What the Flux is Going on in the Federal Government?
Summary
In this episode, the hosts Jason Briefel and Natalia Castro recap Season One of FEDtalk and discuss key considerations for the federal government moving forward. They explore the concept of the federal government in flux, highlighting the impact of technology and the need for adaptability. They also discuss the evolution of federal power and the importance of capacity issues across the branches of government. The hosts emphasize the need to focus on people and the role of politics and accountability in government. They reflect on the federal community and encourage civil servants themselves to embrace and lead change for a better government.
Takeaways
The federal government is in a state of flux due to rapid changes in technology, society, and the economy.
Adaptability is crucial for the government to effectively respond to these changes.
Capacity issues exist across all three branches of government and need to be addressed.
Focusing on people and civil servants embracing change themselves is essential for improving the government.
Chapters
00:00Introduction and Recap of Season One
03:15The Federal Government in Flux
06:00The Impact of Technology on Government
09:46The Need for Adaptability in Government
11:39The Evolution of Federal Power
19:39The Importance of Focusing on People
23:47The Role of Politics and Accountability in Government
26:39Reflections on the Federal Community
30:19Moving Forward and Embracing Change
39:26Closing Remarks
-
Natalia Castro (00:00.24)
Hello and welcome to Fed Talk. My name is Natalia Castro.
Jason Briefel (00:04.26)
and I'm Jason Breifel.
Natalia Castro (00:05.712)
and we're your hosts from Shaw, Bransford and Roth. This season on FEDtalk, we are exploring the federal government influx, looking at some of the big issues affecting the three branches of government at a dynamic time in our nation's history. This episode will recap season one and discuss some key considerations for our audience to carry forward. It's no guests today, it's just me and Jason. We're gonna be recapping the full season.
And I'm going to be leaving the firm at the end of next month. And so we're going to be talking about some of the big lessons that we've learned over the last couple of years and what it means to the federal community.
Jason Briefel (00:48.95)
Yeah, I'm very sad that you're going, but this has been a fun experience. You know, we've always collaborated behind the scenes on Fed Talk, but being able to be out here out front and bringing together, you know, not just looking at the executive branch as a standalone, although very big and very important part of our government, but really in the big picture, what is going on here? And I think the government, like our world,
Natalia Castro (01:14.35)
you
Jason Briefel (01:17.316)
changing really fast, Natalia, and it's just the way things is, it's just the way things are going, and you know, in my mind it's kind of odd that we would even expect like our institutions of government or the institutions of the state to stay static and to be effective.
Natalia Castro (01:36.784)
Absolutely. I mean, the big purpose for the Civil Service Reform Act back in the late 1970s was an acknowledgement of the rapid change that was going on in the executive branch. And it wasn't just the Civil Service Reform Act going back to the Administrative Procedure Act now over 75 years ago.
That was an acknowledgement of a huge change in the size and the procedures of our federal government and the requirement for something called administrative procedure. And then again, the Civil Service Reform Act. And, you know, here we are today where we have these systems for our executive branch that are going on 50 years old, 75 years old, and we're at another kind of pivotal moment.
where our government is changing, our society is changing, and we really do need an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judiciary that is able to adapt to that. And it was with that kind of frame of thinking that we decided to explore the federal government influx this season. And we talked about some of the key ways that our government is changing and what that means. So Jason, just taking it a step back for our audience.
Why is the federal government in flux from your perspective?
Jason Briefel (02:56.26)
I think it's a few different factors, Natalia. You know, we started off with just change. The world is changing. The economy is changing. You know, I think technology, especially, is leading to massive transformations in how business is done, how workers work, and where people's rights and how they enforce those rights are carried out, you know, as you think about social media and children.
who may be abused there or exposed to things there. What agencies have the proper authority to do something about that? Do we need a new agency? You know, you think about 100 years ago with railroads and other industries, you know, they tended to be kind of single industry vertical monopolies. It was easier to think up a government agency to do something about it. But...
because technology and economic integration in big companies is so pervasive. I think it kind of scrambles the boundaries of where and what agencies can do. And because frankly, our Congress has not passed updated laws to deal with a lot of these challenges. We have presidents who are using authorities from 20 or 40 or 80 or 100 more years ago.
to try and confront modern challenges. And it feels like, especially for some people, that that's a big pendulum that just swings with every presidential election because those policy preferences change in terms of how the system is used and the authorities within it are. And against the backdrop of kind of tribalistic partisan politics.
where we don't have a shared governing vision, it's unclear if we even have a shared vision for what our country is, common bonds around it. All those challenges get really messy and they end up in court because the legislative and the executive bodies can't agree on the way to deal with it.
Natalia Castro (05:06.862)
Yeah, that was a huge topic of conversation in our program on agency independence with Adam White, where we talked about how a lot of the big revolutions in the structure and functioning of our government were really heavily influenced by advances in technology. We saw it with the Interstate Commerce Commission going way back, one of the first federal agencies, right with the development of roadways and of new shipping patterns and.
We're really seeing that again with the development of AI, social media, all these other technological revolutions that our country is experiencing that are really forcing us to reconsider the way our government operates. Really similar happened during the pandemic when there was this shift toward remote work and that really, really fundamentally changed the way agencies think about their space.
about their workforce, about connecting the people within their organizations. So, you know, just to echo that point about how these rapid transformations and technology really force our government to evolve in key ways. When I think of the federal government influx, part of what I think of, and this is coming from my background, I've always been involved in the policy sphere, but I am graduating from law school in May. And so,
Over the last four years as an evening student, I've really had the opportunity to think about how the Supreme Court and courts across the country impact the federal government. And from my perspective, there's really been, particularly because of the conservative majority on the court, a rethinking of how federal powers operate. We've seen some really critical seminal cases in the last couple of years dealing with federal powers. And we have Supreme Court justices who have
indicated a strong preference for returning the three branches of government to their original domains. As you just highlighted, because there has been such a breakdown in the functioning of the legislative branch and Congress hasn't really taken key steps, there's been a lot of power shifting to the executive and then a lot of power shifting to the judiciary as well because the legislative branch, which is always supposed to be the most dangerous branch as our founders viewed it,
Natalia Castro (07:22.17)
has taken a back step and the Supreme Court has really been vocal in trying to get these back to their original branches. Whether it's the political questions doctrine, the Supreme Court is refusing to let the, or not the political questions, the major questions doctrine, my bad. Whether it is the Supreme Court saying, executive can't make really big decisions without approval, explicit approval from Congress, or it is,
case that's going on right now related to Chevron deference and whether the judiciary defers to the executive branch on major questions. There's a clear interest from the court in getting things back to their original constitutional structure. And since we are arguably very far from what that original structure looked like today, there is, it is going to cause some change. And I think from my perspective, that's where I really see this federal government influx.
Jason Briefel (08:19.556)
Yeah. And it's almost comical to think about going back to like the original structure. Like I, on one hand, in terms of the powers, what each branch does less so, but the country was very different fundamentally when the federal government was founded and there were 13 colonies and all that stuff, you know, the biggest economy in the world. Um,
There's a lot of important things that Congress has decided it wants the United States government to do. And it tends to just add new things as opposed to taking away old things. That's part of, I think, the challenge that the executive branches in today, especially, you know, when you look at the other side of concerns about the national debt, you know, but like the national debt in context is that was a deal.
between the states and the federal government. States do balance their budgets every single year so the federal government can float it. That makes sense to me. And like, we're not really going to default on it, but it is totally insane that we spend as much on debt payments as we do to fund the Department of Defense. That does seem like our lawmakers have not made important decisions about priorities in our country. And again, you know, at some point,
we've got to make choices and that will mean change and those changes are definitely going to be litigated. Every program of every federal agency has an interest group and likely nonprofits and universities who are funded by or implement that program through executing grant funding for example. So we're very far away from your
masters and your customs border house men as being key frontline officials representing the United States government.
Natalia Castro (10:22.544)
I think that's true, but I also think that one of the things that...
is how as much as things have changed in terms of like the stature of the United States, the size of the United States, all those things, there is a lot that has actually remained the same. And a lot of the conversations that we're having today, they're the exact same conversations that we had hundreds of years ago at the start of our US history. One of the things that came up in multiple shows, Marbury versus Madison, the seminal Supreme Court case that provided for judicial review, that was a case about firing an official.
at the end.
Natalia Castro (11:03.408)
the same questions we're having right now as we see administrative law judges having their dismissibility questions before the Supreme Court. We're seeing that this term in the Supreme Court case of Jherki ZBSCC, where they're talking about the exact same issue. So I think a lot of these questions about federal power and what each branch of government can do, how the branches of government assert control, these are questions as old as this
history. And the reason they keep coming up is because some of the core pillars of the separation of powers remain the same, but the way that they can be applied in the modern context is dramatically different and has been different at different points in our nation's history.
Jason Briefel (11:52.74)
Yeah. And I guess, I suppose the fact that we can still be fighting about these timeless principles reflects the fact that we've still got a democracy for now. And we should enjoy the freedoms to be able to do that. Right.
Natalia Castro (12:01.904)
Absolutely.
Now, one of the things Jason, this season that we did was we walked through each branch of the federal government. So we started this season talking about some of the issues impacting Congress, moved to the executive branch, the judiciary. And we've really tried to do a multiple to the best of our ability throughout the season. And one of the reasons we did that is because previously on Fed Talk, I think the focus was only on the executive branch.
Jason Briefel (12:23.332)
Mm
Natalia Castro (12:33.616)
branch, and we've kind of had to acknowledge that by focusing only on the executive branch, we really neglected the other two parts of what are really required for our government to function. So what do you think were some of the reasons for walking through this season in that way, and why do you think that is so important?
Jason Briefel (12:44.228)
So I think it's a good question. And I think, you know, no branch stands alone. Again, we talked about these timeless constitutional principles of separation of powers and.
and the balance of powers. I think that over the nation's history, you've had different branches who are...
have a higher level of authority. I think the founders always envisioned that Congress would really be steering the ship of the country in terms of setting those priorities. But I think for me, even just reflecting on my experience as an advocate for federal employees and for the federal government, failing to consider, for example, how decisions in the Supreme Court that affect the administrative estate over the past,
10, 15 years affect federal employee issues, whether that's employment protections, tenure, the president's authority over them, whatever. If we were just sticking to our knitting with Title V and the Code of Federal Regulations, everybody was missing a whole part of the story. And I think that that made us less effective advocates because we had less idea what's going on in the fuller real world.
need to be able to use skills like sense making and you know, futures thinking and you know, strategic planning and if you don't consider how something that happens in the Supreme Court is going to affect you at your federal agency, well then like, how can you possibly be using taxpayer money in the best and most judicious way possible? Waiting to react in a moment of crisis is not good.
Jason Briefel (14:44.644)
And so I think that was a lesson for me as someone who's worked in this space for a long time. But I also think it's part of why we wanted to try and lay these tables, lay these issues on the table for our audience to kind of open up their eyes and their ears to some of the intersecting nature of these issues.
Natalia Castro (15:04.976)
a little bit more aggressive with it. I think the federal government is notorious for working in silos. We hear about it all the time. The two agencies doing the same exact thing, the same way, but duplicating their effort. It's like, oh my God, it's the most frustrating thing. We always hear about the silos.
Jason Briefel (15:12.676)
Mm -hmm.
Natalia Castro (15:26.448)
advocacy space, I immediately noticed that the silos weren't just within federal agencies. It was within the entire executive branch. I mean, how many times do we have Congress calling on the executive branch to implement a program that because there are agencies that have already been doing it, that they already have the test case, they already have the test case.
Jason Briefel (15:43.196)
Okay.
Natalia Castro (15:47.728)
years trying to get.
Natalia Castro (15:53.744)
stationary periods with Congress just being like, oh, we need to study the issue even though DOD has been doing it.
Jason Briefel (16:03.172)
Well, and it's okay because they repealed the requirement before the study actually came out because the Democrats were in power and that's what the unions wanted. Like, Philip Howard told us they would.
Natalia Castro (16:11.866)
Yep, exactly. And that is just one tiny example of how, unfortunately, the federal government and I think, unfortunately, the federal workforce tends to only think about itself and the powers that it has. And there isn't as much of an acknowledgement of what is going on across the branches of government. And one of our goals was to really try to break out of that silo and to get
the executive branch workforce and people who are engaged with the federal community thinking more strategically about how Congress could be better at its job, how the judiciary is impacting the job of federal workers, and really break out of that only thinking of the executive branch box. Just over the course of the last five years of my work here, I've really seen how a lot of these big
policy debates have shifted from the executive branch to Congress, to the judiciary.
Jason Briefel (00:09.031)
So, Natalia, I'm curious what key themes stood out for you or that you think our audience should take away from our exploration this season.
Natalia Castro (00:25.808)
Yeah, I think one of the big ones is that a lot of the capacity issues that we often talk about within the context of the executive branch really do exist across the branches of government. We talked about judicial capacity, about whether or not we have enough judges with enough staff to handle some of these really large questions about the structure of our government. And even outside of these governmental questions about...
resource burdens on U .S. attorney offices that then kind of impact the judiciary, just to be able to handle the current federal criminal caseload. The capacity issues are a huge issue across the branches of government. We see it in Congress too, you know, in our program about making Congress truly the first branch once again. There was a big discussion about what it means to have nonpartisan,
career expertise within Congress that's able to lead long -term investigations, that's able to kind of dig into these key questions about executive branch oversight. We are consistently seeing both Congress and the judiciary and of course the executive branch really struggle to have the people and resources to do the important work that our federal government is called upon to do.
by the American people. And I think that capacity challenge is something that needs to be confronted in order for our government to really meet the needs of the American people.
Jason Briefel (02:02.407)
Yeah. And I think it's, it's really important because we love fighting over policies here in this country. But like, if the policy is not going to be implemented or, or you're going to waste a bunch of money because you didn't think through how you're going to do it, then what was all that fighting for? What was the point of those elections? And so I think obviously it's challenging.
But I do think it's really important to shift this conversation to bring in this implementation question and this capacity question. It's not just great that something sounds good, but taxpayers expect these promises to be delivered upon. And I think it's the job of elected leaders to not just sell a bill of goods, but to deliver on it. And we represent federal employees. I think that they're often unfairly.
stuff. Like I said, we are always adding requirements and we're never taking them away. I think that that inhibits our ability to invest in capacity building, to invest in our staff, to make sure that they have current technology, current training. You know, you read articles about the SEC is regulating Bitcoin, but doesn't have Bitcoin experts on staff. Like, what the heck? How has that happened?
Natalia Castro (03:23.152)
you
Jason Briefel (03:25.543)
Who let that happen? Why? These are important questions. It does feel like it's down in the weeds. But again, if we can't deliver promises to folks, then I think that that continues the trend of downward sliding trust in institutions writ large, especially the institutions of government. And it's incumbent on agencies to think about how to turn that around.
but also I think a challenge for political leaders to shift a little bit of their attention into this capacity and implementation lens.
Natalia Castro (04:02.136)
Yeah, and I think it really highlights that it's one of the things you just said, highlights that it's not about the size of the federal government. It is not about whether the government does a lot of things or it does a little bit of things. There are things that the federal government has to do, whether you believe the government should be big or whether it should be small. Our constitution calls upon the government to lead the US postal system.
Our constitution calls upon the government to set up armies to provide for the national defense. Our constitution doesn't require but calls upon the government to have a hand in regulating interstate commerce and commerce among our native tribes. There is a lot per the constitution that the federal government has to do. And even if you believe that the federal government should do those bare minimum and nothing more,
It needs to have the capacity to do those things. Our Congress needs to be able to do oversight and review the actions of the executive branch, needs people and resources to do that. The executive branch needs to be able to execute the laws Congress intended, need the people and resources to do that. The judiciary needs to be able to review the caseload that deals with these very important federal questions that are under its Article III jurisdiction.
needs the people and resources to do that. And I think one of the key themes from this season as I for the capacity issues is the importance of focusing on the people rather than just the policy. It can't just be, as you said, we want the government to do more. We're calling upon the government to do X, Y, and Z. It needs to actually have the people in the right places to get that done. And from my perspective, when the government
doesn't have the people, when it doesn't have the expertise, when it doesn't have the knowledge, it acts less efficiently, tends to act in ways that harm individual rights more, because it doesn't know how to do things in the least dangerous way. And the result of all of that is more taxpayer waste, more taxpayer burden, worse customer service, and all these other negative outcomes that, as you highlight, lead to distrust in government.
Natalia Castro (06:21.872)
And so for me, a lot of the key themes from this season revolve around the need for our elected officials, our political leaders in the executive branch, and ultimately the president to take a step back and focus a little bit more on the people rather than just the policy. Because you need to be able to get stuff done at the end of the day.
Jason Briefel (06:47.343)
You know, I'll give you an amen on that Natalia because that's like literally my tagline after working in this space for so long You know Personnelist policy cannot only apply to political appointees, you know, the executive branch has over 2 million civilian federal workers You know, if you look nationally, there's you know, I think it's up to 20 million civil servants working at all levels of government These are our neighbors
Natalia Castro (07:00.904)
Mm -hmm.
Jason Briefel (07:16.007)
These are people who live in our communities. They're people who are just trying to do a good job. And oftentimes they're decent people caught up in bad systems. The federal pay system was put in place in 1949. The current system governing federal employee rights was last updated in 1978.
And you know the rules for senior executives presumed you could be fired if you didn't upend your whole household in less than 120 days because they presumed that men were working and their wives were at home taking care of the family, you know, like the world is very different and You know, the two parties have very different visions I think for the government and
You know, I see Democrats that just want a bigger government, but frankly are not focused on effective government. And Republicans who appear to just want to burn the whole place down and don't have a plan for what to replace it with. You know, especially on the fiscal side, when a lot of states have really cut their tax revenues to the bone because they're expecting the federal government to carry that load. That's where that national debt comes in again. But, uh,
Natalia Castro (08:18.928)
you
Natalia Castro (08:29.144)
Mm -hmm.
Jason Briefel (08:30.663)
You know, uh, we have not talked about federalism here. I'm not going to open a whole thing, but it's, it's a big can of worms. Again, there's a lot of interplay between the federal and states that maybe that's another, maybe that'll be season two or three. Um, but, uh, you know, nothing is simple, but as you said, uh, the people are really important and you know, we've, we've tried to shed a light on the fact that dedicated public servants working in all three branches.
Natalia Castro (08:41.888)
Yeah
Jason Briefel (08:58.303)
need attention so that they can fulfill their important constitutional duties in service of the nation.
Natalia Castro (09:07.266)
Amen. So looking into our least favorite topic to talk about. So I'm leaving. It's been five years here and I am graduating law school. I'm heading over to the judiciary to do some work in that branch of government for a couple of years. Really excited. I've obviously worked really closely with the executive branch and Congress for a long time.
Even before coming here to this firm, I was involved in government accountability and transparency work. So it's going to be really exciting to take a look at how our government functions from a very different perspective. The judiciary, which is the branch of government that I honestly think most Americans, they know about our courts. They know that our courts are critical in deciding key questions about rights and things like that. But...
there isn't as much visibility into the judiciary and how it actually functions. So I'm very excited for that. It will be a big change, but something I'm looking forward to. I want to talk just for a second about the federal community and some of the things I've learned. As Jason just talked about, this is a very interconnected community that's really focused on the people behind the policy.
I come from a conservative background where if you had told me 10 years ago that I would be defending the rights and privileges of federal employees, I'm not sure I would have believed you. But as Jason just noted, these federal workers are our neighbors, our friends, they're dedicated public servants. And I think by and large, they want what is best for the American people. And...
I think sometimes it gets lost in the sauce, this idea that federal employees are people and that they need the respect and they deserve the safety. I had no concept for the amount of threats that federal employees, particularly in the federal law enforcement community face every day. And that's why some of the things that I've been most passionate about, some of the work that I have been proudest to do here at the firm,
Natalia Castro (11:30.316)
was very proud when President Trump signed into law the 9 -11 Victims Compensation Fund to ensure that federal individuals and individuals at the state and local level who responded to the 9 -11 attacks were adequately protected from any diseases that they gained from their response on 9 -11. So also extremely proud to stand alongside.
the Biden administration when President Biden signed an executive order on law enforcement accountability. We're really, really proud to do work across our clients on making sure that federal law enforcement are the most professional law enforcement workforce in our nation and that they are have the tools to respect the rights of the American people and the tools to get bad actors out of law enforcement and make sure that.
when they go on state and local task forces, they are holding those state and local officers to the same caliber of professionalism as federal law enforcement. That has just been some of the most rewarding work that I've done. And I'm really, really excited to see a lot of that work continue. I'm happy to say that it was just the start of a lot of that important work over these last five years. And I have no doubt that some of the incredible organizations that I've had the pleasure of working with will continue.
to spread that and to push the mantle forward on making sure that federal employees, especially the federal law enforcement community, have the resources and tools to respect the rights of the American people while also ensuring the safety and security of the American people. Those have just been some of the brightest moments for me in this career.
Jason Briefel (13:16.171)
Glad to hear you reflect on those wins and those successes. You know, I know this work can be really frustrating, especially because it seems like we're talking about the same thing for 40 years for some issues, if it comes to civil service reform. But, you know, I know that I've most appreciated working with you, given our different kind of political and life backgrounds that we come at these issues from. At the end of the day, I think we agreed that.
There is a government here. It should be doing things and it can and should be doing those things better. And so I think whether it was here on Fed Talk, representing our clients, informing the community through Fed Manager and Fed Agent, our newsletters, we always tried to bring that lens of how do we get to better? How do we share information or drive advocacy through the lens of improvement and honesty?
and forthcomingness because I think that we dance all around, you know, some of the sensitive topics in this space a lot. And I'm curious about your perspective, Natalia, on, you know, things that the federal community could think about, should open themselves up more to. You know, I particularly think about this whole schedule F and concerns about a future administration that could.
Natalia Castro (14:22.498)
you
Jason Briefel (14:42.464)
really take the federal workforce to the woodshed. And, you know, I certainly have my own thoughts about that. I also think that career workers haven't demanded much better in the meantime, but I'm curious about your thoughts in this. And if there are other things that you might have learned, you know, kind of coming over from the side that you're at into the federal community.
Natalia Castro (15:07.888)
Yeah, wow, great question. So I think one, if I could just like send this message to the federal community, it would be that politics isn't bad and accountability isn't bad. And right now there is a big conversation about what is the level of oversight that the president and the president's agents should have over the career federal workforce. And I think that...
The context has really been schedule F bad, schedule F good. At -will employment bad, at -will employment good. And I think there is a lot of gray area that the federal community in particular needs to be more open to acknowledging. Schedule F is bad because it is bad policy. Because we don't need more political appointees when we can't even get the current ones in place.
We don't need more political appointees when it's going to cause rapid changes in regulatory oversight for businesses, for the industries that our government regulates. There are plenty of reasons why Schedule F is bad. Does that mean that politics has no place in the career workforce, the executive branch? Absolutely not. The American people deserve a government that is responsive to their needs. And if they elect a president,
then the president should be able to have their policies implemented. That's how democracy works. And I think that there can be an open and honest conversation about a lack of accountability in the federal workforce, about, as we talked about on this program just a couple of episodes ago, the power that collective bargaining units have over the workforce and can sometimes stymie the president's priorities.
I think that these are important conversations that need to be had that aren't always black and white. You know, it doesn't have to be that because collective bargaining units have so much power, they're unconstitutional and no union can ever be a thing. There can be gray area about what a federal employee association can do and what it means to work with the workforce effectively. And I think that...
Natalia Castro (17:21.424)
There is a sense in the federal community that words like accountability or politics are dirty words that shouldn't be said. But I think they play an important role in our government, a necessary role in our government. And I think there needs to be a better acknowledgement of how the federal workforce can be more responsive and can be more accountable and more transparent. And that doesn't have to be a bad thing. And I think...
because the federal government is in flux and is going through a really transformative time, now is the time for us to really explore those shades of gray and to see where we can improve our constitutional system without breaking it. I don't think that the Democrats that want the government to be big for the government's sake or the Republicans who want the government to be small for small government's sake,
I don't think either side is all right or all wrong. And I think that that's something we've explored a lot on this program, a lot throughout our work. And there are a lot of opportunities for compromise. We just need parties to be willing to do that compromise.
Jason Briefel (18:32.583)
Yeah, well, I really appreciate those thoughts, Natalia. And you're right that many folks in this space, you know, individuals and organizations appear to be very dogmatic about this stuff as opposed to pragmatic. And perhaps that reflects the way things are in Washington. But again, some of these issues we've been talking about for decades. And I think when you don't fix a problem for decades, it becomes a bigger and bigger problem. And the...
the ideas for solutions that are put on the table become both more narrow but also more kind of aggressive and extraordinary. And, you know, when those things happen, we're just going to end up in court. And who has three or five years to wait on a court to resolve some of these issues? You know, I think that that is, um,
an unfavorable way to resolve our problems. There are people elected to make these decisions and fight this stuff out. They shouldn't be hiding behind party leadership that doesn't want them to take tough votes.
Natalia Castro (19:43.824)
No, absolutely. And I also think on the stagnation point, it's tough because there is no incentive, desire, impetus, anything in the federal government right now across the three branches of government to enact civil service reform. It's unfortunate. It's true. We're not getting an overhaul of the Civil Service Reform Act anytime soon. But just because the CSRA isn't, you know, we're not having a huge...
comprehensive bill that overdoes the entire federal system doesn't mean that there aren't really important and valuable changes that could be made today either through the executive branch or through Congress that are maybe small. There may be just taken a bite out of the apple, but they can still move the needle forward. You know, things like skills -based hiring, which
Congress has been pushing forward. It's been, you know, that is like a really good way to get the federal government to tap into unseen talent. But the problem and where I think this stagnation really persists is when the federal workforce has a cultural resistance to change and when the bureaucracy doesn't want, you know, it's just doing skills because hiring is hard and HR professionals are not trained.
on how to do it effectively. And so even when there is an impetus by Congress and by the executive branch to create that change, there is still nonetheless, stagnation within the federal government simply because the federal workforce is reluctant to change. And I think if there is another thing that would be a key lesson for the federal community, it's that.
you need to invest in change, you need to embrace change. And the structure of our federal government right now just doesn't really support that. And I think in order for any of these other kind of small reforms that move the needle in the right direction to be effective, there needs to be a kind of cultural moment within federal agencies that is embraced by federal leaders to frontline managers, to frontline employees all the way down.
Natalia Castro (21:57.776)
that really sees change as a good thing and creates a culture that embraces change. I don't know how that happens. I think that's probably the hardest nut to crack as we have found consistently over the last few years, but it is the most important one. It is really, if you're not gonna rehaul the whole system, you need people who are willing to be the change within their organization and agency.
Jason Briefel (22:23.847)
Yeah. And at a time when our federal government is in flux, I think that that's a great way to end our conversation in this season here. You know, the people out there working in the trenches, the public servants out there, don't give up. Be the change. Find some friends, find some colleagues. You're not alone. There are other people who think the same thing as you who want more, who want better. Natalia and I are two of them and we're rooting for you. And we know that many other people are.
you can ignore the naysayers. But that's all the time that we've got here on Fed Talk. Natalia, do you want to take us away one last time?
Natalia Castro (22:55.946)
Absolutely.
Natalia Castro (23:02.21)
Absolutely. Jason, thank you so much, not only for being my incredible co -host, but for being such a great leader and mentor to me over the last five years. I am so proud of all that we have accomplished. And, you know, just because we're going our separate ways on this show and in this Star Brands from Roth, I have no doubt that we will continue working together to improve our federal government, not for its own sake, but for the American people for whom it serves. So with that,
I'm Natalia Castro and thank you so much for listening to Fed Talk. We'll be back with season two and a couple of specials in between over the next couple of weeks. Thanks so much and have a great weekend.
Jason Briefel (23:32.519)
And I'm Jason Breifel.
Jason Briefel (23:46.363)
Thank you
