Technology is at the heart of modern governance. From cybersecurity threats to AI policy, from broadband expansion to AI access, technology is shaping every aspect of our lives. Yet, our government lacks a unified, structured leadership framework to address these challenges effectively. The solution? A dedicated Department of Technology (DoT) at the federal, state, county, and local levels, led by elected and appointed officials who can ensure a coordinated, transparent, and forward-thinking approach to public technology policy.

A Vision for the Future

Imagine a government where technology decisions are made with expertise, foresight, and accountability. The proposed Department of Technology would establish leadership roles at all levels:

• Federal Level: A Secretary of Technology, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would oversee national digital infrastructure, cybersecurity, AI regulation, and technological innovation.
• State Level: A State Secretary of Technology, elected by voters, would manage statewide digital policies, broadband expansion, and cybersecurity resilience.
• County Level: A Supervisor of Technology, elected county-wide, would oversee regional tech projects, public digital services, and local cybersecurity.
• Local Level: A Director of Technology, elected by city or town voters, would handle smart city initiatives, public Wi-Fi programs, and data protection policies.

Why Now? The Urgency of Action

Our current approach to technology governance is fragmented. Agencies operate in silos, cybersecurity threats go unanswered, and public trust in digital systems is shaky. The Department of Technology would streamline decision-making and ensure inter-agency collaboration, with synchronized four-year terms aligning with presidential elections to maintain national, state, and local synergy.

Key benefits include:

• Improved cybersecurity coordination across all levels of government.
• Standardized AI and data privacy regulations for consistency and trust.
• Enhanced digital infrastructure investments in rural and underserved areas.
• Faster response to emerging tech challenges, from misinformation to digital threats.

Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Innovation

Without dedicated leadership, technology policy is often reactive instead of proactive. Establishing the Department of Technology would ensure expertise-driven decision-making, balancing technological progress with ethical considerations and legal safeguards.

Lawmaking needs to keep pace with innovation. With AI, blockchain, and quantum computing advancing rapidly, we cannot afford legislative lag. The DoT would be a hub for policy innovation, ensuring the U.S. remains a global leader in tech governance.

Why the Department of Technology is Different

Unlike existing agencies, listed below, our proposed Department of Technology would be a centralized, voter-accountable entity overseeing broad tech governance, AI policy, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure—with leadership elected at all levels of government.

Federal Agencies

• Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) – Advises the President on technology and science policies but lacks enforcement power.
• National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – Oversees broadband policy and internet governance.
• Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) – Protects government networks and critical infrastructure from cyber threats.
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – Regulates telecommunications, broadband, and media policy.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – Develops technology and cybersecurity standards.

The rapid pace of technological advancements outstrips the ability of existing agencies to adapt. By the time a regulatory response is formulated, new challenges—such as cybersecurity threats or AI ethics concerns—may have emerged. To reiterate, these agencies and roles operate in silos, which leads to fragmented approaches to technology regulation. There is no cohesive, unified strategy for addressing the full spectrum of technological challenges (e.g., cybersecurity, AI governance, digital privacy, and broadband expansion).

State & Local Efforts

• Some states have Chief Information Officers (CIOs) or Offices of Digital Services, but they lack voter accountability and broad regulatory power.

Local governments often have Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) or Innovation Offices, but these roles vary widely in scope and authority.

At the state and local levels, many technology positions (CIOs, CTOs) lack voter accountability, meaning that these roles are not directly accountable to the people, which can lead to decisions that may not align with public interests or needs.

Summary

We have a choice: Continue with outdated bureaucratic structures that struggle to keep up, or establish a streamlined, voter-accountable system that prioritizes technological excellence and public trust.

Lawmakers, technology leaders, and engaged citizens—this is the moment to act. Support the creation of the Department of Technology and advocate for smarter, more responsible, and future-focused tech governance.

The future won’t wait. Neither should we.