Innovation meets ideology: The political challenges facing today’s CIOs

Ever since the E-Government Act of 2002, there has been an effort at the federal level to raise the level of professionalism of the chief information officer and elevate them to the point where they are part of senior management. In addition to the federal CIO, there are thousands of CIOs throughout the federal government facing similar challenges.

Despite many attempts to fulfill the original well-intended goals, CIOs were mainly relegated to that of a support role, surfacing at times for special projects requiring active participation from other quarters. Aside from keeping the innards of the government business running, cybersecurity grew to be one of the significant responsibilities with highly visible consequences. Protecting data and privacy has always been the number one concern and responsibility.

At the state level, things were somewhat different. State CIOs are appointed by the governor, which often means that when there is a change in state administrations, governors prefer their own CIO. As a result, the average tenure of a state CIO is between 18 to 22 months. Almost every state agency has its own CIO too,  but until recently, most CIOs at every government level were considered nonpolitical regardless of how they came to their positions. At the local government level, CIOs usually enjoyed the longest tenure.

As we entered the new year, the incoming Trump administration changed everything when it announced that federal CIOs would be considered political appointees and lose their historic civil service protections. Within a few short weeks, decades of technology buffering and insulation were removed. 

During the last decade in particular, innovation was a hallmark of enlightened CIOs who sought to improve citizen communications and experience through information-rich websites and open data portals. Service delivery was improving, as were many attempts to replace legacy systems. There was much to show for their collective efforts leading the federal government further into digitalization.

Now, with a new administration, never in a century has there been such a sharp departure from what was considered acceptable norms to that of an ideology-based culture aimed at dismantling government. Loyalty is the new gold standard, and anyone associated with the past is considered suspect and untrustworthy. 

The Department of Government Efficiency was established with the goal of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse as well as dramatically shrinking the perceived excesses within the federal government. The goals of DOGE are popular amongst most voters across the political spectrum. Yet its execution is fraught with secrecy and lack of accountability where DOGE staff and volunteers have entered federal agencies at all hours of the day and night, demanding access to highly classified databases. 

Worse, it has been reported that almost none have the necessary security clearances or any relevant experience working in the government domain. Most lack the critical understanding of the nuances of government operations that, unlike the private sector, does not get to choose its “customers.” Hundreds of senior public managers attempted to protect classified information and were fired or forced to retire. 

In protest, twenty-one staff members from the well-respected U.S. Digital Service within the General Services Administration resigned en masse. This department was created 20 years ago to attract outside technology talent to assist federal agencies with innovation and modernization efforts. They enjoyed a track record of success and served three presidents without issue. 

In a letter to the White House Chief of Staff, they stated, “We will not use our skills as technologists to compromise core government systems, jeopardize America’s sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services.” Meanwhile, outside technocrats from the private sector continue to gain access to highly sensitive and confidential information systems, searching for ideology-based keywords and then deleting entire sections, deleting entire datasets found on websites, shutting down some agency websites entirely, and deleting staff records and system access.

The politicization of IT raises many critical questions and consequences, such as:

• Strategic IT decision-making: How do politically motivated appointments affect digital transformation efforts?
• Cybersecurity and national security risks: Will political influence lead to cybersecurity vulnerabilities or inconsistent strategies?
• IT procurement and public sector efficiency: How do political loyalties shape IT contracts, vendor selection, and digital policy continuity?
• Public trust and digital democracy: Will politicization affect transparency, accountability, e-governance initiatives, or citizen engagement?
• Should the CIO be a politically appointed position or a neutral technocratic role?
• What safeguards can insulate the CIO from excessive political interference?
• How can digital governance be designed to balance political accountability with technical expertise?

As the administration pushes its anti-federal ideology, which calls for dramatically cutting the shape and size of the federal government and transferring many responsibilities to state and local governments, will the politicization of IT leadership seep into state and local governments? What might be the consequences? And what happens when a new Administration gains power?  What might be the lasting damage? 

After all, government employment has instantly become a less attractive call to public service. There will be a wealth of experiential knowledge walking out the door voluntarily and involuntarily as more government workers view their workplaces as hostile and unpredictable. Today, we have far more questions than answers. Still, it’s important to learn whatever we can and try to navigate the turmoil and, at the same time, look objectively for what may be some of the advantages of a leaner federal government and, quite possibly, a more robust state and local technology landscape.

Finally, as the US finds itself steeped in bureaucratic turmoil, the rest of the world gravitates toward stronger central governments. This raises questions about US competitiveness and digital effectiveness. How will the move toward government decentralization affect AI-driven governance, digital sovereignty, and cybersecurity geopolitics?  

Today, no less than eight gubernatorial candidates have pledged DOGE-like reforms in their respective states. What can states and localities learn from what is occurring at the federal level? Should and can governments depoliticize the CIO role, or is some level of politicization inevitable now that public managers have finally come to recognize the critical importance of digital technologies?

Dr. Alan R. Shark is the Executive Director of the Public Technology Institute (PTI) and Associate Professor for the Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, where he is also an affiliate faculty member at the Center for Advancing Human-Machine Partnership (CAHMP). Shark is a National Academy of Public Administration Fellow and Co-Chair of the Standing Panel on Technology Leadership. Shark also hosts the bi-monthly podcast Sharkbytes.net.