In response to congressional direction, the Department of Defense is planning to divide its existing defense acquisition office into two separate organizations. The change, which would take effect in February 2018, is predicated on the belief that it would promote technological innovation and increase efficiency.
A new report from the Congressional Research Service provides background on the move. See DOD Plan to Split Acquisition Duties, CRS Insight, August 18, 2017.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Select Acquisition Reform Provisions in the House and Senate Versions of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act, August 21, 2017
Who Regulates Whom? An Overview of the U.S. Financial Regulatory Framework, August 17, 2017
Select Demographic and Other Characteristics of Recent U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominees, CRS Insight, August 17, 2017
The United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues for U.S. Policy, updated August 18, 2017
U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress, updated August 17, 2017
China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress, updated August 18, 2017
Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, updated August 17, 2017
Comparing DHS Component Funding, FY2018: In Brief, August 21, 2017
Violence Against Members of Congress and Their Staff: Selected Examples and Congressional Responses, updated August 17, 2017
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.