Further, nurses may face a future downgrade in salary if DHA can’t find a way to secure special pay authorities via other means, according to union stewards and current nurses interviewed by Federal Times.

In 2022, the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service issued a decision following a classification appeal submitted previously by Navy nurses who sought to have their positions certified as GS-13s.

As justification, they recalled examples of other federal nurses who were doing similar work for more pay. Seeking parity, they reasoned that their compensation should be commensurate, especially given burnout fueled by steep vacancy rates at some military medical centers.

DCPAS found that those positions should be held at the GS-12 level, and it triggered a desk audit of other nurses who fell into this category. At the time, the result was that 605 nonsupervisory, advanced practice nurses in the 0610 occupational series were subject to a downgrade to a GS-12, according to a fact sheet disseminated by DHA and obtained by Federal Times.

However, the agency recently informed employees that it’s suspending any regrades of all impacted GS-13 non-supervisory nurses. But, it has ceased recruiting any new nurses at a GS-13 level. In the meantime, DHA is looking at other hiring and compensation authorities to help minimize the negative impact the ordered pay cut would have had on hiring and retention.

Peter Graves, a DHA spokesperson, said the agency is conducting a series of town halls this month, though most of the nursing workforce was notified of the changes in June.

“DHA made this decision to suspend based upon its plans to pursue application of Title 38 authorities,” reads the fact sheet from May, authored by Alicia English, director of administration and management. “DHA leaders are very concerned the military medical treatment facilities are losing qualified staff to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the private sector in many markets due to the limitations on hiring and pay under the agency’s current Title 5.”

Cathie McQuiston, deputy general counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents DHA and VA staff, said she questions DHA’s ability to recruit nurses at the lower grade, especially as they may work alongside nurses still at the GS-13 level.

In an interview, McQuiston also said the Defense Department already has Title 38 authority from Congress, so it’s unclear why this wasn’t leveraged earlier.

In a nutshell, Title 38 and Title 5 are two categories of federal employment that set rules around appointments, promotions, qualifications, work schedules and pay. Title 38 is used by the VA, where nurses can benefit from different pay scales and performance-based increases that reflect their skill or the demand. Title 5 is the competitive service and governs those under the General Schedule and Wage Grade pay plans.

According to DHA, use of Title 38 compensation authorities covers roughly two-thirds of military health system workers in 28 occupations.

“It’s unclear what this working group is doing when they already have the authority they say they want,” McQuiston said in an interview.

English’s fact sheet says the agency is “analyzing the risks, impacts to budget, and differences between the competitive and excepted services, as well as engaging with the union, before deciding to implement Title 38.”

According to internal documents obtained by Federal Times, if a Title 38 conversion fails, the need to regrade positions will be reassessed. If it is successful, the conversion would be phased in, prioritizing registered nurses and licensed practical nurses first.

Pay isn’t the only issue, however.

One nurse, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation, said even if Title 38 is fully implemented, it would not address the need to modernize position descriptions of advanced practice nurses. She said that at present, they do not reflect the breadth of education and experience of the nurses holding these titles.

Officials have said there is an ongoing effort to standardize and reduce variation in position descriptions across the agency. In 2022, at the direction of Congress, DHA merged military medical centers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force and took control of 700 facilities, including dental clinics, in the U.S. and overseas.

As a result, nurses from the different services now worked alongside each other under one agency, but positions descriptions for them retained uniquities from their work under the military departments. DHA said it’s working on smoothing out discrepancies.

The nurse told Federal Times that nurses under the current system top out at GS-12s. Some work in the same grade for years without the ability to promote despite gaining experience and skills.

If that remains the case, nurses will take their expertise elsewhere, the nurse said, and without a steady foundation of civilian nurses, especially at bases in remote parts of the country, the availability of care will suffer for the 9.6 million service members, retirees and family members who rely on it.

“Those of us who have elected to work predominantly with service members from all the branches, have dedicated our time and efforts in doing so, and have sacrificed the opportunities for further financial gain outside of the DHA,” said David Hodson, another nurse, to Federal Times. “However, to reduce the GS classification of 0610 from a 13 to a 12 is a slap in the face to our professional integrity.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated on July 17 to clarify what the DCPAS decision determined with regard to the classification appeal.

The review of FDIC’s workplace culture was released last May, conducted by the law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, which the FDIC’s Special Committee oversaw. The report showcased the toxic work environment within the agency, filled with stalking, sexual harassment and favoritism, along with other workplace violations.

“We also find that a patriarchal, insular, and risk-averse culture has contributed to the conditions that allowed for this workplace misconduct to occur and persist, and that a widespread fear of retaliation, as well as a lack of clarity and credibility around internal reporting channels, has led to an underreporting of workplace misconduct over the years,” the report states.

The report claimed more than 500 employees used their hotline to recount personal experiences of harassment, discrimination and other instances of workplace misconduct. Some employees have never told anyone about their experience before, while others reported internally, but were left “disappointed” by the agency’s response, according to the report.

One of the new offices approved by the FDIC is the Office of Professional Conduct where employees can file claims on harassment, retaliation and misconduct. The office will then investigate, determine and enforce disciplinary action, an issue seen in the report. The report showed a lack of accountability among those in the FDIC.

The second office approved is the Office of Equal Opportunity, which will take, investigate and report on complaints of discrimination and retaliation outlined in laws under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Both offices will use independent, third-party investigators, and the FDIC still needs to appoint directors to both offices.

The report also followed Chairman Martin Gruenberg’s behavior in the FDIC and classified “unsettling,” outlining instances where the chairman lost his temper on his employees.

Even though Gruenberg apologized for his behavior on the agency’s website, lawmakers still called on him to resign from his post. In a June 12 hearing, held by the House Financial Services Committee, committee members took a look into the FDIC’s toxic workplace culture and failed leadership.

“While we do not find Chairman Gruenberg’s conduct to be a root cause of the sexual harassment and discrimination in the agency or the long-standing workplace culture issues identified in our review, we do recognize that, as a number of FDIC employees put it in talking about Chairman Gruenberg, culture ‘starts at the top,’” the report said.

The report recommended that the agency institute requests for proposals, and the agency announced they have issued two RFPs: the Independent Transformation Monitor and the Expert Third-Party. The Independent Transformation Monitor will monitor all recommendation to improve the FDIC’s culture and structure, and the Expert Third-Party will guide those efforts.

According to the June 28 announcement, the FDIC’s Board of Directors will make final selections on the RFPs after they received proposals.

The class action alleged that the service discriminated against hundreds of African American deputy marshals and corrections officers in hirings, headquarters assignments and promotions since 1994, according to a summary from Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, the employment law firm handling the case. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission approved the settlement, marking this case one of the longest-running racial discrimination class actions in U.S. history.

The settlement requires that the Marshals Service implement DEI and implicit bias training and change the hiring process to promote transparency and objectivity within the agency’s hiring, promotion and headquarters assignments processes.

“We’re really thrilled that we finally get to resolve this case and we think it’s a good resolution for our class members,” Christine Dunn, an attorney representative on the case, said to Federal Times. “And, you know, most importantly, I think, is that there will be changes at the Marshals Service, and that has power to positively impact future generations of deputy U.S. marshals.”

Dunn said the Marshals Service will have to give periodic updates on their progress so the law firm can be sure they are making the required changes listed in the settlement.

Class members on the case include 700 African American current and former deputy marshals who allegedly experienced racial discrimination in promotions and headquarters assignments and thousands of African Americans who were allegedly denied hire. Class members that will receive part of the settlement are those who submitted a claim form and were found eligible for monetary compensation.

“It’s been a really long road,” Dunn said. “This case has been going on for 30 years and it feels really wonderful to finally be able to get justice for our class members who have been fighting for a really long time.”

The Marshals Service has denied any wrongdoing on their part throughout the litigation process, according to a USMS press release.

Dunn said class members have already submitted claims for monetary compensation, but before the Marshals Service can release the money owed, those who objected to the settlement during the objection period can appeal within 30 days now that it was approved by the court. She said only a small number of class members objected to the settlement.

She said the objections or appeals would have to be “global,” meaning based on that the settlement itself was unfair, unreasonable or inadequate. For an appeal to be granted, it would depend on if it could be fixed or if it could blow up the settlement, Dunn said.

“I don’t think that an appeal will likely carry much weight, you know, the objections,” Dunn said. “The judge dealt with pretty extensively in her order and why she doesn’t believe they have any merit. So, I would hope that an appellate court would also agree with her on that.”

Dunn said the compensation received depends on everyone’s circumstances because some may have been passed up for more promotions than others, for example. The settlement will be disbursed in a pro rata format, which means a proportional allocation of the funds.

She said it was frustrating to see the delays in the case, especially since some class members passed along the way before able to see justice and receive their monetary compensation.

“That has been one of the hardest parts for me of this case is just seeing justice delayed and for so many people, they will ever get to experience the justice of this case,” Dunn said.

Tom Jones and his American Accountability Foundation are digging into the backgrounds, social media posts and commentary of key high-ranking government employees, starting with the Department of Homeland Security. They are relying in part on tips from his network of conservative contacts, including even workers themselves. In a move that alarms some, they are preparing to publish the findings online.

With a $100,000 grant from the influential Heritage Foundation, the goal is to post 100 names of government workers to a website this summer to show a potential new administration who might be standing in the way of a second-term Trump agenda — and ripe for scrutiny, reclassifications, reassignments or firings.

“We need to understand who these people are and what they do,” said Jones, a former Capitol Hill aide to Republican senators.

The concept of compiling and publicizing a list of government employees shows the lengths that Trump’s allies are willing to go to ensure that nothing or no one will block his plans in a potential second term. Jones’ Project Sovereignty 2025 comes as Heritage’s own Project 2025 is laying the groundwork, with policies, proposals and personnel ready day one of a possible new White House.

The effort, which is focused on top career government officials who are not appointees within the political structure, has stunned democracy experts and shocked the civil service community in what they compare to the “red scare” of midcentury McCarthyism.

Jacqueline Simon, policy director at the American Federation of Government Employees, said the language being thrown around — the Heritage Foundation’s announcement praised the group for ferreting out “anti-American bad actors” — is “so shocking.”

Civil servants are often former military personnel and all are required to take an oath to the Constitution to work for the federal government, not a loyalty test to any one president in the White House, she and others said.

“It just seems as though their goal is to try to menace federal employees and sow fear,” said Simon, whose union is backing President Joe Biden for re-election.

As Trump, who has been convicted of felony charges in a hush-money case and is under a four-count federal indictment accusing him of working to overturn the 2020 election, faces a likely rematch with Biden this fall, far-right conservatives have vowed to take a wrecking ball to what they call the deep-state bureaucracy.

The Trump campaign has said repeatedly that outside groups do not speak for the former president who alone is setting his policy priorities.

Conservatives view the federal workforce as overstepping its role to become a power center that can drive or thwart a president’s agenda. Particularly during the Trump administration, government officials came under attack from both the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill, as his own Cabinet often raised objections to some of the former president’s more singular or even unlawful proposals.

While Jones’ group won’t necessarily be recommending whether to fire or reassign any of the federal workers it lists, the work aligns with Heritage’s far-reaching Project 2025 blueprint for a conservative administration.

Heritage’s Project 2025 proposes reviving the Trump “Schedule F” policy that would try to reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers as political appointees, which could enable mass dismissals – although a new Biden administration rule seeks to make that more difficult. The Heritage project is working to recruit and train a new generation to come to Washington to fill government jobs.

In announcing the $100,000 “Innovation Award” last month, Heritage said it would support American Accountability Foundation’s “investigative researchers, in-depth reports, and educational efforts to alert Congress, a conservative administration, and the American people to the presence of anti-American bad actors burrowed into the administrative state and ensure appropriate action is taken.”

Heritage President Kevin Roberts said in a statement the “weaponization of the federal government” has been possible only because of the “deep state of entrenched Leftist bureaucrats.” He said he was proud to support the work of American Accountability Foundation workers “in their fight to hold our government accountable and drain it of bad actors.”

The federal government employs about 2.2 million people. That includes those in the Washington, D,C, area but also workers who the unions say many Americans know as friends or neighbors in communities across the country.

About 4,000 positions in the government are considered political appointees who routinely change from one presidential administration to the next, but most are career professionals — from landscapers at Veterans Administration cemeteries to economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The public list-making conjures for some the era of Joseph McCarthy, the former senator who conducted grueling hearings into suspected communist sympathizers during the Cold War. They were orchestrated by a top staffer, Roy Cohn, who went on to become a confidant of a younger Trump.

‘Alarming trend’

Skye Perryman, CEO of the advocacy group Democracy Forward, said it’s all deeply disturbing, and reminiscent of “the darker parts of American history.”

“This is part of the overall, highly concerning and alarming trend,” she said.

Publicly naming government workers is an “intimidation tactic to try to chill the work of these civil servants,” she said, and part of a broader “retribution agenda” under way this election.

“They’re seeking to undermine our democracy, they’re seeking to undermine the way that our government works for people,” she said.

Jones, from his desk overlooking rickhouses storing barrels in the “Bourbon Capitol” of Bardstown, scoffed at comparisons to McCarthyism as “nonsense.”

He’s a former staffer to former Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina conservative Republican who went on to lead Heritage and now helms the Conservative Policy Institute, where American Accountability Foundation has a mailing address. Jones also worked for Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, and provided opposition research for Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential bid.

With six researchers, Jones’ team is operating remotely across the country, poring over the information about federal workers within Homeland Security, State Department and other agencies that deal with immigration and border issues.

Their focus is on the highest ranks of the civil servants — so-called GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15 employees and those in senior executive positions who could put up roadblocks to Trump’s plans for tighter borders and more deportations.

“I think it’s important to the next administration to understand who those people are,” he said.

He dismissed the risks that could be involved in publicly posting the names, salary information and other details of federal workers who have some level of privacy, or the idea that his group’s work could be putting employees’ livelihoods in jeopardy.

“You don’t get to make policy and then say, ‘Hey don’t scrutinize me,”’ he said.

“Gut check’

He acknowledges some of the work is often a “gut check” or “instinct” about which federal employees would be suspected of trying to block a conservative agenda.

“We’re looking at, ‘Are there wrong people on the bus right now that are, you know, openly hostile to efforts to secure the southern border?”’

His own group came under scrutiny as it first probed Biden nominees.

Biden had repealed Trump’s Schedule F executive order in January 2021, but a Government Accountability Office report in 2022 found that agencies believed it could be reinstated by a future administration.

Since then, the Biden administration issued a new rule that would make it harder to fire workers. A new administration could direct the Office of Personnel Management to undo the new regulation, but the process would take time and be open to legal challenges.

Ashish Vazirani, acting Under Secretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, said in a May 28 report that other federal agencies paid entry-level nurses “substantially more,” and that his office is working in conjunction with others to add and update special salary rates to attract and retain employees at medical facilities. It’s using the Department of Veterans Affairs as a model.

“The agency is fully engaged and postured to continue to maintain or achieve pay parity with the VA and receive competitive special salary rates that align with current market pay,” the office said in its response to the inspector general report.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which at its height saw a 150,000 weekly hospitalization rate in the U.S., severely disrupted the federal health care sector. The Bureau of Prisons, Veterans Health Administration and Medicare- and Medicaid-operated nursing homes were understaffed during the pandemic, federal data shows.

While it’s unlikely anything could’ve prepared the federal government for such an emergency, the Pentagon had been experiencing medical personnel shortages even before the coronavirus spread in 2020. As of last year, inspector general identified at least 6,000 vacant civilian positions in its sample of medical facilities, with nearly a third operating at 30% vacant or more.

Officials blamed the shortage on an inability to set competitive pay and other instances of bureaucratic red tape slowing down onboarding for health care workers. Shortages were particularly acute at medical centers serving metro areas, where pay lagged even more given the higher costs of living and incomparable private sector rates.

Workers became burned out, with some working 80 to 100 hours per week. Others couldn’t get access to bases that had the resources they needed. For service members, the effects of understaffing led to a decrease in preventative screenings and care, and delays in deployments because mandatory COVID-19 tests couldn’t be processed quickly enough.

“Service members left the military because of their experiences during the COVID‑19 pandemic, such as continued expectations of filling in for callouts and working overtime,” according to the report.

One unnamed official interviewed cited a delay in diagnosis and treatment for a tumor of a pediatric patient because a majority of the available doctors were deployed elsewhere for pandemic response. Another gave an example of a patient who died by suicide three days after visiting the emergency department, where psychiatrists were not able to evaluate patients in person due to pandemic protocols, low staffing and “task saturation.”

“… A senior enlisted leader at another [medical treatment facility] stated that their health care personnel were exhausted from the extra work caused by personnel shortages, and they were worried that it was only a matter of time before a provider would ‘miss something,’” according to the report.

Madigan Army Medical Center at on Joint Base Lewis-McChord logged the highest vacancy rate at 38%. Close behind was the 88th Medical Group at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base at 36% and the 51st Medical Group at Osan Air Base at about a third.

So far, DoD has leveraged Title 38 pay flexibilities for physicians and dentists, but not for nurses. But a separate report submitted to Congress in 2023 notes that registered nurses and licensed practical nurses are most likely to leave the Defense Department in search of other work. They also account for about 46% of the overall Defense Health Agency workforce.

With approval from the federal government’s HR office, these authorities that adjust the usual pay rules can allow agencies to offer more money for certain positions that are either hard to fill or in demand. However, the usefulness of that is somewhat dampened by the complexities and limitations involved with implementing them, officials said.

Agencies have to grapple with available funding, collective bargaining and pay caps when adjusting pay rates that can limit the range of effectiveness of these authorities even once they’re granted. Some medical treatment facilities were able to attract nurses with a special salary rate, but that was not uniform across all areas. Some centers were advised to consider alternatives before requesting a special rate, according to internal guidance.

In any case, officials said in the report that it stood up a tiger team last year to reevaluate pay.

The report released Tuesday by law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton outlines incidents of stalking, harassment, homophobia and other violations of employment regulations.

The incidents span from field offices to headquarters in Washington, and “arose within a workplace culture that is ‘misogynistic,’ ‘patriarchal,’ ‘insular,’ and ‘outdated’ — a ‘good ol’ boys’ club where favoritism is common, wagons are circled around managers, and senior executives with well-known reputations for pursuing romantic relations with subordinates enjoy long careers without any apparent consequence,” the report states.

More than 500 workers reported incidents of harassment, discrimination and other issues.

Examples of the worker complaints included a woman stalked by a coworker who was continually harassed even after complaining about his behavior; a field office supervisor referring to gay men as “little girls”; and a female field examiner describing receiving a picture of an FDIC senior examiner’s private parts.

The report comes after the Wall Street Journal last November published an investigation that outlined details of the agency’s workplace culture. The FDIC’s board then ordered the independent review

FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg’s behavior is also examined in the report, describing “deeply unsettling exchanges” between the chair and his subordinates. Several instances of the chairman losing his temper are outlined in a chapter of the report, stating in one example that as recently at last year, he held a 45-minute rant on bank failures where he threatened that he could “fire” or “reassign” anybody he wanted. Attendees described the meeting as “embarrassing and inappropriate.”

His “reputation raises questions about the credibility of the leadership’s response to the crisis and the ‘moral authority’ to lead a cultural transformation,” the report states.

“Far too many employees and for far too long, the FDIC has failed to provide a workplace safe from sexual harassment, discrimination, and other interpersonal misconduct,” according to the report.

“We also find that a patriarchal, insular, and risk-averse culture has contributed to the conditions that allowed for this workplace misconduct to occur and persist, and that a widespread fear of retaliation, as well as a lack of clarity and credibility around internal reporting channels, has led to an underreporting of workplace misconduct over the years.”

The agency last December released a plan to address the issues outlined in the report, which Gruenberg mentioned in an apology posted to the agency’s website on Tuesday.

“To anyone who experienced sexual harassment or other misconduct at the FDIC, I again want to express how very sorry I am,” Gruenberg said. “I also want to apologize for any shortcomings on my part. As Chairman, I am ultimately responsible for everything that happens at our agency, including our workplace culture.”

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill have called on Gruenberg to resign from his post.

House Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), said the report “makes clear new leadership is needed at the FDIC” and Democratic committee member Rep. Bill Foster from Illinois said “sweeping changes must be made to mend the toxic work environment that has run rampant for far too long, and that starts with a change of leadership. It is time for Chair Gruenberg to resign.”

Sen. Tim Scott(R-S.C.), ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee said “it’s time for Chairman Gruenberg to resign so the FDIC can move forward with the leadership it deserves and desperately needs.”

The FDIC is an independent government agency that protects bank deposits in the event of a bank failure.

According to a 2021 Merit Systems Protection Board survey, 17% of female federal civil servants reported sexual harassment. This figure soared to 26% among women in offices with a predominantly male workforce. The few women who dare to report assault face possible consequences from their superiors, inadequate responses, or disbelief.

Outside of U.S. agencies, statistics from the CDC indicate that one out of every three women and one out of every six men will experience sexual assault in their lifetime. Moreover, the absence of independent oversight mechanisms exposes victims to further harm and manipulation, perpetuating a culture of silence. A report from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that 90% of harassment victims chose not to pursue formal action.

While the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) at the Department of Defense represents a step forward in addressing the issue within government agencies, it appears to lack the independence and impartiality needed to thoroughly assess cases. SAPRO is insufficient.

Federal agencies must establish independent ombudsmen within each department to advocate for victims, providing vital support and guidance during reporting and investigations. These ombudsmen should possess the same autonomy and authority as special prosecutors or attorneys general to carry out their duties without fear of interference or prejudice. Furthermore, a centralized ombudsman office within the White House is essential for coordinating victim outreach and standardizing procedures for seeking justice across agencies.

Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Chuck Grassley’s, R-Iowa, proposed Military Justice Improvement Act from 2021 offers a model for how independent oversight should be addressed across various sectors. The Act aims to shift decision-making authority for serious crimes like sexual assault from the chain of command to independent, trained military prosecutors. This change addresses the systemic fear experienced by survivors of sexual assault when contemplating whether to report crimes.

Certainly, it is hypocritical for the U.S. to enact new laws and legal measures addressing sexual misconduct in other contexts while evading accountability for wrongdoing in its own agencies.

President Joe Biden’s potential support for such initiatives that address sexual violence comprehensively is shown by his endorsement of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). As he remarked in the reauthorization of VAWA, “The fact is that it really wasn’t so long ago this country didn’t want to talk about violence against women, let alone as being a national epidemic, something the government had to address.” Indeed, it is time for the government to take decisive action and establish oversight in federal agencies.

Similar to how Congress first enacted the Anti-Mandatory Retirement Bill, ending forced retirement for federal employees before extending it nationwide, establishing an ombudsperson in each federal agency could pave the way for similar initiatives in the private sector.

There is a pressing need for sweeping actions to safeguard federal employees from sexual misconduct, preserving the integrity of our government institutions.

Robert Weiner is president of Robert Weiner Associates, a public affaires and issues strategy firm. He was a spokesman for the Clinton and George W. Bush White Houses, Chief of Staff of the House Aging Committee and Health Subcommittee, spokesman for the House Government Operations Committee, and senior aide to Four-Star Gen./Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. Ting Cui is Senior Policy Analyst at Robert Weiner Associates and Solutions for Change.

An April 18 notification from the Coast Guard Reserve warned that a data exposure discovered Jan. 24 distributed the private material to “individuals with no authority to view the information,” a retired Coast Guardsman, who received the notification and spoke on the condition of anonymity, told Military Times.

The incident, which affected 10,700 Coast Guard Reserve members, occurred amid a push from the White House to have the maritime service bolster cybersecurity at American ports.

The Coast Guard said that the home addresses of 7,554 individuals, and the names and employee identification numbers of another 3,146, inadvertently were released. A review by the service of the incident revealed that a document used for internal processes had a separate tab that contained the info, which went to the personal email addresses of 85 Coast Guard Reserve members, it said.

“No incidents of fraud have been reported to the Coast Guard related to this incident,” the service said, which outlined steps it is taking to ensure similar events do not occur.

The office where the incident originated has since removed the separate tab in the document that contained the personally identifiable info, Coast Guard officials said, adding that the unnamed individual who caused the privacy incident received additional training on properly safeguarding such sensitive information.

When asked why it waited nearly three months to inform those impacted of the incident, the Coast Guard said those who improperly received the personal info “immediately” notified the service’s privacy office, which began the process of notifying those affected once the full extent of the privacy incident was determined.

In its notification, the Coast Guard encouraged those affected to vigilantly review their credit reports and to contact one of the major credit reporting agencies to place a fraud alert on credit files in order to ensure protection from potential identity theft.

In an era in which highly classified military documents can be illegally shared on a social media platform, the Department of Defense is no stranger to having sensitive personal information incorrectly disseminated online. Security breaches that compromise the data of current and former troops have also occurred among the Army National Guard, the Marine Corps Reserve and the Navy. And earlier this year, DefenseScoop reported that the Pentagon was in the process of alerting thousands that their data may have been exposed during a breach the year prior.

A 2020 report by Rand Corp. on the data needs of the Coast Guard noted that personnel data can be particularly sensitive, and as a result represent an especially attractive target for malicious actors.

But as the Coast Guard reviews how it manages the security of its own personnel’s private information, it also faces a task from the White House to take on more responsibility responding to malicious cyber activity against U.S. ports, according to a fact sheet released less than a month after the recent breach occurred.

An executive order issued by President Joe Biden in February provides the Coast Guard with more authority to control the movement of vessels that present a known, or suspected, cyber threat to U.S. maritime infrastructure, the fact sheet said.

The Coast Guard has acknowledged a surge in cyber threats that aim to disrupt systems among U.S. vessels, shipyards, waterways and port facilities. A 2023 Coast Guard Cyber Command report outlines that the uptick of reported threats on critical infrastructure has included attacks believed to involve a China-sponsored group.

“The consequences of a cyber attack on the port infrastructure extend far beyond financial losses,” Rear Adm. John Vann, commander of Coast Guard Cyber Command, said in a release earlier this month. “Disruptions to the supply chain can have cascading effects on global economies, impacting industries and livelihoods.”

The Coast Guard has three active duty cyber protection teams and one reserve team, which hunt for bad nation-state actors, the release said. The service will also soon begin training its 1,200 active duty Marine Science Technicians, it added, who will likely become the first line of defense in spotting cyber issues.

The Federal Trade Commission voted Tuesday 3-2 to ban measures known as noncompete agreements, which bar workers from jumping to or starting competing companies for a prescribed period of time. According to the FTC, 30 million people — roughly one in five workers — are now subject to such restrictions.

The Biden administration has taken aim at noncompete measures, which are commonly associated with high-level executives at technology and financial companies but in recent years have also ensnared lower-paid workers, such as security guards and sandwich-shop employees. A 2021 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that more than one in 10 workers who earn $20 or less an hour are covered by noncompete agreements.

When it proposed the ban in January 2023, FTC officials asserted that noncompete agreements harm workers by reducing their ability to switch jobs for higher pay, a step that often provides most workers with their biggest pay increases. By reducing overall churn in the job market, the agency argued, the measures also disadvantage workers who aren’t covered by them because fewer jobs become available as fewer people leave jobs. They can also hurt the economy overall by limiting the ability of other businesses to hire needed employees, the FTC said.

The agency received about 26,000 comments on the proposal, most of them in favor. The rule, which doesn’t apply to workers at non-profits, is to take effect in four months unless it is blocked by legal challenges.

“We heard from employees who, because of noncompetes, were stuck in abusive workplaces,” said Lina Khan, chair of the FTC, said before the vote. Doctors have been prevented from practicing medicine after leaving practices, she added.

Business groups have criticized the measure as casting too wide a net by blocking nearly all noncompetes. They also argue that the FTC lacks the authority to take such a step. Two Republican appointees to the FTC, Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson, voted against the proposal. They asserted that the agency was exceeding its authority by approving such a sweeping rule.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said it will sue to block the measure, a process that could prevent the rule from taking effect for months or years. And if former President Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election, his administration could withdraw the rule.

The FTC is banning noncompetes on the grounds that they constitute an “unfair method of competition,” but the Chamber says the law doesn’t authorize the agency to regulate on those grounds.

“If they were to start exercising that authority, you’re really opening a Pandora’s box,” said Neil Bradley, executive vice president at the Chamber. “There’s literally no limitations on what people one day can decide is an unfair method of competition.”

Noncompete agreements are banned in three states, including California, and some opponents of noncompetes argue that California’s ban has been a key contributor to that state’s innovative tech economy.

John Lettieri, CEO of the Economic Innovation Group, a tech-backed think tank, argues that the ability of early innovators to leave one company and start a competitor was key to the development of the semiconductor industry.

“The birth of so many important foundational companies could not have happened, at least not in the same way or on the same timeline and definitely not in the same place, had it not been for the ability of entrepreneurs to spin out, start their own companies, or go to a better company,” Lettieri said.