The Defense Logistics Agency must take advantage of the opportunities inherent in commercial technologies while working to manage the accompanying risks, according to U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Simerly, the director of the agency.
Simerly made the remarks on Sept. 10 at the fifth annual Industry Collider Day, which underscored the importance of partnerships between government and the private sector, according to a news article posted Thursday on the DLA website.
“Our reliance on industry has always been foundational to our role in joint logistics,” Simerly said, adding that his agency works “as an interlocutor for industry,” translating for commercial providers the warfighting requirements of the military services.
The need for collaborating with industry was echoed by DLA Chief Information Officer Adarryl Roberts, who said it benefits improving the capabilities of the agency.
Roberts nevertheless emphasized the need for industry to understand the DLA’s mission and problem sets “and match the best technology solutions to those challenges.”
Lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee are constructing a new “scorecard” to track fraud and improper payments in government.
Reps. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, and Kweisi Mfume, D-Md. — the top Republican and Democrat, respectively, on the committee’s government operations subcommittee — said during a Tuesday hearing that they’ve been working for about a year on the effort.
That hearing was supposed to serve as the launch for the assessment, but “it’s become apparent that we simply lack the data to determine whether programs and agencies are getting better,” said Sessions.
Definitions can also get confusing. While lawmakers discussed both improper payments as well as fraud — which can, at times, overlap — the two categories are distinct.
Improper payments are any payments that shouldn’t have been made or were made in the wrong amount, meaning that the fault may lie with the government, not the recipient of a government benefit.
The Social Security Administration, for example, has faced public scrutiny for its policies — which it has been changing — of clawing back payments sent to beneficiaries by mistake, some due to the fault of the agency and more due to beneficiaries not reporting information.
Fraud involves wilful misrepresentation. Some government programs, like unemployment insurance, saw upticks in the amount of fraudulent program applications from bad actors exploiting identity theft vectors during the pandemic.
The oversight committee majority also released a staff report on unemployment insurance fraud during the pandemic on Tuesday.
In April, the Government Accountability Office estimated that governmentwide fraud accounted for $233 billion to $531 billion in annual losses, although the Office of Management and Budget has called the number “unrealistic” and argued that the methodology is flawed.
“Things have to change,” said Sessions, who promised to continue the focus on the issue in the next Congress. “That includes the way the oversight community — and that is this subcommittee — will look at and track progress not only on federal agencies, but also at the state level, to make our anti-fraud measures amount to more than just a screen door on a submarine, meaning it’s just open for fraud.”
Mfume said that the pair would be focusing their oversight scorecard on programs with the highest fraud risk, pointing to the Earned Income Task Credit and Supplemental Security Income as likely examples.
It’s important to track improper payments and fraud in the programs, he said, “because they’ve been so successful in keeping our country afloat, particularly during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Michael Horowitz — chair of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee and Inspector General for the Department of Justice — said that the scorecard is an “important step forward.”
He and other witnesses also implored lawmakers to ensure that the data analytics center set up for pandemic oversight in 2021 is extended past its sunset date, scheduled for the end of September next year.
“Unless Congress takes action, one of the most significant tools to improve program integrity and prevent fraud will be lost,” said Horowitz, touting the work of the Pandemic Analytics Center of Excellence in fraud prevention and recovery.
“It’s already resulted in recoveries that far exceed its operating costs, and it’s assisting over 40 law enforcement agencies as they pursue hundreds of fraud cases involving over $2 billion,” he said.
A similar analytics center was set up to oversee 2009 stimulus spending, but it expired in 2015.
There is legislation in progress to establish a successor analytics center to replicate the work of the PACE. A Senate bill passed committee and is on the calendar for a vote of the full chamber. The House bill is still in the committee stage.
The center differs from other government anti-fraud resources, like the Treasury Department’s Do Not Pay service, because of its cross-agency purview and use of machine learning, said Horowitz, who also emphasized the fact that the PRAC has access to law enforcement data because of its authority.
Better data within the agencies that deliver programs to prevent fraud would also be helpful, several witnesses said.
Agencies could use data to cross check claims and prevent problems before they happen, but sharing data across agencies can be an arduous process and is bound by existing statutory limits on data sharing in government.
“Agencies can’t or don’t try to access the data that they need to find fraud,” said Linda Miller, co-founder and CEO of the new, fraud-focused Program Integrity Alliance.
It took the PRAC eight months to get a data-sharing agreement with the Social Security Administration to check applicant information coming into the Small Business Administration for programs like the pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program, said Horowitz, who also cited the cost of getting that information.
Vendor self-assessments have emerged as a potential measure to address the challenges associated with the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, or CPARS process, but a State Department official said companies rarely submit those assessments, Federal News Network reported Thursday.
Self-assessment is “an incredibly underutilized tool. We would love to see more of it,” said Michael Derrios, the senior procurement executive at the State Department.
Derrios cited the lack of engagement between the government and vendor at the start of the contract performance and stressed the importance of continuous communication throughout the contract period’s duration to avoid surprises when CPARS ratings are finalized.
“The dialog has to be happening throughout the year, and it’s almost like you have to be writing your CPARS the entire time with direct questions like, ‘How do you think this is going to play into CPARS ratings? You have to be that direct about the dialog,” he added.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apologized to tribal communities this week for delays in shipments and delivery of expired food during a tense congressional hearing that highlighted widespread failures within the Food Distribution Program on Native American reservations.
Vilsack’s comments followed detailed testimony from leaders of the Chickasaw Nation, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and Spirit Lake Sioux Nation about the food shortages during a rare joint hearing of the House Appropriations and Agriculture committees.
“This is a dire issue that’s evoked a genuine bipartisan and bicameral concern in Congress,” said House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, who is a member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma.
The USDA, he said, had failed in its duty to provide “critical food assistance for tribal members and vulnerable senior citizens” for months, amounting to “gross negligence.”
“Missed and delayed deliveries, empty shelves and bare warehouses have become commonplace,” Cole said.
House Appropriations ranking member Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, said the food shortage was unacceptable.
“It must be among our government’s highest priorities that the most vulnerable communities among us do not suffer from hunger,” she said. “But this disruption to food deliveries has risked exactly that.”
The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations provides food to “income-eligible households living on Indian reservations, and to American Indian households residing in approved areas near reservations and in Oklahoma,” according to a USDA fact sheet.
The USDA buys and ships food selected from a pre-approved list to state agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations, which in turn store and distribute the food to eligible participants.
Tribal representatives speak out
The three tribal representatives detailed how those bare shelves have affected their communities and how the USDA told tribes — rather than consulting with them — about a major change in the program’s contract, leading to distrust and anger.
The three also pressed Congress for much more control over their food supply during the four-hour hearing.
Darrell G. Seki Sr., chairman of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in Minnesota, said his community’s ability to feed people through the FDPIR program was “jeopardized” by failures that have persisted throughout the summer.
“We need more consultation with tribes,” Seki said. “We are the first Americans here. We should be the priority because of the treaties that were adopted under the U.S. Constitution.”
Seki called on lawmakers to “do the right thing” numerous times during the hearing.
Mary Greene-Trottier, president of the National Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations and a member of the Spirit Lake Sioux Nation in North Dakota, said the program is essential for tribal communities that exist in food deserts.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps, doesn’t work in some tribal communities, making FDPIR a “critical stopgap,” she said.
“SNAP is an important tool in the feeding program toolbox, but is not meaningful if you lack access to a full-service grocery store or even a convenience store,” Greene-Trottier testified.
She told the committees the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations serves about 55,000 people in Native communities each month.
Greene-Trottier also said the problems that began this spring have led to a lack of trust in USDA throughout her community.
Self-determination project
Marty Wafford, under secretary of support and programs for the Chickasaw Nation Department of Health in Oklahoma, said there is an “urgent need for Congress to expand tribal self-governance.”
She testified that a self-determination demonstration pilot program Congress authorized in 2018, which allows some tribal communities to produce and supply more food, has been “highly successful.”
“This inventory and warehousing crisis is an example of how the locally procured food system works,” Wafford said. “We have not experienced ordering or delivery issues with foods secured with the self-determination project, in which we currently supply a variety of beef, pecans and dried hominy.”
For years, she said, tribal nations have been striving to reestablish food production, including growing crops, raising buffalo and cattle and establishing meat processing facilities and fish and shellfish hatcheries.
Tribal representatives testified that instead of consulting them on the change in contracting — that shifted from two suppliers to just one — USDA officials merely informed them in February and then didn’t take their concerns seriously.
Tribal communities were told they wouldn’t be allowed to order any food through the FDPIR program during the month of April, after which the delays, missing shipments and delivery of expired food began.
The USDA has put in place stopgap measures and short-term solutions, but tribal officials told members of Congress that those didn’t fully alleviate the situation, which they said continues to this day.
Tribal leaders called on Congress to make several changes to food procurement, including a regional sourcing model for food distribution.
They told lawmakers the FDPIR program needs a tracking system, so tribal members can see when their food orders have been shipped, instead of being forced to repeatedly call in and hope someone answers the phone.
Review of contracts required
Vilsack told lawmakers, and the tribal representatives who stayed in the room to hear his explanations for the food shortages, that USDA is “committed” to listening to tribal leaders more and keeping Congress better informed of problems with the food distribution program.
He explained that in 2022, USDA began the process of reviewing the contracts for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, in part because under the federal procurement law, the department wasn’t allowed any additional extensions of the previous contracts.
Following months of meetings and requesting bids from contractors, the USDA received eight proposals in 2023. One wasn’t close to meeting the requirements, leaving a panel with seven to review between September and December.
That group ultimately determined only one application, from Paris Brothers in Kansas City, Mo., met the full list of requirements. That company had been one of the two that USDA contracted with to provide food under the FDPIR program for years.
Paris Brothers told the USDA at the time they had the capacity to handle the full contract, which Vilsack said later turned out not to be the case. The contract costs $35 million per year for the five-year term, totaling $175 million.
Once USDA realized there were mounting problems with the new single-supplier model, Vilsack said staff began working to implement fixes, both at Paris Brothers and for the tribal communities.
For example, the company increased work to seven days a week, boosted the number of shifts per day, hired more temporary and permanent workers and increased training.
The USDA has also signed a $25 million six-month contract with another company to help alleviate the shortage of food deliveries to tribal communities.
Given Paris Brothers’ long record, Vilsack said officials at USDA assumed the issues could be worked out.
But, he said, changes the USDA instituted in August should have taken place sooner and that lower-level staff at the department should have brought the problems to his attention months before he was informed in late July.
‘Make sure nothing like this ever happens again’
Members of Congress on the two committees said they still have concerns over Paris Brothers and the USDA’s management of the program.
“It’s critical that this crisis is resolved quickly and the changes are made in the contracting process to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” Cole said.
House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, said he expects the USDA to fire at least one person for not addressing the problems at Paris Brothers sooner and that the department needs to levy fines against the company.
“If somebody’s head doesn’t roll over this, the American taxpayer should be furious,” Harris said. “This is tens of millions of dollars, and I’m not even talking about what we did to our tribal nations — delivering outdated food, missing shipments.”
When the Appropriations panel next meets with USDA officials, Harris said, he expects witnesses to arrive with detailed information about what fines were levied against Paris Brothers and how much the federal government had to spend to ensure food delivery to tribal communities.
Harris expressed “no confidence” Paris Brothers would be able to reestablish on-time, unexpired food deliveries to tribal communities and questioned whether the company was fulfilling other contracts ahead of tribal communities.
“I suspect that they shorted the tribal nations while keeping other commercial contracts whole. And we should never tolerate that,” Harris said.
Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop, Jr., the ranking member on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, said it was a “shock” to hear of the problems within the FDPIR program after years of it being well run.
Bishop pressed for more funding for the Agricultural Marketing Service, the office within the USDA that handles contracting.
The last full-year government spending bill, which Congress approved earlier this year, provided 12% less in funding for the service than was requested, he said. That represented a $14.8 million cut to its enacted funding level.
“Congress cannot meet 21st-century needs and challenges with 20th-century budgets,” Bishop said.
Georgia Rep. David Scott, the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, said lawmakers must bring representatives from Paris Brothers in front of Congress to answer questions about the mismanagement.
Paris Brothers declined to comment in response to a request from States Newsroom, writing that “due to our ongoing work with USDA on this matter we are deferring all inquiries to the USDA communications team.”
South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seth Tupper for questions: info@southdakotasearchlight.com. Follow South Dakota Searchlight on Facebook and X.
The U.S. Army has awarded BAE Systems a $440 million contract modification to continue manufacturing Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
Under the contract, BAE Systems will produce more than 200 Bradley A4 variants for the Army to replace some of the vehicles the government has given to Ukraine, the aerospace and security company announced Thursday.
Dan Furber, director of ground vehicle production for BAE Systems Combat Mission System’s business, said, “The Bradley Fighting Vehicle brings game-changing capabilities to the Army and our allied nations.”
The Bradley A4 vehicle is designed to advance mission performance and satisfy numerous functional requirements. The vehicle’s system is designed for optimum situational awareness, network connectivity and communication within the Army’s Armored Brigade Combat Team.
It is meant to increase soldier safety and the equip with the ability to defeat oppositional forces in any environment.
“Because of the support for additional production of the modern Bradley A4 variant, this enduring capability continues to make a difference for troops all over the world, ensuring they have the firepower, mobility and survivability they need to achieve their missions,” Furber stated.
BAE Systems will continue developing the Bradley A4 vehicle across the company’s broad industrial network in Aiken, South Carolina; Anniston, Alabama; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Jose, California; Sterling Heights, Michigan and York, Pennsylvania.
A Government Accountability Office report published Wednesday did not find that the Defense Department’s reprogramming of funds for service members’ wages and benefits hurt those programs. However the watchdog did recommend that the Pentagon provide more information to Congress when it realigns such funding.
Due to the risk of unforeseen circumstances, Congress allows DOD, under certain conditions, to reprogram funds, including in its military personnel (MILPERS) appropriations account that covers items like service member pay and quality-of-life matters.
Between fiscal years 2013 through 2023, GAO found that DOD realigned approximately $32.9 billion of MILPERS funding, which represents about 2% of the total amount appropriated for the account.
GAO noted that number includes funds that were transferred into MILPERS as well as money that was moved around within the account. But most years more money was directed out than into MILPERS.
DOD officials told investigators that, if pay is lower than budgeted, those funds could be used for other priorities. But the Pentagon also had to realign funds in the account in response to unexpected events like COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine.
Officials said that reprogramming did not harm DOD’s ability to fund MILPERS’ program obligations during the review period. Still, GAO argued the Pentagon can make the process more open to stakeholders.
“The military components collect program-level information on MILPERS realignments, but DOD is not required to do so and, therefore, does not provide complete information in its reports to Congress on the increases and decreases in funding that programs experience because of those realignments,” investigators wrote. “Thus, the effect that realignments may have on funding to specific MILPERS programs would not be fully transparent to Congress and those who use these reports, such as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).”
GAO related this to DOD’s broader financial management, which the watchdog has designated as “high risk” since 1995.
“DOD’s well-documented fiscal challenges make it important that Congress and DOD and its components have reliable, useful and timely financial information,” investigators wrote.
GAO recommended that DOD submit reports to Congress with complete information on individual program-level realignments of MILPERS funds.
The Pentagon partially agreed with the recommendation, saying it would clarify budget structure and reporting requirements for the military personnel active and reserve components in line with congressional guidance in the DOD appropriations law.
GAO said it was “encouraged” by this action but that it’s unclear whether DOD will provide more complete information without congressional direction.
DOD did agree with the remaining recommendations that each of the military branches report realignments by individual program for MILPERS accounts in their annual budget materials.
In her new role, Orozco will assist the CIO in overseeing the Enterprise Information Technology, Data and Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity directorates and managing the office’s $17 billion budget and 20,000 personnel worldwide.
As deputy CIO, Orozco will oversee DAF’s information technology investment strategy, including data management, cloud computing and digital transformation. She is also tasked with safeguarding the department’s systems from cyber threats.
Orozco has served in various capacities in her 28 years with the Air Force and the Department of Defense.
Before her appointment, she was the director of security for special program oversight and information protection, in which she was responsible for protecting sensitive information, technologies and capabilities.
Orozco was division chief for security policy and oversight at the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of Air Force and for the Strategy, Readiness and Force Development directorate of Security Forces before that.
Top election officials this week sounded the alarm about ongoing delays within America’s mail delivery system and the potential effect on mail-in voting in the upcoming presidential election, a warning that comes as former President Donald Trump continues to sow distrust about how some of those ballots will be counted.
Some people who vote by mail may be disenfranchised this fall if the issues are not addressed, the officials said in a letter to the head of the United States Postal Service that detailed challenges with the delivery of mail-in ballots over the past year.
“We implore you to take immediate and tangible corrective action to address the ongoing performance issues with USPS election mail service,” officials say in the letter, which was signed by representatives for the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors — two organizations that include state and local election officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. “Failure to do so will risk limiting voter participation and trust in the election process.”
Election officials, who are overwhelmingly women, have long highlighted the challenges to running the country’s decentralized elections, particularly after 2020 — challenges that include debunking ongoing lies about election security. Trump and some Republicans have for years spread disinformation about elections, including how and when mail-in ballots are counted.
A handful of secretaries of state also testified to members of Congress on Wednesday that they continue to deal with the ramifications of those lies, including responding to threats of violence.
In the letter dated Wednesday, election officials said mail-in ballots have at times been erroneously held for remediation, significantly delayed or “otherwise improperly processed.” Election officials “in nearly every state” have received postmarked ballots “well after Election Day and well outside the three to five business days USPS claims as the First-Class delivery standard.”
In multiple states, election officials reported receiving “anywhere from dozens to hundreds of ballots 10 or more days after postmark.”
“There is no amount of proactive communication election officials can do to account for USPS’s inability to meet their own service delivery timelines,” said the letter.
Election officials also reported instances in which mail that was sent to and from voters was marked as “undeliverable” at higher-than-usual rates. The potential ripple effect, they cautioned, was voters being placed on inactive voter rolls or getting their registration record canceled, and ballots not reaching voters or being delivered to election offices.
The letter was addressed to U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who came under scrutiny in 2020 for his handling of mail services around the last presidential election. In August, DeJoy told The Associated Press that he is “confident” in the Postal Service’s delivery of election mail.
Adrienne Marshall, director of election mail and government services for the Postal Service, told The 19th that the agency has been in “close communication” with the National Association of Secretaries of State, the National Association of State Election Directors and other election officials throughout the year. She said each time they have brought up an issue, it has been “promptly addressed” and will continue to be.
“We are ready to deliver. We were successful in 2020 delivering a historic volume of mail in ballots; also in 2022 and will do so again in November 2024,” she said in an email. The Postal Service said it encourages people to mail back ballots at least a week before their state’s deadline to receive them.
While election officials in the letter acknowledged some efforts that the Postal Service will take around the election, they added: “Temporary measures will not be sufficient to address the persistent issues highlighted by election officials.”
Maria Benson, senior director of communications for the National Association of Secretaries of State, told The 19th that the organization is not trying to dissuade people from voting by mail if their state allows it.
“We do encourage voters, however, to give themselves plenty of time to return their ballot via USPS,” she wrote in an email.
Amy Cohen, executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors, told The 19th that rules around voting by mail vary by state, so it’s important that eligible voters be proactive. They should request a mail-in ballot early, track the ballot if possible and put it in the mail early or be prepared to return the ballot in person (if permissible).
“Most importantly, if you have a question about receiving or returning your ballot, ask your election officials,” Cohen said in an email. “Election officials are the most reliable source for information about how to participate in the upcoming election.”
But while it used to be popular among both Democrats and Republicans, Democrats are now more likely than Republicans to say it should be more accessible. Now in his third bid for office, Trump has at times seemed to change his position on mail voting. During the Republican National Convention, the party repeatedly aired a video that showed the former president encouraging his supporters to vote by mail. But Republicans are also still challenging how vote-by-mail ballots are counted, especially in battleground states like Nevada and Pennsylvania.
According to a new 19th News/SurveyMonkey poll, Americans are more likely to trust that elections in their precinct will be run securely compared with their trust in the country’s elections overall. The largest difference was with Republicans, with 76 percent saying they trust elections in their precinct and 43 percent saying they trust elections in the country.
In a request for information posted on Monday, CMS said it seeks input on AI technologies that could inspire the workforce on AI capabilities and increase efficiencies within agency operations.
The government expects to receive submissions from healthcare companies, providers, payers and tech startups.
The input from interested parties should focus on discussing the impact of key AI functionalities in healthcare, including generative AI, diagnostics and imaging analysis, business automation, workforce enablement, direct-to-patient communication, robotic-assisted healthcare delivery and fraud detection.
In their submissions, the organizations should also outline their experience and describe how their AI technology would address risks and benefits.
CMS will then select organizations to demonstrate their AI products and services during a series of “CMS AI Demo Days,” which aim to educate the CMS community on AI products.
During the demo phase, the chosen organization will work with the agency’s technical panel and will prepare a 15-minute presentation of their products or services.
Interested parties should submit their questions before Sept. 27 and their capability statements by Oct. 7.
On Dec. 11, join the Potomac Officers Club’s 2024 Healthcare Summit to explore the transformative trends and innovations shaping the future of the healthcare sector.
As another contentious election unfolds, a familiar sound echoes through federal workplaces: silence. This silence stems from the Hatch Act, a critical law designed to protect the neutrality of the civil service. But the problem isn’t the law itself—it’s the application.
Misunderstandings and hypervigilance often stifle essential—and fully legal—conversations about mental health, political diversity, and the peaceful transfer of power. This silence leaves federal employees, among the most impacted by elections, alone with their anxiety. This can intensify fear, isolation, and reinforce the harmful perception that political diversity isn’t welcome.
Instead, the federal workplace needs both clear boundaries and open, empathetic conversation around political transitions. Federal leaders should go beyond reiterating Hatch Act prohibitions to create space for employees to share concerns and wisdom with each other as they renew their commitment to nonpartisan service. Doing so is a vital down payment for the peaceful transfer of power to come.
The Hatch Act in Practice
Every four years, agencies remind employees about the Hatch Act’s strict rules against political activities like campaigning, fundraising, and misusing official titles or uniforms.
These reminders are effective—perhaps too effective. In practice Hatch also curtails essential conversations about well-being, political diversity, and the important role federal employees play in transfers of power. Even casual mentions of transitions can prompt nervous jokes like, “Oops, hope that wasn’t a Hatch Act violation,” revealing widespread confusion about what the Act actually prohibits. In my 15 years in government, I’ve yet to see an agency address the elephant—or donkey—in the room: this is a tough time to be a federal employee.
The Hidden Cost of Silence
The Hatch Act, created nearly a century ago to address blatant vote-buying, hasn’t kept up with our modern understanding of human behavior. While federal employees are rightly expected to remain nonpartisan in their work, it’s entirely normal for them to have emotions about important, uncertain events, especially in today’s polarized environment. The de facto silence around these emotions isn’t just awkward—it’s harmful.
First, repressing emotions doesn’t make them disappear, it drives them underground, where they can manifest in harmful ways. For instance, ignoring anxieties can lead to catastrophizing—where employees fixate on worst-case scenarios—which only amplifies their stress and fear. In his seminal book Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman explains: “When we ignore emotions, they only become stronger.”
Second, unspoken anxieties harm workplace relationships. Leaders are responsible for helping their teams navigate change, and when they remain silent, employees notice. Instead of engaging in productive, if challenging, conversations about how transitions might affect long term goals or the experience of holding personal views at odds with policy, these concerns are bottled up. This can lead to disengagement and even drive post-election resignations, particularly among younger employees who haven’t been through transitions before.
Finally, while the Hatch Act rightly prohibits overt political markers at work, like buttons or posters or in social media profiles, the 2.3 million federal employees are undeniably politically diverse. Silence prevents us from affirming that political identities are a valuable form of diversity and fuels subconscious and unconscious bias that could influence hiring decisions, promotions, and daily interactions. I’ve seen colleagues clam up when they sense they’re in the minority in casual conversations about policy issues, while those perceived as aligned with current leadership—based perhaps on their resume or stray comment—might be favored. It is possible to acknowledge these identities without indulging them, fostering a more inclusive environment that will be crucial in the months ahead.
The Power of Dialogue to Transform Anxiety
During my first transition as a federal employee, a State Department supervisor changed the course of my career. She listened with genuine empathy as I shared my concerns about the political shift, then offered her perspective based on a prior transition. She helped me understand that adaptation —whether to a new president, other changing leadership, or even new laws—is a fundamental part of a long and meaningful career in public service. While a leadership change might occasionally prompt a federal employee to consider leaving, if that mindset becomes widespread—or a knee jerk reaction—it undermines the foundation of a professional, nonpartisan federal workforce.
As David Brooks notes in his excellent book about conversation How to Know a Person, we learn best through meaningful conversation, not isolated reflection. As we approach another transition, conversations like the one I had can help federal employees step out of the disorienting news cycle.
How might conversation help? For one, dialogue on election anxiety can transform stress into connection. We can recognize that we aren’t alone and start to move towards accepting that uncertainty and political cycles are part of life.
Second, dialogue helps us find our agency. When stressed, it’s easy to lose sight of practical ways to manage anxiety. Conversations can prompt us to focus on what we can control, such as scenario planning, reframing priorities in ways that resonate across party lines, and brainstorming ways to build on common ground.
Finally, talking to our fellow public servants can remind us of the crucial role we play in the peaceful transfer of power. It’s a responsibility and privilege that I often take for granted – and one that resonates across the political spectrum. John F. Kennedy said, “A strong and courageous administration can meet the needs of a nation, but only when it respects the peaceful transfer of power.” Ronald Reagan echoed this sentiment: “The peaceful transfer of power is an extraordinary example of how democracy works.”
Open Dialogue in Practice
There are valid reasons that federal leaders are cautious about engaging with these charged topics. But there is ample space between blanket silence and an illegal political free-for-all. Here are three practical steps federal leaders can take to foster open and bounded dialogue as agencies, teams, or one-on-one:
Name the Anxiety: Recognize and validate the stress and uncertainty that employees feel during election seasons. “Name it to tame it” is a science-backed approach to help disarm reactivity and channel emotions into practical action.
Welcome Political Diversity: A politically diverse workplace is a strength. Encourage active listening and curiosity in conversations. Political debate doesn’t belong in the federal workplace but bridging differences and identifying shared values certainly do.
Facilitate Conversations on Core Values: In these turbulent times, agency leaders might reinforce values like nonpartisanship, resilience, innovation, and openness. Encourage employees to share insights from past transitions, allowing them to better appreciate their role in a long history of peaceful transfers of power. Although these times feel unprecedented, federal employees have been here before and know what to do.
A Mindset, Not a Moment
It’s understandable that federal leaders might want to steer clear of sensitive topics, especially given the tense times and potential legal liability. However, doing so carries its own risks—creating a less human work environment that ignores real concerns and missing an opportunity to reinforce the proud tradition of nonpartisan federal service.
The peaceful transfer of power isn’t just a moment, it’s a mindset. So, let’s go beyond Hatch Act compliance and engage in meaningful conversations that uphold its true purpose.
Alex Snider is a strategy lead in the federal government. Previously he worked as a diplomat in the State Department, in the U.S. Senate, and at the World Bank. He is a certified mindful facilitator and is involved in various efforts to improve employee wellbeing in government. You can find him on LinkedIn. He has written on bringing humanity to government, including emotions in the workplace, authenticity, and the need to take breaks.
This op-ed is written in Snider’s personal capacity and the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of his agency or the United States.
