In a surprising turn of events earlier this month, all employees of 18F, a unit of government technologists under the General Services Administration (GSA), found themselves placed on administrative leave. This unexpected decision has raised eyebrows and sparked discussions about the future of technology services within the federal government, particularly as 18F has played a pivotal role in developing and managing essential digital services, including the IRS’s free tax filing system and the National Weather Service’s public website, weather.gov.
Founded in 2014 during the Obama administration, 18F emerged from the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, which aimed to inject technological expertise into the federal bureaucracy. Its creation was, in part, a response to the problematic rollout of healthcare.gov, establishing 18F as a permanent fixture dedicated to improving government digital services. However, the recent administrative leave has left many questioning the motivations behind this decision, particularly in light of the department’s history of pushing back against excessive technology spending.
Critics of 18F have long accused the unit of being “too woke,” citing its initiatives, such as a Slackbot that alerts staff to potentially offensive language. However, for some former employees, the reasons for the department’s abrupt sidelining extend beyond cultural critiques. They argue that 18F’s commitment to fiscal responsibility and its role in scrutinizing government technology contracts made it a target for those seeking to profit from taxpayer dollars. One former employee, speaking on the condition of anonymity, expressed concern that the elimination of 18F would pave the way for unchecked spending, particularly benefiting private corporations like those owned by Elon Musk.
The former employee articulated a sentiment echoed by others: “Our whole approach was saving the government money and time.” This ethos of cost-effectiveness and quality service has made 18F a thorn in the side of tech companies that often seek lucrative government contracts without the rigorous oversight that 18F provided. The former employee further noted, “We’ve had a lot of enemies since our inception. I think because we can provide a better service at a lower cost.”
The implications of 18F’s closure are significant. The unit not only developed critical projects for federal agencies but also created a public “de-risking guide” designed to help other government entities vet technology vendors effectively. With 18F’s resources now wiped from the internet, the risk of government agencies falling prey to misleading vendor claims increases dramatically. As one former employee pointed out, “If there’s no one around to say, ‘Hey, this contract is not written well,’ who’s going to stop Musk from leveraging that hole where we no longer are and getting more government money?”
Adding to the complexity of this situation is the relationship between the Trump administration and Musk, who has been a significant financial supporter of Trump’s political endeavors. Musk’s companies have benefited from substantial government contracts, totaling around $38 billion to date. Critics argue that the Trump administration’s push for contracts that favor Musk and his allies could lead to a scenario where 18F’s absence allows for unchecked spending and potential mismanagement of taxpayer funds.
In response to the outcry regarding 18F’s closure, a GSA spokesperson defended the decision, claiming that the unit had consistently underperformed in terms of cost recovery, falling short by $18 million last year. They argued that 18F’s high rates made it one of the most expensive technology consultancies in the country and that the same work could be done for less by private sector firms. However, former employees countered this narrative, asserting that the GSA’s cost recovery targets were unrealistic and disconnected from the actual costs of providing quality services.
As the dust settles on this controversial decision, employees and advocates for government transparency and accountability are left to ponder the broader implications. “We’re a month into this administration, and they’re already cutting the people who put brakes on reckless technology spending,” lamented one former employee. “If they’re willing to cut all these things, what’s next?”
The fate of 18F serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of oversight in government spending, particularly in an era where technology plays an increasingly critical role in public service. As the landscape of federal technology services continues to evolve, the need for vigilant oversight and accountability has never been more pressing.
