The Wait Is Over: Final DFARS Safeguarding Rule Published Today
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.21.16
Almost three years after its first iteration was published, DoD has finalized the DFARS Safeguarding Rule and corresponding DFARS clauses regarding the protection of “covered defense information” provided to or generated by defense contractors. Effective today, the Final Rule by and large reflects the same requirements of its interim versions and FAQs but with a few notable exceptions, including the definition of “covered defense information” now encompasses all forms of “controlled unclassified information” and thus aligns with the National Archive’s recent final rule, external cloud services housing covered defense information must comply with certain FedRAMP security requirements, and subcontractors must notify their primes when requesting variances from the security controls of NIST Special Publication 800-171.
Contacts
Partner, Crowell Global Advisors Senior Director
- Washington, D.C.
- D | +1.202.624.2698
- Washington, D.C. (CGA)
- D | +1 202.624.2500
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
