Medicare.gov to deploy ID.me for beneficiary verification

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has tapped ID.me to verify the identities of beneficiaries on Medicare.gov, according to a Tuesday announcement from the identity-proofing company. 

ID.me will be available as an option for identity verification and sign-in on Medicare.gov starting in early 2026, per the release. The deal adds to the growing number of federal programs opting to use the digital identity service that leverages facial recognition technology and has been the subject of some controversy in the past.

Already, ID.me is used at 21 federal agencies, including the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs, per the release. Opting in means an ID.me user could sign in with the same credentials at any of the other federal, state or private-sector entities that use the service, the company said in a statement to FedScoop. 

“By extending ID.me’s high-assurance identity capabilities across CMS and Medicare.gov, we’re creating a more unified patient experience while strengthening overall program integrity,” Blake Hall, founder & CEO of ID.me, said in a statement included in the company’s release.

According to ID.me’s website, the company uses a combination of a user’s ID — such as a driver’s license or passport — a selfie, and a Social Security number to verify identity. 

Its use at other government agencies has received pushback from lawmakers and civil rights groups, as well as watchdog scrutiny. 

In 2022, then-Democratic leaders on the House Oversight Committee said ID.me had downplayed wait times for users applying for unemployment benefits with the IRS. The same year, civil rights organizations called on state and federal entities to halt use of ID.me, citing concerns that facial recognition technology disproportionately impacts people of color and marginalized communities.

The company also faced controversy for being provided without an alternative at the IRS, and just this summer, a congressional watchdog dinged the agency for lax oversight of the service’s use of artificial intelligence.

In response to the 2022 bias concerns, an ID.me spokesperson told FedScoop the company’s work with the IRS was responsible for increasing access generally and also in underserved populations, pointing to an example in Puerto Rico. 

The spokesperson said access to IRS applications in Puerto Rico more than tripled after ID.me was deployed, with an ultimate pass rate of 78.6%. Those figures were cited in a letter from the Treasury Department to the U.S. territory’s then representative in Washington, Jenniffer González-Colón, that was also shared with FedScoop.

“ID.me’s video chat verification pathway, multi-lingual support, and other efforts eliminated barriers to verification for users left behind by legacy solutions dependent on online records,” the statement from the ID.me spokesperson said.

ID.me isn’t the only company to have recently been tapped for Medicare verification services. CLEAR, another biometric-based identity verification provider, said earlier this month it was similarly selected to support identity verification on Medicare.gov. 

CLEAR, which is widely known for its linejumping offerings at airports, will provide its CLEAR1 platform for Medicare beginning in early 2026, per that announcement. Its release specifically said its platform would be used for account creation and recovery. 

In a response to FedScoop, a spokesperson for ID.me said the new CMS deal is part of a broader contract with the Department of Health and Human Services which has been ongoing since 2022. That contract is worth roughly $5 million, according to information on USASpending.

The expansion to Medicare.gov also appears to be part of the Trump administration’s goals for interoperability through initiatives like “Kill the Clipboard,” which is a push to make intake records digital.

In a LinkedIn post about the announcement, Wes Turbeville, senior vice president of federal and healthcare for ID.me, characterized the identity verification provider as a solution for interoperability in the public and private sector. 

Turbeville pointed to what he called “avoidable friction” with the multiple agencies that have a hand in credentialing Medicare beneficiaries. Those accessing Medicare, in the past, would need credentials for the SSA, CMS, and their plan’s own website, he said. 

“Soon, 10’s of millions of Medicare beneficiaries will be able to use the same secure, portable ID.me credential at CMS that they’ve already been using at Social Security (and hundreds of other organizations across the digital economy),” Turbeville wrote.

CMS did not respond to FedScoop’s inquiries before publication of this story.

This story was updated Dec. 18 to add additional comments from ID.me on its use in Puerto Rico.

Lawmakers signal skepticism of VA’s planned spring EHR rollout 

With less than 120 days until the Department of Veterans Affairs resumes the rollout of its Electronic Health Record, lawmakers are raising doubts about whether the agency can resolve its long-standing challenges with the system. 

Members of the House VA Subcommittee on Technology Modernization grilled officials from the VA and Oracle Health on Monday about their preparations for the deployment of the EHR at four Michigan facilities, scheduled for April. It will mark the first deployments since 2023, when the VA paused the system’s implementation to renegotiate its contract with Oracle Cerner and resolve safety concerns. 

“This timeline is locked in, and the countdown is on, but the question remains: When the switch is flipped in April, will the system deliver, and will it do what we need it to do?” Subcommittee Chair Tom Barrett, R-Mich., said in opening remarks. “Are we going to run into snags like we have in the past?” 

Barrett said the subcommittee has received “meaningful good signs” about the anticipated rollout, but “cannot ignore other red flags that are warnings behind the scenes.” 

Lawmakers’ concerns primarily centered on the project’s total cost and workforce readiness, as well as the VA’s decision to launch the deployments nearly simultaneously rather than sequentially. 

Neil Evans, the acting program executive director for the VA’s EHR Modernization Integration Office, told lawmakers the VA is using a “market-based approach” for deployments. 

Multiple medical centers will be “working together and going live simultaneously in each deployment wave,” Evans said, adding the move will help the VA scale up deployments and improve efficiency. 

However, Carol Harris, the director of information technology and cybersecurity for the Government Accountability Office, warned of the potential challenges with this method. 

“I think that the simultaneous testing at the four sites will take a tremendous amount of resources, and to deal with the issues that come up inevitably with a go-live, to be able to handle it at all four sites simultaneously, could be significantly risky for the department,” Harris said. 

The EHR system, hosted by the cloud technology company Oracle, is slated to be deployed across 13 new medical facilities by 2026. 

Barrett later asked Seema Verma, the executive vice president for Oracle Health and Life Sciences, to “convince” him and the GAO that the simultaneous fashion “is the appropriate way to do it without just hitting a deadline for a date, without thinking through the risks associated with it.” 

Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the first Trump administration, defended the move, stating that Oracle believes in “robust testing” and that the company has teams on the ground and a “war room.” 

Barrett did not seem entirely convinced, telling Verma that “each of these is very unique in their application, each of these VA hospitals that are not, you know, cookie-cutter stamped out.” 

“These are very, very customized to their unique situation. And doing them all four together, to me, elevates the risk that there’s going to be problems that arise or issues that are overlooked,” Barrett said. 

Rep. Nikki Budzinski, D-Ill., the subcommittee’s ranking member, later asked Verma about how the major technology vendor will ensure the necessary workforce and contractors understand the system. 

“Oracle does implementations all over the world for systems. This amount and number of sites are not unusual for Oracle as a worldwide company in terms of the deployments,” Verma responded. “That being said, we also continue to add more staff to our teams to make sure that we can scale with the deployments as well. But I think this is not an unusual thing for our company.” 

Budzinski pressed further, asking Verma what Oracle is doing to guarantee staff understand the “uniqueness of VA and its challenges.” According to the executive, Oracle has training requirements and federal certifications for the VA’s specific needs. 

Lawmakers in both chambers have repeatedly raised concerns over the EHR rollout since its launch during the first Trump administration. The Senate package to reopen the government last month included a caveat on funding for the EHR system, giving the agency secretary until June 1 to submit an updated life-cycle cost estimate for the project, a facility-by-facility deployment schedule, and projected VA staffing level requirements.

Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas, also pressed Evans and Verma over contingency plans if the April deployments fail, including whether Oracle will move onto other sites in the case of failure. 

“We would discuss with the VA and figure out the appropriate course,” Verma said. “We have not had that discussion. Our discussions are focused on successful implementations, and because of the previous experiences, we’ve gone through a number of deployments. There’s been a lot of lessons learned.”

Luttrell said he hopes “ that doesn’t happen. We’ve been waiting 10 years for this thing to work correctly. Just from my experiences in the past, if you’re not contingency planning on the worst-case scenario when it shows up, we’re in a lot of trouble.” 

Outgoing GAO chief warns of ‘taking our foot off the gas’ at CISA

Retiring Comptroller General Gene Dodaro delivered a message to lawmakers Tuesday on what he believes should be one of Congress’s top priorities as he exits federal service: getting the government’s cybersecurity work in order before it’s too late.

Appearing before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel, Dodaro said cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection are not getting “the urgent attention commensurate with the evolving grave threat.” Daily pressure from state and non-state actors puts the U.S. in a “very vulnerable” position, the Government Accountability Office chief said.

One piece of addressing that puzzle, Dodaro said later in the Subcommittee on Border Management, Federal Workforce and Regulatory Affairs hearing, is getting a permanent director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency confirmed as soon as possible.

“I think it’s essential,” Dodaro said in response to a question from Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, on the importance of having a CISA head in place. “We’ve spent a lot of time trying to encourage the government to do more, and CISA was doing, you know, a better job.” 

Madhu Gottumukkala has served as CISA’s acting director since the spring while Sean Plankey, the White House’s nominee for the post, has awaited confirmation. Sources told CyberScoop earlier this month that Plankey is unlikely to move forward after multiple senators placed or threatened holds on his nomination.  

“We have a lot of open recommendations still for them to do,” Dodaro said. “But I’m concerned that we’re taking our foot off the gas at CISA, and I think we’ll live to regret it.”

The GAO, which Dodaro has led since 2010, designated cybersecurity as a high-risk area across the federal government in 1997, and did the same for critical infrastructure in 2003. There have been “a lot of changes” in the past decade, Dodaro added, but 600 out of 4,400 recommendations are still open.

Addressing those recommendations will be increasingly hard, he continued, given the Trump administration’s downsizing of CISA. The cyber agency has lost about a third of its staff, Dodaro said — a figure that Moreno said was “obviously untenable” given the reality of “escalating” threats facing the country.

Dodaro noted earlier in the hearing that a threat that has him especially concerned involves CISA’s mandate to protect the security of elections. 

The cyber agency has historically “provided a lot of assistance to … elections officials at the state and local level,” he said. “I’m concerned they may not be postured to do that with the midterms coming up, as well as deal with critical infrastructure throughout the country.”

Senators on both sides of the aisle appeared receptive to Dodaro’s warnings and expressed gratitude for his more than 52 years of service at the congressional watchdog. 

“There are very few people in the world who can say that they saved their nation billions of dollars based on their service. But you are one of those,” subcommittee Chair James Lankford, R-Okla., told Dodaro. “Thank you for those decades of federal service that you gave to our nation to be able to help get our fiscal health back in order.”

IT professionals, advocates ‘frustrated’ after Congress fails to reauthorize TMF 

Civic technologists and former government leaders are frustrated with Congress after the expiration of the Technology Modernization Fund froze nearly $200 million in funding for government IT projects.

The failure to reauthorize the TMF, which expired Friday for the first time since its 2017 inception, does not reflect the issue’s typical bipartisan support, those tech experts said in interviews with FedScoop, making the investment vehicle’s lapse all the more infuriating.

Experts on both sides of the aisle suggested the expiration of TMF, which is housed under the General Services Administration, undermines the Trump administration’s push to modernize government systems. They also warned of the long-term consequences of letting these funds lapse. 

The TMF was created in 2017 to fund technology projects across the federal government, but the bill that made it also set an expiration date that only Congress can extend. Since the start of the TMF, more than $1 billion has been invested into 70 different projects across 34 federal agencies. 

Projects funded by TMF ranged from the Department of Homeland Security’s rebuilding of its information-sharing system to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ digitization of payment forms.  And just last week, the funding vehicle awarded more than $28 million to the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration for various modernization projects. 

The TMF “isn’t an optional experiment,” said Jordan Burris, former chief of staff to the White House’s Office of the Chief Information Officer during the first Trump and Biden administrations. “It’s the government’s only scalable way to upgrade the digital systems that deliver benefits, defend our networks, and keep core public services running.”

“Yet Congress continues to treat modernization like a one-time project rather than the ongoing national priority it is,” added Burris, now the head of public sector for the digital ID verification firm Socure. “When funding disappears or authority sits in limbo, agencies fall back to patching brittle systems, and the public lives with the consequences.”

Frustration over the legislative process 

Trade groups and IT industry experts were similarly disappointed that congressional delays and opposition from even just one person could stall the effort. While there is no definitive answer to what or who contributed to the TMF expiration, some have pinned the blame on procedural hurdles that frequently slow progress in Congress.

“It’s been very hard to move individual bills … the stuff that seems like it’s super commonsense, bipartisan, fiscally responsible. It’s just a slog to get anything out,” said Timothy Brennan, the vice president of technology policy and government relations for the Professional Services Council. 

Timothy Cook, the executive director for the Center for Procurement Advocacy, pointed to the government shutdown earlier this session, which halted congressional activity for 43 days and pushed funding discussions and other priorities toward the end of the year. 

“The biggest issue is that with the government shutdown and so many priorities and widespread change in the government,” Cook said. “It’s not really lost; it’s just another one of those things you have to do.” 

Expiration of the TMF authorization became increasingly likely last week after a last-ditch effort to include reauthorization language in the National Defense Authorization Act fell flat, and lawmakers failed to advance alternative legislation in time. 

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., and the late Gerry Connolly reintroduced a bill in the last three Congresses to reauthorize the TMF beyond 2025, but it did not advance out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in time this year. Virtually the same bill passed the House last year, but did not make it out of the Senate. 

A spokesperson for the Oversight Committee told FedScoop earlier this month that TMF reauthorization was a “high priority” and that the panel plans to advance a reauthorization bill at a scheduled markup in the new year. 

Funding for the TMF has broad bipartisan support in the House but has at times faced pushback from congressional appropriators. 

“It’s not that folks don’t know on the Hill that this was up for reauthorization,” Brennan said. “There are a number of things that need to be reauthorized that go through the Senate Homeland Security [and Governmental Affairs] Committee that have not been reauthorized.”

Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., the ranking member of HSGAC, and Jerry Moran, R-Kan., reintroduced a companion bill to reauthorize the TMF through 2032 as an amendment to the NDAA. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who chairs HSGAC, has previously signaled opposition to the TMF. 

A longtime government-spending hawk, the Kentucky Republican was the sole “no” vote last year when HSGAC advanced the TMF reauthorization bill out of committee. Paul’s office did not respond to an inquiry about how he would act and vote this year. 

“There’s just frustration that there is a holdup on getting this through. I don’t think the [TMF] office in particular has done anything to make Congress feel like, ‘Hey, we’re not willing to make changes,’” Brennan said. “Usually, there’s an easy way to negotiate those things.”

“From a process standpoint, it is insane to expect to have these amazing results that we want on IT modernization, but not have consistent funding streams and a consistent plan in place to execute,” he added. 

Reauthorization does not equal appropriations 

Some sources suggested they are further disappointed by the expiration, as the reauthorization does not require new funds but only a green light from Congress. 

Ross Nodurft, executive director of the Alliance of Digital Innovation, agreed, telling FedScoop that technology “evolves quickly. Big technology modernization projects don’t follow appropriation cycles cleanly.”

“Having a revolving fund … the reauthorization is not asking for money. It’s asking for authorization to do work they’ve been doing,” Nodurft added. 

Traditionally, the sitting administration asks Congress to fund the TMF. 

During the Biden administration, Congress poured $1 billion into the fund in 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan. Congress eventually rescinded $113 million of that last year, and GSA indicated this year that the Trump administration is seeking to sidestep the appropriations process to refill the fund annually by transferring unused funds from agencies. 

As a result, the House did not allocate any additional money to the fund. Senate appropriators set aside $5 million for the TMF in their fiscal 2026 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill. 

“When you talk about how much IT modernization costs, that is a comical amount to include for a fund like this,” Brennan remarked. 

Separately, the Modernizing Government Technology Act, which created the TMF, also authorized Chief Financial Officers Act agencies to establish agency-specific IT modernization working capital funds. Some agencies have taken advantage of this, including the Small Business Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Transportation.

These funds are agency-specific and not impacted by the TMF expiration.  

Repayment structure draws skepticism 

Some industry observers have suggested that repayment terms have become overly lenient over time, contributing to increased skepticism in recent years. 

The TMF was intended to be a self-replenishing working capital fund that provides initial funding to agencies for modernization projects. After a specified period, the agency repays these funds. 

“It’s especially frustrating because this moment was avoidable,” Burris said. “The TMF model was designed to be transparent, repayable, and focused on measurable outcomes. But instances in prior administrations where funds were used too loosely helped turn ‘modernization’ into a four-letter word and fed the false claim that TMF was a slush fund.” 

“That history handed skeptics in Congress a convenient excuse to walk away from sustained investment just as the stakes are rising,” Burris continued. 

A former GSA leader told FedScoop the agency “changed and relaxed” the original funding model and failed to adhere to the self-sufficient model by allowing “radically relaxed” repayment terms. The former official said loan discipline can create discipline across projects, but without accountability for loan repayments, projects could face their own completion issues. 

“Tell someone they only have to repay a small percentage of the loan, they’re going to manage their project in a different way than if they have to pay the full amount,” the former leader said. 

Under the Biden administration, the GSA and the Office of Management and Budget in 2021 changed the TMF repayment model to give projects greater flexibility in repaying those investments. This included allowing specific projects to provide only partial repayment. 

GSA signaled a desire to reform these repayment terms earlier this year, stating in May that its funding model would shift to prioritize full repayment of new “high-impact” investments across the federal government. 

When asked about concerns about the repayment structure, a GSA spokesperson pushed back against the argument that the repayment structure or program performance contributed to the expiration. 

The spokesperson said the expiration was instead a “matter of legislative timing,” adding that “TMF funds have been managed with full accountability and transparency,” and all TMF-funded projects “completed their payments as required.” 

“GSA maintains rigorous oversight of TMF investments through established governance processes,” the spokesperson added. “All TMF-funded projects undergo thorough review and monitoring by the TMF Board, which includes federal CIOs and IT experts who evaluate project plans, milestones, and repayment schedules.”

The spokesperson noted the TMF was designed to be “flexible and responsive to the complexities of federal IT modernization.”

“Over the past two years, we have strengthened repayment requirements in phases to ensure program sustainability while giving agencies time to adjust to the new structure,” the spokesperson said. “TMF now requires full repayment for all new projects, demonstrating our commitment to fiscal responsibility and the long-term viability of the revolving fund.”

Moving forward, Burris suggested that “tightening guardrails” around project selection and performance reporting would send a message to agency leaders and the public.

How TMF could be reauthorized 

TMF will remain frozen unless Congress chooses a path to reauthorize it, though that timeline is likely to extend until lawmakers return from the holiday recess next month. 

To reauthorize TMF, Congress will either need to pass a standalone authorization bill like Mace’s or attach it to a larger government funding package. 

Industry insiders predicted the latter is the likelier pathway given the hurdles in the Senate. They noted this maneuver was how the TMF was created in the first place, through an addition to the 2018 annual defense spending bill. 

In the meantime, acting TMF Executive Director Jessie Posilkin wrote in a LinkedIn post Monday that the office remains “fully committed to the work already underway.” 

“The TMF continues to manage a strong portfolio of active investments,” Posilkin said, adding that “Every project in the portfolio continues to move forward, and every day we see the impact of this work across the government. I am deeply proud of the TMF team and our partners across federal agencies. Their dedication, expertise, and creativity have shown what is possible when we approach modernization with collaboration and purpose.”

Posilkin wrote that the “mission continues and so does that impact,” and pointed to TMF projects at the departments of Labor and Homeland Security that saved the agencies $1.8 million and $30 million a year, respectively. 

The GSA spokesperson said the agency is advocating for TMF reauthorization to Congress, and working with the legislative branch to “share information and explore how the fund can most effectively support” agencies and the public. They said GSA also welcomes continued discussions with Congress on maximizing the program’s impact and accountability.

House passes agency software-buying bill, waits on Senate again

The House on Monday passed a bill that would revamp how agencies purchase software, putting the legislation in the same place it was a year ago: waiting for the Senate to follow suit as the clock ticks down on the congressional calendar. 

The Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets (SAMOSA) Act would require agencies to examine their software licensing practices, with the aim of streamlining IT buying practices to avoid duplicative purchases. The bill is identical to legislation that passed the House last December but did not move forward in the Senate.

The House bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., Shontel Brown, D-Ohio, Pat Fallon, R-Texas, and April McClain Delaney, D-Md., would press agencies to better manage their software without limiting procurement options. They would be required to submit IT assessments to the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration and Congress, so better oversight could be conducted.

On the House floor Monday, Brown credited her three co-sponsors as well as former Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who died of cancer in May after taking the lead on this bill in addition to his myriad other government IT efforts. 

Brown, ranking member of the House Oversight Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation subcommittee, said the SAMOSA Act is a “straightforward good government bill that has strong bipartisan support from members of the Oversight Committee.”

“This bill can improve planning for software management, automate processes, train staff, and improve our cybersecurity,” the Ohio Democrat added. “And here’s a key point: Industry experts estimate the bill could save up to $750 million each year taxpayer funding. This is real government efficiency, and it’s from legislation that has gone through committee with support and input from both sides of the aisle.”

Mace, who chairs the House Oversight IT and cyber panel, said in a statement that with the bill’s passage Monday, lawmakers are now “one step closer to improving oversight of software procurement, eliminating waste and duplicative purchases, and ensuring the federal government serves as a faithful steward of taxpayer dollars.”

The SAMOSA Act has long been championed by a host of technology trade groups, including the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Alliance for Digital Innovation, NetChoice, OpenPolicy and the Software Information Industry Association. Lawmakers, meanwhile, have considered forms of the bill since at least 2022.

All eyes now turn to the upper chamber, where Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, Bill Cassidy, R-La., James Lankford, R-Okla., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., reintroduced the bill in June. The legislation hasn’t moved since, awaiting consideration from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Peters serves as ranking member of the panel, which is chaired by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Bipartisan Senate bill aims to create national network of cloud laboratories

A new bill from Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa., and Ted Budd, R-N.C., would establish a national network of cloud laboratories led by the National Science Foundation and supported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, with the goal of enhancing collaboration between institutions while improving research efficiency with AI. 

If passed, NSF will select up to six programmable cloud laboratories from a range of applicants, including academic institutions and private-sector research groups. NIST would be tasked with setting standards and reporting to Congress about the feasibility for expansion. 

The bill, introduced last week, aligns with provisions laid out by the Trump administration’s AI Action Plan and aims to codify existing NSF proposals, according to the sponsors. NSF earmarked $100 million for a similar AI-powered cloud network in August as it looked to expand access to emerging technologies. 

“Integrating our nation’s world class laboratories will increase the rate of breakthroughs, streamline and better automate the research process, and reduce the barriers and costs that throttle experimentation,” Budd said in a press release Monday. 

Researchers in the co-sponsors’ home states have developed methods to ease automated discoveries, which will serve as a blueprint for the national effort.  

NSF will judge applicants on the level of existing data integration and automated capability infrastructure and capacity to support multi-user cloud workflows, among other criteria. 

In addition to bipartisan backing, the legislation garnered support from officials at Carnegie Mellon University, the Accelerate Science Now coalition and the Allegheny Conference on Community Development. 

“The National Programmable Cloud Laboratories Network Act is a green light for the future of American science,” said Joshua New, director of policy at nonprofit SeedAI and organizer of Accelerate Science Now. “Investing in AI-enabled automation and cloud-connected laboratories will accelerate discovery timelines, bring our research infrastructure into the modern era, and ensure that federal science investments translate into tangible benefits for the American people.”

Federal contractor claims background checks missed red flags on twins accused of agency breaches

OPM launches Tech Force to recruit technologists to government

The Trump administration launched a new governmentwide hiring program Monday aimed at filling technology hiring gaps in federal agencies with workers who will serve in two-year stints. 

That program, dubbed the U.S. Tech Force, is being spearheaded by the Office of Personnel Management and has buy-in from private-sector tech companies that will serve as partners in the hiring initiative. 

The first cohort of recruits will be roughly 1,000 individuals who will range from early-career data scientists and engineers to engineering managers from the private sector. According to a release from OPM, their mission will be to accelerate AI adoption in government and fulfill a priority of the Trump administration. 

On a call with reporters Monday, OPM Director Scott Kupor said the goal of the program isn’t to get workers to commit to “a 40-year career in federal government.” 

While that’s welcome, he said, the aim is to “get the benefit of really smart people working on some of the world’s most complex and difficult problems” and provide them with an opportunity, if they so choose, to then go work in the private sector.

More than two dozen technology companies have already agreed to Tech Force partnerships, including Amazon Web Services, Meta, Microsoft, xAI, Anduril, Nvidia, Oracle, Adobe and ServiceNow. 

Those companies have not made firm agreements to hire program alumni but can do so in line with their needs, Kupor said. The commitment that OPM has made to those partners, he said, is “to do a great job of recruiting fantastic people.”

The hiring initiative comes after President Donald Trump has made significant cuts to the federal workforce and upended existing tech workforce programs. According to recent figures shared by Kupor in a blog, the government has brought in about 68,000 people and lost roughly 317,000 under Trump. The DOGE also took over the existing U.S. Digital Service, which provided technology assistance throughout government, and disbanded 18F, which helped improve federal digital services.

Despite the cuts, however, Trump officials have pointed to tech hiring as a priority. Federal CIO Greg Barbaccia told FedScoop recently that tech hiring is a goal for the coming year, hinting at the launch of an initiative with OPM. 

Tech Force will be carried out in coordination with the General Services Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, the White House Office of Science, Technology, and Policy, and agency leaders across the government, according to the human capital agency. 

OPM also announced Tech Force will partner with NobleReach Foundation, a nonpartisan nonprofit that brings together tech talent across government, industry and academia through different programs. 

Kupor said his goal is to get the first cohort on board by the end of March. 

Talent recruitment

The recruiting process for the program involves an application, technical assessment, potential interviews with leadership and a background check, according to the FAQ section of the new Tech Force website. 

That initial outreach and recruitment process will be run by OPM in partnership with the tech company partners. Then, agencies will select from a prequalified set of candidates, Kupor said.

The technologists will work across government in civilian and defense agencies, including the departments of State, Defense, Treasury, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Energy, the General Services Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and more

Positions will be filled on a rolling basis, with annual salaries expected to range up to about $200,000. According to Kupor, roles will predominantly be at the GS-13 and GS-14 levels, which are at the higher end of the federal government’s General Schedule classifications.

Traditionally, the federal government has had a difficult time competing with the private sector on pay when it comes to tech roles. While Kupor said the administration believes the salaries are competitive for early career individuals, those wanting to “maximize their earnings” are likely still better off in the private sector.

“Part of what we want to do is be competitive on compensation, but also help people understand that in doing this, they’re going to learn a bunch — they’re going to tackle really complex problems,” he said.

The roles will not require a traditional degree, according to OPM, with a priority being placed on “strong technical skills” in software engineering, AI, data analytics, cybersecurity or technical project management. 

“We’re less worried about where they’re coming from,” Kupor said. “We’re more concerned about … do they have the appropriate merit to be able to do the job, and are they excited about the prospect of working on these programs for the next two years?”

Managers wanted

In addition to contributor technologists, the initial cohort will include a small number of managers coming from companies. Those managers are the “main thing” OPM is looking for from the private sector, Kupor said.

During their time in government, those workers will serve as full-time employees and be subject to ethics rules, Kupor said. It will then be up to each of those individual companies whether or not they bring those people back.

“We certainly expect, based on all the conversations we’ve had, that the idea is they view this as a career development opportunity for those individuals,” Kupor said of the companies, adding that they want to make it easy for an employee to take a leave of absence and then return to their roles.

Referencing conversations with both private sector and government lawyers, Kupor also said that the arrangements do not require the workers to divest of their stock. 

“We feel like we’ve kind of run down all the various conflict issues, and don’t believe that that’s actually going to be … an impediment to getting people here,” he said.

The White House has framed government use of AI and other emerging technologies as a matter of national security and competition. The Office of Personnel Management said in a release that the Tech Force initiative will “solidify” the U.S. as the “global leader in government AI adoption.” 

In a video promotion posted by the Tech Force X account Monday, the project was likened to the U.S.-led Manhattan Project. The narrator said Tech Force will “fix” the “outdated” code that programs the government’s services and systems.

“You don’t patch old code, you dismantle, rebuild,” the narrator read, calling it, “America’s coding renaissance.” 

This story was updated Dec. 15 with additional information throughout.

EPA webpage maps out path for data-center developers around air rules

The Environmental Protection Agency is following through on its commitment to tear down regulatory barriers in the name of artificial intelligence, unveiling a new webpage Thursday aimed at guiding industry on Clean Air Act rules to more quickly build data centers.

The Clean Air Act Resource for Data Centers page provides infrastructure developers with a host of information about the 1970 federal law. “Looking exclusively through the lens of the CAA, EPA’s specific new resources provide state and private sector partners with regulatory information, guidance and technical tools that can assist with modeling, air quality permitting, and regulatory interpretations relevant for data centers and AI facility development,” the agency’s press office said in response to a FedScoop request for comment Friday. 

The page also shares information on how to “legally avoid requirements” of a Clean Air Act provision known as Limiting the Potential to Emit. The press office said the agency “is committed to following its statutory obligations under the Clean Air Act and helping our state partners do the same.”

The regulatory maneuvering is part of a broader Trump administration push under EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to cut red tape and speed up permitting. 

“The global race to harness the power of artificial intelligence and build data centers is underway,” Zeldin said in a press release Thursday. “EPA is diligently working to eliminate burdensome regulations and ensure data centers and related facilities can be built in the U.S. as we Power the Great American Comeback. Developers, local communities and Tribes will now have easy access to the tools they need to build big, beautiful data centers and AI facilities.” 

Zeldin’s statement and the webpage itself referenced President Donald Trump’s AI Action Plan and his January AI executive order as reasons for launching the resource, which also details how the agency has previously handled permitting and previews for data-center developers “what permitting requirements they may face.”

The energy agenda for Trump’s AI Action Plan leaned heavily on pared-down clean air and water regulations as a means to expedite permitting. The document specifically called for reduced regulations under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as well as any “related laws.”

Proponents of the plan argued that the “environmental tradeoffs” for accelerating AI and data center construction were worth it, a point that Zeldin also attempted to make in a July op-ed for Fox News. The former Republican congressman from New York wrote that many of the Clean Air Act requirements for building data centers traced back to the 1990s, “when technology was practically prehistoric compared to modern advancements.” 

“These rules require companies to install pollution control equipment when they build new facilities or make a change that increases emissions significantly,” Zeldin continued. “The digital revolution has ushered in new needs and new industries which demand new permitting rules that help, not hamper development.”

The new webpage claims that by speeding up the ability to build data centers “and the necessary backup generation,” the cost of new facilities will go down along with electricity rates. “This ultimately will reduce the cost-of-living for Americans who rely on data centers and AI for their daily lives — from ensuring food at the grocery store to photos on their phones,” the website states. 

Whether those assertions pan out remains to be seen, but there’s been a bubbling public rejection of the nationwide data-center buildout amid spiking energy demand and skyrocketing utility costs. On Capitol Hill, bipartisan groups of lawmakers have introduced legislation tiptoeing around the issues, including one bill on liquid cooling technologies to potentially address high facility costs and another to study the impact data centers are having on rural America.

Nevertheless, the EPA’s new website signals that the administration intends to move full steam ahead with its plans to streamline permitting and quicken data-center construction. Aaron Szabo, the EPA’s assistant administrator for air, said in the press release that the webpage demonstrates the agency’s commitment to “following the law and helping Americans do the same.”

“Good rulemaking and policies must be coupled with sound public knowledge regarding regulations,” Szabo said. “As EPA works to enact policy that helps make America the AI capital of the world, our new webpage provides an essential resource to those looking to understand the current regulations,” adding that his office “is pleased to be able to respond directly to the request from developers, local communities and Tribes who have been asking for these resources since day one.”

The website’s launch was first reported by Politico’s E&E News. 

Trump signs executive order curbing state regulation of AI

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to limit states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence and pave the way for a “minimally burdensome” national policy framework for the emerging technology. 

The move caps a monthslong saga among policymakers in Washington over how to regulate the rapidly evolving technology at the federal level, as states take matters into their own hands in the absence of any nationwide standards. 

The order is a significant win for several major AI developers that argue that a patchwork of state AI regulations hampers innovation and competitiveness on the global stage. Its provisions have the potential to impact the hundreds of state laws. 

The directive calls for the attorney general to establish an AI litigation task force who will be responsible for challenging state AI laws that are “inconsistent” with the order. This includes laws that “unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the attorney general’s judgment.” 

It also gives the heads of the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission some power over specific state laws and reporting or disclosure standards. 

Signing the order in the Oval Office, Trump emphasized the United States’ need to lead the world in AI, telling reporters, “We’re leading China, we’re leading everybody by a tremendous amount.” 

“There’s only going to be one winner here, and it’s probably going to be the U.S. or China and right now, we’re winning by a lot,” Trump said, suggesting China either has a “central source of approval” or builds AI infrastructure without approval. 

“People want to be in the United States, and they want to do it here, and we have the big investment coming, but if they had to get 50 different approvals from 50 different states, you could forget it, because it’s not possible to do,” the president said. 

David Sacks, the White House’s AI and cryptocurrency special advisor, emphasized that over 1,000 bills are moving through state legislatures right now to regulate AI. 

“You’ve got 50 states running in 50 different directions. It just doesn’t make sense,” Sacks said alongside the president Thursday. “What we need is a single federal standard.”

The order notably does not issue a federal framework, but directs the White House’s special advisor for AI and cryptocurrency and the head of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to prepare a legislative recommendation for Congress to establish a federal policy framework for AI that preempts state AI laws. 

In an apparent attempt to appease child safety advocates, these do not include laws related to child safety protections, AI computing and data center infrastructure, and state government procurement and use of AI. 

“In the meantime, this EO gives your administration the tools to push back on the most onerous and excessive state regulations,” Sacks said. “We’re not going to push back on all of them. For example, kids safety we’re going to protect. We’re not pushing back on that, but we’re going to push back on the most onerous examples of state regulations.”

The Commerce secretary, working with White House technology policy leaders, is also directed to publish an evaluation of existing state AI laws that the administration considers “onerous” within 90 days of the order. 

“That evaluation of State AI laws shall, at a minimum, identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution,” the order stated. 

Under the directive, the head of the Commerce Department must issue a policy notice listing the conditions states must meet to be eligible for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program funding. These conditions include not enforcing any administration-deemed “onerous” state laws. 

The presidential order was largely expected after the president wrote on Truth Social earlier this week that he planned to sign an EO to preempt state and local laws governing AI, creating “one rulebook” for technology across the country. And last month, a draft order circulated showing plans to target individual state efforts to place guardrails on the emerging technologies. 

Congress has failed to get an AI preemption bill across the finish line amid disagreement among Republicans. Earlier this month, lawmakers failed in their efforts to include the provision for state AI law preemption as a last-minute addition to the annual defense spending package. 

Major tech and consumer advocacy groups railed against the order Thursday. Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement that the EO is a “reward to Big Tech” and a “disgraceful invitation to reckless behavior by the world’s largest corporations and a complete override of the federalist principles that Trump and MAGA claim to venerate.”

Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, said in a statement that he expects the order will “hit a brick wall in the courts.”

“The executive order relies on a flimsy and overly broad interpretation of the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause cooked up by venture capitalists over the last six months,” Carson said. “What’s more, this EO directly attacks the state-passed safeguards that we’ve seen vocal public support for over the past year, all without any replacement at the federal level. There’s a reason preemption couldn’t make it through Congress: it threatens safeguards for kids, workers, consumers, and the American public. Politically and legally, it’s a dud.”

NetChoice, a conservative-leaning tech trade association, praised the order, with Patrick Hedger, the group’s director of policy, saying in a statement that startups and small businesses would struggle to compete under a patchwork of state laws.

“The federal government is the appropriate regulator to govern interstate commerce like AI tools,” he added, “and we look forward to working with the White House and Congress to set nationwide standards and a clear rulebook for innovators.” 

Matt Bracken contributed reporting.