POPULARITY
2 episodes with budget omb
2 episodes with budget omb
2 episodes with budget omb
2 episodes with budget omb
2 episodes with budget omb
2 episodes with budget omb
2 episodes with budget omb
2 episodes with budget omb
2 episodes with budget omb
Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub
In this episode of the 'Securing Our Future' podcast, hosted by New North Ventures, Jeremy interviews Veronica about her journey from Wall Street to the federal government, including her roles at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Pentagon. Veronica now leads the Defense Ventures group at Red Cell Partners, a venture firm focused on building and incubating companies with dual-use applications. The discussion covers the importance of understanding both immediate and long-term needs in the national security space, the unique approach of Red Cell Partners in supporting startups, and the role of technologies like AI in improving military and governmental efficiencies. Veronica also highlights the firm's mission-driven focus and the integration of cyber and healthcare practices to provide comprehensive solutions.00:00 Introduction to Securing Our Future Podcast00:41 Guest Introduction: Veronica's Career Journey05:49 Insights on Red Cell Partners12:49 Technology and Innovation in Defense23:09 Future Vision for Red Cell Partners25:29 Conclusion and Final Thoughts
Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to regulate emissions that “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are considered pollutants under the Act, so whether they can be regulated depends on whether they endanger public health. The EPA issued the Endangerment Finding that greenhouse gas emissions cross this threshold in 2009. Any actual regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is issued by EPA separately, such as greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. On March 12th, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the EPA would be initiating “formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other relevant agencies.” Join us Friday, May 9th, from 11am – 12pm EST, as our panel of legal experts discusses the various questions surrounding the proposed revisions, such as preemption, cost revision, and how these changes would be implemented. Featuring: Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC Richard Belzer, Independent Consultant Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law (Moderator) Laura Stanley, Gibson Dunn, LLP
Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureTrump sends a message to the Canadian people, letting them know that when they are done with Carney you can become the 51st state. Students now have to pay back their loans. [CB] panic. [CB] pushing fake news to bring down the economy, big fail. Gold/Bitcoin is shining bright, the Fed is becoming irrelevant. This is the [DS] last stand, Trump and the team are making them so desperate that they are committing treason and sedition. Trump is now calling for the arrest of those who used the autopen. Follow the pen which will lead everyone to who is financing the entire operation. In the end the people are going to see the truth and once this happens the game is over. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy BORDER. ALL POSITIVES WITH NO NEGATIVES. IT WAS MEANT TO BE! America can no longer subsidize Canada with the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars a year that we have been spending in the past. It makes no sense unless Canada is a State! https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1916719273407627329 isn't going to be any loan forgiveness program." https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1916824047771373804 “Trump is an economic terrorist” says ex-central bank president The former head of the Dutch central bank, Nout Wellink, has called US president Donald Trump an “economic and political terrorist” for unleashing a trade war with China and pivoting towards Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. “The Chinese have been preparing methodically,” Wellink said. “Actually they were already doing so when I was working there. “They've been diverting trade flows away from America. They're aware that technology is going to be cut off and they'll have to develop their own.” . Source www.dutchnews.nl Trump Trade War Update: Firm Predicts 'Empty Shelves' And Recession By June Apollo Global Management Chief Economist Torsten Slok on Sunday released a report outlining the timeline for Trump's tariffs to result in empty shelves, layoffs in the trucking and retail sector and a recession this summer. Trump announced his "liberation day" tariffs on April 2 and it takes about 20-40 days for container ships to sail to the U.S. from China, according to Apollo. Slok estimates that container ships coming to U.S. ports could come to a stop by mid May. It then takes about 1-10 days of transit time for trucking/rail to bring goods from the ports to cities. Apollo Global Management predicts that my late May domestic freight demand will "come to a halt" and that there will be "empty shelves" with companies responding "to lower sales." By early June, Slok forecasts there will be layoffs in the the domestic freight and retail industries with a recession hitting the U.S. this summer. Source: ibd.com White House says Trump would veto effort to eliminate 'Liberation Day' tariffs The Trump administration issued a formal veto threat Monday morning regarding a bipartisan resolution that would terminate the president's emergency powers underpinning his sweeping global tariffs. The Senate is set to vote as early as this week on a resolution to rescind Trump's national emergency declaration justifying the imposition of broad tariffs on imported goods. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said the president would veto the resolution in the event the resolution makes it to his desk, according to a statement of administration policy exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. "There can be no doubt that S.J. Res.
In early April 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released two major policies on Federal Agency Use of AI and Federal Procurement of AI - OMB memos M-25-21 and M-25-22, respectively. These memos were revised at the direction of President Trump's January 2025 executive order, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” and replaced the Biden-era guidance. Under the direction of the same executive order, the Department of Energy (DOE) also put out a request for information on AI infrastructure on DOE lands, following the announcement of the $500 billion Stargate project that aims to rapidly build new data centers and AI infrastructure throughout the United States. As the Trump administration is poised to unveil its AI Action Plan in the near future, the broader contours of its strategy for AI adoption and acceleration already seem to be falling into place.Is a distinct Trump strategy for AI beginning to emerge—and what will that mean for the United States and the rest of the world? Show Notes:Joshua GeltzerBrianna Rosen Just Security series, Tech Policy Under Trump 2.0Clara Apt and Brianna Rosen's article "Shaping the AI Action Plan: Responses to the White House's Request for Information" (Mar. 18, 2025)Justin Hendrix's article "What Just Happened: Trump's Announcement of the Stargate AI Infrastructure Project" (Jan. 22, 2025)Sam Winter-Levy's article "The Future of the AI Diffusion Framework" (Jan. 21, 2025)Clara Apt and Brianna Rosen's article, "Unpacking the Biden Administration's Executive Order on AI Infrastructure" (Jan. 16, 2025)Just Security's Artificial Intelligence Archive Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI
In this episode, we discuss what the Trump administration's tariffs mean for the US AI ecosystem (2:42), reporting that Nvidia's H20s will be exempt from export controls (8:58), the latest AI guidance from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (12:48), and the EU's AI Continent Action Plan (17:07).
In this episode of The CX Tipping Point Podcast, we're joined by Steve Krauss from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management—recipient of the 2025 Service to the Citizen Award—to unpack the complexities of HR IT modernization in the federal government.Steve shares candid insights into the inefficiencies of the current HR IT ecosystem and underscores the urgent need for improved coordination, data interoperability, and shared services to streamline operations and cut costs. He also explores forward-looking solutions such as pooled hiring across agencies and the collaborative efforts underway with major federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to advance modernization and elevate the customer experience.But the conversation goes beyond IT. They dive into the broader challenges surrounding federal hiring, agency funding for modernization initiatives, and the critical role of stakeholder engagement in driving lasting change. They discuss the funding barriers many agencies face, the strategic support OPM offers—including the use of the Technology Modernization Fund—and the importance of conducting a comprehensive inventory of federal contact centers.Together, they explore what it takes to lead through complexity, emphasizing the value of strong governance, smart incentive structures, and the impact of the recently enacted Government Service Delivery Improvement Act in shaping a more responsive and citizen-centered government.Thank you for listening to this episode of The CX Tipping Point Podcast! If you enjoyed it, please consider subscribing, rating, and leaving a review on your favorite podcast platform. Your support helps us reach more listeners! Stay Connected: Follow us on social media: LinkedIn: @DorrisConsultingInternational Twitter: @DorrisConsultng Facebook: @DCInternational Resources Mentioned: Citizen Services Newsletter 2024 Service to the Citizen Awards Nomination Form
On this episode, host Dave Wennergren talks with long time federal acquisition leader Lesley Field.Guest:Lesley Field, adjunct lecturer, School of Public Affairs at American University and former deputy administrator for Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). https://www.linkedin.com/in/lesley-field-82097023/ Additional Resources:To learn more about ACT-IAC, please visit our website: https://www.actiac.org/Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
On this episode, host Dave Wennergren talks with long time federal acquisition leader Lesley Field. Guest: Lesley Field, adjunct lecturer, School of Public Affairs at American University and former deputy administrator for Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). https://www.linkedin.com/in/lesley-field-82097023/ Additional Resources: To learn more about ACT-IAC, please visit our website: https://www.actiac.org/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
CU KEEPS HIRING DEMOCRAT REJECTS And they keep getting really, really plush jobs. The latest is Andrew Maycock. From Completecolorado.com:Mayock, is the former chief sustainability officer under President Joe Biden. He led Biden's agenda on sustainability efforts.Biden was not his first role under U.S. presidents, having also served in both the Obama and Clinton administrations.Under Obama he served as Deputy Director for Management and Associate Director for General Government Programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).Under Clinton he worked at the White House and the U.S. Treasury Department. He also served on the steering committee of the Climate 21 Project.It is the second time in two years that a newly created position at CU has been filled by an outgoing Democrat loyalist. The two positions combined amount for more than $750,000 a year in salary and benefits. (emphasis mine)Weird, huh? That TWO new positions just HAPPENED to be created JUST IN TIME for a Democrat loyalist to get the job. WEIRD. I've Sherrie Peif on today at talk about it.
Nonprofits, the landscape is shifting under your feet, and the urgency to act has never been clearer. Hatsy Cutshall, Director of Government Awards Management at Your Part-Time Controller (YPTC), joined us to deliver an urgent message: communication and clarity are your best defense in these chaotic times. With executive orders rapidly reshaping your funding environment, understanding the roles of federal agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is no longer optional—it's crucial for survival. Hatsy emphasizes, “Never assume that if you've got questions, don't assume one way or the other. Ask those questions because it's better to know up front.” The federal funding landscape is complex, and failure to act proactively can result in detrimental consequences.Hatsy highlights the critical importance of proactive communication with federal program officers, underscoring their role as partners rather than adversaries. Nonprofits should connect with these officers to clarify expectations, understand legal jargon in contracts, and adapt programs quickly in response to shifting circumstances. According to Hatsy, "Program officers are there to partner with you and help you succeed.”This chaotic environment doesn't only affect nonprofits directly receiving federal funds. Hatsy clearly warns that the impact trickles down, influencing state and local funding channels. Every nonprofit is vulnerable. Ignoring the warning signs can lead to missed opportunities, funding losses, and compliance disasters. The time to engage is now. Reach out proactively, communicate clearly, and build strategic relationships with federal program officers who are your allies, not your adversaries!#NonprofitAlert #FederalFundingFind us Live daily on YouTube!Find us Live daily on LinkedIn!Find us Live daily on X: @Nonprofit_ShowOur national co-hosts and amazing guests discuss management, money and missions of nonprofits! 12:30pm ET 11:30am CT 10:30am MT 9:30am PTSend us your ideas for Show Guests or Topics: HelpDesk@AmericanNonprofitAcademy.comVisit us on the web:The Nonprofit Show
This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Congressman Brad Knott joins us to expose the Biden administration's deliberate dismantling of border security and its impact on crime, law enforcement, and national security. As a former federal prosecutor who fought organized crime and human trafficking, Knott brings firsthand insight into how the administration's policies have fueled illegal immigration and empowered dangerous cartels. Then, Jessica Anderson, president of the Sentinel Action Fund, breaks down the key Senate battleground states for 2026 and the Democrats' shifting strategy. Plus, investigative reporter Madeline Rowley uncovers a $20 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund fueling progressive nonprofits—many with deep ties to the Biden administration. And on Kiley's Corner, we dive into the latest twists in high-profile crime cases, including updates on the three men who died after watching the Chiefs game, the Idaho 4 murders, and the latest buzz around Casey Anthony. New movement in the JonBenét Ramsey case? Kiley's on the trail. Tune in for in-depth analysis and exclusive insights—only on Breaking Battlegrounds!www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegroundsTruth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@breakingbattlegroundsShow sponsors:Invest Yrefy - investyrefy.com4Freedom MobileExperience true freedom with 4Freedom Mobile, the exclusive provider offering nationwide coverage on all three major US networks (Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) with just one SIM card. Our service not only connects you but also shields you from data collection by network operators, social media platforms, government agencies, and more.Use code ‘Battleground' to get your first month for $9 and save $10 a month every month after.Learn more at: 4FreedomMobile.comDot VoteWith a .VOTE website, you ensure your political campaign stands out among the competition while simplifying how you reach voters.Learn more at: dotvote.voteAbout our guests:Congressman Brad Knott represents North Carolina's 13th Congressional District including Wake, Johnston, Lee, Harnett, Franklin, Caswell, Person and Granville counties. Elected in 2024, Brad is serving his first term in the U.S. House of Representatives.In the 119th Congress, Brad serves on the House Judiciary, Transportation & Infrastructure and Homeland Security committees. Brad's focus in Congress is combatting pervasively serious crime, building an environment for continued economic growth in North Carolina's 13th District and across the nation and defending against persistent threats to our country from within our own borders.Prior to serving in Congress, Brad proudly worked alongside law enforcement at all levels to prosecute organized crime in cases that touched every corner of the country. This included drug cartels, human trafficking, financial crimes, national gangs and more. From this experience, Brad saw how harmful policies and weak law enforcement wounded communities all over the country. This, in large part, motivated Brad to run for office.Brad looks to pull from his experience to support robust law enforcement while strengthening the laws to simultaneously disincentivize illegal immigration and protect Americans from all types of crime.Brad and his wife Joanna are both lifelong North Carolinians and have two daughters. He holds a Juris Doctorate from Wake Forest University School of Law and a bachelor's degree from Baylor University.-Jessica Anderson is the founding president of Heritage Action's super PAC, the Sentinel Action Fund, and former executive director of Heritage Action for America, the political advocacy arm of The Heritage Foundation. During the Trump administration, she served as associate director of intergovernmental affairs and strategic initiatives at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). She is also a founding board member of the suburban-mom-focused nonprofit N2 America and founding president of the pro-Trump super PAC Moms for Safe Neighborhoods. Anderson's first political job was at the Civitas Institute, a free market think tank in North Carolina.In 2021, Democrats in Iowa's House of Representatives named Anderson in a lawsuit for violating the state's lobbying rules. That same year, Mother Jones reported on a leaked video in which she boasted to donors about Heritage Action's role in drafting and coordinating model voter suppression laws in Georgia, Iowa, Florida, and Arizona.An outspoken anti-abortion advocate, Anderson is a frequent guest on FOX News, FOX Business, and Newsmax, and is a regular contributor to the Daily Caller and the Daily Signal. She holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Florida.-Madeleine Rowley is an investigative reporter covering immigration, financial corruption, and politics. She is a 2023-2024 Manhattan Institute Logos Fellow with previous bylines in The Free Press, City Journal, and Public. As a U.S. Army spouse for almost a decade, she's lived in six states and spent two years in Jerusalem, Israel. She currently resides on the East Coast with her husband and daughter. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe
A Project 2025 mastermind now holds the reins of the federal bureaucracyMother Jones, By Isabela Dias, on February 6, 2025https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/02/russell-vought-confirmed-senate-omb-project-2025-christian-nationalism/The panel dissects the appointment of Russell Vought as the new head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), highlighting his concerning ties to extremist ideologies. The OMB wields significant power over the allocation of federal funds, affecting everything from defense to social programs. This means Vought, an open Christian nationalist with links to Project 2025, now has enormous influence over the financial workings of the U.S. government. His past includes advocating for the use of military force against protesters, dismantling federal agencies like the EPA, and cutting funding for social services, public education, and reproductive rights.Vought's think tank, the Center for Renewing America, promotes a theocratic vision for the U.S., openly stating its mission to establish a nation “under God” and dismantle federal protections against corporate and governmental overreach. His policies aim to consolidate executive power and undermine institutions designed to maintain democratic stability. The panel expresses alarm at his ambitions and notes the eerie historical parallels between his rhetoric and past authoritarian regimes.The discussion shifts to the structural issue of how the OMB interacts with Congress. While Congress technically controls the budget, the OMB has discretion in how funds are allocated, allowing someone like Vought to defund agencies by simply depriving them of resources. This loophole, which has existed for decades, now poses a dire risk given Vought's extremist agenda.Panelists Stephen and EJ, representing perspectives from Canada and Scotland, respectively, contrast their countries' political systems with the U.S. model. Stephen highlights how Canada's multi-party system prevents any single ideology from dominating, ensuring political diversity and negotiation. EJ warns that Europe has witnessed the consequences of unchecked fascism before and refuses to stand by while such forces gain traction in the U.S. Both express horror at the open rise of authoritarianism in American politics, particularly the normalization of fascist rhetoric and demonstrations.The conversation concludes on a somber note, with a recognition that while Vought's appointment is deeply troubling, the fight against authoritarianism is ongoing, and international allies remain committed to resisting its spread.The Non-Prophets, Episode 24.7.2 featuring Scott Dickie, Stephen Harder, Helen Greene and The Ejector SeatBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.
The Trump administration is ordering federal agencies to submit plans by April 14 to relocate bureaus and offices outside the Washington, D.C., area, and many are wondering what kind of major blow this could have on the economy. A new directive from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) instructs agency heads to identify which offices should be moved to other regions of the country. It aligns with Trump's broader push to reduce the federal government's real estate footprint and shift power away from Washington. At his first cabinet meeting, he singled out the Department of Education as a key agency that could downsize its D.C. presence. He has previously floated eliminating the department entirely, arguing states should control their own education policies. However, the political and economic impacts on the D.C. region are massive. Federal jobs make up nearly a quarter of the District's workforce and more than a quarter of its wages. With many federal leases locked in for years, the question remains: Will this plan shrink government or create a logistical nightmare? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this interview, we're excited to have Ilona Cohen to help us understand what changes this new US administration might bring, in terms of cybersecurity regulation. Ilona's insights come partially from her own experiences working from within the White House. Before she was the Chief Legal Officer of HackerOne, she was a senior lawyer to President Obama and served as General Counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In this hyper-partisan environment, it's easy to get hung up on particular events. Do many of us lack cross-administration historical perspective? Probably. Should we be outraged by the disillusion of the CSRB, or was this a fairly ordinary occurrence when a new administration comes in? These are the kinds of questions I'll be posing to Ilona in this conversation. How the Change Healthcare breach can prompt real cybersecurity change 'Shift Left' feels like a cliché at this point, but it's often difficult to track tech and security movements if you aren't interacting with practitioners on a regular basis. Some areas of tech have a longer tail when it comes to late adopters and laggards, and application security appears to be one of these areas. In this interview, Jenn Gile catches us up on AppSec trends. Segment Resources: Microsoft Defender for Cloud Natively Integrates with Endor Labs 2024 Dependency Management Report How to pick the right SAST tool In the enterprise security news, Change Healthcare's HIPAA fine is vanishingly small How worried should we be about the threat of AI models? What about the threat of DeepSeek? And the threat of employees entering sensitive data into GenAI prompts? The myth of trillion-dollar cybercrime losses are alive and well! Kagi Privacy Pass gives you the best of both worlds: high quality web searches AND privacy/anonymity Thanks to the UK for letting everyone know about end-to-end encryption for iCloud! What is the most UNHINGED thing you've ever seen a security team push on employees? All that and more, on this episode of Enterprise Security Weekly. Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/esw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/esw-395
In this interview, we're excited to have Ilona Cohen to help us understand what changes this new US administration might bring, in terms of cybersecurity regulation. Ilona's insights come partially from her own experiences working from within the White House. Before she was the Chief Legal Officer of HackerOne, she was a senior lawyer to President Obama and served as General Counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In this hyper-partisan environment, it's easy to get hung up on particular events. Do many of us lack cross-administration historical perspective? Probably. Should we be outraged by the disillusion of the CSRB, or was this a fairly ordinary occurrence when a new administration comes in? These are the kinds of questions I'll be posing to Ilona in this conversation. How the Change Healthcare breach can prompt real cybersecurity change 'Shift Left' feels like a cliché at this point, but it's often difficult to track tech and security movements if you aren't interacting with practitioners on a regular basis. Some areas of tech have a longer tail when it comes to late adopters and laggards, and application security appears to be one of these areas. In this interview, Jenn Gile catches us up on AppSec trends. Segment Resources: Microsoft Defender for Cloud Natively Integrates with Endor Labs 2024 Dependency Management Report How to pick the right SAST tool In the enterprise security news, Change Healthcare's HIPAA fine is vanishingly small How worried should we be about the threat of AI models? What about the threat of DeepSeek? And the threat of employees entering sensitive data into GenAI prompts? The myth of trillion-dollar cybercrime losses are alive and well! Kagi Privacy Pass gives you the best of both worlds: high quality web searches AND privacy/anonymity Thanks to the UK for letting everyone know about end-to-end encryption for iCloud! What is the most UNHINGED thing you've ever seen a security team push on employees? All that and more, on this episode of Enterprise Security Weekly. Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/esw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/esw-395
In this interview, we're excited to have Ilona Cohen to help us understand what changes this new US administration might bring, in terms of cybersecurity regulation. Ilona's insights come partially from her own experiences working from within the White House. Before she was the Chief Legal Officer of HackerOne, she was a senior lawyer to President Obama and served as General Counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In this hyper-partisan environment, it's easy to get hung up on particular events. Do many of us lack cross-administration historical perspective? Probably. Should we be outraged by the disillusion of the CSRB, or was this a fairly ordinary occurrence when a new administration comes in? These are the kinds of questions I'll be posing to Ilona in this conversation. How the Change Healthcare breach can prompt real cybersecurity change Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/esw-395
In this interview, we're excited to have Ilona Cohen to help us understand what changes this new US administration might bring, in terms of cybersecurity regulation. Ilona's insights come partially from her own experiences working from within the White House. Before she was the Chief Legal Officer of HackerOne, she was a senior lawyer to President Obama and served as General Counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In this hyper-partisan environment, it's easy to get hung up on particular events. Do many of us lack cross-administration historical perspective? Probably. Should we be outraged by the disillusion of the CSRB, or was this a fairly ordinary occurrence when a new administration comes in? These are the kinds of questions I'll be posing to Ilona in this conversation. How the Change Healthcare breach can prompt real cybersecurity change Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/esw-395
In this episode, we delve into essential discussions on federal policy, TikTok, and the balance of power in Washington that we know will resonate with you.Heidi and Joel explore the chaos caused by a recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo concerning the freeze on federal expenditures. They provide a clear-eyed analysis of the memo's implications for Americans, particularly those relying on federal assistance programs, and question the legality of specific executive branch actions.In the second half of the episode, we're joined by David Dorfman, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on China. David provides an in-depth understanding of the critical legislation affecting TikTok, clarifying misconceptions about a so-called "ban" and diving into the platform's national security concerns.Lastly, hear from TikTok user Sayen Gates, a small business owner from South Carolina, who discusses how TikTok has been crucial in growing her life coaching business and how the threat of its ban poses challenges to entrepreneurs relying on the platform.Tune in to The Hot Dish every other week as we serve up hearty discussions that matter to the heartland. We aim to ensure that the voices of 'the rest of us' are heard loud and clear in Washington.To learn more, visit https://onecountryproject.orgVisit Sayen's site: www.shadowcornerlifecoaching.com
Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The [DS][CB] is trying everything to stop Trump, he is exposing their money laundering system. DOGE is cutting waste so fast the [CB] [DS] does not know how to keep up. Trump places tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Mexico already folded. Trump is going to end the tax system that was put into place in 1913. The swamp continues to lose the fight. Trump and Elon are working so quickly and long hours that the [DS] does not know how to keep up. DOGE has now exposed the part of the criminal syndicate, USAID. The more the people see the more the people are believing that our Gov is one gigantic criminal operation. That is why they are trying to hold up the confirmations. The public will know everything soon, March madness coming. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy BREAKING: Obama Judge Blocks Trump's Federal Spending Freeze For 22 States A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked President Trump's order to freeze federal funding to 22 states on public loans and grants. On Monday, Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) put a temporary pause of agency grant, loan and other financial assistance programs. US District Judge of the District Court for the District of Rhode Island, John McConnell, an Obama appointee, temporarily blocked Trump's freeze on federal funding in response to a request from 22 Democrat state attorneys general and DC. Reuters reported: source: thegatewypundit.com https://twitter.com/DOGE/status/1886273522214813785 Trump to sign executive order installing 'massive' 10-for-1 deregulatory agenda President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Friday that will significantly expand the "2-for-1" deregulatory goal he installed during his first stint in the White House. The White House detailed the order in a memo, obtained Friday morning by the Washington Examiner, which follows through on one of Trump's 2024 campaign promises. It requires federal agencies to "identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed" for every new proposed rule, regulation, or guidance. The order further directs the Office of Management and Budget to set "standardized measurement and estimation of regulatory costs" and "requires that for fiscal 2025, the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero." Source: wnd.com https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1886185686392516627 Canadian exports to the US went to zero, it would be a cataclysm.” Bingo. (VIDEO) Trudeau Responds to Trump's Tariffs – CEO of Canada's Second Largest Company Slams Trudeau, Says Trump's Demands are “Things That Every Canadian Wants its Government to do” Justin Trudeau confirmed that Canada will impose tariffs on American goods in response to the Tariffs imposed by President Trump yesterday, and the CEO of Shopify, Canada's largest tech company and second-largest publicly traded company, slammed Trudeau's poor leadership. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1886158287219167502 Mexico's President Claims She Has 'Plan A, Plan B, Plan C' In Response To Trump Tariffs First and foremost, Sheinbaum has threatened retaliatory tariffs on US exports to Mexico, her "Plan A". Around 15% of US exports end up south of the border, however, Mexico is far more export dependent than the US. Only 10% of the US economy is based on exports while 43% of Mexico's economy relies on exports according to the Worl...
Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The new transporation secretary is now reversing Biden policies in regards to EVs. Stephen Miller explains why getting rid of the illegals will not hurt the economy. Did China try to bring the market down? Trump is offering federal workers a buy out, drain the swamp. Fed pushing narrative that Trump will intervene, boomerang. The [DS] is panicking over everything that Trump is doing, he is cutting programs, firing people and draining the swamp. Lawsuits against what he is doing will fail. RFK jr confirmation hearing was full of corrupt Senators who are in the pocket of big pharma. Those who screamed the loudest have the most to lose. Follow the money. Big Pharma is now panicking. Trump is testing the waters to see how the [DS] reacts, Gitmo being prepared for illegals. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/ThomasCatenacci/status/1884427380665569688 https://twitter.com/ultrapepemqtter/status/1884470858040619283 TAKE A LISTEN BREAKING: Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump Federal Spending Freeze A judge temporarily blocked Trump's order to freeze federal funding on public loans and grants. Judge Loren AliKhan, a Biden appointee, granted a temporary stay on Trump's plan to freeze federal funding. On Monday, Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) put a temporary pause of agency grant, loan and other financial assistance programs. This temporary pause will provide the Administration time to review agency programsand determine the best uses of the funding for those programs consistent with the law and thePresident's priorities. The temporary pause will become effective on January 28, 2025, at 5:00PM. Even before completing their comprehensive analysis, Federal agencies must immediatelyidentify any legally mandated actions or deadlines for assistance programs arising while thepause remains in effect. Federal agencies must report this information to OMB along with ananalysis of the requirement. OMB also directs Federal agencies to pause all activities associated with open NOFOs, such as conducting merit review panels,” the OMB added. NBC News reported: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1884376272932876295 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1884412236459806811 Bank of Canada cuts interest rate by 25 basis points to 3% Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem and senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers give a statement and answer questions after the bank cut the key interest rate by 25 basis points to three per cent. The Bank of Canada lowered its interest rate by 25 basis points to three per cent on Wednesday, the sixth consecutive reduction since June. Source: cbc.ca The Federal Reserve may try something new: Pausing Source: msnc.com Fed expected to hold rates steady at FOMC meeting even as Trump dials up pressure The US president is threatening to impose tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China as early as this Saturday, a stance that some economists predict will put upward pressure on inflation at a time when the central bank is trying to ensure that issue is finally under control. What makes things more complicated is that Trump is making it clear he wants policymakers to cut rates further. He hinted last week at a coming clash with Powell on that subject, saying he wants rates to come down "a lot" and that he expects to talk directly with the Fed chair "at the right time." Source: yahoo.com
On Wednesday, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rescindeda memo that had paused trillions of dollars in federal grants, loans, and other financial assistance programs. The memo had called for agencies to perform a “comprehensive analysis” of their grant and loan programs to ensure compliance with President Donald Trump's executive orders, but was broadly written and created confusion over the scope of the funding freeze. Prior to the memo's rescission, a federal judge had paused its orders from going into effect after a coalition of nonprofits and businesses sued to stop its implementation. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast here, our “Under the Radar” story here and today's “Have a nice day” story here.Take the survey: Do you think the president should reduce executive branch spending and employment, and through what methods? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
We discuss the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) memo that the Trump administration put out on Tuesday. Help Disaster Relief: https://www.samaritanspurse.org Freedom Marketplace: https://freedommarketplace.net Join our Inner Circle: http://toddhuffshow.com/join Sign up for our newsletter: https://www.toddhuffshow.com The Stack: https://www.toddhuffshow.com/stack-of-stuff Email: todd@toddhuffshow.comPhone: 317.210.2830Follow us on…Instagram: @toddhuffshowFacebook: The Todd Huff ShowTwitter: @toddhuffshowLinkedIn: The Todd Huff ShowTikTok: @toddhuffshowSupport Our Partners:https://www.toddhuffshow.com/partners Links:https://www.mypillow.com/todd Promo Code: TODDhttps://mystore.com/toddhttps://faith-lit.com Promo Code: TODD for 15% offhttps://harvardgoldgroup.com Promo Code: TODD for $250 credithttps://www.nicnac.com - Promo Code FREEDOM for 20% off your first purchasehttps://soltea.com - Promo Code TODD for $29.95 off your first orderhttps://zstacklife.com/todd - Promo Code TODD for 15% off your order
We discuss the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) memo that the Trump administration put out on Tuesday.Help Disaster Relief: https://www.samaritanspurse.org Freedom Marketplace: https://freedommarketplace.net Join our Inner Circle: http://toddhuffshow.com/join Sign up for our newsletter: https://www.toddhuffshow.com The Stack: https://www.toddhuffshow.com/stack-of-stuff Email: todd@toddhuffshow.comPhone: 317.210.2830Follow us on…Instagram: @toddhuffshowFacebook: The Todd Huff ShowTwitter: @toddhuffshowLinkedIn: The Todd Huff ShowTikTok: @toddhuffshowSupport Our Partners:https://www.toddhuffshow.com/partners Links:https://www.mypillow.com/todd Promo Code: TODDhttps://mystore.com/toddhttps://faith-lit.com Promo Code: TODD for 15% offhttps://harvardgoldgroup.com Promo Code: TODD for $250 credithttps://www.nicnac.com - Promo Code FREEDOM for 20% off your first purchasehttps://soltea.com - Promo Code TODD for $29.95 off your first orderhttps://zstacklife.com/todd - Promo Code TODD for 15% off your order
We discuss the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) memo that the Trump administration put out on Tuesday. Help Disaster Relief: https://www.samaritanspurse.org Freedom Marketplace: https://freedommarketplace.net Join our Inner Circle: http://toddhuffshow.com/join Sign up for our newsletter: https://www.toddhuffshow.com The Stack: https://www.toddhuffshow.com/stack-of-stuff Email: todd@toddhuffshow.comPhone: 317.210.2830Follow us on…Instagram: @toddhuffshowFacebook: The Todd Huff ShowTwitter: @toddhuffshowLinkedIn: The Todd Huff ShowTikTok: @toddhuffshowSupport Our Partners:https://www.toddhuffshow.com/partners Links:https://www.mypillow.com/todd Promo Code: TODDhttps://mystore.com/toddhttps://faith-lit.com Promo Code: TODD for 15% offhttps://harvardgoldgroup.com Promo Code: TODD for $250 credithttps://www.nicnac.com - Promo Code FREEDOM for 20% off your first purchasehttps://soltea.com - Promo Code TODD for $29.95 off your first orderhttps://zstacklife.com/todd - Promo Code TODD for 15% off your order
We discuss the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) memo that the Trump administration put out on Tuesday.Help Disaster Relief: https://www.samaritanspurse.org Freedom Marketplace: https://freedommarketplace.net Join our Inner Circle: http://toddhuffshow.com/join Sign up for our newsletter: https://www.toddhuffshow.com The Stack: https://www.toddhuffshow.com/stack-of-stuff Email: todd@toddhuffshow.comPhone: 317.210.2830Follow us on…Instagram: @toddhuffshowFacebook: The Todd Huff ShowTwitter: @toddhuffshowLinkedIn: The Todd Huff ShowTikTok: @toddhuffshowSupport Our Partners:https://www.toddhuffshow.com/partners Links:https://www.mypillow.com/todd Promo Code: TODDhttps://mystore.com/toddhttps://faith-lit.com Promo Code: TODD for 15% offhttps://harvardgoldgroup.com Promo Code: TODD for $250 credithttps://www.nicnac.com - Promo Code FREEDOM for 20% off your first purchasehttps://soltea.com - Promo Code TODD for $29.95 off your first orderhttps://zstacklife.com/todd - Promo Code TODD for 15% off your order
This week, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ordered a freeze of funding across a broad array of federal programs, leading to mass confusion around the country from local governments, nonprofits, and individuals. While that particular order appears to have been rescinded, Molly Reynolds explains how it touches on foundational questions of Congress' spending power and constitutional authorities, and how it's just one of the Trump administration's first steps to try to dramatically remake the size and scope of the federal government. Show notes and transcript: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-the-trump-administration-freeze-federal-spending Follow The Current and all Brookings podcasts on Apple or Google podcasts, or on Spotify. Send feedback email to podcasts@brookings.edu.
On this episode of the podcast, we will talk about the deluge of executive orders and a new memo freezing funding that has come in at the start of Trump's new administration. How will they effect the work of non-profits and what can you do to support or oppose these and future executive orders. Attorneys for this Episode Tim Mooney Brittany Hacker Federal Funding Freeze Memo and Executive Orders • Memo issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). • Halt on grants and loans distributed by the federal government. • Implications for Medicaid, WIC, and other critical programs. Legal and Constitutional Challenges • Lawsuit filed against the funding freeze, citing violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). • Debate over the legality and scope of executive orders. Nonprofit Advocacy and Response • Importance of independent nonprofit organizations in countering these actions. • Guidelines for 501(c)(3) organizations to legally speak out against executive actions. Role of Funders • Call for funders to fill gaps caused by halted federal funds. • Encouragement for philanthropy to step up during this crisis. Resources · Being a Player · Executive Orders Affecting Charitable Nonprofits - National Council of Nonprofits · Rules of the Game - Foundation Funding Tips
Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The [DS][CB] are struggling right now. Trump is the process of shutting down the money laundering by the criminal syndicate. Jerome Powell will try to fight back and those above will try everything. The people of this country have had enough and Trump is now seeding the narrative to restructure the Federal Reserve. Trump over the last eight years has studied the [DS]. He has looked into the agency and mapped where money has been flowing to. This is how Trump can move so quickly. This is why he was able to give DOGE and mandate of 7/4/26 because the leg work was done way ahead of time. What happens when a threat is dismantled and removed. Fire at will commander, we have a special place for GS. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1884042010207695346 area I've been to and there ain't nobody out doing sh*t” “You see two of the trucks down there. I think they're supervisors. Maybe they're trying to verify and see if ICE is going to come out” “I ain't never seen it this quiet before. This is crazy.” https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1884243759468101778 put this into perspective, new vehicle sales were 17.4 million in 2000, or 9.2% above 2024 levels, even as the US population has grown by 20% since then. This comes as car prices remain historically high with the average retail transaction price coming in at $46,200 in December, according to JD Power. The car market continues to slow. President Trump's Administration Orders Sweeping Freeze on All Federal Grants and Loans Effective Today President Donald Trump's administration has enacted a temporary suspension of all federal grants and loans, effective today, Tuesday, January 28, 2025. This strategic pause, orchestrated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is designed to facilitate a comprehensive review of federal financial assistance programs, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are utilized efficiently and in accordance with the administration's objectives. This initiative reflects President Trump's unwavering commitment to fiscal responsibility and his dedication to eliminating wasteful spending. By reassessing financial assistance programs, the administration aims to redirect resources toward endeavors that bolster national security, stimulate economic growth, and uphold American values. In a two-page memo, the directive specifically targets programs associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, woke gender ideology, and the Green New Deal. This temporary pause will provide the Administration time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of the funding for those programs consistent with the law and the President's priorities. The temporary pause will become effective on January 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/1884309963104751760 The Fed Is About to Hit Pause on Rate Cuts. Here's Why. Faced with a solid economy and mounting inflation concerns, the U.S. central bank has said it will “move cautiously” on cutting interest rates. At the Federal Reserve's final gathering of 2024, Chair Jerome H. Powell announced that the U.S. central bank was embarking on a “new phase” in how it would set interest rates. The Fed planned to “move cautiously” with cuts going forward, Mr. Powell told reporters at the time, reflecting officials' thinking that they could afford to be patient with scant signs of an impending recession and ling...
One of Joe Biden's last acts as president was declaring the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) the law of the land. Many people are wondering, What's the ERA? To find the answer, we're rebroadcasting our two-part series on the godmother of conservatism - Phyllis Schlafly - with a new discussion on the hidden purpose of the ERA. Along the way we get insight from conservative icon Michelle Malkin and Ed Martin, President Trump's pick for chief of staff at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Phyllis Schlafly embarked on one of the most epic political battles in American history…and in the process, uncovered the surprising truth at how to win in politics.Support the show: https://redpilledamerica.com/support/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Tune in here to this Wednesday edition of the Brett Winterble Show! Brett kicks off the program by sharing some thoughts from the panel he participated in earlier today, they discussed various topics from this past election cycle, somewhat of a debrief of what each party did right and wrong. This panel was full of professors and political communication students from Emerson College, a largely left leaning group that offers Brett the opportunity to gain some insight into the mindset of the left. It's also a beautiful exercise of our first amendment rights, with people of all ages weighing in on the topics of the day, freely expressing their perspectives on various topics. We're joined by Coach Matt Doherty from Doherty Coaching to talk about the murder of United Healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, and his killer Luigi Mangione. Brett and Coach discuss the potential outside influences on Mangione from social media to his time at UPenn. Young people who are living on their own for the first time are vulnerable to fall prey to peer pressure, and the fanciful ramblings of professors. Coach Doherty also shares the big guests he has coming up on his show, The Rebound, such as WBT's good friend RNC Chairman, Michael Whatley. Bo Thompson from Good Morning BT is also here for this Wednesday's episode of Crossing the Streams. Brett and Bo talk about President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Congressman Dan Bishop from North Carolina as Deputy Director for Budget at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Bo also shares what he and Beth have coming up tomorrow on Good Morning BT! Later, we are joined by Kyle Bailey from WFNZ to share the groundbreaking news of Bill Belichick officially being announced as the head football coach of the North Carolina Tar Heels! Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble check out his YouTube channel.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Elon Musk and entrepreneur-politician Vivek Ramaswamy presented their ambitious proposal to shrink federal spending and reduce government inefficiencies in Washington this week. Dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), their initiative proposes saving $2 trillion in federal spending, though specifics were notably scarce. The pair met with members of Congress, primarily Republicans, to gauge support and discuss the viability of their plan. Among those in attendance was Representative Tom Cole, a seasoned Republican from Oklahoma and the incoming House Appropriations Committee chair, who offered measured skepticism. Cole, reflecting on his conversations with Musk and Ramaswamy, noted their effort to understand "the full scope" of their proposal and the extent of executive authority they might wield. His remarks hinted at the constitutional limitations the duo could face. "How much would be done by executive action?" he asked, underscoring Congress's constitutional role in appropriations. Appropriations remain at the heart of federal spending, requiring Congress's active involvement. Legislative attempts to bypass this process, such as impoundment, often encounter resistance from the judiciary and Congress itself. The 1974 Budget Control and Impoundment Act, a legislative response to President Nixon's unilateral actions during his impeachment crisis, fortified Congress's role in spending decisions. Musk and Ramaswamy's DOGE initiative must therefore navigate not just political, but legal constraints. History suggests that lofty goals to overhaul federal spending have faced immense challenges. The proposed $2 trillion in savings is ambitious, but the absence of specific strategies raises doubts about its feasibility. To understand the hurdles facing DOGE, it's crucial to examine the lessons of past efforts to reform government spending. Efforts to reform federal spending have long been central to Republican policy agendas. During his 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan criticized the ballooning federal debt, which was nearing $1 trillion at the time—a figure that seemed unthinkable then. Reagan entrusted his first Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director, David Stockman, with implementing steep budget cuts. Stockman targeted social programs with fervor, equating budget excesses to moral failings. Yet, Stockman's efforts quickly ran into opposition from Democrats and even some Republicans. Reagan's broader fiscal policy, which included large tax cuts and increased military spending, further undermined his administration's deficit-reduction goals. By the end of his first term, the national debt had doubled, and by the time Reagan left office, it had tripled. Stockman, disillusioned, exited the administration and later published a memoir, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, chronicling his frustrations. Reagan's later attempts to streamline government included appointing J. Peter Grace to lead a commission on government efficiency. Though the commission unearthed useful recommendations, its impact was marred by revelations about Grace's company, W.R. Grace & Co., having paid minimal taxes. These optics undermined public confidence in the commission's efforts.
Brief intros: Nicholas Bagley was General Counsel to Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Kathy Stack served almost three decades at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Jenny Mattingley also served at the OMB, focusing on hiring reform and workforce efforts.Timestamps:(00:00) Introduction(04:42) “I think all three of you have something to say about the Paperwork Reduction Act.”(12:38) A one-way ratchet(22:16) How to get a new form approved(32:04) Why is there no natural constituency to improve this?(42:14) Inheriting judicial review from the Civil Rights era(59:13) What should be on the new administration's agenda? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub
Project 2025 is a strategic plan crafted by conservative groups to reshape the administrative state of the United States during the next Republican administration. This initiative has drawn attention due to its ambitious agenda and the notable figures associated with its development. Among these figures is Russell Vought, who previously served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under President Donald Trump.Vought's involvement with Project 2025 highlights his significant role in shaping conservative policy frameworks. The project aims to streamline federal bureaucracy and implement drastic policy changes aimed at reducing government overreach. At its core, Project 2025 envisions a reorganization of federal agencies and a reorientation of regulatory priorities, aligning them more closely with conservative values and principles.One of the controversial aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to diminish the influence of the U.S. Senate in approving key political appointments. Traditionally, the Senate plays a crucial role in vetting and confirming presidential nominees for various administrative positions. However, Project 2025 suggests exploring pathways to bypass or weaken this process, thereby accelerating the appointment of individuals who align with the administration's policy goals. This approach, proponents argue, would lead to more efficient governance and implementation of the administration's agenda. Critics, however, contend that it undermines the system of checks and balances intended to prevent executive overreach.Russell Vought's potential reappointment to lead the OMB underscores the importance of Project 2025 within Trump's political strategy. As a key architect of this initiative, Vought's policy priorities emphasize fiscal restraint, regulatory reform, and the scaling back of federal programs deemed inefficient or misaligned with conservative objectives. During his previous tenure as OMB Director, Vought championed efforts to cut federal spending and overhaul budgetary processes, initiatives he would likely continue if reinstated.Project 2025 has sparked a heated debate within political circles about the future of governance and the role of regulatory agencies in the United States. Supporters argue that the project offers a necessary corrective to what they perceive as decades of bureaucratic expansion and inefficiency. They believe that implementing its recommendations would bolster economic growth, enhance individual freedoms, and restore constitutional principles.Detractors, on the other hand, warn that such sweeping changes could destabilize essential government functions and erode public trust in federal institutions. They also highlight the potential risks associated with diminishing the Senate's role in political appointments, arguing that it could lead to a less transparent and accountable executive branch.The focus on Project 2025 illustrates the broader ideological battle over the size and scope of government in America. As the nation looks toward future elections, the ideas and proposals contained in this initiative are likely to remain pivotal points of discussion and debate among policymakers, political analysts, and the public at large. With Russell Vought at the helm, Project 2025 could significantly influence the Republican platform and reshape the administrative landscape of the United States for years to come.
Russell Vought, a key figure from the Trump administration, is drawing attention with his involvement in "Project 2025." This initiative outlines strategies to expand executive power, centralizing authority within specific government branches such as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Vought, known for his tenure as the Director of the OMB under Trump, has historically pushed boundaries in shaping policy and administrative processes."Project 2025" serves as a blueprint for increasing presidential control over the executive branch, as envisioned by Vought and his allies. His contributions to the project emphasize restructuring governmental agencies to shift significant decision-making away from traditionally independent bodies into the hands of the executive. This involves streamlining operations and cutting bureaucratic hurdles that they argue hinder efficiency.The project's advocates argue that such centralization could lead to more effective governance, allowing swift implementation of policy agendas without the delays often encountered in a multi-faceted government structure. Critics, however, express concern about the erosion of checks and balances. They caution that consolidating power in this manner could undermine democratic institutions and lead to unchecked executive actions, reminiscent of an authoritarian regime.Vought's history as a staunch supporter of Trump's policies is underscored by his willingness to push legal limits if necessary to achieve political objectives. During his OMB leadership, Vought was involved in controversial decisions that drew bipartisan scrutiny. His role in withholding congressionally approved funds from Ukraine highlighted his readiness to interpret executive power expansively, leading to legal challenges and critiques regarding the separation of powers.The discussion surrounding "Project 2025" reflects broader debates about the balance of power in the U.S. government. Proponents of the project believe it could preemptively safeguard executive-led reforms from bureaucratic inertia or opposition-led obstruction. Detractors, however, view it as a threat to the fundamental principle of governmental checks and balances that serves to prevent the concentration of power.In sum, "Project 2025" and Russell Vought's associated influence signal a potential shift in governmental structure, emphasizing executive authority. As political landscapes evolve, the implications of such restructuring remain critical points of discussion for policymakers and citizens alike, weighing the benefits of efficiency against the risks of centralized power devoid of traditional accountability mechanisms.
In this podcast episode, Keith Coyle from Babst Calland discusses the final stages of the Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) rule and its regulatory journey. The conversation provides insights into the process, including the role of federal offices like the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC), while also exploring the complexities surrounding regulatory reviews and implications for the pipeline industry. Visit PipelinePodcastNetwork.com for a full episode transcript, as well as detailed show notes with relevant links and insider term definitions.
Welcome to Health-e Law, Sheppard Mullin's podcast exploring the fascinating health tech topics and trends of the day. In this episode, Sheppard Mullin's Phil Kim, Sara Shanti and Michael D. Sutton are joined by Ilona Cohen, Chief Legal Officer and Chief Policy Officer of HackerOne, to discuss creative and inspiring solutions for addressing the surge of data breaches in healthcare. What We Discussed in this Episode: What does “data breach” mean in the healthcare context? What is driving the recent surge of threat actors targeting healthcare? How are healthcare stakeholders mitigating these risks? How is breached data being monetized or laundered back into legitimate businesses? What exposures should businesses be alert for after a breach? Can you tell us a bit about HackerOne and the work you do? What is ethical hacking? Has the healthcare sector embraced it? About Ilona Cohen Ilona Cohen was formerly a senior lawyer to President Obama and served as General Counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Highly experienced with cybersecurity and ethical hacking solutions, she was part of a core group in the White House responsible for the development of President Obama's long-term strategy to enhance cybersecurity awareness and protection in the public and private sectors. These efforts resulted in the launch of the first U.S. government bug bounty program, Hack The Pentagon, run by HackerOne. Prior to joining HackerOne in July 2022, Ilona served as Chief Legal and Compliance Officer at Aledade, another venture-backed tech company, where she successfully built and scaled the company's legal and compliance teams. At HackerOne, she's leveraging her extensive experience to build out the public policy team, mature the legal function to support expanded growth and provide strategic leadership to the rest of the company. About Sara Shanti A partner in the Corporate Practice Group in the Sheppard Mullin's Chicago office and co-lead of its Digital Health Team, Sara Shanti's practice sits at the forefront of healthcare technology by providing practical counsel on novel innovation and complex data privacy matters. Using her medical research background and HHS experience, Sara advises providers, payors, start-ups, technology companies, and their investors and stakeholders on digital healthcare and regulatory compliance matters, including artificial intelligence (AI), augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR), gamification, implantable and wearable devices, and telehealth. At the cutting edge of advising on "data as an asset" programming, Sara's practice supports investment in innovation and access to care initiatives, including mergers and acquisitions involving crucial, high-stakes and sensitive data, medical and wellness devices, and web-based applications and care. About Phil Kim A partner in the Corporate and Securities Practice Group in Sheppard Mullin's Dallas office and co-lead of its Digital Health Team, Phil Kim has a number of clients in digital health. He has assisted multinational technology companies entering the digital health space with various service and collaboration agreements for their wearable technology, along with global digital health companies bolstering their platform in the behavioral health space. He also assists public medical device, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as the investment banks that serve as underwriters in public securities offerings for those companies. Phil also assists various healthcare companies on transactional and regulatory matters. He counsels healthcare systems, hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, physician groups, home health providers, and other healthcare companies on the buy- and sell-side of mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and operational matters, which include regulatory, licensure, contractual, and administrative issues. Phil regularly advises clients on matters related to healthcare compliance, including liability exposure, the Stark law, anti-kickback statutes, and HIPAA/HITECH privacy issues. He also provides counsel on state and federal laws, business structuring formation, employment issues, and involving government agencies, including state and federal agencies. About Michael D. Sutton As an associate in the Corporate Practice Group at Sheppard Mullin's Dallas office, Michael D. Sutton specializes in cutting-edge and disruptive areas of practice, blending healthcare, technology, and legal compliance. In particular, he focuses on HIPAA and privacy regulations, considering their relationship with technological advancements in both healthcare and consumer sectors. He is skilled in negotiations regarding data usage and ownership rights, guiding clients on marketing or integrating technological innovations while navigating emerging regulations in digital healthcare, including artificial intelligence, web tracking, information blocking, offshoring, and de-identification. Michael has managed investigations, worked to resolve active breach incidents, and advised clients on healthcare privacy and technology matters. He supports clients navigating HIPAA and other privacy laws to ensure their objectives are achieved within all legal and regulatory requirements. Michael also provides comprehensive regulatory services to a range of healthcare participants, including investors, managed care organizations, health plans, and medical groups. In particular, he has tackled operational and contractual negotiations, licensing, compliance, and fraud considerations and conducted regulatory due diligence for transactions, including mergers and acquisitions. Michael also supports transactions involving tech companies and healthcare providers, guiding negotiations related to software and service relationships while identifying vulnerabilities in targets and devising creative solutions to address them. Contact Info Ilona Cohen Sara Shanti Phil Kim Michael D. Sutton Resources HackerOne Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.
Tune in to be in the know as Craig Hill, Mike Luken, and Andy Stewart explore the crucial role of quantum safe cryptography as we approach the quantum computing era and its potential impact on current encryption methods. Discover what you need to know and how Cisco is leading the way in delivering quantum safe cryptography. The discussion begins with an overview of the urgent need to migrate to post-quantum cryptography. In the U.S., Federal agencies have been mandated by National Security Memorandum 10 to transition their cryptographic systems to withstand quantum computing attacks by 2035. This directive, enforced by the President's Office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of the National Cyber Director, aims to mitigate future risks posed by quantum computers. Globally, governments, financial institutions, hospitals, and other entities requiring secure information protection are also taking steps to incorporate quantum-safe cryptography. Although quantum computers capable of breaking current encryption do not yet exist, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in collaboration with over 100 countries and experts, has recently released the first three finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards. Listen in as Craig, Mike, and Andy delve into the nuances, needs, and technical details of quantum safe cryptography, and learn how Cisco is preparing for the post-quantum world.
John Knepper thought he would pursue a career in theater after graduating and performing at the Harvard Radcliffe summer theater. However, after moving to Memphis, Tennessee, he took a left turn and started working in the marketing department of the nation's fifth largest security guard company. After nine months there, John quit his job and traveled around the country for six months. Working in Washington on Immigration Laws On the last leg of his travels, he was in Washington where, by chance, he met the assistant to the Chief of Staff for Senator Al Simpson of Wyoming. Six months later they called him for an interview and subsequently he started working on Capitol Hill. He talks about his work as a personal assistant for a senator before moving on to work for the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1995 and 1996, he worked on the 1996 immigration law, which was the last major piece of immigration legislation passed by Congress. John also worked for Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee on the Governmental Affairs Committee and Homeland Security Committee for two years, where he worked on investigations into foreign influence in the 1996 Presidential election. John worked on campaign fundraising and regulatory reform, becoming one of the most knowledgeable staffers for the Senate Judiciary Committee without a law degree. From Washington to Law School In 1998, he decided to change careers and went to law school. He attended the University of Michigan School of Law, which was considered the best law school at the time. Upon graduating from law school in 2001, he worked for a federal judge for a year and later held a position with the US Department of Justice in the Federal Programs Branch. He was part of the team that defended the McCain Feingold campaign finance law, and John talks about how the law faced constitutional challenges and the mistrust among the Republican and Democratic National Committees. John discusses his role in document review at the Republican and Democratic National Committees, and his decision to build an effective record of campaign finance regulations. He also talks about working on national security issues for President Bush, such as the freezing of assets of the Iraqi government and the question of how to give Iraq billions of dollars back to the government. Working as the Associate General Counsel of the OMB John was called to work as the Associate General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2004. OMB is an agency within the White House responsible for ensuring that federal government actions are consistent with the President's priorities. Originating under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, OMB is responsible for reviewing all testimony, legislation, and major regulations issued by the executive branch to Congress. He talks about working under President Bush and eventually becoming the deputy general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget. The office was responsible for supporting the President's views and clearing executive orders. The general counsel's office was also responsible for reaching out to other federal agencies to discuss concerns and ensure they understood the consequences of their actions. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Financial Bailouts In summer 2008, a friend of John's, who had been in the White House Counsel's office, called him to discuss the economic concerns with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. John moved over to become the Deputy General Counsel of the Treasury. The conversation turns to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the potential bankruptcy of AIG, and the impact of money market funds on the economy. He talks about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which was developed to provide an asset against which companies could borrow from the Federal Reserve. This allowed the government to keep the velocity of money in the system, and AIG was a prime example of how the US government managed to keep these businesses operating. He also discusses an unsung moment during the financial bailout and the collaboration between Merrill Lynch and Wachtell Lipton, Rosen and Katz, and one reason for the bailout. From Washington to Wyoming In 2009, John was unemployed due to elections having consequences. He moved to Wyoming, where the economy was buffered by long-term commodities contracts, and he started working for the city of Cheyenne Wyoming as an attorney, working on $50 million government programs. John talks about Wyoming's unique tax system, with no state income tax, so revenue is largely mineral taxation. He worked with people in Wyoming suing companies over tax burdens. John worked there for two years before falling into another position as the Attorney General of Wyoming. He was appointed as the Chief Deputy Attorney General of Wyoming, and for five years, from 2013 to 2019, he was the number two lawyer for the state where he worked on environmental, law enforcement, and gun rights issues. Establishing a Solo Practice From March 2019 onwards, John moved on to solo private practice in Wyoming. He chose this path because he wanted to take on more controversial litigation and avoid moving their family to a different location. He discusses his experience as a political appointee of George W. Bush and involvement in pro life cases, including pre and post Dobbs litigation on pro life issues. John has also been involved in controversial cases, such as defending coverage of gender transition services and determining equal protection. Large law firms often avoid this area due to financial constraints. His practice is paid law, with clients ranging from wills for small to large corporations, and he works on multi-district litigation. Influential Professors and Courses at Harvard John mentions a class on the Holocaust and genocide by Professor Eric Goldhagen, which he found to be incredibly profound. This course changed his interest in understanding the reasons behind people's resistance to horrible decisions, such as murder and atrocities. He also took courses on resistance to authority from social psychologist Herb Kelman and his senior thesis on the concept of the witch at the Salem witch trials. He mentions Professor Orlando Patterson of the Sociology department at Harvard had a class on freedom, focusing on the origins of the western and American concepts of freedom and liberty. Timestamps: 05:00: Career path from Congressional staffer to lawyer 11:26: Defending campaign finance law in court 16:17: Legal questions related to Iraq invasion and asset recovery 21:47: White House roles and responsibilities 27:54: Government bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis 34:28: Financial crisis, bailouts, and government intervention 40:18: Tax compliance, job loss, and career changes 46:12: Legal work in Wyoming, including coal mining and environmental issues 51:40: Legal cases related to gender identity and health insurance coverage 55:24: Personal growth, career paths, and Holocaust education 59:57: The concept of freedom, heroism, and redemption 1:05:36: Life decisions, fountain pen hobby, and connecting with others Links: Email: john.knepper@gmail.com Featured Non-profits The featured non-profits of this episode are the 52nd Street Project and Village Arts Theater, recommended by Jeannie Simpson who reports: This is Jeannie Simpson, class of 1992 and the featured nonprofits for this episode are the 52nd Street Project and Village Arts Theater. The 52nd street project is in New York City, and my husband and I both volunteered there for about 10 years. It takes kids from Hell's Kitchen community and pairs them with theater professionals to write and perform original plays. It also offers homework help and mentor programs and all kinds of arts classes. It's free for the children who want to participate, and it's just a really awesome example of the transformative power of storytelling through theater. The second nonprofit I want to recommend is in Los Angeles, California, and it's called Village Arts Theater. It is a nonprofit that provides all kinds of arts classes and opportunities for kids from the community, ages four to 14 to participate in plays and in classes. It's an inclusive program, and no child is turned away because of financial need. And I have taught, volunteered, directed, choreographed for village arts for a decade. I still work with them, and both my children were raised in this theater program, and I have seen countless children benefit from all the amazing things that it has to offer. 52nd Street Project website is the numbers five, two and then the word project.org, and village arts website is one word, village arts theater with an R E at the end.org, 52 project.org, and villageartstheatre.org. And org, and they are both worth checking out and worthy of your time, your money, your talents, resources, whatever you might have to offer. And now here is Will Bachmann with this week's episode. To learn more about their work visit: 52 project.org and villageartstheatre.org.
Russ Vought served as the director of President Trump's Office of Management and the Budget (OMB). When the OMB under Vought withheld military aid from Ukraine, House Democrats initiated an investigation that ultimately led to Trump's first impeachment.Vought now leads a think tank, the Center for Renewing America, and is reportedly building a “180-day playbook” for implementing a policy agenda for a second Trump term. On Monday, the Associated Press claimed “Vought is likely to be appointed to a high-ranking post in a second Trump administration.”Timestamps:[00:00] Introduction[00:18] How OMB works[06:53] The two approaches to running the executive branch[14:56] Why we have “an imperial Congress”[20:12] The Ukraine impeachment[33:21] Why there aren't more conservatives in government This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub
As federal agencies patiently await final modernization guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) finds itself navigating through a transitional period. Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a staunch advocate for federal IT modernization and the author of the FedRAMP Authorization Act, voiced his concerns about the program's current limbo, attributed to the absence of OMB's final guidance and exacerbated by factors like agency backlogs and the unfilled directorial role at FedRAMP. Despite these hurdles, Connolly highlighted several positive strides, noting that the situation has evolved from 'the inferno' to a more stable 'limbo.' He remains hopeful about FedRAMP's trajectory and ongoing reforms, such as the Emerging Technology Prioritization Framework spearheaded by the General Services Administration. Simultaneously, the White House is advocating for a substantial increase in cybersecurity budgets across federal agencies to fortify the nation's defenses, aligning with the broader goals of the Biden administration's national cyber strategy. In a pivotal memo, OMB Director Shalanda Young and National Cyber Director Harry Coker Jr. called for agency budget requests to include significant enhancements to cyber defenses, including the adoption of zero-trust architectures and the bolstering of open-source software security. The memo underscores the critical need for investments in department-wide, enterprise solutions to unify cybersecurity efforts across various mission areas, facilitating better information sharing and bolstering the nation's resilience against burgeoning cyber threats.
With the rise of Generative AI organisations across both the public and private sector in Ireland today are considering its impact on their domain. Across a range of sectors, there are expectations that AI, and especially GenAI, can increase productivity, enhance customer and citizen experience, and accelerate innovation. Across industry Generative AI is enhancing existing AI solutions or creating entirely new operating models. In the financial industry, for example, AI has long been used in areas such as market forecasting and fraud detection, Generative AI is now enhancing these use cases by opening up new data sources and allowing non-technical users access. While in healthcare, AI is enhancing patient experiences acting as an assistant to caregivers and helping scientists develop new treatments. When surveyed 7 in 10 business and IT decision-makers believe they are well-positioned competitively and have a solid strategy in place to harness the power of AI. However, 56% admit uncertainty about what the next three to five years will bring to their industry, and 49% are struggling to keep pace with the disruption. This is leading to the appointment of a senior executive to have oversight of AI initiatives; in many cases a Chief AI officer (CAIO) is appointed to manage the transition to an AI led organisation. The United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently issued a government-wide policy asking all federal agencies to name a Chief AI Officer, and according to FedScoop, as many as two-thirds of U.S. federal agencies have done so. According to the recent findings from Dell research, almost 20% of organizations surveyed globally identified a central team or individual to set AI strategy, and a separate report found that the number of 'head' of AI jobs has tripled over the last five years. AI can drive innovation in business and enhance access for citizens to government services, but whether in private or public institutions organisational objectives must align with AI strategies for successful outcomes, and this is where the role of the CAIO is paramount. For AI leaders looking to embrace the technology, there are some key considerations. Understand your organisations overall AI strategy. Without exactly knowing the outcome, it is hard to align the people, process and technology to achieve it. Understanding the overall AI strategy and not just some discrete use cases will lead to smarter investments. Having the big picture of the overarching strategy for AI organisations can align with the right governance and security frameworks, The good news is that 9 in 10 IT and business leaders think Irish organisations can use GenAI responsibly, according to Dell Technologies Innovation Catalysts Study. There is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to adopting AI While some there are some standard patterns to follow when implementing AI within an organization there is no on size fits all. What works for one organization may not work for other, and not every use case will require the same level of investment. As per Dell's latest study majority of the respondents said investing in modern, scalable data infrastructure was the number one area of improvement for business with 66% saying they prefer an on-prem - right where the data is or hybrid model to address the challenges, they foresee with implementing GenAI. There is also a wide spectrum of models emerging from industry-specific large language models (LLMs) to purpose-built smaller models that can run efficiently at the edge. Approach AI with a holistic focus, beyond just the technology itself AI is not just technical. Leaders across organisations from business, from IT and beyond need to come together to realise the transformative potential of AI. Organisations should consider uses for AI across all their business units, from HR, Finance, legal, communications, and beyond. The IT teams should, of course, be involved from the inception to develop a deep unders...
The General Services Administration (GSA) has launched a new initiative to prioritize generative AI technologies in the FedRAMP cloud authorization process, aligning with a 2023 executive order. This effort focuses on accelerating the approval of AI capabilities such as chat interfaces, code generation, and image generators to enhance their integration into government systems. Additionally, the Chief Data Officers (CDO) Council is facing significant challenges due to the absence of essential Phase Two guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is necessary for implementing effective data governance practices. Despite these hurdles, the CDO Council continues to support federal agencies in managing and disseminating data effectively, underscoring ongoing efforts to incorporate advanced technologies and robust data management within the federal government.
Newt talks with Dr. Vance Ginn, former Chief Economist for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). They discuss the current state of the U.S. economy, including the negative impact of inflation, with the cost of groceries and gas being a top concern for many Americans. He also noted that housing affordability is a crucial factor for 91% of Gen Z when choosing the next president. Dr. Ginn criticized the Biden administration's economic policies, arguing that they have led to high inflation and a weak economy. He also calls for reforms to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and a reduction in government spending and regulation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
While AI doomers proselytize their catastrophic message, many politicians are recognizing that the loss of America's competitive edge poses a much more real threat than the supposed “existential risk” of AI. Today on Faster, Please!—The Podcast, I talk with Adam Thierer about the current state of the AI policy landscape and the accompanying fierce regulatory debate.Thierer is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, where he promotes greater freedom for innovation and entrepreneurship. Prior to R Street, he worked as a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and at the Adam Smith Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Cato Institute.In This Episode* A changing approach (1:09)* The global AI race (7:26)* The political economy of AI (10:24)* Regulatory risk (16:10)* AI policy under Trump (22:29)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationA changing approach (1:09)Pethokoukis: Let's start out with just trying to figure out the state of play when it comes to AI regulation. Now I remember we had people calling for the AI Pause, and then we had a Biden executive order. They're passing some sort of act in Europe on AI, and now recently a senate working group in AI put out a list of guidelines or recommendations on AI. Given where we started, which was “shut it down,” to where we're at now, has that path been what you might've expected, given where we were when we were at full panic?Thierer: No, I think we've moved into a better place, I think. Let's look back just one year ago this week: In the Senate Judiciary Committee, there was a hearing where Sam Altman of OpenAI testified along with Gary Marcus, who's a well-known AI worrywart, and the lawmakers were falling all over themselves to praise Sam and Gary for basically calling for a variety of really extreme forms of AI regulation and controls, including not just national but international regulatory bodies, new general purpose licensing systems for AI, a variety of different types of liability schemes, transparency mandates, disclosure as so-called “AI nutritional labels,” I could go on down the list of all the types of regulations that were being proposed that day. And of course this followed, as you said, Jim, a call for an AI Pause, without any details about exactly how that would work, but it got a lot of signatories, including people like Elon Musk, which is very strange considering he was at the same time deploying one of the biggest AI systems in history. But enough about Elon.The bottom line is that those were dark days, and I think the tenor of the debate and the proposals on the table today, one year after that hearing, have improved significantly. That's the good news. The bad news is that there's still a lot of problematic regulatory proposals percolating throughout the United States. As of this morning, as we're taping the show, we are looking at 738 different AI bills pending in the United States according to multistate.ai, an AI tracking service. One hundred and—I think—eleven of those are federal bills. The vast majority of it is state. But that count does not include all of the municipal regulatory proposals that are pending for AI systems, including some that have already passed in cities like New York City that already has a very important AI regulation governing algorithmic hiring practices. So the bottom line, Jim, is it's the best of times, it's the worst of times. Things have both gotten better and worse.Well—just because the most recent thing that happened—I know with this the senate working group, and they were having all kinds of technologists and economists come in and testify. So that report, is it really calling for anything specific to happen? What's in there other than just kicking it back to all the committees? If you just read that report, what does it want to happen?A crucial thing about this report, and let's be clear what this is, because it was an important report because senator Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was in charge of this, along with a bipartisan group of other major senators, and this started the idea of, so-called “AI insight forums” last year, and it seemed to be pulling some authority away from committees and taking it to the highest levels of the Senate to say, “Hey, we're going to dictate AI policy and we're really scared.” And so that did not look good. I think in the process, just politically speaking—That, in itself, is a good example. That really represents the level of concern that was going around, that we need to do something different and special to address this existential risk.And this was the leader of the Senate doing it and taking away power, in theory, from his committee members—which did not go over well with said committee members, I should add. And so a whole bunch of hearings took place, but they were not really formal hearings, they were just these AI insight forum working groups where a lot of people sat around and said the same things they always say on a daily basis, and positive and negatives of AI. And the bottom line is, just last week, a report came out from this AI senate bipartisan AI working group that was important because, again, it did not adopt the recommendations that were on the table a year ago when the process got started last June. It did not have overarching general-purpose licensing of artificial intelligence, no new call for a brand new Federal Computer Commission for America, no sweeping calls for liability schemes like some senators want, or other sorts of mandates.Instead, it recommended a variety of more generic policy reforms and then kicked a lot of the authority back to those committee members to say, “You fill out the details, for better for worse.” And it also included a lot of spending. One thing that seemingly everybody agrees on in this debate is that, well, the government should spend a lot more money and so another $30 billion was on the table of sort of high-tech pork for AI-related stuff, but it really did signal a pretty important shift in approach, enough that it agitated the groups on the more pro-regulatory side of this debate who said, “Oh, this isn't enough! We were expecting Schumer to go for broke and swing for the fences with really aggressive regulation, and he's really let us down!” To which I can only say, “Well, thank God he did,” because we're in a better place right now because we're taking a more wait-and-see approach on at least some of these issues.A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopoliticsThe global AI race (7:26)I'm going to ask you in a minute what stuff in those recommendations worries you, but before I do, what happened? How did we get from where we were a year ago to where we've landed today?A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopolitics. We face major adversaries, but specifically China, who has said in documents that the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] has published that they want to be the global leader in algorithmic and computational technologies by 2030, and they're spending a lot of money putting a lot of state resources into it. Now, I don't necessarily believe that means they're going to automatically win, of course, but they're taking it seriously. But it's not just China. We have seen in the past year massive state investments and important innovations take place across the globe.I'm always reminding people that people talk a big game about America's foundational models are large scale systems, including things like Meta's Llama, which was the biggest open source system in the world a year ago, and then two months after Meta launched Llama, their open source platform, the government of the UAE came out with Falcon 180B, an open source AI model that was two-and-a-half times larger than Facebook's model. That meant America's AI supremacy and open source foundational models lasted for two months. And that's not China, that's the government of the UAE, which has piled massive resources into being a global leader in computation. Meanwhile, China's launched their biggest super—I'm sorry, Russia's launched their biggest supercomputer system ever; you've got Europe applying a lot of resources into it, and so on and so forth. A lot of folks in the Senate have come to realize that problem is real: that if we shoot ourselves in the foot as a nation, they could race ahead and gain competitive advantage in geopolitical strategic advantages over the United States if it hobbles our technology base. I think that's the first fundamental thing that's changed.I think the other thing that changed, Jim, is just a little bit of existential-risk exhaustion. The rhetoric in this debate, as you've written about eloquently in your columns, has just been crazy. I mean, I've never really seen anything like it in all the years we've been covering technology and economic policy. You and I have both written, this is really an unprecedented level of hysteria. And I think, at some point, the Chicken-Littleism just got to be too much, and I think some saner minds prevailed and said, “Okay, well wait a minute. We don't really need to pause the entire history of computation to address these hypothetical worst-case scenarios. Maybe there's a better plan than that.” And so we're starting to pull back from the abyss, if you will, a little bit, and the adults are reentering the conversation—a little bit, at least. So I think those are the two things that really changed more, although there were other things, but those were two big ones.The political economy of AI (10:24)To what extent do you think we saw the retreat from the more apocalyptic thinking—how much that was due from what businesses were saying, venture capitalists, maybe other tech . . . ? What do you think were the key voices Congress started listening to a little bit more?That's a great question. The political economy of AI policy and tech policy is something that is terrifically interesting to me. There are so many players and voices involved in AI policy because AI is the most important general-purpose technology of our time, and as a widespread broad base—Do you have any doubt about that? (Let me cut you off.) Do you have any doubt about that?I don't. I think it's unambiguous, and we live in a world of “combinatorial innovation,” as Hal Varian calls it, where technologies build on top of the other, one after another, but the thing is they all lead to greater computational capacity, and therefore, algorithmic and machine learning systems come out of those—if we allow it. And the state of data science in this country has gotten to the point where it's so sophisticated because of our rich base of diverse types of digital technologies and computational technologies that finally we're going to break out of the endless cycle of AI booms and busts, and springs and winters, and we're going to have a summer. I think we're having it right now. And so that is going to come to affect every single segment and sector of our economy, including the government itself. I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the busNow let me let you go return to the political economy, what I was asking you about, what were the voices, sorry, but I wanted to get that in there.Well, I think there are so many voices, I can't name them all today, obviously, but obviously we're going to start with one that's a quiet voice behind the scenes, but a huge one, which is, I think, the National Security community. I think clearly going back to our point about China and geopolitical security, I think a lot of people behind the scenes who care about these issues, including people in the Pentagon, I think they had conversations with certain members of Congress and said, “You know what? China exists. And if we're shooting ourselves in the foot, we begin this race for geopolitical strategic supremacy in an important new general-purpose technology arena, we're really hurting our underlying security as a nation. I think that that thinking is there. So that's an important voice.Secondly, I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the bus, unfortunately, and that includes OpenAI trying to screw over other companies and technologies, which is dangerous, but the bottom line is: More and more of them are coming to realize, as they saw the actual details of regulation and thinking through the compliance costs, that “Hell no, we won't go, we're not going to do that. We need a better approach.” And it was always easier in the old days to respond to the existential risk route, like, “Oh yeah, sure, regulation is fine, we'll go along with it!” But then when you see the devilish details, you think twice and you realize, “This will completely undermine our competitive advantage in the space as a company or our investment or whatever else.” All you need to do is look at Exhibit A, which is Europe, and say, if you always run with worst-case scenario thinking and Chicken-Littleism is the basis of your technology policy, guess what? People respond to incentives and they flee.Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. It's interesting, the national security aspect, my little amateurish thought experiment would be, what would be our reaction, and what would be the reaction in Washington if, in November, 2022, instead of it being a company, an American company with a big investment from another American company having rolled out ChatGPT, what if it would've been Tencent, or Alibaba, or some other Chinese company that had rolled this out, something that's obviously a leap forward, and they had been ahead, even if they said, “Oh, we're two or three years ahead of America,” it would've been bigger than Sputnik, I think.People are probably tired of hearing about AI—hopefully not, I hope they'll also listen to this podcast—but that would all we would be talking about. We wouldn't be talking about job loss, and we wouldn't be talking about ‘The Terminator,' we'd be talking about the pure geopolitical terms that the US has suffered a massive, massive defeat here and who's to blame? What are we going to do? And anybody at that moment who would've said, “We need to launch cruise missile strikes on our own data centers” for fear. . . I mean! And I think you're right, the national security component, extremely important here.In fact, I stole your little line about “Sputnik moment,” Jim, when I testified in front of the House Oversight Committee last month and I said, “Look, it would've been a true ‘Sputnik moment,' and instead it's those other countries that are left having the Sputnik moment, right? They're wondering, ‘How is it that, once again, the United States has gotten out ahead on digital and computational-based technologies?'” But thank God we did! And as I pointed out in the committee room that day, there's a lot of people who have problems with technology companies in Congress today. Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. That's just a unifying theme. Everybody in the committee room that day nodded their head, “Yes, yes, absolutely. We still hate them, but we're thankful that they're here.” And that then extends to AI: Can the next generation of companies that they want to bring to Congress and bash and pull money from for their elections, can they once again exist in the United States?Regulatory risk (16:10)So whether it's that working group report, or what else you see in Congress, what are a couple, three areas where you're concerned, where there still seems to be some sort of regulatory momentum?Let's divide it into a couple of chunks here. First of all, at the federal level, Congress is so damn dysfunctional that I'm not too worried that even if they have bad ideas, they're going to pursue them because they're just such a mess, they can't get any basic things done on things like baseline privacy legislation, or driverless car legislation, or even, hell, the budget and the border! They can't get basics done!I think it's a big positive that one, while they're engaging in dysfunction, the technology is evolving. And I hope, if it's as important as I think you and I think, more money will be invested, we'll see more use cases, it'll be obvious—the downsides of screwing up the regulation I think will be more obvious, and I think that's a tailwind for this technology.We're in violent agreement on that, Jim, and of course this goes by the name of “the pacing problem,” the idea that technology is outpacing law in many ways, and one man's pacing problem is another man's pacing benefit, in my opinion. There's a chance for technology to prove itself a little bit. That being said, we don't live in a legislative or regulatory vacuum. We already have in the United States 439 government agencies and sub-agencies, 2.2 million employees just at the federal level. So many agencies are active right now trying to get their paws on artificial intelligence, and some of them already have it. You look at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], I could go all through the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that are already trying to regulate or overregulating AI right now.Then you have the Biden administration, who's gone out and done a lot of cheerleading in favor of more aggressive unilateral regulation, regardless of what Congress says and basically says, “To hell with all that stuff about Chevron Doctrine and major questions, we're just going to go do it! We're at least going to jawbone a lot and try to threaten regulation, and we're going to do it in the name of ‘algorithmic fairness,'” which is what their 100-plus-page executive order and their AI Bill of Rights says they're all about, as opposed to talking about AI opportunity and benefits—it's all misery. And it's like, “Look at how AI is just a massive tool of discrimination and bias, and we have to do something about it preemptively through a precautionary principle approach.” So if Congress isn't going to act, unfortunately the Biden administration already is and nobody's stopping them.But that's not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem, going back to the point that there are 730-plus bills pending in the US right now, the vast majority of them are state and local. And just last Friday, governor Jared Polis of Colorado signed into law the first major AI regulatory measure in Colorado, and there's a bigger and badder bill pending right now in California, there's 80 different bills pending in New York alone, and any half of them would be a disaster.I could go on down the list of troubling state patchwork problems that are going to develop for AI and ML [Machine Learning] systems, but the bottom line is this: This would be a complete and utter reversal of the winning formula that Congress and the Clinton administration gave us in the 1990s, which was a national—a global framework for global electronic commerce. It was very intentionally saying, “We're going to break with the Analog Era disaster, we're going to have a national framework that's pro-freedom to innovate, and we're going to make sure that these meddlesome barriers do not develop to online speech and commerce.” And yet, here with AI, we are witnessing a reversal of that. States are in the lead, and again, like I said, localities too, and Congress is sitting there and is the dysfunctional soup that it is saying, “Oh, maybe we should do something to spend a little bit more money to promote AI.” Well, we can spend all the money we want, but we can end up like Europe who spends tons of money on techno-industrial policies and gets nothing for it because they can't get their innovation culture right, because they're regulating the living hell out of digital technology.So you want Congress to take this away from the states?I do. I do, but it's really, really hard. I think what we need to do is follow the model that we had in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998. We've also had moratoriums, not only through the Internet Tax Freedom Act, but through the Commercial Space Amendments having to do with space commercial travel and other bills. Congress has handled the question of preemption before and put moratoria in place to say, “Let's have a learning period before we go do stupid things on a new technology sector that is fast moving and hard to understand.” I think that would be a reasonable response, but again, I have to go back to what we just talked about, Jim, which is that there's no chance of us probably getting it. There's no appetite in it. Not any of the 111 bills pending in Congress right now says a damn thing about state and local regulation of technology!Is the thrust of those federal bills, is it the kinds of stuff that you're generally worried about?Mostly, but not entirely. Some of it is narrower. A lot of these bills are like, “Let's take a look at AI and. . . fill in the blank: elections, AI and jobs, AI and whatever.” And some of them, on the merits, not terrible, others, I have concerns, but it's certainly better that we take a targeted sectoral approach to AI policy and regulation than having the broad-based, general-purpose stuff. Now, there are broad-based, general-purpose measures, and here's what they do, Jim: They basically say, “Look, instead of having a whole cloth new regulatory approach, let's build on the existing types of approaches being utilized in the Department of Commerce, namely through our NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology], and NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] sub-agencies there. NIST is the National Standards Body, and basically they develop best practices through something called the AI Risk Management Framework for artificial intelligence development—and they're good! It's multi-stakeholder, it's bottom up, it's driven by the same principles that motivated the Clinton administration to do multi-stakeholder processes for the internet. Good model. It is non-regulatory, however. It is a consensus-based, multi-stakeholder, voluntary approach to developing consensus-based standards for best practices regarding various types of algorithmic services. These bills in Congress—and there's at least five of them that I count, that I've written about recently—say, “Let's take that existing infrastructure and give it some enforcement teeth. Let's basically say, ‘This policy infrastructure will be converted into a quasi-regulatory system,'” and there begins the dangerous path towards backdoor regulation of artificial intelligence in this country, and I think that's the most likely model we'll get. Like I said, five models, legislative models in the Senate alone that would do that to varying degrees.AI policy under Trump (22:29)Do you have any feel for what a Trump administration would want to do on this?I do, because a month before the Trump administration left office, they issued a report through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and it basically laid out for agencies a set of principles for how it should evaluate artificial intelligence systems, both that are used by the government or that they regulate in the private sector, and it was an excellent set of principles. It was a restatement of the importance of policy, forbearance and humility. It was a restatement of a belief in cost-benefit analysis and identifying not only existing regulatory capacity to address these problems, but also non-regulatory mechanisms or best practices or standards that could address some of these things. It was a really good memo. I praised it in a piece that I wrote just before the Trump administration left. Now, of course, the Trump administration may change.Yes, and also, the technology has changed. I mean, that was 2020 and a lot has happened, and I don't know where. . . . I'm not sure where all the Republicans are. I think some people get it. . .I think the problem, Jim, is that, for the Republican Party, and Trumpian conservatives, in particular, they face a time of choosing. And what I mean by this is that they have spent the last four to six years—and Trump egged this on—engaging in nonstop quote-unquote “big tech bashing” and making technology companies in the media out to be, as Trumps calls them, “the enemy of the American people.” And so many hearings now are just parading tech executives and others up there to be beaten with a stick in front of the public, and this is the new thing. And then there's just a flood of bills that would regulate traditional digital technologies, repeal things like Section 230, which is liability protection for the tech sector, and so on, child safety regulations.Meanwhile, that same Republican Party and Mr. Trump go around hating on Joe Biden in China. If it's one thing they can't stand more than big tech, it's Joe and China! And so, in a sense, they've got to choose, because their own policy proposals on technology could essentially kneecap America's technology base in a way that would open up the door to whether it's what they fear in the “woke DEI policies” of Biden or the CCP's preferred policy agenda for controlling computation in the world today. Choose two, you don't get all three. And I think this is going to be an interesting thing to watch if Mr. Trump comes back into office, do they pick up where that OMB memo left off, or do they go right back to beating that “We've got to kill big tech by any means necessary in a seek-and-destroy mission, to hell with the consequences.” And I don't know yet.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe
James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman and former economist and budget examiner for the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He has authored, The Red-Green Axis 2.0: An Existential Threat to America and the World In this exclusive Schilling Show Unleashed Podcast interview, Simpson discusses the unlikely components of the Red-Green Axis, how they are working together to destroy America and the West, and glimmers of hope on the horizon.
The Constitution gives citizens the right to petition the government. In the 21st century, that is a complicated and expensive process, unless you are a professional lobbyist. Now the White House has launched an effort to make it easier for people to engage with the government. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls the effort a new federal framework for public participation. For details, Federal Drive Host Tom Temin talks with OMB's Associate Director for Performance and Personnel Management, Loren Schulman. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The Constitution gives citizens the right to petition the government. In the 21st century, that is a complicated and expensive process, unless you are a professional lobbyist. Now the White House has launched an effort to make it easier for people to engage with the government. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls the effort a new federal framework for public participation. For details, Federal Drive Host Tom Temin talks with OMB's Associate Director for Performance and Personnel Management, Loren Schulman. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of “Answers From the Lab,” host Bobbi Pritt, M.D., chair of the Division of Clinical Microbiology at Mayo Clinic, is joined by William Morice II, M.D., Ph.D., CEO and president of Mayo Clinic Laboratories. They discuss the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) progress on making a final rule around regulating laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). Their discussion includes:How the FDA's proposed rule on regulating LDTs has advanced to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, and what to expect in the coming months.Ongoing work around the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA).How laboratorians and pathologists can stay engaged on these important issues.
In this week's podcast episode, Troy Edgar meets in Washington D.C. with his colleague and mentor Dan Chenok, Executive Director for IBM's Center for the Business of Government. This was an important show for the podcast as Dan provides a great overview of “What is Meritocracy.” Dan also talks about his recently released book “Transforming the Business of Government: Insights on Resiliency, Innovation, and Performance.” This book has been getting a lot of attention because of its focus on providing government leaders with practical and actionable insights on how best to manage and lead through uncertain and disruptive periods. Dan also shares an interesting fact of his relationship to Ron Chernow, the author of “Alexander Hamilton.” As frequent collaborators at the IBM Center and the Partnership for Public Service, Troy and Dan discuss the important role that think tank organizations play in the ecosystem of Washington, D.C. Lastly, they talked about their ideas for improving the effectiveness of the federal government, performance tracking, and the important role of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to measure performance and assist the President in meeting policy, budget, management, and regulatory/statutory responsibilities. Recommended Reading: “Alexander Hamilton” by Ron Chernow Recommended Reading: “Transforming the Business of Government: Insights on Resiliency, Innovation, and Performance” by Dan Chenok and Michael J. Keegan Recommended Reading: “The Rise of Meritocracy” by Michael Young Ameritocracy™ is produced by Prospect House Media and recorded in studio locations in Los Angeles and Washington D.C.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
