Latest news with #OfficeofPersonnelManagement
Atlantic
a day ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Trojan Horse Will Come for Us Too
I stopped using my cellphone for regular calls and text messages last fall and switched to Signal. I wasn't being paranoid—or at least I don't think I was. I worked in the National Security Council, and we were told that China had compromised all major U.S. telecommunications companies and burrowed deep inside their networks. Beijing had gathered information on more than a million Americans, mainly in the Washington, D.C., area. The Chinese government could listen in to phone calls and read text messages. Experts call the Chinese state-backed group responsible Salt Typhoon, and the vulnerabilities it exploited have not been fixed. China is still there. Telecommunications systems aren't the only ones compromised. China has accessed enormous quantities of data on Americans for more than a decade. It has hacked into health-insurance companies and hotel chains, as well as security-clearance information held by the Office of Personnel Management. The jaded response here is All countries spy. So what? But the spectacular surprise attacks that Ukraine and Israel have pulled off against their enemies suggest just how serious such penetration can become. In Operation Spiderweb, Ukraine smuggled attack drones on trucks with unwitting drivers deep inside of Russia, and then used artificial intelligence to simultaneously attack four military bases and destroy a significant number of strategic bombers, which are part of Russia's nuclear triad. Israel created a real pager-production company in Hungary to infiltrate Hezbollah's global supply chains and booby-trap its communication devices, killing or maiming much of the group's leadership in one go. Last week, in Operation Rising Lion, Israel assassinated many top Iranian military leaders simultaneously and attacked the country's nuclear facilities, thanks in part to a drone base it built inside Iran. In each case, a resourceful, determined, and imaginative state used new technologies and data to do what was hitherto deemed impossible. America's adversaries are also resourceful, determined, and imaginative. Just think about what might happen if a U.S.-China war broke out over Taiwan. A Chinese state-backed group called Volt Typhoon has been preparing plans to attack crucial infrastructure in the United States should the two countries ever be at war. As Jen Easterly put it in 2024 when she was head of the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), China is planning to 'launch destructive cyber-attacks in the event of a major crisis or conflict with the United States,' including 'the disruption of our gas pipelines; the pollution of our water facilities; the severing of our telecommunications; the crippling of our transportation systems.' The Biden administration took measures to fight off these cyberattacks and harden the infrastructure. Joe Biden also imposed some sanctions on China and took some specific measures to limit America's exposure; he cut off imports of Chinese electric vehicles because of national-security concerns. Biden additionally signed a bill to ban TikTok, but President Donald Trump has issued rolling extensions to keep the platform functioning in the U.S. America and its allies will need to think hard about where to draw the line in the era of the Internet of Things, which connects nearly everything and could allow much of it—including robots, drones, and cloud computing—to be weaponized. China isn't the only problem. According to the U.S. Intelligence Community's Annual Threat Assessment for this year, Russia is developing a new device to detonate a nuclear weapon in space with potentially 'devastating' consequences. A Pentagon official last year said the weapon could pose 'a threat to satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe, as well as to the vital communications, scientific, meteorological, agricultural, commercial, and national security services we all depend upon. Make no mistake, even if detonating a nuclear weapon in space does not directly kill people, the indirect impact could be catastrophic to the entire world.' The device could also render Trump's proposed 'Golden Dome' missile shield largely ineffective. Americans can expect a major adversary to use drones and AI to go after targets deep inside the United States or allied countries. There is no reason to believe that an enemy wouldn't take a page out of the Israeli playbook and go after leadership. New technologies reward acting preemptively, catching the adversary by surprise—so the United States may not get much notice. A determined adversary could even cut the undersea cables that allow the internet to function. Last year, vessels linked to Russia and China appeared to have severed those cables in Europe on a number of occasions, supposedly by accident. In a concerted hostile action, Moscow could cut or destroy these cables at scale. Terrorist groups are less capable than state actors—they are unlikely to destroy most of the civilian satellites in space, for example, or collapse essential infrastructure—but new technologies could expand their reach too. In their book The Coming Wave, Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar described some potential attacks that terrorists could undertake: unleashing hundreds or thousands of drones equipped with automatic weapons and facial recognition on multiple cities simultaneously, say, or even one drone to spray a lethal pathogen on a crowd. A good deal of American infrastructure is owned by private companies with little incentive to undertake the difficult and costly fixes that might defend against Chinese infiltration. Certainly this is true of telecommunications companies, as well as those providing utilities such as water and electricity. Making American systems resilient could require a major public outlay. But it could cost less than the $150 billion (one estimate has that figure at an eye-popping $185 billion) that the House of Representatives is proposing to appropriate this year to strictly enforce immigration law. Instead, the Trump administration proposed slashing funding for CISA, the agency responsible for protecting much of our infrastructure against foreign attacks, by $495 million, or approximately 20 percent of its budget. That cut will make the United States more vulnerable to attack. The response to the drone threat has been no better. Some in Congress have tried to pass legislation expanding government authority to detect and destroy drones over certain kinds of locations, but the most recent effort failed. Senator Rand Paul, who was then the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and is now the chair, said there was no imminent threat and warned against giving the government sweeping surveillance powers, although the legislation entailed nothing of the sort. Senators from both parties have resisted other legislative measures to counter drones. The United States could learn a lot from Ukraine on how to counter drones, as well as how to use them, but the administration has displayed little interest in doing this. The massively expensive Golden Dome project is solely focused on defending against the most advanced missiles but should be tasked with dealing with the drone threat as well. Meanwhile, key questions go unasked and unanswered. What infrastructure most needs to be protected? Should aircraft be kept in the open? Where should the United States locate a counter-drone capability? After 9/11, the United States built a far-reaching homeland-security apparatus focused on counterterrorism. The Trump administration is refocusing it on border security and immigration. But the biggest threat we face is not terrorism, let alone immigration. Those responsible for homeland security should not be chasing laborers on farms and busboys in restaurants in order to meet quotas imposed by the White House.
Axios
13-06-2025
- Business
- Axios
The Elon Musk DOGE legacy that just won't die
Call it zombie management: Each week, federal workers inside a few agencies still dutifully email a report, detailing the 5 things they did in the previous seven days. Why it matters: The emails, born from an out-of-nowhere Elon Musk X post, show how hard it can be undo even the smallest of changes once unleashed on the largest workforce in the U.S. Catch up quick: One Saturday in February, Musk posted that all federal employees would get an email asking them to explain what they'd accomplished over the last week. Failure to respond more than once, he said, would get you fired. The Office of Personnel Management quickly followed up with a email to millions of federal workers, giving them until Monday night to respond (minus the firing threat). The big picture: The request blindsided the White House, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, two senior administration officials tell Axios. It was the first documented time that White House officials, publicly and privately, resisted Musk and chafed at his style of personnel management. "To use a phrase Susie might use, she was fit to be tied at Musk," one of the officials said of Wiles' level of annoyance. Some officials promptly told their staffs to ignore it, starting with FBI director Kash Patel. Other appointees soon followed suit. The Office of Personnel Management pretty quickly said it was discretionary. Zoom in: Like a zombie in a workplace horror movie, these emails live on, a sort of vestigial Muskian management tool. Employees at OPM are encouraged to do it. The folks at NOAA must send it as well, said one agency employee. "We're told to send it every Monday before midnight," says a Social Security employee. "It takes a while," they said. "I have never gotten a response from anyone." An employee at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been largely gutted by the White House and had most of its work halted, said they hadn't been told to stop sending them, but stopped anyway. "Got tired of saying I hadn't accomplished anything because we haven't been given any work," they said. For the record: "Commissioner Bisignano is streamlining the Social Security Administration to deliver more efficient service for American taxpayers," Liz Huston, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement responding to questions about why the agency is still doing this. At least for SSA, the emails are a temporary practice until they get a better system in place, an agency official tells Axios. OPM stands by them too. "This practice is vital to maintain accountability and transparency in employee contributions," says spokeswoman McLaurine Pinover, who says she submits these weekly. "It's an easy way to share my work with leadership." "The mission of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse is a part of the DNA of the federal government and will continue under the direction of the President, his cabinet, and agency heads to enhance government efficiency and prioritize responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars," says White House spokesman Harrison Fields.
The Hill
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Two-thirds support policies prioritizing birth sex over gender identity: Gallup
Roughly two-thirds of Americans support policies preventing transgender people from participating on sports teams that match their gender identity or changing their sex designation on government documents such as passports and driver's licenses, according to a poll released Tuesday by Gallup. Support for each such prevention policy varied by political affiliation but was led overwhelmingly by Republicans, according to the poll, based on responses to Gallup's May 1-18 Values and Beliefs survey. It was the third year respondents were asked about transgender people in sports and the first year they were asked about identity documents. Forty-one percent of Democrats and 72 percent of independents said they believe trans athletes should only be permitted to play sports consistent with their sex at birth, according to the poll, and 38 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents said transgender people shouldn't be allowed to change their sex on official documents. Fourteen percent of Democrats said they were unsure where they stood on either issue. Roughly 90 percent of Republicans surveyed said they support both policies. The survey, released during Pride Month, reflects shifting public opinion on two of President Trump's policy priorities relating to transgender Americans. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order declaring that the federal government recognizes only two sexes, male and female, and that those sexes 'are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.' The order directs the departments of State and Homeland Security and the Office of Personnel Management to require government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas and Global Entry cards, to reflect an individual's sex over their gender identity. The State Department previously allowed U.S. passport holders to self-select sex designations, including an 'unspecified' gender marker denoted by the letter X. In April, a federal judge blocked the administration from enforcing the new policy against six trans and nonbinary Americans while they challenged it in court. In another executive order signed in February, Trump proclaimed the U.S. opposes 'male competitive participation in women's sports' as a matter 'of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.' The order, titled 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports,' states that it is government policy to rescind federal funds from schools 'that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.' The administration has aggressively pursued the issue, which is one of Trump's top campaign promises. The Education Department since January has opened more than two dozen investigations into states, school districts and athletic associations that it says are violating federal sex discrimination laws by allowing trans athletes to participate in girls' and women's athletic events. The Department of Justice announced a civil lawsuit against Maine's Department of Education in April after the state repeatedly defied the Trump administration's orders to bar transgender student-athletes from girls' sports. On Monday, California officials sued the Trump administration 'in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation' against the state's school systems after a transgender 16-year-old was allowed to compete in California's girls' high school track-and-field finals against Trump's demands. Support for transgender athletes has fallen in recent years. When Gallup first asked participants whether trans people should be allowed to compete in line with their gender identity for the first time in 2021, support was 10 percentage points higher than it was in Tuesday's survey. Much of that change has been driven by Democrats and independents, according to Gallup. Support among Democrats sank from 55 percent in 2021 to 45 percent in 2025 and from 33 percent to 23 percent among independents. Americans' views on whether it is 'morally acceptable' for a person to change their gender has also declined since 2021, when Gallup first posed the question, slipping 6 percentage points to 40 percent, according to Tuesday's survey. Split by political affiliation, Republicans' opinion on the topic has changed the most, falling 13 points over four years to 9 percent. At 64 percent, Americans are more likely to view 'gay or lesbian relations' as morally acceptable, according to Gallup. In a May 29 survey released by the group, support for same-sex marriage among Republicans fell to a near-30-year low. Participants in Tuesday's survey were asked for the first time about the causes of being transgender. Gallup has asked about the causes of being gay or lesbian since 1977. Roughly 50 percent of Americans said external factors like environment and upbringing had a greater influence on gender identity than biological factors, which 30 percent said were behind a person's being transgender. Seven percent said both could be plausible factors, 4 percent said neither had a significant influence, and 9 percent had no opinion. Forty-five percent of respondents said gay or lesbian people are born, and 38 percent said external influences determine sexual orientation. Most Democrats, at 57 percent, think a person is born transgender, while 76 percent of Republicans think being transgender is the result of a person's upbringing or environment. Seventy-four percent of Democrats said they believe people are also born gay or lesbian, while 62 percent of Republicans said external factors are more likely to influence a person's sexual orientation.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress can deal a blow to government union bosses
Congress can use the budget reconciliation bill to save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by refusing to pay the salaries of government employees who, instead of doing their jobs, are doing business for their unions. Through a practice known as 'official time,' union agents can draw a government salary even when they are off lobbying Congress, or spending 100 percent of their time working for a labor union. In 2019, the year before President Joe Biden ordered the Office of Personnel Management to stop tracking and reporting official time, employees across the federal government were paid $135 million to do 2.6 million hours of union work while 'on the clock' at their government jobs. These are the last people who deserve taxpayer money. Despite being paid with tax dollars, these government union bosses are blatantly partisan. They're so used to being above the law that they see no reason to represent the views of most Americans. That's why their contributions to candidates favor Democrats 20 to 1. And of course, government employee unions have staged massive protests in Washington to combat the Trump administration's efforts to reform the federal bureaucracy. Even though unions are third-party, nongovernmental organizations with strong political biases, federal officials are required by law to negotiate with them over their agencies' staffing policies. Public policy should be made by representatives elected by the American people. It is undemocratic for those policies to instead be made through forced 'negotiations' between elected officials and unelected union bosses. Union officials should never have been given control over the government workforce. So it's good that President Trump signed an executive order ending union bargaining at several federal agencies. If Congress won't ban federal unions altogether, it can deal a significant blow to these groups by taking away the massive taxpayer subsidies that help fund their operations. The Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act, sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), forces unions to pay back the official time they consume, plus the value of other perks they receive, such as free government office space. If union bosses want to set up shop in government buildings, and use government employees as union organizers and lobbyists, they should do it on their own dime. Reversing the flow of taxpayer money into union coffers is a revenue decision, making Ernst and Perry's language eligible for the budget reconciliation bill, which, unlike most legislation, can pass the Senate with just 51 votes. The language should be included in the reconciliation bill, but union bosses have allies in government, so its inclusion is in jeopardy. It suffered an early defeat after Rep. Perry introduced an amendment in the House Oversight Committee that would have placed his language in the budget. A majority of the committee's members joined with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who said that she opposed Perry's amendment because she believes that campaigning for candidates like herself is an appropriate activity for government workers. 'Making sure that you are going to get somebody who is going to serve in a seat that is going to make sure that you can be protected … as far as I'm concerned, that is agency business,' she explained. Crockett is wrong. Government employees should not be in the business of deciding who should serve in a congressional seat and campaigning to elect that person. House and Senate leaders should insist that the language in the Protecting Taxpayer Wallets Act be added to the budget reconciliation bill, so that the public no longer has to fund the political activity of union bosses. Jace White is the director of federal affairs at the National Right to Work Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Congress can deal a blow to government union bosses
Congress can use the budget reconciliation bill to save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by refusing to pay the salaries of government employees who, instead of doing their jobs, are doing business for their unions. Through a practice known as 'official time,' union agents can draw a government salary even when they are off lobbying Congress, or spending 100 percent of their time working for a labor union. In 2019, the year before President Joe Biden ordered the Office of Personnel Management to stop tracking and reporting official time, employees across the federal government were paid $135 million to do 2.6 million hours of union work while 'on the clock' at their government jobs. These are the last people who deserve taxpayer money. Despite being paid with tax dollars, these government union bosses are blatantly partisan. They're so used to being above the law that they see no reason to represent the views of most Americans. That's why their contributions to candidates favor Democrats 20 to 1. And of course, government employee unions have staged massive protests in Washington to combat the Trump administration's efforts to reform the federal bureaucracy. Even though unions are third-party, nongovernmental organizations with strong political biases, federal officials are required by law to negotiate with them over their agencies' staffing policies. Public policy should be made by representatives elected by the American people. It is undemocratic for those policies to instead be made through forced 'negotiations' between elected officials and unelected union bosses. Union officials should never have been given control over the government workforce. So it's good that President Trump signed an executive order ending union bargaining at several federal agencies. If Congress won't ban federal unions altogether, it can deal a significant blow to these groups by taking away the massive taxpayer subsidies that help fund their operations. The Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act, sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), forces unions to pay back the official time they consume, plus the value of other perks they receive, such as free government office space. If union bosses want to set up shop in government buildings, and use government employees as union organizers and lobbyists, they should do it on their own dime. Reversing the flow of taxpayer money into union coffers is a revenue decision, making Ernst and Perry's language eligible for the budget reconciliation bill, which, unlike most legislation, can pass the Senate with just 51 votes. The language should be included in the reconciliation bill, but union bosses have allies in government, so its inclusion is in jeopardy. It suffered an early defeat after Rep. Perry introduced an amendment in the House Oversight Committee that would have placed his language in the budget. A majority of the committee's members joined with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who said that she opposed Perry's amendment because she believes that campaigning for candidates like herself is an appropriate activity for government workers. 'Making sure that you are going to get somebody who is going to serve in a seat that is going to make sure that you can be protected … as far as I'm concerned, that is agency business,' she explained. Crockett is wrong. Government employees should not be in the business of deciding who should serve in a congressional seat and campaigning to elect that person. House and Senate leaders should insist that the language in the Protecting Taxpayer Wallets Act be added to the budget reconciliation bill, so that the public no longer has to fund the political activity of union bosses. Jace White is the director of federal affairs at the National Right to Work Committee.
