5 Comments
User's avatar
Greg Jordan-Detamore's avatar

I too am very curious to see where this goes. One thing that is a bit odd to me is the lack of any reference to the fact that software-modernization initiatives already exist—including having existed under the previous Trump administration.

My hope is that this can bring more momentum to this work. My fear is that it creates negative polarization and/or partisan bickering in Congress over stuff that used to be more bipartisan.

+1 to the point about interoperability

Expand full comment
Michael Adams's avatar

Fair points! At the political level, it makes sense to signal fresh ideas and new leadership, so maybe not surprising there. At the operational level, I’d expect some members of DOGE to have experience in USDS and similar, and incorporate relevant work.

You’re right to point out that the energy behind DOGE could be a double-edged sword. We shall see!

Expand full comment
David Adams's avatar

DOGE is an interesting and exciting project. I’m curious if there have been any initiatives undertaken at a smaller scale that may serve as a proof of concept

Expand full comment
Michael Adams's avatar

Blue-Ribbon Commissions are a decent reference. Perhaps the biggest difference is the political energy and visibility behind DOGE. We'll see if it's enough. Jen Pahlka has an interesting article about her experience working on gov reform and the things DOGE will run into: https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/bringing-elon-to-a-knife-fight

Expand full comment
Laurie Adams's avatar

Thanks for breaking this down. This could be a great step for government.

Expand full comment