Federal agencies under pressure need smarter systems, not tougher ...
AI Analysis
The article highlights the need for smarter systems rather than relying solely on individual resilience to manage the chronic strain faced by US federal agencies, including those involved in national security. It emphasizes the importance of systemic redesign to ensure readiness and effective performance under stress.
Key Takeaways
- Federal agencies are under chronic strain, making them prone to failure during crises.
- Current resilience efforts focus on individual coping rather than systemic change.
- Redesigning flawed systems is essential for maintaining national security readiness.
- Leadership behavior plays a crucial role in fostering a resilient culture.
- Resilience initiatives often overlook the root causes of stress, such as operational tempo and staffing.
Why It Matters
The strategic significance lies in the recognition that merely enhancing individual resilience is insufficient for maintaining national security. Systemic changes are necessary to address the underlying stressors, ensuring that agencies can effectively manage crises and sustain operational readiness, particularly in areas involving remote operations like unmanned aircraft systems.
Federal agencies under pressure need smarter systems, not tougher people - Atlantic Council
Bottom lines up front
- But it’s only by redesigning the flawed systems that the US government can create the readiness on which national security depends.
- Many current efforts to fix this focus on helping individuals operate effectively within flawed systems.
- The institutions charged with keeping the United States secure operate under chronic strain that can make them prone to failure.
- Donate
The hours are long and the pace rarely eases, including shifts of twelve to fourteen hours that inevitably erode family and social life. In theory, there are guardrails. In practice, the approval processes meant to limit overwork can become a formality: the reality of excessive hours reduced to a signature on a page, without changing the workload or capturing the extent of the time burden. The culture reinforces it. Leadership may say the right things, but the cycle doesn’t break, and in some corners of the institution, burnout is even treated as a point of pride. The quiet signal that this has become normal: the organization celebrates the 2 a.m. email. People are mentally drained, but stepping back to recover can feel professionally risky because there’s a persistent sense that if you can’t do it, someone else will, and asking for help can damage your credibility.
The above vignette is a composite scenario, drawing on multiple examples raised by participants—national security practitioners, psychiatry and health experts, and think tank experts on individual resilience—across a series of roundtables conducted by Atlantic Council researchers in 2025 and held under the Chatham House rule.
The roundtables focused on an underappreciated problem: The institutions charged with keeping the United States secure—including US military services and combatant commands, the intelligence community (e.g., CIA, National Security Agency), the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department—operate under chronic strain that can make them dangerously prone to failure in moments of crisis. Many of the “resilience” efforts created to address this problem—wellness training and mindset workshops—focus on helping individuals operate within flawed systems.
Only by adapting those systems can the US government deliver long-term readiness enabling reliable performance under stress that US national security requires. Other key takeaways included:
- Leadership behavior is key. Ideally, leaders would express their own vulnerabilities by openly expressing uncertainty, acknowledging moments of strain, and modeling both recovery and the soundness of seeking help. This could increase trust among team members, as well as the likelihood that risks are addressed early.
- Many resilience initiatives are designed to expand coping tools and wellness support programs yet leave the stressors themselves—tempo, staffing, and decision b