FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

So is the recent post about layoffs at unspecified FFRDC conjecture or based on credible sources?

[Anonymous]

RAND seems to be placing long-term bets on operations and support roles instead of researchers. They seem unwilling to commit to researchers past 12 months as seen by most research job postings having term limits that are similar to a staffing agency. But RAND does seem willing to pay for "permanent" positions like IT, security and fundraising as seen by their job postings.

[Anonymous]

Nothing says 'independent research organization' quite like hiring a high-powered DC lobbying firm. It looks like RAND just brought on Mercury Public Affairs including Bryan Lanza, a former Trump campaign/transition official turned lobbyist.


https://lda.gov/filings/public/filing/13456a26-2c04-4752-9d49-219f387ffff3/print/

https://www.mercuryllc.com/team/bryan-lanza/

[Anonymous]

I think I've seen this guy on CNN as a commentator

[Anonymous]

the RAND hater is back!

[Anonymous]

MITRE has a lobbyist listed on this website too. Why would an FFRDC need a lobbyist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MITRE has a lobbyist listed on this website too. Why would an FFRDC need a lobbyist?

Maybe because it operates as if it were a for profit??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the RAND hater is back!

Companies don’t usually hire expensive lobbyists unless there is a problem that needs lobbying. No association w/ RAND CORP and no strong feelings abt the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I've seen this guy on CNN as a commentator

Is this the same guy that appears to be lobbying for RAND now? https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-ally-lanza-becomes-consultant-180200746.html

[Anonymous]

Congressional affairs staffers are usually registered lobbyists so they can represent their organizations when talking to congress or congressional staffers. So having a "lobbyist" on staff can mean someone who tries to get FFRDC work in front of staff to better inform their decisionmaking. Furthermore, congressional language rarely identifies particular FFRDCs or think tanks by name when writing legislation calling for studies, so these opportunities competitive and limits the ability of any FFRDC congressional affairs staffer to drive work toward their home organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congressional affairs staffers are usually registered lobbyists so they can represent their organizations when talking to congress or congressional staffers. So having a "lobbyist" on staff can mean someone who tries to get FFRDC work in front of staff to better inform their decisionmaking. Furthermore, congressional language rarely identifies particular FFRDCs or think tanks by name when writing legislation calling for studies, so these opportunities competitive and limits the ability of any FFRDC congressional affairs staffer to drive work toward their home organizations.

I don’t see CNA or IDA in this lobbying database…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congressional affairs staffers are usually registered lobbyists so they can represent their organizations when talking to congress or congressional staffers. So having a "lobbyist" on staff can mean someone who tries to get FFRDC work in front of staff to better inform their decisionmaking. Furthermore, congressional language rarely identifies particular FFRDCs or think tanks by name when writing legislation calling for studies, so these opportunities competitive and limits the ability of any FFRDC congressional affairs staffer to drive work toward their home organizations.

You’re mistaken. Not sure why they need to hire this high powered lobbying outfit since Rand has their own in-house congressional affairs shop. This is something different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I've seen this guy on CNN as a commentator

Is this the same guy that appears to be lobbying for RAND now? https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-ally-lanza-becomes-consultant-180200746.html

smh

[Anonymous]

A former security director at Santa Monica-based RAND Corporation has quietly resolved a gender-discrimination lawsuit that accused the powerhouse think tank of retaliating after she went to human resources.

https://hoodline.com/2026/03/santa-monica-think-tank-rand-cuts-quiet-deal-in-gender-bias-clash-with-ex-security-boss/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

I bemoan the good old days of working for an employer who didn't lose money and whose leadership had a clear strategic plan.

You'd have to go back pre-2000 for that. I remember them bragging about raising the headcount cap with no mention of raising revenue. Turned out the idea was to flatten salaries. Eventually the non-mafia and best people left.

Right now, we’re all fighting over the few project scraps left, while leadership moves everyone into 3 year term gigs that basically turn us into a staffing agency... and meanwhile Jason’s friends in GER are out there writing think pieces about how AI is going to end the world.

You want them to make money, but you don't like GER, which fundraised to do the kind of work you're criticizing. You don't like that they brought in some weird Trump guy, presumably to help with the administration. (I don't know anything about him or their plan, but what else could it be?) There isn't a plan for solvency which involves whatever they were doing previously, whether it was five years ago or 25.