Congress is about to head out for its July 4 recess. It leaves behind a debt deal that raised the federal debt ceiling, makes marginal spending cuts, and calls on those with student loans to resume paying them back, among other measures.

The debt deal process was ugly, and nobody enjoyed watching the sausage get made. But despite the acrimony and the marginal nature of the cuts, both Congress and the White House did their jobs as executives: They came to a decision and gave clear marching orders to lower-level leaders. With the politics in the rear-view mirror, the debt deal now becomes a leadership challenge for the administrative machinery of cabinet secretaries, agency heads, directors and other federal managers who are charged with the hard work of implementing the deal.

Implementing Congress’ directives won’t be easy for some agencies, because those directives come in addition to normal duties like allocating and fulfilling other congressional priorities for national defense, border security, farm insurance requests, Social Security payments and Medicare reimbursements. Administrators will have to make tough short-term decisions about employee and vendor capabilities, and long-term decisions regarding agency missions.

Some agencies will do this with a smaller-than-anticipated budget increase. These leaders will have to manage with less, but still will have all of their current resources to handle ongoing and new tasks. This means that many of their challenges can be overcome with a thoughtful approach to implementation. For example, the IRS’ new budget requires walking back far-reaching plans to scrutinize ordinary people’s payment app transactions.  But the Biden Administration has made it clear that the IRS’ core mission will continue. Treasury Department and IRS leaders will still be able to address core priorities like zeroing in on tax cheats and ensuring that taxes are collected.

Other agency leaders will have to figure out how to do the same work with fewer anticipated dollars — which may mean controversial and unpopular decisions about staff reductions. For example, the Small Business Administration is losing $2 billion in COVID-era relief funding. Ending this funding makes sense since the pandemic is over, but it means that the SBA will have to perform its work without anticipated resources. Possible layoffs, delaying new hires, or postponing updated technology implementation will put a lot of pressure and stress on existing staff. Leaders up and down the agency will have to handle uncertainty with empathy to maintain trust through the ranks and keep subordinates mission-focused.

Some agencies got through the deal without being touched, but their leaders should understand that they could be on the budgetary chopping block in the future. The debt deal is an opportunity for managers to demonstrate value through accomplishing their missions with greater efficiency so they can prove value when their budgets come under attack.

The Pentagon, for example, wasn’t touched in this debt deal – but it was a major target during the similarly acrimonious budget debate in 2011, and has critics in both parties. The Defense Department’s leadership needs to keep this in mind as it navigates the military realities on the ground and the political realities in Washington. One way to do this is to keep costs down today and plan to keep costs down in the future.

Perhaps the easiest way to cut spending now is to eliminate the single most expensive weapon system in history: the F-35 fighter aircraft. In May, the Government Accountability Office reported that the F-35 program is more than a decade behind schedule and more than $183 billion over budget. That’s about 20% of the Pentagon’s total budget for this year — hardly defensible under the best of circumstances.

But this failure hasn’t stopped the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, from petitioning Congress to increase unnecessary spending far into the future. The defense giant is pressuring the Air Force to buy its proposed LMXT tanker aircraft over more viable, proven and cost-effective options like the current Boeing KC-46.

Cutting the F-35 will reduce the DoD’s current budget burden, and sticking with the KC-46 will prevent possible future overruns. Decisions like these will require leading subordinates to understand and implement priorities on winding down the F-35, and ensuring that all relevant staff are trained to fully implement the KC-46.

Great leadership isn’t easy, and our elected leaders in Washington have failed to attain even middling status. But agency heads have their marching orders, and they are now the key players to implement the debt deal in a way that serves the American people.

Jack Yoest is a leadership professor at The Catholic University of America, a former Army Captain and author of “The Memo: How the Classified Military Document That Helped the U.S. Win WWII Can Help You Succeed in Business.”

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.