Trump Admin Reinvents US Digital Services Program After Elon Musk Fired All Their Actual Tech Experts
from the but-this-one-goes-to-11 dept
Here’s a fun game the Trump administration keeps playing: destroy a successful government program, wait a few months, then breathlessly announce you’ve “invented” the exact same thing but with obvious corruption mechanisms baked in.
Last week, the administration excitedly announced a new “Tech Force”—a program to bring tech talent into government for two-year stints to modernize federal technology. If that sounds familiar, it’s because that’s precisely what the US Digital Service (USDS) and 18F successfully did for over a decade. You know, until Elon Musk and DOGE gleefully fired the entire 18F team in March and gutted USDS into a husk of what it once was.
USDS and 18F were genuine success stories. Obama-era programs that brought engineers from Silicon Valley into government to help all Americans by modernizing creaking federal systems. Here’s how USDS described itself two years in:
In the early days, we worried if more than ten people would apply to join the team. Two years later, folks from Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and the likes have joined to put their skills towards helping Veterans, students, small businesses, and all Americans.
That institutional knowledge, that decade of learning what works and what doesn’t, that careful balance between public service and private sector expertise? All gone. Torched by Musk as part of his faux “efficiency” crusade earlier this year.
And now they’re reinventing it. Badly. I used to joke that the Elon Musk Twitter era was all about throwing out all of Twitter’s carefully thought out ideas and then bringing them back in a dumber, more dangerous way. This seems like that, but in the federal government.
The United States Tech Force, announced Monday, is meant to source the artificial intelligence talent the government needs to win the global AI race and modernize the government, the administration says. The goal is to recruit an initial cohort of around 1,000 technologists who will be placed in agencies for two-year stints, potentially as soon as March.
“We need you,” said Scott Kupor, the director of the Office of Personnel Management. “The U.S. Tech Force offers the chance to build and lead projects of national importance, while creating powerful career opportunities in both public service and the private sector.”
Welcome to Temu USDS, everyone.
Same basic concept—rotate tech talent through government—but stripped of all the institutional knowledge about what actually works, run by political operatives instead of civil servants, and riddled with conflicts of interest that the original programs were specifically designed to avoid.
The especially galling part? Watching the same tech bros who helped destroy USDS and 18F now celebrate “Tech Force” as some brilliant innovation:




These are the people who either stayed silent or actively cheered when Musk gutted the actual working programs. Now they’re acting like this is some breakthrough moment of government-tech collaboration. Looking through the boosters, it looks like every partner at A16Z felt the need to support this. None of them seem to mention how this only came after the destruction of the programs that were doing such great work over the past decade (including during the first Trump administration).
Again, conceptually, there is merit to the idea of bringing in techies to help make government work better for the public. But it seems pretty obnoxious for these tech bros to jump into this without acknowledging (1) this existed and worked really well for over a decade until (2) they and their tech bro buddy Elon went in and destroyed it all. Also, given how the Trump admin has acted towards the public for the past 11 months, pretty rich to assume anything done by this new “Tech Force” will be in the interest of the public.
The one actual “innovation” in Tech Force creates a corruption vector that should alarm anyone who cares about government integrity: companies are guaranteeing participants can return to their old jobs after their tour of duty.
USDS never needed this because it wasn’t a problem—people could always go back to industry if they wanted. What this guarantee does is fundamentally change the incentive structure. Now you have engineers building government systems who know exactly where they’ll be working in two years, and whose interests they’ll be serving. They won’t divest from their stock. They won’t sever ties with their employer. They’ll just be on “leave” while accessing sensitive government data and making technology decisions that could directly benefit their future (and current) employer.
As the NextGov piece notes, this should set off every alarm:
“My first question with any programs like this are, ‘What are the rules that are in place to guard against conflicts of interest?’” said Rob Shriver, former acting OPM director and current managing director of Civil Service Strong at Democracy Forward.
This is especially worthy of attention, he said, given DOGE’s approach to data — “coming in and taking over agency systems and accessing data without going through the regular procedures” — which has been at the center of several lawsuits.
Scott Kupor, who is running this is a former Andreessen Horowitz partner, who was there for 16 years (basically since A16Z started) before taking this job. And he insists that there are no conflicts, so don’t worry about that at all:
The setup may vary by company, but the managing engineers from private companies participating in the program will “effectively take a leave of absence” to become full time government employees during the program, Kupor told reporters Monday. They won’t be required to divest from their stocks.
“We feel like we’ve run down all the various conflict issues and don’t believe that that’s actually going to be an impediment to getting people here,” said Kupor. “The huge benefit to the government will be getting people who are very skilled in the private sector at managing engineering teams.”
The idea is that the participants can return to their old jobs with new skills and expertise after working for the government, he said.
“We’ve run down all the various conflict issues”—except for the part where participants will keep their stock, maintain their guaranteed employment at private companies, and have access to sensitive government systems and data. But sure, no conflicts.
The value of tech expertise in government is real. That’s why USDS and 18F existed and succeeded for over a decade. What made those programs work was their careful construction to minimize conflicts while maximizing the transfer of knowledge and expertise.
This isn’t that. This is a hastily rebuilt version of a program they deliberately destroyed, now run by political appointees from the very industries that will benefit, with explicit mechanisms that invite corruption. They gutted the institutional knowledge, fired the people who knew how to do this right, and replaced it with a system where people from private companies get guaranteed access to government data and decision-making through employees who are explicitly planning to return to those same companies.
That doesn’t seem like innovation. It seems much more like regulatory capture with better branding and a cool “force” name.
Filed Under: 18f, corruption, doge, donald trump, elon musk, scott kupor, tech force, usds
Companies: a16z
BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to




Comments on “Trump Admin Reinvents US Digital Services Program After Elon Musk Fired All Their Actual Tech Experts”
I vaguely remember an old Family Guy episode where they abolish the government, and then at the end they decide they should all make decisions together as a community and put them to a vote, except it would be a lot of work for everybody to vote on everything, so maybe instead of that they should vote on some representatives to vote on things for them, and maybe it would be a good idea for candidates with similar policy positions to organize into groups so they can coordinate, and… *fade out to credits*
Re:
No, it’s better than that.
“Will you join me in trying this new crazy thing? Then let’s do it. Yeah, and we did it all without government!”
https://youtu.be/e_-w_T-t8aM?si=PRubdnvO06LGQNy5
Re: Re:
Thanks for the correction. I saw it once, the first time it ran, which according to the timestamp on that video was at least 13 years ago.
Re: Re:
“It won’t be perfect. Some of our representative may end up being bastards.”
Touché Peter.
Everything the Trump government does benefits, often directly, someone who contributed to one of his other grifts. This isn’t just about conflicts of interest. When the program is actually operational, don’t be surprised if there’s a bunch of money other than salaries being paid for some phantom benefit. I was a government contractor for a lot of years, and an absurd amount of money is tossed around to keep people quiet.
Re:
You could create a random Trump grift generator with pretty straightforward programming.
Start with [billionaire | conservative special interest group | political pundit], analyze need such as [more contracts | more exposure | racist/transphobic/misogynist agenda wishlist], institute government program that provides variable A with variable B, then use a completely bullshit excuse such as [national security | making America great again | fueling economic growth | correcting an injustice] as transparent cover for the grift. Rinse and repeat.
As an engineer who’s now been laid off for over a year, this would be attractive, except for a few things:
1. They’re probably only opening opportunities up to people who are currently employed by a FAANG/Mag7/BATMMAAN company or equivalent, for grift reasons mentioned above.
2. I’m a trans woman. Do you think this administration is going to want me around? Especially when they’re doing their damnedest to eliminate me and my kind?
3. I wouldn’t work for Orange Felon and his Confederacy of Sewer Clowns anyway.
Re:
Wait, slow down. Did you say Batman is hiring?
An oxymoron if ever there was one.
I mean this wouldn’t work if American voters were fucking retards.
Please gather all the “AI” “talent” in one location to “win” the “AI race” so someone can rod them all from space.
Add to the grift the likeliehood that that they won’t practice safe data, any more than Trump and Epstein and his sort practiced safe sex, and you’ll be able to buy back your data from any suitable Dark Web bazaar, but so will everybody else. “The ship is holed and sinking – hurry up, and Drill Baby Drill! We need more holes!”
One of the big lessons I think we need to take away from the Trump era, is how to advertise existing government programs. Most people had no idea that USDS/18f even existed. It’s something liberals took for granted (or even looked at negatively, as crass or ‘propaganda’), but it seems like there’s a huge opening to just… explain to people what various parts of the government do, and how it benefits them. A more informed citizenry is probably less likely to blow everything up.
It feels kind of dumb to advertise something like USDS like a used car salesman would, but it sure does seem to be resonate for a certain kind of voter.
Re:
Republicans are way better at messaging than Democrats are.
I used to think it was because Republican policy is simple gut-check stuff — “lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king,” as Sideshow Bob put it on The Simpsons — while Democratic policy is more complicated and abstract.
Then there was the ACA debate, and I saw that wasn’t it. That was a case where Democrats had the simple gut-check message — billionaires want you to suffer and die so that they can get richer — and Republicans had abstract economic theory (socialism!). And Republicans won the argument — yes, the ACA passed, and yes, it became popular once it actually went into effect, but “Obamacare” was extremely unpopular at first and the midterms were a bloodbath.
So yeah, Democrats are just bad at messaging. Even when they have a simple, clear message, they manage to muddle it up.
And of course on top of that the news media is in the tank for Republicans and will treat their claims and criticisms as serious even when they’re obvious bullshit.
Actually looking at the language quoted, it sure looks to me like they’re doing something different in one other very important way from USDS and 18F: those programs hired engineers. These ones are repeatedly mentioning “managing partners” and “people with a history of leading engineering teams”. That is, they’re not hiring people who actually know how to build things. They’re hiring managers. As though management is the magical secret sauce of building better systems.
Re:
Engineers are constantly whining and saying things like ‘This won’t work’ and ‘Why did you just fire half the team when I already told you we’re short-staffed?!’, much better to hire the people who have all the solutions, the managers, so they can get things done by telling others to get off their lazy asses and solve all those trivial issues!
'Our experts have determined yet again that the king's clothes are great!'
Even if you ignore the massive conflicts of interest any advisory agency or board is only going to be effective if the ones they’re advising are willing to listen, and given the extreme hostility Trump and those around them have to anyone contradicting them and the fact that they are profoundly stupid I expect that this will end up with a whole lot of ‘ongoing studies’ that all boil down to ‘Whatever Trump said last regarding AI/tech is correct, even if it’s in direct contradiction to what he said five minutes previously.’