Podcasts about personnel management opm

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

Follow-ups: Ozzy or Hulk Hogan?? @2:08 OK - Ryan Walters @3:19 Congressional Freethought Caucus wrote IRS Commissioner Billy Long @5:36 News: WSJ and Trump @6:52 Oath Keepers @10:05 Colbert @12:30 South Park @14:34 Health/Medicine/Science: Aluminum and vaccines @18:01 As Paul Offit warns, attacking aluminum salts may be next on RFK Jr.'s agenda Politics: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired his chief of staff and a deputy chief of staff @20:30 Administration halts gain-of-function research studies FDA drain under Makary Kennedy's plan to overhaul the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine nonprofit founded by RFK, is now suing Kennedy Peptide injections @24:41 U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) instructs executive branch agencies @29:04 OPM Issues Guidance to Protect Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace Religious Nonsense: Ray's proselytizing coworker @32:05 an “unlicensed and uninspected childcare facility” is claiming a religious exemption @35:26 A new anti-blasphemy bill passed in India's Punjab state @37:34 Islamabad to create “commission to investigate misuse of blasphemy law.” @40:10 Oh, wait… Taliban has reportedly sentenced a schoolteacher to death @41:26 On Friday, a federal judge temporarily blocked @44:08

In this episode of American Potential, host David From is joined by Jeremiah Mosteller, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, for the latest installment in the Big Ideas for Smaller Government series. The focus: the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—the federal government's HR department—and a surprising proposal that could save $237 billion without touching current employee benefits. From the absurd reality of federal retirement files being processed in a limestone mine in Pennsylvania, to relocation costs nearing $170,000 per employee, the episode exposes waste and inefficiencies taxpayers rarely hear about. But there's good news: Jeremiah shares how shifting new federal employees to a modern, portable retirement plan—like a 401(k)—already the gold standard in the private sector—could generate massive long-term savings. And it wouldn't change anything for current employees. Listen to hear how smart reforms and private-sector solutions are helping DogE (the initiative to cut $2 trillion in wasteful federal spending) chip away at bureaucratic bloat—and how you can submit your own savings ideas at DogeIdea.com.

Mika Cross is a workplace expert known for her work in areas like government workforce innovation, flexible work environments, employee engagement, and talent management. She has held senior roles across federal agencies, including the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of Labor. Mika often speaks about future of work trends, public sector workforce reforms, and ways to make workplaces more inclusive and high-performing.She's also active in consulting and thought leadership spaces, especially around how government and private sectors can better adapt to changing workforce needs.Mika joins the podcast to talk about the current landscape and why federal work still matters. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Maryland Toleration Act PassedOn April 21, 1649, the Maryland Assembly passed the Maryland Toleration Act, a landmark piece of colonial legislation that granted freedom of worship to all Christians in the colony. Also known as the Act Concerning Religion, it was one of the first legal efforts in the American colonies to protect religious liberty through statutory law. The act was enacted under the leadership of Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, who sought to maintain peace in Maryland's religiously diverse population, which included both Catholics and Protestants.The law's preamble acknowledged the dangers of religious coercion, stating that "the inforceing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence." To preserve harmony, it declared that no Christian should be "troubled, Molested or discountenanced" for practicing their faith, provided they did not threaten the colony's civil government or the authority of the Lord Proprietor.While progressive for its time, the Act's protections were limited to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ, excluding Jews, atheists, and other non-Christians. Violators of the law's religious tolerance provisions faced harsh penalties, including fines, public whipping, or even death for blasphemy.The Act was repealed just five years later during a period of Protestant ascendancy, reflecting the fragile nature of religious tolerance in colonial America. Nonetheless, it remains significant as an early attempt to codify the principle that faith should not be a basis for persecution.A federal judge has ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can no longer direct the termination of probationary federal workers based on performance-related justifications that were, according to the court, misleading. U.S. District Judge William Alsup called OPM's use of standardized termination letters citing performance as the reason for firing thousands of employees a “total sham.” He emphasized that falsely attributing the dismissals to performance could harm the affected workers' reputations and career prospects for years to come.The ruling affects employees at six federal agencies and prohibits further terminations under these pretenses. Judge Alsup's decision underscores that these workers were dismissed under false narratives while still in their probationary period—either newly hired or recently promoted—and should not have been labeled as underperformers without proper evaluation or process.Though Alsup's ruling offers protection against future actions, he declined to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the state of Washington, stating the state lacked standing because it could not show concrete harm from the federal firings, such as a clear loss of federal services.This legal challenge comes amid a broader judicial tug-of-war. In March, Alsup had initially ordered the reinstatement of 16,000 workers pending resolution of a lawsuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that injunction on April 8, suggesting that nonprofit organizations representing federal workers may lack the legal standing to sue on their behalf. Following that, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also halted a separate injunction from a Maryland judge that would have reinstated probationary employees in 19 states and Washington, D.C.Despite the limits imposed by the higher courts, Alsup's decision focuses on the reputational harm caused by labeling the dismissals as performance-based, rather than procedural or administrative. He signaled that the government must correct the record for those terminated workers.Performance-Based Federal Worker Layoffs a ‘Sham' Judge RulesThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, that mandates insurers cover certain preventive medical services—like cancer screenings and diabetes testing—without cost-sharing by patients. The case centers on the constitutional validity of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a panel of medical experts that identifies which services should be covered. The panel's 16 members are appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) but are not confirmed by the Senate.A group of Texas-based Christian individuals and businesses filed the lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the USPSTF wields too much authority and must therefore comply with the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause. This clause requires that significant federal officers—known as "principal officers"—be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The plaintiffs claim the task force has evolved from a purely advisory body to one that effectively imposes binding legal obligations on insurers, all without proper accountability.In 2024, the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling the task force's structure unconstitutional. The federal government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration originally filed the appeal, and it was later continued by the Trump administration. Government lawyers argue that the task force should be classified as comprising "inferior officers," since their recommendations are only made binding when approved by the HHS Secretary, who can remove task force members at will.The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the Secretary lacks actual power to stop recommendations from taking effect, making the task force's authority effectively unchecked. They also argue that this lack of oversight elevates the members to principal officer status, necessitating Senate confirmation.Before narrowing the lawsuit to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs also challenged the ACA's requirement to cover HIV prevention medication on religious grounds, asserting it promoted behaviors they opposed. The appeals court declined to sever portions of the law that might otherwise save the provision, another aspect now before the Supreme Court.If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision, key preventive healthcare services could become subject to out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays, potentially deterring millions from accessing early detection and prevention tools. The Court's decision, expected by the end of June, could reshape how health policy is implemented under the ACA and may further weaken one of its core patient protections.US Supreme Court to hear clash over Obamacare preventive care | ReutersIn a rapidly unfolding legal confrontation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of a group of Venezuelan migrants from Texas, sparking a strong dissent from Justice Samuel Alito. The court intervened early Saturday morning, acting on urgent filings by detainees' lawyers who said the migrants were already being loaded onto buses for imminent deportation to El Salvador. The migrants were accused of gang affiliation, but their legal team argued they hadn't been given fair notice or time to challenge their removal. The administration attempted to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law, to justify these expulsions.Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, sharply criticized the majority's decision, calling it "unprecedented and legally questionable." He argued that the Court acted without giving lower courts adequate time to review the claims and issued its order with limited evidence and no explanation. The justices' ruling paused deportations “until further order of this Court,” leaving room for future legal developments.The Trump administration quickly responded, filing a motion urging the Court to reverse its stay. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the detainees' lawyers bypassed proper procedure by going directly to the Supreme Court and that lower courts had not yet had a chance to establish key facts. He maintained that the migrants received legally sufficient notice, though reports suggested the notices were in English only and lacked clear instructions.The administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members is highly controversial. Originally passed in 1798 during hostilities with France, the law has been used sparingly and almost exclusively during wartime. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether its application in this immigration context is constitutional. Migrants' advocates, including the ACLU, maintain that many of the men deported or at risk of deportation are not gang members and were denied due process.The legal conflict reflects a broader tension between Trump's immigration enforcement efforts and judicial oversight. Last month, Trump ordered the deportation of more than 200 men to a Salvadoran maximum-security prison, reportedly ignoring a judge's oral order to halt at least two flights. The White House has not signaled any intent to defy the current Supreme Court stay but remains committed to its immigration crackdown.The case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, now becomes a focal point in ongoing disputes about executive authority, due process rights for detainees, and the scope of immigration enforcement under rarely invoked legal provisions. As the Court weighs further action, the lives of dozens of migrants hang in the balance, caught between legal technicalities and broader political pressures.Supreme Court's Alito Calls Block of Deportations ‘Questionable' - BloombergAlito criticizes US Supreme Court's decision to 'hastily' block deportations | ReutersTrump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Lift Deportation Halt - BloombergA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and nonbinary individuals is likely unconstitutional. The policy, which followed an executive order signed by President Trump immediately after returning to office, required passport applicants to list their biological sex at birth and allowed only "male" or "female" markers. This reversed prior policies that permitted self-identification and, under the Biden administration, had allowed the use of a gender-neutral "X" option.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction that bars enforcement of the policy against six of the seven plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. She held that the policy discriminates based on sex and reflects a bias against transgender individuals, violating the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Kobick described the administration's approach as rooted in "irrational prejudice" and said it runs counter to the Constitution's promise of equality.Despite finding the policy likely unconstitutional, Kobick declined to issue a nationwide injunction, stating that the plaintiffs did not justify the need for broad relief. Still, the ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration's broader effort to redefine federal gender recognition policies.The executive order at the center of the case mandated all federal agencies, including the State Department, to recognize only two sexes—male and female—based on biology at birth. The State Department then revised its passport application process to align with this directive.The case is part of a wave of legal challenges to Trump's rollback of gender recognition policies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, vowed to continue fighting to expand the ruling's protections to all affected individuals.Trump passport policy targeting transgender people likely unconstitutional, judge rules | 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

Federal annuitants can now access some key retirement information online. Severalretirement booklets are now officially available in a digital format from the Office of Personnel Management OPM. Update brings the agency a step closer to its years long goal of modernizing the federal retirement process. Here with more Federal News Network reporter Drew Friedman. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Federal annuitants can now access some key retirement information online. Several retirement booklets are now officially available in a digital format from the Office of Personnel Management OPM. Update brings the agency a step closer to its years long goal of modernizing the federal retirement process. Here with more Federal News Network reporter Drew Friedman. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: President Johnson Vetoes Civil Rights Act of 1866On March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, an extraordinary move that underscored his deep hostility to racial equality and his resistance to Reconstruction efforts. The bill, which Congress had passed in the wake of the Civil War, aimed to grant full citizenship to formerly enslaved people and guarantee their basic civil rights. Johnson, a Southern Democrat who remained loyal to the Union, used his veto power to block progress for freedmen, claiming the bill infringed on states' rights and unfairly favored Black Americans over whites. His justification was steeped in racism, couching white supremacy in the language of constitutional interpretation.Johnson's veto message argued that Black Americans were not yet qualified for citizenship and that extending such rights would “operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.” He blatantly ignored the atrocities of slavery and the urgent need for federal protections, given the widespread violence and oppression freedmen faced in the South. His opposition wasn't just a political miscalculation—it was a moral failure and a betrayal of the Union victory. Johnson actively emboldened white supremacist groups and Southern legislatures seeking to reassert control through Black Codes and racial terror.Fortunately, Congress overrode his veto—marking the first time in American history that a major piece of legislation was enacted over a presidential veto. This moment laid the groundwork for the 14th Amendment, which enshrined birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law. Johnson's veto, however, remains a stark example of how executive power can be wielded to delay justice and reinforce structural racism.The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) plans to revoke a controversial interpretive rule that applied certain credit card protections to “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) products. This move follows a lawsuit filed by the Financial Technology Association (FTA), which represents major BNPL providers like PayPal, Klarna, Block, and Zip. In a joint court filing, the CFPB and FTA asked a federal judge to pause litigation while the agency works on rolling back the rule.The rule, issued in May 2024, treated BNPL plans like credit cards under the Truth in Lending Act, requiring providers to offer billing statements, handle disputes, and process refunds. It officially took effect in July, but the CFPB allowed a grace period for compliance. The FTA argued the CFPB overstepped its authority by reclassifying pay-in-four products—short-term, no-interest loans—without formal rulemaking or understanding the distinct nature of BNPL.Despite some early industry cooperation and encouragement from the CFPB for other regulators to follow suit, fintech firms claimed the rule created regulatory confusion by misapplying standards meant for revolving credit. House Republicans tried to overturn the rule legislatively last year but failed.The case, Financial Technology Association v. CFPB, remains on hold while the CFPB prepares formal steps to rescind the rule.CFPB Plans to Revoke Buy Now, Pay Later Rule Fintechs Fought (1)A federal judge in Washington, Beryl Howell, denied the Justice Department's attempt to disqualify her from overseeing Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, a case challenging a Trump executive order targeting the law firm. The DOJ accused Howell of bias, pointing to remarks she made in public settings that criticized Trump and referenced his ties to Fusion GPS. In their motion, DOJ officials claimed she showed “partiality” and “animus” toward the president, citing her characterization of Trump having a “bee in his bonnet” over past political investigations.Howell sharply rebuked the motion, calling it an “ad hominem” attack intended to undermine judicial integrity rather than engage with the legal merits. She emphasized that the parties would receive fair treatment and dismissed the disqualification effort as an attempt to preemptively discredit an unfavorable outcome.The case stems from a Trump executive order aimed at punishing law firms perceived as politically hostile, including Perkins Coie, by restricting their federal building access and terminating government contracts with their clients. Perkins Coie argued the order caused immediate and severe business harm, including the loss of a long-standing client. Trump has since issued similar orders against other firms, such as Jenner & Block.The DOJ's attempt to remove Howell reflects a broader pattern of politicized efforts to delegitimize judicial rulings unfavorable to Trump. Meanwhile, a prior ethics complaint against Howell, filed by Rep. Elise Stefanik over earlier comments she made about the erosion of truth in public discourse, is still pending.Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Oust Her From Perkins Coie Fight (2)A federal appeals court has refused to pause a lower court ruling requiring the Trump administration to reinstate over 17,000 federal workers fired during a mass purge of probationary employees across six government agencies. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration had not shown that the district judge erred in finding the firings were likely unlawful. At issue is the role of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which Judge William Alsup said overstepped its authority by ordering the firings despite lacking the legal power to do so.The affected agencies include the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. Some agencies claimed to have fired only a few hundred employees, while others—such as the Treasury and Agriculture Departments—terminated thousands. The fired employees were mostly probationary workers, often with less than two years in their roles, though some had longer federal service.The ruling doesn't prevent agencies from terminating probationary workers entirely, but it criticizes the centralized, OPM-directed method used. The Trump administration said it is working to reinstate the workers, placing them on paid leave for now, and has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.This case parallels another decision out of Maryland, where a judge ordered 25,000 similar reinstatements across 18 agencies, though on different legal grounds. That ruling has also been allowed to stand while under appeal.Appeals court won't pause ruling that forced US to reinstate federal workers | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, Italy is attempting to tax the illusion of “free” on the internet—and I wrote about why that's a dangerous turn in VAT policy. In this piece, I walk through a recent move by Italian tax authorities to treat signing up for social media accounts as taxable barter transactions. The core claim is that when users hand over their personal data in exchange for access to a platform like Facebook or LinkedIn, a “supply for consideration” has occurred under EU VAT law. That would make the transaction taxable—even though no money changes hands.I argued that while user data undeniably has value, the theory stretches the purpose of VAT well beyond its policy design. VAT is supposed to be a consumption tax on goods and services, not a levy on intangible exchanges of attention or personal information. If this theory holds, Italy wouldn't just be taxing social media—it would be opening the door to taxing nearly every online interaction where data changes hands.I also pointed out that VAT requires a tax base, and valuing user data at the point of account creation is speculative at best. The market value of data depends on aggregation and use over time, not on the individual transaction. Plus, data isn't “consumed” in the way goods or traditional services are—it's copied, repurposed, and monetized indefinitely. That doesn't sit comfortably with the core logic of a consumption tax.Finally, I highlighted how this approach could ripple across the EU, creating regulatory chaos. If a cookie consent or an email sign-up becomes a taxable event, we risk converting the very architecture of the internet into a VAT trap. Italy's frustration with digital tax avoidance is understandable—but this isn't the right solution.​​Italy—Where Creating A Social Media Account May Be A Taxable Event 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

This week on That Was Wild, Adam Macias and Bethany Michaels dive into some of the most mind-bending stories of the week. First up, we unpack the Gifted Intelligence Program of the '90s, which might've secretly been a CIA training program. Sounds like a wild conspiracy theory, right? Well, former GATE students are now wondering if they were unknowingly trained for covert missions. From Morse code worksheets to speaking Russian as a ten-year-old—what were they really preparing us for?

This Day in Legal History: Jack Ruby ConvictedOn March 14, 1964, Jack Ruby was convicted of murdering Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy. Ruby, a Dallas nightclub owner, had shot Oswald on live television two days after Kennedy's assassination, as police were transferring Oswald from the city jail. The highly publicized trial concluded with a guilty verdict, and Ruby was sentenced to death. However, in 1966, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the conviction, ruling that improper testimony had been admitted and that the trial should not have taken place in Dallas, where impartiality was questionable. A retrial was ordered, but before it could proceed, Ruby died of lung cancer on January 3, 1967. His actions and their legal consequences remain a topic of debate, with some believing he was motivated by grief and others suspecting a broader conspiracy.Ruby testified before the Warren Commission in July 1964, providing a rambling account of his mental state and possible connections to figures of interest. Arlen Specter, a future U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, was among those questioning him. The case highlighted due process concerns, particularly regarding venue changes in high-profile trials, and underscored the legal system's challenges in handling emotionally charged cases with national significance.Two federal judges, one in Maryland and another in California, have ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of probationary federal workers who were fired as part of a sweeping effort to shrink the government. The rulings represent the most significant legal challenge yet to Trump and adviser Elon Musk's aggressive push to cut federal jobs. The Maryland case, led by 20 Democratic-led states, targeted 18 agencies accused of unlawfully dismissing workers without following required procedures. Judge James Bredar ruled that the firings amounted to mass layoffs requiring prior notice to state governments.In California, Judge William Alsup reached a similar conclusion, ordering reinstatement for workers at six agencies, including the Department of Defense. He criticized the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for directing agencies to fire workers en masse without legal authority. The Trump administration argues that probationary employees have few job protections and can be terminated for nearly any reason. However, Democratic-led states claim the firings violated regulations requiring agencies to provide 60 days' notice before mass layoffs.At least 24,000 probationary workers have been fired since Trump returned to office, affecting agencies such as the EPA, Department of Education, and Homeland Security. The Merit Systems Protection Board has also intervened, recently ordering the Agriculture Department to temporarily reinstate nearly 6,000 workers. Meanwhile, unions and advocacy groups continue legal efforts to block further terminations, with the American Federation of Government Employees calling the rulings a victory against an administration aiming to cripple federal agencies. The Trump administration has vowed to fight back against the court orders, arguing they undermine presidential authority.Fired Workers at 18 Agencies Reinstated in Court Blow to TrumpUS judges order Trump administration to reinstate thousands of fired workersColumbia University has issued severe punishments to students involved in a pro-Palestinian protest that occupied a campus building last spring, including expulsions and temporary degree revocations. The announcement follows the Trump administration's decision to cancel $400 million in federal funding to the university, citing an inadequate response to antisemitism. Interim President Katrina Armstrong acknowledged the government's concerns and pledged cooperation. However, the university has not disclosed the number of students disciplined, nor their identities, citing privacy laws.Critics argue the crackdown is politically motivated, particularly since the expelled student union president, Grant Miner, was removed just before contract negotiations with the university. The Trump administration has escalated its efforts against what it labels "pro-Hamas" protests, detaining Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, a protest leader, for deportation—though a federal judge has temporarily blocked the move. These actions raise serious concerns about the suppression of campus activism and whether the university's response was driven by financial and political pressure rather than an impartial disciplinary process.Columbia's handling of the protests appears to be shaped more by government pressure than by a genuine commitment to campus safety or free speech. The timing of expulsions, particularly targeting a union leader, suggests a broader effort to stifle dissent rather than uphold academic integrity. The federal crackdown on protesters further complicates the situation, blurring the line between addressing antisemitism and suppressing legitimate political expression.Columbia University punishes pro-Palestinian protesters who occupied building | ReutersNewsmax has paid $40 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Smartmatic over false claims that the company helped rig the 2020 U.S. election for Joe Biden. The settlement was reached privately last year, but the amount was disclosed in a recent investor filing. Smartmatic sued Newsmax in 2021, alleging the network knowingly spread misinformation, falsely stating that its machines were hacked and that it was backed by corrupt regimes. Newsmax defended its reporting as protected by the First Amendment but later clarified its coverage and invited Smartmatic to respond on air, an offer Smartmatic declined.Smartmatic had initially sought between $400 million and $600 million in damages. Meanwhile, the company continues its $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, following a historic $787.5 million settlement Fox paid to Dominion Voting Systems. The Newsmax case underscores the financial and legal consequences media outlets face for amplifying election misinformation, particularly when it leads to measurable reputational and financial harm.Newsmax paid $40 million to settle defamation suit over US 2020 election claims | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Hector BerliozOn this day in 1869, French composer Hector Berlioz passed away, leaving behind a legacy of bold orchestration, vivid storytelling, and groundbreaking compositions that pushed Romantic music to new heights. Born in 1803, Berlioz defied his family's wishes for him to become a doctor, instead immersing himself in the world of music, where his dramatic flair and innovative techniques set him apart. He was a master of programmatic music, crafting works that told intense, almost cinematic stories through sound.His most famous composition, Symphonie Fantastique, is a perfect example of this. Written in 1830, the symphony follows a tormented artist haunted by unrequited love, spiraling into madness and hallucination. The final movement, “Dreams of a Witches' Sabbath,” is a feverish nightmare of swirling strings, eerie bells, and grotesque dance rhythms, as the protagonist imagines his own funeral turned into a macabre celebration. The piece is filled with dark energy, blending horror and exhilaration in a way that was revolutionary for its time.Berlioz's influence stretched far beyond his own era, inspiring composers like Wagner, Mahler, and even film composers of the 20th century. Though he struggled for recognition during his lifetime, often facing resistance from conservative critics, his music eventually gained the admiration it deserved. His orchestral mastery and fearless storytelling continue to captivate listeners today.To close this week, we leave you with the chilling and electrifying "Dream of a Witches' Sabbath" from Symphonie Fantastique, a piece that perfectly embodies Berlioz's genius for the dramatic and the surreal.Without further ado, Hector Berlioz's “Dreams of a Witches Sabbath” from his Symphonie Fantastique. Enjoy!  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

This Day in Legal History: Reichstag Fire DecreeOn February 28, 1933, German President Paul von Hindenburg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, formally known as the Presidential Decree for the Protection of People and State. The decree was a direct response to the Reichstag fire the night before, which the Nazi Party blamed on Communists. It suspended key civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press, assembly, and protection from unlawful detention. The decree also allowed warrantless arrests and indefinite imprisonment of political opponents. Using this power, the Nazis swiftly arrested thousands of Communists, Socialists, and other adversaries. The decree marked the legal foundation of Nazi repression and paved the way for the Enabling Act, passed on March 23, which granted Hitler dictatorial powers. By July 14, 1933, the Nazis had criminalized all political opposition, establishing a one-party state. The decree remained technically in effect throughout Nazi rule, providing a legal cover for widespread persecution. It exemplified how emergency powers, once enacted, can be used to erode democracy rather than protect it.KPMG has received approval to practice law in Arizona, making it the first Big Four accounting firm to do so in the U.S. However, due to legal prohibitions, the firm cannot offer legal services to its audit clients, limiting its potential customer base. Despite this restriction, KPMG expects to attract many new clients rather than shedding existing ones. The Arizona Supreme Court's approval aligns with its goal of increasing access to legal services, but it also introduces a well-funded competitor to traditional law firms. Other Big Four firms like Deloitte, PwC, and EY may eventually follow suit.While U.S. regulations bar auditors from providing legal services to public company clients, Arizona's decision opens opportunities in the non-audit market. KPMG plans to focus on services complementing traditional legal work, such as contract management and supply chain restructuring. The firm must maintain an internal compliance program, overseen by attorney David Rizzo, and submit biannual reports to the state. With consulting already a major revenue stream, KPMG sees legal services as a way to expand further, particularly through technological advancements like AI.KPMG Must Pivot Around Audit Clients in Creating US Law PracticeThe Trump administration's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has dropped five enforcement cases against financial institutions, including a major lawsuit against Capital One over $2 billion in alleged illegal interest charges. Other dismissed cases involved student loan servicer PHEAA, Vanderbilt Mortgage, Rocket Homes, and Heights Finance, all of which had been accused of various predatory lending and mortgage fraud practices. The move significantly weakens the agency's legal actions against financial firms investigated for consumer abuse.The mass dismissals coincide with Trump's broader effort to dismantle the CFPB, an agency he has long opposed. His nominee for CFPB director, Jonathan McKernan, testified before the Senate, promising to enforce consumer protection laws but criticizing past enforcement as excessive. Meanwhile, Trump's administration has fired CFPB staff, shut down its Washington offices, and attempted to cancel its lease, though legal challenges have temporarily halted further layoffs.Consumer advocates, including Public Citizen and the Consumer Federation of America, condemned the dismissals, warning they encourage financial misconduct. The CFPB now has fewer than 20 active cases, with several likely to be paused under new leadership. While McKernan claims he will follow the law, critics fear a watered-down agency unable to protect consumers from financial abuses.Trump admin drops 5 consumer watchdog cases, including Capital One | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) to provide a representative for a deposition regarding its authority, structure, and operations. The ruling by U.S. District Judge John Bates also requires the Trump administration to produce documents and answer questions in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and nonprofits. The plaintiffs seek to block DGE's access to systems at three federal agencies, citing concerns over transparency and legality.The Justice Department opposed the order, but Bates ruled that critical details about DGE remain unclear. While he allowed questioning on DGE's access to personal data, he limited inquiries into trade secrets or other confidential business records. The judge also set an eight-hour cap on questioning representatives from DGE and the agencies.Bates previously denied an immediate restraining order blocking DGE's access, stating the plaintiffs had not yet proven legal violations. Meanwhile, the White House recently disclosed that Elon Musk is not the actual administrator of DGE, contradicting earlier claims by Trump. Other lawsuits challenging DGE's legality and access to government records remain ongoing.Judge Orders Musk's DOGE, Agency Staff to Testify in LawsuitA federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ordering mass firings of probationary federal employees at agencies like the Department of Defense and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)lacks the authority to direct agencies to fire workers, contradicting administration claims that it was merely issuing guidance.Trump, backed by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, has sought to slash federal jobs as part of a broader plan to cut $1 trillion from the national budget. The layoffs have drawn opposition from Democrats, unions, and government employees, who argue they are illegal and threaten essential government functions, including veterans' services, scientific research, and national parks.While 5,400 Defense Department employees are still set to be fired, Alsup ordered OPM to rescind memos directing mass layoffs. The ruling is temporary while the legal challenge proceeds, with plaintiffs arguing OPM violated administrative law by issuing directives outside its authority. Meanwhile, Trump's administration continues to push for deeper federal workforce cuts, with agencies required to submit reduction plans by March 13.US judge halts Trump administration's calls for mass firings at agencies | 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

According to The Associated Press, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the mass firings of probationary employees were likely unlawful, granting temporary relief to labor unions and organizations suing to stop the Trump administration's workforce cuts. A judge ordered the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to inform agencies, including the Department of Defense, that it lacked the authority to fire probationary employees. The judge expressed concern over the impact on government services and ordered OPM's acting head to testify about a directive given to agency heads. A hearing is set for March 13. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A federal judge in San Francisco, William Alsup, ruled that the mass firings of probationary federal workers likely violated the law, providing temporary relief for labor unions and organizations challenging the Trump administration's efforts to reduce the federal workforce. The ruling instructs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to notify federal agencies that it cannot mandate firings of probationary employees, particularly at the Department of Defense. The lawsuit was initiated by five labor unions and five nonprofit groups to halt the administration's workforce reduction strategy. Government lawyers acknowledged that OPM lacks hiring or firing authority in other agencies, but contended that requests for suitability determinations were not orders. The ruling serves as a warning to federal agencies about the legality of OPM's actions, highlighting concerns over a directive requiring employees to report on their activities under threat of termination. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for March 13, with a written order to follow. Learn more on this news visit us at: https://greyjournal.net/news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Trump administration is ordering federal agencies to submit plans by April 14 to relocate bureaus and offices outside the Washington, D.C., area, and many are wondering what kind of major blow this could have on the economy. A new directive from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) instructs agency heads to identify which offices should be moved to other regions of the country. It aligns with Trump's broader push to reduce the federal government's real estate footprint and shift power away from Washington. At his first cabinet meeting, he singled out the Department of Education as a key agency that could downsize its D.C. presence. He has previously floated eliminating the department entirely, arguing states should control their own education policies. However, the political and economic impacts on the D.C. region are massive. Federal jobs make up nearly a quarter of the District's workforce and more than a quarter of its wages. With many federal leases locked in for years, the question remains: Will this plan shrink government or create a logistical nightmare? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (02/25/2025): 3:05pm- The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is requesting that all federal employees submit an email outlining their accomplishments over the past week. In a post to X, Elon Musk suggested that a failure to respond could lead to termination. Leadership at the FBI, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Department of Homeland Security said that responses to DOGE would not be necessary. Other agencies—like Health and Human Services—expect their employees to comply with DOGE's request. 3:30pm- During Tuesday's press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt revealed that the Trump Administration will no longer allow the White House Correspondents' Association to select which journalists receive exclusive access to President Donald Trump. 3:40pm- Yesterday, news circulated that the Philadelphia Eagles would decline a trip to the White House to celebrate their Super Bowl victory. It turns out, the report—which originated in The Sun—was completely false. Later in the day, several sports journalists noted that the Eagles are excited to visit the Trump White House and are looking forward to officially receiving an invitation. 3:50pm- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel has selected conservative podcast host, and former Secret Service agent, Dan Bongino to serve as the bureau's next Deputy Director. 4:05pm- Susan Crabtree—RealClearPolitics National Political Correspondent—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her latest article, “Bongino to Join Patel at FBI as Deputy Director.” You can read the full article here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/02/23/bongino_to_join_patel_at_fbi_as_deputy_director_152411.html. Crabtree is author of the book, “Fools Gold: The Radicals, Con Artists, and Traitors Who Killed the California Dream and Now Threaten Us All”—which is available for pre-order now. 4:30pm- Rich hates Robert DeNiro's new Netflix show, Matt can't tell the difference between Jesse Plemmons and Matt Damon, and who has better hair: Doug Burgum or Pete Hegseth? 4:45pm- Speaking from the Oval Office, President Donald Trump confirmed that the Philadelphia Eagles will be invited to the White House to celebrate their Super Bowl victory. 5:00pm- Brianna Lyman—Elections Correspondent for The Federalist—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her latest article, “NBC Settles $30M Defamation Lawsuit After Fake News About Doctor at ICE Facilities.” You can read the full article here: https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/24/nbc-settles-30m-defamation-lawsuit-after-fake-news-about-doctor-at-ice-facilities/ 5:20pm- After signing executive orders from the Oval Office, President Donald Trump spoke with the press where he discussed an agreement with Ukraine—the U.S. will provide security guarantees in exchange for access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals. Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to travel to the White House later this week to sign the agreement. Trump insisted that the war between Ukraine and Russia—which is now entering its fourth year—will soon be coming to an end. 5:40pm- While visiting the White House last week, Rich and Matt bought a few overpriced items from the gift shop. How much are they charging for Grover Cleveland stickers??? Matt implores Elon Musk and DOGE to investigate. 6:05pm- After signing executive orders from the Oval Office, President Donald Trump spoke with the press where he discussed an agreement with Ukraine—the U.S. will provide security guarantees in exchange for access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals. Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to travel to the White House later this week to sign the agreement. While appearing on Fox News, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the deal is undoubtedly a “win-win.” 6:10pm- Speaking from the Oval Office, President Donald Trump confirmed that the Philadelphia Eagles will be invited to the White House to celebrate their Super Bowl victory. 6:15pm- Dur ...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: 3:05pm- The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is requesting that all federal employees submit an email outlining their accomplishments over the past week. In a post to X, Elon Musk suggested that a failure to respond could lead to termination. Leadership at the FBI, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Department of Homeland Security said that responses to DOGE would not be necessary. Other agencies—like Health and Human Services—expect their employees to comply with DOGE's request. 3:30pm- During Tuesday's press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt revealed that the Trump Administration will no longer allow the White House Correspondents' Association to select which journalists receive exclusive access to President Donald Trump. 3:40pm- Yesterday, news circulated that the Philadelphia Eagles would decline a trip to the White House to celebrate their Super Bowl victory. It turns out, the report—which originated in The Sun—was completely false. Later in the day, several sports journalists noted that the Eagles are excited to visit the Trump White House and are looking forward to officially receiving an invitation. 3:50pm- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel has selected conservative podcast host, and former Secret Service agent, Dan Bongino to serve as the bureau's next Deputy Director.

On Saturday, Elon Musk posted on X that federal employees must respond to an email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) detailing their work in the past week, adding that “failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.” Shortly after, OPM emailed federal employees asking for a list of “5 bullets of what you accomplished last week” by Monday at 11:59pm ET (screenshot). However, many agencies have instructed their workers not to reply to the email, while unions representing federal employees filed suit to challenge the order. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think of Elon Musk's job performance? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

//The Wire//2300Z February 24, 2025////ROUTINE////BLUF: GERMAN ELECTION RESULTS IN GAINS FOR THE AFD, THOUGH CDU/CSU TAKES LEAD. POPE FRANCIS REMAINS IN CRITICAL CONDITION. AMERICAN GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES DRAW IRE OF FEDERAL WORKERS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Vatican City: Over the weekend the Vatican confirmed that Pope Francis remains in critical condition regarding his previous illness.Germany: Sunday's election resulted in Friedrich Merz becoming the new Chancellor, as the CDU/CSU took 33% of the vote. While falling short of any sort of majority, the AfD party surprised many by coming in second place, winning 24% of the vote. AC: The key takeaway from this election is that the AfD now has more bargaining power than in previous years, albeit falling short of their own goals. Though by American standards the AfD is a rather lukewarm center-right party (at best), throughout Germany the AfD party has been vilified as extreme-far-right (which may be technically true for Germany's perspective, by comparison with other political parties). As such, this signals a significant shift in atmospherics throughout the nation, even if radical changes in the grand scheme of national politics will be challenging to arrive at..-HomeFront-New York: Sunday evening American Airlines Flight 292 bound for Delhi was diverted to Rome due to a bomb threat. After a security inspection in Rome detected no threat to the aircraft, the flight was cleared for departure to Delhi. AC: These types of bomb threats are relatively common. Though American Airlines has not specified the exact details of what resulted in the brief diversion, it is very likely that a threat was received (probably on social media) that referenced this specific flight, which caused the security concerns.Georgia: This morning Delta Flight 876 (bound for Columbia, SC from Atlanta) experienced an in-flight emergency via smoke filling the passenger cabin. The aircraft promptly returned to Atlanta due to the smoke.California: Saturday night, Delta Flight 43 (bound for Sydney from Los Angeles) also experienced an in-flight emergency with smoke filling the passenger cabin.AC: Of note, though two separate emergencies of similar characteristics (and via the same airline) occurring within 24 hours of each other is rare, it must be noted that both smoke incidents involved separate airframes. The Los Angeles emergency involved an Airbus A350, and the Atlanta incident involved a smaller regional jet, a Boeing 717-200.Washington D.C. - Controversy has erupted over the past few days regarding various initiatives to improve the efficiency of government agencies. Over the weekend an email was sent out from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to every single federal employee, requesting them to provide a short list of 5 bullets regarding what they had completed last week.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: As the OPM email was sent out to everyone, from every single military service member to the highest-paid directors of various federal agencies, mass pandemonium has largely been the result. The initial knee-jerk reaction for many department directors of various levels of bureaucracy has been to order their subordinates to not reply to the email. The Department of Defense also issued guidance to prevent all service members from responding to the email as well.Analyst: S2A1Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground//END REPORT//

Personnel Management (OPM) sent out an email seemingly to all federal employees instructing them to send back a list of five things they accomplished the previous week. Over on X, Musk posted that failure to do so would be tantamount to resigning. Confusion reigned as departments scrambled to advise employees on whether to follow the order from Donald Trump’s wealthiest assistant. This week, Bloomberg Businessweek’s Max Chafkin chats with Bloomberg social media reporter Kurt Wagner about this email and more. Then we hear a segment of the live show last week at On Air Fest, where host David Papadopoulos was joined by Chafkin, Elon Musk reporter Dana Hull and Wired’s Makena Kelly, who has been covering politics and Musk’s new government career for some time now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hey Strangers, #gronk #elonmusk #doge On Saturday, employees throughout the federal government received an email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), demanding a reply with “approx. 5 bullets of what you accomplished last week.” On X, Elon Musk posted that failure to respond “will be taken as a resignation.” The result? Confusion, chaos, and resentment among a federal workforce that increasingly feels under attack.“So fucking dumb,” says one air traffic controller who received the email and was granted anonymity for fear of retribution. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association, the union that represents ATC personnel, told its members not to respond until Federal Aviation Administration leadership provided guidance.=======================================My other podcasthttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKpvBEElSl1dD72Y5gtepkw**************************************************Something Strangehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRjVc2TZqN4&t=4s**************************************************article links:https://www.wired.com/story/doge-elon-musk-federal-workers-chaos-confusion/======================================Today is for push-ups and Programming and I am all done doing push-ups Discordhttps://discord.gg/MYvNgYYFxqTikTokhttps://www.tiktok.com/@strangestcoderYoutubehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe9xwdRW2D7RYwlp6pRGOvQ?sub_confirmation=1Blueskyhttps://bsky.app/profile/strangestcoder.bsky.socialTwitchhttps://www.twitch.tv/CodingWithStrangersTwitterhttps://twitter.com/strangestcodermerchSupport CodingWithStrangers IRL by purchasing some merch. All merch purchases include an alert: https://streamlabs.com/codingwithstrangers/merchGithubFollow my works of chaos https://github.com/codingwithstrangersTipshttps://streamlabs.com/codingwithstrangers/tipPatreonhttps://www.patreon.com/TheStrangersWebullhttps://act.webull.com/vi/c8V9LvpDDs6J/uyq/inviteUs/Join this channelhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe9xwdRW2D7RYwlp6pRGOvQ/joinTimeline00:00 intro00:26 What Talking We Talking About02:34 Article12:14 My Thoughts14:01 outro anything else?Take Care--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/coding-with-strangers/message

2:00Will Trump Kill ATF? ATF Merged Into FBI — Now ATFBIA look at the ugly, sordid, and criminal history of the Un-American “prohibition bureaucracy”, created to tax and kill Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  It's metamorphosis is a tale of a cancerous government metastasizing into every aspect of our lives 23:31Patel: Angel of Vengeance or FBI Savior?With Biden's crew weaponizing government against Trump and his allies, Patel has vowed to flip the scriptl. From his “King Donald” and “Government Gangsters” kids' books boasting about finding out everything about everyone, listing his political enemies by name, and plans that could federalize your local sheriff. Is Patel J. Edgar Hoover 2.0? 45:20 Will Patel's plan to move FBI out of DC and into local communities drastically increase the federalizing of local police? 53:47 Treasury Secretary Bessant looks into the camera and lies to your face about Ft Knox gold audits 55:33 LIVE comments from audience 1:08:10 Does ANY President have the authority to issue an executive order to anyone that doesn't work for him in the executive branch?  An interesting back and forth with the Governor of Maine over transgender sports shows that Trump thinks his EO's are “law”.  Trump pretends he has authority but his power is federal fiat bribery.  So what does this mean for his Dept of Education plans? 1:23:44 Christian Post asks “How do we talk to people who don't like Trump” (assuming if you're Christian you must necessarily like him).  Let's apply their suggestions to the man himself… 1:33:18JD Vance gives the gospel to CPAC — WWJDD, What would JD do?Pretty much everything he said about family and faith was spot on.  So down trust him now? And another conservative icon, Dave Rubin, is asked about religion, culture, and other things. 1:51:33Free Speech Farce Exposed: J.D. Vance Slams Europe While MAGA Censors for Israel & Threatens Opposition PressBrazil censors Rumble.  UK forces Apple to remove encryption.  And in USA, J.D. Vance is preaching free speech to Europe at CPAC, blasting their censorship while Trump and Kash Patel plot a chilling crackdown at home—suing CBS for $40 billion and weaponizing the FCC over a harmless Harris edit, all to crush dissent! 2:14:55Musk Does “Office Space” and Grok Shows Why AI Should NOT Be Used to “Maximize Governance”Federal workers are reeling as Musk demands productivity reports straight out of Office Space, only to be snubbed by the FBI, CIA, and even Kash Patel—turns out they don't report to him! And in a warning for Musk's agenda of “minimizing government, maximizing governance”, his own AI, Grok, hilariously tags him as the king of disinformation, proving AI governance is a mindless mess that can't tell truth from trash. 2:32:30 So Are the Cuts from Office of Personnel Management (OPM, pronounced “opium”) Reality or PR Public Relations?Trump's axing thousands of “probationary” feds, but the FDA's already backtracking, and judges might squash it all. From USAID's Haitian billions vanishing to Musk's vampire-hunting Social Security flop, don't take any of this at face value.  Time will tell if it's a facade. 2:52:22 Audience emails and commentsIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFor 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

2:00Will Trump Kill ATF? ATF Merged Into FBI — Now ATFBIA look at the ugly, sordid, and criminal history of the Un-American “prohibition bureaucracy”, created to tax and kill Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  It's metamorphosis is a tale of a cancerous government metastasizing into every aspect of our lives 23:31Patel: Angel of Vengeance or FBI Savior?With Biden's crew weaponizing government against Trump and his allies, Patel has vowed to flip the scriptl. From his “King Donald” and “Government Gangsters” kids' books boasting about finding out everything about everyone, listing his political enemies by name, and plans that could federalize your local sheriff. Is Patel J. Edgar Hoover 2.0? 45:20 Will Patel's plan to move FBI out of DC and into local communities drastically increase the federalizing of local police? 53:47 Treasury Secretary Bessant looks into the camera and lies to your face about Ft Knox gold audits55:33 LIVE comments from audience 1:08:10 Does ANY President have the authority to issue an executive order to anyone that doesn't work for him in the executive branch?  An interesting back and forth with the Governor of Maine over transgender sports shows that Trump thinks his EO's are “law”.  Trump pretends he has authority but his power is federal fiat bribery.  So what does this mean for his Dept of Education plans?1:23:44 Christian Post asks “How do we talk to people who don't like Trump” (assuming if you're Christian you must necessarily like him).  Let's apply their suggestions to the man himself…1:33:18JD Vance gives the gospel to CPAC — WWJDD, What would JD do?Pretty much everything he said about family and faith was spot on.  So down trust him now? And another conservative icon, Dave Rubin, is asked about religion, culture, and other things.1:51:33Free Speech Farce Exposed: J.D. Vance Slams Europe While MAGA Censors for Israel & Threatens Opposition PressBrazil censors Rumble.  UK forces Apple to remove encryption.  And in USA, J.D. Vance is preaching free speech to Europe at CPAC, blasting their censorship while Trump and Kash Patel plot a chilling crackdown at home—suing CBS for $40 billion and weaponizing the FCC over a harmless Harris edit, all to crush dissent!2:14:55Musk Does “Office Space” and Grok Shows Why AI Should NOT Be Used to “Maximize Governance”Federal workers are reeling as Musk demands productivity reports straight out of Office Space, only to be snubbed by the FBI, CIA, and even Kash Patel—turns out they don't report to him! And in a warning for Musk's agenda of “minimizing government, maximizing governance”, his own AI, Grok, hilariously tags him as the king of disinformation, proving AI governance is a mindless mess that can't tell truth from trash.2:32:30 So Are the Cuts from Office of Personnel Management (OPM, pronounced “opium”) Reality or PR Public Relations?Trump's axing thousands of “probationary” feds, but the FDA's already backtracking, and judges might squash it all. From USAID's Haitian billions vanishing to Musk's vampire-hunting Social Security flop, don't take any of this at face value.  Time will tell if it's a facade. 2:52:22 Audience emails and commentsIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFor 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

This Day in Legal History: Marbury vs. Madison DecidedOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, issued its landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison, establishing the principle of judicial review. The case arose when William Marbury, appointed as a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, sued Secretary of State James Madison for failing to deliver his commission. The Court ruled that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in such cases, was unconstitutional. By striking down this portion of the law, Marshall asserted that it was the judiciary's role to interpret the Constitution and invalidate any congressional acts that conflicted with it. This decision cemented the Supreme Court's authority as a coequal branch of government, ensuring that no law could override the Constitution. Though it limited the Court's immediate power by denying Marbury his commission, the ruling vastly expanded its long-term influence. Judicial review has since been used to strike down laws in areas ranging from civil rights to executive power. The case remains a cornerstone of American constitutional law, shaping the balance of power between the branches of government.A federal judge is set to hear the Associated Press's (AP) request to restore its journalists' access to the White House after President Trump's administration banned them for continuing to use the name "Gulf of Mexico" instead of "Gulf of America." The AP sued three senior Trump aides, arguing the ban violates the First Amendment by attempting to control the language journalists use in their reporting. The lawsuit seeks to reinstate AP's access to Air Force One and the White House press pool. White House officials dismissed the lawsuit as a publicity stunt, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defending the administration's position. Trump signed an executive order renaming the Gulf last month, but AP continued using the traditional name while noting the change. Several press freedom groups and the White House Correspondents' Association have condemned the ban. A hearing on the AP's motion for a temporary restraining order is scheduled for Monday in Washington federal court.US judge to hear AP challenge to Trump's ban over use of Gulf of Mexico name | ReutersThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has closed its investigation into Robinhood's cryptocurrency division without taking any action, the company announced Monday. Robinhood's stock rose 2.9% in premarket trading following the news. The investigation began in May 2024 when the SEC warned Robinhood that it could face charges for potential securities law violations related to its crypto operations. The decision comes shortly after the SEC dropped a separate lawsuit against Coinbase, another major crypto firm.US SEC closes investigation into Robinhood with no action | ReutersThe federal judiciary has advised judges and staff to ignore an email from the Trump administration requesting they report five accomplishments from the past week. The email, sent by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as part of a broader government efficiency effort, was shared by Elon Musk on X before reaching federal employees. Judiciary officials said they would address the matter with OPM but urged recipients not to respond. Legal experts criticized the request as a possible violation of the separation of powers, arguing that the executive branch has no authority over the judiciary. Some judges and clerks in Washington, D.C., and Texas confirmed receiving the email. Constitutional scholars warned that such an inquiry, particularly when federal courts are handling cases involving Trump's policies, could be an inappropriate intrusion by the executive branch. The request is part of an initiative to reduce government spending, which has already led to significant federal job cuts.Judiciary Tells Judges, Staff to Ignore Email to Explain Work 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

A coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 11 asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans' private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). As the federal government is the nation's largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country.Is this a big deal? Should we care? Joining Pam today is Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, an expert in intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. Lemley is of counsel with the law firm Lex Lumina and closely involved in the DOGE case. In this episode, Lemley overviews urgent privacy concerns that led to this lawsuit, laws such as the Privacy Act, and legal next steps for this case. The conversation shifts to the current political landscape, highlighting the unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley, particularly under the Musk administration. Lemley contrasts the agile, authoritative management style of Silicon Valley billionaires with the traditionally slow-moving federal bureaucracy, raising concerns about legality and procedural adherence. The conversation also touches on the demise of the Chevron doctrine and the possible rise of an imperial presidency, drawing parallels between the Supreme Court's and the executive branch's power grabs—and how Lemley's 2022 paper, "The Imperial Supreme Court," predicted the Court's trend towards consolidating power. This episode offers a compelling examination of how technological and corporate ideologies are influencing American law.Links:Mark Lemley >>> Stanford Law page“The Imperial Supreme Court” >>> Stanford Law publication pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The Rise of Executive Power(00:07:22) Concerns About Data Handling and Privacy(00:08:41) The Impact of Silicon Valley's Ethos on Government(00:14:01) The Musk Administration's Approach(00:18:01) The Role of the Supreme Court(00:24:43) Silicon Valley's Influence on Washington

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The IRS is now under the microscope. Fraud is being revealed and Trump is laying off 15000 IRS agents. Trump begins the process of drilling for oil, the parallel economy is coming into focus. Elon is now looking to audit Fort Knox, which allegedly holds the US gold. In the end gold destroys the Fed. DC is in a panic, the swamp is being drained and people are moving out of the area. The criminals are now searching for ways of hiding their crimes, they are searching for attorneys. The knowingly committed crimes against this country, treason. Trump reminds everyone that he is a wartime President.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/fentasyl/status/1890955221070651502   Welfare recipients each year There were over 41M in 2020. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1890953327069782337 Trump IRS Purge: 15,000 Employees Have Been Identified for Potential Termination as Early as Next Week  The Trump administration has executed one of the most significant workforce reductions in U.S. history, targeting over 200,000 probationary employees across multiple government agencies. According to data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), as of March 2024, approximately 220,000 federal workers had not yet completed their probationary period. An additional 288,000 employees had between one and two years of service, making them vulnerable to restructuring efforts. It was first reported that Trump's administration plans to axe around 9,000 jobs at the IRS, primarily targeting employees still in their probationary period. However, according to ABC News citing sources familiar with the matter, as many as 15,000 IRS workers have been identified for possible termination as early as next week. ABC News reported: Source: thegatewaypundit.com BREAKING NEWS! Trump Unleashes the Oil Battle: Reverses Biden's Ban and Opens 625 Million Acres for Drilling! In a masterful strike against the eco-extremist agenda of the left, President Donald Trump, along with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, have opened Pandora's box of energy independence. They have reversed the absurd ban imposed by Joe Biden, opening over 625 million acres for oil and gas drilling and exploration. This move is nothing less than a declaration of war against progressives who want to see the United States on its knees. https://twitter.com/Likeshesays/status/1890614680579698762?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1890614680579698762%7Ctwgr%5Ea22b07f967869a67df7177f383976a8803ac0c0d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgatewayhispanic.com%2F2025%2F02%2Fbreaking-news-trump-unleashes-the-oil-battle-reverses-bidens-ban-and-opens-625-million-acres-for-drilling%2F President Trump announced that the 625 million acres that Biden banned from drilling in his last days in office are once again available for future oil and gas leases. Although this action faces legal challenges, as Biden attempted to use the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to impose his ban, Trump and Burgum are ready to fight for what is America's right. We will not let bureaucracy or judges with political agendas stop our progress. The economic impact will be devastating for the detractors of common sense, bringing jobs, lowering prices, and ensuring our independence. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/iamproof001/status/1890990024407089463  funds Johnny:   the twin towers when they went down because I remember a lot of d...

It's a DOGE-eat-DOGE world.Before I get into my thoughts on DOGE—and I have quite a few—the reason I haven't written much about it (we did touch on USAID in Wednesday's update) is that I'm still wrapping my head around it.There's a lot of noise surrounding DOGE, and beyond the clatter, it's unclear exactly what's happening. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is in the valley. They lost a big election, have no effective power in government for at least the next two years, and have been throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall. Chuck Schumer was parading around with a Corona and lime when it looked like we were going to hit Mexico with 25% tariffs, and now, the focus of the last 72 hours has been Elon Musk and DOGE.Because DOGE sits at the center of a political noise machine, I tend to be cautious about jumping in while everything is still in motion.That being said, DOGE is a significant development. What they're doing is something every Republican candidate in my lifetime has promised—and it may very well be illegal. We don't know if they're actually cutting the budget in the way they claim, nor do we know if anything they're doing is truly unlawful. But the fact that both of those questions exist simultaneously is reason enough to take a deeper look.Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE—was conceived during Donald Trump's 2024 campaign and made official on January 20, 2025, the first day of Trump's second term. However, it is not a formal cabinet department. Instead, it began under the U.S. Digital Service, which was rebranded as the U.S. DOGE Service, before being placed under the Chief of Staff's office—likely to avoid transparency requirements. The stated goal of DOGE is to modernize federal technology and software to maximize government efficiency, with Musk claiming they aim to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. Musk has admitted that if they say $2 trillion, they might actually cut $1 trillion, but the ambition remains.DOGE operates out of the Eisenhower Executive Building next to the White House with a small headquarters of about 20 people. Rather than a traditional hierarchy, it functions as a task force embedded across government agencies, with small teams of DOGE operatives placed inside agencies to audit systems and pursue efficiency measures. Musk himself serves as a special government employee, a temporary advisory role that grants him broad access while allowing him to bypass disclosure requirements that apply to full-time officials. This is especially notable given Musk's extensive business interests in China—something so controversial that a bipartisan group of lawmakers banned TikTok last year.Key figures in DOGE include Steve Davis, CEO of The Boring Company and a longtime Musk confidant, who allegedly leads day-to-day operations. Then there are the so-called “DOGE Kids”—young adults, typically aged 19 to 24, from elite universities with backgrounds in Musk companies or the Peter Thiel machine. Some, like Luke Farritor, gained fame for achievements like using AI to decode ancient Roman scrolls. Others, like Marko Elez, have already faced controversy. Ellis resigned after the Wall Street Journal uncovered racist posts he made in 2024, including advocating for eugenic immigration policies and saying he would never marry outside his ethnicity.In its first 80 hours, Musk tweeted that DOGE had canceled $420 million worth of federal contracts. Get it. The issue? DOGE doesn't technically have the authority to cancel contracts. That power belongs to Congress and the departments that administer the funds. So the real question is whether DOGE is canceling these contracts or simply recommending their termination, with the speed of the Trump administration making it appear as though they're acting unilaterally.DOGE's aggressive approach has already ruffled feathers. On inauguration day, Musk's team assumed control of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) headquarters, installing sofa beds in the director's office and working around the clock. Within days, they cut off career OPM staff from internal systems, effectively giving Musk's team exclusive control over federal HR records. Two OPM employees filed a lawsuit in late January, alleging that DOGE unlawfully installed a private server on the agency's network.Things escalated further when DOGE turned its attention to the U.S. Treasury Department's payment system, which processes $5 trillion annually, handling everything from Social Security checks to federal salaries. When David Liebrich, a top Treasury official, refused to grant DOGE access, he was reportedly forced out. By January 31, Trump's new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, approved DOGE's access. Soon after, a DOGE tech aide obtained unrestricted access to the payment system's code base and began making changes with minimal supervision—an alarming development that has raised red flags in Congress.And then there's USAID. Musk tweeted, “We're shutting it down,” referring to the agency responsible for international aid. But does Musk actually have the authority to do that? Or is he merely advising Marco Rubio, who, as head of the State Department, technically oversees USAID?If Musk is making these decisions, it's illegal. If Rubio is doing it, it's just an unusually fast-moving government operation. The speed and opacity of DOGE make it difficult to tell the difference.Meanwhile, DOGE has brought a renewed focus on federal spending. Social media has been ablaze with revelations about who benefits from government funds. Bill Kristol, a Never Trump figure, was found to have received money through USAID-funded organizations. More controversially, it was revealed that Politico received $8.2 million in federal funding last year. While some jumped to the conclusion that this was a Democratic subsidy for favorable coverage, the truth is more complicated. The money was for Politico Pro, a premium service used by government officials and lobbyists for networking and policy tracking. However, everyone I talked to in pulling this together told me Politico Pro sucks. Specifically compared to competitors like Bloomberg Government, raising questions about why agencies chose it over better alternatives.So how does this end? At some point, DOGE will hit a regulatory or legal wall that slows its momentum. They need enough public goodwill to sustain them when that happens, or the entire operation could grind to a halt.There's already evidence that Musk's influence is waning. A YouGov poll from November 2024 showed that 47% of Republicans wanted Musk to have significant influence in government. That number has since dropped to 26%, with 43% now preferring that he have only limited influence. Among all Americans, only 13% want Musk to have a lot of influence, while 46% want him to have none.DOGE's speed and disruption are unprecedented, but whether they represent true reform or reckless overreach remains an open question.All that… plus Jen Briney gives me her Doge thoughts and our final assessments of the confirmation hearings. Karol Markowicz joins the show to discuss Trump's musings on Gaza and the GOP infighting in Florida over immigration.Chapters00:00 Intro00:56 Let's Talk DOGE24:02 Jen Briney on DOGE and Confirmation Hearings40:18 Jen Briney on Confirmation Hearings01:10:02 UPDATE01:19:06 Karol Markowicz This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's deadline for federal employees to accept a controversial deferred-retirement offer. The decision comes just hours before workers were supposed to respond to the program, which would allow them to resign while still receiving full pay and benefits until September 30. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is now informing employees that the deadline has been paused while legal proceedings unfold. The program, aimed at over 2 million federal workers, has already drawn criticism from unions representing hundreds of thousands of employees who argue it violates federal law and could lead to a loss of expertise in key government functions. About 40,000 workers have accepted the offer, but that number may grow. Critics, including state attorneys general, have labeled the offer as misleading, raising concerns about the lack of clarity and guarantees surrounding it. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The federal lawsuits pushing back against the Trump administration's lawlessness are coming fast and furious. After multiple lawsuits were filed by FBI agents, several government employee unions also filed suit seeking an injunction against Donald Trump's attempt to intimidate federal workers into resigning. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent all federal workers a "Fork in the Road" email, giving them just 9 days to decided whether to resign, telling them little about their benefits or consequences of doing so, and intimating that if they DON'T resign, their jobs might not remain for them in the future. Glenn reviews this new legal development.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2X aka Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The federal lawsuits pushing back against the Trump administration's lawlessness are coming fast and furious. After multiple lawsuits were filed by FBI agents, several government employee unions also filed suit seeking an injunction against Donald Trump's attempt to intimidate federal workers into resigning. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent all federal workers a "Fork in the Road" email, giving them just 9 days to decided whether to resign, telling them little about their benefits or consequences of doing so, and intimating that if they DON'T resign, their jobs might not remain for them in the future. Glenn reviews this new legal development.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2X aka Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: Permanent Court of Arbitration EstablishedOn February 6, 1900, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was officially established following the ratification of the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This marked a major step toward institutionalizing peaceful dispute resolution between nations. The PCA, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, became the first international tribunal designed to arbitrate conflicts between states, offering an alternative to war. While not a court in the traditional sense, the PCA provides administrative support for arbitral tribunals, helping resolve territorial, trade, and investment disputes. Recognizing the need for improvement, the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes refined its procedures, further solidifying arbitration as a legitimate mechanism for international law. Over the years, the PCA's role expanded beyond state-to-state disputes to include cases involving international organizations, corporations, and even individuals. Today, it operates out of the Peace Palace, home to other key legal institutions like the International Court of Justice. With 109 member states, the PCA continues to handle complex cases, from border conflicts to environmental agreements. Its existence laid the groundwork for later international legal bodies, such as the International Criminal Court and various UN tribunals. By promoting arbitration over conflict, the PCA has helped shape a more structured and rule-based international legal order.Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a major shift in the Justice Department's white-collar enforcement priorities, scaling back efforts in foreign lobbying transparency and foreign bribery cases. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) unit will now focus on bribery cases tied to transnational crime, such as those facilitating human smuggling, drug trafficking, and arms dealing. Other FCPA investigations with no such connection will be deprioritized.Similarly, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) enforcement will be limited to cases resembling traditional espionage by foreign government actors. The Justice Department's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section will focus more on civil enforcement and regulatory guidance rather than aggressive criminal prosecutions. These changes mark a significant pullback from the increased enforcement seen over the past decade, particularly under Special Counsel Robert Mueller.Bondi also disbanded the National Security Division's corporate enforcement unit, an initiative championed by Biden-era Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. It's unclear if the division will continue prioritizing corporate crime linked to adversarial nations like China and Iran. These policy shifts were part of a broader series of announcements as Bondi took charge as the nation's top law enforcement official following her confirmation on Tuesday night.Bondi Diminishes Justice Department White Collar Enforcement (1)Google is ending its diversity-based hiring targets and reviewing its broader diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, aligning with a broader corporate trend of scaling back such efforts. The company previously set a goal in 2020 to increase leadership representation from underrepresented groups by 30% by 2025, but Chief People Officer Fiona Cicconi told employees that Google would no longer pursue aspirational hiring goals.This shift follows years of public DEI commitments, especially after the 2020 protests over police killings of George Floyd and other Black Americans. Google had also begun evaluating executives on diversity metrics, but recent SEC filings show it removed language reaffirming its DEI commitments.The Alphabet Workers Union (AWU) criticized the move, calling it part of a broader anti-worker trend in the tech industry. Meanwhile, Google cited legal considerations as a federal contractor, stating it is reviewing compliance with court decisions and executive orders affecting DEI policies.Google will maintain internal employee groups such as “Black Googler Network” and “Trans at Google.” The company's decision follows similar DEI cutbacks at Meta and Amazon, amid increasing conservative pushback and legal challenges after the Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action ruling.Google scraps diversity-based hiring targets | ReutersMore than 40,000 federal employees have signed up for the Trump administration's buyout offer, which promises pay through September if they resign by the end of February. This represents about 2% of the federal civilian workforce, with officials expecting a surge in applications before the Thursday deadline.The initiative is part of President Trump's second-term effort to reduce the size of the federal government, led by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency. The White House initially projected that 5% to 10% of federal workers might accept the offer.Federal employee unions oppose the plan, questioning its legality and enforceability. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has warned workers that job cuts are likely, with agency restructurings and layoffs expected. However, key employees in defense, immigration, law enforcement, and postal services are exempt from the deal.With nearly 298,000 federal employees eligible for retirement in the next two years, the administration's strategy could significantly reshape the workforce. Union leaders, like Everett Kelley of the American Federation of Government Employees, have urged workers to reject the offer, calling it misleading and driven by unelected billionaires.Musk ‘Buyout' Taken by 40,000 Federal Workers as Deadline Nears - BloombergOn her first day as U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi issued a directive stating that Justice Department lawyers who refuse to advance legal arguments on behalf of the Trump administration could face termination. The memo warns that attorneys who decline to sign briefs, delay cases, or impede the department's mission may be disciplined or fired.The move is part of a broader effort by Trump appointees to assert control over the Justice Department, which has already seen firings and reassignments of career lawyers. Bondi also announced a review of criminal and civil cases brought against Trump and his supporters, including prosecutions related to the January 6 Capitol attack. This "Weaponization Working Group" will scrutinize cases Republicans claim were politically motivated under the Biden administration.Additionally, Bondi scaled back enforcement of foreign influence laws, stating that criminal cases will only be pursued in instances resembling “traditional espionage”, shifting the focus to civil enforcement. These laws, which require individuals lobbying for foreign governments to register as foreign agents, were previously used to prosecute several Trump associates.Bondi's directive reflects Trump allies' long-standing complaints that career DOJ attorneys obstructed his policies, such as resisting lawsuits against Yale's admissions practices and refusing to defend the 2017 travel ban. The memo asserts that DOJ lawyers cannot substitute their personal views for the administration's legal agenda.Trump's attorney general says lawyers who refuse orders could be fired | 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

On Jan. 28, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent out an email offering a “deferred resignation program” to over 2 million federal employees, encouraging them to resign effective Sept. 30. The offer is only open until Feb. 6—and in the intervening days since OPM announced the program, federal employees have received a blizzard of followup emails offering confusing and rapidly changing information. Writing in Lawfare, Nick Bednar has examined the OPM offer and raised questions about whether federal employees who take this option will be able to seek legal recourse if their contract is not paid out. On the podcast, Bednar, an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota, joined Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic to walk through the many legal issues raised by the program and how federal employees are handling this period of uncertainty.We value your feedback! Help us improve by sharing your thoughts at lawfaremedia.org/survey. Your input ensures that we deliver what matters most to you. Thank you for your support—and, as always, for listening!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Switch in Time that Saved NineOn February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, a move that became known as the “court-packing” plan. Frustrated by the Court striking down key New Deal programs, Roosevelt sought to add up to six new justices, arguing it would make the Court more efficient. His plan allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for each sitting justice over the age of 70 who refused to retire. Critics saw this as an attempt to undermine judicial independence and tilt the Court in Roosevelt's favor. The proposal faced strong bipartisan opposition, including from members of Roosevelt's own Democratic Party.While the plan ultimately failed in the Senate, the political pressure had an effect. Soon after, the Court began ruling in favor of New Deal legislation, a shift sometimes called “the switch in time that saved nine.” This shift preserved Roosevelt's policies without requiring changes to the Court's structure. By the early 1940s, Roosevelt had the chance to appoint multiple justices as vacancies naturally occurred. The controversy reinforced the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers. It also set a precedent that court expansion efforts would be met with significant resistance.The court-packing episode remains relevant in modern debates over judicial reform. It serves as a historical lesson on the limits of presidential power and the resilience of the judiciary. Roosevelt, despite his immense political influence, could not force structural changes to the Supreme Court. The episode highlights the delicate balance between the executive and judicial branches, ensuring no single branch dominates the government.Pam Bondi was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General in a 54-46 Senate vote, positioning her to lead the Justice Department amid significant shifts under the Trump administration. Bondi, a longtime Trump ally, takes over as the department faces internal upheaval, with interim leadership forcing out officials involved in cases related to the January 6 Capitol attack. She has pledged to restore what she calls an "equal, fair system of justice" and to end the "partisan weaponization" of the DOJ.  Since Trump took office, the DOJ has realigned its priorities, focusing on immigration enforcement while reducing emphasis on other areas. One of Trump's first executive orders directed the agency to address alleged "weaponization" of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Bondi supports this effort, vowing to enforce the law vigorously while backing the administration's policy shifts.  Her tenure is expected to bring further changes, including tensions between the DOJ and the FBI. Recently, the FBI was asked to provide names of employees involved in January 6 investigations, prompting lawsuits from agents concerned about retaliation. Critics warn that the administration's moves risk politicizing the DOJ and eroding institutional knowledge as career officials depart.Bondi Confirmed as Trump's Attorney General to Lead DOJ Shake-Up - BloombergThe American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is suing the Trump administration to stop its voluntary resignation program, "Fork in the Road," arguing it violates federal law. The program allows federal employees who resign by February 6 to continue receiving pay and benefits through September 30, but requires them to waive their right to sue their employer. The union claims this promise is illegal under the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from committing funds before Congress approves them.  Congress has only authorized funding for most agencies through March 14, meaning agencies cannot guarantee salaries beyond that date. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is the latest challenge to efforts by Trump and Elon Musk to reduce the federal workforce. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) argues that the resignation offer is legal because it does not provide “additional compensation.”  AFGE has received thousands of complaints from employees, saying the program forces staff to work extra hours while raising concerns about whether the government will honor its commitments. The Justice Department has not yet responded to the lawsuit.Federal Worker Union Sues to Stop Trump's Resignation Offer (1)Farmers in Curry County, New Mexico, are at a critical juncture in their fight against PFAS contamination from Cannon Air Force Base, with a key court hearing set for February 7. Art and Renee Schaap, once owners of a thriving dairy farm, were forced to slaughter their entire herd after discovering dangerously high levels of PFAS in their water supply. The chemicals, linked to firefighting foam used by the military, rendered their milk unsellable and their land contaminated.  A legal battle over the government's responsibility is unfolding, with the Schaaps' case becoming a test for broader national litigation. The Pentagon has requested dismissal of all claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing that its use of PFAS-containing foam was discretionary and therefore not subject to lawsuits. The government is also resisting cleanup demands under Superfund laws, which could delay remediation efforts.  If the court allows lawsuits to proceed, affected farmers and businesses may finally receive compensation and quicker environmental cleanup. Meanwhile, concerns over PFAS exposure continue to grow, with nearby cheese processors and residents installing costly water filtration systems to protect against contamination. The Air Force has begun cleanup efforts, including a planned $73 million water treatment facility, but obstacles remain, including regulatory changes and the lack of proven PFAS destruction technologies.  For now, the Schaaps and other local farmers face uncertainty, with their land value in question and their future livelihoods at risk. The case's outcome could determine whether the military is held accountable for widespread PFAS contamination affecting communities nationwide.Farmers Ruined by PFAS Face Key Moment in Fight AgainstDonald Trump's proposal to eliminate taxes on tips may seem like a win for hospitality workers, but it risks deepening wage inequities and further entrenching the service industry's reliance on gratuities. While tipped workers might see short-term benefits, the policy would leave out millions of low-wage workers in non-tipped sectors, such as retail or manufacturing, exacerbating disparities. It could also push more workers into precarious, tip-dependent jobs rather than stable, salaried positions.By making tips tax-free, employers may feel even less incentive to raise wages, worsening income instability for workers who already rely on inconsistent gratuities. The plan also ignores existing discrimination in tipping, which could become even more entrenched in an unregulated tip-based economy. Instead of piecemeal solutions that favor certain workers over others, policymakers should focus on raising the federal minimum wage and eliminating the tipped minimum wage exemption.The tipped minimum wage has been stuck at $2.13 per hour since 1991, despite inflation reducing its value over time. Phasing it out and aligning it with the federal minimum wage would offer workers more stability, ensuring they earn a livable income independent of customer generosity. A broader increase in the minimum wage is also necessary, as the current $7.25 rate, set in 2009, has failed to keep pace with inflation.While tax-free tips may sound appealing, they don't address the root causes of wage insecurity. True reform would prioritize fair pay for all low-wage workers, creating stability and reducing financial precarity across industries.Trump's Tax-Free Tips Proposal May Sound Good But Is a Risky Bet 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

We are following the deadly collision of a plane and a helicopter last night in D.C. We will examine the message Trump sent shortly after the crash and why it's importat. Aviation expert Patrick Weil joins. Did Elon Musk act without approval from President Trump when he sent all federal workers a “deferred resignation” buyout letter? It seems he went around key Trump officials, took over the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and presented an offer very much like he did at Twitter, worded similarly. Federal workers union officials are warning employees not to take the deal yet as it is likely illegal. First, the funding for such a deal has not been approved by Congress. Second, there are laws governing the amount of money that federal workers can be offered. We welcome former Federal Prosecutor Daid Katz. We'l ask him if the fed buyout offer is legal and why a judge put a stop to Trump's federal Funding cuts. We also lighten up the mood with comedian JL Cauvin. He recently released a Trump stand up special.

After public backlash and union pushback, the Trump administration is moving forward with a sweeping buyout program offering federal workers eight months of pay if they resign by February 6. The move, announced Tuesday in a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), is an aggressive effort to shrink the government and reshape the federal workforce. The email, sent to more than 2 million employees with the subject line "fork in the road," has been widely criticized as a pressure tactic. It states that workers who accept the buyout will remain on paid administrative leave until September 30, while those who stay could face job insecurity, potential reclassification as at-will employees, and even furloughs. The memo enforces a return to office policy, also ending remote work for most federal employees. Trump's OPM has also scrapped Biden-era protections for federal employees. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last month on NAPS Chat, USPS' Karla Kirby talked about the Postal Service Health Benefits Program (PSHBP) and what to expect. Karla referenced the USPS' partnership with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in implementing the new health program. On this episode, OPM Manager of Outreach and Program Services Jay Fritz joins Bob to discuss the just commenced PSHBP open season, program changes, premiums, benefits and the available tools to make health plan decisions. 

GUEST 1 OVERVIEW:  Ann Vandersteel, is one of the premiere investigative journalists within Conservatism. Ann Vandersteel is the co-chair of the Zelenko Freedom Foundation. She is the Host of Right Now with Ann Vandersteel. Prior to the Zelenko Foundation, Ann was the host of SteelTruthTM, and is considered a thought leader and trailblazer in "new media”. As the former President and co-host on YourVoice America, a popular conservative new media news and analysis show, Ann built her reputation as a trusted news source who respects the responsibility of delivering accurate news and analysis with consistency.   GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Deborah White, a committed public servant with over a decade of federal government experience, responded to the humanitarian call in 2021. She heeded the call from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to assist the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in their urgent mission to provide care and find sponsors for migrant children entering the United States through the southern border.

What happens when the very agency responsible for safeguarding government personnel data becomes the target of an unprecedented cyber attack? Join us on this riveting episode of Technology Tap as we unravel the intricacies of the infamous Office of Personnel Management (OPM) breach. I'm Professor J-Rod, guiding you through a special summer series episode where we dissect the 2013 cyber intrusion that compromised sensitive federal employee information. With former Navy personnel Michelle, Wesley, and Oksana shedding light on the timeline and implications, this episode offers a rare, personal glimpse into the far-reaching impact of such a breach.Listen to Michelle recount her firsthand experience as a victim of the OPM breach and learn how hackers infiltrated the OPM's networks, remaining undetected for months. Discover the alarming vulnerabilities in governmental cybersecurity practices that led to the eventual resignation of OPM Director Katherine Archuleta. Through engaging conversations and detailed analysis, this episode emphasizes the critical need for proactive threat detection and robust data protection measures, making it an essential listen for anyone concerned with the security of personal information in our digital age.Support the Show.If you want to help me with my research please e-mail me.Professorjrod@gmail.comIf you want to join my question/answer zoom class e-mail me at Professorjrod@gmail.comArt By Sarah/DesmondMusic by Joakim KarudLittle chacha ProductionsJuan Rodriguez can be reached atTikTok @ProfessorJrodProfessorJRod@gmail.com@Prof_JRodInstagram ProfessorJRod

What's up with federal and national security careers in the last month? Here are the federal opportunities available, clearance process changes to consider, and two contractors to target in your job search.Expanded Opportunities for Entry Level Jobs in the Federal GovernmentThe Office of Personnel Management (OPM) enhanced the Pathways Program for early career talent in the federal government by:Expanding skills-based hiringIncreasing starting salaries for recent graduatesFacilitating interns' conversion to permanent positionsOPM's goal is to improve talent pipelines in federal agencies and offer opportunities across various sectors and industries.The programs are interns, recent graduates, Presidential Management Fellows (PMFs), and Enhanced Recruitment Tools.Changes to SF-86 Drug Questions Hide a Nasty Surprise for Some ApplicantsSecurity clearance applicants traditionally completed Standard Form (SF) 86 for background checks, including questions on drug use. A new "Personnel Vetting Questionnaire" (PVQ) combines SF-86 with SF-85 and SF-85P, separating drug use questions into cannabis and other illegal drugs categories. Despite these changes, caution is advised for applicants due to potential implications. The National Adjudicative Guidelines for Security Clearances – the standards against which all applicants are assessed – remain currently unchanged, as does the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The use of federally legal cannabis derivatives (i.e., those with a THC concentration of 0.3% or less by dry weight pursuant to the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act) can result in a positive drug test that could hurt the ability to maintain access to classified info.This most important thing regarding these changes is a federal law known as the Bond Amendment. This law prevents agencies from granting a clearance to anyone currently using marijuana. Federal agencies have interpreted “current” to mean any use of a drug within the last year. But some reports indicate that the new questionnaire will shorten the reporting period for past marijuana use to only 90 days. If true, this disparity in questions language and policy may further confuse applicants on an already murky topic.Praxis Interns Dive Deep into Tech, Bridge Local and Global ChallengesPraxis interns have been assigned the responsibility of utilizing AI to extract essential details from videos. This extracted information enables users to search for videos without the need to watch them. The interns were given a collection of more than 700 cell phone videos (approximately 10 hours) that were recorded during the January 6 Capitol Riot. The team concentrated on analyzing various aspects of the videos, including audio, images, and metadata.Praxis interns collected sample data by intercepting packets sent by mobile devices to a designated router. Using this data, they were able to show the value of various analysis techniques by creating two applications: CometGo and CometLo.Impactful Missions in Law Enforcement at Booz AllenBooz Allen employees work on missions for the greater good, including law enforcement collaborations to streamline processes and prevent threats. Team members share their experiences and address common questions about working in law enforcement at Booz Allen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Modernization of IT systems in the Federal government is an ongoing effort, and ongoing discussion. And, data sharing and governance are critical for successful IT modernization. In this episode of the GovFuture podcast we talk with Guy Cavallo, who is Chief Information Officer at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). It should come as The post Modernizing IT & Data Priorities at OPM: Interview with Guy Cavallo, OPM [GovFuture Podcast] appeared first on GovFuture.

The Survivor Benefit Plan provides financial support and healthcare to spouses in the event of the retiree's death. However, if the spouse passes away first, the retiree can inform the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and stop making payments to the program. https://fedpilot.com

Government agencies are learning to manage risk, harness the vast amounts of data they have to make better data-driven decisions and leverage emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence. In this episode of the GovFuture Podcast we interview Melvin Brown II who is Deputy Chief Information Officer at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). He The post Managing Risk, Harnessing Data, and Leveraging AI at OPM: Interview with Melvin Brown II, OPM [GovFuture Podcast] appeared first on GovFuture.

US healthcare spending is extreme currently at approximately $4.3 trillion.  The single largest payer of healthcare services is Medicare at roughly $900 billion annually or 21% of total healthcare spending.   In this edited volume, recently published by Johns Hopkins University Press, Dr. Moffit along with eleven other contributors including Joe Antos, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Brian Miller, Mark Pauly and Gail Wilensky, lay out the conservative version of Medicare reform.  In sum, the authors argue federal policymakers reinvent Medicare as a defined contribution or premium support program or at minimum substantially expand the Medicare Advantage program (Medicare Part C), or Medicare coverage provided by private insurance companies.  The interview begins by Dr. Moffit commenting on whether healthcare services can be defined as a market commodity. He discusses the problem of healthcare pricing, measuring for value in healthcare, improving Medicare Advantage benchmarking, remedying Medicare Advantage coding intensity via retrospective risk adjustment and risk transfer pools and competing fee for service Accountability Care Organizations (ACOs) against Medicare Advantage. Dr. Robert Moffit is a Senior Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation specializing in health care and entitlement programs, moreover Medicare. Dr. Moffit also serves on the Maryland Health Care Commission as an appointee of Gov. Larry Hogan and he is a member of the advisory board of the Buckley School of Public Speaking in Camden, South Carolina. He brings to the reform effort experience as a senior official of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Reagan administration. Dr. Moffit is a co-author of “Why Obamacare Is Wrong for America,” (Harper Collins, 2011). He was a contributor to “A Time for Governing: Policy Solutions From the Pages of National Affairs” (Encounter Books, 2012) and “Controversial Issues in Social Policy” (Allyn and Bacon, 2003), a university textbook on public policy. He has published in numerous professional and specialty journals among them Health Affairs, Health Systems Review, Harvard Health Policy Review, Inquiry, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, National Affairs, New England Journal of Medicine, Postgraduate Medicine, and Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. His analysis and commentary have been cited or published by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, The Washington Post and The Washington Times. He holds a master's degree and a doctorate in Political Science from the University of Arizona. He received his bachelor's degree in Political Science from LaSalle University in Philadelphia. Information on “Modernizing Medicare,” is at: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12839/modernizing-medicare. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

Almost 33,000 federal civilian employees are a step closer to a bigger pay raise in 2024, after the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a proposal to establish four new locality-pay areas for the General Schedule. OPM's proposed rule, added to the Federal Register Wednesday, comes after the President's Pay Agent in December approved recommendations from the Federal Salary Council to establish the four new locality pay areas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Almost 33,000 federal civilian employees are a step closer to a bigger pay raise in 2024, after the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a proposal to establish four new locality-pay areas for the General Schedule. OPM's proposed rule, added to the Federal Register Wednesday, comes after the President's Pay Agent in December approved recommendations from the Federal Salary Council to establish the four new locality pay areas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Gerome Q. Banks is a strategic consulting manager for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with 20 years of professional public sector management, strategic HR experience, and an affinity for leader development and federal talent management.  Gerome discusses the top predictors of federal employee job satisfaction, what leaders in public sector agencies need to do to be more effective, and the metrics agencies ought to be using to accurately gauge their organization's performance. 

It's Hard to Sue the U.S. Government Without Its Permission RobeIrta Jean Champlin appealed a decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her claim that the United States must pay damages for the nonpayment of life insurance proceeds from her deceased former husband's Federal Employees Group Life Insurance policy. In Roberta Jean Champlin v. United States, No. 2022-1402, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (April 10, 2023) Ms. Champlin sought payment of a Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) policy after he ex-husband died because her divorce decree granted her half ownership in the policy. BACKGROUND The Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA) establishes a group life insurance program for federal employees. The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is responsible for managing FEGLI polices and has entered a contract with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) to provide insurance to federal employees. FEGLI proceeds are to be paid in the following order of precedence: (1) designated beneficiaries; (2) widowed spouse; (3) children or descendants; (4) parents of deceased; (5) executor or administrator of the estate; and (6) next of kin. Factual & Procedural Background Lewis Dean Champlin, during and after his marriage to Ms. Champlin, had life insurance through a FEGLI policy. In September 2012, the Champlins divorced. As part of their divorce proceedings, Ms. Champlin obtained from the Alaskan state divorce court "award[ed Ms. Champlin] the option to continue maintaining a one-half interest in that policy . . . [while Mr. Champlin] ha[d] the option of paying the other half of the policy and c[ould] designate whoever he chooses to be beneficiary to the other half of the policy benefits." Ms. Champlin paid for half of the policy thereafter. On January 3, 2016, Mr. Champlin died. Ms. Champlin did not receive her half of the proceeds of his life insurance policy. Instead the proceeds were paid to Mr. Champlin's designated beneficiary at the time of his death-Marilyn Susano. Ms. Champlin sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that she is entitled to half of Mr. Champlin's issued life insurance coverage and further requesting a judgment directing the United States to pay her half of the FEGLI proceeds. The OPM authorized MetLife to provide life insurance, and MetLife established an administrative office, which is responsible for administering FEGLI claims. The Court of Federal Claims noted that it found that Ms. Champlin's complaint made no claim for a breach of a legal duty, only a claim to obtain money due under the FEGLI policy. (c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe. Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257 Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

What is the IT strategy for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)? How is it modernizing its IT systems and infrastructure? What is OPM doing to secure its IT systems and infrastructure? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Guy Cavallo, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What is the IT strategy for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)? How is it modernizing its IT systems and infrastructure? What is OPM doing to secure its IT systems and infrastructure? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Guy Cavallo, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Guests: Robert Bowes Current Advisor with the Heritage Foundation and Consultant in Election Fraud Issues & Banking Expert, Previously: Director, Fannie Mae; Executive Office Senior Advisor for Policy to President Donald J. Trump, Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (FHA program) & Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Preston Munguia Business Consultant to Hispanic Churches, Former Liaison with Dan Cox Campaign to the Hispanic Community Discussion covered: Election finance and the movement of money through Act Blue as reported by James O'Keefe, with O'Keefe Media Group (OMG). Discoveries in the FEC (Federal Election Commission) data, as discovered by the team associated with the Lois Gibson v. Maryland case, referred to as The Gibson Group, supported by Peter Bergman, show multiple individuals' names associated with thousands of small donations, totaling excessive amounts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Donors were interviewed on video and denied making all of the donations that were reported in their name. This indicates possible Maryland election finance fraud which is being further investigated. Donations to support this legal effort to uncover the truth can be made at www.CharltonScientific.org. Banking and currency changes due to Biden Administration Executive Order # 14067 (March 9, 2022). Possible options include crypto current, QFS (Quantum Financial System) currency, and asset backed currency.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What is the IT strategy for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)? How is it modernizing its IT systems and infrastructure? What is OPM doing to secure its IT systems and infrastructure? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Guy Cavallo, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel Management […]

What is the IT strategy for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)? How is it modernizing its IT systems and infrastructure? What is OPM doing to secure its IT systems and infrastructure? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Guy Cavallo, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What is the IT strategy for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)? How is it modernizing its IT systems and infrastructure? What is OPM doing to secure its IT systems and infrastructure? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Guy Cavallo, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

**DISCLAIMER: All of our opinions are our own. They do not represent, nor are they affiliated with the interests and beliefs of the companies we work for. *****DISCLAIMER: This episode is not about our feels of the overturn or any political views.***In this episode, we discuss the implications this overturn will have on data privacy and employee's personal data within the workplace. We will touch on the challenges with data privacy in State/Federal Government vs. Local Government. Throughout this episode, you will hear us mention several data breaches in private and public industries and why you should be concerned when a decision like this is made. Finally, you will be introduced to some acronyms/regulations that have been created to protect personal and private data.Key PointsCIA Triad & State/Local Government ImplicationsThe Lingo – PHI, HIPAA, The Privacy RuleState & Federal Governments vs. Local GovernmentTop 10 Government Data Breaches# 10: State of Texas - 3.5 million affected (April 2011)  #9 : South Carolina Department of Revenue - 3.6 million affected (October 2012)  #8: Tricare - 4.9 million affected (September 2011)   #7: Georgia Secretary of State Office - 6.2 million affected (November 2015)  #6: Office of the Texas Attorney General - 6.5 million affected (April 2012)  #5: Virginia Department of Health Professions - 8.3 million affected (May 2009)  #4: U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) - 21.5 million affected (June 2015)  #3: U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs - 26.5 million affected (May 2006)  #2: National Archives & Records Administration (NARA) - 76 million affected (October 2009)#1: U.S. Voter Database - 191 million affected (December 2015)Get in Touch:Maril Vernon - @SheWhoHacksErika Eakins - @ErikaEakinsNathalie Baker - @TheSOCQueen CQP IG- https://www.instagram.com/thecyberqueens/ CQP Twitter - https://twitter.com/TheCyberQueens CQP LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/thecyberqueens/ CQP TikTok – https://www.tiktok.com/@thecyberqueensCalls to Action:Newsletter Sign-Up: https://www.cyberqueenspodcast.com/Get in Touch: Maril Vernon - @SheWhoHacks Erika Eakins - @ErikaEakins Amber DeVilbiss - @EngineerAmber Queens Twitter - @TheCyberQueens Queens LinkedIn Calls to Action: Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive insight and new episodes! If you love us- share us!

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck and Sam are joined by former Congressman and Fox News contributor, Jason Chaffetz and National Review senior writer, Charles C.W. Cooke.Jason Chaffetz is a contributor for the Fox News Channel and author of two New York Times best-sellers, Power Grab: The Liberal Scheme to Undermine Trump, the GOP, and Our Republic and The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and Is Working to Destroy the Trump Agenda. Chaffetz was elected to Congress in 2008 and served until 2017. He was selected by his peers to be Chairman of the powerful Oversight & Government Reform Committee, where he led investigations into the United States Secret Service, the Department of Education I.T. vulnerabilities, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data breach, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Benghazi terrorist attack, Fast & Furious and the IRS scandal. Prior to Congress, he was Chief of Staff to the Governor of Utah. A former placekicker on the Brigham Young University Football Team, he earned his BA in Communications in 1989 and then joined the local business community for 16 years before entering the public sector.Charles Cooke is a senior writer for National Review and the former editor of National Review Online. He is a graduate of the University of Oxford, at which he studied modern history and politics. His work has focused especially on Anglo-American history, British liberty, free speech, the Second Amendment, and American exceptionalism. He is the co-host of the Mad Dogs and Englishmen podcast, and is a regular guest on HBO's (Real Time with Bill Maher). He has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.Connect with us:Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

In Today's episode of "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with Patrick Witt, former Yale quarterback and former Acting Chief of Staff of the Office of Personnel Management in the Trump Administration, to discuss personnel in the administration, corruption in universities, Title IX, and how conservatives can fight back against the left's stranglehold on the administrative state.Patrick Witt previously served as Deputy Chief of Staff and Acting Chief of Staff of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), where he helped advance Trump's America First agenda. At OPM, Patrick spearheaded the implementation of executive orders aimed at draining the DC swamp and combating anti-American wokeism. In the wake of the November 2020 election, Patrick served as a member of President Trump's official legal team. Patrick's voter data analysis uncovered tens of thousands of illegally cast votes and revealed dozens of violations of the Georgia Election Code by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and county officials. Prior to federal service, Patrick graduated from Harvard Law School with honors and led a successful business career at the management consulting firm, McKinsey & Company. A second-generation Georgian, Patrick and his older brother, Jeff, were both starting quarterbacks for Parkview High School under legendary football coach, Cecil Flowe. Patrick went on to play college football at the University of Nebraska and Yale University, where he was a three-year starter. At Yale, Patrick broke nearly every major passing record in school history. After graduation, he became a free agent for the New Orleans Saints. In his senior year, Patrick went toe-to-toe with the radical Left when the New York Times tried to destroy his career by spreading a false accusation about him.Learn more about Patrick Witt:https://patrickwitt.com/meet-patrick/https://twitter.com/patrickjwitt––––––Follow American Moment on Social Media:Twitter –https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook –https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram –https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube –https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble –https://rumble.com/c/c-695775Check out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/American Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Center in Washington DC, produced and edited by Jared Cummings. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Beyond unprecedented global changes, a lot can change for you and your family in a year. Federal open season provides you the opportunity to select plans that fit your life best. Open season insiders offer federal employees advice on potential switches to protect against worst-case scenarios for you and your family. Join host Debra Roth in exploring open season with Joan Melanson, Director of Education and Outreach at FedPoint, and Jay Fritz, Program Analysis and Systems Support of Federal Employee Insurance Operations at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). FedPoint serves the federal and uniformed services markets as an administrator of both the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program and BENEFEDS under the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) supervision. Alternatively, OPM acts as a host for open season, providing the resources you need to make informed decisions about your benefits. The show airs live on Friday, December 3, 2021, at 11:00 am ET on Federal News Network. You can stream the show online anytime via the Federal News Network app and listen to the FEDtalk podcast on all major podcasting platforms. FEDtalk is a live talk show produced by Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm. Bringing you the insider's perspective from leaders in the federal community since 1993. FEDtalk is sponsored by the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP). The FLTCIP is sponsored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, insured by John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company, under a group long term care insurance policy, and administered by Long Term Care Partners, LLC (doing business as FedPoint).

Jim Richberg sits down to interview Senior Advisor for Cybersecurity at Office of Personnel Management, James Saunders to discuss the future of work at OPM Time Stamps: Intro - James's job at OPM (1 min) Cyber risks in a remote work environment (2 mins) Notable cyber events (6:30) Zero Trust technology roll out (9:10) OPM Guidance update (11:20) Increasing cyber security (15 mins) Data Loss prevention (22:45) How is OPM participating in expansion of ZTA (22:40) TMF (24 mins) Resources available for Cloud (25:20) Role of private sector supporting OPM (27 mins) Closing thoughts (29:40)

In the midst of the current pandemic, are there any telehealth services that are particularly important to you? Does your health plan limit the number of doctor's visits you can make? What services are not covered by your plan? A global pandemic may make shopping for health insurance more essential than ever during open season. Learn about the resources you need to make an informed decision about your health, dental, vision, or flexible spending account benefits during this open season from guests from FedPoint and WAEPA. Join host Jason Briefel in exploring your options with Joan Melanson, Director of Education and Outreach at FedPoint and Shane Canfield, CEO of WAEPA. FedPoint serves the federal and uniformed services markets as administrator of both the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program and BENEFEDS under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Formed by federal employees, WAEPA offers affordable Group Term Life Insurance coverage exclusively to civilian federal employees. The show airs live on Friday, November 19, 2021, at 11:00 am ET on Federal News Network. You can stream the show online anytime via the Federal News Network app and listen to the FEDtalk podcast on all major podcasting platforms. FEDtalk is a live talk show produced by Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm. Bringing you the insider's perspective from leaders in the federal community since 1993. FEDtalk is sponsored by the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP). The FLTCIP is sponsored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, insured by John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company, under a group long term care insurance policy, and administered by Long Term Care Partners, LLC (doing business as FedPoint).

Not only did she drop some serious knowledge about winning government contracts, we talked about how those same techniques can be used in the private sector too! This is a conversation you want to catch so hit play now! A little about Kizzy Parks: As a kid, she'd clean golf balls located in an alley behind my friend's house and resell them through a fence to golfers. She used the money to buy FUNYUNS® and Nutty Bars. She always knew she'd become an entrepreneur and earn an advanced degree in psychology. Her entrepreneurial spirit meshed well with her inquisitive nature as an adopted child who always wanted to, and then met, her birth family. Driven to be the successful business owner she always knew she would be. She went on to earn a Ph.D. and establish KPC over a decade ago. Today, she owns and operates multiple businesses and has over $50 million in government contract awards. Through my latest company, GovCon Winners, she helps service-based small business owners learn HOW to win profitable federal government contracts through the powerful CTC technique to grow their bottom line. Based: Miami Beach, FL Kizzy has been awarded over $50M in Federal Government Contracts. KPC serves the United States Federal Government by providing Contract Staffing Services, Professional & IT Services, Professional & Management Development Training, and Curriculum Development. We've worked successfully to support the Army, Air Force, Navy, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Guard, among other agencies. WINNERS BECAUSE OF OUR CLIENTS & THE KPC TEAM

This interview featured Beth Cobert, Chief Operating Officer, Markle Foundation. JB and Beth discuss the importance of skills-based hiring, training, and education practices through innovative cross-sector collaboration in the digital economy. Much like the Partnership's Capital CoLAB, it seeks to bridge the skills gap between employers and educators.Hosted by JB Holston.  Produced by Jenna Klym, Justin Matheson-Turner, Christian Rodriguez, and Nina Sharma. Edited by Christian Rodriguez. Learn from leaders doing the work across the Capital Region and beyond. These conversations will showcase innovation, as well as history and culture across our region, to bridge the gap between how we got here and where we are going.About our guest:Beth Cobert is the Chief Operating Officer of the Markle Foundation and the Chief Executive Officer of Skillful, a Markle Foundation initiative, to create a skills-based labor market that empowers all Americans to succeed in the digital economy. Cobert is leading Skillful's efforts to convene employers, educators, workforce centers, state government, and others to help job seekers and workers keep pace with the transformations automation and technology are bringing to the workforce landscape.Her deep experience in talent management and partnership development, as well as her acumen for harnessing the constructive potential of new technologies, uniquely positions her as an ideal leader for Skillful as the initiative seeks to foster skills-based hiring, training, and education practices through innovative cross-sector collaboration in the digital economy.Previously, Cobert served as Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under President Obama. During her tenure, OPM not only embraced new technology to improve customer service and cyber security but also championed recruiting, development and advancement practices to support a talented and diverse federal workforce amidst rapid technological advancement. Before joining the Federal government, Cobert worked for nearly 30 years at McKinsey & Company as a Senior Partner in their New York and San Francisco offices, where she worked with clients across a range of sectors, including financial services, health care, real estate, telecommunications, and philanthropy. Cobert is currently a member of the Board of Directors of CBRE Group, Inc. (NYSE:CBG) and the Princeton University Board of Trustees. She has served as both board member and board chair of the United Way of the Bay Area, and as a member of the Stanford Graduate School of Business Advisory Council. Cobert received a bachelor's degree in economics with high honors from Princeton University and an MBA from Stanford University with honors.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Postal Service have issued guidance implementing the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which was signed into law on March 11.    Read here

We can spot a public servant pretty easily, right? They are either a firefighter, police officer, teacher, elected official, researcher, psychologist, public works professional, soldier, doctor, or … whoa! There’s a lot of public servants out there! This week is National Public Service Recognition Week! To celebrate, we’ll ask the question… Who is a public servant? According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal workforce is composed of an estimated 2.1 million civilian workers. The number jumps considerably when state and local public servants are included not to mention grant recipients and contractors. The bigger point is that there are lots of opportunities to make a difference as a public servant. As Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us, everybody can be great, because anybody can serve.

Harris Laughs at the Border Crisis and Biden Cannot Handle His Man-Made CrisisHarris reportedly frustrated with ongoing VP mansion renovations amid border crisisThe Biden administration is putting out a call for government volunteers to report for duty amid the significant surge at the border, but many are asking -- where is the person deputized to 'fix' the line in the sand crisis?https://www.spreaker.com/user/9922149/harris-laughs-at-the-border-crisisAs the immigration mess at the southern border gets more and more out of hand, Vice President Kamala Harris still remains inexplicably silent.Even after President Biden officially tapped the VP to lead in response to border challenges, there aren’t any plans for her to travel south or even address the issue. According to the Office of the Vice President, Harris had no events this past weekend and no mention of border-related activity.This comes as the Biden-Harris administration is now asking for government volunteers to help manage the migrant surge. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has sent memos to agency heads seeking "volunteer deployments" for up to 120 days."We are actively working to screen, process, and deploy these volunteers while continuing our recruitment efforts and exploration of other avenues to bolster staff resources at the border," an OPM spokesperson said.In other developments:- Texas Democrat shares new photos of migrant kids being held at the southern border.- Biden admin asks for government volunteers at the border amid crisis.- Lawmakers at border urge empathy for migrants: 'These are not invaders.'- Border crisis can be 'fixed' in a week if Biden returns to Trump immigration policies: Sen. Kennedy.- Chris Wallace rips Psaki for not allowing reporters at the southern border.Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) blasted the Biden administration on "Hannity," describing the influx of migrants as "heartbreaking," adding he saw a massive system failure on the country’s southern border."I saw a giant coverup," Graham said. "I can understand why the Biden administration would not want the American people to see what’s going on. I saw 200-plus women and small children being processed in front of me that was going to be released into the United States within eight hours. I saw children with numbers on their wrists and here’s what that means: They have family members in the United States, they send money back to Central America, they hire a human smuggler, a human trafficker to get them to the U.S. border – once we catch them your tax dollars are used to reunite the families. This is not catch-and-release, this is catch and reunite." In other news: Biden approval numbers tank over border crisis: pollWhen it comes to the divisive issue of immigration and border security, President Biden's approval rating is plummeting, a new survey suggests.Just a third of Americans say they approve of Biden's handling of the issue of immigration, with 53% saying they disapprove of his performance, an NPR/Marist poll.While two-thirds of Democrats say they approve of how Biden has handled the issue in the first two months of his presidency, his approval rating plunges to 27% support among independents and just 5% among Republicans.The influx of migrants across the nation's border with Mexico has jumped since Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. Republicans have repeatedly slammed the president on the issue, blaming him for what they constantly call a "crisis."This week the Biden administration began asking federal workers to help with "urgent efforts" to care for the surge in unaccompanied migrant children who are arriving at the southern border. Thousands of the children are being temporarily housed in border facilities that were set up for adults.Biden is also facing incoming fire from the Democratic Party's progressive left, which is increasingly frustrated with the slow progress so far by the president to deliver what he promised on the 2020 campaign trail – a more humane immigration system than the restrictive policies under the former President Donald Trump's administration.https://rumble.com/embed/vcpffn/?pub=5rh65In other developments:- Migrant caravan of hundreds of Hondurans departs for the United States- Biden's border response blasted as 'half-a--ed gig' by Texas congressman- Fort Bliss overflow site receiving 500 unaccompanied minors amid border surge- Immigration officials to remove references to immigrants as 'aliens' in agency’s policy manual- VP Harris thanks Guatemalan President Giammattei after his crackdown on migrants, doesn't visit the border- Biden WH claims Trump ‘eschewed’ science, amid criticism for health protocols at border#MagaFirstNews a Part of https://GoRightNews.com with Peter Boykin join him onTelegram https://t.me/RealPeterBoykin GAB https://gab.com/peterboykinPodcast: https://www.spreaker.com/show/goright-with-peter-boykinCheck Out More Videos on GAB: https://tv.gab.com/channel/peterboykin Rumble: https://rumble.com/GoRightNewsBitchute: https://bitchute.com/channel/gorightnewsOdysee: https://odysee.com/@PeterBoykin:2Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbJq2br_Uw-tr3e4CIf5TAQCheck Out Our Page on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/GoRightNewsOfficialPlease Show Your Support by helping to cover the costs for these podcasts, Donate directly at Paypal: https://paypal.me/magafirstnews BuyMeACoffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/PeterBoykinPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/peterboykin#GoRightNews

Former Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, joins hosts Sam Stone and Chuck Warren discussing the future of the Republican Party. Jason Chaffetz is a contributor for the Fox News Channel and author of two New York Times best-sellers, Power Grab: The Liberal Scheme to Undermine Trump, the GOP, and Our Republic and The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and Is Working to Destroy the Trump Agenda.Chaffetz was elected to Congress in 2008 and served until 2017. He was selected by his peers to be Chairman of the powerful Oversight & Government Reform Committee, where he led investigations into the United States Secret Service, the Department of Education I.T. vulnerabilities, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data breach, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Benghazi terrorist attack, Fast & Furious and the IRS scandal. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) is not a for-profit organization. AFLDS founder Simone Gold, MD, JD, FABEM, is a board-certified emergency physician and author of the new book “I Do Not Consent: My Fight Against Medical Cancel Culture.” She graduated from Chicago Medical School before attending Stanford University Law School to earn her Juris Doctorate degree. She completed her residency in Emergency Medicine at Stony Brook University Hospital in New York. Dr. Gold worked in Washington, D.C. for the Surgeon General, as well as for the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. To learn more about America’s Frontline Doctors, visit americasfrontlinedoctors.com.   Dr. Kevin Pham, MD, is a visiting policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation. Dr. Pham is a former graduate fellow in Heritage’s health policy team. Pham began medical school at the University of Toledo’s College of Medicine in 2013, shortly before the Affordable Care Act took effect on our health care system. His clinical years were characterized by the excellent teaching and education of his attending physicians, as well as their observations about all the changes in medicine they’ve seen. This convinced Dr. Pham after medical school to pursue an MBA in health systems to become better involved in public health and health policy.   Robert E. Moffit is a senior fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Moffit long has specialized in health care and entitlement programs, especially Medicare. He brings to the reform effort his government experience as a senior official of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Reagan administration. To achieve affordable health care, Moffit has urged policymakers to give Americans more direct control over their health care dollars, to eliminate barriers to personal choice in health care options, and to allow citizens to own private health plans.  At the same time, he believes policymakers should limit government intervention in what should be a much freer and far more competitive health care market, and work to restore the traditional doctor-patient relationship. He is a co-author of “Why Obamacare Is Wrong for America,” (Harper Collins, 2011), which hit No. 4 on The Washington Post's best-seller list. He was a contributor to “A Time for Governing: Policy Solutions From the Pages of National Affairs” (Encounter Books, 2012). He contributed to “Controversial Issues in Social Policy” (Allyn and Bacon, 2003), a university textbook on public policy. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AABE CEO Paula Glover is back with another episode of Always Bet on Black, this time sitting down with Robert Wilkinson, Professor in Leadership at Harvard. In this episode, Robert and Paula dicuss all things leadership: what makes good leaders, how we ALL are really leaders, and how you can grow and become a leader. This fascinating conversation leaves you with 3 credit hours at Harvard (double check us on that) for listening all the way through! For all things AABE, subscribe to this podcast and follow us on social media @AABE www.aabe.org About Robert Wilkinson Robert Wilkinson teaches courses on negotiation and leadership, specializing in team and group dynamics.  He is on the faculty at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and was previously a faculty member of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Rob successfully supports numerous Fortune 500 companies, major government agencies, international organizations, and charities, helping them to build their negotiation, leadership and team management skills, and to increase their overall effectiveness. He has more than 25 years of experience, in over 50 countries, across the public, private and not-profit sectors. Non-profit and public sector clients include the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Wildlife Fund, National Urban League, US Postal Service, CARE International, the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the White House, where he trained Presidential Appointees in negotiation, management and leadership. Corporate clients include companies such as Deloitte, Chevron, IBM, Merck, Fidelity Investments, ExxonMobil, Johnson & Johnson, Bank of America, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Thermo Fisher Scientific and many others. Previously, Rob worked overseas for 15 years, on a variety of international projects. This included spending three years in Rwanda working with Hutu and Tutsi communities, two years working with the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Angola, and 18 months in Laos, consulting on a variety of community development programs. He began his overseas work in Nicaragua, in both Sandinista and Contra areas. Rob earned his Masters of Science (MS) from Stanford University, and Bachelors of Science (BS) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Robert E. Moffit is a senior fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Moffit long has specialized in health care and entitlement programs, especially Medicare. He brings to the reform effort his government experience as a senior official of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Reagan administration. To achieve affordable health care, Moffit has urged policymakers to give Americans more direct control over their health care dollars, to eliminate barriers to personal choice in health care options, and to allow citizens to own private health plans.  At the same time, he believes policymakers should limit government intervention in what should be a much freer and far more competitive health care market, and work to restore the traditional doctor-patient relationship. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robert E. Moffit is a senior fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation specializing in health care and entitlement programs, especially Medicare. He served as a senior official of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Reagan administration. To achieve affordable health care, Moffit has urged policymakers to give Americans more direct control over their health care dollars, to eliminate barriers to personal choice in health care options, and to allow citizens to own private health plans.  At the same time, he believes policymakers should limit government intervention in what should be a much freer and far more competitive health care market, and work to restore the traditional doctor-patient relationship. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ClearanceJobs was joined by Sean Bigley, a security clearance attorney who represents clients worldwide in security clearance denials. He assists service members, federal employees, and contractors in all stages of the security clearance process including upcoming investigations or representation at formal hearings. He is a former investigator for the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and shared a few of his security clearance horror stories with us.

This week's podcast features a conversation with Arianne Gallagher, Director, Office of Presidential Fellowships at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), who will share information about the prestigious Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) program, a platform allowing select candidates who demonstrate strong leadership potential to enter the federal government, gain specialized training and unique experience helpful to advancing within the federal sector. Arianne is joined by special guests and PMF alum, Steven C. Walker, Chargé d’Affaires/Acting Ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in Asmara, Eritrea, and Sanjay Iyer, PMF 2019 and current Desk Officer for Nepal on the South and Central Asian Affairs team in USAID’s Bureau for Asia. Here, they share their experiences as PMFs and the role it has played in their own paths to success. Music by Joseph McDade.

In this 1st episode of "Building Careers," we sit down with Christina Graham, Supervisory Human Resource Specialist with USACE Southwestern Division Civilian Personnel Advisory Center (CPAC), to talk about delegated examining (DE). DE is an authority the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) delegates to agencies to fill competitive civil service jobs through a competitive process open to all U.S. citizens, including current Federal employees. Find out more about Government Service and USACE career opportunities at https://www.USAJOBS.gov or https://careers.usace.army.mil/ Feel free to contact your host, Andrew White, andrew.e.white@usace.army.mil Enjoy the show and please smash the like button, leave a comment, and subscribe so you'll be notified each time a new episode is published. Building Careers is on the following platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLr82FnjWjk8F04kxMeRbi6t_T9WZ4alnM SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/usacefortworth/sets/building-careers Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id1496890748 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1GeuADXWGM3LtSZW2E1jw6 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/watch/usacefortworth/537552403587737/ Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zb3VuZGNsb3VkLmNvbS91c2Vycy9zb3VuZGNsb3VkOnVzZXJzOjc3MzE4OTI3Mi9zb3VuZHMucnNz For links to all of our web presences, to include our website, podcast and social media sites, go to https://about.me/usacefortworth

The United States and New York City, in particular, has been the global epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic for the past month. Many Australians live and work in New York, and so much of Australia’s deep commercial and financial ties with the United States run through New York. How are the thousands of businesses that operate between the United States and Australia faring in a period of closed borders? And looking beyond business, what is the role of the US-Australian alliance amid a global pandemic? To discuss these issues, the USSC hosted a webinar event featuring Ambassador John Berry (ret.), President of the American Australian Association, in a conversation with US Studies Centre CEO Professor Simon Jackman. Ambassador John Berry served as the 25th US Ambassador and President Obama’s personal representative to Australia from 2013-2016. Prior to that, Ambassador Berry served in multiple senior government positions, earning three unanimous Senate confirmations, including: the head of “HR” for the federal government as Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); the “COO” of the Department of Interior as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget; the head of 40 per cent of federal law enforcement as Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement at the Treasury Department; and Legislative Director for Rep. Steny Hoyer. Ambassador Berry has also been a leader in the non-profit sector, serving as the Director of the Smithsonian National Zoo; The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and Government Relations for the Smithsonian Institution. Ambassador Berry has accomplished many firsts, most notably, the first openly LGBT US Ambassador to a G20 country and while at OPM, he was the highest-ranking LGBT executive official in US history.

Learn about our Implementing Public Policy Executive Education course and apply today: https://bsc.cid.harvard.edu/ippFind more information on the Harvard Project on Negotiation: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/.About Prof. Robert Wilkinson: Robert Wilkinson teaches courses on negotiation and leadership, specializing in team and group dynamics.  He is on the faculty at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and was previously a faculty member of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.Rob successfully supports numerous Fortune 500 companies, major government agencies, international organizations, and charities, helping them to build their negotiation, leadership and team management skills, and to increase their overall effectiveness. He has more than 25 years of experience, in over 50 countries, across the public, private and not-profit sectors.Non-profit and public sector clients include the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Wildlife Fund, National Urban League, US Postal Service, CARE International, the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the White House, where he trained Presidential Appointees in negotiation, management and leadership.Corporate clients include companies such as Deloitte, Chevron, IBM, Merck, Fidelity Investments, ExxonMobil, Johnson & Johnson, Bank of America, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Thermo Fisher Scientific and many others.Previously, Rob worked overseas for 15 years, on a variety of international negotiation projects. This included spending three years in Rwanda working with Hutu and Tutsi communities, two years working with the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Angola, and 18 months in Laos, consulting on a variety of community development programs. He began his overseas work in Nicaragua, in both Sandinista and Contra areas. His most recent publication is a teaching case based on his work supporting a negotiating team in the Paris Climate Accords.Rob earned his Masters of Science (MS) from Stanford University, and Bachelors of Science (BS) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Case reference: https://case.hks.harvard.edu/negotiating-toward-the-paris-accords-wwf-the-role-of-forests-in-the-2015-climate-agreement/

There's bipartisan agreement that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is inefficient, using antiquated and vulnerable computer systems. But after 18 months of trying to eliminate an agency that employs 5,500 bureaucrats, President Trump now says he won't. Despite telling campaign crowds he would cut the size of government so fast your head will spin, he has accomplished no substantial reductions in the size or scope of the federal bureaucracy. Should Republicans abandon their talk of ending the era of big government and just accept that once a federal agency starts, like OPM did in the 1970s, it will live on eternally? Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott comes to you 20-time each month thanks to our Members. Join them today at https://BillWhittle.com/register/

In March, GAO published a report on talent management (key takeaways/recommendations are listed below). I sat down with Robert Goldenkoff and Shelby Kain at GAO to discuss their findings. Spoiler alert: this report basically calls the gov a Dorothy - the power was within us all along just like in the WIzard of Oz. We ALREADY have the flexibilities and resources to be SO much better. But we don't use them. Ugh. Link to the report: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-181 Here are the recommendation (no surprises here): Align human capital strategy with current and future mission requirements. With shifting attitudes toward work, technological advances, and increased reliance on nonfederal partners, agencies need to identify the knowledge and skills necessary to respond to current and future demands. Key practices include identifying and assessing existing skills, competencies, and skills gaps. Acquire and assign talent. To ensure agencies have the talent capacity to address evolving mission requirements and negative perceptions of federal work (e.g., that it is too bureaucratic), agencies can cultivate a diverse talent pipeline, highlight their respective missions, recruit early in the school year, support rotations, and assign talent where needed. Incentivize and compensate employees. While federal agencies may struggle to offer competitive pay in certain labor markets, they can leverage existing incentives that appeal to workers’ desire to set a schedule and to work in locations that provide work-life balance. Engage employees. Engaged employees are more productive and less likely to leave, according to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Agencies can better ensure their workforces are engaged by managing employee performance, involving employees in decisions, and developing employees.

Even government agencies experience FOMO. It took the turnaround from an 80-million-dollar big bang failure into an initiation of a couple successful, smaller pilot agile programs within the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for other federal programs to realize that they were missing out. Richard Cheng has been working on helping the US Government understand and implement the value of Agile. In the many years of working with the government, he’s noticed that the conversation has gone past the point of if Agile is right for government and is on to how do they do Agile better to create more value. He shares his experience and insights with OPM and UCIS and the rest of the federal government. Accenture | SolutionsIQ’s Leslie Morse hosts at Agile2019 in Washington, D.C. The Agile Amped podcast is the shared voice of the Agile community, driven by compelling stories, passionate people, and innovative ideas. Together, we are advancing the impact of business agility. Podcast library: www.agileamped.com Connect with us on social media!  Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgileAmped Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/agileamped Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/agileamped/

Christine Griffin is a disability rights leader and search consultant at Bender Consulting Services, Inc. She will discuss her background at Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) within the federal government, the Disability Law Center of Massachusetts and her work at the White House.

The U.S. borders have inundated news cycles in recent months. To find out what’s really going on, tune in to FEDtalk to hear a group of federal law enforcement professionals discuss what they experience at the border and what they need to do their mission. Host Debra Roth, managing partner of Shaw Bransford & Roth, will be joined by National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) Executive Director Pat O’Carroll, and FLEOA National Executive Vice President Lazaro 'Larry' Cosme. You can stream the show online anytime via the Federal News Radio player and listen to the FEDtalk podcast on PodcastOne and Apple Podcasts. FEDtalk is a live radio talk show produced by Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm. Bringing you the insider's perspective from leaders in the federal community since 1993. FEDtalk is sponsored by Long Term Care Partners who administers the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sponsored Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP). Start planning for the future. Take the next step and visit LTCFEDS.com today.

The U.S. borders have inundated news cycles in recent months. To find out what’s really going on, tune in to FEDtalk to hear a group of federal law enforcement professionals discuss what they experience at the border and what they need to do their mission. Host Debra Roth, managing partner of Shaw Bransford & Roth, will be joined by National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) Executive Director Pat O’Carroll, and FLEOA National Executive Vice President Lazaro 'Larry' Cosme. You can stream the show online anytime via the Federal News Radio player and listen to the FEDtalk podcast on PodcastOne and Apple Podcasts. FEDtalk is a live radio talk show produced by Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm. Bringing you the insider's perspective from leaders in the federal community since 1993. FEDtalk is sponsored by Long Term Care Partners who administers the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sponsored Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP). Start planning for the future. Take the next step and visit LTCFEDS.com today.

This week's show theme is "Women Rising to the Top." This show will feature two dynamic women who started at the bottom of the rung and went all the way to the top of the ladder. My two guests Dr. Amicitia Maloon-Gibson, President, MGAA Professional Development Institute and Ms. Allison Wise, Director of Diversity and Inclusion at The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) both know what it means to embrace success. Tune in to hear both their stories.This show is broadcast live on Monday's at 2PM ET on W4WN Radio – The Women 4 Women Network (www.w4wn.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (http://www.talk4radio.com/) on the Talk 4 Media Network (http://www.talk4media.com/).

On April 18, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc., v. Nevils. Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may contract with private carriers to provide federal employees health insurance. FEHBA expressly provides, however, that the terms of any such contract relating to “the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits)” will “supersede and preempt any State or local or law, or any regulation issued thereunder” relating to health insurance or plans. Here, OPM’s contracts with private insurance carriers provide, among other things, for reimbursement and subrogation. When Jodie Nevils, a former federal employee insured under a FEHBA plan offered by Coventry Health Care of Missouri (Coventry) was injured in an automobile accident, Coventry paid Nevils’ medical expenses. Nevils sued the driver who caused his injuries and obtained a settlement award. Coventry, invoking its OPM contract, then asserted a lien of approximately $6,600 against Nevils’ settlement proceeds to cover the medical bills Coventry had paid for Nevils. He paid off the lien, but then filed a class action suit against Coventry in Missouri state court, claiming the insurance company had unlawfully obtained reimbursement and noting that Missouri law does not permit subrogation or reimbursement in this context. The trial court granted judgment for Coventry on the grounds that FEHBA allowed Coventry’s contract terms to override state law prohibitions. The Missouri Supreme Court, however, reversed, relying on a “presumption against preemption” that excluded subrogation and reimbursement from FEHBA’s preemptive scope. By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Missouri Supreme Court and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that Missouri’s prohibitions on contractual subrogation and reimbursement “relate to … payments with respect to benefits,” and are therefore preempted by FEHBA. The Court further held that FEHBA’s preemption regime comports with the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, because the statute itself and not the OPM contract triggers federal preemption. All other justices joined Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the Court except Justice Gorsuch, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. To discuss the case, we have George Horvath, a Post-Doctoral Fellow and Lecturer at Berkeley Law.