By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 14, 2026
A Department of Technology is our proposal for making sure the people who shape technology policy answer to the public. If you have followed our work, you have seen the phrase many times. This is the short version: what we propose, why, and how it would work.
One thing first. This is a proposal. No such department exists today, and no government has adopted our plan. Everything below describes what we think should be built, and we invite you to challenge it.
The problem we are trying to solve
Some of the most consequential decisions of this era involve artificial intelligence, surveillance, autonomous weapons, student data, quantum computing, data centers, and digital infrastructure. Too often, the people making them were never elected, and the pieces of each decision are scattered across agencies that do not coordinate.
Data centers are a good example. The pieces of a single project are split across utility commissions, zoning boards, economic development offices, treasurers, and workforce agencies. No one answers to voters for how those pieces fit together. That gap is the problem.
The idea in one sentence
Every official who makes technology policy should be accountable to voters, and that official should sit in a Department of Technology at each level of government.
Four levels, one network
We propose a Department of Technology (DoT) at four levels:
- Federal: a cabinet-level Secretary of Technology, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary would serve a four-year term, with one possible renewal.
- State: a directly elected Secretary of Technology.
- County: an elected Director of Technology.
- Local: elected technology directors for cities, towns, and tribal authorities.
Think of how prosecution works today. In most states, voters elect their city or county district attorney and their state attorney general, while the U.S. Attorney General is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. None of these offices takes orders from the others. Each has its own authority, and they cooperate on shared problems. (Cities vary, many rely on a city attorney, who is often appointed rather than elected.) A Department of Technology would follow the same pattern: elected leaders close to the community, and an appointed federal Secretary who coordinates rather than commands.
That is a layered structure, not a chain of command. Our framework describes the federal department as a partner, not a director. States, counties, and cities keep their own authority, and they choose which federal programs and standards to adopt. In our comparative overview, the federal level coordinates large projects like national cybersecurity, states make decisions for their own regions, counties bridge state programs and local needs, and local offices serve their communities directly.
What a Department of Technology would do
Its jurisdiction would cover technology policy broadly. In our work, that includes:
- Machine Intelligence (aka AI): disclosure rules, whistleblower protection, and standards for how AI systems are used in government.
- Cybersecurity and privacy: shared defenses, incident response, and data protection, including our proposed Data Sovereignty Act.
- Education technology: school and college identity and safety systems, such as School Contact and College Contact.
- Critical infrastructure: continuity of government during blackouts and other disruptions.
- Data centers: making sure the buildout is planned in the open and answers to the public.
- Emerging technology: quantum computing, robotics, physical AI, and autonomous weapons.
How it would work day to day
Our federal framework sketches the machinery in more detail. A few features stand out:
- Independent oversight. A Technology Oversight Committee of technologists, lawyers, and public representatives would audit the department and report to Congress.
- Public comment. Major policies would go through a public comment period of at least 60 days.
- Impact assessments. Large initiatives would be studied for social, economic, and environmental effects before launch.
- Voluntary partnership. Offices such as a Technology Coordination Office and regional technology offices would support states and localities with training, grants, and technical help, with participation left to them.
- Ethics and procurement rules. MI (aka AI) systems would need to be transparent, tested for bias, and subject to human oversight. Contracts would keep data ownership with the government.
- Shared security. A National Technology Security Council would coordinate voluntary threat sharing among governments.
At the state, county, and local levels, our companion framework adds regular public reports, annual public forums, independent audits, and clear rules for how data is collected, stored, and shared.
The federal framework is a conceptual draft. Parts of it still need to be filled in by lawyers and legislators before it could become law.
Why elected leaders?
The hard technology decisions are not purely technical. Whose land is used, whose power bills rise, and whose jobs are created are value judgments, and voters should be able to hold someone to account for them. There is precedent: voters already elect utility commissioners in ten states.
Election alone is not enough, and it has critics. Those races often draw little attention, and elected prosecutors are debated too, with some arguing that elections can politicize the office. So we pair elected leadership with funded professional staff, published calendars and records, recusal rules for financial conflicts, and limits on secret agreements. We lay out the objections and our answers in Isn’t This Just Another Bureaucracy?
Who is qualified to lead?
We would not hand a prosecutor’s office to someone who had never practiced law. Prosecutors and attorneys general are typically licensed attorneys, and by long tradition so is the U.S. Attorney General. Technology leadership deserves the same seriousness: real-world experience with the technology is just as essential as legal experience is for a prosecutor.
A college degree cannot show that on its own. Technology changes so fast that what someone learned years ago may be out of date, and the people best equipped to lead are often those with recent, hands-on experience.
There is no technology equivalent of the bar exam, so we would consider other safeguards:
- minimum years of hands-on work in relevant fields, as some states already require of utility commissioners;
- public disclosure of a candidate’s technical record (industry certifications, etc.) and any conflicts of interest;
- ongoing training once in office, much as lawyers keep up through continuing education as the law changes; and
- a funded team of professional staff, so the elected leader is accountable for decisions while experts supply the analysis.
What it is not
A Department of Technology is not meant to replace utility commissions or other regulators. A utility commission sets rates, but it does not decide zoning, water use, tax incentives, or how a county budgets for a downturn. The proposal is for a technology leader to take part in those proceedings and to coordinate across decisions that no single regulator owns.
It is also not meant to slow progress. Our test for any new office is whether it replaces confusion with accountability. If it adds a layer without closing a gap, it should not exist. We also believe a new office should come with a published cost estimate and a sunset review. We have not priced it for your community, and you should be skeptical of anyone who claims to have done so without details.
What would a technology leader actually do?
If you want a concrete picture, read A Technology Leader’s First Year. It walks through a month-by-month plan for a county or city: find out what projects are coming, write clear rules, take a seat in utility rate cases, and negotiate in public.
How you can take part
You do not need to agree with every detail to take part. Here are three ways to start:
- Read the articles linked above and our topic pages.
- Ask the candidates and officials in your community where they stand. Our questions for candidates are a good starting point.
- Tell us where we are wrong. We would rather be challenged than applauded.
A Department of Technology is an argument that the people shaping our technological future should answer to the public. Whether or not you agree with our design, we hope you will help decide who holds that responsibility.