All posts by : admin-stone

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apologized to tribal communities this week for delays in shipments and delivery of expired food during a tense congressional hearing that highlighted widespread failures within the Food Distribution Program on Native American reservations.

Vilsack’s comments followed detailed testimony from leaders of the Chickasaw Nation, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and Spirit Lake Sioux Nation about the food shortages during a rare joint hearing of the House Appropriations and Agriculture committees.

“This is a dire issue that’s evoked a genuine bipartisan and bicameral concern in Congress,” said House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, who is a member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma.

The USDA, he said, had failed in its duty to provide “critical food assistance for tribal members and vulnerable senior citizens” for months, amounting to “gross negligence.”

“Missed and delayed deliveries, empty shelves and bare warehouses have become commonplace,” Cole said.

House Appropriations ranking member Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, said the food shortage was unacceptable.

“It must be among our government’s highest priorities that the most vulnerable communities among us do not suffer from hunger,” she said. “But this disruption to food deliveries has risked exactly that.”

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations provides food to “income-eligible households living on Indian reservations, and to American Indian households residing in approved areas near reservations and in Oklahoma,” according to a USDA fact sheet.

The USDA buys and ships food selected from a pre-approved list to state agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations, which in turn store and distribute the food to eligible participants.

Tribal representatives speak out

The three tribal representatives detailed how those bare shelves have affected their communities and how the USDA told tribes — rather than consulting with them — about a major change in the program’s contract, leading to distrust and anger.

The three also pressed Congress for much more control over their food supply during the four-hour hearing.

Darrell G. Seki Sr., chairman of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in Minnesota, said his community’s ability to feed people through the FDPIR program was “jeopardized” by failures that have persisted throughout the summer.

“We need more consultation with tribes,” Seki said. “We are the first Americans here. We should be the priority because of the treaties that were adopted under the U.S. Constitution.”

Seki called on lawmakers to “do the right thing” numerous times during the hearing.

Mary Greene-Trottier, president of the National Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations and a member of the Spirit Lake Sioux Nation in North Dakota, said the program is essential for tribal communities that exist in food deserts.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps, doesn’t work in some tribal communities, making FDPIR a “critical stopgap,” she said.

“SNAP is an important tool in the feeding program toolbox, but is not meaningful if you lack access to a full-service grocery store or even a convenience store,” Greene-Trottier testified.

She told the committees the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations serves about 55,000 people in Native communities each month.

Greene-Trottier also said the problems that began this spring have led to a lack of trust in USDA throughout her community.

Self-determination project

Marty Wafford, under secretary of support and programs for the Chickasaw Nation Department of Health in Oklahoma, said there is an “urgent need for Congress to expand tribal self-governance.”

She testified that a self-determination demonstration pilot program Congress authorized in 2018, which allows some tribal communities to produce and supply more food, has been “highly successful.”

“This inventory and warehousing crisis is an example of how the locally procured food system works,” Wafford said. “We have not experienced ordering or delivery issues with foods secured with the self-determination project, in which we currently supply a variety of beef, pecans and dried hominy.”

For years, she said, tribal nations have been striving to reestablish food production, including growing crops, raising buffalo and cattle and establishing meat processing facilities and fish and shellfish hatcheries.

Tribal representatives testified that instead of consulting them on the change in contracting — that shifted from two suppliers to just one — USDA officials merely informed them in February and then didn’t take their concerns seriously.

Tribal communities were told they wouldn’t be allowed to order any food through the FDPIR program during the month of April, after which the delays, missing shipments and delivery of expired food began.

The USDA has put in place stopgap measures and short-term solutions, but tribal officials told members of Congress that those didn’t fully alleviate the situation, which they said continues to this day.

Tribal leaders called on Congress to make several changes to food procurement, including a regional sourcing model for food distribution.

They told lawmakers the FDPIR program needs a tracking system, so tribal members can see when their food orders have been shipped, instead of being forced to repeatedly call in and hope someone answers the phone.

Review of contracts required

Vilsack told lawmakers, and the tribal representatives who stayed in the room to hear his explanations for the food shortages, that USDA is “committed” to listening to tribal leaders more and keeping Congress better informed of problems with the food distribution program.

He explained that in 2022, USDA began the process of reviewing the contracts for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, in part because under the federal procurement law, the department wasn’t allowed any additional extensions of the previous contracts.

Following months of meetings and requesting bids from contractors, the USDA received eight proposals in 2023. One wasn’t close to meeting the requirements, leaving a panel with seven to review between September and December.

That group ultimately determined only one application, from Paris Brothers in Kansas City, Mo., met the full list of requirements. That company had been one of the two that USDA contracted with to provide food under the FDPIR program for years.

Paris Brothers told the USDA at the time they had the capacity to handle the full contract, which Vilsack said later turned out not to be the case. The contract costs $35 million per year for the five-year term, totaling $175 million.

Once USDA realized there were mounting problems with the new single-supplier model, Vilsack said staff began working to implement fixes, both at Paris Brothers and for the tribal communities.

For example, the company increased work to seven days a week, boosted the number of shifts per day, hired more temporary and permanent workers and increased training.

The USDA has also signed a $25 million six-month contract with another company to help alleviate the shortage of food deliveries to tribal communities.

Given Paris Brothers’ long record, Vilsack said officials at USDA assumed the issues could be worked out.

But, he said, changes the USDA instituted in August should have taken place sooner and that lower-level staff at the department should have brought the problems to his attention months before he was informed in late July.

‘Make sure nothing like this ever happens again’

Members of Congress on the two committees said they still have concerns over Paris Brothers and the USDA’s management of the program.

“It’s critical that this crisis is resolved quickly and the changes are made in the contracting process to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” Cole said.

House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, said he expects the USDA to fire at least one person for not addressing the problems at Paris Brothers sooner and that the department needs to levy fines against the company.

“If somebody’s head doesn’t roll over this, the American taxpayer should be furious,” Harris said. “This is tens of millions of dollars, and I’m not even talking about what we did to our tribal nations — delivering outdated food, missing shipments.”

When the Appropriations panel next meets with USDA officials, Harris said, he expects witnesses to arrive with detailed information about what fines were levied against Paris Brothers and how much the federal government had to spend to ensure food delivery to tribal communities.

Harris expressed “no confidence” Paris Brothers would be able to reestablish on-time, unexpired food deliveries to tribal communities and questioned whether the company was fulfilling other contracts ahead of tribal communities.

“I suspect that they shorted the tribal nations while keeping other commercial contracts whole. And we should never tolerate that,” Harris said.

Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop, Jr., the ranking member on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, said it was a “shock” to hear of the problems within the FDPIR program after years of it being well run.

Bishop pressed for more funding for the Agricultural Marketing Service, the office within the USDA that handles contracting.

The last full-year government spending bill, which Congress approved earlier this year, provided 12% less in funding for the service than was requested, he said. That represented a $14.8 million cut to its enacted funding level.

“Congress cannot meet 21st-century needs and challenges with 20th-century budgets,” Bishop said.

Georgia Rep. David Scott, the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, said lawmakers must bring representatives from Paris Brothers in front of Congress to answer questions about the mismanagement.

Paris Brothers declined to comment in response to a request from States Newsroom, writing that “due to our ongoing work with USDA on this matter we are deferring all inquiries to the USDA communications team.”

South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seth Tupper for questions: info@southdakotasearchlight.com. Follow South Dakota Searchlight on Facebook and X.

A Government Accountability Office report published Wednesday did not find that the Defense Department’s reprogramming of funds for service members’ wages and benefits hurt those programs. However the watchdog did recommend that the Pentagon provide more information to Congress when it realigns such funding. 

Due to the risk of unforeseen circumstances, Congress allows DOD, under certain conditions, to reprogram funds, including in its military personnel (MILPERS) appropriations account that covers items like service member pay and quality-of-life matters.

Between fiscal years 2013 through 2023, GAO found that DOD realigned approximately $32.9 billion of MILPERS funding, which represents about 2% of the total amount appropriated for the account. 

GAO noted that number includes funds that were transferred into MILPERS as well as money that was moved around within the account. But most years more money was directed out than into MILPERS. 

DOD officials told investigators that, if pay is lower than budgeted, those funds could be used for other priorities. But the Pentagon also had to realign funds in the account in response to unexpected events like COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine. 

Officials said that reprogramming did not harm DOD’s ability to fund MILPERS’ program obligations during the review period. Still, GAO argued the Pentagon can make the process more open to stakeholders. 

“The military components collect program-level information on MILPERS realignments, but DOD is not required to do so and, therefore, does not provide complete information in its reports to Congress on the increases and decreases in funding that programs experience because of those realignments,” investigators wrote. “Thus, the effect that realignments may have on funding to specific MILPERS programs would not be fully transparent to Congress and those who use these reports, such as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).”

GAO related this to DOD’s broader financial management, which the watchdog has designated as “high risk” since 1995. 

“DOD’s well-documented fiscal challenges make it important that Congress and DOD and its components have reliable, useful and timely financial information,” investigators wrote. 

GAO recommended that DOD submit reports to Congress with complete information on individual program-level realignments of MILPERS funds. 

The Pentagon partially agreed with the recommendation, saying it would clarify budget structure and reporting requirements for the military personnel active and reserve components in line with congressional guidance in the DOD appropriations law. 

GAO said it was “encouraged” by this action but that it’s unclear whether DOD will provide more complete information without congressional direction. 

DOD did agree with the remaining recommendations that each of the military branches report realignments by individual program for MILPERS accounts in their annual budget materials. 

Top election officials this week sounded the alarm about ongoing delays within America’s mail delivery system and the potential effect on mail-in voting in the upcoming presidential election, a warning that comes as former President Donald Trump continues to sow distrust about how some of those ballots will be counted.

Some people who vote by mail may be disenfranchised this fall if the issues are not addressed, the officials said in a letter to the head of the United States Postal Service that detailed challenges with the delivery of mail-in ballots over the past year.

“We implore you to take immediate and tangible corrective action to address the ongoing performance issues with USPS election mail service,” officials say in the letter, which was signed by representatives for the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors — two organizations that include state and local election officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. “Failure to do so will risk limiting voter participation and trust in the election process.”

Election officials, who are overwhelmingly women, have long highlighted the challenges to running the country’s decentralized elections, particularly after 2020 — challenges that include debunking ongoing lies about election security. Trump and some Republicans have for years spread disinformation about elections, including how and when mail-in ballots are counted.

A handful of secretaries of state also testified to members of Congress on Wednesday that they continue to deal with the ramifications of those lies, including responding to threats of violence.

In the letter dated Wednesday, election officials said mail-in ballots have at times been erroneously held for remediation, significantly delayed or “otherwise improperly processed.” Election officials “in nearly every state” have received postmarked ballots “well after Election Day and well outside the three to five business days USPS claims as the First-Class delivery standard.”

In multiple states, election officials reported receiving “anywhere from dozens to hundreds of ballots 10 or more days after postmark.”

“There is no amount of proactive communication election officials can do to account for USPS’s inability to meet their own service delivery timelines,” said the letter.

Election officials also reported instances in which mail that was sent to and from voters was marked as “undeliverable” at higher-than-usual rates. The potential ripple effect, they cautioned, was voters being placed on inactive voter rolls or getting their registration record canceled, and ballots not reaching voters or being delivered to election offices.

The letter was addressed to U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who came under scrutiny in 2020 for his handling of mail services around the last presidential election. In August, DeJoy told The Associated Press that he is “confident” in the Postal Service’s delivery of election mail. 

Adrienne Marshall, director of election mail and government services for the Postal Service, told The 19th that the agency has been in “close communication” with the National Association of Secretaries of State, the National Association of State Election Directors and other election officials throughout the year. She said each time they have brought up an issue, it has been “promptly addressed” and will continue to be.

“We are ready to deliver. We were successful in 2020 delivering a historic volume of mail in ballots; also in 2022 and will do so again in November 2024,” she said in an email. The Postal Service said it encourages people to mail back ballots at least a week before their state’s deadline to receive them. 

While election officials in the letter acknowledged some efforts that the Postal Service will take around the election, they added: “Temporary measures will not be sufficient to address the persistent issues highlighted by election officials.”

Maria Benson, senior director of communications for the National Association of Secretaries of State, told The 19th that the organization is not trying to dissuade people from voting by mail if their state allows it.

“We do encourage voters, however, to give themselves plenty of time to return their ballot via USPS,” she wrote in an email.

Amy Cohen, executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors, told The 19th that rules around voting by mail vary by state, so it’s important that eligible voters be proactive. They should request a mail-in ballot early, track the ballot if possible and put it in the mail early or be prepared to return the ballot in person (if permissible).

“Most importantly, if you have a question about receiving or returning your ballot, ask your election officials,” Cohen said in an email. “Election officials are the most reliable source for information about how to participate in the upcoming election.”

The use of mail-in voting has risen in recent years, spiking during the coronavirus pandemic when public health guidance forced more people to consider voting options outside of Election Day.

But while it used to be popular among both Democrats and Republicans, Democrats are now more likely than Republicans to say it should be more accessible. Now in his third bid for office, Trump has at times seemed to change his position on mail voting. During the Republican National Convention, the party repeatedly aired a video that showed the former president encouraging his supporters to vote by mail. But Republicans are also still challenging how vote-by-mail ballots are counted, especially in battleground states like Nevada and Pennsylvania.

In 2020, Trump tried to sow doubt about legally cast ballots that arrive by mail at vote-counting sites after Election Day, which is legal in some states, though deadlines vary. 

Now, Republican voters are more likely to trust Trump and his campaign than information from the government about election results, according to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and USAFacts. The survey also found a majority of Americans have at least “a moderate” amount of trust in official election results.

According to a new 19th News/SurveyMonkey poll, Americans are more likely to trust that elections in their precinct will be run securely compared with their trust in the country’s elections overall. The largest difference was with Republicans, with 76 percent saying they trust elections in their precinct and 43 percent saying they trust elections in the country.

Originally published by The 19th

The 19th is committed to covering the unfinished business of voting rights. Read more about how we’re approaching that in this pivotal election.

As another contentious election unfolds, a familiar sound echoes through federal workplaces: silence. This silence stems from the Hatch Act, a critical law designed to protect the neutrality of the civil service. But the problem isn’t the law itself—it’s the application. 

Misunderstandings and hypervigilance often stifle essential—and fully legal—conversations about mental health, political diversity, and the peaceful transfer of power. This silence leaves federal employees, among the most impacted by elections, alone with their anxiety. This can intensify fear, isolation, and reinforce the harmful perception that political diversity isn’t welcome. 

Instead, the federal workplace needs both clear boundaries and open, empathetic conversation around political transitions. Federal leaders should go beyond reiterating Hatch Act prohibitions to create space for employees to share concerns and wisdom with each other as they renew their commitment to nonpartisan service. Doing so is a vital down payment for the peaceful transfer of power to come.

The Hatch Act in Practice

Every four years, agencies remind employees about the Hatch Act’s strict rules against political activities like campaigning, fundraising, and misusing official titles or uniforms.

These reminders are effective—perhaps too effective. In practice Hatch also curtails essential conversations about well-being, political diversity, and the important role federal employees play in transfers of power. Even casual mentions of transitions can prompt nervous jokes like, “Oops, hope that wasn’t a Hatch Act violation,” revealing widespread confusion about what the Act actually prohibits. In my 15 years in government, I’ve yet to see an agency address the elephant—or donkey—in the room: this is a tough time to be a federal employee.

The Hidden Cost of Silence

The Hatch Act, created nearly a century ago to address blatant vote-buying, hasn’t kept up with our modern understanding of human behavior. While federal employees are rightly expected to remain nonpartisan in their work, it’s entirely normal for them to have emotions about important, uncertain events, especially in today’s polarized environment. The de facto silence around these emotions isn’t just awkward—it’s harmful.

First, repressing emotions doesn’t make them disappear, it drives them underground, where they can manifest in harmful ways. For instance, ignoring anxieties can lead to catastrophizing—where employees fixate on worst-case scenarios—which only amplifies their stress and fear. In his seminal book Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman explains: “When we ignore emotions, they only become stronger.”

Second, unspoken anxieties harm workplace relationships. Leaders are responsible for helping their teams navigate change, and when they remain silent, employees notice. Instead of engaging in productive, if challenging, conversations about how transitions might affect long term goals or the experience of holding personal views at odds with policy, these concerns are bottled up. This can lead to disengagement and even drive post-election resignations, particularly among younger employees who haven’t been through transitions before.

Finally, while the Hatch Act rightly prohibits overt political markers at work, like buttons or posters or in social media profiles, the 2.3 million federal employees are undeniably politically diverse. Silence prevents us from affirming that political identities are a valuable form of diversity and fuels subconscious and unconscious bias that could influence hiring decisions, promotions, and daily interactions. I’ve seen colleagues clam up when they sense they’re in the minority in casual conversations about policy issues, while those perceived as aligned with current leadership—based perhaps on their resume or stray comment—might be favored. It is possible to acknowledge these identities without indulging them, fostering a more inclusive environment that will be crucial in the months ahead.

The Power of Dialogue to Transform Anxiety

During my first transition as a federal employee, a State Department supervisor changed the course of my career. She listened with genuine empathy as I shared my concerns about the political shift, then offered her perspective based on a prior transition. She helped me understand that adaptation —whether to a new president, other changing leadership, or even new laws—is a fundamental part of a long and meaningful career in public service. While a leadership change might occasionally prompt a federal employee to consider leaving, if that mindset becomes widespread—or a knee jerk reaction—it undermines the foundation of a professional, nonpartisan federal workforce.

As David Brooks notes in his excellent book about conversation How to Know a Person, we learn best through meaningful conversation, not isolated reflection. As we approach another transition, conversations like the one I had can help federal employees step out of the disorienting news cycle. 

How might conversation help? For one, dialogue on election anxiety can transform stress into connection. We can recognize that we aren’t alone and start to move towards accepting that uncertainty and political cycles are part of life.  

Second, dialogue helps us find our agency. When stressed, it’s easy to lose sight of practical ways to manage anxiety. Conversations can prompt us to focus on what we can control, such as scenario planning, reframing priorities in ways that resonate across party lines, and brainstorming ways to build on common ground.

Finally, talking to our fellow public servants can remind us of the crucial role we play in the peaceful transfer of power. It’s a responsibility and privilege that I often take for granted – and one that resonates across the political spectrum. John F. Kennedy said, “A strong and courageous administration can meet the needs of a nation, but only when it respects the peaceful transfer of power.” Ronald Reagan echoed this sentiment: “The peaceful transfer of power is an extraordinary example of how democracy works.”

Open Dialogue in Practice

There are valid reasons that federal leaders are cautious about engaging with these charged topics. But there is ample space between blanket silence and an illegal political free-for-all. Here are three practical steps federal leaders can take to foster open and bounded dialogue as agencies, teams, or one-on-one:

• Name the Anxiety: Recognize and validate the stress and uncertainty that employees feel during election seasons. “Name it to tame it” is a science-backed approach to help disarm reactivity and channel emotions into practical action.
• Welcome Political Diversity: A politically diverse workplace is a strength. Encourage active listening and curiosity in conversations. Political debate doesn’t belong in the federal workplace but bridging differences and identifying shared values certainly do.
• Facilitate Conversations on Core Values: In these turbulent times, agency leaders might reinforce values like nonpartisanship, resilience, innovation, and openness. Encourage employees to share insights from past transitions, allowing them to better appreciate their role in a long history of peaceful transfers of power. Although these times feel unprecedented, federal employees have been here before and know what to do.

A Mindset, Not a Moment

It’s understandable that federal leaders might want to steer clear of sensitive topics, especially given the tense times and potential legal liability. However, doing so carries its own risks—creating a less human work environment that ignores real concerns and missing an opportunity to reinforce the proud tradition of nonpartisan federal service. 

The peaceful transfer of power isn’t just a moment, it’s a mindset. So, let’s go beyond Hatch Act compliance and engage in meaningful conversations that uphold its true purpose.

For authoritative guidance on the Hatch Act, check out the Office of Special Council’s FAQs.

Alex Snider is a strategy lead in the federal government. Previously he worked as a diplomat in the State Department, in the U.S. Senate, and at the World Bank. He is a certified mindful facilitator and is involved in various efforts to improve employee wellbeing in government. You can find him on LinkedIn. He has written on bringing humanity to government, including emotions in the workplace, authenticity, and the need to take breaks.

This op-ed is written in Snider’s personal capacity and the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of his agency or the United States.