October 26, 2021


News Network

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Delivers Remarks at the 47th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy and Antitrust Economics Workshops

21 min read

Virtual Event

“Video Killed the Radio Star”*: Promoting a Culture of Innovation


Good morning.  Thank you for the introduction and thank you to the Fordham Competition Law Institute for inviting me back to participate in this conference today.  I know first-hand the challenges of hosting virtual international events, and I congratulate you for making this important event possible despite the obstacles.    

I also want to acknowledge and thank Executive Vice President Vestager for her continued contributions to promotes a culture of competition and for the valuable and constructive partnership she and I have had the past three years. We have accomplished a lot, worked civilly though minor disagreements, and have together improved, in my view, the free markets to the benefit of consumers across the globe.

Some of us are old enough to remember that life-changing moment when MTV launched in August 1981.  As you may know, the first video MTV aired was a song by the Buggles called “Video Killed the Radio Star.”  The song is about the transformative power of innovation.  A new form of musical entertainment had arrived on the scene, and radio’s dominance was under a very real threat.  Today, nearly forty years later, MTV’s video stars long since have been killed by the technologies that followed.  The song’s sentiment nonetheless remains as relevant to antitrust policy as ever:  innovation and technology continually are changing markets and the economic landscape, and even creating new industries. 

It is incumbent on competition law enforcers to champion policies that support the incentives for the next generation of “video stars” to emerge.  The pandemic has underscored the

importance of protecting the climate for innovation.  We all are counting on innovations in medical science for the development of strategies to treat and protect infection.

Today, I would like to share some examples of innovations the Antitrust Division has undertaken to ensure that we enforce the antitrust laws in a way that accomplishes the goals of protecting competition and also supporting growth and innovation.  Over the past three years, we have taken a fresh look at the Division’s policies across nearly all aspects of our work to ensure that they accomplish these aims.  That mindset of embracing flexibility and adaptability served us well as we pivoted to telework and pandemic-related competition challenges.  In many ways, the pandemic actually reinforced our perspective that experimenting with new ways of doing things provides opportunities to learn, grow, and ultimately make us better, or as I have noted before “antifragile.” 

Of course, competition law is about protecting a process, not about mandating a particular result. 

In that spirit, we have focused on improving processes that promote and sustain conditions for innovation to thrive, rather than directing specific outcomes in the marketplace.

At the OECD’s Global Forum on Competition last fall, I was struck by some familiar insights of Nobel-prize winning economist Jean Tirole.  He offered some advice to enforcers for tackling the complex issues we all face in the digital space.  He said, “We don’t need more laws.  We need more guidance.”  He called for more “participative antitrust” between competition agencies and stakeholders to consider appropriate enforcement or regulatory approaches to modern competition challenges.  I agree with Professor Tirole that our existing antitrust laws are up to the task of addressing modern competition problems.  Yet, we need to be flexible, self-reflective, and collaborative to ensure that our approach keeps pace with evolving facts and economic wisdom. 

The participative approach has served us well at the Antitrust Division.  In the past three years, we have improved our transparency: we actively have updated guidelines, made speeches, issued business review letters, and submitted amicus briefs to courts in a deliberate effort to share and explain our analytical processes.  Clear guidance helps mitigate the risks innovators and entrepreneurs face when investing resources to develop new products.  Whenever possible, we welcome a wide range of views, including from industry participants, academics, and consumer advocates.  For example, we regularly hold public workshops and post draft guidelines for public comment.  The dialogue that plays out in these fora inevitably leads to better and more thoughtful results.  You may have noticed, I often invite the views of my biggest detractors.

I would now like to share some specific examples of the Division’s efforts to promote innovation, which I will group into four broad categories: (1) better explaining the state of the antitrust laws relating to patent licensing practices; (2) promoting substantive and procedural convergence with our international partners; (3) modernizing our domestic enforcement program; and (4) encouraging innovation within the Antitrust Division itself.  

“New Madison” Approach

I will start with our approach to the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law.  I first presented an updated and transparent analytical framework last year in an article called The “New Madison” Approach to Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law in the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Journal of Law and Innovation.

This correctly balanced approach is aimed at ensuring continued innovation and dynamic competition in the context of standard setting.  We have cautioned that antitrust law should not be used as a tool to police contractual commitments to license standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, terms.  When licensing negotiations fail, patent owners should have the full range of statutory remedies available to them when their patents are infringed, including injunctions.  At the same time, coordination among members of standards development organizations can raise competition concerns that should not be overlooked.  We have advocated for these principles through speeches, guidance documents, business review letters, and statements of interest as amicus in federal courts.    

I am encouraged that the principles of the New Madison approach continue to gain acceptance not only in U.S. courts, but in international courts as well.  In May, the German Federal Court of Justice issued its decision in Sisvel v. Haier in support of a standard-essential patent holder’s enforcement rights.  In that case, Haier, the potential licensee (or implementer), had been intransigent in negotiations, rejecting Sisvel’s repeated licensing offers but making no offers of its own.  The German high court held that an implementer must take an active role in negotiations and be willing to take on a license on any terms that are FRAND.   

Other German courts have echoed this concern for patent holder rights.  In a decision in early September in a dispute between patent-holder Sharp Corporation and implementer Daimler, a Munich court rejected Daimler’s antitrust-law based defense.  The court granted the Japanese corporation Sharp an injunction against Daimler’s sales of the Mercedes-Benz for infringing Sharp’s patent which is essential to LTE technology.

Likewise, the UK Supreme Court’s decision in August in Unwired Planet v. Huawei aligns closely with the New Madison approach. There, the Court held that SEP holders may be entitled to injunctive relief and are not limited to seeking monetary damages. 

These decisions are important successes reflecting the convergence of legal systems around New Madison principles, and in doing so, promoting innovation. 

International Engagement

This leads me to the topic of international engagement more generally, which has been a key focus of my tenure at the Antitrust Division.  With more than 140 competition agencies around the world, and as mergers and conduct increasingly draw attention from enforcers in multiple jurisdictions, convergence on substantive and procedural approaches is more and more critical.  As the great American innovator Henry Ford once said, “Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is a success.”  We have had many successes over the past several years.

We have worked together as a strong community of international enforcers as we have reacted in real time to the many challenges posed by the pandemic.  Since March, the Division has participated in a number of virtual events hosted by multilateral organizations such as the ICN, OECD, and UNCTAD to compare notes on pandemic responses.  We appreciate the opportunities to learn from others’ experience in these unprecedented times.

We have not neglected other priorities in the meantime.  Promoting greater procedural norms and due process is a prime example.  The International Competition Network’s Framework for Competition Agency Procedures, or the “CAP,” is a huge step forward toward harmonizing due process principles.  When I first announced the initiative in June 2018, at that time called the Multilateral Framework on Procedures (or MFP), I urged competition authorities to go beyond soft commitments and sign on to a multilateral agreement on due process that included meaningful compliance mechanisms.  Less than a year later, that vision was fulfilled when the CAP came into effect through the ICN with 70 founding competition agencies, importantly including authorities in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Through this agreement, we will be more transparent, predictable, and consistent as law enforcers, and we will continue to build trust in our enforcement actions. 

The CAP also represents a remarkable achievement for the ICN, an innovative organization in its own right.  The ICN was launched less than twenty years ago by a group of 15 agencies, including the Antitrust Division.  Today, the ICN has grown to include 138 member agencies from 125 jurisdictions.  It has become an influential force in driving sound policies through recommendations and guidance for its members.  A recent example of the ICN’s meaningful policy work is this year’s Guidance on Enhancing Cross-Border Leniency Cooperation.  The ICN’s influence was on display last month at the ICN 2020 conference hosted by the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission, which featured spirited discussions on some of the most challenging issues in competition policy. 

The OECD is another important forum for advancing international convergence that enhances innovation for the benefit of consumers.  The Competition Committee’s biannual meetings provide an opportunity for wide-ranging competition policy discussions.  Over the last three years alone, we have addressed the digital economy, intellectual property licensing, labor, education, and fintech markets to name just a few of many topics.  It has been a true privilege for me to chair the Working Party 3 of the Competition Committee, where so much has been accomplished.

Cooperation with respect to specific cases has increased substantially in recent years as the number of jurisdictions active in merger review has grown.  We communicate with our global counterparts on a daily basis.  Last year, we collaborated with at least 25 jurisdictions on cross-border investigations and global cartel enforcement and with 15 international counterparts on merger and civil nonmerger matters. 

There is still work to be done, particularly as agencies around the globe grapple with the challenging issues presented by the digital economy.  At the Antitrust Division, we are continually looking for innovative ways to strengthen international cooperation.  For example, in September, I signed a new competition enforcement Framework among the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission, and competition agencies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The Framework provides the basis for future bilateral agreements focused on investigative assistance.     

Innovations in Domestic Enforcement

Back at home, we have launched a number of domestic enforcement initiatives aimed at promoting free markets and a culture of innovation.  

Not surprisingly, over the past seven months, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has been a key priority.  In March 2020, the Antitrust Division and the FTC announced an expedited process for reviewing and providing guidance relating to collaborations of businesses working to protect the health and safety of Americans during the pandemic. The Division has issued four COVID-19 business review letters through this process.  At the same time, we remain vigilant about combatting anticompetitive behavior by firms seeking to take advantage of the turmoil. 

The pandemic did not sideline other important efforts to rethink and improve our enforcement program.  One such initiative was to withdraw and reconsider the Division’s 2011 guidance on merger remedies.  The DOJ’s modernized Merger Remedies Manual, released in September, reflects our strong preference for structural over behavioral remedies. 

As I have explained before, antitrust enforcement is law enforcement, not regulation.  Behavioral remedies tend to be regulatory in nature, entangling the Division and the courts in the ongoing operation of a market. Such regulatory meddling can require businesses to act counter to their profit-maximizing interests, distort the market, and stifle innovation. 

In a similar vein, we undertook a comprehensive effort to review nearly 1,300 so-called “legacy” judgments, some of which date back to the 1890’s, in our Judgment Termination Initiative.  We filed motions in federal district courts across the country to terminate decrees that were no longer needed to protect competition, and in some cases were potentially harmful to competition.  In a recent case, a federal court terminated the Paramount Consent Decrees, which for over seventy years had regulated how certain movie studios distribute films to movie theatres.  As the Court noted, Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and It’s a Wonderful Life were the blockbusters when these decrees were litigated.  As a result of this ongoing Initiative, courts have terminated nearly 800 perpetual decrees.  This effort ensures that regulatory decrees do not stand in the way of the free market functioning as it should.  It also frees up the Division’s resources and attention so that we may better focus on protecting competition. 

Another example of our efforts to advance merger policy is the recent update to our guidance on vertical mergers, which we revised for the first time since 1984.  We, along with the FTC, released joint draft Vertical Merger Guidelines in February 2020 and conducted workshops to collect feedback and perspectives from diverse groups.  The revised final Guidelines, issued in June, provide transparency into our approach to evaluating vertical transactions.

Knowing that delays can create business uncertainty and harm innovation, we also took a fresh look at our merger review processes to seek ways to streamline our investigations.  In September 2018, I announced a goal of resolving most investigations within six months of filing, provided that the parties promptly comply with Division requests throughout the entire process.  The Division published a Model Voluntary Request Letter and a Model Timing Agreement to facilitate expeditious cooperation and compliance.

We sought to streamline enforcement actions where possible too.  Earlier this year, the Division made its first ever use of arbitration to resolve the proposed merger of Novelis Inc. and Aleris Corporation. The arbitration proved to be an effective and efficient way to resolve the one dispositive issue in the case, and I expect it will be used again under the right circumstances.

Turning to an innovation in our criminal program, last November, we launched the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, or PCSF, which is an interagency partnership among the Antitrust Division, 13 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and four federal Offices of Inspectors General.  Liaisons from these agencies are working together to deter, detect, and prosecute cartels in government contracting.  It has generated an overwhelmingly positive response from stakeholders.  We have received more than 50 inquiries to PCSF from federal, state, and local government agencies seeking outreach training, assistance with safeguarding their procurement processes.  So far, we have opened nearly two dozen PCSF grand jury investigations in connection with the PCSF.  We just appointed our first ever permanent Director of the PCSF, and we are now searching for a permanent Assistant Director given the overwhelming response.

Promoting a Culture of Innovation Within the Antitrust Division

Finally, I will briefly mention a couple of our efforts to encourage innovative thinking within the Antitrust Division itself.

Technological advancements in recent years have changed virtually every industry within our purview.  In August, I announced a restructuring of our civil program to ensure efficient and effective enforcement that accounts for these changes.  This included a realignment of responsibilities within the civil sections.  We also created an Office of Decree Enforcement and Compliance to dedicate Division personnel to ensuring proactive enforcement of consent decrees. In addition, we created a Civil Conduct Task Force to focus full time on civil non-merger work. 

We are paying close attention to a number of emerging issues, and we are making sure we develop and maintain expertise on cutting-edge issues and developments.  Late last year, we launched a novel program to build our expertise by training some of our attorneys and economists in emerging technologies in the fields of blockchain, machine learning, and artificial intelligence.  It is critical to understand these technologies and their growing business applications.  We have selected this training through MIT’s Sloan School, and so far have trained over 30 of our professional staff, all of whom have had an overwhelmingly positive response to the courses.   


To conclude, the Antitrust Division is committed to ensuring that competition policy remains a force for good in fostering innovation.  Back in 1981, video may have killed the radio star.  In 2020, however, streaming video provides a lifeline for the rest of us to carry on with our lives—from learning, shopping, or enforcing the antitrust laws—in the face of unprecedented physical limitations.  Recent experience has shown the power of technology to improve our quality of life, and also how much we have come to depend on it.  As the Buggles put it, “we can’t rewind, we’ve gone too far.”  There is no way to predict what life-changing, or even life-saving, innovations are on the horizon. We can guarantee that, through vigilance in our role as law enforcers, we will preserve incentives to innovate while promoting the competitive process. 

News Network

  • Kenyan National Indicted for Conspiring to Hijack Aircraft on Behalf of the Al Qaeda-Affiliated Terrorist Organization Al Shabaab
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced the unsealing of an indictment charging Cholo Abdi Abdullah with six counts of terrorism-related offenses arising from his activities as an operative of the foreign terrorist organization al Shabaab, including conspiring to hijack aircraft in order to conduct a 9/11-style attack in the United States.  Abdullah was arrested in July 2019 in the Philippines on local charges, and was subsequently transferred on Dec. 15, 2020 in connection with his deportation from the Philippines to the custody of U.S. law enforcement for prosecution on the charges in the indictment.  Abdullah was transported from the Phillippines to the United States yesterday, and is expected to be presented today before Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger in Manhattan federal court.  The case is assigned to United States District Judge Analisa Torres.
    [Read More…]
  • Human Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors’ Use of Foreign Workers in High-Risk Environments Needs to Be Strengthened
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Current policies and guidance governing the payment of recruitment fees by foreign workers on certain U.S. government contracts do not provide clear instructions to agencies or contractors regarding the components or amounts of permissible fees related to recruitment. GAO found that some foreign workers—individuals who are not citizens of the United States or the host country—had reported paying for their jobs. Such recruitment fees can lead to various abuses related to trafficking in persons (TIP), such as debt bondage. For example, on the contract employing the largest number of foreign workers in its sample, GAO found that more than 1,900 foreign workers reported paying fees for their jobs, including to recruitment agencies used by a subcontractor. According to the subcontractor, these fees were likely paid to a recruiter who assisted foreign workers with transportation to and housing in Dubai before they were hired to work on the contract in Afghanistan (see figure). Some Department of Defense (DOD) contracting officials GAO interviewed said that such fees may be reasonable. DOD, the Department of State (State), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have developed policy and guidance for certain contracts addressing recruitment fees in different ways. However, these agencies do not specify what components or amounts of recruitment fees are considered permissible, limiting the ability of contracting officers and contractors to implement agency policy and guidance. Sample Recruitment Paths for Foreign Workers on a U.S. Government Contract in Afghanistan GAO found that agency monitoring, called for by federal acquisition regulations and agency guidance, did not always include processes to specifically monitor contractor efforts to combat TIP. For 7 of the 11 contracts in GAO's sample, DOD and State had specific monitoring processes to combat TIP. On the 4 remaining contracts, agencies did not specifically monitor for TIP, but rather focused on contractor-provided goods and services, such as building construction. In addition, some DOD and State contracting officials said they were unaware of relevant acquisitions policy and guidance for combating TIP and did not clearly understand their monitoring responsibilities. Both DOD and State have developed additional training to help make contracting officials more aware of their monitoring responsibilities to combat TIP. Without specific efforts to monitor for TIP, agencies' ability to implement the zero tolerance policy and detect concerns about TIP is limited. Why GAO Did This Study Since the 1990s, there have been allegations of abuse of foreign workers on U.S. government contracts overseas, including allegations of TIP. In 2002, the United States adopted a zero tolerance policy on TIP regarding U.S. government employees and contractors abroad and began requiring the inclusion of this policy in all contracts in 2007. Such policy is important because the government relies on contractors that employ foreign workers in countries where, according to State, they may be vulnerable to abuse. GAO was mandated to report on the use of foreign workers. This report examines (1) policies and guidance governing the recruitment of foreign workers and the fees these workers may pay to secure work on U.S. government contracts overseas and (2) agencies' monitoring of contractor efforts to combat TIP. GAO reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 11 contracts awarded by DOD, State, and USAID, composing nearly one-third of all reported foreign workers on contracts awarded by these agencies at the end of fiscal year 2013. GAO interviewed agency officials and contractors about labor practices and oversight activities on these contracts.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Disaster Recovery: HUD Should Take Additional Action to Assess Community Development Block Grant Fraud Risks
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO identified four categories of fraud risks facing the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) from 2007 to 2020, including risks from contractors, disaster recovery applicants, grantees, and others, as shown below. In total, we identified 78 cases from Department of Justice (DOJ) public announcements and 110 HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) enforcement cases. For example, in 2012 following Hurricane Sandy, a New Jersey couple applied for disaster assistance and fraudulently received $79,000 in CDBG-DR funds, according to HUD OIG records. The couple was convicted of conspiracy, falsification, and theft and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. The funding was for a seaside property they fraudulently claimed was their primary residence, but was later determined to be a summer vacation home that was ineligible for assistance. GAO also found that the CDBG-DR operates in a decentralized risk environment that may make it vulnerable to fraud since CDBG-DR funds flow through a number of entities before reaching their intended beneficiaries. In addition, the risk environment in which CDBG-DR operates may contribute to negative financial impacts, such as improper payments. Fraud can have nonfinancial impacts as well, such as fraudulent contractors obtaining a competitive advantage and preventing other businesses from obtaining contracts. Fraud Risks of Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) HUD has taken some steps to assess fraud risks agency-wide. For example, HUD conducts an agency-wide assessment of risks through a Front-End Risk Assessment, which also considers fraud risks. In 2020, HUD redesigned its agency-level approach to evaluate fraud risks through its Fraud Risk Management Maturity Model. While HUD has taken some steps to assess fraud risks agency-wide, GAO found that HUD has not conducted a comprehensive fraud risk assessment of CDBG-DR, as called for in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. Further, HUD's current fraud risk approach does not involve relevant stakeholders such as grantees. Leading practices include tailoring the fraud risk assessment to the program and also involving relevant stakeholders responsible for the design and implementation of the program's fraud controls in the assessment process. Ensuring that a fraud risk assessment is completed specifically for CDBG-DR may provide greater assurance that HUD addresses CDBG-DR fraud risks, including ones identified in this report. Why GAO Did This Study In response to a historic string of natural disasters, Congress appropriated approximately $39.5 billion in CDBG-DR grant funds in 2017 through 2019, with most of the funding designated for Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, accompanying this unprecedented amount of funding is an increased vulnerability to fraud given that CDBG-DR involves multiple factors. GAO was asked to review a range of disaster recovery issues following the 2017 disaster season. This report addresses: (1) the fraud risks and risk environment of CDBG-DR and their impacts; and (2) the steps HUD has taken to assess fraud risk agency-wide, and specifically for CDBG-DR, in alignment with leading practices. GAO reviewed DOJ public announcements and HUD OIG enforcement cases to identify CDBG-DR fraud risks. GAO assessed HUD's procedures against leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework. GAO interviewed HUD officials responsible for CDBG-DR and fraud risk assessment; and conducted site visits to Florida and Texas, selected partly for the amount of CDBG-DR funds they received, among other factors.
    [Read More…]
  • Human smuggling recruiter sentenced for conspiracy
    In Justice News
    A 58-year-old Chandler [Read More…]
  • Florida Tire Importer Pleads Guilty in Tax Conspiracy
    In Crime News
    A Miami, Florida, tire importer pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to defraud the government, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan of the Southern District of Florida.  
    [Read More…]
  • Deputy Secretary Biegun’s Call with Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Akiba
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • The Extraordinary Sample-Gathering System of NASA’s Perseverance Mars Rover
    In Space
    Two astronauts collected [Read More…]
  • Poland’s Troubling Legislation
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Three Individuals Charged for Alleged Roles in Twitter Hack
    In Crime News
    Three individuals have been charged today for their alleged roles in the Twitter hack that occurred on July 15, 2020.
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Releases Report On Modernizing The Administrative Procedure Act
    In Crime News
    WASHINGTON – The Justice Department released a report today on the need for Congress to update and improve the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the 74-year-old statute setting forth the procedures agencies must follow when regulating individuals, businesses, non-profits, and state and local government entities. The report, entitled Modernizing the Administrative Procedure Act, discusses how the administrative state has developed in ways not foreseen by the APA in 1946, how the APA might be legislatively improved, and how this Administration’s improvements to agencies’ regulatory processes could inform modernizing the APA. The Justice Department, which significantly shaped the original APA, hopes that the ideas and insights discussed in the report will encourage and inform much needed action by Congress to modernize the APA.
    [Read More…]
  • NASA’s Mars Perseverance Rover Passes Flight Readiness Review
    In Space
    The agency’s Mars [Read More…]
  • Intelligence Community: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Workforce Diversity Planning and Oversight
    In U.S GAO News
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) reported that the representation of some demographic groups within the Intelligence Community (IC) workforce increased from fiscal years 2011 through 2019—the latest available data. Over this period, the proportion of women, racial or ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities changed by .7, 3.3, and 6.2 percentage points, respectively. However, the representation of women, racial or ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities remained below comparable benchmarks and declined among higher ranks in fiscal year 2019. IC elements report taking steps to address leading practices for managing workforce diversity, but report gaps in diversity planning. GAO found that most IC elements report taking steps to address seven of nine leading practices for diversity management. For the remaining two leading practices—strategic planning and measurement—most elements report taking one or no steps. Number of Intelligence Community (IC) Elements and the Steps They Report Taking to Implement Leading Practices for Workforce Diversity Management, as of August 2020 GAO leading practices Number of IC elements that report taking steps Leadership commitment 17 of 17 IC elements report taking multiple steps Recruitment 14 of 17 IC elements report taking multiple steps, and three IC elements report taking one step Employee involvement 14 of 17 IC elements report taking multiple steps, two IC elements report taking one step, and one IC element reports taking no step Diversity training 14 of 17 IC elements report taking multiple steps, and three IC elements report taking one step Performance 12 of 17 IC elements linked diversity management with enhanced performance while five IC elements did not Succession planning 9 of 17 IC elements report taking multiple steps, and eight IC elements report taking one step Accountability 9 of 17 IC elements report taking multiple steps, seven IC elements report taking one step, and one IC element reports taking no steps Strategic planning 3 of 17 IC elements have current and complete strategic plans Measurement 6 of 17 IC elements have diversity-related performance measures Source: GAO analysis of IC element documents and GAO leading practices for diversity management. | GAO-21-83 Further, while all IC elements report having a process to identify barriers to diversity, nine IC elements report not completing required barrier assessments. Without fully implementing leading practices for managing workforce diversity and conducting routine barrier assessments, the IC may miss opportunities to develop effective and efficient diversity policies and programs. ODNI's Office of Intelligence Community Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity (IC EEOD) is meeting seven of eight leading practices for enhancing and sustaining the coordination of diversity initiatives across the 17 IC elements. However, IC EEOD partially met the practice to reinforce agency accountability. Specifically, IC EEOD has not established IC-wide implementation objectives and timeframes to demonstrate progress. As a result, IC EEOD risks not holding IC elements accountable for enhancing workforce diversity. The 2019 National Intelligence Strategy states that the IC will recruit, develop, and retain a diverse, inclusive, and expert workforce to enable mission success. ODNI reports that the IC is taking steps to increase the representation of diverse groups, such as issuing new strategies to enhance workforce planning. However, barriers to establishing a diverse workforce exist across the IC, according to an ODNI 2017 analysis. GAO was asked to review the IC's progress in enhancing workforce diversity. This report (1) summarizes ODNI annual demographic reports on the proportion of women, racial or ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities; and assesses the extent to which (2) IC elements report taking steps to address leading practices for managing workforce diversity and to identify potential barriers to maintaining a diverse workforce; and (3) ODNI is addressing leading practices for coordinating IC workforce diversity initiatives. GAO reviewed IC-wide and IC element specific policies and guidance; interviewed ODNI, and other IC officials; and administered a questionnaire to all 17 IC elements to obtain information on diversity strategies and challenges. GAO is making seven recommendations, including that the Director of National Intelligence issue or update guidance to ensure IC elements maintain diversity strategic plans, assess and take steps to eliminate barriers to diversity, and establish implementation objectives and timeframes to hold IC elements accountable. ODNI agreed with the recommendations. For more information, contact Brian M. Mazanec at (202) 512-5130 or mazanecb@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Riverside, California Man Who Admitted Planning Mass Casualty Attacks and Purchasing Firearms Later Used in 2015 Terrorist Attack in San Bernardino Ordered to Serve 20-Year Federal Prison Sentence
    In Crime News
    A Riverside man was sentenced today to 20 years in federal prison for conspiring to commit terrorist attacks in the Inland Empire and for providing assault rifles later used in the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack that killed 14 people.
    [Read More…]
  • Agile Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Agile Adoption and Implementation
    In U.S GAO News
    From September 28, 2020 through September 27, 2021, GAO is seeking input and feedback on this Exposure Draft from all interested parties. Please click on this link https://tell.gao.gov/agileguide to provide us with comment on the Guide. The U.S. Government Accountability Office is responsible for, among other things, assisting Congress in its oversight of the executive branch, including assessing federal agencies' management of information technology (IT) systems. The federal government annually spends more than $90 billion on IT. However, federal agencies face challenges in developing, implementing, and maintaining their IT investments. All too frequently, agency IT programs have incurred cost overruns and schedule slippages while contributing little to mission-related outcomes. Accordingly, GAO has included management of IT acquisitions and operations on its High Risk List. Recognizing the severity related to government-wide management of IT, in 2014, the Congress passed and the President signed federal IT acquisition reform legislation commonly referred to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, or FITARA. This legislation was enacted to improve agencies' acquisition of IT and enable Congress to monitor agencies' progress and hold them accountable for reducing duplication and achieving cost savings. Among its specific provisions is a requirement for Chief Information Officers (CIOs) at covered agencies to certify that certain IT investments are adequately implementing incremental development as defined in the Office of Management and Budget's capital planning guidance. One such framework for incremental development is Agile software development, which has been adopted by many federal agencies. The Agile Assessment Guide discusses best practices that can be used across the federal government for Agile adoption, execution, and program monitoring and control. Use of these best practices should enable government programs to better transition to and manage their Agile programs. GAO has developed this guide to serve multiple audiences: The primary audience for this guide is federal auditors. Specifically, the guide presents best practices that can be used to assess the extent to which an agency has adopted and implemented Agile methods. Organizations and programs that have already established policies and protocols for Agile adoption and execution can use this guide to evaluate their existing approach to Agile software development. Organizations and programs that are in the midst of adopting Agile software development practices and programs that are planning to adopt such practices can also use this guide to inform their transitions. For more information, contact Carol Harris at (202) 512-4456 or harriscc@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • 15 Named In $26 Million International Trade Fraud Scheme
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Houston, Texas, has returned a criminal indictment against eight individuals, while a related civil complaint has charged 14 individuals and one company relating to international trade fraud violations stemming from a decade-long scheme involving tires from China.  
    [Read More…]
  • Disarmament Law and Morality: A Critique
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Dr. Christopher Ashley [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Operation Legend: Case of the Day
    In Crime News
    Each weekday, the Department of Justice will highlight a case that has resulted from Operation Legend.  Today’s case is out of the Northern District of Ohio.  Operation Legend launched in Cleveland on July 29, 2020, in response to the city facing increased homicide and non-fatal shooting rates.
    [Read More…]
  • Three Peruvian Nationals Sentenced to Incarceration for Conspiring to Defraud Thousands of Spanish-Speaking Immigrants
    In Crime News
    Three Peruvian nationals have been sentenced to serve several years in prison for operating a series of call centers in Peru that defrauded Spanish-speaking U.S. residents by falsely threatening them with arrest, deportation and other legal consequences.
    [Read More…]
Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.