The
document,
titled
Breaking
Barriers
Initiative
(BBI),
circulated
widely
on
social
media
this
week,
claiming
to
outline
a
secret
plan
to
suspend
elections
and
amend
the
Constitution
to
keep
Mnangagwa
in
power
beyond
his
current
term.
Ziyambi,
who
is
also
ZANU
PF
Secretary
for
Legal
Affairs
and
responsible
for
implementing
the
party’s
Resolution
Number
1
on
extending
Mnangagwa’s
term
to
2030,
said
the
initiative
has
no
named
author
and
does
not
reflect
the
official
position
of
ZANU
PF
or
the
Government
of
Zimbabwe.
He
said:
“It
has
come
to
my
attention
that
a
document
entitled
“Breaking
Barriers
Initiative”-bearing
no
named
author
and
allegedly
referenced
in
a
purported
“dossier”
recently
submitted
to
the
praesidium
of
the
governing
party,
Zanu
PF-is
being
disseminated
widely
across
social
media
platforms.
“Such
dissemination
is
accompanied
by
unsubstantiated,
unverified,
and
uncorroborated
assertions
that
the
document
constitutes
an
authentic
representation
of
the
official
stance
of
Zanu
PF
and
the
Government
of
Zimbabwe
regarding
proposed
amendments
to
the
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe,
intended
to
implement
and
give
effect
to
the
party’s
Resolution
Number
1,
first
adopted
in
October
2024.
“Whereas
multiple
submissions
from
legal
practitioners,
experts,
and
scholars
have
been
tendered,
proposing
sundry
amendments
and
procedural
mechanisms
for
the
implementation
of
the
Resolution,
and
with
submissions
having
been
presented
since
November
2024—some
directly
to
the
party,
others
to
Parliament
or
my
office;
and
whereas
no
determination
has
been
rendered
to
adopt,
endorse,
or
advance
any
such
proposals;
my
office
is
not
able
to
comment
on
or
verify
the
authenticity
of
the
circulating
document,
which
may,
in
all
likelihood,
be
spurious,
fabricated
or
manipulated:
particularly
in
light
of
the
dubious
source
of
its
disclosure.
“Once
the
relevant
authorities
make
a
decision
on
the
precise
amendments
to
be
made
and
the
process
for
their
enactment
into
law,
the
public
will
be
appropriately
and
transparently
informed.
“Until
then,
any
fascination
or
preoccupation
with
a
document
reportedly
leaked
from
dubious
sources—
and
lacking
a
named
author-is
a
total
waste
of
time
and
an
unfortunate
disservice
to
the
national
interest.
“In
the
meantime,
the
public
is
advised
to
be
guided
accordingly.”
Former
Mt
Pleasant
MP,
Fadzayi
“Iron
Lady”
Mahere,
has
described
the
current
Parliament
as
a
sham.
On
Wednesday,
22
October,
Mahere
explained
further,
saying
she
had
been
repeatedly
blocked
by
the
Speaker
from
raising
points
of
order
in
the
National
Assembly.
She
wrote
on
X:
“Why
do
you
imagine
that
the
place
that
they
call
Zimbabwe’s
‘Parliament’
is
some
magical
place
where
legislators
use
reason
to
debate
policy,
enact
legislation
and
exercise
oversight
over
the
Executive?
“In
its
current
state,
the
place
is
a
sham.
“Whenever
I’d
switch
on
my
mic
to
speak
or
raise
a
point
of
order,
the
Silencer
of
Parliament
would
turn
my
mic
off
and
order
me
to
shut
up
and
sit
down.
“Of
course,
Zanu
MP
Enoch
Zhou
would
be
in
the
background
heckling
“hure.”
There
was
no
voice,
let
alone
voice
of
reason,
to
speak
of.
“When
I
would
invoke
the
Standing
Rules
to
challenge
the
Silencer’s
unconstitutional
conduct
in
prohibiting
me
from
speaking
as
I
was
elected
to
do,
the
Silencer
would
order
me
to
leave
the
House.
“When
I
refused
to
leave
the
House,
he’d
call
in
armed
riot
police
to
escort
me
out.
Often
a
suspension
would
ensue.
“Weekly
fisty
cuffs
with
the
poe-poe
was
not
what
I’d
spend
hours
reading
draft
bills,
analyzing
policy
reports
and
scrutinizing
Cabinet
conduct
for.
I
sell
time.
“When
all
is
said
and
done,
I
was
not
prepared
to
stay
and
pretend
the
place
was
an
expression
of
the
will
of
the
people
when
election-losing,
murderous
gold
smugglers
and
snake
oil
politicians
replaced
properly
elected
representatives.
“I
foresaw
all
the
while
that
the
end
game
was
to
forcibly
drive
through
an
annihilation
of
the
Constitution
to
extend
Mr
Mnangagwa’s
term
limit
and
create
another
Robert
Mugabe.
“My
conscience
would
not
let
me
participate
in
such
an
insidious
choreographed
charade.
“How
would
I
explain
myself
to
the
thousands
of
constituents
who
had
voted
me
in
when,
after
5
years,
I
had
nothing
to
show
for
my
presence
–
except
a
corpse
of
the
Constitution
marinaded
in
corruption?
“I’ve
been
jailed
for
tweeting
but
the
fact
is
–
they
can’t
turn
off
my
mic.”
HARARE
–
Zimbabwe
recorded
a
marginal
rise
in
crime
during
the
second
quarter
of
2025,
with
321,640
offences
reported
between
April
and
June
—
a
3.5
percent
increase
from
the
310,876
offences
logged
in
the
first
quarter,
according
to
new
data
from
the
Zimbabwe
National
Statistics
Agency
(ZimStat).
The
national
crime
rate
rose
to
2,119
offences
per
100,000
people,
up
from
2,048
in
the
previous
quarter,
meaning
more
than
2,100
crimes
were
committed
for
every
100,000
residents.
Crimes
against
public
safety
and
state
security
dominated
the
statistics,
accounting
for
192,562
cases,
or
nearly
60
percent
of
all
recorded
offences.
This
category’s
rate
climbed
to
1,268.6
per
100,000,
up
from
1,172.1
in
the
first
quarter.
Acts
against
property
followed
with
49,691
cases,
while
acts
leading
to
or
intending
to
cause
harm
to
persons
totalled
39,569
cases
during
the
quarter.
The
data
also
show
wide
regional
disparities
in
exposure
to
crime.
Bulawayo
Province
recorded
the
highest
crime
rate
in
the
country
at
5,464.5
offences
per
100,000
people
—
more
than
double
the
national
average.
Other
provinces
with
above-average
rates
included
Harare,
Masvingo
and
Matabeleland
South,
reflecting
higher
crime
concentrations
in
urban
and
border
areas.
A
total
of
262,793
individuals
were
charged
with
criminal
offences
in
the
second
quarter,
up
from
earlier
in
the
year.
Men
accounted
for
88
percent
of
those
charged.
The
overall
charge
rate
increased
to
1,731.3
per
100,000
people,
from
1,662.6
in
the
first
quarter.
The
male
charge
rate
stood
at
3,164.1
per
100,000,
almost
eight
times
higher
than
the
407.5
recorded
for
females
—
a
trend
consistent
with
previous
ZimStat
reports.
Zimbabwe
has
in
recent
months
seen
a
surge
in
offences
including
theft,
robbery,
sexual
crimes,
drug-related
cases
and
murder,
prompting
renewed
concern
over
public
safety
and
law
enforcement
capacity.
HARARE
–
Road
traffic
accidents
in
Zimbabwe
surged
sharply
in
the
second
quarter
of
2025,
with
new
figures
from
the
Zimbabwe
National
Statistics
Agency
(ZimStat)
showing
a
19.8
percent
increase
compared
to
the
first
three
months
of
the
year.
ZimStat
said
15,350
accidents
were
recorded
between
April
and
June,
up
from
12,817
in
the
first
quarter.
Of
these,
492
were
fatal,
marking
a
30.2
percent
rise
from
the
378
deadly
crashes
reported
earlier
in
the
year.
The
accidents
claimed
624
lives
and
left
2,926
people
injured,
underlining
what
analysts
describe
as
a
deepening
road
safety
crisis
on
Zimbabwe’s
increasingly
congested
highways.
ZimStat
also
reported
a
15.2
percent
jump
in
new
vehicle
registrations,
from
18,214
in
the
first
quarter
to
21,128
between
April
and
June.
The
number
of
newly
registered
light
motor
vehicles
rose
18.1
percent,
from
13,631
to
16,095.
Statistics
from
early
2025
show
that
a
road
accident
occurs
roughly
every
15
minutes
in
Zimbabwe,
with
about
five
people
dying
daily—most
frequently
on
Fridays,
Saturdays,
and
public
holidays.
Appeals
court
decides
that
some
things
are
best
left
unsaid.
And
among
those
things
are
calling
your
judge
the
c-word.
Just
so
we’re
clear,
even
though
this
was
over
Zoom,
we’re
not
talking
about
“cat.”
After
trying
to
bully
Michigan
Law
Review
through
litigation,
the
anti-DEI
publicity
hounds
at
FASORP
have
dropped
the
case.
And
with
Trump
inching
closer
to
declaring
martial
law
in
America’s
cities,
right-leaning
legal
analysts
have
started
the
process
of
normalizing
abuse
of
the
Insurrection
Act
by
pretending
its
strict
limits
are
really
just
open-ended
invitations
and
if
anyone’s
to
blame
for
Donald
Trump’s
authoritarianism,
it’s
really
Joe
Biden.
We
manage
to
talk
about
AI
and
Baudrillard
in
a
single
episode.
In
September
2025,
the
Trump
administration
unveiled
a
bold
and
controversial
proposal
to
create
a
new
pathway
to
U.S.
permanent
residency—one
that
centers
not
on
skills
or
jobs
created,
but
on
wealth.
The
initiative,
known
as
the
“Trump
Gold
Card,”
aims
to
offer
foreign
nationals
the
opportunity
to
obtain
a
green
card
in
exchange
for
a
$1
million
“gift”
to
the
U.S.
government.
If
the
gift
comes
from
a
sponsoring
business
entity,
the
amount
rises
to
$2
million.
Promoted
as
a
streamlined
alternative
to
existing
employment-based
and
investment
immigration
routes,
the
Gold
Card
has
sparked
widespread
debate—raising
questions
around
legality,
fairness,
feasibility,
and
its
implications
for
the
future
of
the
U.S.
immigration
system.
Here’s
what
we
know
so
far.
What
is
the
Trump
Gold
Card?
The
Gold
Card
is
not
a
new
visa
category
in
name,
but
rather
a
new
immigration
pathway
proposed
through
an
executive
order
signed
on
September
19,
2025.
According
to
the
White
House,
the
program
would
allow
eligible
foreign
nationals
to
receive
an
immigrant
visa—commonly
known
as
a
green
card—after
making
a
voluntary,
unrestricted
contribution
of
$1
million
to
the
federal
government.
When
the
contribution
is
made
on
the
applicant’s
behalf
by
a
corporation,
the
amount
must
be
$2
million.
The
contribution
is
not
classified
as
a
“filing
fee”
or
“investment,”
but
rather
a
“gift”
to
the
United
States,
with
the
funds
directed
to
a
dedicated
government
fund
to
promote
U.S.
commerce,
infrastructure,
and
development.
In
return,
recipients
of
the
Gold
Card
would
benefit
from
expedited
processing,
potentially
gaining
permanent
residency
faster
than
through
traditional
employment-based
or
investment
immigration
programs.
Not
a
new
visa—but
a
repurposing
of
existing
ones
Perhaps
the
most
unusual—and
legally
sensitive—aspect
of
the
Trump
Gold
Card
is
that
it
does
not
create
a
new
visa
category
through
legislation.
Instead,
the
administration
is
attempting
to
repurpose
existing
employment-based
green
card
categories,
specifically
EB-1
and
EB-2.
The
executive
order
directs
federal
agencies
to
treat
the
$1
million
gift
as
“evidence”
of
eligibility
under:
EB-1A:
for
individuals
with
extraordinary
ability,
and
EB-2
NIW:
for
individuals
whose
work
is
in
the
national
interest
of
the
United
States.
This
essentially
means
the
administration
is
attempting
to
substitute
financial
contribution
for
traditional
eligibility
criteria
such
as
awards,
publications,
professional
recognition,
or
a
demonstrated
record
of
high
achievement.
Whether
this
reinterpretation
can
withstand
legal
scrutiny
remains
to
be
seen.
Key
differences
from
EB-5
The
Trump
Gold
Card
proposal
is
frequently
compared
to
the
EB-5
Immigrant
Investor
Program,
which
also
offers
a
path
to
permanent
residency
through
financial
means.
However,
the
two
programs
differ
significantly
in
structure
and
requirements.
The
EB-5
program
requires
a
capital
investment
ranging
from
$800,000
to
$1,050,000,
depending
on
whether
the
investment
is
in
a
targeted
employment
area.
This
investment
must
be
directed
into
a
commercial
enterprise
and
is
required
to
create
at
least
10
full-time
jobs
for
U.S.
workers.
EB-5
petitions
undergo
rigorous
vetting,
including
extensive
documentation
of
the
lawful
source
of
funds
and
detailed
business
planning.
The
visa
category
itself
is
rooted
in
statutory
law,
created
and
regulated
by
Congress.
In
contrast,
the
Trump
Gold
Card
would
require
a
$1
million
gift
to
the
U.S.
government
for
individual
applicants—or
$2
million
if
contributed
by
a
sponsoring
corporation
on
the
applicant’s
behalf.
Unlike
EB-5,
the
Gold
Card
does
not
involve
an
investment
in
a
business
and
does
not
require
job
creation.
Instead,
it
is
structured
around
a
non-refundable
“unrestricted
gift”
deposited
with
the
Department
of
Commerce.
The
proposal
repurposes
the
existing
EB-1
and
EB-2
employment-based
categories
as
the
legal
basis
for
issuing
green
cards
under
this
program,
treating
the
financial
gift
as
sufficient
evidence
of
“extraordinary
ability”
or
“national
interest”—a
sharp
departure
from
traditional
eligibility
standards.
While
EB-5
is
grounded
in
legislation,
the
Gold
Card
is
a
purely
executive
initiative,
with
many
of
its
procedures
and
safeguards
still
undefined.
Legal
and
constitutional
questions
Critics
argue
that
the
Gold
Card
oversteps
the
legal
authority
of
the
executive
branch.
Under
the
Immigration
and
Nationality
Act
(INA),
only
Congress
can
create
new
visa
categories
or
substantially
alter
existing
eligibility
criteria.
Attempting
to
redefine
“extraordinary
ability”
or
“national
interest”
through
the
lens
of
a
financial
gift
could
be
seen
as
an
unlawful
reinterpretation
of
statutory
language
and
may
violate
the
principle
of
separation
of
powers.
Additionally,
the
framing
of
the
$1
million
as
a
“gift”
rather
than
a
fee
may
be
a
strategic
workaround
to
avoid
triggering
rulemaking
or
fee-setting
procedures—but
courts
could
still
evaluate
whether
the
gift
is,
in
effect,
a
mandatory
payment
and
thus
subject
to
regulation.
Observers
expect
that
if
the
program
proceeds,
it
will
face
litigation,
likely
on
both
statutory
and
constitutional
grounds.
Backlog
and
visa
cap
concerns
Another
major
concern
is
how
Gold
Card
applications
would
interact
with
existing
employment-based
visa
caps.
Since
EB-1
and
EB-2
are
numerically
limited
categories,
especially
for
high-demand
countries
like
India
and
China,
critics
warn
that
inserting
high-paying
applicants
into
those
queues
could
displace
or
delay
other
petitioners
who
are
already
in
line.
Without
a
special
carve-out
or
cap
exemption,
this
could
mean
longer
waits
for
traditional
applicants—and
further
politicization
of
visa
allocation.
Implementation:
What’s
still
unclear
The
executive
order
instructs
the
Departments
of
Homeland
Security,
State,
and
Commerce
to
develop
the
actual
implementation
framework—but
many
key
details
remain
undefined,
including:
Whether
the
program
will
be
subject
to
standard
background
and
source-of-funds
reviews
Until
this
implementation
guidance
is
published,
the
Gold
Card
remains
more
vision
than
reality.
Who
would
use
it?
The
Gold
Card
is
clearly
aimed
at
ultra-high-net-worth
individuals,
including
foreign
businesspeople,
investors,
entrepreneurs,
and
corporations
seeking
to
sponsor
executive-level
talent.
Supporters
argue
that
it
could
be
a
powerful
economic
driver,
attracting
capital
with
minimal
administrative
burden.
Detractors
say
it
creates
a
two-tiered
immigration
system,
where
those
with
money
can
skip
the
line
while
others
must
meet
far
more
rigorous
standards.
Final
thoughts
The
Trump
Gold
Card
proposal
is
one
of
the
boldest—and
most
controversial—immigration
policy
moves
in
recent
memory.
While
it’s
positioned
as
an
economic
innovation,
it
raises
deep
legal,
ethical,
and
structural
questions
about
how
we
define
merit
and
value
in
immigration
law.
For
now,
the
program
exists
as
an
executive
framework,
not
yet
tested
in
the
real
world.
Whether
it
moves
forward
will
depend
not
only
on
agency
implementation,
but
likely
on
the
courts—and
potentially
Congress—intervening
in
what
could
become
one
of
the
defining
immigration
policy
battles
of
the
decade.
As
immigration
policies
continue
to
shift,
staying
organized
and
informed
is
more
important
than
ever.
8am™
DocketWise
helps
immigration
lawyers
manage
cases,
track
updates,
and
communicate
seamlessly
with
clients.
(Gina
Ferazzi
/
Los
Angeles
Times
via
Getty
Images)
I
get
that
emotions
run
high
at
sporting
events,
I
really
do.
Even
at
a
baseball
game,
admittedly
the
most
boring
of
the
major
sports.
And
tensions
are
definitely
going
to
be
high
in
the
stands
of
a
playoff
game…
But
none
of
that
gives
you
permission
to
go
all
racist.
That’s
a
lesson
attorney
Shannon
Kobylarczyk
is
learning
the
hard
way.
Kobylarczyk
*was*
the
associate
general
counsel
at
ManpowerGroup,
a
staffing
agency.
But
that
changed
after
she
attended Game
2
of
the
National
League
Championship
Series.
Kobylarczyk,
a
Brewers
fan
bedecked
in
all
the
gear,
was
upset
when
the
Dodgers
took
a
3-1
lead
and
took
that
anger
out
on
a
Dodgers
fan
in
the
stadium.
In
a
now
viral
video,
Shannon
Kobylarczyk
is
seen
telling
a
cheering
Dodgers
fan,
Ricardo
Fosado,
“You
know
what,
let’s
call
ICE.” Fosado
absolutely
kept
his
cool
retorting,
“Call
ICE,
call
ICE.
I’m
a
U.S.
citizen,
war
veteran,
baby
girl.”
After
which
it
appears
Kobylarczyk
took
a
swing
at
the
camera.
Not
a
great
look
for
Kobylarczyk
—
or
the
brand
she
represents.
And
Manpower
reacted
quickly,
according
to
a
spokesperson,
“As
soon
as
we
became
aware
of
this
video,
the
individual
was
placed
on
immediate
leave,
and
we
began
an
investigation.
As
a
result
of
this
process,
the
employee
is
no
longer
with
the
organization.”
That’s
not
the
only
brand
that
no
longer
wants
to
be
associated
with
Kobylarczyk.
She
was
on
the
board
of
the
Make-A-Wish
Wisconsin
foundation,
but
no
more:
“Shannon
resigned
from
our
board
of
directors
this
afternoon
effective
immediately.”
To
add
salt
in
the
wound
of
the
Brewers
superfan,
she’s
banned
from
American
Family
Field.
As
the
team
noted,
“The
Brewers
expect
all
persons
attending
games
to
be
respectful
of
each
other,
and
we
do
not
condone
in
any
way
offensive
statements
fans
make
to
each
other
about
race,
gender,
or
national
origin.
Our
priority
is
to
ensure
that
all
in
attendance
have
a
safe
and
enjoyable
experience
at
the
ballpark.”
Fosado
was
also
banned
from
Brewers
games
for
public
intoxication
and
disorderly
conduct
for
behavior
separate
from
what
was
in
the
viral
clip.
As
noted
by
Adam
Maldonado,
a
partner
at
Hirschfeld
Kraemer,
this
incident
is
a
classic
example
of
when
off-duty
behavior
leads
to
a
termination,
“This
incident
involves
a
general
counsel,
and
from
our
perspective,
one
of
the
main
reasons
why
an
employer
will
seek
to
terminate
or
discipline
an
employee
for
off-duty
behavior
is
in
a
situation
where
that
behavior
is
having
a
negative
impact
on
the
company’s
brand
or
reputation
or
client
relationship
or
trust.”
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Thomson
Reuters
announced
this
morning
that
it’s
partnering
with
DeepJudge,
a
Swiss-founded
startup
created
by
ex-Google
AI
researchers,
to
bring
more
search
capabilities
to
the
CoCounsel
Legal
product.
The
value
proposition
is
fairly
simple.
DeepJudge
offers,
in
the
words
of
Raghu
Ramanathan,
president
of
TR’s
Legal
Professionals
group,
“breakthrough
contextual
enterprise
search
that
unleashes
the
full
power
of
a
firm’s
internal
intelligence.”
In
more
practical
terms,
the
company
seeks
to
solve
the
problem
of
every
associate
who’s
ever
spent
three
hours
looking
for
“that
motion
we
filed
in
the
Johnson
case…
or
was
it
the
Jensen
case?”
For
the
record,
it
was
the
Armstrong
case
and
it
was
a
different
area
of
law
and
in
Kentucky.
Law
firms
sit
upon
mountains
of
institutional
knowledge
—
briefs,
memos,
research
—
that
might
as
well
be
buried
in
a
landfill
for
all
the
good
it
does
at
1
a.m.
on
a
Saturday.
DeepJudge
intends
to
assist
the
lawyers
in
finding
those
pearls
of
relevant
research
found
in
“Final_Memo_V8_REAL_FINAL.docx,”
which
is,
in
fact,
not
the
final
version.
Years
ago,
a
senior
partner
told
our
assembled
first-year
class
that
“plagiarism
is
your
friend”
and
that
nothing
should
go
out
the
door
without
drawing
lessons
from
the
accumulated
knowledge
of
our
predecessors
at
the
firm.
Our
firm,
we
were
told,
saw
so
much
further
because
we
stood
on
the
shoulders
of
giants.
And
an
unobstructed
harbor
view,
but
mostly
the
shoulders
of
giants.
SKILLS.law
recently
ranked
DeepJudge
the
#1
most
recommended
legal
AI
tool,
a
testament
to
how
mastering
the
firm’s
internal
library
is
a
widespread
pain
point.
Paulina
Grnarova,
DeepJudge’s
CEO
and
co-founder,
put
it
well:
“What
sets
firms
apart
is
how
they
leverage
their
unique
assets
—
their
expertise
and
the
know-how
and
work
product
derived
from
it.”
Clients
spent
millions
and
millions
generating
that
corpus
of
work
product.
It
would
be
nice
if
the
next
generation
could
actually
find
it
and
avoid
reinventing
the
wheel
next
time.
Especially
when
it’s
the
same
client
who
paid
for
it
five
years
ago.
“Combined
with
TR’s
trusted
content,
this
gives
law
firms
a
complete
view
of
insights
for
any
legal
question,”
Grnarova
continued.
Being
able
to
instantly
surface
every
piece
of
work
your
firm
has
ever
done
on,
say,
Delaware
appraisal
rights
while
simultaneously
accessing
the
latest
case
law
and
secondary
source
guidance
from
the
Thomson
Reuters
database
is
genuinely
useful.
It
takes
expensive
fishing
expeditions
through
the
document
management
system
that
could
last
hours
and
delivers
results
in
minutes,
giving
the
associate
everything
they
needed
to
compile
to
start
working
in
earnest.
We’re
in
the
race
for
context
now.
The
models
aren’t
getting
any
better
no
matter
what
their
creators
say
while
stumping
for
another
infusion
of
cash
they
aren’t
making.
That
leaves
everyone
applying
these
models
searching
for
better
results
with
better
data.
TR
has
an
extensive
library
of
external
materials,
DeepJudge
improves
access
to
internal
materials.
There
you
go.
Defense
Department
personnel
will
now
have
to
coordinate
all
interactions
with
Congress
through
the
Pentagon’s
central
legislative
affairs
office,
according
to
a
memo
obtained
by
Breaking
Defense
—
a
change
in
policy
that
could
further
curb
the
flow
of
information
streaming
from
the
department
to
Capitol
Hill.
In
the
Oct.
15
memo,
Defense
Secretary
Pete
Hegseth
and
Deputy
Defense
Secretary
Steve
Feinberg
direct
Defense
Department
personnel
—
with
the
exception
of
the
Pentagon’s
inspector
general
office
—
to
coordinate
with
the
office
of
the
assistant
secretary
of
defense
for
legislative
affairs
for
all
engagements
and
communication
with
Congress
and
state
elected
officials.
“The
Department
of
War
(DoW)
relies
on
a
collaborative
and
close
partnership
with
Congress
to
achieve
our
legislative
goals.
This
requires
coordination
and
alignment
of
Department
messaging
when
engaging
with
Congress
to
ensure
consistency
and
support
for
the
Department’s
priorities
to
re-establish
deterrence,
rebuild
our
military,
and
revive
the
warrior
ethos,”
Hegseth
and
Feinberg
wrote
in
the
memo,
which
uses
a
secondary
name
for
the
Defense
Department.
“Unauthorized
engagements
with
Congress
by
DoW
personnel
acting
in
their
official
capacity,
no
matter
how
well-intentioned,
may
undermine
Department-wide
priorities
critical
to
achieving
our
legislative
objectives,”
Hegseth
and
Feinberg
wrote
later
in
the
memo.
Under
the
terms
of
the
directive,
all
interactions
between
Defense
Department
personnel
and
Congress
or
state
elected
officials,
including
those
outside
of
the
national
capital
region,
require
approval
from
the
Pentagon’s
legislative
affairs
office.
Communication
with
Capitol
Hill
—
including
congressional
reporting
requirements,
requests
for
information,
drafting
and
technical
assistance
and
legislative
correspondence
—
must
also
be
routed
through
the
office.
The
directive
is
a
shift
from
previous
policy,
which
allowed
the
military
services,
combatant
commands
and
other
Defense
Department
agencies
to
manage
their
own
interactions
with
Congress
—
with
senior
leaders
for
those
organizations
often
driving
the
level
of
engagement
on
Capitol
Hill
and
each
service
having
its
own
legislative
affairs
team.
Rep.
George
Whitesides,
D-Calif,
a
member
of
the
House
Armed
Services
Committee,
told
Breaking
Defense
that
the
move
is
unlikely
to
be
received
well
on
Capitol
Hill.
“Congress
decides
who
Congress
will
talk
to,
and
the
continued
efforts
of
the
secretary
to
wall
off
the
department
is
not
consistent
with
past
tradition,
and
I
frankly
don’t
think
it’ll
fly
with
the
members
or
leaders
of
the
committee,”
he
said.
One
congressional
aide
told
Breaking
Defense
that
the
new
policy
“could
potentially
backfire”
on
the
department,
especially
as
Congress
hammers
out
details
of
the
fiscal
2026
National
Defense
Authorization
Act
and
the
corresponding
appropriations
bill.
Sometimes,
the
staff
writing
those
bills
need
information
from
the
Pentagon,
military
services
or
combatant
commands
“within
minutes.”
If
those
details
need
to
be
cleared
by
the
Pentagon’s
main
legislative
affairs
office,
they
may
not
arrive
in
time
to
impact
pending
legislation
and
may
result
in
language
that
adversely
impacts
the
military,
the
aide
said.
After
publication,
Chief
Pentagon
Spokesman
Sean
Parnell
said
in
a
statement
that
the
memo
is
a
“pragmatic
step”
to
internally
review
the
department’s
processes
for
communicating
with
Congress.
“The
Department
intends
to
improve
accuracy
and
responsiveness
in
communicating
with
the
Congress
to
facilitate
increased
transparency.
This
review
is
for
processes
internal
to
the
Department
and
does
not
change
how
or
from
whom
Congress
receives
information,”
he
said.
The
memo
applies
to
senior
department
leaders,
the
chairman
of
the
Joint
Chiefs
of
Staff
and
the
Joint
Staff,
combatant
command
heads,
service
secretaries
and
chiefs,
directors
of
Defense
Department
agencies,
and
congressional
affairs
officials,
amongst
others.
However,
the
directive
does
not
limit
the
authorities
of
the
Pentagon’s
comptroller,
with
the
memo
noting
that
the
comptroller’s
budget
and
appropriations
affairs
office
will
continue
to
service
as
the
principal
legislative
liaison
for
the
appropriations
committees
and
the
Congressional
Budget
Office.
The
authorities
of
the
Pentagon’s
general
counsel
also
remain
unchanged,
and
servicemembers
and
department
employees
still
retain
whistleblower
protections
and
other
rights
granted
by
law
to
communicate
with
Congress,
the
memo
states.
In
addition
to
the
new
restrictions
on
congressional
interaction,
Hegseth
and
Feinberg
have
ordered
the
Pentagon’s
assistant
secretary
of
legislative
affairs
to
conduct
a
comprehensive
review
of
the
department’s
interactions
with
Congress.
That
report,
which
is
expected
in
90
days,
should
address
“current
issues,
inefficiencies
or
misalignments
in
congressional
engagement
processes”
and
include
proposals
to
“streamline
activities”
and
“enhance
compliance”
in
the
realm
of
congressional
affairs,
the
memo
stated.
The
memo
authorizes
the
legislative
affairs
office
to
form
working
groups
across
the
department
to
support
the
ongoing
review.
Meanwhile,
Pentagon
component
heads
and
principal
staff
assistants
have
been
given
30
days
to
provide
contact
information
for
the
personnel
supporting
legislative
affairs,
organizational
charts
showcasing
roles
and
responsibilities,
and
information
on
tools
used
to
track
congressional
engagements.
Updated
10/21/2025
at
8:50
p.m.
ET
with
a
statement
from
Chief
Pentagon
Spokesman
Sean
Parnell
.
Kathryn
