The U.S. Tech Force: Rebuilding What Was Destroyed in the Name of Progress

The Announcement and Its Context

The Trump administration announced on Monday the creation of the U.S. Tech Force, a targeted recruiting program aimed at hiring approximately 1,000 top-level technical employees and supervisors for federal agencies. This initiative seeks software engineers, data scientists, and product managers to work on projects related to artificial intelligence and modernization at agencies including the Internal Revenue Service and the Defense Department. Scott Kupor, director of the Office of Personnel Management leading the program, stated that after two years, participants can either remain in government or transition to higher-paying private sector jobs.

This announcement comes against a backdrop of significant turmoil within federal technology infrastructure. The administration began its tenure by firing federal workers and pressuring tens of thousands to resign, creating a substantial deficit in technical expertise within government agencies. The timing and nature of this new initiative raise serious questions about the administration’s commitment to stable, effective governance.

Historical Precedents and Recent Destruction

The U.S. Tech Force resembles previous efforts to bring technological expertise into government service. The Biden administration’s U.S. Digital Corps, initiated in 2021, similarly sought to bring tech workers into federal jobs for two-year terms, though it targeted earlier-career candidates. More significantly, the Trump administration previously fashioned the U.S. Digital Service—founded in 2014—into the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE Service), spearheaded by Elon Musk.

Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE implemented sweeping job cuts that eliminated senior technologists in the Digital Service and personnel in the General Services Administration wing that runs the Digital Corps. Most alarmingly, DOGE eliminated 18F—a digital services agency created in 2014 that developed software and technology products for various federal agencies and employed nearly 100 people. In February, Musk publicly celebrated this destruction on social media, reposting a message that called 18F a “far-left government wide computer office” and declaring it had been “deleted.”

Mathias Rechtzigel, who left the U.S. Digital Corps over the summer through the administration’s resignation incentive program and previously worked at the Digital Service, provided crucial context: “I do think that this is a reaction to DOGE not going well.” His assessment suggests the Tech Force represents an attempt to replace the senior tech talent that the administration itself had previously eliminated.

The Broader Political Context

The Trump administration’s approach to technology policy has been characterized by radical shifts and questionable priorities. From his first days in office, President Trump threw his support behind artificial intelligence, answering Silicon Valley’s lobbying wishes by unwinding Biden-era safety directives. In July, the administration introduced an A.I. action plan aimed at accelerating domestic artificial intelligence companies by cutting regulations on A.I. data centers and opening exports of A.I. chips and technologies—including to China.

Most concerningly, just last week President Trump signed an executive order seeking to neutralize state A.I. laws that protect consumers and require safety testing of the largest systems. This pattern demonstrates a consistent preference for corporate interests over public safety and institutional stability.

A Dangerous Inconsistency in Governance

The creation of the U.S. Tech Force represents a stunning contradiction in the administration’s approach to governance. First, they systematically dismantled existing technological infrastructure and expertise, celebrating these destructive actions as achievements. Now, they propose building anew what they themselves destroyed, apparently recognizing—belatedly and only through failure—that technological expertise is essential to modern government.

This pattern of destructive action followed by panicked rebuilding demonstrates a fundamental disrespect for the institutions that form the bedrock of our democracy. Government agencies are not toys to be broken and then replaced when convenient. They represent accumulated expertise, institutional memory, and public trust that cannot be easily reconstructed once destroyed.

Elon Musk’s “chain-saw approach” to shrinking government—as widely criticized by observers—reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of how effective governance functions. Government efficiency cannot be achieved through indiscriminate cuts but requires careful analysis, strategic planning, and respect for the complex functions that agencies perform.

The Politicization of Technical Expertise

The most alarming aspect of this situation is the apparent politicization of technical roles. Musk’s characterization of 18F as a “far-left government wide computer office” suggests that technical expertise is being evaluated through ideological rather than professional lenses. This represents a profound threat to effective governance.

Technology professionals in government should be hired based on their skills, experience, and ability to serve the public interest—not their political affiliations. When technical decisions become politicized, the result is inevitably poorer services for citizens, wasted taxpayer resources, and weakened national security.

The administration’s partnership with major tech firms like Microsoft, Meta, Nvidia, and OpenAI—while potentially beneficial—also raises concerns about corporate influence over government functions. The revolving door between industry and government must be carefully managed to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that public servants prioritize the public good over corporate profits.

The Human Cost of Political Gamesmanship

Behind these policy fluctuations lie real human stories of dedicated public servants whose careers were disrupted or destroyed. Mathias Rechtzigel’s experience exemplifies this: after contributing his expertise to government service, he was effectively pushed out through resignation incentives, only to watch the administration attempt to recruit replacements for the expertise they had eliminated.

This treatment of public servants demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for the individuals who dedicate their careers to serving the American people. Stable, effective government requires retaining experienced professionals, not treating them as disposable assets in political games.

The current softened tech job market—with widespread cuts at major companies—adds another layer of concern. The administration’s offer of temporary government positions may appeal to workers in uncertain industries, but it creates instability in government agencies that require long-term commitment and institutional knowledge.

Principles for Responsible Technology Governance

As defenders of democracy and effective governance, we must insist on several fundamental principles. First, technological expertise in government must be valued and protected as essential infrastructure, not treated as a political football. Second, personnel decisions must be based on professional qualifications rather than political considerations. Third, stability and institutional memory must be recognized as crucial components of effective governance.

The erratic approach demonstrated by the administration—destroying expertise, then attempting to rebuild it—undermines public trust and government effectiveness. Citizens deserve consistent, competent governance that builds upon past successes rather than repeatedly starting from scratch.

Conclusion: The Need for Stable, Principles-Driven Governance

The U.S. Tech Force initiative, while potentially beneficial in isolation, must be evaluated within the context of the administration’s previous actions. The destruction of 18F, the mass departures of technical staff, and the politicization of expertise reveal a pattern of governance that prioritizes ideological purity over effective administration.

We must demand better from our leaders. Government technology policy should be driven by consistent principles rather than erratic reactions to political pressures or corporate lobbying. The technical infrastructure that supports everything from tax collection to national defense requires stable, expert leadership that transcends political cycles.

The American people deserve a government that protects and enhances its technological capabilities rather than one that destroys them in fits of ideological fervor only to attempt rebuilding when practical necessities become unavoidable. Our democracy depends on institutions strong enough to withstand political winds and professional enough to serve all citizens effectively, regardless of which party holds power.