Latest news with #GeneralServicesAdministration
Atlantic
5 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
When the Military Comes to American Soil
Domestic deployment of active-duty U.S. military, as is now taking place in Los Angeles, is both rare and perilous. Not since the 1992 riots in that same city has the country seen such a use of the armed services.. But that was a one-off. The more relevant, and worrying, parallel may be the period from 1957 to the end of 1968, when military forces actively patrolled U.S. soil on eight separate occasions. Perhaps the recent deployment is just the beginning—not a one-off, but a wave. Those eight deployments resulted in just one fatality—a testament to remarkable restraint by the military. But many of the norms that fostered such restraint—bipartisan consensus, respect for institutional expertise, and well-planned rules of engagement—are today weaker, or gone altogether. What's more, whereas U.S. marines were previously accompanied by Army military police trained in crowd control and de-escalation, they are now deployed alone, an unsettling break with past practice. The 12 years spanning 1957 to 1968 were a period of great societal tumult and revolution, especially over race and the Vietnam War. Of the eight deployments, two were to enforce desegregation court orders, most famously at Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. Four were to quell riots, three of which were part of the numerous outbreaks across the country that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. And the remaining two were in response to protests: one to protect a famous 1965 march of civil-rights activists in Selma, Alabama, to push for the Voting Rights Act, and the other to tamp down a forgotten and chaotic attempt by anti-Vietnam protesters to blockade the Pentagon in 1967. Adam Serwer: The tyrant test That 1967 deployment was perhaps the most extraordinary. In a surreal prelude to the confrontation, as the rock band the Fugs played, Abbie Hoffman and Allen Ginsberg chanted to levitate the building, turn it orange, and exorcise its demons—a ritual humorously sanctioned in the protest permit. (The General Services Administration did, however, stipulate that the Pentagon could be levitated no more than three feet, to protect the building's foundations.) Although roughly 50,000 demonstrators marched to the Pentagon, about 2,500 took part in a direct assault on the building. They surged up the steps—some smashed windows and tried to force open the doors, while others hurled objects and splashed paint on the soldiers stationed inside. Military police from the 503rd MP Battalion formed the first line of defense inside the entrance, physically blocking and repelling protesters who briefly breached the glass doors and entered the foyer. As pressure mounted, commanders deployed paratroopers from the 1st Battalion, 325th Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division, who engaged demonstrators outside the entrance and helped stabilize the scene. By day's end, 21 civilians were reported injured—seven treated at the scene and 14 hospitalized—but, remarkably, no fatalities had occurred. Indeed, this absence of lethal force proved typical: The only fatality caused by active-duty soldiers during this 12-year period occurred during the 1967 Detroit riots. The low number of deaths is at least partly why, except for the 101st Airborne's deployment to Little Rock, most Americans barely remember these earlier domestic military interventions. Even in moments of widespread turbulence, the active-duty military exercised restraint overall. By contrast, people remember the Kent State massacre of 1970 because it was a bloody failure by the National Guard, during which four students were killed. Indeed, during this period, many police and National Guard units responded to unrest with heavy-handed tactics that resulted in many civilian injuries and fatalities. The Army's conduct during these deployments was far from flawless. In addition to credible allegations of excessive force, the Army carried out extensive domestic surveillance, often tracking civilians and protest groups without legal authority or oversight. And although its own use of force was generally restrained, its involvement helped blur the line between military and police roles. That blurring contributed to a long-term shift in civilian law enforcement—one that encouraged the adoption of military-style equipment and tactics, and helped lay the groundwork for the sort of aggressive police force that is common today. What accounted for the Army's restraint? Although society was as divided as it is today, political elites were not yet polarized and still placed trust in apolitical expertise. Leadership and lawyers at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and leadership in the armed services, worked closely with senior officers in the Army to develop standing operating procedures and situation-specific rules of engagement aimed at minimizing the use of force. Notably, that restraint came from the Army specifically, especially the military police. Historically, Army military police and infantry have often been deployed together during civil disturbances, but with distinct roles. Military police typically formed the first line of engagement with crowds, given that their regular duties—law enforcement, making arrests, and maintaining order on military bases—most closely resembled domestic policing. Infantry units, by contrast, were positioned as backup. After these deployments, the armed forces updated their guidelines to reflect and summarize the practices they had been implementing. That document, Operation Garden Plot, stated that troops were to use 'minimum necessary force,' be courteous, and 'avoid appearing as an invading alien force.' Military personnel were prohibited from loading or firing their weapons without the direct authorization of an officer, except in cases of self-defense where lives were in immediate danger. The Marines—who have a reputation for lethality—were deployed only twice during this period: once during the 1967 protest at the Pentagon, where they appear to have played a minor role, and again amid the violent unrest in Washington, D.C., following King's assassination. President John F. Kennedy considered sending them to help desegregate the University of Mississippi in 1962 but ultimately declined. And the Marines were held in reserve on several occasions: after MLK won his battle against Bull Connor in the 1963 Birmingham, Alabama, campaign for desegregation of downtown stores, during which firebombings of a civil-rights headquarters and King's brother's hotel room had sparked riots, and during the 1963 March on Washington. Since the end of World War II, the Marines have been deployed domestically only once—until now. That earlier instance came during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The reasons for the rareness of Marine domestic deployments are debated, but one likely factor is that past administrations may have considered the Marines' reputed lethality ill-suited to sensitive domestic operations. Although Marine training is broadly similar to that of the Army infantry, the Corps has long cultivated a more aggressive combat identity. One of its unofficial slogans, once seen on bumper stickers and still available as a magnet, bluntly puts it: 'United States Marine Corps—when it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight.' Juliette Kayyem: Trump's gross misuse of the National Guard More mundanely, the explanation may come down to logistics. The Marine Corps is a relatively small force and has rarely been stationed near sites of domestic unrest. However, Camp Pendleton—home to the largest concentration of Marines in the continental United States—sits just a few hours from Los Angeles and is far closer than the nearest viable Army unit, 45 miles south of Seattle. There may have been practical reasons to deploy the Marines. Still, the deeper question is whether this administration seriously weighed those trade-offs—or simply found it convenient that a force with such a fearsome reputation, one viewed by past administrations as a liability in domestic missions, happened to be nearby. Most important, though, is this: Since 1945, no branch of the armed forces has ever been deployed for a domestic mission without military police as the initial line of contact. In that regard, what's happening today in L.A. is truly extraordinary. The political conditions surrounding the current deployment are dramatically different from those during that prior wave. Polarization has spread from society to the political elites, who now, more than ever, seek to use the military for political gain. On the Republican side, Donald Trump appears eager to deploy the Army against left-wing protesters. He has stacked the Justice Department and the Pentagon with personal loyalists, and has tended to bypass the Office of Legal Counsel—the institution traditionally responsible for vetting the legality of executive actions. Although the standard guidelines and procedures for past domestic deployments remain on the books, there is substantial reason to doubt that the civilian leadership will follow them. Yet some institutional checks continue to function, even if unevenly. The federal judiciary has been a source of significant pushback against the administration. Already, a federal district court judge in California has ruled that Trump's deployment of the National Guard in California was illegal (though the ruling was almost immediately put on hold for further review). But the Marines remain deployed, the legal authorities and precedents granting the president power over domestic deployments are broad, and the Supreme Court tends to be highly deferential to the president in this area. Within the armed services, trained and principled leaders remain in place and prepared to navigate these challenges with discipline and integrity. However, they face an uphill battle against increasing pressure from above and must continue to respect the principle of civilian control of the military. The recent dismissal of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the j udge advocate generals has sent a chilling message to the military: Disagreement with the administration's edicts may come at a steep cost. In the past, military deployments have been forgotten because the wave of unrest broke gently. This time, however, the wave may crash violently, and the wreckage it leaves behind could be substantial: to the Army's legitimacy, to the health of American democracy, and to the civilian lives it may cost.
Time Business News
7 days ago
- Business
- Time Business News
How GSA Registration Works: Simplifying the Path to GSA Schedules
Understanding the Basics of GSA Schedules The General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules are a key component of the federal government's procurement system. They offer pre-negotiated contracts to businesses that meet specific standards, enabling them to sell products and services directly to government agencies. These contracts simplify the purchasing process for federal buyers and provide companies with access to a steady stream of opportunities. Getting onto the GSA Schedules can be a game changer for companies aiming to expand their business through government contracts. However, the process can be complex, requiring a deep understanding of GSA registration and compliance requirements. With the right support and knowledge, businesses can navigate the system more effectively and unlock the benefits that come with being a GSA-approved vendor. What Is GSA Registration and Why It Matters GSA registration is the formal process a company must undergo to be eligible for a GSA Schedule contract. This involves preparing detailed documentation, showcasing compliance with federal guidelines, and demonstrating pricing transparency and past performance. Only companies that pass this rigorous process are awarded a place on the GSA Schedules, which are also referred to as Multiple Award Schedules (MAS). Proper GSA registration is essential because it acts as a gateway to a massive federal marketplace. Government agencies often prefer doing business with GSA-registered companies because it saves time, ensures compliance, and reduces risk. That's why many businesses turn to professional GSA Registration Services to streamline this process and avoid common pitfalls that could delay or derail their approval. The Role of GSA Registration Services in the Process Navigating GSA registration without prior experience can be overwhelming. That's where GSA Registration Services come in. These service providers specialize in helping businesses prepare, submit, and manage their GSA applications. They ensure all documentation is accurate and meets current requirements, reducing the chance of rejection. Many companies fail to complete the GSA application successfully on their first attempt due to missing information or misunderstanding the criteria. Partnering with experienced professionals gives businesses a competitive edge and increases their likelihood of gaining approval on the first try. Reliable GSA Registration Services can also provide ongoing support post-award to help maintain compliance and take advantage of contract modification opportunities. Preparing for the GSA Application Process Before starting the application process, businesses must assess whether they're ready for federal contracting. This includes having a track record of sales, a DUNS number, being registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), and the ability to provide competitive pricing. Preparing this foundation is crucial to a smooth GSA registration experience. Companies also need to gather key documents such as financial statements, past performance evaluations, and pricing data. All of this information must be organized and presented according to GSA standards. Skipping any of these steps or making errors can delay the entire process, so it's advisable to work with experts who understand how to meet every requirement accurately and efficiently. Navigating the GSA eOffer System The GSA eOffer system is the online portal used to submit applications for GSA Schedules. It's a secure platform that allows companies to upload required documents, fill out contract details, and track the progress of their application. Knowing how to use this system correctly is a key part of successful GSA registration. Although the platform provides guidance, it can still be confusing for first-time users. The terminology, forms, and submission processes are specific and can be time-consuming without prior knowledge. Many businesses benefit from working with professionals who have direct experience with the eOffer system and can help avoid common mistakes that cause delays. Review and Negotiation: What to Expect After Submission Once the application is submitted, it enters a review phase where a GSA contracting officer evaluates every aspect of the proposal. This includes checking for accuracy, evaluating pricing, and ensuring the company meets all regulatory standards. It's not unusual for the officer to request clarifications or additional documents. Negotiations may occur during this phase, particularly regarding pricing and contract terms. GSA wants to ensure that the government is receiving the best value. This part of the process can take several weeks or even months. Businesses that use professional GSA Registration Services are typically better prepared to respond promptly and negotiate effectively, which can significantly speed up final approval. Maintaining Compliance After Getting on the GSA Schedules Once approved, businesses must remain compliant with GSA regulations to keep their Schedule active. This includes regular contract updates, sales reporting, and adherence to pricing guidelines. Failure to comply can result in contract cancellation or being barred from future GSA opportunities. Ongoing support is often necessary to navigate these post-award responsibilities. Many companies continue working with their GSA Registration Services provider to manage compliance and modifications. By staying current with changes in policy and pricing requirements, businesses can maintain a strong and profitable presence on the GSA Schedules. Maximizing Opportunities Through GSA Schedules Being listed on the GSA Schedules doesn't automatically bring in contracts—it opens the door to opportunities. Businesses must proactively market their offerings to government buyers, respond to Requests for Quotes (RFQs), and build relationships with procurement officers. GSA-approved companies have access to GSA Advantage!, a government online marketplace where buyers can search for products and services. Maintaining a compelling profile on this platform and leveraging business development tools is key to success. With strategic planning and the support of knowledgeable GSA Registration Services, companies can turn their Schedule into a steady stream of federal revenue. Overcoming Common Challenges in GSA Registration One of the most frequent challenges businesses face is underestimating the complexity of the application process. From gathering the correct documents to setting competitive pricing and navigating the eOffer system, the process can be difficult without expert guidance. This is where experience and industry knowledge make a big difference. Another common issue is failing to maintain the Schedule after award. Many companies mistakenly believe that once they're approved, the hard part is over. In reality, ongoing compliance, marketing, and contract management are essential. Working with trusted GSA Registration Services can help businesses avoid these mistakes and focus on long-term growth. Looking Ahead: The Value of Being GSA-Approved The federal government is one of the world's largest buyers, spending billions annually on products and services. Being listed on the GSA Schedules provides a powerful advantage, making it easier for agencies to find and do business with your company. While the GSA registration process is rigorous, the potential rewards make it well worth the effort. With the right preparation, strategic guidance, and reliable GSA Registration Services, businesses can streamline their path to success and secure a competitive position in the federal marketplace. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Int'l Business Times
11-06-2025
- Business
- Int'l Business Times
Trump Admin's Plans to Push AI Across Government Sites Leaked on Code Sharing Website
The Trump administration's plan to integrate artificial intelligence across federal agencies has been exposed through a leaked draft of a government-run website, revealing an initiative set to launch on July 4 that would track and promote AI use across departments. The early details were uncovered in code uploaded to GitHub by the General Services Administration's Technology Transformation Services (TTS), led by former Tesla engineer Thomas Shedd, according to 404 Media. The website, is described as a centralized platform offering integration with AI tools from OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, AWS Bedrock, and Meta's LLaMA. It also includes an analytics feature that will reportedly measure AI adoption rates by specific government teams. The project is part of a broader push by Shedd and the Department of Government Efficiency, spearheaded by Elon Musk, to rapidly embed AI technologies into government operations. Leaked audio from a TTS meeting in February revealed that Shedd wanted AI tools to write software, review contracts, and standardize usage across agencies—goals that internal staff reportedly viewed with widespread skepticism. Concerns raised by government employees include the potential for AI-generated code to introduce security flaws, create software bugs, or mistakenly recommend cancelling essential contracts. Despite these warnings, the GitHub page suggests that the initiative is moving forward, with set to launch on Independence Day. As of now, redirects to the White House homepage, and the staging version of the site is hosted quietly on The GSA has not commented publicly on the leak or the concerns surrounding the project. Originally published on Latin Times
India Today
11-06-2025
- Business
- India Today
The US government is building its own AI chatbot with help from a former Tesla engineer
The United States government is preparing to launch its own AI chatbot and integration platform on July 4 under the name according to a report by 404 Media, which found a related code posted on GitHub. The initiative, which aims to 'accelerate government innovation with AI,' is being developed by the General Services Administration's Technology Transformation Services (TTS), headed by Thomas Shedd, a former Tesla engineer. The project includes a website, a chatbot, and an application programming interface (API) that will allow government agencies to tap into AI models developed by OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and eventually Amazon Web Services' Bedrock and Meta's LLaMA, according to code and early website drafts uncovered by 404 early version of the homepage, which currently redirects to reportedly advertises: 'Three powerful AI tools. One integrated platform.' These include the AI assistant chatbot, a model-agnostic API, and a console to monitor how government teams are using AI. The system will also feature analytics showing usage levels across various Shedd has been at the forefront of the US government's growing interest in artificial intelligence. According to leaked internal meetings and previous public remarks reported by 404 Media and Wired, Shedd wants to 'AI-ify' large parts of federal operations. 'We want to start implementing more AI at the agency level and be an example for how other agencies can start leveraging AI,' Shedd reportedly told his team. He added that tools like AI coding agents – which would write software for federal use – and contract analysis systems are among the first products in development. The broader goal, according to Shedd, is to build centralised AI solutions that federal agencies will eventually be expected to platform appears to be a continuation of ideas proposed under the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a short-lived government initiative that was led by Elon Musk recently distanced himself from the Trump administration following a falling out, the influence of DOGE is still evident in current federal tech projects. During its existence, DOGE aimed to reduce bureaucracy and costs by replacing some federal roles with AI-driven it will workWhile the exact functionality of the AI chatbot has not yet been detailed, the underlying API will allow agencies to access a range of AI models and services through a single platform. According to GitHub documentation, integration is being tested on and the platform is still in a staging environment as of early analytics console, also part of the package, will reportedly give visibility into AI usage at each agency. This could potentially help identify which teams are adopting AI effectively, and which may require additional support or training. According to the report, the early version of the platform does not appear to use generic placeholder text, suggesting development is well underway and being tailored for specific government use cases. Tune In
Bloomberg
05-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Trump's Mar-a-Lago Neighbors Charge Above-Market Rent to US Government
The Trump administration is renting three houses near Mar-a-Lago for $13.3 million, a sum greater than half of the properties' estimated market value and a steep markup from the rates it paid in the same Palm Beach neighborhood five years ago. The General Services Administration in February signed four-year leases for two of the homes and a five-year lease for the third, all within two blocks of President Donald Trump's Florida resort, according to GSA records. Administration officials declined to say how the properties will be used, or answer questions about the rental agreements.
