kentucky; and Milwaukee.

America250 also will host a benefit concert at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum featuring Chris Stapleton and the Smashing Pumpkins. Tickets are $17.76, and all proceeds go to nonprofit organizations to kick off “Giving 4th,” a nationwide initiative to promote midyear donations.

It is all separate from President Donald Trump’s plans for 2026. Days after beginning his second term, Trump issued an executive order creating Task Force 250, resulting in White House-led programming known as Freedom 250.

Fencing along the Freedom 250 construction site on the National Mall near Madison Drive and 7th Street NW on Monday, June 22, 2026. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

Fencing along the Freedom 250 construction site on the National Mall near Madison Drive and 7th Street NW on June 22, 2026. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

America250 Chair Rosie Rios said the parallel initiatives are a collaboration to balance events in the nation’s capital and beyond.

“You see a lot of activities that the administration is planning in D.C. It was our agreement that we would focus on ‘sea to shining sea’ and still obviously have opportunities for all Americans to participate across the board,” said Rios, who served as U.S. treasurer under the Obama administration.

State fair, car races, Trump rally

The White House initiative will take over the National Mall.

The president will kick off the Great American State Fair with a speech on Wednesday night. The fair, featuring 150 exhibits from all states and territories, a Ferris wheel and a model of Trump’s proposed “triumphal arch,” will last until July 10.

Winners of the Freedom 250 “American Heroes” student art contest will also be honored at the fair.

As part of the Freedom 250 lineup, Trump will visit North Dakota on July 1 ahead of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library opening set for July 3.

A Freedom 250 firework display at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota is also scheduled for the eve of Independence Day.

Trump promised the “most spectacular TRUMP RALLY of them all” on July Fourth, featuring military bands and orchestras, military flyovers and keynote remarks from the president.

The night will culminate with the “largest fireworks show in history,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform on June 15.

Attendees also can expect an increased National Guard presence as part of the administration’s “summer surge.”

Trump’s Freedom 250 festivities will extend into August with a national high school athletic competition for 14- to 17-year-olds, dubbed “The Patriot Games.” The games are scheduled in Washington, D.C., for Aug. 9-11 and will stream on the ESPN app.

A one-hour primetime finale special will air on ABC the evening of Aug. 13. One female and one male athlete each will win a $250,000 scholarship.

“After the fireworks”

Rios said America250 also has an “after-the-fireworks strategy.”

Winners of essay, art and poetry contests at schools across the U.S. can choose an all-expenses-paid “America’s Field Trip” to one of several locations.

They include a private guided tour of the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla.; Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota; or Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Wyoming, among other destinations.

A national contest and expo for young entrepreneurs in San Francisco and another in Washington, D.C., this coming November awarded $25,000 in seed grants under the “America Innovates” startup initiative.

The commission also is aiming to make 2026 the “largest year of volunteer hours ever recorded by our country,” Rios said. A counter on the commission’s website displays the number of “America Gives” hours tracked, and Rios will announce a total on New Year’s Eve in Times Square.

“We’ve had great stakeholders who’ve already made their pledges, so Coca-Cola, for example, made a pledge for 250,000 volunteer hours. Not to be outdone, Rob Manfred from Major League Baseball says, ‘We’re going to do 250,000 volunteer hours,’” Rios said.

“Declaration of Interdependence”

Not all are feeling celebratory.

A coalition of organizers led by those who spearheaded the 2017 Women’s March will host a nationwide mobilization event June 27, calling for change for America’s next 250 years.

“We know the oxygen is going to be consumed by the official Trump-led commemoration on the Fourth. Kicking this off in a proactive way, if we can talk about what we want this country to look like and what it actually does look like ahead of that, it’s important that we go first,” said Angelo Greco, a D.C.-based strategist handling messaging for the event.

Progressive groups including the 50501 movement, All of U.S. 250, Next 250 and Get Free are expecting up to 5,000 people at a flagship march near the White House and thousands more at teach-ins, faith events, art installations and cultural events at 80 locations nationwide.

Organizers are collecting signatures on a “Declaration of Interdependence” outlining four principles for a nation where: “All people are treated with dignity and respect; everybody feels safe in every community; access to clean, green spaces is abundant; and every person who works earns a living wage and benefits that allow families a work-life balance.”

“We’re taking away the spotlight from those in power that want to whitewash our history and instead setting the terms of the debate about what the story of America has been, who we are and who we should become,” said Anthony Vidal Torres, communications director at Get Free.

Activists said they are ready to incorporate any relevant news events into their messaging, including a forthcoming Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship.

The future of a polarized nation

Thought leaders, lawmakers and former administration officials from both parties are marking the nation’s semiquincentennial by sounding the alarm about polarization.

Citing recent statistics, including that only four in 10 Gen Zers are more likely to describe the Founding Fathers as “villains” rather than “heroes,” an advisory board convened by the center-left Progressive Policy Institute launched the American Identity Project to guide policymakers and educators on the future of civics education.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., an adviser on the project, said he worries the liberal patriotism modeled by figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and former President Barack Obama is “vanishingly rare.”

“The central emotion of our time is not patriotic hope about America, but rage against America across the political spectrum,” Torres said at the think tank’s June 11 event.

Linda Chavez, a former Reagan administration official and chair of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, said she sees the problem on both the left and right.

“I see kids on the left who find our whole system of government, including democracy, as not important, and they seek to transform the country, they want to throw everything out,” Chavez said.

“And on the right I see young people who are falling under the sway of people like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens, who want to divide Americans and basically decide what an American is and who gets to count as an American.”

Other current and former lawmakers who advised include Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., and former Sens. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., and Doug Jones, D-Ala., who is Alabama’s current Democratic gubernatorial candidate.

]]>

Slaughter and the expansion of presidential power

Donald F. Kettl — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 07:00:00 -0400

Immediately after the Supreme Court announced its decision affirming that the president could remove the heads of independent regulatory agencies at will, Trump applauded the majority. “BIG WIN,” he posted on Truth Social. “One of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers.”

The Court voted 6-3, in Trump v. Slaughter, that the president had the legal power to fire Rebecca Slaughter in 2025 as a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission. Although Trump sometimes is prone to exaggeration, that’s not true here. Slaughter truly is one of the most important decisions ever in expanding the president’s power, for three reasons.

1. The case established that independent regulatory commissions are no longer truly independent. Although there are only about 100 officials in independent commissions, the Slaughter decision dismantles a long hands-off tradition when it comes to presidents and their work. During Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, he tried to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission, William H. Humphrey, a Herbert Hoover appointee who had been battling FDR on New Deal programs. In the hallmark case of Humphrey’s Executor – Humphrey had died, and his estate filed suit to get his back pay – the Supreme Court found that the law creating the FTC permitted the president to fire a commissioner only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and that FDR had acted illegally.

The FTC, established in 1914, followed the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. They were part of a string of independent regulatory commissions that emerged from the Progressive era (not to be confused with the “progressive” label applied today to left-leaning politicians). Congress made the ICC “independent” of the White House and cabinet agencies because, to be blunt, it didn’t trust the president to avoid meddling with rules trying to bring the railroad monopolies under control.

Western farmers complained that monopolists were gouging them on prices for transporting their products. Congress wanted experts to determine shipping rates and the best routes, and some of its members wanted to pull railroad cash into their own campaigns. They didn’t want the spoils system to tilt power solely to the president.

By the time Congress created the FTC, the civil service had replaced much of the traditional spoils system. Legislators wanted to make it independent like the ICC, and President Woodrow Wilson supported the idea. Since his days as a college professor, Wilson had strongly contended that “administrative questions are not political questions.” He agreed with creating staggered terms for FTC commissioners and limiting the president’s power to remove them. The Supreme Court upheld that position in Humphrey’s Executor.

Trump found himself in the same position as FDR. He wanted to remove Rebecca Slaughter from the FTC, a commissioner who he ironically had appointed during this first term, and he sent letters to her and commissioner Alvaro Bedoya saying their continued service would be “inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” This time, the Court agreed with the president. The independent regulatory commissions were no longer independent of the president.

2. The Supreme Court isn’t done yet. The Court is knocking on the door of an even greater expansion of the president’s power.

Slaughter advances the campaign that conservative have been waging behind the scenes to advance the “unitary executive” theory of the Constitution. The theory holds that Congress might pass laws and the Supreme Court might interpret them, but that the president has full control over the executive branch when it comes to implementing them, including the authority to fire federal employees – ultimately all federal employees – at will.

There’s no sign that the founders intended for the president to have such sweeping control over the bureaucracy because, among other things, there was no bureaucracy over which to have sweeping control. As anti-government fervor grew during the Reagan administration, however, conservatives began making the unitary executive argument with far more fervor. Since then, convinced that the left controlled the bureaucracy, they have been building their legal arguments to dramatically increase the president’s power over the bureaucracy. Slaughter marks their biggest victory yet and follows on the heels of a previous decision in 2020, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which had already chipped away at claims for agency independence.

In his concurring opinion to Slaughter, Justice Neil Gorsuch says very clearly that this is only one more step in the Court’s journey toward expanding presidential power. “It is time to return, all the way, to the Constitution,” he wrote. As he argues at length,

Open-ended delegations of legislative power have not gone away; now they will just be exercised by agency officials who answer to the President. The power to write new regulatory crimes still exists, but now the pen ultimately rests in the President’s hand. The ability to judge disputes in-house remains, but now the house is white.

The Court is sure to be back to ratify an even greater expansion of presidential power.

3. The Federal Reserve might be next. In a separate case decided the same day, the Court tossed out Trump’s effort to fire Lisa Cook, a governor of the Federal Reserve. Trump had charged Cook with fraud in claiming a second home as her main residence to get a more favorable interest rate. The Court’s majority, in the 5-4 decision, said that the administration had not afforded Cook due process and could not then be removed. The administration geared up to press the facts of the case again, and several members of the Court signaled they would be willing to reconsider the ruling with a stronger case.

When Congress created the Fed in 1913, it made its policymaking independent of the president. There’s a good reason for that. Easy money and lower interest rates are always more politically popular, and Congress was afraid that political pressure might lead the Fed to drift constantly into inflation.

That’s just what happened during the Nixon administration, when the president leaned on Fed Chair Arthur Burns to loosen the money supply before the 1972 presidential election. As presidential advisor John Ehrlichman told me, soon after Nixon appointed Burns, he brought him into the Oval Office and lectured him. “You see to it: no recession,” he said. A few weeks later, Nixon told Ehrlichman and advisor Bob Haldeman, “The Fed must loosen—it must risk inflation.” Burns go the message and complied.

This is the stuff of the nightmares that plague Fed chairs: political pressure for easier money going into elections risks inflation that, once unleashed, becomes extraordinarily painful to control. Trump has been pressuring the Fed to lower rates leading into the congressional midterms and dismissed Cook as part of his pressure campaign. A near-majority of the Supreme Court now believes that the president ought to have the power to remove Fed governors at will, and we are tiptoeing up to an even more substantial expansion of presidential power.

4. Trump is right. In arguing that Slaughter is “One of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” Trump is right. It pushes aside the last barrier against the president’s power to remove the heads of independent agencies with which he disagrees. That, in fact, makes the agencies no longer independent.

The decision in Cook could well extend presidential power into the most sensitive questions of economic policy. The central banks in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom all operate independently from politicians in setting their monetary policy. That could change in the US on the next case that hits the Thomas Court.

The Supreme Court is paving the road to the unitary executive approach to presidential power and, of all the actions during the Trump administration, this could well prove the most important in the long run.

]]>

Lawmaker warns of administration’s ‘fetishization’ of Silicon Valley startups

Alexandra Kelley, Ross Wilkers, Edward Graham, and David DiMolfetta — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 09:30:00 -0400

Rep. James Walkinshaw has big plans for the federal government’s sprawling tech stack, including scrutinizing the contracting practices of the current administration.

In an extensive sit-down interview with Nextgov/FCW and other GovExec reporters, the Democratic congressman from Virginia said that he wants to help rebuild the federal government’s capacity after sweeping disruption carried out by the Department of Government Efficiency — from strengthening civil service protections and tech talent pipelines to tightening cybersecurity guardrails on AI and reviving oversight tools like the FITARA scorecard and FedRAMP.

“I’m starting to talk to my colleagues about a comprehensive and robust agenda to rebuild the capacity of the federal government, an American capacity agenda, for lack of a better term,” he said in the Monday interview.

“We’re obviously in this post-DOGE era, where, in my view, a lot of damage has been done, 300,000 federal workers lost,” he said, adding that many of the staff lost at offices across the federal enterprise were those experienced with technology and understood how their agencies worked.

His plan, he added, is focused around three pillars — talent, technology and delivery — that center on rebuilding a battered federal workforce, speeding secure AI and tech modernization, and pushing agencies to measure success by whether people actually receive services and mission tools on time, not just whether they satisfy oversight checklists.

Contractor oversight

Walkinshaw said that if Democrats take the House majority in this year’s midterms, there will be “heavy scrutiny of the contracting practices” of the current Trump administration. Contracts with the Defense and Homeland Security departments would fall under that purview, he said.

So too would any contractors who donated to the White House ballroom renovation and other ancillary projects pushed by the Trump administration, he added.

“Those companies that continued to do things by the book, the way that they did before this administration, maybe they lost some business in the last couple years, but they're going to be happy that they continued to do things by the book,” Walkinshaw said. “Those that played by the Trump rules … those companies and the contracts they received are going to face a lot of scrutiny.”

Watchdog groups and Democrats have raised questions of late about whether companies with federal business interests are helping bankroll Trump-backed projects while also receiving or seeking government work. The White House ballroom project has become a particular flashpoint, after several reports and analyses tied some donors to major federal contractors and raised concerns about donor anonymity, conflict-of-interest safeguards and the use of public funds.

On defense contracting, Walkinshaw also took aim at what he called the Trump administration’s “fetishization” of Silicon Valley firms, saying he fears the current White House has leaned too much into startup culture to solve defense tech problems that also require sustained oversight, procurement standards and basic IT management.

“I do worry that with this administration, especially, there might be too much of a fetishization of a certain kind of company, the Silicon Valley-based startup,” he said.

The comments reflect a broader debate amid the Trump 2.0 push to swiftly bring more commercial technology firms into national security work, particularly as both defense and civilian agencies look to buy software, AI tools and other evolving technologies more quickly.

Supporters have seen that shift as a necessary challenge to slow-moving acquisition systems and legacy prime contractors. Critics, however, warn that speed and startup culture are not substitutes for procurement safeguards, cybersecurity requirements, long-term maintenance and oversight of how those tools are actually used.

Cybersecurity

Walkinshaw noted that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency stands as a prime example of the Trump administration making sweeping cuts and then later having to reverse course. The agency’s workforce has been significantly cut over the past year under efficiency-driven efforts and other prevailing GOP misgivings about the cyberdefense shop.

CISA acting director Nick Andersen recently said the agency intends to hire around 330 people in the coming months. Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the cyber unit likely needs around 600 hires and that it might take a year to bring them on.

But the congressman argued restaffing will be more difficult than many anticipate.

“I don’t think that there’s a lot of high-level introspection at the highest levels of these agencies about the negative impacts,” he said. Staffing up at CISA again is a “very difficult thing to do after you’ve just attacked people, abused them, denigrated their service, and then said ‘we want you to want to come back.’”

Cybersecurity has long drawn bipartisan support in Washington, but CISA has become a recurring target of Republican scrutiny over its past work countering election-related disinformation. Since last year, Trump officials have sought to “refocus” the agency’s mission, arguing that CISA had strayed too far from its core mission set.

On other government cyber matters, Walkinshaw said he’s especially concerned about shadow IT — tech and AI tools used without management approval — inside federal agencies, and he plans to introduce amendments in upcoming appropriations measures that would address basic “blocking and tackling” cyberdefense, which he says is “even more important now in an advanced AI world.”

He is also planning amendments focused on event logging — digital records that show what happened on a system and when — to “try to get agencies to actually follow the law and log those cyber incidents when they occur.”

Walkinshaw, along with Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., introduced legislation on June 25 that would require the Department of Homeland Security to provide lawmakers with a report on identified gaps that prevent the agency from fully meeting event logging requirements.

FITARA scorecard

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who died last year, was one of the original sponsors of the 2014 Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, or FITARA, meant to help the federal government better onboard and use new technologies. Walkinshaw previously spent over a decade working as the chief of staff for Connolly, and he was elected last September to finish the rest of Connolly’s term.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in collaboration with the Government Accountability Office, released its first FITARA scorecard in November 2015 to grade agencies’ tech modernization and oversight efforts on an A to F scale. Since then, the biannual scorecard has served as an oversight mechanism for many agencies, although the most recent iteration of the scorecard was released back in September 2024.

Walkinshaw said the committee’s current Republican leadership “has kind of walked away” from releasing the scorecard, citing the lack of hearings held by the Cybersecurity, Information Technology and Government Innovation Subcommittee panel, in particular. He attributed this to the GOP majority’s desire to avoid subpoena fights over multiple Trump-era controversies.

But that public grading system is important, Walkinshaw stressed, because “it’s necessary and valuable to have an outside forcing mechanism to push for change and innovation.”

The rapid pace of technological change, he said, means “there’s an opportunity to incorporate technologies that were not available three years ago or five years ago that could make many of our functions more effective and more efficient, but if it’s not done thoughtfully and intentionally, it could also go horribly, horribly wrong, and Congress has a huge stake in ensuring that we get it right.”

In addition to resuming the scorecard — something the congressman posited would likely happen if Democrats retake the House in the upcoming midterm elections — Walkingshaw said the current grading scale should be modernized to account for advances in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity threats.

“The question is obviously, ‘how do you develop those metrics in a way that’s objective?’ But I think that scorecard proved to be over time a good forcing mechanism to nudge agencies to modernize,” Walkinshaw said.

When it comes to further AI use across the federal government, Walkinshaw said a grade related to the adoption of the capabilities could also be helpful for better understanding if agencies are effectively leveraging the technologies and not locking themselves into potentially expensive programs, noting that it is “very hard to unwind after you’ve committed to it.”

FedRAMP modernization

Walkinshaw noted that the government’s cloud security assessment and authorization initiative — the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, or FedRAMP — will need to be reauthorized next year. GSA is in the process of rolling out a FedRAMP 20x initiative to modernize the authorization process for cloud providers.

He said continuing the program is “100% necessary” — a process he expects to be bipartisan — and added that “if it’s not reauthorized, any administration could basically shut down the program, and then we go back to every cloud provider for every service for every agency starting their [authorization to operate] process from scratch.”

He similarly expressed concerns about the program’s long-term financial backing, pointing out that it is supported through the General Services Administration’s Federal Citizen Services Fund, which means “it’s basically what GSA decides, so it doesn’t really have stable funding.”

He also said he believes “there should be in statute stronger requirements for the FedRAMP office to engage with industry and with the public,” noting that “they do it right now but it’s been sporadic over the years.” And streamlining agency adoption of cloud services, he added, is another area where he believes the program can be tweaked for the better.

Walkinshaw noted that providers still need to receive an ATO from agencies after receiving FedRAMP authorization and said “those agencies need to retain some responsibility for what’s operating on their networks,” but added that “I’d like to explore ways to close that gap, because I still hear from businesses that feel like they’re redoing some of the work that they did during their FedRAMP certification when they’re going to get their ATO at their at their agency.”

AI legislation forecast

Despite Reps. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Lori Trahan, D-N.Y., releasing a discussion draft of AI legislation earlier this month that would, among other things, preempt state AI laws, Walkinshaw said that finalization of a national AI regulatory framework is unlikely until early next year.

“I don’t think you’ll see traction on any kind of large AI package before the election,” he said. “I think both sides are in a kind of ‘wait-and-see’ mode.”

Walkinshaw added that House Republicans are broadly happy to let the White House take the lead on developing and disseminating an AI regulatory framework, and that Democrats are not confident they can get a satisfactory bill passed at this time.

“In terms of big picture packages, it’s going to be next year,” he said. “Then the question will be, ‘If Democrats are in control of Congress, is there a compromise between what we develop –– which will come out of our commission –– and what the president will be willing to sign?’”

Among potential provisions that could make it into national AI regulation, he added, standards export controls placed on AI products could become a notable feature, given the federal government’s recent decision to restrict the release of certain Anthropic products, following conflict over the company’s decision to limit how its products could be used.

“Companies like Anthropic deserve to have some certainty as to what the process is going to be, so they can make investments, and the American people deserve some sense that there’s a process to ensure safety with respect to advanced models, so hopefully we’ll get there early next year,” Walkinshaw said.

]]>

What an ICE leadership pick signals about the next phase of immigration enforcement

Ariana Figueroa, States Newsroom — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:42:35 -0400

President Donald Trump has nominated a former Oklahoma state trooper to lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency tasked with carrying out the president’s mass deportation campaign.

Richard “Lance” Schroyer’s nomination on June 27 comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed the Trump administration to strip legal status from 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, a move that opens them to deportation.

“Lance Schroyer has what it takes to DETAIN AND DEPORT Illegal Alien Criminals …,” Trump wrote on social media June 27. “...he LOVES the men and women of ICE.”

He will have to be confirmed by the Senate and, if he is, he will be the first Senate-confirmed ICE director in 11 years.

The current acting director of ICE is David Venturella, a longtime federal immigration official and former vice president of the private prison company GEO that rakes in billions through federal contracts it holds to detain immigrants at facilities across the United States.

Former acting ICE Director Todd Lyons stepped down in May following the shooting of two U.S. citizens by immigration officials in Minneapolis earlier this year.

$70 billion in new funding

Schroyer will come into an agency that Congress recently funded through fiscal 2029 at $70 billion, not including a separate funding stream of billions Republicans included in the president’s signature tax cuts and spending bill in 2025.

Richard “Lance” Schroyer, nominated by President Donald Trump as head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Photo courtesy of Department of Homeland Security)

Schroyer does not have much experience working for the Department of Homeland Security, but serves as an adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who previously served as Oklahoma’s U.S. senator.

Schroyer also worked to establish Oklahoma’s law enforcement partnership with the federal government to assist with immigration enforcement through the 287(g) program. He served in law enforcement for nearly 30 years.

Mullin noted Schroyer’s work with the 287(g) program.

“Lance is coming straight from the operational field where he ran large-scale operations and worked alongside state and federal partners to remove illegal aliens from Oklahoma under the 287(g) program,” Mullin said in a statement. “With over 29 years of law enforcement experience, Lance will play a vital role in helping deliver on the President’s mandate from the American people to target, arrest, and deport illegal aliens.”

Oklahoma praise

Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt also praised the announcement, along with Schroyer’s career in law enforcement.

“He was a huge asset to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol and now he’ll continue to make us proud at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” Stitt said in a statement. “Oklahoma yet again leads the nation. We have consistently supported President Trump’s work to keep our border secure, and we have led in enforcement actions against those here illegally who engage in criminal behavior.”

Schroyer also received the Chief’s Award for his actions in 2015 when he assisted a woman whose car crashed outside his district in the jurisdiction of the Tulsa Police Department.

“He found her face down with her head pinned between the end of the dashboard and the passenger door. The woman was choking and was unable to speak,” according to a press release from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

Schroyer called first responders and stayed with the woman, according to the release. “In order to enable her to breathe, he moved the car seats and kicked open a jammed door in order to reposition the woman allowing her to breathe,” the release said.

For his actions, he received the Chief’s Award, “honoring his dedication to the protection of lives and service to the public.”

Oklahoma Voice Editor Janelle Stecklein contributed to this report.

]]>

One federal research network got a reprieve. Others may not

Sachi Kitajima Mulkey, Grist — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 12:58:33 -0400

Just a few weeks ago, the Trump administration said it was going to pull hundreds of scientific instruments out of ocean waters near the Pacific Northwest, North Carolina, and the Irminger Sea, south of Greenland. It was part of the administration’s plan to roll back funding from a multimillion dollar research program dedicated to studying complex ocean and planetary dynamics, including climate change.

Then, last week, it put the brakes on that decision. The National Science Foundation said it would stop dismantling the sensors after a bipartisan group of senators pushed back and passed a measure blocking the agency from doing so. The federal agency also plans to put back the equipment it had already removed.

The attempt to dismantle the system, known as the Ocean Observatories Initiative, or OOI, was “supreme stupidity,” said Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon who sponsored the measure along with Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican representing Alaska, in a statement. “We’ll keep fighting to ensure scientists, fishermen, and coastal communities can continue to utilize the critical data the OOI provides.”

This is not the first time that outrage and bipartisan support have saved climate-related research from the sweeping cuts enacted by the Trump administration. Sometimes to little fanfare, lawmakers have moved to preserve funding for scientific research at a number of agencies, as well as some environmental programs like Energy Star, which provides consumer rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances. Given their success, it’s likely that the administration’s anti-science agenda will continue meeting more backlash.

The Ocean Observatories Initiative had already been protected by lawmakers twice after the Trump administration proposed cutting the majority of its funding in 2025 and 2026 budgets. For now, the program, which began in 2016, is slated to continue operating for at least another decade.

But the initiative is not the only important ocean monitoring effort run by the United States. Researchers say other large cutting-edge ocean and climate research programs are facing a funding cliff with no plans in place to make sure they continue operating.

“We are seriously looking at the possibility of going dark,” said Lynne Talley, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. Talley has been one of the scientists helping lead the Argo program, an international effort that has deployed thousands of underwater floats that bob up and down throughout ocean depths equipped with a variety of data-collecting sensors.

Since the first floats were deployed more than 25 years ago, the Argo program has provided scientists with an unprecedented ability to track changes in temperature, salinity, and heat throughout the oceans. Even when scientists use data from other ocean projects, they often combine or check it against data from the Argo program’s floats. A recent addition to the program expanded the network with biogeochemical sensors that measure oxygen, acidity, chlorophyll, and other indicators of ocean health.

This helps scientists piece together the carbon cycle of oceans and how climate change is influencing it. “Those measurements have become essential to understanding the ocean,” Talley said.

The United States has deployed about half of the Argo program’s floats, which are battery powered and need to be replaced about every five years. But stagnant funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the agency leading the international initiative, means the pace of deployment has been too slow to maintain the program’s full coverage. The biogeochemical part of the network, backed by the National Science Foundation, ran out of funding last year, and will deploy its final floats this fall, with no plan in place to continue.

That means the Argo network could fail to remain fully operational in the future, even if other governments, such as the European Union’s, increase their contributions to it. “We have been the leaders in these ocean observations for many decades, and we are losing ground,” Talley said.

In the next few years, two other U.S.-led initiatives studying one of the most pressing, and uncertain, climate threats lurking in the ocean could run out of federal funding, too. That threat is known as AMOC, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: a massive conveyor belt in the Atlantic Ocean that brings hot water to the north and cold water to the south. The system of currents is responsible for the climate many Europeans know today and is one of the reasons that Quebec experiences far more freezing days a year than London, despite sitting at a similar latitude.

Scientists think that climate change could cause it to slow down or collapse, which would result in dramatic and deadly weather changes in Europe and faster sea level rise along the eastern coast of North America. It has happened in the past, such as during the end of the last Ice Age, 12,000 years ago.

But for now, a scientific understanding of how likely that is to happen remains elusive. Strong year-to-year changes in ocean currents make it difficult to detect trends in how AMOC might be changing, and scientists remain divided on when and how soon the system might slow down. That makes studying it all the more important, said Susan Lozier, an oceanographer and the dean of the College of Sciences at Georgia Tech University.

Lozier co-leads OSNAP, one of two large research programs dedicated to studying the circulation system. These teams, which include researchers from the U.S. and six other countries, have placed dozens of moorings, outfitted with a variety of scientific instruments, across the North Atlantic, to capture changes in the water. OSNAP, in combination with the other program, RAPID, represent the best shot researchers currently have at getting to the bottom of the AMOC mystery, Lozier said.

But funding for U.S. participation in the projects depends on federal grants, which are on course to run out after next year, Lozier said. “We’re on pins and needles, waiting for what happens after that,” she said.

More than a year has passed since the program’s leaders submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation for more funding. So far, Lozier said, they haven’t heard anything definitive. (The National Science Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.)

In the meantime, the Trump administration has slashed funding for science across the federal government, often targeting climate-focused research. Funding for geosciences like oceanography has fallen by more than half from last year. “We are really concerned about the possible continuation,” Lozier said. But it was heartening to hear about the reversal of the planned cuts to the OOI program, she said.

The Ocean Observatories Initiative also faced cutbacks in 2018 during Trump’s first term. That time, the downsizing was handled through a deliberate process that involved extensive input from scientists, engineers, and the National Science Board, said Jaime Palter, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island, in an email. The savings, she said, were redirected to support other ocean science work.

Commenting before learning that the funding to OOI was restored, Palter said the Trump administration’s recent actions were “fundamentally different” from last time. The speed of the planned dismantling of the initiative wouldn’t have given the scientific community time to adapt, she said.

Now that the decision has been reversed, it feels hopeful to know that people care about studying the ocean enough to push back on funding cuts, Palter said. But, she added, the uncertain future for programs like Argo make it “important not to let down our guard.”

“Destroying those capabilities can happen swiftly,” she said. “Rebuilding would be the work of a generation.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/oceans/trump-nsf-cuts-ocean-research-senate-amoc/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

]]>

President can fire independent agency heads without cause, Supreme Court rules

Sean Michael Newhouse — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 11:54:30 -0400

The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a nearly 100-year-old legal precedent, which is expected to enable the president to fire bipartisan board members of agencies that were established by Congress to have some degree of independence from the White House.

The case began in March 2025 when President Donald Trump removed two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission before the end of their terms. The FTC is led by five commissioners; no more than three can be from the same party.

Shortly thereafter, the ousted Democratic officials — Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter — filed a lawsuit, arguing that, under current law, the president can only remove an FTC commissioner “for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” They also cited the 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the justices determined that dismissing an FTC member for differences in policy is unconstitutional.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in December 2025, however, the Trump administration contended that Humphrey’s Executor “must be overruled,” contending that it shields independent regulatory agencies from oversight.

“[Humphrey’s] continues to tempt Congress to erect at the heart of our government a headless fourth branch insulated from political accountability and democratic control,” said Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

The Supreme Court sided, 6-3, with the White House.

“The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the chief executive, in whom such power is vested,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority’s opinion. “It follows, then, that Slaughter served as the president’s subordinate at the FTC — and that the president was entitled to cut her tenure short.”

The court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter is expected to apply to other lawsuits filed by leaders of independent agencies fired by the president, including Democrat Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. That agency — which is led by a three-person board, no more than two of whom can be from the same political party — adjudicates federal employees’ appeals of adverse personnel actions. Many government workers who have been impacted by the Trump administration’s downsizing of the civil service have pursued claims through the MSPB.

Former Federal Labor Relations Authority Chairwoman Susan Tsui Grundmann similarly challenged her 2025 firing, but her term at the agency expired in January, rendering her lawsuit moot.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision “reshapes our government.”

“Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the president’s hands,” she wrote.

Since the start of his second term, Trump has fired or attempted to fire 20 board or commission members who have “for-cause” protections from removal, according to an April report by the Partnership for Public Service nonprofit.

In February 2025, the president also signed an executive order to exert more White House control over regulations from independent agencies.

]]>

GSA’s centralization push is a return to its roots, not just a Trump priority

Nick Wakeman — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 16:59:57 -0400

The General Services Administration’s push to centralize government buying is as much a return to its roots as it is a Trump administration initiative, according to one of the leading architects of the consolidation.

Laura Stanton, acting commissioner for GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, gave a bit of a history lesson during remarks at the GovExec-produced SAP NOW event on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. GSA started in 1949 as part of a series of recommendations from the Hoover Commission.

“The reasons we were founded as agency are the same reasons and the priorities that I’m going to talk about today,” Stanton said. “Going back to those founding principles is really important to understanding where GSA is and what we’re doing.”

GSA wants to consolidate more government buying through its vehicles. There is plenty of room for that growth with GSA contracts accounting for about 25% total government buying. In 2025, $110 billion in order volume flowed through GSA vehicles.

“That’s a great baseline, but I also think that it’s an indication that we still have a lot of decentralization across the government,” Stanton said.

GSA has long had its Assisted Acquisition Services, but that organization concentrates on contracts and task orders exceeding $50 million.

“There are lot of common goods and services that everybody needs to deliver everyday that are far below that level,” Stanton said.

To fill that niche, GSA created the Office of Centralized Acquisition Services. A lot of routine buying was happening agency-by-agency.

Stanton said that agency-by-agency buying led to inconsistent pricing, duplicative contracts for the same items and negotiations that left money on the table.

OCAS will step into the void and manage actual transactions, not just create master contracts. The theory is that by aggregating demand across agencies, GSA can negotiate better and drive consistency in pricing.

“This means we have to understand the demand for common goods and services across the agencies, so data becomes key,” she said.

OCAS is already working with the Small Business Administration, Office of Personnel Management, other smaller agencies and a few larger ones on the acquisitions of common goods and services.

The office is in a growth mode and Stanton recommended that industry get to know them through their quarterly pipeline reviews.

“You can hear directly about what’s going on in that group and you can figure out how to align to the needs they are articulating,” she said.

OCAS will act as a shared services center actually executing transactions, not just as a contract vehicle shop.

“The more that we’re able to bring into the centralized acquisition group, the more we can begin to work at scale and get those benefits for the federal government at the task order level, not just at the master contract level,” Stanton said.

]]>

Oregon lawsuit could upend federal management of public lands

Alex Brown, Stateline — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 08:00:00 -0400

A new lawsuit challenging a logging project in Oregon threatens to unravel the management plans governing hundreds of millions of acres of federal public land.

At stake are thousands of leases and permits covering billions of dollars of economic activity — including mining, drilling, grazing, logging, ski resorts, wind and solar projects, outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing. If successful, the lawsuit could throw the management of huge swaths of the West into chaos.

Some experts fear the new legal uncertainty around federal agencies’ management authority could unleash a tsunami of lawsuits targeting everything from mining to the conservation of wildlife habitat.

“They’ve opened Pandora’s Box here,” said Susan Jane Brown, the attorney who filed the lawsuit and serves as principal at Silvix Resources, a nonprofit environmental law firm.

“When you throw that whole system into chaos, it’s a problem whether you’re the oil and gas industry or the timber industry or someone who wants to take a fall hunting trip. There’s a lot at stake here.”

The legal battle stems from Republican lawmakers’ recent use of the Congressional Review Act, a previously obscure tool, to push for more mining and drilling on public lands overseen by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Under President Donald Trump, Congress has aggressively used the review power granted by the 1996 law to revoke decisions made during the Biden administration, including financial regulations, energy efficiency standards and auto emissions rules.

Some legal experts contend that by using the law to target public land policy, Congress unwittingly invalidated hundreds of land use plans, along with decades worth of permits and management decisions. The Oregon lawsuit is the first to test that theory in court — but public lands advocates don’t expect it to the be the last.

“This is incredibly destabilizing for anyone that cares about public lands, whether you care about those as an industrial developer or a wilderness advocate,” said John Ruple, research professor of law at the University of Utah’s Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources, and the Environment.

Over the past year, legal experts, agency veterans, conservation groups and industry leaders have warned that Congress was using the Congressional Review Act in a way that could undermine land use plans across the country. Oil and gas drillers could have their permits challenged in court. Ranchers could lose their leases. And understaffed federal agencies would have to redraft hundreds of plans that typically take years to complete.

“This has been flying under the radar,” said Michael Carroll, a land management campaign director with the Wilderness Society, an environmental group. “[Congress] basically opened themselves up to multiple lawsuits from any number of stakeholders calling into question whether or not an agency has the authority to issue permits.”

The Congressional Review Act

The three-decade-old Congressional Review Act requires new regulations issued by federal agencies to be submitted to Congress before taking effect. Congress then has a review period of 60 working days during which it can vote to revoke them.

This review power was rarely invoked until Trump’s first term, when Republicans used it to overturn 16 regulations. The GOP has been even more aggressive in Trump’s second term, overturning 23 rules so far, including conservation standards for water heaters, overdraft lending regulations and restrictions on pollutants in tire manufacturing

Until recently, management plans for federal public lands were not considered “rules” subject to congressional review under the law. Agencies have issued well over 100 such plans since 1996 without ever submitting one to Congress. Those documents guide the work of agency officials who oversee specific areas of land, often covering millions of acres.

Created after years of public meetings and local feedback, they determine which landscapes will be leased for oil and gas drilling, protected for endangered species or open for off-road vehicles, along with a multitude of other uses.

But last year, Republicans asked the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan advisory agency for Congress, to affirm a sweeping new view of the Congressional Review Act. The office found that certain management plans were subject to review because their land use decisions “prescribed policy,” and determined that lawmakers’ queries about those plans had opened the 60-day review “clock” in each instance.

Using this new interpretation, Republicans in the past two years have revoked plans that restricted mining and oil production on federal lands in Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming.

But the repercussions could go well beyond those specific plans.

None of the plans issued by federal land managers over the past 30 years was ever submitted for review, because no one at the time considered them to be rules. In other words, hundreds of plans covering millions of acres of land could be deemed invalid under the new congressional interpretation.

Oregon lawsuit

Now, a lawsuit in Oregon will put that argument to the test. Cascadia Wildlands, a conservation group in the Pacific Northwest, has filed a complaint challenging a timber harvest on Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon. That logging project was approved under a management plan that was issued in 2016.

Since Congress now considers such plans to be rules, the plaintiffs argue, the 2016 plan never took effect because it was never submitted to Congress.

Cascadia Wildlands has fought numerous legal battles over logging projects approved by the Bureau of Land Management. If the lawsuit over the management plan is successful, said Nick Cady, the group’s legal director, the same theory would give them leverage to block any logging project issued under the 2016 plan.

“They let the genie out of the bottle,” Cady said. “Instead of just letting [the Congressional Review Act] move forward with whatever Republicans choose to select, it’s worth curbing that by pointing out that it can point both ways.”

If the plan is struck down, activists of all types could use that precedent to challenge any activity on public land governed by a management plan that hasn’t been reviewed by Congress.

“It is a target-rich environment if our lawsuit is successful, and even if it’s not successful we’ve already demonstrated that there’s a lot of interest here,” Brown said. “This is what happens when you overturn longstanding precedent and throw spaghetti at the wall.”

Cady and Brown said they hope their case compels Congress to revise the Congressional Review Act to exempt public land management plans.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

]]>

As opposition mounts, House cancels vote on VA overhaul bill

Erich Wagner — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 17:33:08 -0400

House Republicans on Thursday gaveled floor activity for the week, effectively cancelling a planned vote on a controversial Veterans Affairs Department overhaul bill that packages bipartisan benefits increases with cuts to others and increased privatization of health services.

The House planned this week to debate and ultimately vote on the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act (H.R. 9237), a collection of more than 60 bills related to the VA and veteran care, including benefits increases for severely disabled veterans and the families of service members who died in the line of duty. Its centerpiece is the Major Richard Star Act (H.R. 2102), a bill that would allow veterans who were forced to retire early due to a combat injury to collect their full military retirement pay in addition to their VA disability benefits.

But Democrats warned at a press conference Thursday that the larger bill is an effort to “hijack” the Major Richard Star Act, which has more than 300 House sponsors and a discharge petition just five signatures short of forcing a floor vote, and anchor it with $60 billion in cuts to other veterans’ benefits, like those associated with tinnitus and sleep apnea, alongside plans to further prioritize veterans’ health care and abridge VA psychologists’ collective bargaining rights.

“This bill pits veterans against veterans,” said Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa. “I think it stabs those serving right now in the back, many of whom are currently fighting a war. When it comes time for them to apply for their benefits for conditions linked to their service, they will see those benefits cut . . . The same politicians who added nearly $5 trillion to our national debt to pay for tax giveaways to the rich and powerful, who cut health care to help pay for those tax giveaways, now want to force other veterans to pay for these very important VA benefits increases.”

Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., also noted that the version of the Major Richard Star Act within the Republicans’ megabill is watered down compared to the standalone version of the measure. This new iteration implements a cap that would prevent impacted veterans from receiving both their retirement and disability benefits in full.

“They claim this fixes the wounded veterans tax, but it doesn’t,” he said. “It creates a cap in the amount of benefits they can get so they cannot get their full medical benefits and retirement benefits together. They’re nickeling and diming our veterans, our wounded warriors, while they’re at the same time proposing $500 billion to pay for the Iran war. And it takes away PACT Act benefits from 1.5 million veterans to pay for it.”

Veterans groups zeroed in on the dangers of how the bill “rewrites” benefits associated with service-connected tinnitus and sleep apnea. The VA first floated changing how it compensates veterans suffering from those conditions during the Biden administration, but advocates argued that process is governed by medical and scientific analysis, not “politics.”

“Once Congress starts rewriting the disability ratings whenever it needs money, there’s no limit,” said Jess Finucan, director of policy and advocacy for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “Today it’s ‘just’ tinnitus and sleep apnea. Tomorrow, will it be PTSD? Will Congress decide that taking care of veterans suffering from the long-term effects of toxic exposures suddenly isn’t worth the price tag?”

And Craig Romanovich, executive director of the Union Veterans Council, who himself suffers from “severe” tinnitus, said these conditions contribute to other medical conditions—by defanging coverage of hearing loss and sleep apnea, Congress would make it harder to qualify for benefits under those knock-on disabilities as well.

“There is a constant ringing in my ears—it’s ringing right now,” he said. “It deprives me of my sleep, it causes anxiety and depression, and it causes issues in my family. These are the hard truths of something I live with every single day of my life . . . These are all secondary issues to tinnitus. If this goes through and you can no longer claim tinnitus, now you will have to fight for all of those secondary conditions on their own merits, making it much harder to get compensation and care.”

Labor leaders warned that the Republican bill’s changes to the Veterans Community Care Program, the initiative by which veterans can receive VA-sponsored medical care from private sector providers, could serve as the “tipping point” toward privatization, funneling money away from VA facilities and thereby causing service deterioration which in turn would fuel more privatization.

“This pushes us farther down a dangerous road, one that speeds up privatization of the VA,” said American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley. “It locks in biased standards that VA facilities must meet, while holding private providers to no such standards . . . This is not strengthening the VA, it is hollowing the VA out.”

]]>

Award-winning civil servants counter negative stereotypes of government employees

Sean Michael Newhouse — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 16:15:52 -0400

Persuading young people to work in public service is challenging, several speakers said on Monday at a “Celebration of the American Public Servant” gala sponsored by the National Academy of Public Administration in conjunction with the U.S. semiquincentennial. Government Executive was a partner for the event.

“When you think about media today, it's not always in our favor to be a public servant,” said JoAnne Bass, a retired Air Force officer who was the first woman to serve as the highest-ranking enlisted leader in a U.S. military branch.

But the federal employees who spoke at the event, many of whom have served for decades or have received a public service award, argued that their work records show the positive impact that a “bureaucrat” can have on the public.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser told gala attendees at the Library of Congress that “young people may not realize that some of the most brilliant thinkers are in public service.”

National Institute of Standards and Technology worker William Phillips — a Nobel laureate in physics and recipient of NAPA and George Washington University’s Arthur S. Flemming award for feds — described the saying “close enough for government work” as a “nasty phrase.”

“The implication being that if you work for the government, you just have to get the job done, not the best job,” he said.

Phillips highlighted that NIST’s atomic clocks in the ‘70s accurately measured one part in 10^13 (i.e. error rate of one second every 300,000 years).

“Today, the best atomic clocks are good to better than one part in 10^18. That's less than one second in 14 billion years. My friends, 14 billion years ago was the dawn of the universe,” he said. “At [NIST] — where people are working every day to ensure the economic health and the national security of this country, now and in the future — this is what we call close enough for government.”

Kaity Wolfe — a senior State Department official who has been recognized by Leadership Connect’s Next Generation Leader Spotlight — said that she was initially nervous about speaking on the panel, as someone with relatively less government experience.

“But I’ve realized that being uncomfortable is part of public service,” she said.

Wolfe reflected on her time working for the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, which reported as early as 2012 that U.S. efforts to support democracy in that country were falling short.

“That experience has taught me something that I've carried throughout my career ever since — that public service isn't about protecting institutions, it's about strengthening them,” she said. “It means being a good steward of taxpayer dollars, it means being transparent with the public and sometimes it means having the courage to say things that are uncomfortable and necessary.”

Kenneth Corbin — the chief of IRS Taxpayer Services and winner of the Service to the Citizen Award — touted that he started at the agency at 16-years-old as a GS-1, because he hadn’t yet graduated from high school, and has “had the pleasure of serving every grade in between” to his current position in the Senior Executive Service.

He shared that the public’s reaction to getting COVID-19 stimulus payments, which the IRS was responsible for distributing while also contending with remote work and the normal tax filing season, is one of the most memorable moments from his 40-year career.

“In this journey of service, was it the millions of payments that went out that made the difference? Was it the dollar amount that went out that made the difference? No,” he said. “What made the difference to our team was getting on social media and reading the messages from families who now had money to go buy milk, to buy food, to pay their bills. They appreciated the fact that that work was delivered, and Congress loved it so much that not once, not twice, but three times we delivered those payments.”

]]>

Federal acquisition rewrite leaves cybersecurity confusion unresolved

Lindy Kyzer — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:03:19 -0400

The federal government’s Revolutionary FAR Overhaul represents one of the most significant efforts to reshape federal acquisition in decades. Supporters see an opportunity to streamline procurement, reduce regulatory complexity and lower barriers to doing business with the federal government. Critics worry that important requirements could get lost in the process.

For contractors concerned about cybersecurity and controlled unclassified information, however, an important question is not whether the FAR becomes shorter, nor is it whether acquisition becomes faster.

The question is whether this overhaul will finally force government agencies to address one of the most persistent challenges facing contractors today: the inconsistent implementation of controlled unclassified information requirements.

That may sound like an odd question to ask about a procurement regulation. After all, the FAR overhaul does not rewrite the underlying controlled unclassified information framework. But that is precisely the point. The FAR rewrite does not eliminate the government’s controlled unclassified information program. Executive Order 13556 remains in effect. National Archives and Records Administration regulations remain in effect. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-171 remains in effect. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification requirements remain in effect. Agencies will continue to have obligations to identify, mark and protect sensitive information.

The same rules are still there.

The challenge is that many contractors continue to struggle to determine when those rules apply.

At ClearanceJobs, reporting and industry conversations have consistently highlighted confusion surrounding controlled unclassified information implementation. Security professionals, contractors and acquisition stakeholders frequently point to inconsistent agency guidance, varying interpretations of requirements and uncertainty surrounding what information actually qualifies as controlled unclassified information. The recent State of the Facility Security Officer report found that controlled unclassified information, not personnel security clearances, facility clearances or processing timelines, was the top source of frustration for security professionals. While government has invested significant effort into developing policies and compliance frameworks, implementation across agencies remains uneven, and industry partners expected to enact the rules remain confused.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology itself has recognized the challenge. Recent guidance has attempted to provide greater clarity around identifying and managing controlled unclassified information, acknowledging concerns from both government and industry that organizations continue to interpret requirements differently. Yet despite years of guidance, training and policy development, contractors often find themselves navigating a patchwork of agency-specific practices and expectations.

This is not simply a cybersecurity issue.

It is an acquisition issue.

When contractors cannot determine whether they will be handling controlled unclassified information, they struggle to accurately estimate cybersecurity costs, staffing requirements, technology investments and proposal pricing. Small businesses face particular challenges because uncertainty creates risk and risk often discourages participation.

The government has spent years trying to expand competition, attract innovative companies and reduce barriers to entry. Yet uncertainty surrounding controlled unclassified information frequently has the opposite effect. Contractors are left trying to interpret cybersecurity obligations that may not be clearly defined until well into the acquisition process. In some cases, organizations discover significant compliance requirements only after contract award. In others, they implement costly controls out of caution because no one can provide a definitive answer about whether information qualifies as controlled unclassified information.

That uncertainty is becoming increasingly consequential as the government ramps up cybersecurity enforcement.

A recent Justice Department settlement with Alabama-based defense contractor LOGZONE offers a glimpse of what many contractors may expect moving forward. The company agreed to pay more than $500,000 to resolve allegations that it failed to implement required National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-171 cybersecurity controls while performing Navy contracts, despite certifying compliance with contract requirements. According to the government, the deficiencies left sensitive defense information vulnerable to compromise.

The settlement is notable because it occurred before full implementation of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program. The certification program is built on the same National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-171 requirements cited in the case, and the Pentagon has made clear that contractors will increasingly be expected to demonstrate, not simply attest to, their cybersecurity compliance.

The message from government is clear: cybersecurity requirements matter and contractors will be held accountable when they fail to meet them. But that reality makes consistent controlled unclassified information implementation even more important.

The government cannot simultaneously increase enforcement while tolerating inconsistent identification, marking and communication of controlled unclassified information requirements across agencies. Contractors should absolutely be responsible for protecting sensitive information. They should absolutely be accountable for false certifications and inadequate security controls.

Yet accountability works best when expectations are clear.

As enforcement actions become more common and Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification requirements spread across the defense industrial base, the stakes surrounding controlled unclassified information identification will only increase. Contractors need certainty about what information requires protection, what obligations apply and when those obligations begin. Otherwise, organizations will continue to spend valuable resources navigating ambiguity rather than improving security.

Because the FAR overhaul is fundamentally an exercise in simplification, it offers an opportunity to focus less on creating new cybersecurity requirements and more on ensuring agencies consistently communicate the requirements that already exist.

Government should also strengthen accountability for identification and marking practices. Contractors bear responsibility for protecting information once they receive it. But they cannot protect information that government has failed to properly identify.

The proposed FAR controlled unclassified information rule attempts to address that gap through a standardized form that places responsibility on agencies to identify the controlled unclassified information involved in contract performance. In fact, the proposal’s signature feature is a standard mechanism for identifying and communicating controlled unclassified information requirements to contractors before performance begins. The existence of that form is itself evidence that government recognizes a longstanding problem: contractors often do not know what controlled unclassified information they are expected to protect.

The current system often creates a paradox. Agencies require contractors to implement increasingly rigorous cybersecurity controls while simultaneously providing inconsistent guidance regarding the information those controls are intended to protect.

More requirements will not solve that problem. Better implementation will.

The acquisition community has spent years discussing cybersecurity as a compliance challenge. The FAR rewrite provides an opportunity to recognize that it is also an acquisition challenge.

When requirements are unclear, companies cannot accurately estimate costs. They cannot determine the appropriate security architecture. They cannot assess staffing needs. Small businesses, in particular, may decide the uncertainty simply is not worth the risk.

The government does not need another controlled unclassified information rule. It already has plenty of them. The FAR rewrite will not alter the underlying authorities governing controlled unclassified information, but it does create an opportunity to emphasize a lesson contractors have been repeating for years: implementation matters as much as policy. Clear identification, consistent marking and transparent communication of controlled unclassified information requirements would do more to improve cybersecurity outcomes than another layer of regulation.

For more than a decade, industry has struggled with inconsistent markings, varying agency interpretations and uncertainty about where responsibility for identifying controlled unclassified information truly begins. Contractors have repeatedly asked for greater clarity, consistency and predictability, not more regulation.

If acquisition leaders want a more competitive industrial base, stronger cybersecurity and broader participation from innovative companies, they should start by solving one of the simplest questions contractors still struggle to answer: “Is this controlled unclassified information?”

For too many companies, the answer remains surprisingly unclear. A FAR rule cannot fix that. But agencies committed to clearer implementation can.

]]>

Director of National Intelligence office cuts reach key coordination function

David DiMolfetta — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:42:43 -0400

Will Ruger, the deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration, was placed on administrative leave as part of a broader personnel shakeup at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that has removed roughly 50 career and political staffers from their roles since Bill Pulte became acting director Friday, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Around 15 to 20 mission integration personnel detailed to ODNI from other U.S. intelligence units are believed to have been sent back to their home agencies, added the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to communicate the personnel shifts.

The removals could have practical consequences because mission integration is one of the main offices ODNI uses to link work across the intelligence landscape. The directorate is responsible for coordinating the 18 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community and helping ensure they perform as a unified enterprise. The unit also advises the director of national intelligence on how findings are collected, analyzed and used to inform policy and operational decisions.

CBS News first reported details of Ruger’s dismissal. The estimated number of mission integration staff moved back to their home agencies has not been previously reported.

The moves have occurred under the broader shakeup at ODNI since Pulte took over as acting director after former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard left the role. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Wednesday that Pulte had told him roughly 45 to 50 career officers were being sent back to their home agencies, while a smaller number of front-office personnel were leaving federal service altogether.

Many ODNI employees serve on joint duty assignments, temporary postings that bring personnel from other intelligence agencies into the director’s office.

ODNI has not returned requests for comment about the downsizing plans.

Pulte’s early moves come as Jay Clayton, Trump’s nominee to serve as the Senate-confirmed intelligence chief, awaits Senate consideration, though the president ordered the cancellation of Clayton’s hearing last week until the Senate could confirm the new U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who would be Clayton’s replacement.

Democrats warned that Pulte’s role in the president’s mortgage fraud reviews last year could foreshadow an abuse of intelligence tools to target the president’s political opponents, leading to the historic lapse of a key surveillance authority earlier this month.

Confirming Clayton would have helped reshore support from key Democrats for the surveillance power. But Trump also asserted that the spying authority — Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — should not pass without the concurrent passage of a controversial voter identification bill that doesn’t have enough support in Congress.

Cotton said Wednesday that Pulte broadly agrees with returning ODNI to its “original size, scope and mission,” including by spinning off some functional centers and sending detailed officers back to their home agencies.

The downsizing push began under Gabbard, whose office had announced plans to cut roughly 40% of ODNI’s workforce and said the effort was a streamlining measure that would save more than $700 million annually.

Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees warned Pulte this week against making major changes while serving in an acting capacity, arguing that large-scale personnel moves and other consequential decisions should be left to a Senate-confirmed director.

]]>

Agencies look to AI to improve hiring and build workforce skills

Sean Michael Newhouse — Wed, 24 Jun 2026 17:21:14 -0400

Artificial intelligence and other technological advances are streamlining federal hiring and improving employee skills assessments, senior agency human capital officials said at an event on Wednesday sponsored by the software company SAP. The event was produced by GovExec, Government Executive’s parent company.

Arron Helm, the chief human capital officer for the General Services Administration, said that AI has helped whittle down the amount of time it takes HR officials and hiring managers to develop General Schedule job classifications.

“As we're having our AI do the initial takes, draft the initial narrative and do an initial factor evaluation, our teams still need to go back in there, they still need to work it and massage it and come to agreement, but now we're averaging about two hours to do what was taking six to eight hours,” he said.

Helm added that his agency does 500 to 600 job classifications annually, so the resulting time savings contribute significantly to GSA Administrator Ed Forst’s “million-hour moonshot” to identify one million work hours that can be eliminated, optimized or automated. The CHCO said that officials, so far, have found 600,000 hours.

Colleen Heller-Stein, the executive director of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council and former deputy Treasury CHCO, expressed optimism that a developing effort to consolidate more than 100 agency personnel systems into a single platform would enable the government to pinpoint employees across agencies who could best respond to various challenges.

“I worked in an agency that dealt with financial crises when they popped up,” she said. “When we have something pop up and we've got to stand something up really quickly, thinking about the federal government as a whole, we might be able to more easily tap into talent that isn't right in front of us if we have a repository of [employees’] skills.”

Both officials praised the Trump administration’s pivot away from applicants self-assessing their skills and move toward formal evaluations, particularly for roles related to AI.

“This is seen as a return to merit, where people are showing what they know, not just saying, ‘Hey, I know all of this,’” Heller-Stein said.

Helm added that the feedback from hiring managers about the changes is “phenomenal” and that “[candidate] quality is so much higher than what they’re accustomed to in the past.”

Mid-career development

While both the Trump and Biden administrations prioritized bringing early-career talent into government, Heller-Stein and Helm emphasized the need for agencies to develop mid-career employees, arguing that focusing on one group doesn’t have to come at the expense of the other.

Heller-Stein said that, following the president’s cuts to the civil service, mid-career employees “are moving into leadership roles sometimes more quickly than may have been anticipated” and there’s a need to “build back that bench.”

She noted that Tech Force, a new initiative to recruit early-career technologists into government, also involves bringing on private sector managers to serve temporarily at agencies. Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor said in May that hiring was lagging for the program with only three or four mid-career workers in the onboarding process.

Helm touted a program called “GSA labs” through which early- and mid-career employees from different teams work together on agency-wide problems, such as developing a way to measure AI value and strengthening federal contract oversight.

“Talent development is something that's often been underfunded and underfocused in the government, so we are really building out and investing in our internal talent development pipelines,” he said. “We talk a lot about talent acquisition, but just as important, if not more important, is continuing to grow our internal talent.”

]]>

A plan to dismantle DHS is moving from idea to legislation

David DiMolfetta — Wed, 24 Jun 2026 17:08:25 -0400

The top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee’s cybersecurity panel says she has engaged fellow lawmakers about a sweeping legislative plan to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security that would involve sectioning out key components into their own standalone entities, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

In a phone interview, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., told Nextgov/FCW that she aims to have preliminary bill language in place that could be introduced at the start of next year, adding that she has spoken with other Democratic colleagues, including Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Greg Casar of Texas, Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island, Robert Garcia of California and Washington state’s Emily Randall and Pramila Jayapal.

Citing her issues with the Trump administration’s maximal immigration agenda being enacted through Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol, Ramirez said she believes DHS has been weaponized. Key components like CISA, the Transportation Security Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard have been starved of resources, she said, adding that her planned legislation would seek to pull those agencies out into more autonomous structures that are harder to defund or politicize.

The White House has especially undermined CISA’s ability to coordinate on critical infrastructure security, she argued, citing various program cuts and workforce reductions put in place in the last 18 months. The agency lost a significant share of its staff over the past year, after the Trump administration moved to reduce and restructure the cyber shop through a mix of layoffs, early retirement offers, transfers and program cuts. It’s also seeking to shed hundreds of millions of dollars from the cyber agency’s fiscal year 2027 budget.

Ramirez’s proposed restructuring would be a significant undertaking requiring broad support in Congress and would likely have to include detailed directives about where DHS components and authorities should sit if the department were taken apart.

“Obviously this is going to be a pretty comprehensive bill. Dismantling DHS would have to then have the specifics of what happens to all of these agencies,” she said. “Do they end up becoming their own agency? Do they become their own department? How do we make sure that we put policy in place to protect their mission and the public, the essential authorities that come across every one of these particular agencies?”

Ramirez was named as the ranking member of the Homeland committee’s cyber subcommittee in April after former Rep. Eric Swalwell of California resigned from Congress.

In her role, she works alongside Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., the subcommittee chairman, whom she has clashed heavily with in the past. Last year, Ogles called for Ramirez to be deported and kicked off the committee. Ramirez was born in Chicago, Illinois to Guatemalan immigrants.

Asked about their relationship, she acknowledged “very vile” past comments from Ogles and “very many” differences between them but said she hopes to find common ground with the chairman on bettering CISA funding and restoring grants that help states and localities protect critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. She added that the two have “done some work together.”

“My hope is that he and I can put some of the politics to the side, especially on their side, and really understand that we have to really fully fund the infrastructure systems necessary for us to be able to keep up with what we see happening with artificial intelligence,” she said.

AI sits at the center of Ramirez’s concerns because, she argues, the evolving technology is innovating fast “without guardrails” in place.

A recent export control order invoked by the White House forced AI company Anthropic to pull back access to a pair of powerful cyber-focused frontier models. The NSA, in particular, has been partially affected by the move. Ramirez said it’s “important for us to be able to have access to the advanced models” but that necessary testing and oversight is in place so that “we are not actually causing unintentionally security threats to our own systems.”

She “absolutely” plans to ask officials at NSA, CISA and the Commerce Department for briefings on how export control actions affect government access to advanced AI models.

Ramirez recently filed an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill that would codify a key cyber vulnerability-tracking program within CISA, after it faced a contracting debacle last spring.

She said the measure ensures “we are not getting another funding lapse that’s going to put us in a really vulnerable state.” The program, known as Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, has for years provided organizations with a standardized methodology for logging publicly known security flaws. CISA has declined to publicly comment on the bill.

The cyber agency is seeking to hire around 330 staff in the coming months, its acting director Nick Andersen previously said. Ramirez said she had a recent meeting with Andersen, and that, while she’s “grateful that they’re moving towards this 330, really he’s going to have to step up significantly more than that, and it’s not going to happen by the end of this year.”

“I am grateful that the interim director is really trying to move towards making those 330 hires as quickly as possible,” though “these hires don’t happen overnight,” Ramirez said. “In some cases, it takes us three to four months to be able to get the clearances necessary to bring [new hires] on board.”

“In some cases, we think it’s going to take us at least a year, year and a half, to be able to get to the level that is necessary to keep up with the needs of CISA,” she added.

Ramirez said she sees “a lot of vulnerabilities right now on election security,” pointing to potential laws that could restrict ballot access. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump canceled a bill signing for bipartisan legislation on housing affordability, saying he wouldn’t support it until Congress passes his controversial SAVE AMERICA ACT, which would require that people provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote and significantly limit mail-in ballots.

An assessment published by Check Point this month said campaigns, fundraising platforms, public websites and local governments could face phishing, credential theft, AI-generated deception and foreign influence activity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“It just comes back to the idea that a lot of people are concerned about what does election integrity mean in terms of what the systems, the software, the polling locations look like on election day, but also what is the other kind of legislation that would make it even harder for people to be able to easily vote,” Ramirez said. “We have a lot of work to do, and this is actually one of the conversations with DHS that we’re trying to have more of.”

]]>

Postal Service faces backlash over voter data rule tied to mail ballot delivery

Jonathan Shorman, States Newsroom — Wed, 24 Jun 2026 16:32:57 -0400

The U.S. Postal Service won’t deliver mail ballots in states that refuse to turn over lists of voters under a proposed rule, the agency’s chief executive said Wednesday, angering Democrats who warn the decision will disenfranchise voters.

Postmaster General David Steiner defended the rule at a Senate hearing and dismissed accusations that the Postal Service was acting politically after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March restricting voting by mail.

“If a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list over to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?” Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, asked Steiner.

“Under our proposed regulation, no,” Steiner replied.

Steiner’s testimony, before the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, marked the clearest acknowledgment yet by a federal official that the rule could significantly alter how the Postal Service processes election mail across the country.

If the rule takes effect and states refuse to comply, it would introduce a new federal condition on mail ballot delivery tied to voter data submission requirements.

The Postal Service put forward the rule after Trump ordered Steiner to require states to submit lists of anticipated mail voters to the agency as a condition of having ballots delivered.

Trump cancels signing ceremony

Underscoring the depth of Trump’s interest, as Steiner was speaking Wednesday morning the president abruptly called off a U.S. Capitol ceremony to sign a bipartisan housing bill because of the Senate’s refusal to pass the SAVE America Act. The legislation would require voters to show documents, such as a birth certificate or passport, proving their citizenship.

“Now we have this new rule you’ve put out saying that states have to turn over their voting rolls and you, the U.S. Postal Service, will decide who’s approved to send their ballot through the mail,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, said. “It’s just another backdoor way of trying to influence this election.“

Slotkin said Trump’s decision to cancel the housing bill signing demonstrated the “level of obsession this president has” over elections.

Turning over names

Every state would have to provide the names of residents expected to vote by mail. Additionally, eight states and Washington, D.C., conduct elections by mailing all voters a ballot, meaning election officials would have to provide information on every voter. Those states include California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

Trump and his aides argue the restrictions are needed to combat noncitizen voting, which occurs very rarely. Democrats and voting rights groups have sued over the order, arguing it’s an unconstitutional assertion of presidential authority over state-run elections. No judge has yet halted it.

Steiner sought to place himself outside the controversy and said, in response to a question, that the Postal Service would adhere to a court order blocking the rule if one were issued. Asked about the legal authority underlying the rule, he said he would “have to defer that to the courts to understand the authority.”

Steiner, who became the postmaster general in July 2025, cast the rule as primarily focused on best practices for election mail, a description that understates the scope of the proposal, which postal experts call unprecedented.

“I’m not a political person and the Postal Service is not a political organization,” Steiner said.

Dems urge Steiner to withdraw rule

Democrats expressed sharp disagreement with Steiner and accused him of folding to Trump’s efforts to exercise more control over elections. Steiner answers to the USPS Board of Governors, not the president, and his critics say he is testing the limits of agency independence by complying with the executive order.

Every Senate Democrat, as well as two independents who caucus with the party, on Tuesday signed a letter to Steiner urging him to withdraw the rule. The letter warns that aside from the rule’s legal and constitutional problems, it could impose significant operational burdens on election mail processing systems.

“The proposed regulation demands that the Postal Service set up an entirely new system and database to process and transmit millions of absentee ballots that is secure and accessible to every American election official, just months prior to a general election,” the letter says.

At Wednesday’s hearing, GOP senators mostly steered clear of the mail ballot rule, instead focusing on the official topic, the Postal Service’s finances. But Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican, accused Democrats of hypocrisy over their past support of the “For the People Act.”

The sweeping bill, offered when Democrats last controlled Congress, would have required states to offer same-day voter registration and expand mail voting. Opponents said it amounted to nationalized elections.

“Three years later all of them are testifying, ‘It’s outrageous, President Trump is trying to nationalize elections.’ No, he’s not, he’s trying to get rid of voter fraud,” Moreno said, adding that Democrats had now “dug up from their bottom desk drawer” the Constitution.

“Should we get back to post office stuff now?” Moreno said.

“Absolutely,” Steiner replied.

]]>

Space Force acquisition nominee faces ethics scrutiny over defense industry ties

Thomas Novelly — Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:27:36 -0400

A U.S. senator wants a Raytheon executive who was nominated to serve as a top Air Force space acquisition official to commit to impartial and ethical business dealings if confirmed to the post, according to a new letter reviewed by Defense One.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is seeking an ethics pledge from Erich Hernandez-Baquero, Raytheon’s vice president for space intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, according to the letter sent from her office on Tuesday. He was nominated by the White House to serve as the Air Force’s assistant secretary for space acquisition and integration in April. In her letter, Warren asked the former Air Force officer and current defense executive to recuse himself from all matters involving his former employer for four years and not to seek money from a firm tied to the Defense Department for four years after he leaves the role.

“Your relationship with a defense contractor that you served for five years as a senior executive will raise concerns about the appearance of impartiality if you are confirmed in your new role,” she wrote. “In order to address the concerns about your conflicts, I urge you to voluntarily commit to mitigate your conflicts of interest and assure Americans that you will serve in their best interest.”

Hernandez-Baquero could not be reached at multiple numbers listed for him in public records.

Raytheon spokespeople did not return a request for comment.

Warren’s letter is part of her continued crusade against the government-defense revolving door, which ethics watchdogs have warned can lead to self-dealing and conflicts of interest within the Pentagon. She has asked for similar commitments from Lloyd Austin, who became defense secretary after serving on Raytheon’s board, and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Charles Q. Brown, who joined the Trump-backed drone firm Powerus shortly after being booted from the administration.

A 2023 report from Warren’s office listed roughly 700 former high-ranking defense and government officials who were later hired by the top 20 defense contractors. Federal ethics laws prohibit government employees from being involved in matters that concern their former employers for one year; the laws also prohibit being involved in deals that an employee would financially benefit from.

Warren is seeking a more substantial pledge including “committing not to work for or accept compensation for at least four years from any company that you engage with while serving” after exiting the role.

“While these laws create important guardrails, they fall short of fully addressing conflict of interest concerns: they may still allow government officials to work on matters that could affect their previous employers once a one-year period and full divestiture have passed, and they can be undermined by exemptions,” she wrote. “And they still allow officials to move through the revolving door by accepting senior advisory roles within the defense industry or lobbying DoD.”

Hernandez-Baquero joined Raytheon in 2021 after a 27-year career in the Air Force, according to his LinkedIn page. In April, the defense executive signed an ethics agreement where he agreed that once confirmed he would “forfeit my unvested restricted stock units, unvested performance stock units, and unvested stock appreciation rights” after resigning from the defense contractor.

]]>

Inside the Ford White House years that shaped Alan Greenspan’s idea of public service

Simon Bowmaker and Paul Wachtel, The Conversation — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:24:15 -0400

Alan Greenspan, who died on June 22, 2026, at the age of 100, is best remembered for his 18 years at the helm of the Federal Reserve. What many people don’t know is that an earlier and more obscure stint during the administration of President Gerald Ford shaped him as a public servant.

As professors of economics, we haven’t just covered Greenspan’s legacy for our students. We also knew him personally, in different capacities: one of us interviewed him in 2016 for a book on public service, and the other was present as a young professor when Greenspan defended his dissertation at New York University in 1977.

To us, one of the most notable aspects of his career was his commitment to public service, cemented while he served as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1974-77 during the Ford administration.

The early years

The younger Greenspan cut a different figure.

He studied clarinet at the Juilliard School and worked as a professional musician while attending New York University in the late 1940s. He was briefly married to Joan Mitchell, a noted abstract expressionist painter who introduced him to the libertarian writer Ayn Rand.

Through the 1950s, Greenspan was part of Rand’s inner circle — which emphasized radical individualism, self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism — while he developed the building blocks for an economics career.

Greenspan later came under criticism for his early association with Rand. But we believe that his approach to economics was essentially practical and fact-based, not ideological.

“You begin with a conceptual framework of cause and effect,” is how he put it in the book interview. “And then you observe reality and try to anticipate what is going to happen in the future, even though you can never see beyond a certain horizon.

“Data are a measure of what is going on in reality,” he continued. “If you want to endeavor to try to lower the probabilities of forecasting mistakes in the future, the more information you have about the structure of the system, the better off you will be.”

After completing his undergraduate degree at NYU, Greenspan moved on to graduate study at Columbia University, one of the preeminent economics departments in the country at the time. But he left academia in 1954 to join a consulting firm while still managing to publish academic work in economics.

One example was a piece that foretold economist James Tobin’s “Q theory of investment,” a tool to estimate whether a business or market is overvalued or undervalued. That insight was prominently noted in Tobin’s Nobel Prize 1981 citation.

Meanwhile, as he built his consulting firm, Greenspan took great pride in its data-based work.

“My reputation was as an economic forecaster of the United States,” he recounted in the book interview. “Through my company, I became an expert in about 15 different industries. I brought to the table types of analysis which no one else had.”

A professional turning point

It wasn’t until 1974 that Greenspan first considered public service.

Arthur Burns, a close adviser to President Richard Nixon who also served as Fed chairman from 1970-78, had mentored Greenspan and prevailed upon him to join the Nixon administration. While he shared the Republican conservatism of the administration, Greenspan had qualms about some of Nixon’s policies, such as the 1971 price and wage controls. He told Nixon’s chief of staff, Al Haig, that he would quit if Nixon went too far.

Greenspan never had to make that call — Nixon resigned before he took up the post — and he went on to lead the Council of Economic Advisers under Ford, advising the president on economic policy.

“It turned out that working for Ford was more interesting than my eighteen-and-a-half years at the Federal Reserve,” he explained in the book interview.

That job turned Greenspan into a dedicated public servant. “I saw Ford three or four times a week for one-on-one meetings,” Greenspan recalled. “I would just do what I did for my clients before I got into the cauldron of politics. And he responded like a regular businessman. We had a very good rapport.”

Ford was an “extraordinary man” who “always acted as though we were equals, which was quite remarkable,” Greenspan added. “I’ve never run into anything like it before or since.”

Era of free markets

Greenspan was called back to public service in 1987 as Fed chair, ultimately serving five consecutive terms under both Democratic and Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He cut a commanding presence in policy circles and congressional appearances, carefully using measured language to explain — or, just as often, to avoid explaining — what he chose to share with the public.

His long tenure as chair coincided with increasing U.S. prosperity, when free markets, free trade and deregulation seemed to serve the global economy well. It was also a period of enormous political change with the demise of the Soviet Union and the opening up of China. And central banks rose in prominence and power, as monetary policy replaced fiscal policy as the primary tool of macroeconomics.

Against this backdrop, Greenspan developed a more public role than most central bankers, in part because the new focus on monetary policy demanded it. At the time, he seemed to relish the attention, but later he looked at it differently.

“I did what I had to do, and I made decisions when I had to make them. I could argue with senators when I had to go up to Capitol Hill, and I held my own very well because I knew a lot more than anybody up there,” he said in his 2016 interview. “But it wasn’t an enjoyable function since none of the people were analytical or conceptual. They had opinions without any reasoning.”

A reckoning after the crisis

Greenspan’s obsession with data notwithstanding, it’s sometimes difficult to uncover an analytical framework underlying his approach to macroeconomics — aside from his preference for a very light regulatory hand, particularly in financial markets. But to his credit, he acknowledged the inadequacies of the frameworks that led to the financial crisis in 2008. While the crash happened after his watch, many scholars point to monetary policy under his Fed in the preceding years as a key factor.

“Each of us has a model in our heads; some of them work, and some of them don’t,” he conceded in the 2016 interview. “What you need to measure is continuously evolving. I know that because the Federal Reserve had an extraordinarily good and very sophisticated model, but it did not capture what was wrong that led to the crisis in 2008.”

Greenspan was often accused of excessive self-confidence. But his own description of his role — an introvert and the “side man” in the dance band — might be more accurate. The man who began his career reading scores written by other people in the band ended up with the whole world trying to read him.

Simon Bowmaker, Distinguished Clinical Professor of Economics, New York University and Paul Wachtel, Emeritus Professor of Economics, New York University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

]]>

Federal acquisition overhaul moves from plan to proposed rules

Nick Wakeman — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 12:21:00 -0400

The government is finally dropping a large batch of proposed rules on Tuesday to formalize changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Over a year in the making, the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul aims to strip out regulations not mandated by statute and give acquisition teams greater control and flexibility in how they develop, award and manage contracts.

This first set of proposed rules cover four groups of FAR parts. Several more proposed rules remain under review and one of them is FAR Part 19, which governs small business acquisition.

The first proposed rule includes FAR Parts 1, 2, 4, 33, 39, 40, 52, and 53. A second covers parts 5, 24, 29, and 52.

The third covers Parts 3, 49, and 52. A fourth covers Parts 6, 7, 10, 18, 26, 37, 41, and 52. Part 52 is in all four proposed rules because it essentially is the FAR’s clause library.

The government has set a comment window of 30 days, the bare minimum time period. The clock will start ticking when the proposed rules are published.

The FAR parts covered in these four proposed rules span topics including protests, contract terminations, and audits. Many of the changes give contracting officers more discretion by converting mandatory requirements to actions where COs have the option to act or not.

A second example is that agencies will not be required to publicly announce contract awards worth more than $5.5 million. Agencies were previously required to report awards exceeding $4.5 million.

They “may” announce these awards, but are not required to. This will raise concerns about transparency in government operations.

Formerly a blank and reserved section, Part 40 will now house security requirements. The government is consolidating security requirements from other FAR parts into Part 40.

The rule proposes to reorganize security requirements into three subparts in Part 40: processing supply chain risk information, security prohibitions and exclusions, and safeguarding information.

These include controlled, unclassified information and the government’s "Do Not Buy" list that details companies and products that agencies cannot purchase from.

Part 40 also is an attempt to harmonize security requirements.

Another change is the consolidation of market research, formerly Part 10, into Part 7, which governs acquisition planning. A-76 public-private clauses are being deleted completely from Part 7 because Congress placed a moratorium on them in 2008.

Several more proposed rules are expected in the coming months covering the parts of the FAR that most directly shape how contracts are competed and won.

This includes:

Part 8, which governs required sources including the GSA Schedules
Part 12, commercial item acquisitions
Part 13, simplified acquisition procedures
Part 15, the rules governing competitive proposals and source selection
Part 19, small business acquisition

With tight deadlines for the first set of proposed rules, it promises to be a busy summer and fall.

]]>

VA redesignates LGBTQ+ care coordinators and limits further ‘gender-ideology’ services

Edward Graham — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 08:00:00 -0400

The Veterans Affairs Department iis moving to further restrict services for LGBTQ+ retired servicemembers, with the dedicated care coordinators for these veterans set to be redesignated as part of a new directive aimed at limiting activities that the agency says conflict with White House mandates.

In a June 12 memo titled “Reiterating Executive Order Compliance Responsibilities” — a copy of which was obtained by Nextgov/FCW — VA said it is prohibiting agency resource allocation that “diverts from merit-based, mission-focused operations.”

The memo was signed by John Bartrum, under secretary for health for the Veterans Health Administration, the VA’s healthcare arm. VHA officials have 14 days to confirm in writing that all noncompliant activities have ceased.

The Advocate first reported news of the directive on Saturday.

This memo says these steps include restricting the use of “VHA funds, official time, facilities or resources” being used for “any activities promoting gender-ideology or gender-identity,” as well as requiring VA facilities to ensure “that local policies, SharePoint sites, communications, websites, and training materials” comply with the presidential directives. Another section says “uniform standards and attire policies” must also comply with the White House guidance.

The most notable change, however, redesignates “LGBTQ+ care coordinators” as simply “care coordinators” who will be “dedicated to facilitating VA health and benefits for all Veterans, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation,” the memo states.

VA’s website, as of June 18, says that there is an LGBTQ+ care coordinator “in every VA health care system.” These personnel act as care advocates for LGBTQ+ veterans, including by helping them to access programs and services to meet their needs. Roughly one million veterans are estimated to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender.

Memo expands on previous admin orders

Four current and former VA employees who have worked with LGBTQ+ veterans told Nextgov/FCW they were concerned that the administration’s moves jeopardize the well-being of a community that already experiences higher rates of discrimination and suicidal ideation.

They also cited confusion about the latest memo and previous guidance, noting that there has often been a level of ambiguity when it comes to implementing the administration’s requirements facility-by-facility and how all of these moves will impact VA’s overall LGBTQ+ Health Program.

On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order recognizing male and female as the only two sexes and limiting federal funds from being used “to promote gender ideology,” as well as another order terminating federal government diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Trump’s gender-focused order previously led to the VA adjusting its policies to comply with the directive, with the department announcing in March 2025 that “it will phase out medical treatments” for transgender veterans. That edict included a carveout for veterans already receiving such care from VA and for those who were “receiving such care from the military as part of and upon their separation from military service and they are eligible for VA health care.”

One current VA employee, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, said LGBTQ+ veterans were already experiencing adverse mental health outcomes from implementation of the administration’s prior orders.

“We've had some challenges with people needing to go to the hospital and being a little less mentally stable because of news and fears of what could happen next, and we've had to develop a lot more support services,” that person said.

VA’s moves, as well as ambiguity over how to effectively implement previous memos, have also frustrated LGBTQ+ care coordinators and even pushed some out the door.

Renae DeLucia worked as an LGBTQ+ care coordinator at the VA Hampton health care system in Virginia before leaving her position last month. She said VA’s previous directives were “a big factor in my decision to quit because I do what I do to help LGBTQ+ veterans, and I felt like I wasn't being able to do the job that I was hired for with all the restrictions in place.”

DeLucia also cited a lack of clarity with previous guidance issued by the department, saying VA would release memos “about how to actually put these things into practice and what is allowed and what is not, and guidance would come out months later.”

“So it was so confusing, and basically it allowed leaders with personal biases to do whatever they wanted,” she added.

Some of that confusion, others have said, also extends to the latest directive.

The current employee noted that the memo gives facilities 30 days to update the job descriptions for the care coordinators at each facility. They said one rumor that previously floated around the workforce last year was that the agency would direct facilities to remove transgender from the acronym and rework the role into more of an LGBQ-focused coordinator.

“I feel like maybe that's what they're trying to do here,” they added, pointing to the memo’s wording that the redesignated roles be for veterans “regardless of race, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation.”

Several of the current and former VA employees also expressed concern about the future of several LGBTQ+ resources offered by the agency, including the PRIDE in All Who Served health education program. The 10-week closed group session helps to foster an open dialogue between LGBTQ+ veterans.

As of June 18, VA’s LGBT-focused webpage says research shows “that LGBTQ+ Veterans expect to experience discrimination in VHA facilities which may prevent engagement in care;” and that “due to stigma, stress, and discrimination, LGBTQ+ Veterans as a group experience higher rates of several health conditions compared to non-LGBTQ+ Veterans, including higher risk for suicide.”

In an email to Nextgov/FCW, VA Press Secretary Quinn Slaven said the memo is the best source for answering media questions. He also said redesignating LGBTQ+ care coordinators as care coordinators is “the plan, full stop,” and that the memo’s request for officials to confirm within 14 days that any non-compliant activities have ceased also “applies to anything you read on the website.”

Slaven did not address a question about whether the memo’s mention of uniform standards and attire policies was in reference to requiring transgender individuals to dress in clothing that correlates with their genders at birth.

One lawmaker and federal union have already raised concerns about the new memo.

In a statement to Nextgov/FCW, Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif. — ranking member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee — said “the changes this VA is making will degrade care for LGBTQ+ veterans, who have specific health needs that VA has a clinical obligation to meet.”

“Good medicine requires seeing the whole patient: their medical history, their risk factors, the full picture that determines the care they need,” Takano added. “Strip away what a clinician knows about a veteran's history and risks, and you're not treating them equally, you're treating them blind, and you’re putting veterans at risk. Every veteran should be able to walk into a VA, get the care they've earned through their service, and be treated with dignity and respect. Stripping away the tools clinicians use to deliver that care is a disservice to those who served, and I won't stand for it."

The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents VA personnel and other federal employees, also said in a Wednesday press release that the directive is “designed to suppress the rights of veterans within the LGBTQ+ community and the federal employees tasked with ensuring their health and safety.”

]]>

Interior’s use of park fee revenue raises questions over federal funding rules

Amelia Twyman, States Newsroom — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 14:00:00 -0400

House and Senate Democrats, mostly from Western states, are demanding transparency from the Interior Department after media reports revealed the Trump administration redirected roughly $90 million in national park fees to help fund renovations and upcoming celebratory displays in Washington, D.C.

The administration’s use of fee revenues to pay for fountain repairs, statue upgrades and fireworks shows in preparation for America’s 250th birthday on July 4 diverts money from national parks in desperate need of billions of dollars in maintenance, lawmakers wrote in two separate early June letters to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.

“The public deserves to know how their park fees are being spent, and Congress cannot conduct appropriate oversight without basic information about these transactions,” Rep. Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico and seven other Democratic representatives wrote in their letter, dated June 12.

A group of 11 Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Adam Schiff of California, sent a similar letter to Burgum on June 10.

According to a DOI spokesperson, the National Park Service “has not only been focused on beautifying the district but has also been working on many deferred maintenance projects throughout the country,” pooling money from “endowment funds” and the sale of park passes.

How the funding stream works

The National Park Service, housed within Interior, gets a portion of its funding from entry fees and visitors’ purchases of recreational passes. Under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, at least 80% of the fee money must go back to the national park where it is collected.

The remaining 20% is available for overall Park Service use, a policy meant to help support parks that do not charge entry fees or only make a small amount of revenue, according to NPS. Just over 100 parks charge an entrance fee out of the more than 400 that make up the National Park System.

The National Mall in Washington and various memorial sites are part of the group that do not charge visitors to enter, meaning it is legal for DOI to spend leftover revenue on projects in its own backyard.

But the amount the department has allocated to renovations so far this year appears to greatly exceed how much it has put toward maintaining the district’s public spaces in the past, according to Tony Irish, a former Interior senior attorney under Trump and an attorney under earlier presidents who is now senior counsel with the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Reflecting pool repair

Multiple news outlets, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, reported NPS is using at least $60 million in fees paid by parkgoers to fund the repair of nine ornamental fountains across Washington, D.C.

Documents showed an additional $7 million was redirected to help pay for the renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, while more will be put toward funding a $1.6 million Fourth of July fireworks display.

“While other administrations have let the city fall into decay, President Trump has made Washington, D.C., safe and beautiful again, and we should all be grateful,” the Interior spokesperson said in an emailed statement on June 16.

In their letters to Burgum, lawmakers also demanded clarity on the reported use of revenue from the sale of digital park passes, called America the Beautiful passes, as there is no current law that requires those funds be spent in a specific place.

“Credible sources with direct knowledge of these matters have now reported to Congress that much, if not all, fee revenue from online America the Beautiful passes is being used to fund the President’s ‘beautification’ projects in Washington,” they wrote.

Along with Vasquez, the House letter was signed by Reps. Sarah Elfreth of Maryland, Darren Soto of Florida, Adelita Grijalva of Arizona, Dina Titus and Susie Lee of Nevada, Joe Neguse of Colorado and Jill Tokuda of Hawaii.

Joining Schiff in signing the Senate letter were Sens. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Angus King of Maine, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper of Colorado.

Delayed park maintenance

Many critics are pushing back against the Trump administration for not channeling fee funds back into the national parks that need them, including popular travel destinations such as Grand Teton and Yellowstone.

“Last month, I was in Joshua Tree exploring one of our beautiful national parks and was again reminded what a treasured legacy these lands represent,” Schiff said in a June 17 statement to States Newsroom.

“This is just the latest scheme by the President to put himself before the American people, and it will have devastating impacts on parks that millions of people visit every year,” he added.

The National Park System is backlogged with about $24 billion worth of repairs to buildings and infrastructure, according to NPS.

Vasquez said New Mexico’s Carlsbad Caverns National Park “has over $45 million in deferred maintenance” alone.

“The administration is choosing to let roads, trails and wastewater systems in the park fall into disrepair amid the peak summer visitor season so it can paint statues gold in Washington,” he said in a June 15 statement to States Newsroom. “This is unacceptable, and I am demanding action from the Department of the Interior to correct course.”

Irish also said DOI’s current use of fee revenues for D.C.-area renovations could lead to more money being spent in the long run because of the rush to complete some projects, like the $14 million reflecting pool. Completed just at the beginning of June, the reflecting pool has already amassed clumps of green algae.

“Not only are we displacing higher-priority needs right now, but we’re still going to have unmet needs in the future at an additional cost to the taxpayer, the fee payers within that,” Irish said.

Vasquez and his colleagues, in their letter, asked that NPS restore funding to national parks to help preserve them for future generations.

The senators went even further, including a list of detailed questions about park funding in their letter and asking DOI to respond by June 23.

]]>

Intelligence director hearing cancelled as Trump pushes for controversial voter bill

David DiMolfetta — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 14:20:28 -0400

The Senate Intelligence Committee postponed a nomination hearing for Jay Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence hours after President Donald Trump declared the session would not go forward, the panel’s chairman said.

Early Wednesday morning, Trump said the hearing would be “canceled” until the Senate could confirm the new U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who would be Clayton’s replacement.

“It’s regrettable that the president has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who chairs the intelligence committee. “Mr. Clayton is a patriot and a highly qualified nominee, as the president has said repeatedly. While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”

Republicans were hoping to fast-track confirmation of Clayton to the position after Trump appointed Bill Pulte to serve as DNI in an acting capacity. Clayton has drawn positive support from both Republicans and Democrats.

Confirming Clayton would have helped reshore support from key Democrats for the surveillance power. But Trump also defended that the spying authority — Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — should not pass without the concurrent passage of a controversial voter identification bill that doesn’t have enough support in Congress.

“National security cannot be governed by social media post,” said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chairman of the high chamber’s intelligence committee. “The president’s latest intervention only underscores a simple reality: the biggest obstacle to resolving these issues has not been Senate Democrats or Senate Republicans. It has been the chaos and confusion coming from the White House itself.”

The postponement guarantees Pulte would begin as acting DNI starting this Friday. Trump has previously said he wants Pulte to further downsize the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and continue election integrity investigations launched by prior spy chief Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard is set to depart soon. She announced the plans to do so weeks ago, citing her husband’s cancer diagnosis.

]]>

Education's latest handoff tests the limits of its downsizing strategy

Shauneen Miranda, States Newsroom — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0400

The Education Department announced sweeping efforts Tuesday to outsource its special education programs and civil rights enforcement to other agencies in another major step by President Donald Trump's administration to dismantle the department.

The Health and Human Services Department will administer programs under the Education Department's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, or OSERS, while civil rights enforcement under Education's Office for Civil Rights, or OCR, will be transferred to the Department of Justice.

The move follows 10 earlier interagency agreements, or IAAs, with the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior, State and Treasury that transfer several of Education's responsibilities to those agencies.

The Education Department clarified in fact sheets that, under the agreements announced Tuesday, it "will continue to perform all statutorily required duties and responsibilities."

"The Trump administration has been clear: As we scale back federal micromanagement when it hinders success, we are equally committed to bolstering the efficacy of federal oversight where it is essential," U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement Tuesday.

The administration has sought to do away with the 46-year-old department as part of Trump's quest to return education "back to the states." That push continues despite much of the oversight and funding of schools already occurring at the state and local levels.

Congress created the Education Department, and only Congress has the authority to abolish the agency.

Special education

On a background call with reporters, a senior department official said OSERS "will maintain its independent statutory functions without interruption to vigorously enforce compliance with all of OSERS programs."

OSERS is responsible for administering the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which guarantees a free public education for students with disabilities. The umbrella unit includes the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education Programs and the Rehabilitation Services Administration.

The official added that "students will not lose any rights, including their right to a free appropriate public education," adding that "no agreement can alter the rights that students with disabilities are afforded under federal law."

"In coordination with and at the direction of OSERS, HHS will support meaningful stakeholder outreach, grant administration, enforcement, compliance and monitoring activities, annual performance determinations and assessments, collection, reporting and analysis of data for monitoring compliance and drawdowns of federal funds," according to a fact sheet.

Civil rights oversight

Meanwhile, Education's agreement with the DOJ is intended to "support and bolster the federal government's enforcement of federal civil rights laws," a senior department official said.

The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, or OCR, is tasked with investigating civil rights complaints from students and families.

Under the agreement, "OCR will utilize the Civil Rights Division to evaluate, investigate and resolve complaints filed under the laws enforced by OCR," the official said.

The official also stressed that under the interagency agreement, OCR "retains management and leadership of OCR in accordance with federal law."

Education will also partner with the DOJ on student privacy protection. The Justice Department will "review complaints alleging Privacy Act violations, conduct necessary investigations and recommend potential resolutions," according to a fact sheet.

In another agreement, the DOJ will "provide technical assistance" in training and advisory services regarding the desegregation of public schools, according to a fact sheet.

'This isn't efficiency — it's chaos'

The announcement sparked fierce condemnation from Democratic members of Congress, labor unions and advocacy groups Tuesday.

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, the union representing Education Department workers, said the interagency agreements regarding special education programs and civil rights enforcement "will leave our most vulnerable students and families who have been shut out of our education system without the services they need and without protection when they face discrimination" in a Tuesday statement.

"This isn't efficiency — it's chaos," Gittleman added. "Secretary McMahon is yet again targeting historically underserved students, eroding public trust and sowing dysfunction for the federal employees who are trying to do their jobs on behalf of the public."

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said that "instead of helping kids get a great education, this administration is spending its time, energy and taxpayer resources fixated on where employees sit and illegally trying to shutter the Department of Education" in a Tuesday statement.

"It's an outrageous betrayal that undoes decades of hard-won progress for students," Murray added. "More kids with disabilities will be denied the education they are entitled to by law, and more college students who were harassed or assaulted will go without the justice they are owed."

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, said the decision "will have dire, real-world consequences."

"Congress — the only body that can legally take such actions — has refused to follow the whims of the White House when it comes to abolishing the Education Department," Weingarten said. "And parents, educators, students and the disability and civil rights communities are rising up and will fight in every way possible to reverse this in the courts, at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion."

]]>

GOP’s VA overhaul bill narrows some employees’ rights, spurs privatization, union says

Erich Wagner — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:58:53 -0400

This story has been updated June 17 at 10:35 a.m. ET.

Congressional Republicans last week introduced legislation they say will improve the care that veterans receive from the federal government, though Democrats and federal employee unions warn the measure will actually degrade veterans’ benefits and employees’ rights.

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act (H.R. 9237 and S. 4744) is a package of more than 60 bills relating to the Veterans Affairs Department. Included is the Major Richard Star Act (H.R. 2102), a bill that would grant full military retirement pay to veterans who were forced to retire early due to a combat injury, as well as a provision to increase benefits to severely disabled veterans and the families of service members who died in the line of duty.

“Over the past few months, we have heard from the thousands of veteran voices who want to see Congress pass the Major Richard Star Act to grant thousands of disabled veterans the benefits they are eligible for,” said Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. “Today, I am proud to announce . . . that we have found a path forward for this bill to get it across the finish line, in addition to over 60 bipartisan bills to protect healthcare access, cut out the red tape in the VA disability benefits system, advance economic opportunities, and put veterans—not government bureaucracy—back at the center of VA’s mission—for good.”

But Democrats described the legislation’s introduction as an attempt to add partisan policies to a popular bipartisan bill—a discharge petition currently sits just five signatures short of the 218 needed to force the House to take up the Major Richard Star Act—and said the expanded benefits in the larger bill are offset by $60 billion in benefits cuts that would particularly impact veterans suffering from hearing loss and sleep apnea.

“Veterans have demanded an end to the wounded veterans’ tax for years, and we are five signatures away from forcing a clean vote on the Major Richard Star Act,” said Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., leader of the discharge petition. “The timing tells you everything: this is a distraction. Worse, it’s a distraction that veterans would pay for. The Republican plan cuts existing veterans’ benefits to fund new ones—asking the next generation of veterans to pick up the tab for the last.”

Veterans of Foreign Wars similarly condemned the proposals to offset the proposed benefits increases with cuts elsewhere within veteran care.

“The VFW strongly opposes the Take Care of America's Veterans Act as currently drafted because it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits through changing the VA rating schedule for tinnitus and obstructive sleep apnea which are common conditions associated with combat poly trauma,” said VFW National Commander Carol Whitmore. “We have long maintained that veterans' benefits are an earned obligation of the nation, a promise made through the military service contract, and should not be financed through offsets, fee increases or reductions that place additional burdens on veterans, military families and survivors.”

The changes to how disability benefits in connection with tinnitus and sleep apnea are calculated were first proposed via regulations in 2022. The VA said Wednesday that it is still reviewing whether to issue a final rule implementing the plan.

"No changes are planned or imminent," said VA spokesman Quinn Slaven. "VA is still reviewing the proposed rule, which was introduced by the Biden Administration in 2022. VA received significant public comment on the proposal, and it would need to undergo significant changes prior to being finalized. VA learned of the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act last week and continues its discussions with Congress on the costs and impact of the bill’s various provisions. We look forward to continuing to support Congress in this regard."

The GOP’s legislation has also attracted the ire of the American Federation of Government Employees, one of several unions at the VA. AFGE took particular issue with a provision in the bill that would reclassify thousands of VA psychologists from their current status covered by a hybrid of the Title 5 and Title 38 personnel systems to being solely covered by Title 38.

That change would severely abridge those employees’ collective bargaining rights—though those rights are the subject of litigation due to President Trump’s executive order banning unions at the VA and other agencies. Title 38 employees are barred from bargaining over topics related to “direct patient care,” and the department has taken a maximalist view of those restrictions under Trump.

“Eliminating these workplace rights and protections will do nothing to improve the delivery of health care services to our nation’s veterans—in fact, it will have the opposite effect because it will directly impair the VA’s ability to recruit and retain the quality health care professionals our veterans deserve,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley, himself a veteran, in a statement.

The union also took issue with provisions that would expand the Veterans Community Care Program, the initiative by which veterans can receive VA-sponsored medical care from private sector health care providers. Labor groups have long described the community care program as a Trojan horse to privatize the department’s functions.

“Pushing more veterans to go outside the VA for their care increases costs to taxpayers while diminishing the quality of care that our veterans deserve to receive,” said MJ Burke, AFGE’s National VA Council president. “I don’t think that’s any way to take care of America’s veterans, and I urge lawmakers to reject this bill when it comes up for a vote.”

]]>

Federal agencies are getting more attention on social media — and more criticism

Sean Michael Newhouse — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:19:51 -0400

Social media posts from most agencies on the platform X received more likes and reposts on average in the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term than they did during the last year of the Biden administration, according to an analysis published this month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

Across 24 agencies, posts received a median of 929 likes and reposts in most of 2025 compared with 197 the previous year. For example, the Homeland Security Department’s X account went from a median of 57 engagements under Biden to nearly 2,300 under Trump. And the Labor Department’s median increased from 16 to around 2,150.

DHS under Trump frequently posts about arrests of undocumented immigrants, as the administration is pursuing mass deportations.

Under @POTUS Trump and @SecMullinDHS, @ICEgov will continue to target the worst of the worst and protect American communities.

Over the weekend, while Americans enjoyed UFC Freedom 250 in our nation’s capital, the men and women of ICE law enforcement were hard at work arresting…
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) June 15, 2026

But the department’s social media presence has attracted scrutiny. Earlier this month, Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., introduced legislation (H.R. 9206) that would require public-facing DHS communications to “avoid misleading, partisan, unauthorized, speculative or unsupported statements.”

"Under the failed leadership of [Secretaries] Kristi Noem and Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security is constantly posting inflammatory rhetoric that appeals to the ‘Great Replacement Theory’ of replacing white, native-born populations with non-white immigrants,” the congressman said in a statement. “It is time that Congress brings an end to this unacceptable behavior."

The Labor Department has also been criticized for sharing a series of social media posts promoting apprenticeships that mostly only feature white men.

Your nation NEEDS YOU!

Honor your homeland by building its future https://t.co/IuqkysMA9X pic.twitter.com/mfCafTQSNU
— U.S. Department of Labor (@USDOL) September 3, 2025

“This isn’t a dog whistle,” said Judy Conti, the director of government affairs at the National Employment Law Project nonprofit, in a November 2025 statement. “This is a loud trumpet blaring that White men who are supporting their wives and children are worthy of good jobs.”

The New York Times reported in February that the DOL staffer behind this social media campaign was hired by DHS.

In its analysis, Pew also found that the rhetoric agencies are using in X posts has changed. During the first year of Trump’s second term, agencies shared posts with the words “American” and “president” more than twice as often as they did in Biden’s last year. And there was a fivefold increase in posts from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that had the word “criminal.”

The research center also reported that DHS and ICE posted more than twice as much in most of 2025 than they did in 2024.

X, formerly known as Twitter, is owned by the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency Elon Musk, who recently became the world’s first trillionaire. An April analysis by The Washington Post found that “Musk has recently significantly increased his rate of online posts about race and his concerns about perceived threats to Whiteness or what he views as calls for a ‘genocide’ against White people.”

]]>

The federal government has a major blind spot in how it evaluates programs

Nick Hart — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0400

Every year, the federal government spends trillions of dollars on programs meant to improve lives. It spends remarkably little figuring out whether they work — and even less making sure those findings reach anyone who can act on them. That needs to change.

The federal government has been doing serious program evaluation, imperfectly but deliberately, since the Johnson administration. Agencies like HHS, Labor, Education, HUD and SSA have a long track record of large-scale experiments to identify what works in major social programs. Congress expanded that tradition in 2018 with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act — signed by President Trump in his first term — establishing government-wide evaluation requirements for the first time.

That history matters. So does an honest accounting of where things stand today.

What we got wrong — and what it cost us

The current moment has exposed three design failures that were always present in our national evaluation infrastructure.

I examine these and other structural failures in detail in a recent article in New Directions for Evaluation, but the short version is this: we built the wrong kind of national evaluation infrastructure.

The first is that we built dependency instead of capacity. When evaluation lives primarily in external contracts rather than in people, data systems and institutional culture, it is inherently fragile. The Institute of Education Sciences cut roughly 85% of its contracts last year, and evaluation capacity at one of the government's longest-standing research offices nearly disappeared overnight. IES has recently begun re-hiring and releasing long-stalled funds, but the episode revealed how little durable internal capability we actually built.

The second is that we created compliance requirements without the ecosystem to meet them. The Evidence Act required agencies to develop learning agendas, which are effectively plans to address priority research questions, but did not secure the resources, staff or connections to external researchers and practitioners needed to actually answer them. The Labor Department has seen evaluation funding reduced, including continued non-use of set-aside resources authorized under law. HHS's evaluation office at the Administration for Children and Families has been reorganized. HUD's research office is shifting. Across agencies, the pattern is the same: plans existed, capacity did not.

The third is that we never asked the hardest questions. We generally do not evaluate large, economically significant regulations. Some major programs have long been treated as effectively off-limits for rigorous assessment, even when evaluation could tell us how to implement them better and serve beneficiaries more effectively. Evaluation firms, researchers and practitioners built real capacity to study these questions, with capacity that benefits government and the public alike. The failure was not in their work; the failure was in the infrastructure designed to use the evaluations.

These are not new problems. They're structural ones, which means the current disruption, handled well, is also an opportunity to fix them.

A reform worth building on

One of the most consequential current developments in federal evaluation is happening with little fanfare. The current administration is connecting federal programs to a standardized list of outcomes they're designed to achieve, systematically asking for the first time what each program is actually supposed to accomplish. That work, expected to become publicly transparent for the first time later in 2026, would bring a kind of program-level visibility that hasn't been broadly available since the Program Assessment Rating Tool asked agencies about evaluation during the George W. Bush administration. When we can see what outcomes a program is designed to achieve, we can all ask better questions. Our questions also become more sophisticated, not just whether a program "works," but which components drive results, for whom, and at what cost.

That shift from program verdicts to component-level analysis is one of the most practical improvements evaluation policy could make for decision-makers operating on tight timelines and real budget constraints.

What needs to happen next

Progress on the Federal Program Inventory is a foundation and productive starting point. Several other changes would make it even more meaningful.

Evaluate more of what matters. Significant regulations and major programs should not be off-limits for serious evaluation. This is not about finding justifications to cut programs, though that may sometimes happen; it's about understanding how to implement them better and direct resources more effectively. Not every program will need a rigorous multi-year impact evaluation, and not every program will be ready for one. The right first question is whether an evaluation can actually improve a decision given what's already known and what decision-makers actually need. If not, other analytical approaches may serve the program and decision-makers better.

Build for durability, not just compliance. Building durable capacity to evaluate programs means investing in staff capability and data infrastructure inside the government, while also strengthening the connections to the external researchers, evaluators and practitioners who do much of this work — and ensuring agencies have the resources to actually use what they learn.

Align cost, timeline and usefulness. Evaluations that arrive years after a program has been redesigned don't serve anyone well. Rigorous methods matter, but fitness for the decision at hand has to be part of what "quality" means at the policy level. Agentic AI tools, administrative data linkages and rapid-cycle methods now make better, faster and cheaper evaluation genuinely feasible at federal scale in ways that weren't possible when the Evidence Act was designed.

The opportunity ahead

Six decades after the Johnson administration introduced rigorous program evaluation as a federal priority and seven years after the Evidence Act became law, we have the opportunity to build something genuinely better: faster, cheaper, more durable and more honest about what evaluation can and cannot do. That's a goal worth the effort, regardless of who holds power, and one that ultimately benefits every American taxpayer.

Nick Hart is president and CEO of the Data Foundation. He previously chaired the American Evaluation Association's Evaluation Policy Task Force and served as Policy and Research Director of the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.

]]>