If you spend any amount of time reading news related to federal government technology, you’re going to love this latest episode of “Gov & Beyond.” Our hosts Luca Pagni and Joyson Cherian bring together four editors and reporters for a spirited and extremely informative take on how they approach their jobs and the changes they’ve had to navigate with the arrival of the Trump 2.0 administration.
In this episode, Luca and Joyson talk with Frank Konkel, editor in chief at GovExec; Natalie Alms, a staff reporter For Nextgov/FCW, a GovExec publication; Billy Mitchell, executive editor at Scoop News Group; and Madison Alder, tech reporter at FedScoop, a Scoop News Group publication.
Although publications like Nextgov/FCW and FedScoop are fierce competitors when it comes to covering breaking news in the world of federal IT, what came though in this discussion more than anything else is the mutual respect these four journalists have for each other’s work – as well as their unwavering commitment to reporting what is happening behind the scenes in government tech shops – even as they encounter barriers that make achieving that goal increasingly difficult.
You’ll also hear them discuss the challenges of keeping up with the constant barrage of news emanating from the White House – and in some cases, from secret sources who share information (i.e., leaks) at great professional and even personal risk.
Among the insights you’ll hear in this episode:
Government press offices no longer offer much help to reporters.
Reporters often rely on public affairs officers, the professionals designated at each agency to handle inquiries from the media. According to the panelists on this episode, that often no longer holds true and getting any kind of official statement from the government can be a challenge. “Traditionally, we had good relationships in every agency with their press people, and often had folks coming to us [with news],” Billy told Luca. “Now, that door has pretty much been shut, I won’t say everywhere, but it’s very difficult…to get a response.”
They appreciate input from government contractors.
Given the increasing difficulty to get facts from official government spokespeople, these reporters are turning to other sources – including contractors. Madison noted that those conversations are often a two-way street, with contractors asking her questions as well. “I would just say that it’s always great to talk to the contractor community in person,” she said. “They’re looking to us for answers on some things, because things are changing…I think there’s definitely more opportunity there to have those kinds of conversations and for the contractor community and people from our publications to have discussions about what they’re seeing and what we’re seeing. So I would definitely welcome that.”
Frank added that he has noted some contractors “pulling back” on speaking with reporters out of fear of reprisals from the government. Not surprisingly, he thinks that is a mistake. “You do that at your own risk, because there are plenty of other companies. If you don’t want to engage the press, and if you don’t want to tell your story, [other companies] will tell their own story,” he said.
They are embracing new tools for privacy.
In light of the difficulty she and her colleagues have had getting official comments from government agencies, Natalie said, “many of my biggest stories over the last six months or so have come from leaks.” Frank, her editor, said all of the reporters on his staff have been using the Signal app since early in the year for “sensitive” communications with sources. He said he and his staff encourage sources to use the app when sharing documents or news about forthcoming policy changes as a way to protect against reprisals.
The chaos of the last several months has been challenging, but also good for readership.
All of the panelists agreed that the constant change driven by the new administration has made their jobs more challenging. But it also has been positive for their publications, increasing readership and underscoring the importance of responsible journalism. As Billy put it in the podcast: “It means that we’re finding our role more important than ever in that people come to us for information, because there’s not a direct flow of information from the agencies or those organizations themselves. So we’ve seen some benefit from it in terms of folks wanting to consume information.”
For the full interview with Frank, Natalie, Billy and Madison, listen to the podcast at the link below or read the transcript.
Timestamps
0:52 – How the panelists cover the constant changes of the new administration
8:52 – New challenges to obtaining access to information for their reporting
20:52 – What has surprised them most over the past several months
33:12 – The impact of DOGE
49:14 – How the panelists unplug and unwind
Transcript
Intro: Welcome to Gov & Beyond. I’m your host, Luca Pagni, here with my co-host, Joyson Cherian. This podcast features conversations with the newsmakers and influencers at the center of today’s public sector news cycles. From our studio at W2 Communications, let’s go Gov & Beyond.
Luca Pagni (LP): Welcome everyone to “Gov & Beyond.” I’m your host, Luca Pagni, here with my co-host Joyson Cherian. Today, we’re excited to host a special edition of our podcast with two publishing houses that are at the forefront of covering today’s government technology trends and issues. Our roundtable discussion today features GovExec’s Editor in Chief Frank Konkel, Nextgov/FCW Staff Reporter Natalie Alams, Scoop News Group’s Executive Editor Billy Mitchell, and FedScoop’s Tech Reporter Madison Alder. Thanks for joining us.
Billy Mitchell (BM): Thanks, Luca. Looking forward to it.
LP: Awesome. The first few months of the second Trump administration have definitely been a whirlwind, with a number of announcements that are significantly changing the way the federal government operates. Staying on top of these changes has been difficult, and no one knows that better than the journalist covering the news. Today, we’ll dive in and learn how GovExec and Scoop News are staying on top of the challenges, and learning how the government community can be a resource for them. So with that all said, we know the news cycle has been fast-paced the last few months, and some would even call it chaotic. Could you all tell us a little bit about your respective roles and how they’ve evolved with the new administration, and how are you keeping up with all the changes in news? Frank, let’s start with you.
Frank Konkel (FK): Sure, thanks, Luca, So I’m the editor in chief at GovExec, so I oversee all of our editorial coverage and our publications. We cover everything from the intersection of business and government technology to the federal workforce, the future of national security, and government contractors. I think my role hasn’t really changed too much. It’s mostly just been longer hours and busier weekends. Because, to your point, there has been a bit of a chaos factor with this new administration. Administration changes are always busy news events, but I think the Trump 2.0 has just been a lot more velocity of change and volume of change. So, you know, I’ve just had a lot longer engagement with reporters, and the last three, four months have been a lot busier than normal. I’m looking forward to some vacation time later in the summer. I would just say that.
LP: Definitely. Billy?
BM: Yeah, I play a similar role to Frank for the Scoop News Group publications. Frank and I go way back and have kind of seen this space for a really long time. So I’m looking forward to his thoughts on this, but also, you know, Madison and Natalie’s too, because I think the reporters are the ones who are most ingrained in what’s happening, and kind of having to pivot and flex those muscles. The chaos, you know, has been interesting. As Frank said, every transition has its own flavor. This one has been distinctly different. I think the biggest thing that I’ve noticed, and I’ll let Maddie speak to the on the ground stuff, because she’s the one that’s talking to sources more often. But, you know, looking at the history of this space and what today is versus the Biden administration, Trump, 1.0, Obama administration, etc., it’s really opened the aperture to how important technology is to the federal government. I think we’ve all sort of always understood in our own space why the business of technology is really important in the federal sense. But I think you’re seeing eyeballs open for the first time for many, because they’re seeing the Trump administration, the Department of Government Efficiency [DOGE] go into agencies and touch these systems and kind of do things that people are raising eyebrows to. And so the general public is kind of having questions about that. And so are larger publications. So it’s been exciting to sort of see that the mainstream type of publications like The New York Times, Wired, The Washington Post and others have sort of dipped their toe in this space. And we’ve kind of had an opportunity to go toe to toe with them and compete. It’s not just Nextgov versus FedScoop like it typically is. It’s now a lot of bigger fish in our pond, and I think we’re both in our own rights keeping up with them and doing some great work and getting recognition from them. So I think the biggest takeaway for us is that, you know, we’ve been in this space for 15, 16+ years doing some really exciting work, and I think we’re really starting to get the recognition and sort of credibility we deserve for that. And it makes it worth it, because I think at the end of the day, we want the American public, not just the B2B federal IT space, to understand why this stuff is important.
Natalie Alms (NA): This is Natalie over at Nextgov. I can go ahead and jump in. First of all, thanks for having me. This is a treat to get to chat with all of you guys about all this stuff. So you had asked about how our role had changed. I don’t know if my role over here as a staff reporter has changed in as much. I’ll agree with Frank and Billy my hours might be a little longer. And it’s been exciting to, as Billy said, be competing with all these other organizations and publications. One thing that’s been interesting to me has been that my beat for years has been on how the government uses technology and sets policies to do so. I’ve always focused a little bit more on services and benefits like unemployment or SNAP and how tech plays into that. With this new administration, I immediately took on a DOGE focus when Trump set up that group at what was formerly the U.S. Digital Service, with a focus on tech. Since then, DOGE hasn’t been solely focused on tech, so my coverage has sort of followed DOGE in that sense. So I’ve been writing not only about tech, but also about the dismantling of various teams in the government. So although staffing changes, of course, affect technology too, that’s been interesting to be pulled in that direction, which I haven’t always covered as much. But I’m curious to hear from Madison how her beat has changed.
Madison Alder (MA): Yeah, this is Madison. I’ll jump in. I would ditto that in terms of staffing changes. That was definitely something that was on my mind in terms of how my beat has changed at FedScoop. We’ve done a lot more workforce coverage, even though in general, typically, government use of technology is our focus. We’ve expanded a lot to general workforce coverage because, you know, technologists, IT specialists are not an insignificant portion of the federal government. So any changes that are in that area will impact those workers down the line. So that’s been something that I’ve taken on as kind of the person that watches OPM [Office of Personnel Management] for us. But I don’t do it alone. So we have a team. My editor, Matt Bracken, and my co reporter, Rebecca Heilweil, have been kind of dividing up the government agencies and, you know, trying to dive in on these tech issues like we always have. But I think for all of us, it’s been, you know, a little bit of a change in terms of, I think we’ve ended up deepening our sourcing in a lot of areas, in terms of, you know, using sources that might not want to speak on the record, and figuring out ways to do that more than we have in the past. For my part, there’s been a lot more interest in covering court cases, because there’s just more court cases that have to do with the subjects in our area, which has been kind of fun because I’m dusting off some old skills. I used to cover the federal judiciary, so it’s been fun to kind of cover those as they move along. And then, you know, I think generally, also just using hearings and other events is kind of, this has always been part of it, but using hearings and other events is more of a jumping off point for stories to really dive deeper and put context to some of the things that are being said. I think I’ve noticed recently, I’m doing this a little bit more now than I have in the past, just because, you know, at a congressional hearing, something might be very partial, and it makes a lot more sense to dive into it and really provide context to readers and in a way that maybe might not have been as necessary prior. But generally I agree it hasn’t changed a ton besides hours. But there are a few ways that we’re definitely trying to think about this a little bit differently.
Joyson Cherian (JC): Perfect. I’d love to pull on that thread a little bit more. And Billy, you hinted at this as well. Has media access changed for you guys at all, and are there any differences in how you now engage with government organizations and agencies as well as the government contractor community? Billy, we’ll start with you.
BM: Yeah. I think it’s probably no surprise to folks listening, just because of the state of government right now and the shifting nature of people’s jobs and mass reductions of the workforce, that there’s risk involved in talking to the media. Now, not that there hasn’t been previously, but I think the stakes are higher than they ever have been. That said, and I’m sure our counterparts can speak to this, for the most part, as a well known commodity in the federal technology space, we previously really didn’t have a ton of trouble getting access to government officials, agencies, folks on the inside. Because generally, what we’re talking about is technology, progress, change in a positive light. There are stories where there’s some sort of issue where it may shine a negative light on somebody or their work in government, but generally, there’s going to be somebody at that agency who responds to it, a press shop, somebody on the comm side, a spokesperson, etc. Now what we’re seeing is this freezing over, as I sort of describe it, because, again, going back to the point that people and their livelihoods really have been on the chopping block, at least for the early days of this administration, in a way that folks just are terrified to interact with the media for fear of reprisal, retribution, however you want to describe it. The other thing I’ll say is, on that agency spokesperson/comms team point, we’re really not getting a lot of cooperation on that avenue either. Traditionally, we had good relationships in every agency with their press people, and often had folks coming to us. Now, that door has pretty much been shut, I won’t say everywhere, but it’s very difficult, even if you’re writing about a story and asking for comment, to get a response. On the industry side, I think the calculus is a little different. And I think that, I’ll just touch on it briefly, in that the industry really is trying to figure out its cheese has been moved, so to speak, in terms of how it’s doing business with the government. And it’s really trying to figure out how to be in alignment with the administration. And so it took a second for it to catch up. But now that it understands what this administration is about, you’re seeing a lot of those key players sort of change their tune and really drive towards those administration goals. But the thing I’m going to be most interested to see as industry does that is, you know, there is efficiency, there’s going to be cuts, there’s going to be less spending, so there’s going to be some losers in that. So I think there’s ultimately this race within industry, and some people are really trying to position themselves as leaders in terms of efficiency. So we have been seeing an uptick more recently, with folks who are trying to push their AI products or other modernization transformation tools to align with those administration goals. So industry is a bit of a different story. It is definitely still thriving, but they’re kind of changing their tune.
JC: Madison?
MA: Yeah, I think I, of course, agree with everything Billy had to say on this, but just to kind of jump in a little bit deeper on the comms issues that we’re having, you know, it’s never been super easy. You know, there’s always been some issues with press shops and, you know, maybe not getting back to us quickly or wanting to play ball on something. But I do think it has gotten more challenging in some areas. And I think some of this could be the byproduct of, you know, with those probationary firings we saw at the beginning of the administration, a lot of comm shops were hit in various agencies. So it could just be a result of people being short staffed. We totally recognize that. But you know, sometimes it does make things even harder when you’re looking for clarification on something that a [cabinet] secretary told people at a hearing, and you really can’t get that. So, you know, it does make those things challenging here and there. But yeah, on the contractor side, I think I would just say that it’s always great to talk to the contractor community in person. And I think a lot of these conversations more recently have been happening in person. And I think, from my perspective, I’ve also noticed that there’s more of an opportunity here. They’re looking to us for answers on some things, because things are changing, I think, more than I’ve seen in the past, trying to see if we know what’s going on. So I think there’s definitely more opportunity there to have those kinds of conversations, and, you know, for the contractor community and people from our publications to have discussions about what they’re seeing and what we’re seeing. So would definitely welcome that.
JC: Frank?
FK: Well, I agree a lot with what Billy said, too. But I will just say that we’re kind of in the Signal era of reporting, of just communications now. Because after the election and in the early stages of the Trump administration’s second tenure, there was a lot of hesitation from current federal employees, current contractors, to get out in front of the skis, so to speak, and use their own messaging. And you know, there’s been a lot of ramifications and fallout from that, as the probationary firings occurred and as the RIFs went into – reductions in force for the audience – as those went into full effect. You know, we had well over, you know, close to 200,000 federal employees pushed off their jobs. There were a lot of folks that were speaking to reporters like Natalie and Madison, but they were doing so [on] secure comms because they were worried and they were extra cautious. And now all of our reporters, in the last seven months or so, we’ve all switched to most of our sensitive comms just happen on Signal. And most of them happen with sources that way too. And we encourage sources who do reach out with documents or changes or policy whatever to engage us smartly that way. And I think there’s been a bit of a pullback from this administration in terms of event attendance, especially in the defense side. You’ll see a lot of the big trade shows have just had fewer and fewer uniformed personnel from the defense side there. HHS was among the first agencies in the early stages on the civilian side to really pull back from speaking engagements. Some of those have come back around and there are folks getting out their messaging now that they have it from this administration. But it’s been a little bit more of a struggle on that side of things too, a lot more effort required on our end to get answers. Some press offices don’t even have press officers anymore. They mostly are political or other staff that are responding to press inquiries, and I think in some cases, we’ve even seen some switch entirely to X in their communications. So that makes it a little tough to get verifiable information. But I do think with a lot of these changes, it’s been beneficial for reporter-source relationships. I’ve just encouraged a lot of our staff to meet as many of these people as you can. Go to events, engage. And that goes for the new administration officials too. I think Billy would recall back in the first Trump administration, it was more of a face to face relationships were important kind of thing. And that is doubly true. Now the people who are making decisions are not the kind of people that you’re going to engage with virtually, you know, you’re not going to email them and get a lot of responses. You need to know they need to know who you are. And you know there has to be that back and forth engagement. And finally, on the contracting side, it’s very, very similar. I mean, there have been consultancies that have been called out specifically by administration. DOGE just had an outsized impact on certain companies, and there’s a sea change of new companies coming into this market who didn’t always have a willing partner in government, and now they’re seeing those opportunities. And the one thing I will tell the contracting folks is, and some of these companies know who they are because they’ve pulled back their messaging, but you do that at your own risk because there are plenty of other companies if you don’t want to engage the press, and if you don’t want to tell your story, who will tell their own story. And they’ll more than halfway take that business.
JC: Natalie?
NA: I think I agree with everything everyone else has said. As others have said, one big takeaway for me is that press offices in government agencies haven’t been spared from workforce reductions. Like Madison said, that’s certainly been a change I felt in my day to day. As I try and fact check things, I’ll find that press officers I’ve known for years are suddenly no longer at their jobs. So all that goes to say that that’s made sources who are inside of agencies, not in press offices, sort of doing the work that I’m reporting on, even more important to me, as always getting good stories out in a fair and factual way and with context is my top priority. So I give people that pitch when I meet them, to try and persuade them to speak with me. I’m working on omniscience, but I haven’t gotten there yet. So the only way I know things is if people tell me, and that’s been relatively successful. I agree with Billy, I think it was, who said that people at the same time are quite nervous. But with the volume and deluge of changes and the really big impact we’re seeing, it’s helped me get the facts out there, even when they’re putting themselves at risk. So many of my biggest stories over the last six months or so have come from leaks. And yeah, find me online, people!
BM: And if I could jump in, I think Natalie kind of touched on something that I was hoping to but didn’t get to when I started, is that while there has been this sort of freezing out of a lot of people, it has emboldened others. And we’ve seen a lot of folks come out that maybe haven’t been sources in the past. And because this moment sort of speaks to them, you know, what we do may not be important to a lot, but some people do see the utility of an independent press and sort of journalism as a lever to bring truth and accountability to power and things of that nature. So we have seen a lot of folks come to us. And what I will say, as Natalie said, there’s been leaks, there’s been people who have taken risks. And I think the most important thing, you know, the message we’ll send to this audience and whoever’s listening is, you know, we take it very seriously and with the utmost responsibility in terms of taking care of those sources. You know, our first goal in what we’re doing at all times is to do no harm, particularly the people who are, you know, helping bring again truth to power. So there has been this sort of resilient and uprising of people who, again, maybe aren’t your traditional sources that we’ve seen in the past, and it has happened again, like Frank has said on Signal. But those people have been crucial, and I think, again, it’s been really important. And I think all of us have had to sort of strengthen and flex a new muscle in terms of how to navigate and work with those people to make sure that as they’re taking those risks, that we’re doing so in a very delicate manner that won’t harm them in any way.
LP: Definitely some great insights. You know, at the time of recording, we’re several months into this second Trump administration. What news and stories or topics were most surprising to you thus far and, going forward, what topics are you all keeping a close eye on? Natalie, let’s start with you.
NA: Yeah. One thing that I’m keeping a close eye on is how people who are or have worked in DOGE describe their work, especially as we reach this new era it seems like in DOGE, where the organization is evolving. So late last month, an engineer and tech startup founder who’s the CEO of Gumroad, an e-commerce platform for content creators, by the name of Sahil Lavingia got the boot basically from DOGE a day after he did an interview with Fast Company that came out where he said that he had found fewer inefficiencies in government. The blog about his work at DOGE in the Department of Veterans Affairs, writing about how he helped extract data to lay off employees and otherwise implement AI, and that was really interesting to me. He wrote that he wanted to work for DOGE to make an impact, that he had previously canvassed for Bernie Sanders in 2016. And Fast Company wrote that he also had previously actually applied to work for the U.S. Digital Service [USDS], which is now DOGE, but had found the hiring process arduous – as those on this call would probably know, is a common complaint about government hiring. So that sort of storyline is really interesting to me. And I’m interested, as DOGE evolves, to see if we’ll hear more takeaways from people involved in involved in DOGE, even though this person seemed to get the boot immediately after, I’m certainly curious in hearing more from these people in what their takeaways are and the work that they did and have been doing and continue to do. So that’s one storyline I’m really curious about. I’ve found a lot of success in talking to longtime government employees, but I’ve found not as many willing to speak to me who are in DOGE itself. So that’s something I’m interested in continuing to follow.
LP: Madison?
MA: Yeah, thank you. I think to your question about what’s been most surprising, I really didn’t think I’d be writing the word DOGE quite as much as I am these days. But beyond that, I think that some of the work that they’ve been doing, you know, the fact that a lot of this has been pretty heavily litigated has been really interesting and somewhat surprising. The issues that are important in our space, like system access, are now things that are or, you know, people are seeking preliminary injunctions over and it’s going up to the Supreme Court, and we’re seeing these cases work through the court. So that’s been something that I’ve been keeping an eye on. I mean, just this month, we’ve seen the Supreme Court rule on access to Social Security Administration [SSA] data. We’ve seen a preliminary injunction against access to OPM records. So it’s definitely a hot topic that has been an interesting venue for a lot of these issues. That’s also where we’re seeing declarations from people in this space. You know, we’re not getting very much press access, but it’s one of those areas where people are going, in a sense, on the record and providing information about how they’re doing their jobs, including CIOs. And that’s another area that’s been really interesting is just kind of the new and evolving role of the CIO in agencies. We’ve obviously seen a lot of CIOs coming in who are politically appointed, kind of under the new OPM guidance to increase the volume of these political appointees. And we’ve seen a lot of them have these ties to DOGE or maybe some of Musk’s companies. And it’s a different brand of CIO than we’ve seen before, and that’s been surprising, interesting. Also the turnover in CIOs, like at DOE, has been something that I don’t necessarily know if I expected that. So I think it’s just like the general kind of politicization of the space and how turbulent it’s been. It’s just not something that – I mean, I think I’m the youngest in terms of, you know, coverage in this area, on this call – I’ve been doing this beat for two years, but just in my short amount of time here, it’s been quite a difference in terms of that with this administration.
BM: But I think when you have two years during DOGE, that’s like dog years. So technically, I think you have like 14, so you’re catching up fast. And I echo, Maddie, what you’re saying, because I think that there’s so many storylines we could touch on. But from a broad perspective, I’m just still shocked every day by the degree with which things have swung so drastically. You know, when I talk to folks about how things have shifted, and I like to think in metaphors, so I think of it like a pendulum. And you know, if we were on the left side back during the Biden administration, not talking about politics on the left side, but just the pendulum being to the left, it’s really swung so dramatically to the right. And it’s crazy how, you know, people talk about it being like taking a hatchet versus being precise like a surgeon. But really it is in the way with which, you know, this administration has come in and purposefully, seemingly purposefully, I don’t know their intentions, tried to cut things to the point of breaking them and cutting programs I grew up with, you know, in this space with 18F being a mainstay. And it was shocking to me to see 18F just overnight disappear, because this administration – it wasn’t necessarily overnight, you kind of saw the writing on the wall but the story and how it broke overnight literally – it was just shocking to see things like that happen. So I think that’s the trend, is that I think we’re all still a little numb in going on from there. To answer the second part of your question, I think what we all specialize in, and where we’ll be able to flex our muscles in a way different than maybe some of those bigger competitors that have swooped into this space is that we really do know this space. And we know how to look back and compare and contrast how things have changed. And I think that’s what we’re all going to do at this point, assuming that, you know, it’s slowing down, that this storm has come through, and we’re all kind of taking stock on what’s going on. So there’s the stories, like Madison said and so astutely, like, what is the role of the federal CIO, or an agency CIO? And you know, as Frank mentioned earlier on the side of contracting, who are some of those new, emerging players in the top tech contracting space? Like Palantir is about to be the biggest name in federal IT because of its ties to many in this administration and the the work that it’s doing on the data side. And then the big question mark is, to me, there’s been so many cuts in workforce, programs, contracts, the industry side has been told that the government is going to spend less with you. We’re trying to slim things down. So what’s going to fill that gap? Because if it’s not filled, how does the mission of government get done in the way that it was before? And my answer, my kind of hypothesis, would go one of two ways. And it’s either it’s not going to get done, and that’s the point. Or secondarily, there’s got to be some sort of transformation that kind of bridges that gap. And some could make the argument that AI could play a role in that, and that still remains to be seen. But there’s got to be, I mean, it’s gone to where things have been pushed past the point of bending and to the point of breaking, where something’s going to have to be done to make government operate the way it once did. So that’s the big question mark for me. You know, what’s that gap, or will the gap be filled?
FK: You know, I’ll jump in and say there’s a couple of things that I’m going to be following the next six to 12 months. To Billy’s point about a lot of these cuts that we’ve seen, I think every administration has the right to make changes however they see fit. The question for me is whether what Trump and DOGE have done with the reduction of the federal workforce and the rise of DOGE will that positively impact government service delivery? Because if it doesn’t, then there will be a lot of blowback from voters, from supporters, from everyday people who are drastically impacted and benefit from government services. I mean, we’ve already talked about Social Security Agency. That’s just one. VA is another. These are agencies that affect tens of millions of people every day. I mean, early in this administration, there was discussion around FAA in the transportation department after the DCA crash, because there were FAA employees who were on the chopping block. I mean, is that the optics that you want if you’re an administration? Do those changes actually help people? And then some of the changes they’ve made have been reversed. I was, I recall this vividly, I was at a wedding in Tulum sometime, I think, the second week of February, and all these nuclear scientists were fired and then rehired in the span of, like, 48 hours. And that was one of those things where I was texting with reporters, like, “What, wait, what?” You know, do these changes have big impacts down the line in a positive or negative way? Because if it’s positive and services still happen, there will probably be a lot of goodwill toward this administration. If they’re negative, like most people might suspect, with the reduction of so many people, then there’ll be a lot of blowback. The other two things I would say is the rise of GSA. I tell a lot of my non-specialized government friends that GSA is the most important agency you’ve never heard of. It’s becoming more important than it ever was. It’s the centralized hub for government contracting. They’ve already renegotiated large scale contracts with companies like Google and Adobe and Salesforce, with many, many more coming to the table to renegotiate contracts that could save taxpayer money, could benefit the federal workforce. But GSA wants to be the center of all of that. And so that is something else I’ll be watching too, because it dramatically impacts, you know, $1 trillion worth of goods and services that government contractors provide the federal government writ large, And then probably just post-Musk era of DOGE. I think Madison said it. She didn’t think she’d be writing so much about DOGE. I actually didn’t think we would be either. I don’t remember thinking DOGE was going to be the big thing that it became. But now what does that look like, codified into this administration’s priorities? Every agency has a DOGE person now or more, you know, they have representation. DOGE consulted on a lot of the biggest announcements. So how does that impact the future of government service delivery going forward? Those are kind of some of the things I’m watching. And then just stepping back with all the strife going on in the world and defense side, how does this administration deal with everything from China becoming a more aggressive, stronger presence in the world, to the strife in the Middle East? I mean, that is a thing that I don’t think any of us can get away from either.
LP: Definitely appreciate those insights. And you know, I know we’ve said the word DOGE probably 100 times on this call thus far, and we’re probably going to say it another 100. But do want to see how has the creation of DOGE [impacted] your work and the way you’ve operated so far, and what impact do you see the organization having moving forward in terms of what you cover. Madison, let’s start with you.
MA: Yeah. I mean, I think I echo everything that’s been stated about DOGE here, and just saying it’s been big in that it’s impacted the overall makeup of the federal workforce. It’s impacted who’s in these CIO positions, seemingly. It’s definitely thrown a lot of our issues into the courts and into the public eye. But I think in terms of what comes next, a lot remains to be seen with what DOGE is actually doing. We’ve seen a lot of workforce side stuff, as has been mentioned, but we haven’t seen a lot of these efficiencies that DOGE has promised. And I think that that’s going to be a really interesting thing to keep watching for, is how they’re actually delivering on that. How do you measure efficiency, what they’re going to be touting? I mean, we’ve already seen this administration tout, for example, the OPM fully digital retirement process. That’s something that predated this administration. My editor, Matt, had a really good story on this recently, actually. But some of these wins are things that might have already been a ball that was rolling. And in terms of wins that DOGE can actually say are their own, I don’t know if we’ve really seen a lot there. So that’s going to be interesting from just a monitoring, tracking perspective of what their priorities are going to be, what they’re going to tout as their as their big efficiencies. Another thing that I’ve been noticing with hearings before Congress, and this is again something that I think also was happening during the last administration a little bit, and maybe also in the private sector as well, is that AI is going to fix everything, apparently. So AI has kind of become the answer to all of these big problems. And I think that there’s a question here of how useful AI is if you don’t have good data. I mean, we hear this all the time. I am a broken record on this, so are my sources. But I don’t know if any government agency writ large would say our data is so perfect for AI right now we don’t need to do anything, like anyone that you talk to in government is going to tell you that. They don’t have the data readiness yet to be able to meet those AI uses that could be transformational. That said, a lot of people that have that historical knowledge of data in these agencies may be gone because they left – early retirement, they were part of the probationary firings. So I think a really interesting nexus coming up here is, how do you meet the AI moment? How do you actually utilize this technology in a way that can be effective and be efficient when you might not have the tools to help you as an agency be data-ready to do that? That’s something I’m definitely keeping an eye on. And if anyone listening has information on that, I would definitely plug talking to me about it. But it’s something that I think we’re going to see a lot more of.
LP: Frank?
FK: Well, DOGE are responsible for a lot of our long nights and weekends because of the cuts. I think one of the ones we referenced earlier was 18F getting chopped. I think that was like a midnight on Friday night kind of thing. Because I remember working with Natalie in the morning on, like, a Saturday. I think it was a Saturday, right Natalie? Like it was one of those things where we heard about it from someone who was axed there. And that’s just the kind of changes that they’ve made. But DOGE’s biggest thing around efficiency and effectiveness of technology, I think it has given industry different targets to shoot for, changed how they communicate with government, how they message around what they do. I think these DOGE folks, the ones that matter, have been really sharp, smart people, and they ask very direct questions. And I think you can see that also from the memos they put out when they engage industry. They don’t like to be bullshitted with; they like straight facts. I do want to mention something else that Madison mentioned around AI in this era that we’re in. I thought AI was big last year with generative AI, and every conference had that message. But now it’s like agentic AI, and I feel like there’s been some tipping point that’s occurred where we really are in a new era of technology. OpenAI just received its first multi-million dollar Pentagon contract. You’ve seen the rise of firms like Anthropic and their Claude models coming in. Government is distinctly in this era, and I think, just like in industry, the agencies that that figure out how to buy, how to test, how to use AI to augment their existing workforce, perhaps to replace folks they’ve lost, to do work autonomously, will be the ones who succeed, just like it’ll be in industry for those companies that do that will be the ones that that move forward. I go to a lot of conferences, and every single one of them talks about this stuff. So I think going back to the last question, that’s one of the things I’ll be watching too, because I really do think the government, especially this administration, is making a big concerted push around AI. What that will look like exactly, I don’t know, but I do think that’s one to watch as well.
LP: Definitely agree. Natalie?
NA: Yeah, this is a good question about DOGE and its impact. Madison talked about watching and measuring whether or not DOGE has met its goals around efficiencies moving forward. And I think that’s really smart and one thing I’m also going to be focused on. In addition to that, I think the sort of counterpart is the impact it’s had, even beyond that on – I think Frank was talking about this – on how the government does or doesn’t deliver benefits and services to the people who need and have earned them. So that’s one thing I’m looking for, moving forward. I guess the word for that would be “unintended consequences,” although maybe they are intended. I can’t read minds. Let me know if anyone knows. But I think a good example of this is a story I got last month on some internal documents at SSA showing the anti-fraud checks that they had put in place on claims made over the phone weren’t really finding much fraud, even after high profile people, up to and including Vice President JD Vance had talked about these high levels of fraud over the phone. So finding big stories that aren’t being publicized isn’t unique to DOGE, but I do think the speed at which this administration and DOGE are making changes has made it a really rich and challenging target to report on. And that story was from a leak. So that’s something I’m looking for continuing to do moving forward. And of course, all this matters because it affects, as I said, how people can and do interact with government. That anti-fraud tool I mentioned was slowing down service at SSA and retirement claims processing. So that’s one big thing I’m focused on moving forward is just sort of the unintended or intended consequences of DOGE and all these staffing cuts moving forward. I’m also just sort of big-picture curious about how covering DOGE changes, especially as Elon Musk becomes less involved. I think he’s been a pretty vocal spokesperson, even just on X, you know, putting things out. He had said that 18F was deleted before it even was, so we had sort of a tip there from the man himself online. So I’m curious how the actual day to day reporting of it changes as DOGE evolves without this sort of spokesperson. I’m eager and excited to keep at it and curious to see if it makes my job more difficult, candidly. But I’m curious to see what Billy has to say.
BM: Well, everyone put it so well, I don’t have a lot to add. But I think, echoing what some of you have said is none of us…I think there were some of us who sort of pontificated on what we understood coming into this administration, what it might look like. We had early signs around the election time that Elon Musk would play a crucial role. And then the DOGE idea started to develop. And, you know, I think we probably placed some hedged bets that there would be some disruption. But I think the average person wouldn’t have predicted what has happened would be what it was. So I think it’s that element of predictability that DOGE introduced into this news cycle in this space, we just don’t know what the next day is going to bring with this entity in government, because there’s drastic and sort of frequent and not always straightforward actions taken. And I think it’s really, in a somewhat positive way, opening a door to some of that Silicon Valley mentality that everybody has. I know nobody in this crew is going to say that there’s anybody that doesn’t want government to be more efficient. I think everybody can get on board that train, and people on both sides of the aisle have championed that. And there’s been organizations, again, like USDS, 18 F and other administrations that have pushed for the same thing. But this in particular is a different form of that, and I think that comes from a Silicon Valley mentality. Another thing that comes with that predictability and sort of chaos is, as Luca put it at the top of the conversation, is, for us, and I alluded to this earlier, it means that we’re finding our role more important than ever in that people come to us for information, because there’s not a direct flow of information from the agencies or those organizations themselves. So we’ve seen some benefit from it, in terms of folks wanting to consume information. And it’s been challenging. Our hours have been longer. Again, we’re not walking to the typical beat of the federal IT beat drum, but it has come with a bigger role for us. And I’ve been excited to see how my team has responded and, frequently, how this entire federal IT news ecosystem has. And then the last things I’ll mention in terms of what we’re watching, I think we’ve all sort of hinted at it. But just like, what does the institutionalization of the DOGE mean? The way it was set up was incredibly wonky. We know there was going to be a DOGE , but they set it up inside of USDS, and there was this temporary organization that’s supposed to expire next Fourth of July, like in 2026 because that’s going to be the 250th anniversary of the USA. And does it go beyond that, or will it be this other form? What does it really mean? And does it sort of just fade into the federal government, become part of its identity? I think that’s going to be interesting. And it kind of ties back to Elon Musk retreating, and whether his influence and not being there as the figurehead, officially or unofficially, makes a difference. And then I think the even more important thing that we’re going to all have to keep an eye on in the future is there’s just so many, like Frank said, 200,000 people who left the government, were dismissed from the government prematurely. Or prematurely is maybe too loaded of a word. But in some sense, we’re a much smaller federal government. And that’s something that the federal government has struggled with is retaining people in the workforce. And now there’s 200,000 less people, especially in the federal technology arena, where we need really talented technologists to come in and do these missions and help do this work. There was already a major struggle. So what’s the long term tale of that? Are people going to want to come work for the federal government if the next time there’s an administration that feels a little bit DOGE-y, that they could lose their job after working there six months? I don’t know that I would want to. That’s a big…you know, my wife was working in the federal government and had to find other work. And she’s one of the lucky ones that did find work. There’s a lot of people who didn’t. And that, first-handedly, I can speak to, that kind of disrupts your household and things like that. So I think you think twice about that and the impact that has on the federal government’s ability to do its mission, especially in the technology space. That’s going to have really lasting impact.
FK: I just want to follow up to what Billy said too on just the overall impact of DOGE and this administration on our work. I would also just say, stepping back from the journalist perspective, I don’t think I’ve ever been more proud of the reporters, not just on our teams, but just across the space. I mean, it’s been incredibly rewarding to see a lot of our stories, our reporters’ stories, even our direct competitors’ stories like at Scoop, get picked up by The Times and CNN. And everybody uses those and cites them because our reporting is pretty trusted, right? And we do know this space better than anybody else, and so to toot our horn a little bit, I really have been proud and found it rewarding to work with our reporters. And it’s been really, really awesome to see certain reporters shine too and really pivot a little bit. I mean, none of us knew DOGE would be as big a deal as it is, but reporters like Natalie stepped up to the plate, and I think Madison on your team, and just said, “Hey, we’ll cover this.” And have done a phenomenal job figuring out new parts to the beat, getting new sources and cultivating them, and treating this administration apolitically, fairly – dealing with them, as we would deal with any other administration making the same changes, with our political beliefs aside from that. So it’s been busier, but I’m never going to complain publicly about being busy. Because we do take downtime. We offset the busy weekends with days off here and there, and I think Natalie is actually recording this from vacation. So no one can say that we’re not relaxing here and there. But incredibly proud of a lot of the work that folks in our space have done.
JC: Fantastic. And Frank, thank you for giving me a bit of a segue into my final question. We always like to end the podcast with something a little bit more lighthearted, a little bit to get to know you. And obviously many of you talked about the long hours, the late nights the last few months. But you know, when you’re given how busy and how non-stop the news cycle has been, what’s each of your methods for unwinding and unplugging. We’ll start with you. Natalie.
NA: Well, Frank outed me. I am on vacation, recording this from a beach house. That’s certainly one way to unwind. But on the day to day, when I’m not on vacation, my favorite thing to do is go for a long walk in Rock Creek. I think it certainly always gets my mind right. And there’s a few herons that I always see, I like to think that I see the same one. Not sure if it’s true, but that’s what I tell myself.
JC: Madison?
MA: Yeah, I think, I honestly think I’m really glad to be a little bit more mature in my career. You know, covering this administration, I think there’s definitely a younger me that might have burnt myself out, but I think I have more tools in my toolbox now to be able to take care of myself on the off hours. But for me, being active is such an important part of unwinding. So I love swimming in the winter when I can. I love skiing. I love listening to music and going to live shows. And just spending time with family and friends is just, I think everyone would say the same, but it’s really important to just kind of step away from it all for a little bit. And you know, you’ll realize what’s important in your life outside of work.
JC: Billy?
BM: I’m gonna out Madison as a workaholic. I have to tell her to get offline sometimes. She’s one of our hardest workers, but I’m glad that she’s finding ways to do stuff to unload. You know, music, like Madison said, I try to go to shows. I’m a dad of two young boys, so that’s my personal joy is going to music. But I spend so much time with the kids that, you know, honestly, this is my second job behind them. And you know, it helps keep things in a good light. You know, when things get crazy and it feels heavy at times. It’s like you got to remember, there’s life out there. So spending time with the boys. My oldest loves to go fishing. And I’m not at all a fisherman, so I’m learning with him, getting outdoors. We live in Northern Virginia, so there’s tons of breweries and wineries, and we go to just hang out with friends and unwind. It’s good, but I think it’s important to…I think this is a good way to end it, because it is important for all of us and everyone who’s listening to remember, you got to take time to do self care and recharge. Because it does get heavy at times.
JC: Right.
FK: Now, Billy, I know you’re working too hard, because I don’t see you enough, my dude. I’ve met Billy in Vegas many times at conferences and downtown. I know he’s working. He’s probably working too hard, too. But for me, man, I just play a lot of sports, try to stay active, and I try to take a lot of fun trips. I don’t have the responsibilities in my personal life that some on this call really have. So I’m able to pick up and go whenever. I got a couple cool trips planned. I’m doing one to Greenland, do a hiking trip up there this year. And I do a lot of mountaineering on the side, and the tallest non Himalayan mountain in Argentina, I’m slated to try to do that in December. So wish me luck. Hopefully it goes smooth. But I love to unplug. When I unplug, I tell myself the same thing: don’t plug back in, stay out, stay away. Like, do stuff that you like to do. Don’t feel like you gotta check in, because work is work. You gotta get away from it sometimes. Otherwise it can be consuming. So really appreciate the time and thanks for having us on here, Joyson. I appreciate it.
LP: Awesome. Well again, thank you to everyone who tuned into this episode. And thank you, Frank, Natalie, Billy and Madison for helping us go “Gov & Beyond.”
Outro: Thank you for joining us on today’s episode of Gov & Beyond. To learn more about our podcast and hear all of our episodes, please visit us at w2comm.com/govandbeyond. And make sure to follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter @govandbeyond. You can also subscribe anywhere podcasts are found.