From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Harold Hutchison

Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa introduced legislation Thursday that would send nearly a third of the federal employees out of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

The bill, known as the ‘Decentralizing and Reorganizing Agency Infrastructure Nation-wide To Harness Efficient Services, Workforce Administration, and Management Practices (DRAIN THE SWAMP) Act, is far more sweeping than the “Returning SBA to Main Street Act,” legislation introduced by Ernst Dec. 12 that focused on the Small Business Administration (SBA). Ernst told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the move would improve services for Americans while saving billions of taxpayer dollars.

“Federal employees don’t want to work in Washington, so why should taxpayers be footing the bill? By relocating at least 30% of the federal workforce, we will save billions and improve service for veterans, small businesses, and all Americans. The bureaucrat laptop class has been out of the office for far too long, and it is time to get them back to work for the American people,” Ernst told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The legislation requires most government agencies to “promote geographic diversity, including consideration of rural markets” when relocating employees from the D.C. area and to “ensure adequate staffing throughout the regions of the Administration, to promote in-person customer service.” Exceptions are made for fewer than 10 agencies, most involved in national security, like the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Energy.

The legislation also requires most federal agencies to reduce the total office space in their Washington, D.C., headquarters by at least 30% in a two-year timeframe following the bill’s enactment.

Ernst issued a 60-page report Dec. 5 that covered findings from Ernst’s investigations into telework since she sent an August 2023 letter to 24 government agencies requesting a review of the issues involved with telecommuting.

Previous investigations by Ernst into telecommuting by federal employees detailed the issues that telework created involving locality pay, an adjustment to the basic pay of civilian employees in the federal government intended to make sure that federal employees have comparable compensation to private-sector counterparts in a given area of the country. In the August 2023 letter sent to 24 government agencies requesting a review of the issues involved with telecommuting, Ernst cited a media account of a VA employee who attended a staff meeting while taking a bubble bath.

Ernst issued a 60-page report Dec. 5 that covered findings from her investigations into the issues  involved with telecommuting by federal employees. Those findings detailed issues that telework created involving locality pay, an adjustment to the basic pay of civilian employees in the federal government intended to make sure that federal employees have comparable compensation to private-sector counterparts in a given area of the country.

In one case cited by the senator on multiple occasions, a United States Agency for International Development (USAID) employee received locality pay for the Washington, D.C., area despite living full-time in Florida. The employee in question retired before the conclusion of the probe, according to a summary posted on the USAID inspector general’s site April 30.

Ernst’s legislation mandates that affected federal agencies “ensure that the rate of pay of the employee is calculated based on the pay locality for the permanent duty station of the employee.”

The Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Morgan Murphy

With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.

It is a start.

But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.

Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.

The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.

In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.

Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.

What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics

The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.

Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”

Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.

How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”

Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.

Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.