What is the rationale for this? I’m trying to understand what the policy nexus is.
Thus far, the routine with most of these EO-driven policy changes (Civilian firings/Purchase cards/Civ travel) is as follows:
1. Issue absurdly draconian restrictions
2. Hint at exceptions only for mission essential purposes to be approved by SecDef himself
3. Wait a few days
4. SecDef delegates exception authority to the services and COCOMs
5. Ech II and III commands expend massive amounts of man-hours to answer data calls and provide reclama
6. Draconian restriction waived for mission essential purposes.
7. Services distracted from lethality, warfighting, and warrior ethos due to unnecessary EO compliance admin work.
8. Federal workforce and military members demoralized as they see yet another SecDef or OPM memo in their inboxes.
There's a widely held belief that a significant portion of the federal workforce is sitting at their desks watching TikTok. I can't speak for other agencies or organizations, but my experience says that assumption is false. My sense is that the administration thinks their going to uncover/eliminate deadweight and/or make life so painful that people quit, or take the Deferred Resignation Program.
If you count NAF employees, I have about 280 government civilians in my workforce, and around 750 contractors. These policies have resulted in wasted man-hours and distraction from our preparation for a major Hypersonic test event for a multi-billion dollar weapons program. It's not that I disagree with the goal. I'd love to trim the fat where it exists. It's the process that's killing us. It's a process that feels like an attack. It's a process that's going to incentivize good talent to leave government service for the private sector.
Cool stuff like this is at stake: