Six Things the Biden Administration Got Right on Technology Policy
My recent focus on the Biden Administration’s record on technology policy in the Blue Horizon Project posts has been largely critical. I think that this is for good reason.
First, I think that mistakes were made that cost Democrats dearly, both in our ability to deliver on government services and capabilities and politically with our longstanding tech allies.
Second, the point of this retrospective exercise is to understand what mistakes were made so that we can do better. There are lessons that can be used now and some that will have to wait for a future Democratic administration, but the idea is to do the work to understand what should be done differently now so that we can avoid making the same mistakes in the future.
That said, I think it is also very important to catalogue the places where the Biden Administration had the right instincts on tech policy and worked hard to implement the right solutions.
This doesn’t mean the execution of these policies was perfect; several of the ex-Administration officials involved in these programs have acknowledged significant bureaucratic barriers, and I have previously highlighted where the Administration failed to capitalize on available tech talent and expertise. But I think it’s important to recognize where the Administration’s instincts were sound.
This is less about patting ourselves on the back as it is understanding what worked and can be the building blocks for a successful tech policy going forward. For those of us committed to rebuilding the strong relationship between Democrats and the tech sector, and to using tech tools to make government as effective and responsive as possible, knowing what we got right is vital.
1. Rebuilding State Capacity for Industrial Policy Execution
One of the most under-appreciated achievements of the Biden era has been restoring the federal government’s ability to set industrial policy to accomplish key national security and economic goals.
Rather than flashy one-off deals, the Commerce Department established transparent criteria and an iterative process to allocate semiconductor funding under the CHIPS Act. Over 600 companies responded to Commerce’s open funding calls enabling tough negotiations to maximize impact.
Secretary Raimondo made clear that chipmakers must “do more for less,” saying that she’s “not on the Christmas card list” of many CEOs because the government is “squeezing every dollar” of value. This hard-nosed approach, paired with regular industry engagement and public timelines, built credibility.
The CHIPS program wasn’t a corporate welfare project; the Biden Administration executed on a strategic plan to onshore critical capacity and manage supply-chain risk while establishing and maintaining guardrails against offshoring sensitive tech. Raimondo estimated that the CHIPS investments will help the U.S. produce 20% of the world’s most advanced chips by 2030 from zero in 2024. By keeping companies “in the tent” through clear rules and milestones, the administration reduced uncertainty and unlocked massive private co-investment alongside public funds.
Some, most notably Ezra Klein in the New York Times, criticized the CHIPS implementation effort for “everything bagel liberalism”, attaching too many Democratic priorities, like child care mandates or unionized labor, to the program. Democrats will have to avoid the desire to appease all coalition members as they look to implement ambitious tech projects and policies so that the additional requirements and procedural hurdles don’t turn good ideas into implementation failures. Despite this criticism, implementation of the CHIPS Act is viewed as a success and provides good examples of using industry talent to cut through bureaucracy and achieve highly ambitious goals.
Successful implementation of the CHIPS Act served as a supply-side catalyst for the recent U.S. compute boom. By triggering a surge in domestic semiconductor capacity and adjacent ecosystem buildout, it reduced a binding constraint and improved the investment climate for hyperscalers and AI infrastructure builders to commit huge compute capital expenditures in the United States.
2. EVs: Demand Pull and Supply-Chain Strategy
The transition to electric vehicles (EVs) faces a classic “chicken and egg” problem: many consumers are hesitant to buy EVs without confidence in widespread, reliable charging infrastructure, while private firms are reluctant to invest in that infrastructure until there are enough EVs on the road to make it profitable. This feedback loop can slow adoption unless one side is jump-started, which is why government stimulus and strategic public investment in charging stations can help break the deadlock by reducing range anxiety and signaling market potential to private investors. Public build-outs not only encourage more EV purchases but also help achieve broader climate and equity goals by ensuring access to charging for drivers who can’t charge at home. The administration reinvented federal electric vehicle (EV) incentives to boost both consumer adoption and domestic manufacturing.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) overhauled EV tax credits so they no longer simply say “buy EVs” – they now explicitly steer the supply chain toward North America and allied nations. The rules require EV battery components and critical minerals to come increasingly from the U.S. or free-trade partners, and bar materials from foreign adversaries.
This demand pull is matched by supply-chain push: automakers have responded by announcing battery plants and sourcing deals in the U.S. and friendly countries to qualify for credits. Equally important, Biden’s team operationalized EV adoption so that incentives truly reach consumers.
Starting in 2024, a point-of-sale rebate lets buyers take up to $7,500 off the car immediately (the dealer is repaid via IRS) instead of waiting for a tax refund. In fact, over 100,000 EV purchasers have already used point-of-sale transfers, gaining more than $700 million in upfront savings.
By coupling consumer rebates with “Made in America” rules, the administration turned EV policy into both a climate tool and an industrial strategy, jumpstarting electric car sales while building a domestic supply ecosystem for the long run.
3. Turning Climate Policy into a Renewable Deployment Engine
On renewable energy, Biden transformed climate ambitions into a concrete deployment engine for clean power. A key move was providing long-term tax certainty. The administration’s policies extended and expanded clean energy tax credits (Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit) for roughly a decade, ending the prior cycle of short-term extensions that had stymied investment.
As Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo noted, by ending the “short-term” fixes, the IRA gave developers “clarity and certainty to undertake major investments” in new projects. Investors now know that if they build a wind farm, solar array, or battery storage facility, the credits will be there through at least 2032, dramatically de-risking financing. The credits are also stackable and targeted to maximize impact: projects get bonus credits for using U.S.-made equipment, for locating in energy communities, for advanced technologies, etc., which in turn spurs domestic manufacturing and good jobs.
Alongside tax incentives, the administration provided clear guideposts (through Treasury/DOE guidance and state-specific factsheets) that made the policy legible to markets and streamlined implementation. The results are evident in the investment surge: as of early 2025, over $230 billion in new clean energy manufacturing investments have been announced, spanning more than 920 new or expanded U.S. facilities. Biden’s climate policy wasn’t just about international targets or goals on paper.
Perhaps most importantly, by actually passing legislation, it is harder for the Trump Administration to roll back the incentives through executive action. So while the Trump Administration has been harmful, doing the hard work of getting legislation has blunted the damage. As the demand for energy grows, the Biden Administration focus on increasing renewable energy production looks even better.
4. Crypto: A Sound Executive Order
When it comes to cryptocurrency and digital assets, the Biden administration moved proactively to shape policy before crisis struck. In March 2022 – months before high-profile crypto collapses – President Biden issued a first-of-its-kind executive order directing a whole-of-government review of crypto’s risks and opportunities.
This sweeping order forced agencies to coordinate on issues ranging from consumer and investor protection to illicit finance, financial stability, technological innovation, and even the potential for a U.S. central bank digital currency.
By mandating reports and recommendations across these domains, the White House created a structured agenda rather than the fragmented, ad hoc approach that existed previously. In effect, Biden’s team set the policy table so that when the crypto market did experience turmoil (e.g. exchange failures and fraud revelations), regulators were not flying blind.
Of course, the executive order wasn’t a cure-all. SEC Chair Gary Gensler was largely excluded from the White House process to craft the order, and his legal and regulatory actions against crypto ended up defining the Administration’s crypto posture.
But credit is due to Biden’s White House staff for sounder instincts on crypto. They had a framework in place to respond by protecting consumers and financial stability while still allowing responsible innovation. This early, coordinated strategy helped the U.S. avoid simply letting a crisis dictate policy, positioning the country instead to lead in setting prudent ground rules for the crypto economy.
5. International Digital Tax: Global Solutions over Trade Wars
Another quiet win has been on international digital taxation, where the administration chose multilateral diplomacy over bilateral trade skirmishes.
Under the first Trump administration, disputes over countries’ digital services taxes (DSTs) – aimed largely at U.S. tech giants – were escalating toward tariff wars. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen pivoted the U.S. back to the OECD negotiations for a global solution.
In October 2021, that effort yielded a landmark agreement: over 130 nations (including all G20 members) endorsed a two-pillar plan to rewrite international tax rules, including a 15% global minimum tax on corporate profits. This approach directly addressed foreign concerns about taxing digital economy profits, reducing the pressure for each country to impose its own DST. In return, the U.S. paused and later negotiated the withdrawal of existing DST measures.
The cooperative outcome benefits American firms by avoiding a patchwork of taxes and retaliatory tariffs. As Yellen observed, a harmonized global framework creates “a more stable and certain environment, with fewer tax and trade disputes” for innovative companies operating worldwide. In short, Biden’s team showed that re-engaging in international rulemaking can protect U.S. economic interests more effectively than unilateral brinkmanship.
Unfortunately, Congress failed to enshrine Yellen’s plan in law, perhaps due to Republicans wanting to deny the Biden Administration a concrete win.
Today, the second Trump Administration is inadvertently highlighting the wisdom of this approach as our international trading partners and American companies try to deal with Trump’s announcements, delays, and constant changes to his tariff regime.
6. Defense Innovation: Marrying Tech Priorities with Capital and Speed
Finally, the administration modernized how the government drives defense innovation, aligning national security tech priorities with capital formation and agility.
A prime example was the creation of a new Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) at the Pentagon, launched in late 2022 to help promising “dual-use” tech companies bridge the infamous funding “valley of death.” Rather than solely funding R&D and hoping the private sector picks up the rest, OSC actively partners with private capital markets – using tools like loans and loan guarantees – to scale up critical technologies for defense.
As Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin put it, “We are in a global competition for leadership in critical technologies, and the Office of Strategic Capital will help us win that competition and build enduring national security advantages.”
In 2023, the Deputy Secretary of Defense announced the launch of “Replicator”, an initiative to field attritable autonomous systems at scale. The goal is to deploy “multiple thousands” of cheap, smart drones and other unmanned platforms across multiple domains within the next 18–24 months. This represents a radical shift toward systems that are “small, smart, cheap, and many” – a complement to traditional big-ticket defense programs. By publicly announcing Replicator and stressing collaboration with industry and Congress, the administration gave focus and urgency to overcoming bureaucratic inertia.
Additionally, the Pentagon stood up a new Chief Digital and AI Office to accelerate adoption of data analytics and AI, and has strengthened its cybersecurity posture across agencies. Together, these moves blend technological ambition with pragmatic financing and governance reforms – ensuring the U.S. military can tap cutting-edge innovation at the speed and scale required to maintain a military advantage.
At its best, the Biden Administration demonstrated that clear priorities and well-designed policy can translate into real gains for innovation and American competitiveness.
The lesson going forward is not to defend every Biden Administration decision, my future posts will largely focus on what I view were the Administration’s mistakes on tech policy. But it is important to understand and build on what worked; to pair sound instincts with disciplined execution in order to show that Democrats can be the party of American innovation, economic growth, and long-term prosperity.