For anyone (like me) who doesn’t know what 18F is:
> 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.
18F - and its sibling the US Digital Service, before it was eviscerated to become the host for the DOGE parasite - is exactly the sort of thing you would create if you want government to run efficiently. Creating room for well-meaning technical experts to offer their expertise across the government, without being locked into a lifelong public-sector career path, is a fantastic idea. Even at its worst, it's taking work that could otherwise go to beltway-bandit contractors, but in-house, with all the cost and friction reduction that that implies. At its best, it's able to spot cross-agency opportunities that no other agency would see on its own.
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.
Qft. USDS/18F was the correct answer to "Many US government departments have similar needs, but insufficient IT expertise (or authority) to deliver well."
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.
It's astounding that this is crystal clear, and yet you still have people like the sibling commenter trying to find ways of defending Musk. It reminds me of the quote comparing Libertarians to cats:
> 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.
Perhaps more widely known very recently for being the subject of an Elon tweet saying "that group has been deleted," though whether he was referring to 18F as a whole or just those working on the free filing system for the IRS was unclear.
One of the big wins was login.gov which is modern, easy to use, more secure, and less expensive than the crazy array of ancient agency-specific login systems it was in the process of replacing.
What happens to it now, I have no idea. It’s probably going to be scrapped in favor of “login with X”.
Hard to say who's responsibility it is but federal websites have gotten noticeably less shitty over time and I always feel more at ease on a website that obviously had their input.
Like when a state considers itself a global superpower but hasn't had any notable impact on an unremarkably sized rock orbiting an average sized star in a barely noticeable galaxy?
For those not familiar with the author, Ethan Marcotte literally wrote the book on responsive web design (and coined the phrase). I point that out about because I think it is (or was) relevant that someone with such a place in digital design history had chosen public service.
There are very few people that would be better suited for a role like this than Ethan, any major web company would be fortunate to have him on staff... and the fact that he chose to work at 18F speaks volumes about the work they were doing there.
He didn’t pick “public service” because when an administration didn’t match his political preferences he bashed that admin in this post. That’s not a public servant but a partisan servant.
Setting aside the politics of the issue(which is very polarizing) this is the part which troubled me the most
> "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.
Drastic cost cuts are usually not simply performance issues and usually the mistake of top management (usually overhiring), but of course it hurts most the employees.
This is a massive insider or outsider threat risk. Anyone with knowledge of this interview process and access to 18F's calendar could schedule one of these meetings and probe the scared employee on the call for sensitive information about the org.
I do work for a US company from outside the US and if I can't identify the people I'm talking to I have to hang up. We have yearly training on the importance of not sharing internals if not authorized.
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.
Why set aside the politics? Everybody that is not high drinking Xitter punch can see that this is a national tragedy. I'm a libertarian. I actually believe in many of these ideals that are being used as a smoke screen for this fascist coup. Am I happy they are at least finally getting some attention? Fuck no! In the least worst case their political capital will have been burnt for the next several decades. In the likely case, these looting vandals will have destroyed much of the wealth and culture of this country that made it possible to ponder the possibility of lofty ideas like widespread individual freedom.
Mandatory service for the government would go a long way to educating the public just want these organizations do and building empathy for the problems they face.
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 think exactly this has been the deliberate strategy of a part of the US' political class for a long time - "starve the beast" and all. This seems like the final culmination of those plans.
Tell the people the government is inefficient and cannot work as intended. Defund said government so it doesn't work as intended. Privatize the work and profit. A playbook as old as time. Except they are doing it bigger and more brazenly than ever.
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?
Not a lawyer, but by resigning voluntarily, you basically relinquish all options regarding keeping the job that you would otherwise have had. You can’t later invoke that you didn’t really mean to 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.)
Not a lawyer, but I wonder about this as well though more from the standpoint of trying to stay in there to be a witness to the destruction and to try to do what you can to slow it down. Though in this case, as he was still probationary he wouldn't have had that option. They (DOGE) found out that it's hard to fire federal government employees, but they found the loophole with probationary employees.
When you have due process rights, it’s always better to wait it out. Eventually the law will catch up, and even if you don’t get your job back, you’ll likely get money.
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.
All your questions presuppose an executive branch that is bound by the decisions of the judicial branch. This one isn't, or certainly doesn't feel that it is. So the answer is practical, not legal. The control they can exert is the control they can get away with exerting without undue cost. That might involve accepting the results of law suits from disgruntled employees, or it might not. Certainly right now they seem disinclined.
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.
There was an SF office of 18F -- IIRC it was in the building to the right of the Civic Center park as you looked at it from the Bart stop. They were great folks from every encounter I had with them.
Anything that prevents government contractors from extracting maximal taxpayer dollars for their shareholders is in opposition to current partisan goals.
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/
According to a GSA forensic audit, 18F was losing money, had billing issues, and spent too much time on non-billable activities (52% versus 48% billable). One of the partisan activities referred to was a pronoun replacing slack bot referenced in this GSA report...
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.
"losing money" is a canard when it's a self-producing government entity that was using not public dollars but instead user fees from a GSA Fund. There were lots of folks who had incentive for that thing not to work: https://insider.govtech.com/california/www-techwire-net/form...
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.
None of this justifies getting rid of the team entirely. The GSA's plan is reasonable and 18F facilitated projects that saved more money than they spent. IRS Free File is a great example of that.
18F was staffed by a bunch of young tech folks who lean left. That makes them enemies subject to persecution. I really don't think there's any more complexity than that. Expect this kind of thing to be the norm in the future.
Unfortunately things like accessibility (which 18F provides guidance on) has been rolled into 'DEI' by the current administration, and is therefore a partisan issue.
18F was also designed for remote work, which oddly has become another partisan issue.
Free tax filing software is "anti-establishment" because it robs huge corporations (who lobby extensively!) of their profits. Ergo, leftist/Marxist/woke/etc.
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.
Most articles about politics are boring or repetitive, and should be flag killed and discussed elsewhere. I have plenty of other places where I can read the regular news.
Readit News
> 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18F
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.
Dead Comment
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=18f
Here's its GitHub org:
https://github.com/18F
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...
Deleted Comment
> "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...
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43059187
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...
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.
Dead Comment
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.