What We Democrats Lost When Obama Tech Hopes Turned to Biden Hostility
Launching our new Substack to restore Democratic tech optimism
I first began following politics and national security issues in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. I was a senior in high school, thinking about what I wanted to study in college and what direction my life should take.
Like so many Americans, that day reshaped my understanding of the world and my sense of purpose. It revealed the fragility of our security, the reach of global conflict, and the far-reaching consequences of policy decisions made in Washington. During college and graduate school, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan unfolded, I immersed myself in studying foreign policy and national security to understand how we got there and how our country could do better.
From the Bush Era to Obama’s Tech-Optimistic Vision
The failures and challenges of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy pushed me to get involved in politics. In the summer of 2007, I joined the Obama campaign in my home state of Iowa.
Among the young staffers and the voters we spoke with, the Obama campaign felt like a movement that represented both moral renewal and pragmatic innovation. I’ll admit that I initially thought Obama would lose to Hillary Clinton in the primary and that I would soon need to find another job. Fortunately for me, he won the Iowa caucuses, the primary campaign, and ultimately the presidency.
It was on that campaign that I first witnessed the transformative potential of technology in politics. The campaign’s voter-targeting and outreach tools evolved constantly, improving over mere months, saving time, and seamlessly integrating feedback from those of us on the ground. This was not technology for technology’s sake. It was technology that worked, empowered people, and made the campaign stronger. Seeing its impact firsthand cemented my belief in tech-driven progress. I had seen technology make me more effective and efficient in real time.
After the campaign, I had little understanding of how the political appointment process worked. Of course, I knew about cabinet-level appointees, but I didn’t expect or plan to join the administration myself. When the opportunity arose to submit resumes for junior-level Schedule C appointments, I was fortunate to be selected for a role at the Department of Defense, where I could utilize my education in foreign policy and national security issues.
That experience convinced me that technology could make the government more efficient and effective.
The same data-driven tools and rapid iteration that had powered a historic campaign were beginning to take root in government. Even when things went wrong, such as with the healthcare.gov rollout, the response was not to retreat from technology – but to bring in expertise, hire top tech talent, and fix the problem.
There was a shared belief that technology could make government work better, faster, and more responsively. It was a mindset that was pragmatic, but also embraced the reality that technology — in the right hands — was a powerful tool for good.”
A Shift in the Biden Era
My experience as an appointee in the Biden Administration felt markedly different. My colleagues were talented, dedicated, and deeply committed to public service, but few had meaningful experience in technology or even then the private sector itself.
Under President Obama, the White House created the position of Chief Technology Officer, launched the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) at the Pentagon, and made a point to regularly hear from Silicon Valley and technology startups of all sizes. Obama personally hosted dinners with tech innovators, had his staff do Reddit AMAs, and held a Facebook town hall to connect directly with techies outside of government.
The goal was always to hear new perspectives, help keep pace with new innovations, and understand how they could help us tackle national challenges.
By contrast, the Biden Administration viewed engagement with technology companies, or perhaps with any company with government interests, as potentially compromising.
The emphasis shifted from innovation to risk reduction, from building to avoiding mistakes. The Administration never filled the position of Chief Technology Officer, and there was no single point of contact at the White House to engage with technology leaders. For four years, no one within the Administration took on the task of setting a positive technology vision and agenda for the Biden Administration. If the idea was that eliminating a single point of contact would allow for engagement across multiple levels and agencies, that concept never had the support of senior leadership. Instead, the Administration de-emphasized the digital economy, demoted the roles that would traditionally manage it, and did not pick up the phone when the industry called.
Even forward-looking initiatives, such as establishing the Chief Digital and AI Officer at the Pentagon or passing the CHIPS Act, felt like isolated efforts struggling against a broader current of skepticism toward technology.
Getting Bogged Down
That skepticism came at a cost. For example, during my time working on space policy at the Pentagon, I met with the Commercial Space Launch Office at the FAA to discuss the booming American commercial space sector, driven by companies like SpaceX.
This should have been a straightforward success story. Yet the forms and constantly-changing submissions required for launch and reentry approvals were overwhelming the FAA staff, creating delays.
I suggested using technology to simplify the process—an interactive system to verify complete submissions or AI tools to extract and organize key data for expert review. The response was disheartening.
The vendor tasked with such a system had failed to deliver, and a new contract would take up to two years to produce a usable product. Two years. It was astonishing that a government filled with smart, hardworking people could be so hindered by its own systems, unable to effectively use modern tools to support a revolutionary American industry.
And this was not even within a part of the administration known for hostility toward technology. Across departments, similar stories played out, leaving many in the tech community who had long identified as Democrats feeling alienated and disillusioned.
The Consequences of a Tech Disconnect
We know how the story ended. Donald Trump won, and Republicans took control of Congress. Of course, the outcome was not determined by technology alone, but it would be shortsighted to ignore how Democrats’ growing disconnect and antagonism with the tech sector and those who make it up — so many historically reliable Democratic supporters and voters — contributed to the losses.
When a party that once celebrated innovation becomes casually hostile to it, it loses not only the best of American dynamism and innovation, but also the imagination, knowledge, and skills needed to govern effectively in a digital age.
This Substack, part of Chamber of Progress’ Blue Horizon Project, is our effort to unpack what went wrong. I will be exploring why the Biden Administration came to be seen as waging a war on technology, and examining the political and policy consequences of that shift toward tech pessimism. More importantly, I’ll be focusing on how we can rebuild trust and cooperation between Democrats and the technology sector.
My goal is to use my experience in Democratic politics and Administrations to have an honest conversation about how to repair this relationship and stay true to our values. We need to understand why certain choices were made, identify where our priorities must change, and become more strategic about achieving outcomes that reflect our values.
This is not about assigning blame or reliving old battles. It is about learning from mistakes and charting a path forward that positions Democrats to win elections and govern effectively in the most transformative technological era in history.
A tech-forward Democratic Party that partners with innovators, embraces experimentation, and uses technology to expand opportunity and strengthen democracy is not merely desirable. It is essential for the future of the party and for the future of the country.
Thank you for reading and joining this conversation.