Nextgov/FCW - All Content

VA CIO nominee vows to create program management office

Edward Graham — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 17:33:00 -0400

President Donald Trump’s pick to serve as the next IT lead for the Department of Veterans Affairs told lawmakers this week that the agency’s technology operations are “a target-rich environment” for change, and he committed that organizational transformation would be among his top priorities if confirmed to the role.

During a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday, Gary Shatswell — the administration’s nominee to serve as VA’s next chief information officer and assistant secretary for information and technology — said VA needs “a culture of transparency and accountability, achievable through agile program management, which will also accelerate mission delivery.”

VA’s IT operations are sprawling, with the agency reporting more than 16,000 personnel working on these technology services. Many high-profile modernization efforts overseen by the Office of Information and Technology, however, have received particular scrutiny for delays and cost overruns across administrations.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told Shatswell during Wednesday’s hearing that “my beef is the bipartisan failure to really modernize the VA,” and said he’s previously had discussions about establishing “a program office that includes members on this committee … seeing the progress every day, so that you've got champions here behind an IT modernization effort.”

Shatswell told him that a program management office is “a necessary piece that does not exist at the leadership level of OIT,” noting that previous attempts to create the unit failed because “there had not been the requisite tooling to ensure that the visibility and the process [were] actually managed.”

He said creating the office is “one of the first tasks that I will be going after” if confirmed to the role, adding that the unit would enhance VA employee accountability and operational transparency by ensuring “that everyone knows what’s going on and what’s the status and the priority of their piece within the work that OIT is doing.”

“I call it a program or portfolio-value office because, at the end of the day, we need to be driving the right value to the veterans, and that's the focus of everything that we should be doing,” Shatswell said.

Shatswell is Trump’s third nominee for the VA CIO role since the start of his administration, and the first to receive a hearing before lawmakers. VA Deputy Secretary Paul Lawrence has been performing the duties of the role in the interim.

Shatswell is a current VA employee, having served as senior advisor to VA Secretary Doug Collins since December.

When asked by Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas — the panel’s chairman — whether the senior advisor role is “the administration's training ground for individuals that they may want to place within the department,” Shatswell told him, “I can tell you my experience: that was the way that it was.”

Shatswell has previously held a variety of tech leadership roles across private industry, including as Group CIO at Unilever Prestige, as CIO at Paula's Choice Skincare, as vice president of IT at Sur La Table and as CIO at Sizzling Platter.

]]>

Tech bills of the week: Regulating DOD uses of AI; Protecting the work of digital creators; and more

Alexandra Kelley and Edward Graham — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 16:38:00 -0400

Ensuring “secure and accountable” AI use in the Pentagon

Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-N.Y., introduced a bill on Tuesday to regulate the Pentagon’s uses of AI, particularly when it comes to its potential deployment for domestic surveillance, nuclear weapons and autonomous weaponry purposes.

As Defense One reported earlier this week, Gillibrand plans to offer proposals from her bill as amendments to the Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act.

“Right now, the Pentagon is moving toward deploying incredibly powerful AI technology without commonsense guardrails in place, which could have catastrophic consequences that make all of us less safe,” Gillibrand told Defense One in an emailed statement. “We must act now – not to stifle technological progress, but to establish clear rules of the road that keep humans in charge and keep AI’s use in warfare smart and safe.”

Protecting creators in the digital age

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers unveiled a measure on Wednesday to protect the works of visual artists from unauthorized use, particularly when it comes to AI-generated content.

The Creative Rights Ensuring Artists’ Technique and Originality Are Reserved — or the CREATOR — Act was introduced by Reps. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas, Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., and Valerie Foushee, D-N.C. It aims to establish a new federal statute to protect visual artists from the unauthorized commercial use and public distribution of their work replicated or impersonated through generative AI systems.

The bill is downstream of the Congressional Creators Caucus’s work to support artists of various mediums from having their work undermined by synthetic content.

“Since launching the Congressional Creators Caucus, I've had the privilege of hearing directly from an incredible and growing community of creators across this country,” Van Duyne said in a press release. “Artists, illustrators, and designers in every district are watching their livelihoods be undercut by AI tools deliberately impersonating them, but right now, the law has no answer for it. These are people who have spent a lifetime building their creative identity – they deserve protection.”

Private right of action against unsolicited intimate images

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers introduced legislation on Thursday to crack down on the illicit sharing of nonconsensual intimate images, including those manipulated by AI.

The CONSENT Act — introduced in the House by Reps. Jennifer McClellan, D-Va. and Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, and in the upper chamber by Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. — would create a private right of action for recipients of these images to hold the senders accountable.

The issue of sensitive images proliferating on the internet has been amplified by the rise of generative AI systems, and the bill addresses AI’s role in the distribution of those types of depictions. The legislation defines “intimate digital forgery” as something that is “created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic intimate visual depiction.”

If an image is sent without the explicit consent of the recipient, the recipient is able to bring civil action against the sender in an appropriate civil court. The bill also offers protections for underage recipients, with legal guardians of minor recipients able to take legal action on their behalf.

“No one should fall victim to unwanted flashing, whether in real-life or online,” Schatz said in a statement. “By providing a federal private right of action and imposing penalties, this bill will help prevent sexual harassment and hold perpetrators accountable.”

More tech training for foreign service members

Reps. Michael Lawler, R-N.Y., and Brian Mast, R-Fla., rolled out legislation on Tuesday that aims to provide the U.S. Foreign Service — the nation’s main diplomatic corps — with enhanced tech fluency.

The Foreign Service Modernization Act, looks to revamp aspects of the Foreign Service program, including by requiring each service member to take annual training on cybersecurity, technology use and AI governance.

Some of the training topics include cybersecurity hygiene and threat awareness; phishing and social engineering threat risks; safeguarding classified information and sensitive but unclassified information; secure handling and storage of government-issued hardware and devices; requirements for State Department-approved software and systems; cyber incident reporting requirements; and more.

Improving VA’s identity proofing and authentication systems

Lawler introduced another measure on Thursday that calls for the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a pilot to help modernize and enhance digital identity proofing and authentication systems.

Under the proposal, the VA secretary would select “not more than three high-volume digital service platforms” to participate in the program, which would entail enhancing veterans’ secure access to the systems, replacing legacy identity verification systems with new solutions and working to reduce fraud or improper payments by the department.

“As more VA services move online, we must modernize outdated identity verification systems, strengthen protections against fraud and improper payments, and ensure veterans can safely and efficiently access the care and benefits they depend on,” Lawler said in a statement. “Veterans deserve a secure and reliable system for accessing the benefits they earned through their service, and I will continue advocating for legislation that improves their experience and upholds our commitment to those who have sacrificed for our country.”

New rules for decisionmaking algorithms

A bill introduced on Wednesday also looks to hold firms accountable if their AI tools contribute to violations of federal laws.

The Sectoral AI Governance Act of 2026, introduced by Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., asks agencies to begin the process of rulemaking to target how algorithmic systems make decisions within a given agency. Agency leadership will be directed to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit public comments on whether algorithmic decisionmaking systems could potentially violate federal laws that the given agencies are tasked with enforcing.

“AI is already helping make life-altering decisions for millions of Americans — whether they get a loan, a job, or health care coverage — but too often, it’s operating in a gray area,” Jacobs said in a statement. “My Sectoral AI Governance Act gives federal agencies clearer authority to write and enforce rules when AI is used to break existing federal laws. We can’t let the American people’s rights and protections become meaningless the moment a company outsources a decision to an algorithm and my bill is part of the solution.”

Studying AI’s impact on military effectiveness

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., introduced legislation on Thursday that seeks to understand how AI tools are helping or otherwise impacting warfighter readiness within the Department of Defense.

S. 4683 asks the secretary of Defense “to assess the effects of artificial intelligence integration on warfighter effectiveness, skill retention, and operational readiness, and for other purposes.” It was referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services following introduction.

]]>

Warner unveils bill to restore cyber information-sharing program funding

David DiMolfetta — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 16:02:00 -0400

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., is introducing legislation to permanently fund a cybersecurity information-sharing program used by thousands of state, local, tribal and territorial governments, after the Trump administration ended federal support for the effort last year.

The measure would require the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to provide funding for the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center, or MS-ISAC, a nonprofit-run program that offers services like threat intelligence and incident response assistance to roughly 19,000 government entities nationwide.

Under former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, DHS terminated CISA’s funding agreement with the Center for Internet Security, which operates MS-ISAC, and barred certain federal grant funds from being used for membership fees. Critics argued the move weakened a key mechanism for sharing cyber threat information with smaller governments that often lack dedicated cybersecurity resources.

Warner’s legislation would direct CISA to enter into a new agreement with the Center for Internet Security to provide cybersecurity services and threat intelligence at no cost to state, local, tribal and territorial entities. It would also authorize $50 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2027 and require the cyberdefense agency to report to Congress on its efforts to restore and expand participation.

In a letter sent Thursday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Warner urged the department to restore support for the program and reverse broader cuts to CISA. The senator argued that eliminating MS-ISAC funding left communities with fewer resources to detect and respond to cyber threats and more vulnerable to attacks.

“This is too important to let politics get in the way. I will stand alongside anyone committed to ensuring that when our adversaries test our critical infrastructure, it holds fast,” Warner wrote to Mullin. “I want to work with you to achieve that end and ask that you reach out to me directly to coordinate — because the question is not whether our critical infrastructure will be targeted, but whether we will be ready when it is.”

John Gilligan, president and CEO of the Center for Internet Security, did not directly address the bill but told Nextgov/FCW in a statement that MS-ISAC has supported cyber stakeholders for more than two decades and has received congressional funding for at least 20 years.

“In fiscal year 2025, the appropriated funding was $27 million,” he said.

“The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) communicates with our state and local partners regularly and provides them with timely threat intelligence, expertise, no-cost tools and resources these partners need to defend against risks. This includes working with the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) to share cybersecurity information and guidance. State and local governments seeking assistance are encouraged to contact our CISA regional teams who can help assess risk, strengthen defenses, enhance resilience, and respond immediately to incidents," said CISA Chief External Affairs Officer Christine Serrano Glassner in a statement.

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Warner also sent separate letters to governors nationwide warning that states may need to take a more active role in defending critical infrastructure as cyber threats grow and federal cybersecurity programs face continued uncertainty. He encouraged them to conduct infrastructure audits, expand participation in regional threat-sharing organizations and identify under-resourced operators that need cyber assistance.

The effort comes as some lawmakers continue to scrutinize staffing reductions, budget cuts and program eliminations at CISA. State and local officials, cybersecurity groups and former officials have repeatedly warned that reducing federal support leaves smaller governments more vulnerable to ransomware and other cyberattacks, especially with midterm elections coming in November.

MS-ISAC was established in 2003 and has long served as one of the core hubs for cyber threat information sharing between federal agencies and state and local governments. Smaller jurisdictions often lean on the center for services they can’t afford to finance on their own.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to include comment from CISA.

]]>

New coalition will enter legal debate over industry’s role in government cyber missions

David DiMolfetta — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 17:45:00 -0400

A new Washington initiative seeks to shape policy debates over how the government and private sector collaborate on cyber operations, a conversation that will inevitably raise complex questions about the legal authorities governing industry’s role, participants say.

Venable’s Center for Cybersecurity Policy and Law launched the Cyber Operations Policy Coalition this week, seeking to be a “trusted forum for collaboration among industry, government, legal experts, academia, and civil society to help develop policy frameworks for collective cyber defense,” according to its mission statement.

At a launch event Wednesday, current and former officials concurred that stakeholders will need to confront unresolved questions about legal authorities, liability and the rules of the road for companies before deeper public‑private cyber operations can truly scale.

Legal expertise will be “key to the success” of integrating industry and government more closely, Katie Sutton, assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy and the principal cyber advisor to the defense secretary, said in a discussion held at the event.

“We talk about authorities — everything is under what authorities do I have, what authorities does Cyber Command have, under what authorities is this operation happening? [There are] a lot of well-defined authorities from a government perspective. Industry actually has quite a few authorities that they can bring to bear too, because they run this domain,” Sutton added.

“We can’t be in a model … asking permission every time a certain step is going to be taken. That’s going to require a lot of the unsexy work we heard about the legal and policy foundations, the understanding of liability and everything that surrounds that,” said Tonya Ugoretz, who heads PwC’s Cyber & Risk Innovation Institute and previously served in senior roles at the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Unlike traditional military domains, cyber conflict often runs through privately owned networks, forcing the government to rely on companies that may be both targets of foreign activity and essential partners in responding to it.

The U.S. has sought to integrate cyber activity into military operations, lending the debate urgency as the White House more openly discusses offensive cyber operations and as private companies are drawn deeper into the market for cyber tools. The advent of advanced cyber-focused frontier AI models has also contributed to the discussions.

As part of its emerging counter-advanced persistent threat planning with major providers, the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative — a Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency-led body for coordinating public and private sector cyberdefense — is beginning to explicitly map out both defensive playbooks and potential offensive-leaning moves that might be on the table in a geopolitical crisis, according to Matt Springer, the JCDC deputy assistant director.

That would also raise fresh questions about legal risk and authorities for companies that own and operate infrastructure. “We have some potential cyber offensive options that could be taken theoretically by partners in those scenarios,” he said at the launch event. “This will get into some of the policy questions I know we wanted to touch on. That’s a dicey area.”

The discussions highlight how cybersecurity is becoming a more central arena for national security law, as officials and industry leaders examine whether existing legal frameworks are sufficient for operations that frequently require closer coordination between the government and private firms.

In the last year, top national officials have sought to highlight the role of cyber operations in their recent military achievements. A new cyber service branch is also being weighed in the must-pass annual defense bill.

]]>

The path to better program management: a road still less traveled

Alan P. Balutis and Gazelle Hashemian — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 17:36:00 -0400

Initiated in 1990, the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) High-Risk List identifies federal programs vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement or in need of transformation. The list is updated every two years for the Congress.

The most recent list, published in February 2025, contains 38 problem areas. But if one looks at common themes, threads or causes, there appear to be three tall poles in the tent: (1) human resources; (2) technology; and (3) acquisition, to include project/program management.

With attention devoted today in a post-DOGE government to efficiency, and an administration focused on large-scale change, project and program management have taken on renewed import. Beyond being a recurring theme on the GAO’s list, longstanding concerns have been expressed in articles and reports by Professor Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, the IBM Center for the Business of Government, ACT-IAC, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Project Management Institute and a group of former senior government management leaders colloquially referred to as “The Breakfast Club.”

These activities and studies raised congressional interest in how best to improve management of government programs and, after more discussions and a series of hearings, a bipartisan group of congressional leaders introduced the Program Management Improvement and Accountability Act (PMIAA), which was signed into law in December, 2016 — a little over a decade ago. This legislation included many of the recommendations from the efforts of the groups noted earlier:

Establishment of a Program Management Policy Council;
Standards and policies for agencies consistent with widely accepted standards for program and project management planning and delivery;
Engagement with the private sector to identify best practices in program and project management;
Portfolio reviews to address high risk programs, including reviews of programs at least annually to assess management quality and effectiveness;
and Office of Personnel Management regulations to identify (1) key skills and competencies for an agency program and project manager; (2) establish a job series for such positions within an agency; and (3) establish a new career path for such managers.

The Office of Management and Budget subsequently issued implementation guidance in 2018 in M-18-19 Implementation of PMIAA, addressing standards and accountability, workforce improvements, portfolio reviews and also requiring agencies to appoint a Program Management Improvement Officer to oversee policies. It’s almost a decade later and the federal landscape remains littered with what Peat-Marwick once dubbed “runaway systems” — projects that are over budget, behind schedule and failing to deliver promised benefits and functionality.

The government is still trying to deal with long-standing systems modernization and upgrades at the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Weather Service and other departments and agencies. New technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum bring unique challenges; the pace of technology overall is more rapid today. The need for strong project and program management capabilities and skills are even more central to success. So what can be done to increase the likelihood for success? Let us offer some thoughts.

First, we applaud the cross-agency recruitment initiative announced last month by the Office of Personnel Management to hire 250 project managers across government. More than 15 agencies have already expressed interest in the opportunity. But, as a reminder (in terms of terminology), “project” and “program” have different meanings.

A “project” is undertaken to create a unique product, service or result. In terms of an earlier modernization of the National Weather Service that one of the authors oversaw, a “project” would be the Automated Surface Observation System or the Next Generation Radar upgrade. A “program” is a group of related projects managed in a coordinated manner to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually. So the modernization program involved these two initiatives as well as a new generation of geostationary weather satellites, ocean data buoys, an integrated processing system to tie the data streams together and issue forecasts, office closures, a remaking of the professional and support workforce and more.

For programs, in addition to each attendant project reaching its objective, one has to manage the interdependencies and integration between these projects and ensure they collectively deliver the program’s promised benefits. To become a capable program manager, a professional needs significant experience and expertise managing projects. Having identified a critical, government-wide skills gap in project management, OPM needs to move to address the even more serious need for seasoned program managers.

Second, program managers need to be aligned with acquisition executives, chief information officers and heads of other key stakeholder groups with joint accountability for success based on a common set of measures. The program manager should be the tip of the spear, with both the authority to make decisions and the responsibility for program outcomes.

Third, having a consistent measuring system for large programs, linked to governance, is essential, and it should be viewed as such by agency leadership. Agencies need standard reporting mechanisms in place that programs follow to establish a baseline, along with a toolset to monitor and report cost, schedule and performance. There should be consistent reporting on program status, issues, risks and recommendations via dashboards. And those dashboards should provide real-time views, allow drill-downs for more specificity and be tailored for specific oversight board needs.

Finally, agencies should have a process in place to provide support when a program begins to falter, with the ability to rapidly bring in expertise to identify and address performance weaknesses or failures. We should acknowledge that even organizations with skilled and mature program management disciplines in place will encounter problems and unexpected challenges.

With these building blocks in place, agencies can focus on what is important — performance and delivering for citizens. Programs fail for many reasons, including governance, meaningless metrics and insufficient capacity for or willingness to change. Let’s follow a path of better management to ensure success. And sound program management is especially needed as government faces current citizen service imperatives and global challenges — operating in an era with artificial intelligence (AI) and other new technologies along with new risks in cybersecurity, supply chains and so on.

Alan Balutis is managing partner at The CIO Collective. Gazelle Hashemian is president and CEO of BluJuniper, Inc.

]]>

Lawmakers propose AI framework that would preempt state laws for 3 years

Alexandra Kelley — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 17:07:00 -0400

Reps. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Lori Trahan, D-Mass., rolled out a draft measure Thursday that would set a nearly all-encompassing framework for granting the U.S. government regulatory control over various aspects of artificial intelligence while still prioritizing technological innovation and adoption — beginning with allowing federal preemption of state regulation for a three-year period.

The discussion draft of the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act of 2026 looks to create four pillars for AI advancement: establishing frontier artificial intelligence model governance, collecting insight into changes within the U.S. workforce landscape, fortifying cybersecurity postures and spurring new AI research and development.

In governing frontier AI models, the proposal seeks to codify the existence of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, an office that was initially established under the Biden administration as the AI Safety Institute and was rebranded by the Department of Commerce in 2025.

The measure looks to task that office with spearheading development of standards and voluntary guidance for AI models, as well as studying and mitigating national security risks, building on Trump administration efforts to partner with industry in allowing government evaluations of AI models. A director of CAISI would be appointed by the Commerce secretary.

Under the draft legislation, CAISI would also oversee other efforts, such as monitoring foreign competitors and setting up a new licensing regime to designate independent verification organizations, which are defined as entities that conduct audits of frontier model developers' compliance with transparency.

The measure would grant CAISI $100 million in annual federal funding for 2027 to 2029.

Frontier model developers would also be tasked with maintaining transparency in how they monitor their AI systems.

The proposal stipulates that large AI model developers craft and implement an AI framework that will apply to all their models, showcase standards compliance efforts, identify risk thresholds, determine whether a model poses “a catastrophic risk” when managing cybersecurity defenses –– particularly in private model weights –– and also disclose release dates. This information would have to be publicly available, as would any modifications to companies’ governance frameworks.

Large frontier model developers would also be required to retain a qualified independent verification organization to confirm compliance with their individual frameworks. As independent entities, those verification organizations will be scrutinized to ensure that there are no ties to the companies they monitor. State attorneys general are also permitted to receive audit reports from those organizations upon request.

Understanding how AI is impacting the workforce is a paramount component of the draft bill. At an educational level, it prioritizes incorporating fundamental AI literacy into various curricula, including at the K-12 level and in institutions of higher education.

The National Science Foundation would lead the charge in supporting more AI-focused education efforts, using vehicles like awards and grants to expand access for students and educators to learn more about AI. Notably, the bill asks NSF to create eight Centers of AI Excellence with help from Commerce’s Regional Technology and Innovation Hub Program.

Aside from education, the proposal's authors also seek to understand how AI is impacting the jobs market. It directs the Department of Labor to supply clear statistics on changes in the labor market and AI workforce landscape via a new Artificial Intelligence Workforce Research Hub.

The Labor secretary would also be tasked with publishing a request for comment on how to best implement the data collection and forecasting analytics pursuant to the bill’s requirements. An initial expert workshop comprised of economists, AI technical experts, industry participants, labor organizations and government officials would be established to evaluate the Bureau of Labor Statistics' understanding of AI’s workforce impact.

As the ramifications of AI-driven cyberthreats have accelerated following the release of Anthropic’s advanced model Mythos and other high-performance AI tools, the bill expands existing federal cybersecurity efforts to understand the risk landscape. Prioritizing threat intelligence sharing, it would reauthorize and extend the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 until 2035 and direct the Homeland Security secretary to develop an outreach plan targeting small or rural owners and operators of critical infrastructure to inform them of both threats and recourse options.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and CAISI would work together to assist maintainers of open-source software in their defensive efforts. Under the draft bill, maintainers — or the lead developers in charge of open-source software code — would be eligible for funding to help detect and patch outstanding vulnerabilities through controlled access to select frontier models.

The final section of the proposal is focused on research and development efforts to ensure the U.S. continues leading in AI innovation. The draft bill seeks to promote interagency coordination to support the creation of a new testbed program with participation between the national laboratories, federal laboratories, NIST, the National AI Research Resource pilot program –– or a successor program –– and private sector entities.

Leaders in charge of testbed coordination include the Energy secretary, the undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and the NSF director. The testbeds would conduct security risk and vulnerability assessments. Work within the testbeds would prioritize assessments by identifying security vulnerabilities of AI systems with respect to threats like autonomous offensive cyber capabilities, vulnerabilities in the AI software ecosystem, chemical and biological threats, critical infrastructure threats and more.

The bill would also formally establish the National AI Research Resource, a pilot program based within NSF. The bill calls for the amendment of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act to include NAIRR resources and protocols, creating a new steering subcommittee focusing on innovation in AI, small business concerns and more.

Notably, the bill stipulates that NAIRR can accept and use donations of cash, services and personal property from private sector entities. NAIRR would also be tasked with procuring and providing resources, including datasets and computational support, for a diverse body of researchers in the public and private sector, along with academia.

The National AI Act of 2020 would also receive updates, including directing the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a prioritized list of federal datasets for public release to support model training.

While the draft has received bipartisan backing — the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy, chaired by Reps. Valerie Foushee, D-N.C., Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J. — did not support the current discussion draft.

“While we appreciate the bipartisan effort from Representatives Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan, their proposed discussion draft on AI does not meet the enormity of the moment,” the commission said in a statement. “The House Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy has spent months working closely with our colleagues and key stakeholders from civil society organizations, industry, labor, academia, and others addressing AI issues. Many of those same organizations share our view that this document cannot serve as the basis for productive dialogue.”

Obernolte and Trahan’s draft has also prompted diverse industry feedback.

“We are encouraged that the Great American AI Act includes key elements that will accelerate American AI leadership including codification of the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource, promote U.S. leadership in international standards development, extend the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, and expand research for next-generation data center efficiencies,” said Jason Oxman, the CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council. “These are important priorities that will ensure the United States continues to drive the global tech ecosystem and win the AI race.”

The nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation, however, took issue with the three-year preemption of state laws and questioned the civil rights ramifications.

“This bill takes the current floor on state AI legislation and turns it into a federal ceiling, preventing state lawmakers from addressing emerging AI harms in an era of fast-moving technology,” said ARI President Brad Carson. “Over the past two decades, state lawmakers have proven to be a backstop for tech accountability, fighting for families and communities even as Congress has stalled on creating guardrails. Tying their hands would be a generational mistake. When we give Big Tech a pass to move fast and break things, as this bill does today, they break American communities.”

]]>

Trump signs order moving thousands of federal employees into Schedule F

Erich Wagner — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 16:44:00 -0400

President Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order formally converting nearly 10,000 career federal workers into Schedule Policy/Career, making them effectively at-will employees.

The edict marks the culmination of a years-long push to make it easier to fire federal employees in “policy-related” jobs by removing them from the federal government’s competitive service and placing them in a new job category, initially called Schedule F and now referred to as Schedule Policy/Career. Employees placed into the new schedule would no longer be able to challenge adverse personnel actions before the Merit Systems Protection Board, and whistleblower complaints filed by Schedule F employees would be investigated by their own agency, rather than the Office of Special Counsel.

A senior administration official told reporters Wednesday that, contrary to the administration’s prior estimates that 50,000 feds would be converted to the new job category, just 8,000 jobs are targeted in Wednesday’s executive order. An OPM spokesperson said Trump chose to instead focus on "the most senior level career policy officials."

The official said the vast majority -- around 97% -- of those impacted are either GS-15s or senior leaders (SL). Jobs targeted for conversion include agency office and division heads; C-suite posts like chief information officers; regional officers and their deputies and chiefs of staff; program managers; those who help write federal regulations and attorneys involved in crafting agency or internal policies, as well as advisors, senior HR officials and grantmaking posts.

Schedule F was first proposed via executive order in October 2020, but following Trump’s electoral defeat the following month, officials failed to implement the measure prior to former President Biden’s inauguration. Biden rescinded the edict, and in 2024 the Office of Personnel Management issued new regulations to make it more difficult for a future president to revive the idea.

Though early in Trump’s second term, officials suggested the president could simply “nullify” regulations, OPM ultimately followed the notice-and-comment process to propose new regulations to unwind the Biden-era protections and implement the newly-renamed Schedule Policy/Career. OPM’s final rule implementing the new job category took effect in March.

The policy remains the subject of multiple lawsuits by federal employee unions, who have accused the administration of violating the Constitution, the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. And good government groups have warned that at-will employment of public employees on the state level have produced mixed results in terms of productivity, while increasing reports of political and personal favoritism in the workplace.

Scott Kupor and another official said Wednesday that contrary to opponents’ warnings that the measure would give rise to a new spoils system in federal employment, there won’t be political litmus tests for employees in Schedule Policy/Career and the traditional hiring process for competitive service positions will be retained in the new job category. Unmentioned, however, was OPM’s decision last year to institute new politicized essay questions as part of the federal hiring process.

“In order to effect the president’s policy priorities, we need people in these senior positions willing and capable of carrying out those directives,” Kupor said. “All this does is basically say: it doesn’t matter what your political views are–and you can have any political views–but if you allow them to interfere in your willingness to carry out lawful orders and directives, this is a mechanism for you to be removed, effectively at-will . . . There are zero loyalty tests in this.”

]]>

EPA’s research efforts are swayed by administration priorities, official says

Edward Graham — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 16:42:00 -0400

The Environmental Protection Agency’s reorganized research office is influenced by the Trump administration’s political appointees, the agency’s top science official confirmed to lawmakers on Thursday.

The EPA shuttered its longstanding Office of Research and Development last July and replaced it with a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, which was placed within the agency’s Office of the Administrator. In a May 2025 press release, the EPA said it was “shifting its scientific expertise and research efforts to program offices to tackle statutory obligations and mission essential functions.”

During a House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Environment hearing, Maureen Gwinn — EPA’s deputy associate administrator for science in OASES — said the restructured office “serves as a coordinating hub that ensures consistency and collaboration across EPA’s research enterprise, advancing gold standard science and strengthening technical assistance to state and local partners.”

It is not surprising for a presidential administration to reshape federal agencies’ missions to align with its political priorities. But committee Democrats said the level of new political oversight over OASES raises concerns about the office’s independence.

President Donald Trump notably signed a May 2025 executive order on "Restoring Gold Standard Science” that some critics believe undercuts independent federal research by giving political appointees more of a say over the direction of scientific studies.

A study published on May 5 by the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found that, at the time, there had been only 61 peer-reviewed studies published by EPA scientists up to that point in 2026, compared to a total of 339 in 2024.

Rep. Gabe Amo, D-R.I., the top Democrat on the subcommittee, noted during the hearing that an EPA interim approval process memo implemented “a ‘no surprises’ policy for EPA science that requires all OASES activities — scientific activities — be, quote, ‘supported by appropriate political leadership.’” He added that “true science follows the evidence wherever it leads, even if it's surprising, and even if those discoveries are inconvenient for Trump's political agenda.”

Gwinn said she was the one who wrote the memo after discussions with senior EPA leadership about making sure the office’s scientific research "is in agreement with administration priorities.”

“That was part of being sure that the work that we would continue to do in OASES was supportive of the administration,” she added.

When pressed by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore., about whether any of EPA’s research projects have been “delayed, modified or declined” because they did not align with the administration’s political priorities, Gwinn said there have been some delays in “getting a better understanding of the research, if it was related to something that in an executive order was something that was not moving forward,” although she said she would have to get back to the committee to provide examples.

Republican members said during Thursday’s hearing that the creation of OASES streamlines EPA's scientific research work by connecting it with the offices that could best operationalize that expertise.

Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas — who chairs the full House Science, Space and Technology Committee — said EPA’s restructuring “comes at a time when scientific data, advancements in artificial intelligence and public expectations for transparency continue to grow — making it essential that EPA adapts thoughtfully and effectively.”

He added that embedding researchers within the agency’s program offices that make regulatory decisions “facilitates early communication between scientists and program staff” and helps EPA “reduce duplication, improve coordination and support a regulatory environment that encourages innovation.”

When asked by Babin, however, if the agency has seen “a diminution or an enhancement of science at EPA” since the creation of OASES, Gwinn told him it is difficult to say right now.

“I know you wanted yes or no but … we're six, seven months in,” she said, adding that “during that time, we've been developing new processes and getting things up to speed, so I'm not sure that I can give a yes or no answer at this point.”

]]>

EHR modernization needs better cyber and privacy collaboration, GAO says

Edward Graham — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 18:03:00 -0400

The Government Accountability Office said on Tuesday that the unit overseeing the federal government’s new electronic health record system is not collaborating enough with its partner agencies to secure the software against digital threats or ensure that patient data is sufficiently protected.

In a watchdog report, GAO said the Federal Electronic Health Record Modernization office “doesn't fully follow leading practices for collaboration” when it comes to the cybersecurity and privacy of data with the new EHR system.

The office oversees the government’s effort to deploy one common, interoperable system across the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Defense Department, the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. GAO said the completed system is expected to have “more than 500,000 users providing care to over 18 million servicemembers, veterans, and their families, making it one of the nation’s largest electronic health record systems.”

FEHRM was created through a joint charter signed by DOD and VA in December 2019, with the four participating agencies taking on varying levels of cyber and privacy responsibilities.

DOD is primarily responsible for managing the cybersecurity of the EHR software and the network used to access the system. GAO said VA also has “responsibility for the cybersecurity of its own network.” Each of the four agencies is also responsible for managing their own networks and following applicable privacy laws when it comes to handling users’ data.

While GAO said that FEHRM has “initiated a number of efforts to promote collaboration” with the four agencies, it added that “it has done so without well-defined common goals and outcomes.” The watchdog added this includes concerns that the office does not “monitor, assess or communicate on performance measures” to hold its partners accountable.

“Articulating clear and measurable goals would better position the FEHRM to oversee the coordinated cybersecurity of the federal EHR by providing insight into the specific resources, skills, or time needed to address shared responsibilities,” the report said. “Further, these goals would help hold the FEHRM accountable for demonstrating how its activities, such as the development of the Joint Incident Management Framework, align with the common outcomes it seeks to achieve.”

FEHRM has been working to create the framework since 2021 to streamline agency responses to EHR-directed cyber threats, with GAO saying the guidance was most recently scheduled to be released in April.

Without outlining clear goals and outcomes, the watchdog said “progress on planned efforts, such as the Joint Incident Management Framework, may be impeded or further delayed.”

GAO’s concerns about planning extended to the office’s logistical operations, with the report saying that FEHRM “has not fully articulated specific short- or long-term goals or intended outcomes related to the cybersecurity of the federal EHR or the privacy of health data within it.” This included office officials telling GAO in January 2026 that it was still developing its goals for fiscal year 2026.

The watchdog made two recommendations, including calling for both DOD and VA leaders to press FEHRM “to define common goals, outcomes, and associated performance measures, and monitor, assess, and communicate progress on collaboration efforts toward ensuring the cybersecurity and privacy of the federal enclave.”

DOD did not concur with the report as it was written. VA neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO’s takeaways, but said it initially focused on establishing a unified culture to build trust with partner agencies, which it called “the essential first step.”

While the joint EHR system has reportedly not been directly targeted by a cyberattack, previous cyber incidents have underscored the impact these types of breaches and digital assaults can have on healthcare delivery.

A February 2024 ransomware attack on Change Healthcare — a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group and the largest healthcare payment system in the U.S. — disrupted payments and prescription processing at medical facilities across the U.S. This included VA’s systems, with an agency official saying at the time that it affected just over 40,000 veterans’ medications.

That attack also affected “interface assessments” at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago, Illinois, a joint DOD-VA facility that was in the process of switching over to the new federal EHR system. That rollout, which occurred in March 2024, was the Pentagon’s last site rollout of the new software.

DOD and NOAA have completed their deployments of the new software, and the Coast Guard is reportedly in the final stages of its rollout. VA, however, has faced numerous missteps in its own EHR implementation effort.

VA paused most rollouts of the EHR system in April 2023 to address a host of safety, technical and usability concerns. The agency and DOD subsequently conducted the Lovell deployment during the reset period, which was the sixth VA facility to receive the new software.

The agency recently resumed EHR software rollouts at four Michigan-based medical facilities in April and plans to deploy the system at nine more sites in 2026. VA Secretary Doug Collins told Congress last month that the new rollouts were “phenomenal,” although he said the agency needs to go back and fix issues at the first five sites that received the software.

]]>

HHS wants states to use more predictive analytics in child welfare

Natalie Alms — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 17:04:00 -0400

The Department of Health and Human Services is offering state child welfare agencies $6 million to pilot predictive analytics to assess children's risk of abuse and neglect in the child welfare system, the Administration for Children and Families announced last week.

The artificial intelligence push is part of the Trump administration’s agenda to modernize the child welfare system and address the shortage of foster homes across the U.S. Although the hope is that the tools improve decisionmaking in the system, they’ve also been the subject of critiques about surveillance and bias.

ACF says that predictive analytics can help agencies identify low-risk families that don’t need to be in the welfare system, as well as high-risk cases that need more immediate attention, in the hopes of improving the ratio of foster homes to children.

Although some child welfare agencies have already begun using more data tools and predictive analytics in their work, many still depend on assessment tools to calculate a child’s risk of abuse and neglect by walking employees through a standard set of weighted questions. The process can be prone to error and bias.

The hope is that predictive risk models can help analyze the full administrative records in child welfare case management systems, update in real time and be trained locally — but these models can also introduce bias, too.

In 2023, The Justice Department was reportedly scrutinizing one early adopter of AI in child welfare — Allegheny County, Pennsylvania — after the Associated Press in 2022 found potential issues with bias and transparency in the tool. The county said at the time that evidence suggested that the tool had actually reduced racial disparities in screening decisions and that staff make ultimate decisions.

Others have raised concerns about the potential for surveillance with these tools.

The potential benefits to modernizing risk assessment practices with more data outweigh the risks, says an internal ACF report. The tools aren’t, however, a substitute for a strong workforce, the same report cautions. They require feedback loops to ensure that they work and transparency into how they work.

“This is a tool. It can be useful,” said Linda Spears, president and CEO of the Child Welfare League of America, a membership-based child welfare coalition. Spears added, however, “it will not fix all of the things that contribute to poor decisionmaking,” especially as the field is suffering from an ongoing workforce crisis.

]]>

Trump to soon nominate CISA head, DHS secretary says

David DiMolfetta — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 14:47:00 -0400

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told lawmakers that President Donald Trump will soon nominate a candidate to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — a subcomponent of the department he leads. It remains unclear if an industry contender that has been under consideration will ultimately be selected.

Last month, Nextgov/FCW first reported that IBM security services lead Tom Parker was being considered for the role. As of early May, Mullin submitted a name to the White House that was not Parker, a person familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to communicate details of the process.

The Trump administration had its own list of picks, and DHS and the White House in recent weeks have likely been negotiating and vetting candidates to settle on a final choice, added the person.

“We’ve got a person soon to be nominated that will be running CISA that has the ability to recruit and focus on the authorities we have,” Mullin said in a Wednesday budget hearing held by the House Homeland Security Committee. “We want CISA to be the leader of cybersecurity. They should be and they will be.”

Asked about this directly, Parker told Nextgov/FCW that, since the story about his consideration ran, he’s received “an outpouring of support” from industry, current government employees that previously held roles in the private sector and former high-ranking government officials.

CISA has been without a permanent director since Trump retook office last year. Sean Plankey had previously been nominated to lead the cyberdefense agency, but he withdrew after being caught up in issues concerning Coast Guard cutter contracts with a GOP senator.

Nick Andersen has been leading the agency in an acting capacity since its previous acting leader, Madhu Gottumukkala, left in February following a series of leadership incidents during his tenure.

The agency has lost around a third of its workforce in the last year amid Trump administration efforts to shrink the size of the federal government and address other long-prevailing GOP concerns about the cyber agency’s activities.

In the Wednesday hearing, Mullin told the committee that CISA needs around 2,800 people, based on views from the White House, compared to the around 2,200 people currently staffed. DHS recently emerged from a record funding lapse under which CISA was forced to cancel hiring for interns under the Cyber Corps: Scholarship for Service program.

]]>

Pulte appointment threatens fragile spy powers deal

David DiMolfetta — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 12:55:00 -0400

President Donald Trump’s decision to name Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence is threatening to disrupt a fragile Senate deal to extend a contentious surveillance authority.

Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Tuesday to press the White House to reverse Pulte’s appointment, warning that leaving him in the role could sink a deal to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Section 702 allows spy agencies like the NSA to collect communications of foreigners abroad without a warrant. But it has long been controversial because Americans’ communications can be swept up in that collection process.

The latest dispute comes as lawmakers are trying to pass an extension of the law before it expires on June 12. The program has already survived multiple short-term renewals this year after Congress failed to reach agreement on a broader reauthorization bill.

Pulte currently leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency and does not have a national security background. Democrats have also accused him of using that role to target Trump’s political adversaries, fueling concerns about placing him atop the intelligence community as lawmakers weigh whether to preserve one of its most powerful spying tools. Punchbowl News first reported Warner’s request to Thune.

Warner has been one of the key Democratic negotiators in FISA talks, and was involved in a recent arrangement with Thune and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., that cleared the way for a 45-day short-term extension of the authority. That deal included a commitment to declassify a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion, a key demand from civil liberties advocates.

But the status of that declassification process is unclear. Last month, Wyden said the Trump administration was ignoring the request.

GOP leaders are unlikely to pass an extension alone. Several Republican senators are expected to oppose any FISA deal, meaning Thune will need Democratic votes to move the bill through the Senate. The high chamber could hold an initial procedural vote on a Section 702 extension as soon as Thursday.

The emerging deal includes provisions meant to win over skeptical lawmakers, including a three-year ban on a central bank digital currency and language barring the FBI from using Section 702 information to prosecute U.S. persons. It stops short of including a full warrant requirement for queries of U.S. person data collected under the program, a measure long sought by the civil liberties community.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who previously served as the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told House lawmakers Wednesday that he had never heard Pulte’s name during his time on the panel.

Thune also appeared to acknowledge broader concern about the appointment, telling reporters Tuesday that “we don’t need a weaponized DNI.” If the White House tried to nominate Pulte permanently, Thune added, he would have “a lengthy road ahead of him” to win confirmation.

Thune then referred questions about Pulte to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who told reporters he had “no observations on the matter.”

Over the last several months, the FISA fight has intersected with broader anxieties about domestic surveillance, immigration enforcement and whether emerging artificial intelligence tools could give agencies more powerful ways to analyze large amounts of sensitive personal data.

Section 702, enacted in 2008, codified parts of the once-secret Stellarwind surveillance program created under the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In 2013, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden disclosed documents detailing how the authority was used, fueling a global debate over privacy and mass surveillance.

The program is frequently used to track myriad national security threats, including hackers, terrorist groups and foreign intelligence operatives.

]]>

GSA publishes ‘Elimination, Optimization and Automation’ playbook for government agencies

Frank Konkel — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:31:00 -0400

The General Services Administration published a new playbook Wednesday to provide federal agencies and executives tools, strategies and a modern blueprint to automate repetitive tasks and give employees time back to perform mission-critical work.

The Elimination, Optimization and Automation playbook, developed by GSA, builds on lessons learned from federal pilots, mature automation programs and the agency’s own extensive internal enterprise efforts to improve operations.

While a new product, the playbook is already foundational to the agency’s moonshot goal to save and automate 1 million hours of workload for its staff—a goal it’s more than halfway toward achieving, according to GSA Deputy Administrator Mike Lynch.

Yet Lynch said there’s tremendous potential value in taking what’s worked at GSA and “putting those best practices out back to the broader federal government,” with many agencies grappling with similar problems. In this way, he said GSA is serving as a force multiplier for other agencies.

“I think from what I've seen, at least working in government, is so many of the challenges [agencies] are trying to solve are incredibly consistent,” Lynch said in a recent interview with Government Executive. “So there may be unique nuances based on the mission of the agency, but everyone's trying to understand how to deploy technology and use AI and drive efficiencies within our workflows.”

“We just don't have to start from go every time,” Lynch added. “There are learnings that we can provide from our experience at GSA, where we've had a more formalized process that allows other parts of the government to go faster and better. Hopefully, the results we’ve been able to produce through these types of programs makes it compelling and something that other agencies can use as appropriate within their groups.”

A copy of the 37-page playbook viewed by Government Executive includes best practices based on technology implementation efforts at GSA and a handful of other agencies, including NASA and the Education Department, during this administration as well as the previous Trump administration. Collectively, the handbook “is formatted to follow a typical EOA project through its lifecycle, from ideation to deployment.”

It outlines a multi-phased approach to EOA projects — opportunity assessments, solution planning and design, implementing and sustaining — as well as an EOA toolkit with tools and templates “to help accelerate your agency’s launch of an effective EOA initiative.”

The playbook lists Lynch, GSA Chief Financial Officer Nimisha Agarwal and Larry Allen, Associate Administrator of the Office of Government Policy as executive sponsors; Chris Grigsby, Executive Director of Digital Finance, Mehul Parekh, Principal Deputy Associate Administrator of OGP, Anthony Cavallo, Division Director of the Business Modernization Division, and program analysts Gabrielle Perret and Will Spelker as EOA subject matter experts; and Andy Stegmaier, President of Management Science & Innovation and Nick Surkamp, Chief Delivery Officer of Management Science & Innovation as EOA playbook authors.

“It is incredible the work the team has done to set this up and provide a top-down framework for the program,” Lynch said.

Once published, Lynch said the next step is evangelizing the playbook across government. Internally, those efforts began with a May 12 Emerging Tech Showcase held at GSA’s Washington, D.C. headquarters and attended virtually by more than 2,000 people. The showcase featured several panels on the playbook featuring many of its contributors, as well as panels on GSA’s internal AI-powered chat platform, AI use cases across the agency and an industry-focused panel.

Lynch said he hopes to host a governmentwide showcase with an even larger audience sometime in July.

Other ‘force multipliers’ at GSA

Lynch said governmentwide demand for USAi has increased steadily since GSA launched the shared service to streamline AI adoption last August. Thus far, the agency has inked 24 agency agreements with USAi with 40 more in the works. Another 82 agencies have asked for demos of the technology available on USAi.

“USAi continues to be a really strong platform for us that's meant to be in very similar fashion to the EOA playbook, where we're trying to host and help provide a safe sandbox for other agencies to start to explore how they deploy AI within their workflows,” Lynch said.

Another governmentwide program, OneGov, has generated some $1.15 billion in savings through negotiated discounts on a variety of AI and software tools using the collective power of the entire federal government. More than two dozen companies, including most leading AI firms, are selling their software at a discounted price to agencies through OneGov. In total, nearly 3.4 million users across government have access to that software through OneGov.

]]>

Former DOGE duo launches AI company as a ‘DOGE for the private sector’

Natalie Alms — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 17:08:00 -0400

Two former operatives of the controversial Department of Government Efficiency have launched a new artificial intelligence company called Special, backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Elon Musk ally Steve Davis and others formerly associated with the government-slashing unit.

Nate Cavanaugh and Justin Fox are calling the venture “DOGE for the private sector.”

The pair went viral earlier this spring when the American Historical Association publicly posted hours of legal depositions online during a lawsuit over the mass termination of 1,400-plus grants at the National Endowment of the Humanities.

At NEH, Fox — named as a defendant in that lawsuit alongside Cavanaugh — used AI to decide what grants to cancel by asking ChatGPT if NEH grants involved diversity, equity and inclusion.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled last month that the resulting mass termination of grants was unconstitutional, calling the move a “textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.” The cancellation of grants also violated due process and was done without statutory authority, wrote McMahon.

Now, Cavanaugh and Fox are focused on using an operating system being built by Special to automate manual tasks inside critical service businesses, Cavanaugh wrote in a blog post about the company. To do this, the DOGE alumni are acquiring companies and pursuing vertical integration.

The new company has one healthcare-focused vertical so far, called Figure Health, in which they’re using the operating model in the name of improving common tasks like patient intake and billing. A first acquisition is underway in Texas. Special didn’t respond to a request for additional details.

Before DOGE, Fox worked in private equity. Cavanaugh joined DOGE after starting a series of tech companies.

Their latest venture appears to have been in the works for some time. WIRED previously reported that Special described itself as “a technology investment platform” focused on crypto investments.

Other “DOGE teammates” in addition to Davis are supporting the new company, wrote Cavanaugh, including Antonio Gracias, Anthony Armstrong and Donald Park, as well as the venture capital firm BANNER VC, also launched by former members of DOGE, and venture capital firm Human Capital, co-founded by Baris Akis, who informally helped DOGE headhunt talent.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Palantir chief technology officer Shyam Sankar are also backing the effort.

A video posted alongside the announcement highlights Musk talking about DOGE before flashing through clips of celebrities like Muhammad Ali, Caitlin Clark, Theodore Roosevelt, Barack Obama, Steve Jobs and Kobe Bryant — as well as President Donald Trump — set against a 2003 song by Jay-Z: Public Service Announcement (Interlude).

A deposition clip in which a lawyer asks Cavanaugh if he regrets that people may have lost income is featured prominently.

“No,” Cavanaugh repeats twice, saying it was more important to reduce the deficit.

The video doesn't include the next part of the interaction, in which the lawyer asks Cavanaugh if DOGE did reduce the federal deficit.

“No, we didn’t,” said Cavanaugh.

]]>

US opposes global AI standards but sees value coordinating on ‘real-world harms,’ State official says

Edward Graham — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 16:37:00 -0400

Although the Trump administration is opposed to working with international governing bodies to establish any frameworks around the use and development of AI technologies, a top State Department official said conversations are still taking place with allies about coordinating responses to certain national security threats.

During an Atlantic Council event on Monday, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg said the White House “is highly skeptical of supranational bodies in the business of governance,” but added that the administration is open to closer global collaboration on other tech- and cyber-related issues despite its “America First” agenda.

“There is a conversation surrounding the benefits — the potential benefits — of coordinating with other countries on addressing, you know, cybersecurity threats, threats around physical infrastructure risks, around deepfakes,” Helberg said. “So, you know, coordinating with other partners on the identification of real-world harms that are worthy of coordination.”

He added that it “is a conversation that's very much taking place, but as an administration, we haven't yet adjudicated on, you know, what the final road ahead lies on that front.”

President Donald Trump has strongly pushed back on U.S. engagement with international bodies like the UN, including directing officials to withdraw from several global bodies and slash funding for other entities.

This opposition to international collaboration has extended to the nation’s AI policies, with the White House favoring continued support for American technology dominance over giving transnational organizations any authority to craft global standards that can be shaped by U.S. adversaries like Russia and China.

The third pillar of the administration’s AI Action Plan, released in July 2025, focused on “lead[ing] in international AI diplomacy and security,” with the document voicing opposition to international bodies creating any AI governance frameworks.

“The United States supports likeminded nations working together to encourage the development of AI in line with our shared values,” the plan said. “But too many of these efforts have advocated for burdensome regulations, vague ‘codes of conduct’ that promote cultural agendas that do not align with American values, or have been influenced by Chinese companies attempting to shape standards for facial recognition and surveillance.”

Trump also signed an AI executive order on Tuesday that calls for firms to voluntarily provide the federal government with pre-public releases of their models to review them for potential cybersecurity or national security risks.

U.S. officials have also warned European Union allies to refrain from further regulating AI technologies and other emerging capabilities. During an April event in Brussels, Helberg said the bloc’s current regulatory regime is pushing American companies out of its orbit and that "Europe is accruing a [technology] lag that will not be reversible in years.”

]]>

Anthropic held cyberthreat briefings with agency CIOs last month

Alexandra Kelley — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:29:00 -0400

Leading artificial intelligence developer Anthropic hosted briefing sessions for federal agency chief information officers in early May, several sources familiar with the sessions told Nextgov/FCW.

Meetings occurred May 7 and May 8. While briefing topics varied, they focused on defending digital assets from cyber threats powered by advanced AI models including Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, the sources said.

Other branches of government have been informed of Mythos’s capabilities. In mid-May, lawmakers on the House Homeland Security Committee received a briefing with Anthropic executives on Mythos’s ability to detect software vulnerabilities.

The launch of Mythos Preview in early April came alongside Anthropic’s announcement of Project Glasswing, an initiative that granted access to the model in its beta form to multiple participating private sector partners. On Tuesday, Anthropic announced its expansion of Project Glasswing to include roughly 150 new partners following initial feedback from inaugural companies.

New participants in Project Glasswing are from industries that weren’t included in the first cohort, with sectors like power, water, healthcare, communications and hardware now part of Anthropic’s initiative.

Project Glasswing’s debut came just weeks after the Pentagon labeled Anthropic a supply chain risk in response to the company contesting the use of its technology in Pentagon operations with autonomous weaponry and American surveillance. The designation prompted President Donald Trump to order the government to halt all use of Anthropic products. The legality of the supply chain risk designation is being contested in court following Anthropic’s lawsuit against federal agencies and their leadership.

Despite the supply chain risk designation, the federal government is keen to understand Mythos’s threat capabilities. A long-awaited executive order on AI was slated to address how the federal government analyzes AI-driven cyberthreats, including granting intelligence and security agencies access to advanced frontier AI models, but signing of that order was postponed after Trump expressed doubts that it might hinder AI innovation. Trump signed a scaled-down version of that order Tuesday that implemented a lesser degree of federal oversight on such advanced models.

]]>

Trump signs AI executive order after postponement last month

Alexandra Kelley and David DiMolfetta — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 13:02:00 -0400

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a cybersecurity-focused artificial intelligence executive order directing national security and civilian agencies to expand oversight of advanced AI systems, marking the administration’s latest attempt to balance growing fears over catastrophic AI-enabled cyber risks with a broadly pro-innovation agenda.

The directive scales down the degree of federal oversight of AI models from what was initially included in an earlier version that was set to be signed two weeks ago, but that signing was postponed amid overregulation concerns from industry.

Per the order, companies developing cutting-edge AI systems would be encouraged to provide the federal government with 30 days of pre-public access to those models, as well as limited early access for select critical infrastructure operators. An earlier outline of the order viewed by Nextgov/FCW suggested the government would be granted a longer window of 90 days to assess covered frontier models.

The more limited pre-release access period, coupled with language in the order that explicitly prohibits licensing or preclearance requirements, suggests the administration is seeking visibility into advanced AI systems without establishing a formal approval process before companies can release new models, a dynamic that is more favorable to industry.

One section of the order, focused on cybersecurity, directs federal agencies to secure Defense Department and other national security networks within 30 days. Another includes a binding operational directive to secure federal civilian networks and facilitate access to frontier AI models across critical infrastructure sectors, including hospitals, banks, utilities and state and local governments, which must also be issued within 30 days.

It also calls for the Treasury Department — with support from the Office of the National Cyber Director, the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — to establish a voluntary coordination clearinghouse between the government, AI companies and critical infrastructure operators.

Additional provisions would direct the Office of Management and Budget to identify existing federal grant funding that could support AI vulnerability-detection efforts within 30 days. It also tasks the Office of Personnel Management with increasing cyber hiring via the U.S. Tech Force within 60 days. The Tech Force, launched in December, has expressly been recruiting cyber talent for the last several weeks, though it has only onboarded 10 total employees thus far.

The other section of the directive focuses on establishing a new government framework for overseeing advanced AI systems, including the creation of a classified benchmarking process to determine which models qualify as “covered frontier models.”

Per the order, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, CISA and others would have 60 days to establish the classified evaluation process.

The NSA, in consultation with those agencies, would then be tasked with formally determining which AI systems meet the threshold. The NSA’s involvement in these efforts was reported in May by Nextgov/FCW.

In the same section governing frontier model development, the Commerce secretary is also tasked with assisting in the development of a classified AI benchmarking process that will inform the voluntary framework for AI developers. The final draft of the order states that the agency's secretary will work “through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,” a caveat that wasn’t included in the initial draft, per a copy reported last month by Politico.

The administration’s approach to AI has shifted in recent months amid the emergence of Anthropic’s Mythos, a powerful cybersecurity-focused AI model that has become a major driver of government discussions, as officials grapple with how advanced AI systems can rapidly uncover vulnerabilities across computer networks.

OpenAI’s recent release of GPT-5.5-Cyber, which also demonstrated sophisticated cyber capabilities, has further heightened concerns in Washington over how quickly these systems are advancing and how they could reshape both cyber defensive and offensive operations.

]]>

Trump appoints housing official to be acting director of national intelligence

David DiMolfetta — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 10:26:00 -0400

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he is appointing Federal Housing Finance Agency director William Pulte to serve as acting director of national intelligence, replacing outgoing director Tulsi Gabbard.

The choice is unusual for the nation’s top spy official, who would oversee 18 intelligence agencies like the NSA and CIA. Trump defended his selection in a Truth Social post, saying that Pulte, who led many of the administration’s mortgage fraud efforts last year, “has deep experience managing the most sensitive matters in America.”

Pulte would still hold his leadership positions in FHFA, as well as his chairmanship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while serving as acting director, Trump said.

While heading the housing finance body, Pulte leveraged his authority to launch investigations into the president’s political foes, including Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook and New York Attorney General Letitia James. He does not have prior experience working in the intelligence community.

The announcement sparked swift condemnation from former national security leads, who expressed disbelief over the pick for a paramount U.S. intelligence post that has seen major restructuring and downsizing over the past year.

“I would think at a time when we are facing exceptional conflict in the Middle East and tensions around the world, we would want someone with deep experience in intelligence matters to serve as the acting director of the agency responsible for coordinating all of America’s spy agencies,” said a former senior national security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid.

“Moreover, it’s a full-time job, so I can’t see how someone could also serve in an important financial regulatory position at the same time. It makes you think this administration either doesn’t know or care — or both — about this office,” the former senior official added.

Nextgov/FCW has asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, FHFA and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for comment.

Citing her husband's recent cancer diagnosis, Gabbard announced last week that she intends to step down from her position effective at the end of June.

“Despite a law requiring the Director of National Intelligence to have ‘extensive’ national security experience, the president’s choice for Acting DNI, Bill Pulte, has quite literally no relevant experience with intelligence or national security,” said Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

“His brief career in public service has shown only that he is willing to abuse his office to attack Donald Trump’s political enemies,” added Himes. “That would be dangerous in any job, but in a position that requires sober, apolitical judgment based on intelligence, it is potentially catastrophic for national security.”

“This appointment speaks volumes about what this president expects from the nation's top intelligence official,” said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who serves in an equivalent role on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Rather than selecting a respected national security professional capable of delivering independent judgments, the president has chosen an official who has demonstrated not just willingness but eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated to add a reaction from Rep. Jim Himes D-Conn., and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.

]]>

NSA taps three officials for top cybersecurity positions

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 18:22:00 -0400

The National Security Agency has internally named a trio of appointments focused on the spy agency’s cyber operations.

David Imbordino, who has overseen the NSA’s Cybersecurity Directorate in an acting capacity in recent months, has been tapped to lead the office permanently, according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the selections.

Holly Baroody — a senior United Kingdom-based NSA official and a former civilian lead in U.S. Cyber Command — will serve as Imbordino’s deputy, the second former official said. Imbordino and Baroody have served as acting officials in their respective roles since around January.

Created in 2019, the cyber directorate combines the agency’s intelligence-gathering and digital defense expertise to help protect U.S. government networks, military systems and contractors from hacking threats.

The second former official also said that Bruce Jones, a longtime agency leader with experience in both technical and operational roles, will head the NSA’s Cybersecurity Collaboration Center, a hub used to share cyber threat intelligence between the government and the private sector.

Both former officials requested anonymity to communicate their knowledge of the positions.

Nextgov/FCW has asked the NSA for comment. The Record first reported the selections.

For the last year, the signals intelligence and foreign eavesdropping giant has grappled with leadership vacuums and significant morale decline as the Trump administration has sought to taper its workforce.

Gen. Josh Rudd was confirmed in March to lead Cyber Command and the NSA in a dual-hatted manner, with Tim Kosiba joining the spy agency soon after to serve as its deputy director.

The NSA has sought to take a role in artificial intelligence policy developments, amid the recent emergence of advanced cyber-focused AI models that, in the wrong hands, could help foreign adversaries and criminal hackers more easily penetrate U.S. computer networks.

The New York Times reported last month that the White House approved some $9 billion for spy agencies like NSA to accelerate AI adoption, though shortages of advanced computing chips have constrained the use of state-of-the-art AI models on their classified systems.

]]>

How NIST’s torque tool could help keep air force jets flying

John Breeden II — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 18:13:00 -0400

When I was young, I spent a lot of time building with Lego bricks. My room had an old, decommissioned government desk that my father bought from NIST, and I kept one of the big drawers packed full of pieces from years of Lego sets, mostly space-themed, that I built, dismantled and turned into something else. Over time, I used them to make everything from battleships that actually floated to a city filled with tunnels and bridges for my Matchbox cars. Legos were always amazing, but I never imagined those little bricks could ever have anything to do with a practical federal measurement problem.

That problem turns out to be an important one. Torque wrenches are used to tighten fasteners to exact specifications, and those fasteners matter for everything from cars to aircraft. NIST notes that millions of screws, bolts and nuts go into a single commercial jet, and each one has to be tightened just enough, not too little and not too much, to hold correctly under demanding conditions. Torque wrenches help mechanics hit that narrow zone, but the tools themselves need regular calibration to stay trustworthy.

That is where a NIST project called the Electronic NIST Torque Realizer, or ENTR, comes in. NIST says the device is a tabletop-sized, self-calibrating torque instrument that applies the same basic principle behind a Kibble balance to torque. Instead of relying on conventional mass and length artifacts the way older torque calibration methods do, ENTR uses standards of voltage and resistance traceable to the present International System of Units. That means it can be used on-site in laboratories that already have voltage and resistance standards, avoiding expensive and time-consuming offsite shipments of heavy calibration equipment.

For the Air Force, that is more than a lab curiosity. NIST says the service uses hundreds of thousands of torque wrenches that all have to be calibrated to a particular standard with a robust chain of traceability. Those tools require regular recalibration to make sure they are still measuring torque correctly. ENTR is designed to make that process faster and more practical by giving technicians a self-calibrating, highly accurate way to check torque tools on-site, saving time and money.

NIST’s measurements suggest the new device could also improve accuracy. The current ENTR version two can realize torque from one ounce of force per inch to 140-ounce-force-inches with 0.1% accuracy, and NIST says that is better than most low-range commercial torque transducers, which typically carry uncertainties of around 0.25%. Several ENTR V2 devices are now stationed at NIST and Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, and there are plans to build even more.

Those devices can even help the Air Force improve operations and reliability. As Air Force Technical Expert for Metrology Jeremy Latsko told NIST, “This further ensures military readiness, and that doesn’t just mean the plane takes off. It means our weapon systems, and their critical subsystems, work as intended because their measurements are accurate and traceable. That means the mission is accomplished safely and effectively.”

And all this came from a few scientists who, like many of us, spent hours playing with Lego bricks in childhood. More than a decade ago, NIST researchers built a small Lego version of a Kibble balance, the ultra-precise instrument whose underlying principles would later help shape the ENTR program, out of Lego bricks. The Lego version was meant as an outreach tool and a way to demonstrate basic principles in a much smaller, more approachable form.

The Lego device was a huge success, earning a feature in the American Journal of Physics and other scientific publications. So many laboratories were interested in building Lego scales of their own that NIST created a tutorial video showing how to do it.

But the project did not stop there. In a 2022 NIST blog post, mechanical engineer Leon Chao wrote that the Lego balance “subconsciously planted a seed” for expanding the tabletop-instrument effort. That led to KIBB-g1, a first-generation tabletop Kibble balance that could directly realize gram-level masses to six digits without reference to artifact calibration weights. Chao wrote that the smaller instrument then caught the attention of colleagues working with the NIST on a Chip program, who later helped push the work toward mass and torque metrology in more compact, practical devices.

Tool manufacturer Snap-on Industrial is now part of that expansion effort too. NIST says one ENTR V2 unit is already stationed at Snap-on, and the company has been working with researchers as development moves toward ENTR V3, a larger-capacity version designed to cover a much broader torque range. In August 2024, the Air Force agreed to fund four more years of work on that next step, which NIST says is expected to measure from 0.01 to 340 newton meters with 0.5% accuracy.

The path to that next step began in an unlikely place. A pile of Lego bricks once helped make one of modern measurement science’s most exacting ideas easier to understand. Years later, that same line of thinking is helping produce a calibration tool that could make aircraft maintenance more efficient and reliable. That does not quite christen Lego bricks as military equipment. But it’s a pretty good reminder that practical federal tools sometimes grow out of places that look a lot more like curiosity than strategy.

John Breeden II is an award-winning journalist and reviewer with over 20 years of experience covering technology. He is the CEO of the Tech Writers Bureau, a group that creates technological thought leadership content for organizations of all sizes. Twitter: @LabGuys

]]>

Ready, fire, aim: Pentagon cut workforce with little analysis before or since, GAO finds

Meghann Myers — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 18:00:00 -0400

Pentagon leaders cut their department’s workforce by more than 10 percent with little regard for the effects—and still has no plans to assess them, according to a congressional watchdog report released on Friday.

The department shed 78,000 civilian employees in 2025 through a mix of voluntary resignations, involuntary layoffs, and a hiring freeze that resulted in nearly 60,000 fewer new hires than in recent years, the report found.

“But we found that DOD didn’t consistently analyze the impacts of these reductions, either in 2025 or in prior years,” according to the report. “DOD also doesn’t have a plan to assess lessons learned from its 2025 workforce reductions.”

In their response to the report, Defense officials agreed that they should “develop and implement a plan for collecting and sharing lessons learned from the Department's implementation of workforce reduction efforts.”

The officials did not indicate whether that would happen.

Soon after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took office, the Pentagon announced it would cut 5 to 8 percent of its civilian workforce. Within a year, the number swelled to about 110,000—about 14 percent of DOD civilians—including laid-off probationary employees, deferred resignations, and voluntary early retirements. Some 30,000 people were hired for a short list of jobs exempted from the hiring freeze, putting the net loss at just over 10 percent.

Of the 28 Defense agencies, offices, and other organizations targeted for workforce cuts by the Trump administration’s fiscal 2026 budget request, at least three did not give the required explanation to Congress about why and how the cuts would be made, GAO found.

Those were the Joint Staff, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, according to the report.

“According to component officials, DOD had not provided guidance for when and how to conduct and document this analysis,” the GAO found.

And further, the GAO found, the Pentagon didn’t plan to assess how the cuts affected productivity.

In March, the Partnership for Public Service published a survey that found morale among DOD employees has tanked during the current administration.

Only 9 percent of Army Department employees agreed that “Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s political leadership team generates high levels of motivation in the workforce,” the survey found, the most satisfied of any of the large government agencies surveyed.

]]>

Hackers are already laying groundwork to disrupt the 2026 midterms, research says

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 06:00:00 -0400

Hackers are already preparing for the 2026 midterms, with a new report warning that campaigns, fundraising platforms, public websites and local governments could face a wave of phishing, credential theft, artificial intelligence-generated deception and foreign influence activity.

The findings, produced by cybersecurity firm Check Point, do not point to voting machines as the most likely near-term target, but instead warn that attackers are more likely to exploit infrastructure around elections — like campaign accounts and fundraising platforms — to steal credentials, impersonate trusted organizations, disrupt public information or fuel doubts about the nation’s electoral process.

The conclusions come as the Trump administration has pursued a more aggressive role in election administration, including through a March executive order aimed at tightening rules around mail-in voting and voter eligibility. The U.S. Postal Service has also proposed a rule that would require states to submit lists of voters receiving mail ballots.

The report also comes amid scrutiny of the intelligence community’s posture toward election threats under outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. ODNI recently named two officials to coordinate the intelligence community’s election-threat mission for the 2026 cycle.

The firm does not address the administration directly. The assessment is notable, however, because it points to AI and digital threats as more immediate election security concerns, rather than the voting-procedure issues that have dominated talking points from the White House.

“Overall, the most significant 2026 risks center on the trusted accounts, platforms, services, and information channels that election-related organizations rely on to operate and maintain public trust, with election-adjacent systems presenting the more immediate source of operational exposure,” the report says.

Check Point also said it observed sustained election-related infrastructure creation in early 2026, including new websites containing terms such as “election” and “vote.”

In January, the firm identified roughly 1,300 newly registered domains containing the keyword “election” and nearly 3,000 containing “vote.” Between April 13 and May 14, it identified about 1,140 newly registered domains containing “election” and roughly 4,000 containing “vote.”

The company cautioned that those registrations do not prove malicious activity on their own, but they expand the pool of web infrastructure that could later be used for phishing, fake donation pages, impersonation or misinformation campaigns.

Check Point also found exposed credentials tied to some of the most widely used political and government platforms, including roughly 9,500 linked to ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising platform, and 6,500 linked to WinRed, its Republican counterpart. The exposed credentials are not part of a breach of these platforms, but were exposed from compromises of user data through other means.

The firm also observed smaller volumes tied to gop.com and democrats.org, the national party websites, as well as usa.gov, the federal government’s public services portal.

The company identified Russia, Iran and China as the principal state actors to monitor. AI is expected to make their influence operations easier to scale, and could be used to create more convincing phishing lures, cloned audio, manipulated images and deepfake videos.

Local governments may be especially exposed because they often operate with fewer resources, older technology and smaller security teams. Check Point cited recent ransomware incidents affecting Winona County, Minnesota, and Foster City, California, as examples of how municipal cyberattacks can disrupt public services and erode trust in government systems.

“Even when election operations are not directly affected, disruption at the local government level can still create confusion, delay public communications, and undermine confidence during politically sensitive periods,” the report says.

The findings also come as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s election security role faces new uncertainty. The Trump administration’s fiscal 2027 budget proposal would eliminate the agency’s election security program, including funds for information-sharing support to state and local officials and dedicated election security advisors.

Efforts under the Trump administration to scale back CISA and its election resources have strained relationships with state and local officials and have raised concerns that jurisdictions may be far less prepared to counter threats in November, officials in Michigan and Georgia said late last month. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has also pressed DHS over reports that CISA is no longer providing the same election security training and resources it offered in prior years.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to better clarify how the ActBlue credentials were exposed.

]]>

What DOGE taught us about AI and federal workers

Kristen Cordell and Adrian Brown — Fri, 29 May 2026 17:06:00 -0400

Last year, the U.S. Agency for International Development lost 97% of its staff in a matter of weeks. An article published in The New York Times last month found the majority of these former employees were still out of work a year later — not between jobs, but out of the market entirely, with some managers who once earned six-figure salaries applying for part-time retail positions.

I watched this happen. I worked at the State Department until August 2025 and helped create a pro bono coaching network for impacted colleagues, many of whom were deeply traumatized. After thousands of hours of those conversations, one question kept surfacing: who am I now?

The cuts were political, not technological. But strip that away and what remains is the most concrete demonstration we have of what happens when a large category of federal professional work disappears faster than any system can absorb it — and why the standard policy response is not enough to cover these numbers. Over 270,000 federal employees separated from the U.S. government through layoffs, forced resignations and buyouts.

Most impacted workers did not lack skills. They lacked a place where those skills made the most sense. Federal workers who spent careers running HIV programs or managing humanitarian operations did not simply need to update their LinkedIn profiles. They lost the institutional context that made their expertise meaningful. The formal policy response was minimal. Workers relied on informal networks. The DC labor market, despite being one of the most credentialed in the country, has not absorbed their talent.

This is where the federal story becomes a story about artificial intelligence. As deferred resignation agreements were being signed in August 2025, the U.S. government licensed ChatGPT to all federal agencies for a dollar. The State Department reframed AI as the vehicle for development outcomes that USAID's human expertise previously delivered. OpenAI began offering grants to NGOs in regions where USAID once operated.

This is not a Washington anomaly. The Economist devoted its cover earlier this month to a question that was once considered alarmist: whether AI could produce the most significant disruption to working life in a generation. The answer, even among economists who were recently skeptical, is increasingly, possibly ‘yes’ — and governments should not wait to find out.

New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show AI-exposed occupations are already losing jobs, and government employees could be among the most vulnerable, given the large concentration of workers handling the analytical, administrative and policy roles where AI capabilities are advancing fastest. The official numbers are not catching up fast enough. By the time they do, the adjustment will already have failed for the workers caught in the first wave.

There are three things federal agencies and policymakers should be doing now: First, plan for the fiscal squeeze. Federal workforce costs are not just a spending question — they are a revenue question. As AI shifts work from human labor to automated systems, the income tax base that funds agencies, benefits and services erodes at exactly the moment demand for support rises. Brooking Institution modeling shows this fiscal pressure could be severe. Agencies need fiscal scenario planning now, not after the trend is visible in budget projections.

Second, design workforce transition for what people lose. The Office of Personnel Management’s current transition support is built for skills retraining. The evidence from the DOGE displacement, and from every serious study of mass professional job loss, is that the harder problem is purpose and identity, not capability. Transition programs that ignore this will produce the same frustration the DOGE coaching networks documented.

Third, ensure that AI deployment decisions in federal agencies are not made solely by the vendors supplying the technology. The informal support networks that emerged in Washington show what community-level resilience looks like when institutions fail. They deserve federal attention and funding, not just admiration. Workers, communities and agencies affected by AI deployment decisions need a meaningful voice in how those decisions are made.

The DOGE cuts were political, but what they demonstrated is not. Federal agencies are the first institutions in America to run this experiment at scale. The question is whether anyone in government is paying attention to the results.

Kristen Cordell served as Senior Advisor at the US Department of State until August 2025 and is currently Senior Director of Policy at Grand Challenges Canada. Adrian Brown is Founder and CEO of Windfall Trust, a nonprofit working with governments and policymakers on AI economic preparedness.

]]>

Cyber Force? Senator pushes to create service branch under the Army

Thomas Novelly — Fri, 29 May 2026 16:59:00 -0400

A new cyber-focused military service branch would sit under the Army if one senator’s proposal comes to fruition.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is spearheading a markup amendment to the Senate’s 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would create a “Cyber Force” as the next armed service branch. The senator’s office confirmed that the amendment proposes to establish the branch under the Army, just as the Space Force and Marine Corps sit under the Air Force and Navy.

Similar provisions are reportedly being floated in the House, according to two people familiar with policy discussions. Earlier this year, Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, told the Center For Strategic and International Studies that a “Cyber Force is inevitable” and “we’re going to get this done.” A Fallon spokesperson did not respond to multiple requests for comment on Friday asking about a potential amendment.

“New and escalating cyber threats on the battlefield demand a change to our current approach. The status quo and years of incremental changes are not meeting the current threat and are insufficient as that threat grows,” Gillibrand told Defense One in an emailed statement. “I believe, and many experts agree, that the creation of a dedicated Cyber Force will ensure the United States is ready to fight and win on the modern battlefield and protect our national security.”

The proposed amendment marks the latest push in a years-long effort. Gillibrand and House lawmakers have backed the idea before. In the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, lawmakers commissioned the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to study “alternative organizational models for the cyber forces of the Armed Forces.” Those findings have not been released. Details from the amendments showing what a Cyber Force might look like are not yet public, but think tanks and national security experts have already been pitching their own force designs.

A 2024 Foundation for Defense of Democracies report concluded that a Cyber Force could sit under the Army, muster about 10,000 personnel, and need a budget of around $16.5 billion. In August 2025, the FDD and the Center for Strategic and International Studies announced a commission on Cyber Force Generation. A report from those think tanks is scheduled to be released next month.

One former military official said there would be strengths to a cyber-focused service, but putting it under the Army is a bad idea. They argued that cyber would remain a secondary priority amid the branch’s many missions.

“The Army is the largest service by far,” the former official said. “Manpower-wise, it's like half the department, and it's like, ‘we'll put it under because it'll be easy for the Army to just put in another force.’ It's already hard enough to run the Army as it is.”

Mark Montgomery, a retired Navy rear admiral and an FDD senior fellow who advocates for a Cyber Force, argued that this year is an ideal time to create a new service.

“Timing-wise, you need to do this in the beginning or middle of an administration, not at the end of an administration,” Montgomery said.

The proposed amendment would need to survive multiple Senate and House edits to make the final compromise NDAA.

It’s not clear if the Trump administration would support the latest bipartisan push. Last year, the Pentagon rolled out CYBERCOM 2.0, a series of policy changes aimed at beefing up the recruiting, training, and missions of the existing U.S. Cyber Command.

Katie Sutton, the assistant defense secretary for cyber policy and principal cyber advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, defended the Cyber Command reforms during a January Senate hearing, and said a renewed command and a new service could co-exist.

“I think this is a really important debate for us all to be having about the future of the cyber warfighting domain,” Sutton told the Senate Armed Services Committee in January. “I do think one of the most common misconceptions about Cyber Command is that it is a debate between Cyber Command 2.0 and a cyber force, and they are actually separate debates that I believe both need to be had, and we need to look closely at the pros and cons of both.”

Advocates for a separate and independent cyber-focused service branch say it aligns with the Trump administration’s calls for “offensive cyber operations against those planning to kill Americans,” the White House’s new counterterrorism strategy said. It also comes as President Donald Trump and Gen. Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs chairman, acknowledged the growing role of cyber effects in U.S. military operations in Iran and Venezuela, Defense One and sister publication NextGov/FCW have previously reported.

“The president says, ‘We've got to be more offensive’ but then you got to better generate forces to be offensive, and we don't generate enough forces to do both offensive cyber and defensive cyber operations,” Montgomery said. “A cyber force is clearly necessary.”

]]>