Washington D.C. – Recent decisions by the Trump administration to substantially reduce the federal corps of civic technology experts are raising concerns, notably as government agencies navigate the complexities of a new law requiring them to share software code across departments. These cuts, impacting key teams within the General Services Administration’s Technology Transformation Services and other vital areas, could impede the effective implementation of the “Source Code Harmonization and Reuse In Details technology Act,” more commonly known as the SHARE IT Act.

The SHARE IT Act, signed into law late last year, mandates that federal agencies share their custom-developed software code. This sharing can occur publicly or through a private listing accessible to other agencies. The intent is to foster collaboration and avoid redundant development efforts, ultimately saving taxpayer dollars.

While federal agencies,like many large organizations,frequently utilize open-source software as the foundation for various technologies,the practise of publishing their own custom-developed code as open source is less common.A meaningful hurdle is that many agencies lack the necessary technical expertise to successfully implement and manage open-source software projects. This gap in expertise makes the SHARE IT Act a possibly challenging mandate to fulfill.

The Impact of Recent Cuts

The recent dismantling of key teams dedicated to digital services has amplified concerns about the government’s capacity to meet the SHARE IT Act’s requirements. GSA’s recently shuttered “18F” digital services team, known for its proficiency in developing open-source software, is a prime example. 18F operated under a policy of releasing all software into the public domain, with only a few specific exceptions. In 2019, 18F estimated that a shareable website tool they helped develop saved agencies approximately $100,000 per project, highlighting the potential cost savings of open-source initiatives.

The United States Digital Service (USDS) also played a crucial role in assisting agencies with the creation of open-source tools. However, under the Trump administration, the USDS has been rebranded as the “United States DOGE Service.” The future direction of DOGE and whether it will continue the digital service focus of its predecessor remains uncertain,especially given the departure of many staff members since Elon Musk’s takeover.

Waldo Jaquith, a technologist and former government official who served at 18F, expressed concern about the current landscape.

Ther’s no resource, with 18F gone and USDS functionally gone, for agencies to draw on to help comply with this law.
Waldo Jaquith, former 18F official

The core objective of the SHARE IT Act is to eliminate the need for lengthy, expensive, and duplicative software development projects by encouraging the sharing of source code across different agencies. Many civic technology experts also argue that releasing taxpayer-funded source code aligns with the public interest, promoting transparency and innovation.

While 18F’s team was relatively small, its influence extended beyond its direct partnerships. Tech experts emphasize that 18F served as a crucial example for other agencies, demonstrating how to effectively develop open-source software and fostering a culture of collaboration.

Jaquith further elaborated on 18F’s broader impact:

I don’t think 18F was every going to make a meaningful dent with their individual partner agencies in the amount of open source that gets published, compared to what’s required.But the role they would have played in establishing how to do it might potentially be irreplaceable.
Waldo Jaquith, former 18F official

Political Perspectives on the Cuts

The SHARE IT act was initially introduced by sen.Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking member Gary Peters (D-Mich.). Sen. Cruz’s office did not provide a comment regarding the potential impact of the recent cuts.

However, an aide to Sen. Peters expressed concern about the administration’s actions:

The administration’s sweeping cuts risk derailing the implementation of critical legislation aimed at improving governmentwide efficiency, like the SHARE IT Act, and undermining essential programs across GSA and other agencies.
Aide to Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

The Legacy of Open Source Initiatives

The SHARE IT act builds upon the foundation laid by

Civic Tech Crisis: Is teh SHARE IT Act Doomed by Expertise Cuts?

Is the federal government’s ability to implement the SHARE IT Act truly threatened by the dwindling number of civic tech experts? The answer, unfortunately, is a resounding yes.

Interview with Dr. Anya sharma, leading expert in Public Sector Technology and Open Source Initiatives

World-Today-News Senior Editor (WTN): Dr. Sharma, thank you for joining us.The recent cuts to federal civic technology teams have raised serious concerns about the implementation of the SHARE IT Act.Can you explain, for our readers, exactly how these cuts impact the Act’s goals?

Dr. Sharma: the SHARE IT Act’s core aim – to promote the sharing and reuse of government-developed software code – hinges critically on having the skilled personnel to manage this process. The cuts to teams like 18F and the restructuring of USDS directly impact the ability of federal agencies to understand, implement, and contribute to the open-source ecosystem this law intends to foster. Without the expertise to navigate open-source licensing, community engagement, and collaborative development practices, the Act risks becoming ineffective. This lack of expertise translates directly into lost opportunities for cost savings and improved efficiency.

WTN: The article mentions that many agencies lack the expertise to manage open-source software projects. Can you elaborate on the specific challenges agencies face in implementing the SHARE IT Act without adequate support?

Dr. Sharma: The challenges are multifaceted. Firstly, understanding and adhering to various open-source licenses is complex. Agencies need specialists who can assess the legal and practical implications before sharing code. Secondly, fostering collaboration within and across agencies requires dedicated project managers and community builders with experience managing open-source projects. This includes communicating effectively with diverse stakeholders,handling contributions,and resolving conflicts. efficient code management—using version control systems,creating detailed documentation,and addressing security vulnerabilities—needs dedicated expertise. The absence of these skilled individuals dramatically diminishes the likelihood of successful SHARE IT act implementation.

WTN: What are the long-term consequences of failing to implement the SHARE IT Act effectively?

Dr. Sharma: The long-term consequences are notable. Failing to share code leads to duplicated efforts, wasted taxpayer dollars spent on redundant software development, and missed opportunities for innovation. Moreover, a lack of openness undermines public trust, as the public’s investment in government software remains largely invisible and inaccessible.This impacts accountability and inhibits the ability of other government entities, or even private entities, to benefit. It also perpetuates a culture of technological silos within the government, preventing synergistic development.

WTN: the article highlights the role of 18F. What unique skills and experience did 18F possess that are now absent,making the SHARE IT Act’s implementation more tough?

Dr. Sharma: 18F’s expertise wasn’t just about coding; it was about building a robust culture of open-source development within the government. They provided training, mentorship, and practical guidance to other agencies. Their commitment to open-source principles, best practices, and community building is hard to replicate. Their loss represents a critical gap in knowledge transfer and capacity building within the federal government. They had an approach which whent beyond simply sharing code, it was about fostering a supportive technical ecosystem and the loss of that expertise makes large-scale implementation much more problematic.

WTN: beyond the technical challenges, what are the political implications of these cuts?

Dr. Sharma: the cuts send a troubling message regarding the government’s commitment to modernizing its technology infrastructure and embracing open-source principles. It reflects a broader disinvestment in digital services modernization at a time when such capabilities are paramount. Politically, this makes demonstrating real-time value from this law problematic, and therefore may affect future legislation around digital modernization.

WTN: What steps could be taken to mitigate the challenges and ensure the SHARE IT Act’s success,despite the current setbacks?

Dr. Sharma: Several steps are crucial:

Invest in training and development programs to upskill government employees in open-source technologies, licensing, and collaborative development.

Partner with external open-source experts and communities to provide support for government-led initiatives.

Implement a phased approach to the SHARE IT Act,focusing on smaller,simpler projects before tackling more complex initiatives.

Establish clear guidelines and support mechanisms for agencies to overcome technical and bureaucratic challenges through improved guidance documentation.

WTN: Dr. Sharma, thank you for providing such valuable insights. This issue is clearly more complex than it initially seems.

Dr. Sharma: My pleasure. I hope this highlights the critical need for a concerted effort to address these challenges and secure the long-term success of the SHARE IT Act,vital for a transparent and efficient government.

What are your thoughts on this critical situation? Share your opinions and suggestions in the comments below!