The constant administrative churning of the defense policy process has yielded several notable new Department of Defense directives and instructions, such as the following.
U.S. policy on handling classified NATO information is addressed in “United States Security Authority for North Atlantic Treaty Organization Affairs” (pdf), DoD Directive 5100.55, February 27, 2006.
Continuity of military operations “under all circumstances across the spectrum of threats” is prescribed in “Defense Continuity Plan Development” (pdf), DoD Instruction 3020.42, February 17, 2006.
An updated Instruction entitled “Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM) Program” (pdf) was issued by Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone on February 22, 2006.
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.