We are certainly not making governance great again

This is ostensibly an optimistic newsletter about technology. But sometimes, I have to write about government policy because technology and government are intertwined: The government spends a lot of time thinking about the tech industry, and tech leaders are deeply involved with the government.  

And sometimes, I have to write criticisms of the government because bad governance gets in the way of sound technology and economic growth.

Moving fast and breaking things

Some businesses are well served by a “move fast and break things” attitude.  Software startups are a great example.  The speed of iteration directly impacts success, and mistakes can be easily corrected, so moving fast is the best way to succeed.  Not every job in a software business should be performed this way.   When a software company enters into a long-term contract with a major customer, it is essential to get the terms right, so this task might need a little more care.  But for the most part, software and internet businesses are served well by moving fast and accepting the attendant risk.  

Some businesses are not well-served by a “move fast and break things” attitude. I want my banker to avoid risk, move slowly, double-check investment decisions, triple-check account access, and generally be conservative. I don’t want my banker to suggest high-risk, poorly-considered investments.  I want my airline pilots to be super risk-averse.  I want them to plan, to check, to double-check, to train over and over and over again.   I want them to be cautious and avoid trouble.

Building inspectors.  Surgeons.  Nuclear weapons technicians.  Heavy equipment operators.  Natural gas suppliers.  The list is long.  There are businesses and jobs where even small mistakes have catastrophic implications.   In these positions, we need people who plan, train, move slowly, carefully examine every decision and process, review their work methodically, etc.  And we need processes that support and encourage this behavior.  This is not some super unique insight I am laying out here — anyone who has managed an organization or business of any size has figured this out.  Your company has a range of required jobs, and you have a range of employees you can find, and you match up skill sets with job requirements.   It is management 101.  

The consequences of a poor match of people and jobs are asymmetric.  When you place a slow-moving, methodical person in a fast-paced, risk-tolerant job, they miss opportunities, and the business doesn’t grow as it should.  When you put fast-moving risk junkies in jobs demanding care and surgical precision, people get hurt and die.  I know what kind of person I am.  When using a new app or device, I just start mashing buttons; I have no time for instruction manuals. I am best suited for businesses that need quick movement and a high risk tolerance. I would be a terrible airline pilot, and no one should let me near heavy equipment.   

Anyway, in DOGE news this past week:

• “We are moving fast, so we will make mistakes, but we’ll also fix the mistakes very quickly,”
• Trump Moves to Fire Staff Overseeing Nuclear Weapons Then Backtracks
• “Those positions included safety engineers, environmental scientists, along with “people who monitor and respond to urgent safety issues, folks who make sure Hanford workers’ rights are protected, and others who are absolutely critical to the Hanford cleanup mission and the safety of the workers there”
• Trump administration wants to un-fire nuclear safety workers but can’t figure out how to reach them

Handling nuclear materials is one of those jobs that requires caution and discipline. You also want to be very methodical about how you treat these organizations. You don’t want people handling these materials cavalierly, and you certainly don’t want disgruntled employees handling them.  And there are more groups of vital federal workers being fired without adequate thought.

The DOGE experiment may be worthy in some areas, but someone should exercise judgment about when and when not to use the DOGE “move fast” approach.  Either the DOGE team needs to police themselves, or Trump does, or other branches of the government need to step forward.  At the moment, everyone is abdicating responsibility, and we will all bear the cost.  

“We want to put them in trauma”

If you want to argue for a smaller federal government, that is great.  Make your case, defend it, and win the day through the power of your arguments.  I might agree with you on a lot of points.

But this is chicken$hit:

'We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,' he said at the time. 'When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains … We want to put them in trauma.'" — Russell Vought, new director of the Office of Management and Budget.

This is immoral, dishonest, and lazy.

The individuals working for the federal government didn’t create the bureaucracy.  Most of them just took the offered jobs and have been trying their best.  The size and structure of the federal government were created by decades of legislation and leadership by our elected officials.  Maybe some of it now has to be reconsidered, which is fine and appropriate.  So make the case and force discussion at the leadership level, but don’t hang the blame on people who haven’t created the system.

Ethics Guardrails

So far, the Trump administration has eliminated the ethics commitments previously established by Executive Order 13989.  He’s paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.   He’s fired the head of the Office of Government Ethics.  The Supreme Court is hearing his attempt to fire the head of an agency safeguarding whistle blowers.

Why is the administration doing all this?  They will undoubtedly claim “government efficiency” or some such, but it is not a good look when he and his family are busy hoovering up as much cash as they can — How the Trumps Turned an Election Victory Into a Cash Bonanza:

• $40M from Amazon to Melania for a documentary.  The next highest bidder was at $14M.
• Additional $10M sponsorships for the film (unclear if any were purchased)
• $80M in payments to Trump family and presidential library from corporations settling suits with him
• $10M settlement direct from X to Trump to settle a lawsuit
• Crypto gains from $TRUMP and $MELANIA and $WLFI
• Direct-to-consumer sales of watches, purses, ornaments, sneakers, guitars, cologne, bibles, books, NFTs, shirts, etc
• Negotiations to regain control of the former Trump hotel in DC
• Higher initiation fees for Mar-a-Lago
• board seats, VC investments for Don Jr

You can say that all politicians are corrupt.  But that suggests we need more ethics guardrails and oversight, not less.  And the administration shouldn't be attempting to set new records in personal wealth extraction.