> 18F is a digital services agency within the Technology Transformation Services department of the General Services Administration (GSA) of the United States Government. 18F helps other government agencies build, buy, and share technology products. The team consists of designers, software engineers, strategists, and product managers who collaborate with other agencies to fix technical problems, build products, and improve public service through technology.
If you're still on the fence about giving the current administration the benefit of the doubt, dismantling these agencies based on zero analysis is perhaps the clearest possible evidence that "efficiency" is not the primary goal, or in fact a goal at all.
To which the obvious solution was to create a center of excellence for those skills, then offer them across the government. Most critically, including paved roads of the "right" way to do things (but which no individual agency was willing to fight to get approved).
PS: Fuck DOGE/Elon for having enough hubris so as to think they can do better. Although my guess is Hanlon's razor, with addendum, applies.
>> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. (or ego)
To repeat my previous framing of this: it's easy to sell younger technologists on a two step plan to make things better. (1) Destroy the old (2) Build the new. Unfortunately, they don't yet understand the latter is orders of magnitude more difficult than the former.
> Libertarians are like house cats in that they are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand
People like that shouldn't be allowed to vote. I don't actually believe that, but it's hard to watch Idiocracy happen in real time and watch low-information people cheer it on.
Here's its GitHub org:
My impression has always been that it is a well-intended but low-impact effort.
What happens to it now, I have no idea. It’s probably going to be scrapped in favor of “login with X”.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22report+to+congress%22+%2B...
> "Instead, they found themselves on a call with people who wouldn’t say where they worked in government; in a few cases, some people wouldn’t disclose their last names, or any part of their names"
This is terrifying if this is true. Forget this happening in a Government department, if I were in a meeting to discuss the details of my work with people I didn't know and refused to provide basic identification, the standard response would be to call security.
Whether you agree or disagree with the goals of DOGE, I think we can all agree that the approach chosen is incorrect.
Edit: - Fix formatting
None of that was followed. No attempt was even made.
In that case I'd ask them for the full name so I can look them up and call them back. But I also wouldn't be scared of getting fired for that, quite the opposite I'd also happily resign if they ask me to talk to random people about internals.
There is a significant risk of civil unrest as the competent employees are pushed out and government ceases to be able to function while private companies take advantage of lack of regulation to try and further extract value from captured markets.
I understand your thought-process here, but I'll say it really doesn't work out like that in-practice.
E.g. mandatory schooling certainly didn't make me build-up empathy for teachers and institutions, it had quite the opposite effect in my case.
I can understand and respect someone leaving on principle, or someone simply unable to tolerate an immediate situation.
But if a government employee is feeling under occupation by a destructive invader, and possibly expecting to be terminated, do they keep significant legal options open by waiting it out, rather than resigning, if they can tolerate to do so?
For example, let's say that significant elements of legislative or judicial branches decide not to play along with the current maneuvers, and take corrective action. Or let's say that employees are able to sue for reinstatement, with damages? Or to sue rogue individuals personally, in some way that pierces whatever immunity the rogues might think they enjoy. Does the wronged person have a better case if they don't resign?
It’s also often more advantageous to wait to be let go in order to collect severance pay. (Though likely not for the OP due to his probationary status, and there is also a big question mark regarding pay for the current government layoffs.)
This situation is unpredictable, there’s likely to be civil unrest when one of these idiots makes a truly destructive move. The more plausible options you have, the better.
The judicial is, by design, retroactive: transgressions are made, cases are litigated, decisions come down, and then redresses are made [0]
The executive is, by design, immediate: decisions are made and implemented, then can be legally challenged
The gray area between the two is judicial restraining orders, where the facts of the case and/or the possibility of unredressable outcomes support the immediate nullification of an order, while the case is being litigated.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293078/a-constitutiona...
As a result, simply being nerds committed to principles like "software should work" or "government information should be accessible, as required by law" is now considered "openly partisan": https://technical.ly/civic-news/18f-profile/
https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20...
The GSA conclusion was...
1. Establish a viable plan to ensure full cost recovery of ASF funds expended by 18F.
2. Ensure that internal 18F projects have appropriate supervisory review.
3. Implement controls over 18F’s reimbursable agreement process to ensure that work is not performed outside of a fully executed agreement.
4. Ensure that GSA CIO reviews and approves, in writing, all 18F IT-related work performed for GSA internal organizations.
5. Implement a comprehensive review of 18F’s past work to ensure accuracy of all billings.
6. Establish reliable internal controls to ensure that 18F’s future billings are accurate.
7. Ensure that 18F’s billing records are retained in accordance with GSA records management standards.Also, that IG report is a comedy show compared to the last 3 weeks of chaos from these people doing what they're doing flouting laws, rules and the common order.
18F was also designed for remote work, which oddly has become another partisan issue.
But also very relevant to us, because Elon is applying tech business practices to the federal government. Move fast & break things (great for R&D, awful for organizations that are supposed to be stable), mass-layoffs (and subsequently re-hiring after you figure out what broke), thinking that there's no value in the legacy systems (and not keeping anyone around who might have known that), etc.
It's important for us to realize that while tech has been an economic powerhouse, our culture and management practices aren't all good. Esp when it comes to tech CEOs who have been very successful, have a big ego, and think they can do better at anything.
It is not. We bear a lot of the responsibility for creating this situation, we shouldn't be able to just turn away from it now that it ended up where it was always going to.
Funny, I haven't seen anything remotely commendable about Elon get submitted in months. Doesn't seem like a real issue.
Understanding DOGE as Procurement Capture
https://www.anildash.com/2025/01/04/DOGE-procurement-capture...
Among other things, it frustrates me that Elon's work here has echoes of "what happens if we bring in experts from the tech world to help make government IT more efficient" while ignoring that that's what 18F did, and it worked really well.
It's possible (probable?) Elon actually things "his" people are more talented.
1. Working remotely
2. Killing or surveilling people
3. Discussing work with someone outside work
The resignation stemmed from the possibility of 3.
By contrast, some people stay in their positions or businesses notwithstanding adjudications of fraud, abuse, treachery, etc.
Of those two kinds of people, which will most successfully infiltrate and control an organization?
(As a hint, Stalin was not a leader but a bureaucrat who managed to oust all the actual leaders, and did Putin with the oligarchs.)
I respect the author's choice as the best alternative, and respect his speaking up for the organization. I just wish we could give him a better alternative.
I find it amusing that many left-wing people are only now getting up in arms about the extent to which our government has been infiltrated by money interests. I understand not wanting to work for Trump's government, but why not just leave it at that? If this person was willing to work for the Biden administration regardless of it's billionaire influences, it betrays that this issue, for them, is a rationalization and not a reason.
Finally, there is a matter of changing the laws to be in your favor vs flouting the laws and doing what is in your favor.
And you find this "amusing."
I'm also not going to argue with you about which party is more controlled or hurting the country more. That is a terribly uninteresting online discussion to have.
March 2023: "GSA Misled Customers on Login.gov’s Compliance with Digital Identity Standards" (refused to use mandatory facial recognition because it believed it was racist) [1]
June 2017: "Investigation of Whistleblower Reprisal Complaint" (finding that an Obama political appointee retaliated against a career official for blowing the whistle on mismanagement) [2]
April 2017: GSA acknowledges "gross mismanagement" [3]
October 2016: "Evaluation of 18F" (finding that it spent thousands of dollars on things like "inclusion bots") [4]
May 2016: "GSA Data Breach" [5]
February 2017: "Evaluation of 18F’s Information Technology Security Compliance" (misrepresented severity of breach) [6]
[1] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/Alert%...
[2] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/foia/Investigation...
[3] https://osc.gov/Documents/Public%20Files/FY17/DI-17-0642/DI-...
[4] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20...
[5] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/Alert%...
[6] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20...
https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs...
The executive summary says: "Our evaluation found GSA misled their customer agencies when GSA failed to communicate Login.gov’s known noncompliance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-63-3, Digital Identity Guidelines. Notwithstanding GSA officials’ assertions that Login.gov met SP 800-63-3 Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) requirements, Login.gov has never included a physical or biometric comparison for its customer agencies. Further, GSA continued to mislead customer agencies even after GSA suspended efforts to meet SP 800-63-3. GSA knowingly billed IAL2 customer agencies over $10 million for services, including alleged IAL2 services that did not meet IAL2 standards. Furthermore, GSA used misleading language to secure additional funds for Login.gov."
But yeah, it sounds like they were concerned with racism, inclusion, and all that "bad woke stuff" that we shouldn't be worried about when _designing technology for all citizens_. So long as it works for white males, we're good!
Also all those were during Trump's first term by the way, with the exception of the last one (and facial recognition has been shown to be biased so they have a point there).
We should try and do better than that.
The general consensus among Americans with a clue is that the Government should serve the people, not the other way around. If a government is "critical" for the people survive then the government has become a Leviathan. Ideally a government should just be another corporation, one buys and sells political services and goods. A failure of a single company shouldn't cause an economic downturn, but that is the situation we find ourselves in.
It's not very odd because implicitly Europeans have realized that the government they care most about, in terms of their economic well being, is the American one. (and of course they bragged about not working so much that we had to cut them off lol)
That mostly comes from historical experience and “societal maturity”.
When society decides that only those people that both actively contribute to society and follow a strict set of guidelines as to how people should be, act and express themselves, then those outside that subset are superfluous to society.
Taken to extreme, that subset of superfluous people are just deleted.
In Europe, that deletion was abhorrent and it has left an indelible mark that echoes through its gene pool.
The US will too have its experience, and eventually learn from it.
There’s nothing like watching your disabled or sick child be forcibly removed from your love and care and knowing that they will subsequently be gassed and burnt, simply because your political masters believed they were a burden to their glorious nation.
He openly refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of USDS, referring to it as "a so-called 'department'", and neglects even a cursory investigation into whether it may in fact be a legitimate executive agency established by Obama, staffed by government employees with requisite clearances and authority.
It's wild to me that so many smart people think the White House should be boxed out of the day-to-day operations of GSA and OMB, whether by law or tradition, despite being undeniably responsible for their actions.
Not wanting to collaborate with a coup is an entirely reasonable line to draw.
Given the way they're operating, I would also question their legitimacy if I was working for the government and they came to my office.
But I wouldn't resign. Better to let them fire you and then you have standing for a lawsuit (whether you win or not, that's another story; probably not, but at least you can sue).
Corruption is bad. Power is easy to abuse.
Checks are hard when a president doesn't care about the law or the constituon kr the damage he does to the country.
There's a reason several departments are supposed to be at arms length from the president.
Many of these reforms happened after Nixon. Now assuming the country survives it's clear we need something more. Possibly some administrative agencies need to be placed under the judicial branch to avoid executive corruption. Also impeachment needs to be much easier, arguably we need something like a vote of no confidence where a malcious president can be replaced by the VP. Although even that might not work like a lot of problems relating to the trump disaster era its hard to overcome reflexive partisanship
> I’m not leaving under a “deferred resignation”.
> …
> Instead, I resigned from my position as a product designer, submitting two weeks’ notice…well, two weeks ago.
If they're offering you a buyout and you don't want to work there, why wouldn't you take it?
> (Though it’s possible I almost was; more on that later.)
The part from later in the post that explains it:
> In a terrible coda, a large number of probationary employees were summarily let go at my agency just before my last day.
He wasn't offered a buyout. He quit, and then later, a lot of people were let go. He believes it's probable he would have been one of them had he stayed.
1. Not getting paid: the agreement is written such that the government may rescind it unilaterally. It is also contrary to existing law in US Code that cap severances to $25k. If it is "administrative leave", then that is capped to 10 days per year.
2. Violating non-competes. If a person is still employed by the US government, they may be prohibited from working for a contractor or other employer with conflicts of interest.
Article by American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE): https://www.afge.org/article/afge-cautions-feds-not-to-be-tr...