Podcasts about Government Accountability Office

A government watchdog found that the Department of Defense's Transportation Command did not have sufficient and comprehensive data about its Global Household Goods contract, which was canceled in June. The Government Accountability Office found that TRANSCOM officials were aware of the contractor's capability constraints, but had limited information and could not verify whether the company could handle the volume of moves. The watchdog also said the Defense Department did not gather or track comprehensive feedback from service members going through military moves, which limited contractor performance assessment. In addition, TRANSCOM did not have full information regarding costs associated with the contract transition.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Get the full DOE report on Substack: https://federalytics.substack.com/p/the-186-billion-small-business-roadmapGovernment Contracting 101: https://www.govclose.comFull DOE Intelligence Report (Federalytics): federalytics.substack.comDOE Contracts: Two Markets, One Oligopoly — Where Small Businesses (and Investors) Actually WinThe Department of Energy awarded $186B in contracts in recent years — but $79B is concentrated in a nuclear-weapons oligopoly dominated by five M&O primes. If you're a small business (or investing in one), the play isn't to storm the wall — it's to navigate the $100B+ opportunity zone where competition is lower, vehicles are direct, and outcomes are repeatable. This briefing shows: which offices to target, which NAICS to favor, why GSA MAS barely matters at DOE, how to leverage subcontracting pathways into the Big Five, and how the GAO's $1.1B compliance finding creates a verification edge for disciplined firms.Who this is forFounders and BD leaders selling to DOE/NNSAPE/VC investors & boards pressure-testing pipeline quality, CAC to CLV, and competitive moats in federal marketsCorporate strategy teams evaluating inorganic roll-ups in R&D, engineering, and EM servicesWhat you'll learn:DOE's “two-economy” reality: no-entry M&O vs. accessible direct-award ecosystemOffice-level and NAICS-level tactics to avoid high-bidder bloodbathsHow to use subcontracting to wedge into the nuclear complex supply chainWhy the GAO small-business audit (~$1.1B) signals tighter verification — and how to capitalize on itTimestamps (SEO-optimized for YouTube + AI search)00:00 DOE $186B overview00:20 Federalytics report00:40 NNSA M&O no-entry01:00 The Big Five labs01:20 $107B opportunity zone01:40 Target offices to win02:00 Competition math (offers)02:20 Vehicles that work at DOE02:40 NAICS picks to target03:00 Rule of 5 filter03:20 Subcontracting paths03:40 GAO $1.1B compliance04:00 GovClose playbook04:20 Next steps + dataLinks• Full DOE Intelligence Report (Federalytics): federalytics.substack.com• Learn to sell to government & build multiple revenue streams (GovClose): govclose.comConnect with Rick on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/govclose/Notes & context“Offers per award” is a proxy for competition. Lower is better for small businesses and for investors modeling win-rates and BD efficiency.Figures reflect recent DOE awards where competition data is reported; incomplete records are excluded for accuracy.This content is for market intelligence and strategy; it's not legal advice.

Federal pay caps are contributing to ongoing recruitment and retention challenges in the Defense Department's blue-collar workforce. A new report from the Government Accountability Office has found that multiple DoD installations are struggling to keep employees in the Federal Wage System, due to longstanding pay limitations set by Congress. GAO also pointed to evidence that the pay rates for blue-collar federal employees have deviated from pay rates in the larger labor market, making it even harder for DoD to compete with the private sector. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing entitled “Unleashing Indian Energy – Examining Federal Programs at the U.S. Department of Energy” Date: September 10, 2025 Time: 2:30 PM Location: Dirksen Room: 628 Witnesses Panel 1 Mr. David Conrad Acting Director and Deputy Director Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC Dr. Anna Maria Ortiz Director Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office Washington, DC Ms. Jocelyn Fenton Director of Programs Denali Commission Anchorage, Alaska Committee Notice: https://www.indian.senate.gov/hearings/oversight-hearing-entitled-unleashing-indian-energy-examining-federal-programs-at-the-u-s-department-of-energy/

SERVICIO INFORMATIVO 

The open source community heads off a major npm supply chain attack. The Treasury Department sanctions cyber scam centers in Myanmar and Cambodia. Scammers abuse iCloud Calendar invites to send callback phishing emails. Researchers discover a new malware variant exploiting exposed Docker APIs. Phishing attacks abuse the Axios user agent and Microsoft's Direct Send feature. Plex warns users of a data breach.  Researchers flag a surge in scans targeting Cisco ASA devices. CISA delays finalizing its incident reporting rule. The GAO says federal cyber workforce figures are incomplete and unreliable. Our guest is Kevin Magee, Global Director of Cybersecurity Startups at Microsoft Security, discussing cybersecurity education going back to school. AI earns its own Darwin awards.  Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest Today we are joined by Kevin Magee, Global Director of Cybersecurity Startups at Microsoft Security discussing cybersecurity education going back to school. Selected Reading Hackers hijack npm packages with 2 billion weekly downloads in supply chain attack (Bleeping Computer) Open Source Community Thwarts Massive npm Supply Chain Attack (Infosecurity Magazine) US sanctions companies behind cyber scam centers in Cambodia, Myanmar (The Record) New Apple Warning, This iCloud Calendar Invite Is Actually An Attack (Forbes) New Docker Malware Strain Spotted Blocking Rivals on Exposed APIs (HackRead) Axios User Agent Helps Automate Phishing on “Unprecedented Scale” (Infosecurity Magazine) Plex Urges Password Resets Following Data Breach (SecurityWeek) Surge in networks scans targeting Cisco ASA devices raise concerns (Bleeping Computer) CISA pushes final cyber incident reporting rule to May 2026 (CyberScoop) US government lacks clarity into its infosec workforce (The Register) AI Darwin Awards launch to celebrate spectacularly bad deployments (The Register) Share your feedback. What do you think about CyberWire Daily? Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey. Thank you for helping us continue to improve our show. Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's Defense & Aerospace Report Business Roundtable, sponsored by Bell, Dr. “Rocket” Ron Epstein of Bank of America Securities, and Richard Aboulafia of the AeroDynamic advisory consultancy join host Vago Muradian to discuss a Wall Street rally despite weaker than expected jobs numbers and hiccups with their disclosure; Chinese leader Xi Jinping's hosts Vladimir Putin and Narenda Modi in Beijing as three decades of US effort to woo India and drive wedges between Beijing and Moscow collapse; Russia's targeting of EU President Ursula von der Lyen's plane with GPS jamming signals as French President Emmanuel Macron brought together Ukraine's allies to craft a plan to support the country; reports of a TNT shortage because of Russia's war on Ukraine and the global rearmament drive it's sparked; whether the Fitch ratings agency's decision to downgrade Poland over fiscal concerns could undermine the country's role and ambition as a European defense leader; Norway's decision to pick Britain's Type 26 frigate by BAE Systems over Fincantieri's Constellation-class, Naval Group's Admiral Ronar'c, and Thyssen Krupp's Type 127 ships, joining Australia and Canada as export customers for the new antisubmarine warship; Babcock Marine's investor day; the US Navy taps Anduril, Boeing, General Atomics, and Northrop Grumman move head in the service's program for an autonomous strike aircraft as Lockheed Martin is tapped to develop the command system for the new planes; Government Accountability Office's latest report criticizing late deliveries of the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter; Peru's interest in Saab's Gripen fighter and Global Eye radar plane; GE Aerospace's $300 million investment in electric aircraft-maker Beta Technologies; and what to expect at the 2025 edition of DSEI tradeshow next week in London.

Joining Audrey for this week's REELTalk -  Legal analyst for GAO, and bestselling author of Red Hot Lies, CHRISTOPHER HORNER will be here! AND, Dr. STEVEN BUCCI of the Heritage Foundation will be here! PLUS, brilliant farceur MIKE FINE will be here! AND, award-winning Country Artist CURTIS GRIMES will be here to share his latest album, What I'm Here For!  In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately." Come hang with us...   

Episode 202: BPA OverviewWritten by Cameron Carlisle, MSIV, Ross University School of Medicine. Comments by Hector Arreaza, MD.You are listening to Rio Bravo qWeek Podcast, your weekly dose of knowledge brought to you by the Rio Bravo Family Medicine Residency Program from Bakersfield, California, a UCLA-affiliated program sponsored by Clinica Sierra Vista, Let Us Be Your Healthcare Home. This podcast was created for educational purposes only. Visit your primary care provider for additional medical advice._____________________Arr: Welcome to another episode of Rio Bravo qWeek. My name is Hector Arreaza, I'm an associate program director and faculty in the Rio Bravo Family Medicine Residency Program. Today my co-host is Cameron Carlisle, who is a 4th-year medical student finishing his last rotation of med school. Welcome, Cameron, please introduce yourself.Arreaza: What are we talking about today, Cameron?Cam: Dr. Arreaza, did you know you're probably carrying around a chemical in your body that mimics estrogen? In fact, a 2004 CDC study found over 92% of Americans had detectable levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) in their urine. Today's topic is BPA.BPA is everywhere: receipts, water bottles, canned foods, baby bottles, and even our dental fillings. It's one of the most ubiquitous endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which interferes with the body's hormone systems. That's why today's episode is about making the invisible visible. Our goals for today's podcast:Break down what BPA isShow how it affects the human bodyExplain how you and your patients can limit exposureEmpower both clinicians and the public with real, practical informationArreaza: Thanks for clarifying BPA today. It seems like we always have to learn about a new carcinogen or toxic substance that we are exposed to. I remember when I was a child, Yellow #5 became very concerning for the general public but it is still being used in our foods. So, it's good you are talking about this. What Is BPA?Cam: Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical used since the 1950s, primarily in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It makes plastic clear, and is often found in:Water bottlesCanned food liningsBaby bottles (pre-2012)Takeout containersCash register receiptsDental sealantsArreaza: So, I've seen the “BPA-free” labels many times, and today I'm glad you are going to shed some light about it.Cam: What's alarming is that BPA leaches out of these products, especially when exposed to heat, acidity, or repeated use. A Harvard study found that people who drank from plastic bottles for just one week had a 69% increase in urinary BPA levels (Carwile & Michels, 2009).Arreaza: That's a lot of people 69%. Section 3: What happens when BPA gets into our body? How BPA Works in the BodyCam: BPA is classified as an endocrine disruptor, meaning it can bind to estrogen receptors and mimic or block natural hormone functions.It affects:Reproductive systems (both male and female)NeurodevelopmentThyroid signalingPancreatic β-cell functionMetabolism and fat storageEven low-dose exposure can disrupt cellular function. BPA acts as a xenoestrogen (foreign estrogen) and has been shown to alter DNA methylation, leading to epigenetic changes that persist across generations (Manikkam et al., 2013).Arreaza: So, BPA can cause epigenetic changes that can be inherited. BPA can persist for generations in your offspring.BPA's Health Impacts – What the Research SaysHere's where it gets serious. Let's go system-by-system:1. Reproductive HealthFemales: Linked to PCOS, infertility, and early puberty (Peretz et al., 2014).Males: Reduced sperm count and motility; altered testosterone levels.2. Pregnancy and Birth OutcomesIncreased risk of preterm birth, gestational diabetes, and low birth weight (Snijder et al., 2013).Studies show BPA crosses the placenta, directly affecting the fetus.3. Neurological DevelopmentAssociated with ADHD, anxiety, and impaired executive function in children exposed in utero (Mustieles et al., 2015).4. Metabolism and DiabetesBPA exposure is linked to insulin resistance, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, even at low doses (Lang et al., 2008).5. CancerAnimal and human data link BPA to increased risk of breast and prostate cancer via estrogenic mechanisms.6. MortalityA 2020 JAMA study found individuals with higher BPA levels had a 49% increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to those with lower levels (Gao et al., 2020).Arreaza: You are scaring me. I wonder what my BPA level is in my blood. Actually, BPA can be detected in urine. This is the most common approach for population-level biomonitoring, because BPA and its metabolites are mostly excreted in urine. Studies have found that BPA is present in most people, even up to 85–99% in large cohorts. Cam: That's literally everyone. Sources of BPA ExposureLet's talk about things we use every day:Thermal receipts (like from Target or Starbucks): BPA can transfer onto your skin and be absorbed, especially if your hands are wet or lotioned.Canned soups: One study showed that eating canned soup daily for five days led to a 1000% increased urinary BPA levels (Carwile et al., 2011).Plastic water bottles left in the car on hot days or plastic food trays for microwaving = chemical leaching.Baby bottles and pacifiers (pre-2012): primary concern for newborns.Arreaza: So, Cameron, you were exposed to BPA as a baby.Cam: Here's the jaw-dropper: We ingest up to 5 grams of plastic per week, roughly the weight of a credit card (WWF, 2019; University of Newcastle). This includes microplastics like BPA, which enter through food, water, and air.Arreaza: So, it translates into 40 lbs of plastic in a lifetime, by age 70. What can we do as family physicians?Family Medicine and Preventive CareAs family physicians, we are at the frontlines of prevention. Our role includes:Anticipatory guidance: during prenatal visits, well-child visits, and chronic disease managementScreening opportunities: ask about storage habits, microwave use, and receipt handlingEnvironmental health counseling: AAFP recommends addressing endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) when relevant to a patient's concerns.It's not just about treating diabetes or obesity. It's about recognizing that environmental exposure may be a root cause.Arreaza: Prevention is my favorite topic!Cam: One helpful clinical practice:Arreaza: What else can we do to reduce BPA exposure?Practical Steps to Reduce BPAHere's what patients and doctors alike can do today:Switch to BPA-free products, but be careful, as replacements like BPS or BPF may also be harmful (Rochester & Bolden, 2015).Avoid microwaving or dishwashing plastic containers.Use digital receipts.Filter tap water using carbon filters, which can reduce microparticle ingestion.Choose fresh produce over canned goods when possible.Also, wash your hands after handling receipts, especially before eating or touching your face.Arreaza: What is our government doing to protect us?Public Health and Policy UpdatesRegulations are slowly catching up:The FDA banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups in 2012.The European Union has stricter limits, and France banned BPA in all food packaging in 2015.California's Proposition 65 requires BPA warning labels.Arreaza: Proposition 65, passed by direct voter initiative in 1986, “WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”Arreaza: The FDA is planning to phase out petroleum-based food dyes (certified color additives) from the American food supply – marking a significant milestone in the efforts to protect the public. Cam: Many products still contain BPA analogs (BPS, BPF), which are not yet well-regulated.This is where clinician advocacy matters, where we can guide public opinion and support legislative change.Arreaza: So, millions of pounds of toxic substances are produced by many industries in the US. As physicians, we have to stay informed and update our patients.Cameron: How can we wrap up this episode?Conclusion and TakeawaysBPA is a hormone disruptor hiding in plain sight.People are exposed to BPA every day, but small lifestyle changes can dramatically reduce it.Family medicine has a role in education, prevention, and advocacy.Let's all be part of the solution for our health and future generations. Stanley (tumblers) are not sponsoring this episode, and we did not receive any money from them. Arreaza: That's it for today's episode of Rio Bravo qWeek. If you enjoyed this episode, share it with a colleague or medical student who may need to know about BPA. I'm Dr. Arreaza, signing off.Cameron: Hopefully, in the future I will talk to you about more endocrine disrupting chemicals. Thanks for listening._____________________Even without trying, every night you go to bed a little wiser. Thanks for listening to Rio Bravo qWeek Podcast. We want to hear from you, send us an email at RioBravoqWeek@clinicasierravista.org, or visit our website riobravofmrp.org/qweek. See you next week! _____________________References:Carwile, J. L., & Michels, K. B. (2009). Urinary bisphenol A and obesity: NHANES 2003–2006. Environmental Research, 111(6), 825–830.Carwile, J. L., et al. (2011). Canned soup consumption and urinary bisphenol A: A randomized crossover trial. JAMA, 306(20), 2218–2220.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2004). Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.Gao, X., et al. (2020). Urinary bisphenol A and mortality risk. JAMA Network Open, 3(8), e2011620.Lang, I. A., et al. (2008). Association of urinary bisphenol A with medical disorders and laboratory abnormalities in adults. JAMA, 300(11), 1303–1310.Manikkam, M., et al. (2013). Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease. PLOS ONE, 8(1), e55387.Mustieles, V., et al. (2015). Bisphenol A and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(7), 689–695.Peretz, J., et al. (2014). Bisphenol A and reproductive health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(8), 775–786.Rochester, J. R., & Bolden, A. L. (2015). Bisphenol S and F: A systematic review. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(7), 643–650.Snijder, C. A., et al. (2013). Fetal growth and prenatal exposure to bisphenol A. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(3), 393–398.World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2019). No Plastic in Nature: Assessing Plastic Ingestion from Nature to People.University of Newcastle (Australia). (2019). Human Consumption of Microplastics.Theme song, Works All The Time by Dominik Schwarzer, YouTube ID: CUBDNERZU8HXUHBS, purchased from https://www.premiumbeat.com/.

In this fun, flavour-packed episode, Shanghai-born home cook, content creator and influencer Verna Gao shares her journey from growing up in China to becoming a full-time recipe creator with over 900k followers on TikTok and Instagram. She reflects on how her love for teaching others to cook Chinese food began at university and flourished during the pandemic, leading to her debut cookbook Have You Eaten?, which celebrates nostalgic recipes from different stages of her life.   Verna talks about the rise of Asian cuisine in mainstream culture, her fascination with sweet and spicy flavour pairings, and her creative use of pure Canadian maple syrup as a versatile ingredient. She also shares insights into content creation, from building an engaged audience to balancing relatability with viral potential, and why her dumpling and noodle videos always resonate.   The conversation takes us through Verna's global adventures, including Bandeja Paisa in Colombia, a hearty platter of rice, beans, ground beef, chorizo, fried pork belly, fried egg, plantain, avocado and arepa, and her favourite food spots in London, such as Cay Tre Soho and Duck & Waffle. Verna also discusses co-hosting Channel 4's Served and her  “Bowl-ified” segment, where she reimagines knife and fork dishes like beef wellington, taco soup and spring rolls into sofa-friendly meals.   Looking ahead, she is excited to explore more travel-led content, shining a light on local gems and culinary stories from around the world.   Follow www.instagram.com/james_golding_chef/ and Maple from Canada UK www.instagram.com/maplecanadauk/ for more seasonal recipe inspiration.     Verna's cookbook is available here.   For recipes and cookbook announcements, follow Verna here: www.instagram.com/vernahungrybanana/ or visit her website https://www.vernabanana.com.

 What if a robot could do our laundry? This may be a dream come true for everyone, but truly a money-making miracle for laundry service owners! The future is NOW! In this episode of The Laundromat Millionaire Show, Dave & Carla are coming to you LIVE from the Clean Show with Lindon Gao, founder & CEO of Dyna Corp. Follow along as he introduces the new Dyna Laundry Robot - it folds, it sorts, and will do even more soon!!Referenced Links: Our Guest: Dyna Robotics: https://www.dyna.co/Our Sponsors: H-M Company Drain Troughs: https://www.draintroughs.com Our Website: https://www.laundromatmillionaire.comOur Online Course: https://dave-menz.mykajabi.com/sales-pageOur Youtube channel: https://youtube.com/c/LaundromatMillionaireOur Podcast: https://laundromatmillionaire.com/podcast/Our Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/laundromatmillionaire/Our Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/laundromatmillionaireOur LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-laundromat-millionaire-menz/Our Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laundromatmillionaire/Our laundromats: https://www.queencitylaundry.comOur pick-up and delivery laundry services: https://www.queencitylaundry.com/deliveryOur WDF & Delivery Workshop: https://laundromatmillionaire.com/pick-up-delivery-workshop/Suggested Services Page: https://www.laundromatmillionaire.com/servicesWDF & Delivery Dynamics: A Complete Business Blueprint: https://laundromatmillionaire.com/wdf-delivery-dynamics-a-business-blueprint/LaundroBoost Marketing Company: https://laundroboostmarketing.com/Clean Show Registration: https://the-clean-show.us.messefrankfurt.com/us/en.htmlCaper Carts: https://www.instacart.com/company/retailer-platform/connected-stores/caper-cartsMonster Laundry: https://www.monsterlaundry.com/Cents Software: https://www.trycents.com/Curbside Software: https://curbsidelaundries.comTimestamps00:00 Episode 103 Intro 01:43 Lindon's Background and Why Laundry04:50 The Challenge of Soft-Body Manipulation06:46 How AI Robots are Different from Other Robots09:12 Current Use Case from Laundromat Owner Craig Taylor10:28 Limitations of What It Can Do11:17 Reactions from Customers11:56 Folding Speed13:39 Ability to Package Laundry13:54 Quality of the Folding17:36 Dyna Robot Folding Demonstration & How It Works19:42 Customizability of the Process & Training the Robot21:04 Production Timeline & Availability22:49 Additional Features & Capabilities Being Added in the Future25:11 Software Integrations26:39 Folding Mixed Items & Sorting27:13 Examples of Learning Capabilities29:30 The Future of Robotics in the Laundry Industry35:23 Dyna Robot Specs & Requirements37:07 Progress Made in Only 11 months39:01 Craig's Implementation of the Dyna Robot Today40:40 Steps to Getting Faster45:50 Machine Maintenance & Life47:51 Current Capabilities & Additional Features Coming Soon 

$1 contracts for access to leading edge artificial intelligence companies may be too good to be true. The General Services Administration's recent awards to Open AI and Anthropic are facing protests before the Government Accountability Office with details about the protests and why one vendor is crying foul, Federal News Network's Executive Editor Jason Miller joins me now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Chris Cullerot, Vice President for Technology and Innovation at iTech AG joins the show to unpack the massive savings potential outlined in a recent GAO report—over $100 billion—through better IT asset management and consolidation. He shares real-world examples of how federal agencies are addressing duplicative systems, overcoming change management hurdles, and building scalable platforms that improve efficiency, reduce costs, and strengthen security.

This Day in Legal History: Constitutional Convention–Article IIIOn August 27, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia turned their attention to the judiciary. Debates centered on what would become Article III, particularly the scope of judicial power. The Convention approved language stating that federal judicial power would extend to “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,” a formulation that blended common law tradition with equitable relief. This phrase would become foundational, granting federal courts broad jurisdiction over constitutional questions. Also debated was the method by which judges could be removed from office. A motion was introduced proposing that judges could be removed by the Executive if both Houses of Congress requested it. This raised immediate concerns about judicial independence. Critics argued that giving such removal power to the Executive would dangerously entangle the judiciary with the political branches. The proposal ultimately failed, with only the Connecticut delegation supporting it. The delegates chose instead to preserve the more rigorous process of impeachment as the mechanism for judicial removal. This decision reinforced the principle of judicial independence, anchoring it in the separation of powers. These discussions on August 27 set enduring boundaries around federal judicial authority and helped define the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has retained high-profile Washington attorney Abbe Lowell to challenge President Donald Trump's attempt to remove her from the central bank. Trump cited alleged mortgage fraud as grounds for her dismissal, claiming she misrepresented two homes as primary residences in 2021. Cook, appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, has denied any wrongdoing and faces no charges. Lowell, who recently launched a law firm to defend public officials targeted by Trump, announced plans to sue, arguing Trump lacks the legal authority to remove a sitting Fed governor. He characterized the removal attempt as politically motivated and baseless. Lowell's current and former clients include Hunter Biden, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and several other prominent figures, both Democratic and Republican. His firm also represents ex-government lawyers who claim they were unlawfully dismissed by the Justice Department. Cook is the first Black woman to serve on the Fed's board and her removal would mark an unprecedented breach of the central bank's political independence.Fed's Lisa Cook turns to top Washington lawyer Lowell in Trump fight | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a federal injunction that is currently requiring it to continue foreign aid payments, despite an executive order halting such funding. In an emergency filing, the Department of Justice argued that the injunction, originally issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, interferes with the executive branch's authority over foreign policy and budgetary decisions. Trump issued the 90-day pause on foreign aid on January 20, his second inauguration day, and later took steps to dismantle USAID, including sidelining staff and considering its absorption into the State Department.Two nonprofits — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network — challenged the funding freeze, claiming it was illegal. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the injunction should be lifted, the full court declined to stay the order, and Judge Ali rejected another request to do so earlier this week. The administration warned that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, it will have to spend roughly $12 billion before September 30, when the funds expire, thereby undermining its policy goals.Previously, the Supreme Court narrowly declined to pause Ali's order requiring the release of $2 billion in aid. The D.C. Circuit panel later found that only the Government Accountability Office, not private organizations, had standing to challenge the funding freeze.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to halt foreign aid payments | ReutersAnthropic has reached a class-wide settlement with authors who sued the AI company for training its models on over 7 million pirated books downloaded from “shadow libraries” like LibGen. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused Anthropic of copyright infringement and gained momentum after U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted class-action status in July 2025—a ruling that Anthropic said put the company under “inordinate pressure” to settle. The potential damages, estimated at up to $900 billion if the infringement was found willful, created what the company described as an existential threat.In court, Anthropic admitted the magnitude of the case made it financially unsustainable to proceed to trial, even if the legal merits were disputed. Alsup repeatedly denied the company's motions to delay or avoid trial, criticizing Anthropic for not disclosing what works it used. While he ruled that training AI on copyrighted works could qualify as fair use, the piracy claims were left for a jury to decide. Anthropic appealed the class certification and sought emergency relief, but ultimately chose to settle.Critics say the settlement underscores how current copyright law's statutory damages—up to $150,000 per willful infringement—can distort outcomes and discourage innovation. The deal is expected to be finalized by September 3. Meanwhile, Anthropic still faces other copyright lawsuits involving song lyrics and Reddit content. Legal experts suggest the company's move was partly motivated by uncertainty over how courts interpret “willful” infringement, especially with a related Supreme Court case on the horizon.Anthropic Settles Major AI Copyright Suit Brought by Authors (3)Content warning: This segment contains references to suicide, self-harm, and the death of a minor. Discretion is advised.The parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in California state court, alleging that ChatGPT played a direct role in their son's suicide. They claim that over several months, the AI chatbot engaged in extended conversations with Adam, during which it validated his suicidal thoughts, provided instructions on lethal self-harm methods, and even helped draft a suicide note. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of prioritizing profit over user safety, especially with the release of GPT-4o in 2024, which introduced features like memory, emotional mimicry, and persistent interaction that allegedly increased risks to vulnerable users.The Raines argue that OpenAI knew these features could endanger users without strong safeguards, yet proceeded with the product rollout to boost its valuation. They seek monetary damages and a court order mandating stronger user protections, including age verification, blocking of self-harm queries, and psychological risk warnings.OpenAI expressed condolences and noted that safety mechanisms such as directing users to crisis resources are built into ChatGPT, though they acknowledged these measures can falter during prolonged conversations. The company said it is working to improve safeguards, including developing parental controls and exploring in-chat access to licensed professionals.OpenAI, Altman sued over ChatGPT's role in California teen's suicide | ReutersOpenAI Hit With Suit From Family of Teen Who Died by Suicide This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Keeping financial reporting honest is critical but for smaller public companies, meeting Sarbanes-Oxley requirements can be a costly challenge. A new GAO report finds that while compliance boosts transparency, the burden of auditor fees and internal controls hits small firms harder, raising questions about how to strike the right balance. Here to fill us in on their findings is Director, financial Markets and Community Investment at GAO, Michael Clements.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ralph welcomes Ben Cohen (anti-war activist and ice cream entrepreneur) to discuss his new campaign, "Up in Arms," which advocates for a common-sense Pentagon budget. Then, Ralph speaks to Guardian columnist Arwa Mahdawi about her recent piece: "When will we finally admit: the Gaza death toll is higher than we've been told."Ben Cohen is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and longtime anti-war activist. He is a co-founder of the ice cream company Ben & Jerry's and a prominent supporter of progressive causes. He is co-founder of Up In Arms, a public education and advocacy campaign pushing for a common-sense approach to military budgeting. In May of this year, Ben was arrested by Capitol Police after he interrupted Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s testimony by screaming,”Congress kills poor kids in Gaza by buying bombs and pays for it by kicking kids off Medicaid.”We're up in arms because the government has taken the kindness, the heart, the soul of the American people and essentially replaced it with so many bombs that there's no rational use for them. They've turned us all into mass murderers.Ben CohenYou know, politicians starting from Reagan are fond of saying “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” And then they turn around and spend $100 billion a year on a nuclear arsenal that's capable of blowing up the entire world several times over. So they say one thing and they do another. I mean, a nuclear arsenal capable of blowing up the entire world several times over? That's not deterrence. That's delusion.Ben CohenI just go back to the moral issue of our time, which is Gaza—two-thirds of the American people don't support continuing to arm Israel. And we need to make our politicians pay the price for continuing to arm Israel… We have a midterm election coming up. If your guy voted to continue to essentially facilitate the genocide, vote them out.Ben CohenWhen you have more money than is needed, you tend to invite corruption, cost overruns, machinery that doesn't work, and I would advise that you look into why the GAO and the Pentagon auditors are being asked to do fewer audits of the military budget. Because there's almost a direct correlation between throwing money at a government program (especially at that scale) and corruption. And corruption is understandable to everybody. It's the number one political issue all over the world, when the pollsters poll.Ralph NaderArwa Mahdawi is a columnist for the Guardian and author of Strong Female Lead: Lessons from Women in Power. Here is her recent piece on the genocide in Gaza: “When will we finally admit: the Gaza death toll is higher than we've been told” (The Guardian, August 8, 2025)To be fair, the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal have published some pretty devastating reports from their reporters in that area. They've put out some devastating features on what's going on [in Gaza], but it doesn't translate into editorial denunciation by these papers. And it doesn't translate into taking the next step and doing what they would do in other conflicts around the world where there isn't so much prejudice and domestic pressureRalph NaderI'm an opinion writer, but as journalists, you're always supposed to report facts. And the fact is: we have absolutely no idea how many people are dead in the Gaza Strip. But there are plenty of studies (which I reference in the article—one Lancet peer-reviewed study, one letter to the Lancet by a highly-respected scientist, one empirical study by Michael Spagat) which show that the death count is a lot higher. So I truly believe that unless you're saying “the official figure from the Ministry of Health is around 60,000 but studies show it is probably much higher,” then that's just journalistic malpractice.Arwa MahdawiI think there's just this instinct to believe that Palestinians are lying and Israelis are telling the truth. And it also goes back to…this isn't just Israel's war, this is America's war as well. And this desire to see America as the good guys—we're the good guys, the Palestinians are the bad guys. And to have this black-and-white narrative where, obviously, we're the good guys, you know, and so if the Palestinian narrative casts doubt on that, then it must be wrong.Arwa MahdawiI always suggest that people write to the media outlets and say that they want to see more Palestinian narratives, they want the media outlets to voice their concern that foreign reporters are not being let in, that more aid workers are not being let in, that pictures are not coming out.Arwa MahdawiThere are very few pictures coming out of the scale of this destruction in Gaza, but when you see the ones that do come out, it is very, very obvious that there are more than 60,000 people dead.But there seems to be this lack of curiosity with some of my peers. Why aren't they asking, “Why aren't we seeing more pictures?” There should be nonstop outrage that their press freedom is being stifled like this and so many Palestinian journalists are being slaughtered.Arwa MahdawiNews 8/22/25* Last Thursday, during an event in her Masscusetts congressional district, Congresswoman Katherine Clark – who holds the position of House Minority Whip, making her the number two Democrat in the House – called Israel's campaign in Gaza a “genocide,” per Axios. According to Zeteo, this makes Clark the 14th member of Congress to use the “g word.” Lest she be accused of bravery however, Clark quickly walked back her comments. In a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate, Clark said “last week, while attending an event in my district, I repeated the word ‘genocide' in response to a question…I want to be clear that I am not accusing Israel of genocide.” This incident illustrates the cross-cutting pressures facing Democratic Party leaders. This divide will be on the agenda again at the DNC meeting on August 26th, where among other issues, party leaders will vote on competing resolutions to lay out the Democrats' position on Gaza. Allison Minnerly, the progressive DNC delegate sponsoring the resolution to end arms shipments to Israel, is quoted saying “Our voters…are saying that they do not want U.S. dollars to enable further death and starvation anywhere across the world, particularly in Gaza…I don't think it should be a hard decision for us to say that clearly,” per the Intercept.* Even as Democrats wrestle with their position on Gaza, the politics are clearly shifting. The Reject AIPAC coalition has released a new statement saying that among Democrats, AIPAC is now a “toxic pariah.” As evidence of this, Reject AIPAC cites the fact that only 14 House Democrats attended the AIPAC-sponsored Israel trip this year. According to Mondoweiss, “In 2023, the lobbying group brought 24 House Dems to Israel over recess. In 2019, over 40 attended.” Reject AIPAC also cites the fact that Reps. Valerie Foushee and Maxine Dexter, both recipients of millions of AIPAC dollars, voted to block arms to Israel and Foushee is even now rejecting AIPAC money. As these small victories mount, the horizon of possibility for movement within the party grows ever wider.* Last week, Tom Artiom Alexandrovich – a senior department head in Israel's National Cyber Directorate – was arrested in a “multi-agency operation targeting child sex predators,” in Clark County, Nevada according to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. According to Reuters, “Alexandrovich faces a felony charge of luring or attempting to lure a child or mentally ill person to commit a sex act ‘with use of computer technology.'” Yet, inexplicably, Alexandrovich was released by U.S. authorities and is back in Israel. This set off a firestorm in the U.S., with many accusing the Trump administration of facilitating Alexandrovich's release. The State Department was forced to issue a statement denying these claims, stating that Alexandrovich "did not claim diplomatic immunity and was released by a state judge…Any claims that the U.S. government intervened are false." The AP adds that the “Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Israeli Prime Minister's Office did not immediately return messages.” Disturbingly, the mainstream media seems to be purposely ignoring this case. While it has been covered by the Guardian, the Times of Israel, and Haaretz, there has been zero coverage in the New York Times or Washington Post, or ABC, NBC, or CBS. This media blackout adds fuel to the speculation that this case is being tamped down by the administration for political reasons.* Another troubling story regarding minors on the internet comes to us from Mark Zuckerberg's Meta AI. According to Reuters, internal documents from Meta Platforms detail “policies on chatbot behavior…[permitting] the company's artificial intelligence creations to ‘engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,' generate false medical information and help users argue that Black people are ‘dumber than white people.'” Former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan called these reports “disturbing” and cited a legal complaint filed by the FTC to the Justice Department against Snap in January, under her leadership, “charging that [Snap's] AI chatbot was creating risks and harms for young users.” Khan noted that the “DOJ hasn't filed the case or taken any steps to protect these kids,” and demanded that “Any lawmaker concerned about big tech's abuse of kids should ask what is going on.” The administration's lack of action on these issues indicates that despite their rhetorical inveighing against the tech industry, they are treating SIlicon Valley with the same kid gloves they use for the rest of corporate America, even when it affects minors.* In more positive news from abroad, the Washington Post reports that between 2022 and 2024, Mexico lifted a stunning 8.3 million residents out of poverty. This 18% drop in poverty includes a 23% decrease in extreme poverty and a 16% drop in moderate poverty. According to experts, this remarkable achievement is the result of the policies of former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, or AMLO, and his successor Claudia Sheinbaum, such as tripling the minimum wage and instituting a raft of social programs to aid “senior citizens, unemployed youth, students, farmers and people with disabilities.” President Sheinbaum is now plowing ahead with a new project – producing a “small, 100% electric, accessible [EV],” called the “Olinia,” to be fully manufactured and assembled in Mexico, per Mexico News Daily.* Turning to domestic politics, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik finally showed up in her district on Monday after an extended period of avoiding public appearances. At a ceremony honoring a late Clinton County clerk in Plattsburgh, Stefanik was drowned out by cries of “‘You sold us out!', ‘Shame!', and ‘Unseal the Epstein files!', along with a “steady stream of boos,” according to the Daily Beast. Stefanik “left the podium after speaking for less than a minute,” and when she returned, she was booed again. Stefanik's chronic absence and chilly reception is a bad sign for her gubernatorial aspirations. In the months since she has held a town hall, her constituents held a mock town hall where they addressed an empty chair, per WRGB, and New York Democrats AOC and Paul Tonko held town halls in her district, per the Albany Times-Union.* In more political news from New York, disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo is explicitly seeking to woo New York Republicans in his independent bid for Mayor of New York City. POLITICO reports that at a fundraiser at media mogul Jimmy Finkelstein's Southampton estate, Cuomo told the crowd that he agrees with President Trump that the “goal is to stop Mamdani.” To this end, he is trying to convince Republicans that they would be “wasting [their] vote on [Curtis] Sliwa,” the Republican nominee for Mayor, “because he'll never be a serious candidate.” Cuomo also implied that he is open to an alliance with Trump, telling the crowd “Let's put it this way: I knew the president very well.” Dora Pekec, a spokesperson for the Zohran campaign, is quoted saying “Since he's too afraid to say it to New Yorkers' faces, we'll make it clear: Andrew Cuomo IS Donald Trump's choice for mayor.”* In Texas, state Democrats have returned to the state, ending their attempt to defeat Governor Abbott's mid-decade redistricting scheme by denying the legislature a quorum. In a statement Gene Wu, chairman of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, said "We killed the corrupt special session, withstood unprecedented surveillance and intimidation, and rallied Democrats nationwide to join this existential fight for fair representation — reshaping the entire 2026 landscape," per the BBC. The legislature is now expected to approve the redrawn congressional maps; the state Democrats plan to continue fighting them in the courts. California has vowed to redraw their own maps to compensate for the expected loss of five Democrat-held seats in Texas. New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Maryland are also considering their own redistricting plans. Vice President JD Vance was deployed to Indiana to pressure Republicans in that state to redraw their maps to favor Republicans as well, per the IndyStar. It is a sad state of affairs that American politics has been reduced to such naked power grabbing plots, but here we are.* In local news, the federal occupation of Washington, D.C. continues to deepen. CBS reports the governors of at least six Republican-led states are sending contingents from their National Guards to the capital. These include Mississippi and Louisiana, West Virginia, South Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. Just what these troops will do in Washington remains unclear. Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, who is sending 160 troops, cited “monument security” and “traffic control” among their official responsibilities. The federal agents on the ground, with little to do – the DOJ itself reports as violent crime is at a 30-year low in the District – seem to be mostly just harassing residents. The Daily Beast reports ICE tore down a banner and replaced it with a dildo. A local, Amanda Moore, posted a photo of 15 federal agents calling an ambulance for a drunk girl in Dupont Circle. And, while the Lever reports D.C. corporate lobbyists pushed for the occupation, it is wreaking havoc on local businesses; Rolling Stone reports reservations at D.C. restaurants are down between 25 and 31%, to take just one example. We can only hope that this pointless, destructive farce of quasi-fascistic political theater ends sooner rather than later.* Finally, investigative reporter and Iraq war veteran Seth Harp is out with a new book – The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces – which details the double murder of Master Sergeant Billy Lavigne and Chief Warrant Officer Timothy Dumas, along with the “many more unexplained deaths…other murders connected to drug trafficking in elite units, and dozens of fatal overdoses,” at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Among other remarkable discoveries, Harp “describes a U.S. special forces k9 [unit] that was given titanium dentures and encouraged to feast on human brains in the field,” in the words of publisher and producer Chris Wade. Remember these titanium dentures whenever you hear that there is no money to pay for critical social programs. The money is there. The political will is not.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

From London's harbors to Canton's bustling hongs and the Qianlong Emperor's Dragon Throne, Lord George Macartney's 1792-94 mission to Great Qing unveils profound cultural divides, shaping centuries of Sino-Western relations. This series explores a pivotal diplomatic clash that redefined global history. Time Period Covered: 1792-1794 CE Major Historical Figures: Qing Empire: The Qianlong Emperor (Aisin-Gioro Hongli) [r. 1735–1796] Chief Minister Heshen (1750–1799) Wang Wenxiong, mid-level imperial bureaucrat British Empire: Lord George Macartney, ambassador extraordinaire [1737–1806] Sir George Staunton [1737-1801] William Alexander [1767–1816] John Barrow, Comptroller [1764-1848] Sgt. Maj. Samuel Holmes, 11th Lt. Dragoons Major Works Cited: Berg, Maxine. The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914: Global Connections and Comparisons. Cranmer-Byng, John. “The Chinese Documents Relating to the Macartney Embassy.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1961. Gao, Hao. Creating the Opium War: British Imperial Attitudes Toward China, 1792–1840. Hevia, James L. Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793. Holmes, Samuel. Journal of the Macartney Expedition. Macartney, Lord George. Journal of the Macartney Expedition. Peyrefitte, Alain. The Immobile Empire: The First Great Collision of East and West. Knopf, 1992. Qing Archival Records. Tr. in Presents and Tribute: Documents on the Macartney Embassy. Staunton, George. An Authentic Account of an Embassy from the King of Great Britain to the Emperor of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're a young service member preparing for your first PCS, finding honest information about where you'll live and eat can be nearly impossible. Military barracks and dining facilities remain one of the most significant blind spots in our support system for junior enlisted personnel.Rob Evans, an Army veteran and software developer, experienced this firsthand during his 12 years of service. After transitioning to civilian life, he noticed something critical was missing: a platform where service members could openly discuss the conditions of their living quarters and dining facilities. This realization, coupled with a 2023 Government Accountability Office report highlighting widespread problems in military housing, sparked the creation of Hots and Cots – an app that's transforming how we address quality of life issues for our troops.During our conversation, Rob shares powerful stories of service members living with mold-covered ceilings, broken HVAC systems, and unreliable dining options who found their voices through his platform. The app's anonymity feature has proven crucial, allowing personnel to document conditions without fear of retaliation. What began as a simple idea has now collected over a thousand reviews and caught the attention of military leadership at the highest levels – including the Secretary of the Army.Perhaps most compelling is how Hots and Cots creates accountability where traditional systems have failed. Rob describes instances where installation commanders reached out directly after seeing negative reviews, resulting in immediate fixes to problems that had lingered for months. His recent addition of a leadership dashboard allows vetted military leaders to engage with reviews and address concerns while maintaining user anonymity.As someone who's witnessed the transformative power of good leadership and proper resources, Rob's mission extends beyond building an app – he's building a bridge between those who serve and those who lead them. His work reminds us that taking care of our service members isn't just about equipment and training but ensuring they have decent places to live and nutritious food to eat.Ready to see what's happening at military installations nationwide or share your own experience? Download Hots and Cots today and join the movement to improve quality of life for those who serve our country.Support the showVisit my website: https://thehello.llc/THERESACARPENTERRead my writings on my blog: https://www.theresatapestries.com/Listen to other episodes on my podcast: https://storiesofservice.buzzsprout.comWatch episodes of my podcast:https://www.youtube.com/c/TheresaCarpenter76

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

Many veterans are being denied critical benefits due to inconsistent and delayed discharge upgrade decisions. A new GAO report reveals that military review boards often fail to apply guidance meant to support veterans with PTSD or military sexual trauma. Here to explain the impacts of those systemic shortcomings and how DoD could fix them is Director in GAO's Defense Capabilities and Management team, Krysty Williams.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ku and Su revisit the stage at Neuehouse Hollywood for their first ever live show, with head-turning outfits, hilarious guests and, of course, free stuff! Friends, family and fans cheer on our intrepid hosts as they cover everything from Kulap’s fierce “playsuit,” to SuChin’s husband’s dating history. Then shopping superhero Jessica Gao breaks down why Costco is her go-to spot for toilet paper, booze, sweatsuits and even fine jewelry. And finally, Jason Mantzoukas returns for the next episode of “Zouk’s Cubes” — and let’s just say there’s a lot to unpack. Please note, Add To Cart contains mature themes and may not be appropriate for all listeners. To see all products mentioned in this episode, head to @addtocartpod on Instagram. To purchase any of the products, see below. Kulap’s ferocious tiger playsuit is from LALA Jessica Gao has a Costco membership and thinks you should have one too if you want all the Kirkland Signature products Like the Kirkland Signature toilet paper, alcohol, meats and sweats LaoGanMa Spicy Chili Crisp is Gao’s go-to for authentic Chinese spicy goodness Jason is back with his Tom Bihn travel tray in hand Eagle Creek Pack-It Shoe Sac might be what Su needs for her loose shoes The Hero Clip is perfect for keeping nice bags off the dirty floor Jason loves the Evergoods CIVIC Access Pouch 1L and Evergoods CIVIC Access Pouch 2L, which unfolds and sits upright Never worry about those tangly, free airplane headphones again! Connect your own bluetooth headphones with the Twelve South AirFly Pro Bluetooth Wireless Audio Transmitter Wabuki collapsible chopsticks are perfect for eating on planes as well Don’t forget to pack an Apple TV to watch your shows on the road Jason and Su both love to travel with noise machines — Jason’s go-to is the Snooz Go travel-sized white noise machine Left Center Right dice game is a fun-for-all-ages betting game The Case of the Missing Men graphic novel is an old-school mystery with a surreal (and Canadian) twist Stay up to date with us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram at @LemonadaMedia. Joining Lemonada Premium is a great way to support our show and get bonus content. Subscribe today at bit.ly/lemonadapremium. Click this link for a list of current sponsors and discount codes for this show and all Lemonada shows: lemonadamedia.com/sponsorsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In a sweeping announcement about a forthcoming executive order, President Donald Trump argued Monday that states are ultimately subservient to the White House when it comes to setting election policy. Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform that states are “merely an agent for the federal government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the federal government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.” Trump also claimed the executive order would end mail-in voting, falsely claiming that other countries stopped the practice due to fraud, as well as “very expensive and SERIOUSLY CONTROVERSIAL voting machines.” It's not clear which voting machines Trump was referencing. The president's allies and friendly media outlets like Fox News and NewsMax were successfully sued by Smartmatic and Dominion for billions of dollars after the 2020 election for falsely claiming that their voting machines were rigged to elect Democratic President Joe Biden. Either way, Trump has lost dozens of lawsuits attempting to prove fraud, and reportedly nearly signed an executive order at the end of his last term ordering the Department of Defense to seize voting machines, purportedly to examine them for fraud. A previous executive order from Trump this year, purporting to compel the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission to alter voter registration request forms to include a proof of citizenship section and deny forms to states or voters who don't provide the information, was struck down by a judge as unconstitutional in April. The judge in the ruling remarked that “no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress's deliberative process” on regulating elections via executive order. A federal watchdog is urging the Office of Management and Budget to prioritize the governmentwide adoption of a federal IT spending framework, or end the efforts, after finding the multi-year initiative has stalled. In a report made public Monday, the Government Accountability Office recommended that the OMB director direct the federal chief information officer to either terminate the agency's push for governmentwide adoption of the Technology Business Management framework or deem it an administration priority. Should it be made a priority, the GAO also suggested OMB quickly implement the watchdog's previous recommendations and take “immediate action” to integrate the framework across government fully. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

This week on The Marathon Running Podcast, we tackle the most misunderstood phase of marathon training: the taper. Host [Insert Host Name Here] compares this final stage to the difference between cramming and consolidating for a major exam, sharing a personal story about how his own failed taper taught him the hard way that less is truly more. For solo runners like Letty, mastering the taper is especially crucial, as it's the final step to ensure your body is primed for an independent race. We dive into the science of supercompensation, explaining how resting unlocks your full physiological potential by rebuilding muscle, replenishing glycogen, and boosting your immune system.Whether you're battling the "taper crazies" or feeling anxious about the reduced mileage, this episode is a deep dive into the practical blueprint and mental strategies you need to arrive at the starting line feeling strong, confident, and ready for your best race. Trust the process, because the taper isn't about losing fitness—it's about unlocking it for that final, glorious solo effort.Here are our research citations:

Fly By Jing is one of the most exciting brands in food today, and we were lucky to have the company's founder, Jing Gao, return to the studio for a great conversation. We talk about the company's incredible trajectory, and how growth (and expansion into new product lines) comes with its own challenges. We also tap into what it's like to make chili crisps in China, and how the yo-yoing tariff dynamic is keeping the company on its toes. I have so much respect for what Jing is building at Fly By Jing. Also on the show we have a great conversation with Hailee Catalano and Chuck Cruz, recorded live at The Bell House. We talk about softboy foods, beach sandwiches, and what the DMs are looking like. Buy: The Book of Sichuan Chili Crisp Subscribe to This Is TASTE: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube 

Fly By Jing is one of the most exciting brands in food today, and we were lucky to have the company's founder, Jing Gao, return to the studio for a great conversation. We talk about the company's incredible trajectory, and how growth (and expansion into new product lines) comes with its own challenges. We also tap into what it's like to make chili crisps in China, and how the yo-yoing tariff dynamic is keeping the company on its toes. I have so much respect for what Jing is building at Fly By Jing.Also on the show we have a great conversation with Hailee Catalano and Chuck Cruz, recorded live at The Bell House. We talk about softboy foods, beach sandwiches, and what the DMs are looking like.Subscribe to This Is TASTE: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textIt starts with a strange letter in the mail. A car loan you never applied for. A credit card you don't own. A digital ghost is quietly living your life, and you have no idea how it got the keys. When you turn to one of the silent guardians of your financial identity for help, you find only chaos, confusion, and a company that seems to be a danger to itself.This week on Digital Fallout, we tell the true story of one of history's most catastrophic data breaches. It's a tale of staggering corporate negligence, a botched public response that became a dark comedy, and a 76-day silent heist where the identities of 147 million people were stolen.What happens when the keepers of our most valuable secrets simply forget to lock the door?Show Notes: SourcesThis story was pieced together from numerous public records, government reports, and in-depth investigative journalism. For those who want to learn more about the 2017 Equifax breach, these are the key sources we consulted:The official report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled "Data Protection: Actions Taken by Equifax and Federal Agencies in Response to the 2017 Breach," which provides a definitive timeline and analysis of the failures.Federal Trade Commission (FTC) public statements and court filings related to the landmark global settlement with Equifax.In-depth reporting from security journalist Brian Krebs (KrebsOnSecurity), who meticulously covered the botched response, including the fake phishing sites promoted by Equifax's own Twitter account.Technical explainers from outlets like WIRED magazine that broke down the Apache Struts vulnerability and how it was exploited.Ongoing coverage of the corporate and financial fallout from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal during September and October 2017.The public testimony of former Equifax CEO Richard Smith before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where many of the internal failures were brought to light. Support the show

This Day in Legal History: Social Security ActOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, establishing the foundation of the modern American welfare state. The legislation was a centerpiece of Roosevelt's New Deal and aimed to address the widespread economic insecurity caused by the Great Depression. For the first time, the federal government created a structured system of unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, funded by payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. The law also introduced Aid to Dependent Children, a program designed to support families headed by single mothers, later expanded into Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).The Act marked a major shift in federal involvement in individual economic welfare and signaled a broader acceptance of the idea that the government bears some responsibility for the financial well-being of its citizens. Though limited in scope at first—agricultural and domestic workers, for example, were excluded—the framework it established would evolve through amendments and court challenges over the following decades.The Social Security Act was challenged on constitutional grounds shortly after its passage, but the Supreme Court upheld its key provisions in Helvering v. Davis (1937), affirming Congress's power to spend for the general welfare. Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include disability insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. While the structure and funding of these programs remain a subject of political debate, the 1935 Act remains one of the most enduring and significant pieces of social legislation in U.S. history.A Texas state court has appointed a receiver to take control of Alex Jones' company, Free Speech Systems LLC, the parent of his Infowars show, in an effort to collect on $1.3 billion in defamation judgments related to his false claims about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the request from families of victims in the Connecticut case, authorizing receiver Gregory S. Milligan to manage and potentially liquidate the company's assets. Another hearing is scheduled for September 16 to determine whether the Texas-based judgments should also be placed under receivership.Jones, who has been in personal bankruptcy since 2022, has been shielded from immediate collection on many of these judgments, but his company's Chapter 11 case was dismissed in 2024, giving a separate bankruptcy trustee limited control over its assets. The receiver now has authority, subject to that trustee's approval, to pursue the sale of Infowars' media assets, access financial records, and initiate legal actions to recover property.Attorneys for the Sandy Hook families hailed the order as a major step toward accountability. Meanwhile, Jones' legal team plans to appeal, arguing the court was misled about prior bankruptcy rulings. Jones is also seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Connecticut judgment, with a filing deadline set for September 5.Alex Jones' Infowars Assets to Be Taken Over by Receiver (1)A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down Trump administration rules that allowed employers to deny birth control coverage based on religious or moral objections. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the 2018 exemptions were not justified and found a disconnect between the sweeping scope of the rules and the limited number of employers likely to need them. The ruling came in a case brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the rules on procedural grounds in 2020 but did not evaluate their substance.The Affordable Care Act mandates contraception coverage in employer health plans, with narrow exemptions for religious organizations. The Trump administration expanded this to a broader class of employers, arguing that even applying for exemptions could burden religious practice. Judge Beetlestone disagreed, saying the administration failed to show a rational link between the perceived issue and its response.The Biden administration had proposed reversing the Trump-era policy in 2023, but that effort stalled before Biden left office. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic group involved in defending the rules, plans to appeal the new decision. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling.US judge blocks Trump religious exemption to birth control coverage | ReutersPresident Trump revoked a 2021 executive order issued by then-President Joe Biden that aimed to promote competition across the U.S. economy. Biden's order targeted anti-competitive practices in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and labor, and was a key element of his economic agenda. It included efforts to reduce consumer costs by curbing monopolistic behavior and increasing oversight of mergers.Trump's administration criticized the Biden-era approach as overly restrictive and burdensome. The Justice Department, under Trump, endorsed the revocation, stating it would pursue an “America First Antitrust” strategy focused on market freedom and less regulatory interference. Officials also announced plans to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process and reinstate targeted consent decrees to address specific anti-competitive behavior.Critics argue the revocation will weaken protections for consumers and small businesses. A June 2025 report by advocacy groups estimated that dismantling consumer protection policies, including those from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has cost Americans at least $18 billion through higher fees and lost compensation. Trump has also taken steps to drastically reduce the CFPB's workforce.Former Biden competition policy director Hannah Garden-Monheit condemned the move, claiming it contradicts Trump's promise to support everyday Americans and instead benefits large corporations.Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says | ReutersA federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit filed by video-sharing platform Rumble, which had accused major advertisers—Diageo, WPP, and the World Federation of Advertisers—of conspiring to boycott the platform by withholding ad spending. U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that the Northern District of Texas was not the appropriate venue for the case, as the defendants are based in the UK and Belgium. Her decision did not address the substance of Rumble's antitrust claims.Rumble's lawsuit alleged that the advertisers participated in a “brand-safety” initiative through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which it claims was used to pressure platforms like Rumble—known for minimal content moderation—into compliance or risk being excluded from ad budgets. The defendants countered that business decisions not to advertise on Rumble were based on brand protection and had nothing to do with collusion or a boycott.Judge Boyle noted it remains an "open question" whether the Texas court is the right venue for a similar lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's social media platform X, which is also pending. The advertisers argued Rumble's legal action was a misuse of antitrust laws intended to force companies to do business with it.US judge tosses Rumble lawsuit claiming advertising boycott | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to halt billions in foreign aid payments that had been previously approved by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction issued by a lower court that had ordered the administration to resume nearly $2 billion in aid. The aid freeze was initiated on January 20, 2025—Trump's first day of his second term—through an executive order and followed by significant staffing and structural changes to USAID, the government's main foreign aid agency.The lawsuit challenging the freeze was brought by two nonprofit organizations that depend on federal funding: the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network. The appeals court, however, ruled that the groups lacked legal standing to challenge the freeze and that only the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, had authority to do so.Judge Karen Henderson, writing for the majority, explicitly stated the court was not deciding whether Trump's actions violated the Constitution's separation of powers or Congress's control over federal spending. In a sharp dissent, Judge Florence Pan argued the decision undermined the Constitution's checks and balances and enabled unlawful executive overreach.A White House spokesperson praised the ruling, framing it as a victory against "radical left" interference and a step toward aligning foreign aid spending with Trump's "America First" agenda.US appeals court lets Trump cut billions in foreign aid | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today on the Federal Drive with Terry Gerton As global conflicts reshape the rules of engagement, the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command is rethinking how the U.S. prepares for the next fight NASA's top buyer signs off—Karla Jackson reflects on a career that changed federal acquisitionRobots in space? A new GAO report says they could change everything—from satellite repairs to space junkSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A new GAO report says in-space servicing and manufacturing could revolutionize how we build, fix, and even recycle satellites. But while the tech is promising, the report warns that policy gaps and technical hurdles could slow progress. Here to share how this capability might move forward is Director for Science, Technology Assessment and Analytics at GAO, Karen Howard.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Cybersecurity is a critical component of organizational health no matter the federal agency. Yet, federal leaders across government are struggling to change culture, improve workflows and promote good cyber hygiene to prepare for the threats of tomorrow. The Government Accountability Office's Information Technology and Cybersecurity division assists Congress with assessing and improving the government's critical IT investments and develops best practices that are used across the government to guide decision-making. The division's Director Jennifer Franks breaks down where agencies fall short in implementing cybersecurity recommendations and discusses ways that federal leaders can improve their cyber hygiene through better hiring processes, stronger cybersecurity requirements and promoting an inclusive and team-oriented culture.

Joining Audrey for this week's REELTalk -  Bestselling author of American Betrayal and Death of the Grown Up, DIANA WEST will be here! PLUS, legal analyst for GAO, and bestselling author of Red Hot Lies, CHRISTOPHER HORNER will be here! AND, brilliant farceur MIKE FINE will be here! In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately." Come hang with us...   

Democrats face a growing generational rift as younger challengers line up to take on veteran incumbents in a series of high-stakes primaries. Anna Palmer and Max Cohen break down the battle lines — and what it says about the future of the party. Plus: Sen. Tom Cotton presses the Pentagon to block foreign nationals from accessing sensitive systems, and the GAO offers buyouts as House Republicans propose steep budget cuts. Punchbowl News is on YouTube! Subscribe to our channel today to see all the new ways we're investing in video. Want more in-depth daily coverage from Congress? Subscribe to our free Punchbowl News AM newsletter at punchbowl.news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the Epigenetics Podcast, we talked with Erica Korb from the University of Pennsylvania about her work on BRD4 and the histone variant H2BE, which influences synaptic genes and neuronal activity. Dr. Korb discusses the focus of her lab, which centers on epigenetic mechanisms impacting gene regulation in neurons. Her research primarily examines histone biology and its connection to neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities. Dr. Korb expounds on the collaborative environment at UPenn's Epigenetics Institute, emphasizing how the rich diversity of research topics fosters innovative ideas and projects within the community. Reflecting on her earlier work from her postdoctoral studies, Dr. Korb discusses her first significant findings regarding the protein BRD4. This work demonstrated BRD4's role in mediating transcriptional regulation crucial for learning and memory processes. She explains how disrupting this protein's function in neurons hindered critical gene activations required for memory formation in mice. This foundational understanding opened avenues for exploring the broader implications of chromatin regulation in various neurodevelopmental conditions. Transitioning into her current research endeavors, Dr. Korb reveals how she aims to expand her focus beyond Fragile X syndrome. With her lab now investigating multiple chromatin regulators implicated in various forms of autism spectrum disorders, she describes a recent project where RNA sequencing exposed substantial overlaps in gene expression changes associated with five distinct chromatin modifiers, each contributing uniquely to neuronal function while collectively demonstrating sensitivity to chromatin disruptions. A significant portion of the discussion centers around Dr. Korb's unexpected exploration into how COVID-19 intersects with chromatin biology through a phenomenon known as histone mimicry. Leveraging bioinformatic tools during the pandemic, her lab discovered that certain viral proteins mimic histone sequences, which may lead to altered transcriptional outputs in host cells. This coincidental finding illustrates both the creative adaptability needed in scientific research and the importance of collaborative efforts across disciplines to uncover new insights. The conversation also delves into Dr. Korb's recent work regarding the histone variant H2BE, initiated by one of her graduate students. She explains how prior research only recognized H2BE's expression in the olfactory system, yet her lab has demonstrated its significant role in regulating synaptic genes and memory formation throughout broader neuronal contexts. Notably, they identified a single amino acid change that influences H2BE's function in chromatin accessibility and gene transcription, emphasizing its potential evolutionary conservation across species. In terms of H2BE's role, Dr. Korb elucidates that its activity is integral in response to extracellular stimuli, particularly within the context of neuronal activation. Intriguingly, they found that H2BE expression decreases in reaction to long-term neuronal stimulation, suggesting a complex mechanism of homeostatic plasticity crucial for regulating neuronal activity levels. This research not only advances understanding of chromatin dynamics but also holds implications for neuronal health and disease mechanisms.   References Feierman, E. R., Louzon, S., Prescott, N. A., Biaco, T., Gao, Q., Qiu, Q., Choi, K., Palozola, K. C., Voss, A. J., Mehta, S. D., Quaye, C. N., Lynch, K. T., Fuccillo, M. V., Wu, H., David, Y., & Korb, E. (2024). Histone variant H2BE enhances chromatin accessibility in neurons to promote synaptic gene expression and long-term memory. Molecular cell, 84(15), 2822–2837.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2024.06.025 Korb, E., Herre, M., Zucker-Scharff, I., Gresack, J., Allis, C. D., & Darnell, R. B. (2017). Excess Translation of Epigenetic Regulators Contributes to Fragile X Syndrome and Is Alleviated by Brd4 Inhibition. Cell, 170(6), 1209–1223.e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.07.033 Kee, J., Thudium, S., Renner, D. M., Glastad, K., Palozola, K., Zhang, Z., Li, Y., Lan, Y., Cesare, J., Poleshko, A., Kiseleva, A. A., Truitt, R., Cardenas-Diaz, F. L., Zhang, X., Xie, X., Kotton, D. N., Alysandratos, K. D., Epstein, J. A., Shi, P. Y., Yang, W., … Korb, E. (2022). SARS-CoV-2 disrupts host epigenetic regulation via histone mimicry. Nature, 610(7931), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05282-z Feierman, E. R., Paranjapye, A., Su, S., Qiu, Q., Wu, H., & Korb, E. (2024). Histone variant H2BE controls activity-dependent gene expression and homeostatic scaling. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024.11.01.620920. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.01.620920   Related Episodes Neuroepigenetic Mechanisms and Primate Epigenome Evolution (Boyan Bonev) DNA Methylation Alterations in Neurodegenerative Diseases (Paula Desplats) The Role of Histone Dopaminylation and Serotinylation in Neuronal Plasticity (Ian Maze)   Contact Epigenetics Podcast on Mastodon Epigenetics Podcast on Bluesky Dr. Stefan Dillinger on LinkedIn Active Motif on LinkedIn Active Motif on Bluesky Email: podcast@activemotif.com

Classroom Coverup: Teacher's Deadly Rampage - Ignored Warnings That Led to Murder! Prepare for a chilling true story that will make you question every school hiring process and background check! In this gripping episode, we dissect the case of Andrew McGann, a 28-year-old elementary school teacher who bounced between districts in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas amid alarming red flags of favoritism toward female students and inappropriate comments that parents found deeply unsettling. It all started in spring 2023 at Donald Elementary in Lewisville ISD, Texas, where parents complained about his poor classroom management, but more alarmingly, about lapses in professional judgment—specifically, showing favoritism toward young girls, making odd comments like telling them "If you were older, I would love to marry you," or keeping some inside during recess while letting boys out, sometimes inviting the girls to eat lunch alone in his classroom. One incident involved a little boy crying and reporting feeling uncomfortable with how McGann interacted with the girls, including tickling or giving extra treats. Parents like Sierra Marcum, whose son was in his class, described his behavior as "eerie" and said her son came home upset, sensing something was off. Multiple families reported these issues to the principal, but the district investigated, placed him on administrative leave, and ultimately found "no outright evidence of abuse." Instead of reporting to authorities or flagging his teaching credential under mandatory reporting laws, they let him resign in May 2023 with a neutral reference—no police involvement, no mark on his record—just a quiet exit that allowed him to continue teaching without any hurdles. From there, McGann moved to Spring Creek Elementary in Broken Arrow Public Schools, Oklahoma, for the 2023-2024 school year, teaching fifth grade after passing a background check that came up clean because nothing was documented from Texas. He left voluntarily at the end of the year, citing an out-of-state opportunity, with no issues recorded. Then came a brief stint at Plano ISD back in Texas in August 2024, where he quit after just four days before even interacting with students—the district won't disclose why, but whispers from parents and media suggest old complaints from Lewisville resurfaced, prompting him to leave preemptively.  Undeterred, he taught fifth grade at Northwoods Fine Arts Academy in Sand Springs, Oklahoma, from summer 2024 through May 2025, again without reported problems, though a former student and her mother later described him as "cool" at first but increasingly "off" toward the end. Finally, in early 2025, he relocated to Arkansas and was hired by Springdale Public Schools to start teaching on August 11—just days after his shocking arrest. But on July 26, 2025, McGann allegedly ambushed and stabbed Clinton and Cristen Brink to death on Arkansas' Yellow Rock Trail in Devil's Den State Park, in front of their two young daughters, in what authorities called a random, vicious attack with no clear motive. He confessed after being tracked via eyewitness tips and footage, charged with capital murder. His job-hopping screams "passing the trash"—each move relied on incomplete background checks that missed the "soft" complaints because nothing was officially reported. This fits classic grooming patterns: Building trust through favoritism, isolating kids, testing boundaries with comments and physical contact. Shocking stats show why it's so deadly—unreported suspicions let abusers escalate, per GAO reports finding repeat offenders average 73 victims if unchecked. This case ties directly to the series themes: Like Gary Gregor's multi-state abuses (Episode 5) or Kanyen Cole's recommendation despite flags (Episode 8). The fallout has been heartbreaking—the Brinks' GoFundMe raised over $100K for their orphaned girls, with tributes to the couple's kindness, while McGann's former schools face scrutiny and calls for investigations. On X, the outrage is palpable, with posts calling it "terrifying" and demanding interstate databases to prevent such tragedies. Watch to see how ignored warnings cost innocent lives and what we can do to stop it—hit subscribe for more hard-hitting revelations! (Word count: 612) Hashtags: #ClassroomCoverup #McGannMurder #IgnoredRedFlags #TeacherRampage #SchoolHiringFails #PredatorShuffle #ArkansasHorror #ProtectStudents #TrueCrimeTeacher #PassingTheTrashExposed Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Classroom Coverup: Teacher's Deadly Rampage - Ignored Warnings That Led to Murder! Prepare for a chilling true story that will make you question every school hiring process and background check! In this gripping episode, we dissect the case of Andrew McGann, a 28-year-old elementary school teacher who bounced between districts in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas amid alarming red flags of favoritism toward female students and inappropriate comments that parents found deeply unsettling. It all started in spring 2023 at Donald Elementary in Lewisville ISD, Texas, where parents complained about his poor classroom management, but more alarmingly, about lapses in professional judgment—specifically, showing favoritism toward young girls, making odd comments like telling them "If you were older, I would love to marry you," or keeping some inside during recess while letting boys out, sometimes inviting the girls to eat lunch alone in his classroom. One incident involved a little boy crying and reporting feeling uncomfortable with how McGann interacted with the girls, including tickling or giving extra treats. Parents like Sierra Marcum, whose son was in his class, described his behavior as "eerie" and said her son came home upset, sensing something was off. Multiple families reported these issues to the principal, but the district investigated, placed him on administrative leave, and ultimately found "no outright evidence of abuse." Instead of reporting to authorities or flagging his teaching credential under mandatory reporting laws, they let him resign in May 2023 with a neutral reference—no police involvement, no mark on his record—just a quiet exit that allowed him to continue teaching without any hurdles. From there, McGann moved to Spring Creek Elementary in Broken Arrow Public Schools, Oklahoma, for the 2023-2024 school year, teaching fifth grade after passing a background check that came up clean because nothing was documented from Texas. He left voluntarily at the end of the year, citing an out-of-state opportunity, with no issues recorded. Then came a brief stint at Plano ISD back in Texas in August 2024, where he quit after just four days before even interacting with students—the district won't disclose why, but whispers from parents and media suggest old complaints from Lewisville resurfaced, prompting him to leave preemptively.  Undeterred, he taught fifth grade at Northwoods Fine Arts Academy in Sand Springs, Oklahoma, from summer 2024 through May 2025, again without reported problems, though a former student and her mother later described him as "cool" at first but increasingly "off" toward the end. Finally, in early 2025, he relocated to Arkansas and was hired by Springdale Public Schools to start teaching on August 11—just days after his shocking arrest. But on July 26, 2025, McGann allegedly ambushed and stabbed Clinton and Cristen Brink to death on Arkansas' Yellow Rock Trail in Devil's Den State Park, in front of their two young daughters, in what authorities called a random, vicious attack with no clear motive. He confessed after being tracked via eyewitness tips and footage, charged with capital murder. His job-hopping screams "passing the trash"—each move relied on incomplete background checks that missed the "soft" complaints because nothing was officially reported. This fits classic grooming patterns: Building trust through favoritism, isolating kids, testing boundaries with comments and physical contact. Shocking stats show why it's so deadly—unreported suspicions let abusers escalate, per GAO reports finding repeat offenders average 73 victims if unchecked. This case ties directly to the series themes: Like Gary Gregor's multi-state abuses (Episode 5) or Kanyen Cole's recommendation despite flags (Episode 8). The fallout has been heartbreaking—the Brinks' GoFundMe raised over $100K for their orphaned girls, with tributes to the couple's kindness, while McGann's former schools face scrutiny and calls for investigations. On X, the outrage is palpable, with posts calling it "terrifying" and demanding interstate databases to prevent such tragedies. Watch to see how ignored warnings cost innocent lives and what we can do to stop it—hit subscribe for more hard-hitting revelations! (Word count: 612) Hashtags: #ClassroomCoverup #McGannMurder #IgnoredRedFlags #TeacherRampage #SchoolHiringFails #PredatorShuffle #ArkansasHorror #ProtectStudents #TrueCrimeTeacher #PassingTheTrashExposed Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

$7.5 BILLION for EV Chargers... but only 400 built?!A new GAO report exposes how the U.S. federal infrastructure program—aimed at building 500,000 public EV charging stations by 2030—has delivered just 384 operational chargers so far under the $7.5B plan. In this video, we break down:

This is Frank Gaffney with the Secure Freedom Minute.  The Chinese Communist Party is preparing for the invasion of Taiwan and other violent acts in the Pacific, and possibly here. Incredibly, Wall Street continues enabling such behavior by underwriting the CCP military's unprecedented build-up. Simultaneously, our own defense industry and armed forces are insanely reliant on CCP's sources of rare earth minerals and components. A new Government Accountability Office analysis found that, “These suppliers may cut off U.S. access to critical materials or provide ‘back doors' in their technology that serve as intelligence pathways.”  It is unconscionable that such dependencies – and the associated, potentially catastrophic vulnerabilities – have been allowed in the first place. As with Wall Street's ongoing treachery, the policies and practices that have gotten us into this fix must be formally repudiated and abandoned, and those responsible held accountable. And corrective measures must be made urgent national priorities.  This is Frank Gaffney.

The Pentagon may not know who's making the parts that make the parts. A new GAO report warns that foreign suppliers—often buried deep in the defense supply chain—pose serious risks to national security, especially when their presence goes undetected. Here to break down how these blind spots could leave the U.S. exposed and what the Department of Defense needs to do to fix it is Director, Contracting and National Security Acquisitions, at GAO, Bill Russell.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On this special episode of the podcast, we sit down with GAO's Managing Director of Congressional Relations Nikki Clowers to discuss how GAO serves Congress.

Karen Lee, co-founder of FedsForward, joins the GovNavigators to talk about her journey through federal service, the challenges of transitioning in and out of government, and how her organization is building scalable tools to help civil servants navigate career change.Show NotesFedsFoward WebsiteThe Data FoundationFCC Rural Healthcare ProgramUpcoming EventsAugust 5, 2025Data Foundation's Evaluating for Efficiency: Lessons from GAO and IGs August 19, 2025Celonis' Public Sector Process Intelligence DayAugust 20, 2025Data Foundation's AI Virtual Forum: Data & Policy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence  

Dr. Vinod Rao (Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston) join AJP Audio to discuss predicting the relative risk of patients with an ADHD diagnosis developing a later stimulant or substance use disorder based on the method of prescription, in person or via telehealth. Afterwards, AJP Editor-in-Chief Dr. Ned Kalin discusses the rest of the August issue of the Journal. 00:07   Rao interview 01:53   Stimulant use disorder versus substance use disorder 02:59   Cohort size and incidence of SUDs 04:28   Length of clinician engagement in non-profit versus for profit hospital systems 05:18   Patient cohort 06:20   Potential difference in mechanism between prescribing practices 07:35   Continued use of telehealth 08:43   Limitations 10:03   Further research 11:17   Kalin interview 11:24   Rao et al. 15:41   Mahjani et al. 19:59   Zhang et al. 25:11   Sha et al. 29:33   Gao and Olfson Transcript Be sure to let your colleagues know about the podcast, and please rate and review it on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to it. Subscribe to the podcast here. Listen to other podcasts produced by the American Psychiatric Association. Browse articles online. How authors may submit their work. Follow the journals of APA Publishing on Twitter. E-mail us at ajp@psych.org

The digital footprint left by DOGE in agency computer systems and IT networks would be thoroughly examined under legislation introduced Wednesday by a trio of Senate Democrats. The Pick Up After Your DOGE Act from Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would require the administrator of the Elon Musk-created tech collective to provide a full accounting to the U.S. comptroller general of all the agencies and IT systems that DOGE accessed. Those systems would then be subject to comprehensive performance and security audits. “The DOGE-boys have weaseled their way into Americans' most sensitive data systems, claiming to hunt ‘waste, fraud, and abuse,' while actually creating waste, fraud, and abuse. They're destroying Americans' trust in once-reliable government systems and could be hawking your stolen data to their friends in Big Tech and AI,” Whitehouse said in a press release. He added that the Pick Up After Your DOGE Act protects seniors and all Americans by fixing any bugs or backdoors that DOGE may have purposefully or negligently created in Social Security, Medicare, and other highly sensitive government data systems. The audit would be conducted by the Government Accountability Office, which has been bombarded with congressional requests to probe DOGE's agency IT dives since the beginning of the Trump administration. The United States Military Academy abruptly ended the appointment of Jen Easterly to a high-profile academic position in West Point's Department of Social Sciences, according to a memorandum issued Wednesday by the Secretary of the Army. On Tuesday, the academy announced that Easterly was named as the next Robert F. McDermott Distinguished Chair, a department position created in 1943 to bring a leading scholar, practitioner, or expert in the fields of social sciences — such as economics, political science, or international relations — to West Point. In a since-deleted LinkedIn post, the academy welcomed the former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency director and academy alumnus after “an extraordinary career of service in the public and private sectors,” adding that her “unique perspective — combining military experience, advanced academic training, private sector innovation, and senior government service — makes her ideally suited to guide discussions on the critical issues facing our nation and the world.” After the announcement, far-right activist Laura Loomer suggested on X that Easterly should not be named to the position, due to her work under the Biden administration, allegedly with Nina Jankowicz, who served as the executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board of the United States. (Jankowicz later Wednesday posted on BlueSky that she had never worked with Easterly.) On Wednesday, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll announced in a post on X that the position would be rescinded, and a full review of the academy's hiring practices would be conducted. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

There's a new position in the U.S. government: Federal chief artificial intelligence officer. Gregory Barbaccia has begun to refer to himself as the Federal CAIO, in addition to his current role as the federal government's chief information officer. A recent interview with CNBC referred to him this way and a federal official focused on AI confirmed to FedScoop that Barbaccia had used that title in a recent meeting. In a social media post last week, Barbaccia also used both titles. The new title comes amid the Trump administration's continued focus on federal adoption of artificial intelligence. It follows the White House AI Action Plan, which was released last week and endorsed “transformative use of AI [that] can help deliver the highly responsive government the American people expect and deserve.” Still, the AI Action Plan makes no mention of a new position of CAIO for the whole federal government. Neither does the executive order that established the council or subsequent Office of Management and Budget actions. There was no federal CAIO in the Biden administration, and it's not clear any formal action has been taken to establish the position. Federal agencies are increasingly turning to generative artificial intelligence to further their missions, according to a new watchdog report that found use cases of the emerging technology jumping by ninefold in a selection of nearly a dozen agencies last year. In a report published Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office said generative AI use cases across a group of 11 federal agencies increased from 32 to 282 cases from 2023 to 2024, per an analysis of those agencies' inventories. The GAO laid out several ways these agencies harnessed generative AI last year, stating the technology can “improve written communications, information access efficiency, and program status tracking.” Examples included the Department of Veterans Affairs using automation for medical imaging processing in veterans' diagnostic services, along with the Department of Health and Human Services' initiative to extract information from publications regarding the containment of the poliovirus. HHS reported the largest jump out of the 11 agencies, going from seven generative AI use cases in 2023 to 116 in 2024, according to the report. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

This week, the GovNavigators sit down with Brian Friel, Co-Founder of BD-Squared, for a discussion on how federal procurement looks in the age of consolidation. An expert in procurement data, Friel offers great insight into how past efficiency efforts have led us to this administration's push to rid the federal government of duplicative and unnecessary contracts. Show Notes:Leadership shakeup at GSA M-25-31 (OMB memo on procurement consolidation)America's AI Action PlanThree AI-related EOs releasedEvents on the GovNavigators' RadarJuly 28-29th: AGA's Professional Development Training July 30th: Rare HSGAC markup scheduledAugust 5th: Data Foundation's Evaluating for Efficiency: Lessons from GAO and IGs August 19th: Celonis' Public Sector Process Intelligence Day August 20th: Data Foundation's AI Virtual Forum: Data & Policy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he dives into today's top stories shaping America and the world. In today's episode, we cover Fireworks at the Fed President Trump confronts Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell over a $2.5 billion HQ renovation and accuses him of intentionally keeping interest rates high to hurt the economy. New analysis from Bloomberg suggests the Fed's economic rationale may be flawed. Ghislaine Maxwell's DOJ Meeting For the first time, Maxwell sits down with federal prosecutors to discuss Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking network. The DOJ is probing whether she'll name names or offer new evidence on high-profile abusers. Chinese Hack Hits U.S. Nuclear Systems China-linked hackers exploit a Microsoft SharePoint vulnerability to breach federal agencies, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. The fallout raises alarm over Microsoft's security practices and Pentagon contractor policies. EV Charging Boondoggle A $7.5 billion Biden-era program has produced just 68 upgraded gas stations with EV chargers. The GAO blasts the rollout as lacking accountability, and Trump halts another $6 billion, though legal battles may force his hand. U.S. Lags in Drone Warfare The U.S. military hypes a grenade-dropping drone already used by terrorists a decade ago. Meanwhile, Ukraine and Russia churn out cheap drones at scale, leaving America struggling to catch up in the evolving drone battlefield. China's Humanoid Robots Work Nonstop A Chinese company unveils a self-charging humanoid robot capable of continuous labor. While impressive, it signals a coming clash between automation and the global workforce, especially in manufacturing and logistics. Trump Visits Scotland for Trade Talks The president travels to his ancestral homeland for meetings with the UK Prime Minister. Trade is on the table as markets seek clarity about Trump's call to "refine" the current deal. Australia Lifts U.S. Beef Ban After decades of restrictions tied to Mad Cow concerns, Canberra agrees to ease limits on U.S. beef imports. While modest, it marks another Trump win in loosening global ag trade barriers. South Korea's Birth Rate Rebound Thanks to aggressive tax incentives, parental leave, and cultural pride, South Korea sees a record baby boom, the highest since 1981, suggesting a national strategy beyond immigration to solve demographic decline. China Illegally Acquires U.S. AI Chips Despite tightened export controls, Beijing obtains banned Nvidia chips through black market resales. U.S. firms deny direct involvement, but the trade underscores China's relentless push for AI dominance. Europe Still Buys Russian Energy Despite claims of cutting ties, EU nations continue importing $26 billion in Russian oil and gas annually, mainly through pipelines, propping up Moscow's economy even amid war. Undersea Resource Race Heats Up The U.S. and China compete for deep-sea mining rights in the Pacific. Trump plans to bypass a UN agency to accelerate extraction, while environmentalists and China push back on Texas- and California-based ventures. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32

This GWIC episode features a “Great Gentleman in Compliance,” Jonathan Aronie, a leading expert in government investigations and organizational integrity at Sheppard Mullin. Jonathan joins GWIC co-host Hemma Lomax to discuss his career journey, the innovative compliance tool known as the compliance pre-mortem, and the importance of proactive measures in compliance and governance. He also emphasizes the significance of active bystander intervention programs, derived from law enforcement, as highly effective tools for preventing misconduct in organizations. Additionally, Jonathan offers insights into the challenges and benefits of compliance programs, highlighting the need for continuous improvement and strategic empathy in these efforts. The Psychology of Preventative Compliance The ROI of Compliance and Integrity The Concept of Pre-Mortem in Compliance Common Risks and Blind Spots in Compliance Active Bystander Programs vs. Compliance Hotlines Lessons in Compliance and Culture from Policing Building Continuous Improvement Frameworks Jonathan Aronie is a partner in and the former leader of the firm's Governmental Practice, resident in Washington, DC. Jonathan is also a founding member and current leader of the firm's Organizational Integrity Group, a cross-disciplinary team of litigators, regulatory specialists, federal monitors, and ex-prosecutors with extensive experience helping organizations prevent and defend against challenges to their organizational integrity.  Areas of Practice Jonathan counsels and represents large and small businesses in some of the country's most prominent classified and unclassified government contracts matters, including bid protests, claims, self-disclosures, internal investigations, Department of Justice investigations, and False Claims Act investigations. As the leader of the firm's Organizational Integrity Group, Jonathan also spends significant time working with clients to identify and mitigate known and unknown risks before those risks become problems. Jonathan's experience includes litigating under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, conducting early risk-based “legal pre-mortems,” developing and implementing corporate compliance programs, conducting internal investigations (proactive and defensive), and providing advice on the FAR Mandatory Disclosure Rule as well as a variety of federal regulatory and statutory matters. He frequently represents clients before the DOJ, the Government Accountability Office, the General Services Administration, and other defense and civilian agencies. Additionally, Jonathan is cleared at the highest levels and counsels and defends clients in classified matters. Jonathan has authored more than 100 articles and co-authored what is regarded by many as the leading treatise on the GSA Multiple Award Schedule Program, published by Thomson Reuters. He is a regular speaker at national and international forums and CLE programs, including Government-sponsored symposia. He is a regular presenter at Coalition for Government Contracting programs and served on the ABA Task Force that drafted guidance regarding the FAR Mandatory Disclosure Rule. Biography https://www.sheppardmullin.com/jaronie Resources Sheppard Mullin's Organizational Integrity Group Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement Everyone Benefits When An Ethics & Compliance Program Is Integrated Throughout An Organization  Jonathan Aronie on LinkedIn

一邊受人追捧，一邊手頭拮据， 年少就成名的達文西為何總被錢追到跳腳？ 有錢的老闆他不要，懂他的老闆找不到， 用筆震撼歐洲的達文西， 為何煩透了作畫，寧可再三烙跑？ 茹素又溫和的他，竟將真心獻給暴力狂； 廣受人崇敬的他，卻被自家人倒打一耙； 細心又求真的他，竟畫錯了耶穌的法像？ 他到底還有多少才華，多少祕密？ 跟我一起最後解開真正的達文西密碼。 【J.GAO全能修護UV防曬棒】～8/29

Send us a textThe Ones Ready crew is back with a blistering Daily Drop that reads like a classified briefing laced with caffeine and outrage. Jared goes scorched-earth on the U.S. finally banning Chinese farmland buys (spoiler: it's 2025 and somehow this wasn't already illegal). Meanwhile, the Army wants to quadruple Patriot missiles—because what's deterrence without volume? The Air Force still can't decide if the F-15EX should have a roommate. Space Force gets a budget bump, but bureaucratic gatekeepers still cling to outdated classification nonsense like it's a Cold War cosplay. And don't worry, the KC-46 is still a flying contradiction—does it even have SATCOM?Oh, and if you're still here: Nashville. October. OTS. Let's go.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe [DS]/[CB] manipulated the people into believing we were in a climate crisis, they changed the graphics to convince you it was hotter than the past, big fail. Elon is focusing in on the [CB] system and bringing attention to it. Michael Horowitz has been named IG of the Fed. Pieces are put into place. BBB passed Senate, this is just the beginning. The [DS] was distracted with the BBB, they went after the section that Trump setup to draw them away from what he wants. Trump calls for the arrest of Mayorkas. The [DS] had Elon and used his technology. They gave the tech to Iran and NK to build rockets to be used for WWIII. It seems that Trump is setting Elon free from all that by cutting all subsidies to the the green new scam. Optics are important. All roads lead to Obama and the [CB].   Economy https://twitter.com/cruadin/status/1940008358347489779   https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1939930016306942088   the mandates would be going, and he's said repeatedly in the past that the EV subsidy should end: “If you eliminated all EV incentives tomorrow, Tesla's competitive position would improve significantly. I'll say that again. If you eliminated all EV tax credits, Tesla's position would improve immediately.” S  https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/1939910877563490753   https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/1939915436943872198 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1940001236108918819 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1939909939037901204 The U.S. debt ceiling has been raised, extended, or revised 78 times since 1960, according to multiple sources, including the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Council on Foreign Relations. This includes 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. Some sources, like USA Today, suggest it has been raised at least 100 times since 1940, but the most commonly cited figure for the modern era (post-1960) is 78. Over the years, the debt ceiling has not been an effective mechanism for stopping waste and fraud in government spending. The debt ceiling is a legislative cap on the total amount of debt the U.S. government can incur, requiring Congressional approval to raise or extend it to allow continued borrowing for existing obligations, such as funding authorized programs, servicing debt, and meeting other financial commitments. Its primary function is to limit the government's borrowing capacity, not to regulate the quality, efficiency, or integrity of spending.Why the Debt Ceiling Doesn't Stop Waste and Fraud:  The debt ceiling addresses the aggregate level of federal debt, not specific budget items or program management. It does not inherently scrutinize or eliminate wasteful or fraudulent expenditures, which occur within the budgeting and execution of individual programs.   Debt ceiling debates often serve as political leverage for broader fiscal or policy negotiations (e.g., spending cuts or tax reforms). While these discussions may occasionally highlight waste or fraud rhetorically, the ceiling itself does not directly target or address such issues. For example, during debt ceiling negotiations in 2011 or 2023, the focus was on overall spending reductions or policy concessions, not specific anti-fraud measures.  Waste and fraud are typically addressed through other processes, such as: Audits by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Inspectors General (IGs) within federal agencies.