Deleting 18F
In 2013, we created 18F to transform how government builds and delivers digital services — to bring modern technology practices into government and create services that truly work for the American people.
Following the pioneering model of the UK Government Digital Service, 18F and USDS became exemplars that inspired digital service teams across governments worldwide. When I took the lessons of 18F to Canada to build the Ontario Digital Service, we directly applied 18F’s open playbooks and resources. That team went on to lead digital transformation for the province for six years, just one example of 18F’s far-reaching impact.
By working in the open from day one, 18F created blueprints not just for digital transformation, but for building inclusive team cultures where delivering services for all people meant respecting and supporting all people on the team. Make no mistake — this inclusive approach to both team culture and service delivery is the real target of today’s “deletion.”
I am heartbroken and outraged at the decision to terminate an organization of dedicated professionals who have fundamentally changed how government serves its people. This is not just disappointing — it’s a destructive act against American taxpayers and the very concept of government that works for its people.
In the name of “efficiency”
18F was not a drain on taxpayer dollars — it was a self-funded organization operating on a cost-recovery model. Government agencies chose to work with 18F and paid for their services because they delivered exceptional value. The claim that eliminating 18F serves “efficiency” is not just wrong — it’s a deliberate misrepresentation of how the organization actually functioned.
The threat of expertise
The simultaneous targeting of teams like 18F and USDS reveals what this is really about: removing the experts who understand modern technology delivery from inside government. People who understand that services only work when they’re designed with user needs in mind. People who can call bullshit on vendors and approaches that are simply snake oil or don’t consider how real people will interact with the service.
These are the very professionals who:
- Prevented wasteful spending on dysfunctional contractor projects
- Ensured government services actually worked for all Americans
- Brought private-sector technical excellence into public service
- Asked the hard questions about proposed technology solutions
The methodical termination of government’s internal technical expertise creates a vacuum that will inevitably be filled by contractors (and other politically-connected companies) without the oversight of knowledgeable civil servants. Without technical experts inside government who understand delivery, who will be left to evaluate whether contractors are building what Americans actually need?
The true cost
The American people will pay for this decision — not in immediate budget or tax dollars, but in:
- Degraded government services that will fail the people who need them most
- Bloated contracts without proper technical oversight
- Loss of institutional knowledge about what actually works
- Reversal of years of digital transformation progress
💪💻🇺🇸
To all my 18F colleagues and friends: your work has fundamentally changed government for the better. The principles we built 18F upon — user-centered design, product management, open source, and agile delivery — have created lasting change that extends beyond any single project or organization.
This shortsighted decision reflects poorly not on your work, but on an administration that fails to understand the vital role of your expertise in modern government. Our community remains strong, and the need for our work has never been more evident.
I remain fiercely proud of what we built together these last 12 years, and I know that the impact of 18F will continue long after today’s misguided decision. We’re not done yet.
