A Research, Learning, and Opportunity Agenda for Rebuilding Trust in Government

American trust in government institutions is at historic lows. You’ve heard that so many times – we get it! Our series on trust in government functions has given you all the context you might ever desire on why that matters. What we haven’t done yet (and what too few do) is talk about what may be needed to rebuild trust in government institutions, broadly, but also specifically. 

At a recent workshop hosted by the Federal of American Scientists, we explored the nature of trust in specific government functions, the risk and implications of breaking trust in those systems, and how we’d known we were getting close to specific trust breaking points. The scenarios we developed were not only meant as cautionary tales, but to serve as reference foundations to plan against for any future reform efforts, should trust continue to decline generally or specifically. But we also started to explore the question of what actions may be needed to rebuild trust from a total breakdown – or, absent that, what we need to know to make that rebuilding possible.

What follows is an opportunity agenda for those invested in rebuilding trust in government functions. Instead of admiring the problem with another dozen think pieces on how dire the situation has been for decades, there’s homework we can do now to build our our trust toolkit. This includes:

This is just the start, reflecting the dozens of suggestions by workshop participants in our too-short session. You undoubtedly have more (let us know!). What we hope it offers is a list of possibilities for policymakers, academics, funders, and practitioners to deepen understanding and test reforms. 

Workforce: Trust as a System-Level Challenge

Research Questions

Learning Opportunities

Design Challenges

Procurement: Trust Through Smarter Buying and Clearer Accountability

Research Needs

Learning Opportunities

Design Challenges

Customer Experience: Trust as an Exercise in Proactive Service and Listening

Research Needs

Learning Opportunities

Design Challenges

Data: Trust in Evidence, Transparency, Reliability, and Capacity

Research Needs

Learning Opportunities

Design Challenges

Cross-Cutting Directions

Research Needs

Conclusion

The actions surfaced by participants reflect more than tactical fixes—they point to a research and design agenda for the field. Trust is not just the hoped-for outcome of reform, but the principle that should shape how reforms are tested and evaluated. By pursuing these questions, piloting these ideas, and designing around trust, the government capacity community can help rebuild institutions that are not only effective but also respected, legitimate, and deeply connected to the people they serve.

Trust Me: What’s a High-Trust Government Look Like?

American trust in government institutions is at historic lows. Throw a stick at a workshop, op-ed, or white paper on state of governance today and you’ll run into a worrying statistic about trust in public institutions.  The pervasiveness of this worry makes sense: the legitimacy of democracies relies on trust. Lower trust means every program, every public benefit, every crisis, every investment is just that much more difficult, if not impossible; the flywheels of low trust weakens government capacity for everyone. 

But here’s the thing: what if low trust was not a given? Or, said another way: what if we had the power to improve trust in government – what would that world look like?

After studying trust in government for years, one of my top concerns is that we have simply accepted lower trust as a fact of life and, worse than that, irreparable. That declining trust in government is simply seen as an acceptable cost for Americans – a notoriously skeptical bunch when it comes to government – and perhaps we’re a little proud of it. This is concerning for all kinds of reasons but at the top of my list: it lets government (and everyone else!) off the hook.

Trust is complex and there is no one simple fix to permanently reset the relationship or shift the trendline between government and people. But that does not mean it’s off limits. I believe it is possible, but more importantly, I believe it is worthwhile to improve trust and trustworthiness in government

What could high trust (and trustworthiness) in government institutions yield? Better public health outcomes (higher trust leading to greater willingness to follow public health directives, like vaccines). Greater flexibility to navigate complex public challenges (greater trust leading to willingness to accept risk and endorse innovative approaches). Wider participation in public programs (and public program design), leading to more effective and representative services that achieve their intended impacts. Better ability to manage crises (public willingness to turn to central point of information for direction). Potential for fewer transaction costs or compliance barriers (put in place to mitigate low trust levels). Greater civic participation. 

At the recent workshop on the future of trust in government hosted by the Federal of American Scientists, we explored the nature of trust in specific government functions and what the worse case scenarios of trust might be, but we also specifically addressed what good might look like. 

Approach and Methods

The “Future of Trust” workshop brought together government capacity experts to examine how trust operates within specific government functions, the risks and consequences of its erosion, and what it would take to rebuild. Recognizing that trust in government is not generic, participants explored how Americans’ varied encounters with federal systems (such as hiring and talent management, data collection and reliability, procurement, and customer service) shape their perceptions and engagement. The group considered potential first- and second-order impacts of changing trust, early indicators that key thresholds may be at risk, and strategies for either restoring trust or adapting to a new reality. The discussion was grounded in the context of significant federal changes in management functions and larger trends imparting them.

While catastrophic breaking of trust can serve as both a cautionary tale and context for reform, genuine improvements can demonstrate why caring about trust and trustworthiness should be a north star for public sector organizations. To keep ourselves from falling into the depths of despair (and to recall why this work matters), we asked key functional areas in government would look like if they engendered high trust? Or, in other words: is building trust in the federal workforce, federal procurement systems, public sector customer experience, and federal data systems worthwhile?

Below are the four best case scenarios generated at the workshop, summarizing the best case scenarios for trust each of these functional areas. 

Great Public Service is the Defining Image of American Governance

Imagine a future United States where public service is a dream opportunity and a top destination for talent at all levels. College students and young professionals aspire to join, knowing they’ll find meaningful work, fair treatment, and opportunities to build diverse lifelong careers based on the experiences they gain. Mid-career professionals move easily between government, academia, and the private sector, enriching federal expertise without stigma or political baggage, and impacting other sectors with their public-benefit mindset. Public servants are celebrated as heroes: not just astronauts or diplomats, but patent examiners, social security field officer workers, and climate analysts. Pop cultures elevates the everyday work of government as essential, positive, and valued, and audiences are exposed to a wide range of public service missions in film, TV, literature and more. People are motivated to better understand the diverse roles of government, and the public sees and feels the government’s responsiveness in their daily lives through their engagement with civil servants of all kinds.

Congress treats workforce issues as foundational to national strength, supporting reforms that sustain a professional, accountable, and diverse civil service. Systems of accountability ensure power is used responsibly, building confidence in government safety and fairness. Flexible hiring and a reliable stream of talent allow agencies to focus on long-term excellence rather than constant reinvention. 

As a result, the federal government becomes one of the most competitive sectors (federal internships are career launchers; federal experience is a resume enhancement). The U.S. sets a global standard for how a trusted, high-performing workforce  can underpin democracy. Pride in government work spreads outward, creating a virtuous cycle in which esteem, talent, and outcomes reinforce one another: people want to be on the winning and admired team. Great people doing great work, visibly and with integrity, become the defining image of American governance.

Federal Procurement is a Driver of Public Trust

In a world where trust in federal procurement is high, it’s widely recognized as one of government’s most powerful levers for delivering public value. Agencies consistently prioritize best value, ensuring that contracts translate into real improvements for people’s lives.

Procurement choices reflect thoughtful strategy and agencies clearly distinguish what must remain core government work from what can be outsourced. Institutional and technical expertise is fully integrated into the acquisitions workforce, making government a smart, discerning buyer that understands both the risks and the opportunities of each decision.

Transparency and clear communication are the norm, with citizens and Congress able to see how contracts are awarded, what outcomes are promised, and whether those outcomes are delivered. Confidence grows that procurement serves the public. Over time, procurement becomes a driver of trust: government dollars are seen to consistently buy not just goods and services, but fairness, innovation, and better outcomes for the American people.

Trustworthy Customer Experience is a Core Democratic Value

A world with high trust in federal customer experience has services are so effective, intuitive, and respectful that they become a source of national pride. Citizens never stand in long lines, wrestle with redundant forms, struggle with translations, wonder if their information is secure. Eligibility, verification, and delivery are proactive, straightforward, and seamless. Co-design is a given and people feel they have a role in shaping the services they receive. Every interaction feels human-centered, affirming dignity rather than imposing burdens. 

This transformation is backed by strong political interest and political will. Recognizing their duty and role, Congress passes outcomes-based legislation, trusting agencies to determine the best delivery methods and iteratively measuring success by results, not process. Bipartisan support sustains investments in modern service delivery, while spending is transparently tied to clear and easy to understand metrics that are tracked, shaped by, and shared with the public.

Trust grows as effective services demonstrate government’s capacity to deliver on promises. Civic participation expands as people see their input reflected in co-designed services. Authentic, two-way communication reinforces this trust, showing that government not only serves but also listens. Over time, customer experience becomes a core democratic value: a system where outcomes are clear, accountability is real, and government simply works beautifully for the people it serves.

The Federal Data System is the Backbone of Democracy

Data underpins a government that is responsive, accountable, and anticipatory. Citizens no longer repeat the same information across agencies, with an “ask once” environment ensuring seamless, user-centric service. Secure and interoperable systems give government real-time insight, enabling proactive responses to emerging needs and building trust through visible speed and accuracy.

Data careers thrive inside government. Staff are recruited for their analytical and stewardship expertise, with robust pathways for career development. A diffuse community of data talent across academia, private industry, and civic tech reinforces data literacy and feeds a pipeline of skilled professionals into federal service. Government becomes a best place to work for data experts who want their skills to have national impact.

The public data ecosystem itself is diversified, reducing risks of manipulation by spreading data sourcing across suppliers. Public participation in data generation strengthens trust and relevance. Shared factual foundations guide decisions, ensuring policy debates are grounded in evidence rather than misinformation, and science agencies, service providers, and policy offices all benefit. 

Conclusion

Feeling inspired? Take another deep breath – this workshop wasn’t about painting a utopia, but about imagining what’s possible when trust in government is built and sustained. What should stay with you is that trust isn’t an abstract ideal; it’s the foundation that enables strong workforces, smarter procurement, seamless services, and data ecosystems that keep government responsive and accountable. And while no single reform flips a switch to “high trust,” together they can create a virtuous cycle of legitimacy, performance, and pride. What we can do is this: as the government capacity community designs reforms and innovations, they can embed trust as both a principle and an outcome (how? Part three of this series will dig into concrete strategies!). These scenarios aren’t predictions but tools to chart the upside of reform, helping us see how investment in people, processes, services, and data can make government stronger.

Broken Trust in Government: Signals and Worst Case Scenarios

American trust in government institutions is at historic lows. That’s a known known and a long term trend. But while experts are right to worry about the trajectory of such trust in public life, this diagnosis is broad and hard to rectify given the broad spectrum of roles the federal government plays in American life. Trust in government is not generic–the way Americans encounter and engage government systems can vary significantly. At a period where the federal government is undergoing significant changes in how it hires, buys, collects and organizes data, and delivers, deeper exploration of trust in these facets as worthwhile.  

At a recent workshop hosted by the Federation of American Scientists, we explored the nature of trust in specific government functions, the risk and implications of breaking trust in those systems, and how we’d known we were getting close to specific trust breaking points. The scenarios we developed were not only meant as cautionary tales, but to serve as reference foundations to plan against for any future reform efforts, should trust continue to decline generally or specifically. Experts considering reforms and improvements to key government functions may additionally need to take into consideration whether and how stakeholders will re-engage with low-trust systems, or how to grapple with second and third order effects of trust declines like growing non-governmental alternatives. For example, reforms to the federal talent management system could need to adapt to a world where Americans do not trust that civil service is a durable career path, or do not trust that hiring is nonpartisan. 

What do we know about trust in government and why does trust matter

Trust in government has been on a downward trend in not only the United States but many democracies worldwide. Citizens bring good reasons for their decreasing trust–government response to disasters, approaches to transparency and accountability, profound historic inequities, disparate beliefs on the role of government, and much more–and many government leaders take these trends seriously. Scholars have considered the consequences of low trust through many lenses, but the short version is the legitimacy of democracies relies on trust. Lower trust means less engagement with functions that government performs uniquely or drives, whether disaster response, weather warnings, federal benefits, security functions, public health, or independent data collection and analysis–and that lesser engagement means those functions work less well for everyone else. This has a cascading impact as democratic institutions weaken when government cannot, does not, or is not believed to deliver on expectations of its citizens.

Approach and Methods

The “Future of Trust” workshop at the Federation of American Scientists brought together government capacity experts to examine how trust operates within specific government functions, the risks and consequences of its erosion, and what it would take to rebuild. Recognizing that trust in government is not generic, participants explored how Americans’ varied encounters with federal systems (such as hiring and talent management, data collection and reliability, procurement, and customer service) shape their perceptions and engagement. The group considered potential first- and second-order impacts of declining trust, early indicators that key thresholds may be at risk, and strategies for either restoring trust or adapting to a new reality. The discussion was grounded in the context of significant federal changes in management functions and larger trends imparting them.

Despite breakouts into the four different functional areas, there were several common and intersecting attributes of possible broken trust worst case scenarios, including:

Overall, participants anticipated a cycle of declining trust, leading to a hollowing out of government capacity and expertise, which in turn would result in a failure to deliver essential services effectively, further eroding public trust and fostering widespread cynicism and disengagement. Sounds like something we should take a look at!

Workforce

What do we know about trust in the civil service?

The limited research available American’s understanding of and feelings about the federal civil service is complex. In 2024 surveys by the Partnership for Public Service, Americans demonstrate overwhelmingly strong beliefs in the importance of nonpartisan civil service our democracy, and that politicization of the civil service does harm to government effectiveness (even among those who support cuts to the Federal government). But feelings on federal workers themselves are split: just over half of of Americans belief their civil servants are competent and committed to helping “people like me.” In similar 2022 research, other positive qualities have a comparable breakdown (such as “hard-working” or “committed to public service” in research by the Partnership, and “great deal or a fair amount of confidence” in research by Pew). As a rule, however, views on federal workers are more positive than on the federal government itself. As for why federal workers choose to serve, the majority of Americans surveyed believed serving their communities was a key factor (57%)–but far more believed it was job security (77%). 

Based on recent and significant changes to policies around federal hiring and civil service protections, trends around politicization of the federal workforce, and the significant cuts made via reductions in force and other workforce shaping initiatives, we wanted to better understand things like:

Participants considered scenarios where trust in the civil service as an institution and employer improves significantly and where trust breaks down, and outlined specific attributes they would anticipate in both best and worst cases. For the worst case, participants were concerned about cascading effects on recruitment, performance, public perception, and the ability of government to function effectively.

What falling trust in the federal workforce may look like in practice

Trust is obviously a fungible and flexible concept, changing both based on context and individual experience–participants did not imagine a bright line between overarching trust and distrust. With that in mind, we considered key signals that might indicate that breakdowns in trust, or negative consequences from such, are growing more likely. These signals range from shifts in hiring patterns and workforce composition, to declines in service quality, to more visible public and political hostility toward civil servants. Together, they provide early warning signs that the relationship between the public and its professional government workforce is fraying. For example:

Procurement

What do we know about trust in government procurement?

There’s little explicit research on American views on the U.S. government as a trustworthy business partner, or its ability to effectively procure goods or services. One can take signals from things like participation in the federal market (generally competitive but with declines in both prime contractors and small businesses, and greater concentration in vendors) and attempts to shape its policies and procedures (active), but that only addresses specific trust audiences. Similarly, bid protest trends may be an indicator of views on the system; these have declined by 32% in the last decade. With close to three-quarters of a trillion dollars are spent on contracts annually–more than double federal worker compensation–American views on waste may be relevant. Partnership research says 85% of Americans believed the government to be “wasteful” in 2024, up 15 points from 2022, with 74% believing it is corrupt. These signals are concerning but not necessarily a clear critique of federal procurement. While these are weak signals, what is clear is that procurement can be a significant vehicle for trust building: transparency, integrity, fair decision-making, and effective public outcomes from procurements are public mechanisms with the capacity to demonstrate accountability and trustworthiness. 

Procurement processes, outcomes, and participants are always evolving, but recent trends (growth in AI) and events (contract cancellations and overall greater scrutiny early in the Administration, alongside the well-received streamlining Revolutionary FAR overhaul) made us want to better understand the implications of changes to procurement trust landscape. What if, for example, American businesses’ trust in the reliability of government contract agreements shifts? What impacts does that have on the federal government’s ability to buy and outsource?  

Participants considered scenarios where trust in the federal procurement improves significantly and where trust breaks down, and outlined specific attributes they would anticipate in both best and worst cases. In more negative scenarios, participants projected the risk that procurement systems would be hollowed out, captured by private interests, or stripped of the government expertise, fairness, and accountability needed to serve the public interest. Some imagined outcomes:

What falling trust in federal procurement may look like in practice

We also considered key signals that might indicate that breakdowns in trust, or negative consequences from such, are growing more likely. Participants suggested monitoring things like:

Customer Experience (CX)

What do we know about trust in government services?

Successive administrations have sought to increase and rebuild trust in the federal government through improvements in federal services. These efforts have born out: several measures have shown positive public views of federal services (e.g., the Partnership’s research finds around 75% or more are satisfied with individual services), and in 2024, the American Customer Satisfaction Index showed citizen satisfaction with U.S. federal government services reaches the highest level since 2017, with recent growth surpassing private counterparts. One example: the IRS’s Direct File free tax filing service. 

Federal service providers with the greater number of customer interactions are required to collect and monitor post-transaction customer feedback, including views on trust and drivers of trust, and for a period these were shared in a public dashboard. Overall, about half of services reported that a significant majority of customers (75% or more) trusted the relevant agency, with primary drivers of such trust being service effectiveness and ease. Such data is used by agencies to evaluate and improve services, and across services to identify trends, risks and opportunities across common services. The Office of Management and Budget Customer Experience Team makes the strongest case why this work on trust matters in their explainer: 

When individuals feel high levels of trust, they are more likely to seek out information from the government, access services, and use benefits they are eligible for. To support the goal of increasing trust in service providers, and the government overall, HISPs (high impact service providers) are required to collect and report trust data, and use customer feedback to continuously improve services.

The current administration has not pursued the same emphasis on customer service yet, but has recognized it as a critical factor for agencies to prioritize in their reform initiatives and committed to eliminating waste and fraud from such programs. At the same time, they have cut or curtailed initiatives once aimed at improving trust, such as field office and contact center availability at the Social Security Administration, or free and streamlined tax filing services. With the clear link between trust and impact, we wanted to better understand implications of changes in trust to federal services, exploring questions like: what if Americans change their views on whether applications for benefits and services are adjudicated fairly? What if Americans believe that services will be sustainably and reliably available for themselves, but not for their communities?

Participants considered scenarios where trust in the federal services improves significantly and where trust breaks down, and outlined specific attributes they would anticipate in both best and worst cases. In more negative outcomes, participants projected that federal services would become fragmented, inequitable, and alienating—eroding participation, driving people toward alternative providers, and deepening the gap between public expectations and the government’s ability to deliver, with attributes like:

What falling trust in federal service delivery may look like in practice

We also considered key signals that might indicate that breakdowns in trust, or negative consequences from such, are growing more likely. Participants suggested monitoring things like:

These are indicators irrespective of performance, though may be linked to performance

These indicate lower performance 

Data

What do we know about trust in federal data?

One of the hallmarks of the extensive federal data and statistical apparatus is credibility. Government and economic institutions rely on data the federal government collects, analyzes, and publishes for decisionmaking from spanning interest rates to hurricane evacuations; public health institutions provide and rely on insights from the federal government for basic care to pandemic preparedness. The more than 300,000 data sets in the federal data ecosystem generally have few substitutes and underwrite, in some form, every sector in the country. With that mandate–and pressure–major federal statistical program have historically taken pains to both showcase and increase transparency in their methods, though not without criticism. 

Despite its import, trust in federal data systems are hard to measure–many Americans do not access them, or realize their ubiquity and relevance. Still, a recent NORC-Amerispeak survey found that 57% of Americans tend to trust federal statistics, with majorities also believing that policymakers and businesses rely on federal statistics to make decisions, stable with 2024 findings. Despite these results, half also have no view on whether federal statistics are biased. The Partnership’s research shows that in 2024 only 15% of Americans believe the federal government is transparent (a measure that has been on the decline since they began their research in 2022). When asked specifically about agencies known to have major data missions (Census, CDC), majorities have favorable opinions. That said, some studies found significant declines in confidence in public health institutions during the pandemic (though still with small majorities) and partisan splits on the role of science in policymaking. 

The Trump administration clearly recognizes the power and influence of the federal statistical ecosystem, having highlighted the need for high quality data and a strong data infrastructure in the recent AI Action Plan release. But it also applies that understanding to removing or changing datasets that do not align with their perspectives and priorities. These moves have generated significant criticism from data customers and champions, who have banded together to preserve key components outside government. While there is indication that published federal data and statistics are less trustworthy, the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner based on jobs reporting raised significant alarm, as have stated plans to review and make changes to the federal jobs report process. With these major disruptions, we wanted to better understand the potential implications to changes in trust in federal data, and explore questions like:

Participants considered scenarios where trust in the federal data ecosystems improves significantly and where trust breaks down, and outlined specific attributes they would anticipate in both best and worst cases. In the most negative scenarios, participants projected that, the federal data ecosystem would lose its integrity, accessibility, and public purpose, becoming politicized, biased, and unevenly available. Possible outcomes include:

What falling trust in the federal data may look like in practice

We also considered key signals that might indicate that breakdowns in trust, or negative consequences from such, are growing more likely. Participants suggested monitoring things like:

Worried yet?  Take a deep breath–this workshop was meant to help experts like you plan and prepare, not predict the future (ok, maybe worry a little). What should stay with you is that trust is the bedrock of many vital functions in government, and while such trust can weather variability, trust breakdowns have consequences. And, critically there’s no bright line that will suggest when that shift starts or cascades. What we can do is this: As the government capacity community dreams up reforms and improvements to key management and operating systems, they can bake in considerations of trust to their proposals (how? Part two of this series will offer some ideas!). The scenarios and signals are tools for anticipating and navigating the complex realities of governing in an era where trust cannot be taken for granted. They highlight the need for reform strategies that are resilient not only to technical and operational challenges, but also to shifts in public perception, political dynamics, and the broader ecosystem of service and data providers. By grounding reforms in an understanding of how trust is built, eroded, and rebuilt, and by preparing for the downstream consequences of its loss, leaders can design systems that remain effective, legitimate, and connected to the people they serve.

Blue Sky Thinking to Reimagine and Reinvigorate Government Effectiveness

Since the founding, Americans have spent a lot of time critiquing the work of the federal government. This is both our right as citizens and an expectation baked into the functioning republic: complaining and criticism are in our DNA. But we spend far less time imagining the kind of government we’d prefer instead–what it would look like, how it would function, how it would listen, engage, perform and earn trust. That’s normal: tearing down is a lot easier than building. But today we have an opportunity to reimagine the shape and purpose of government, and it’s time to stretch those muscles.

And no, I’m not only talking about the massive shifts and gaps in capacity DOGE is leaving. I’m also talking about how Loper Bright opens up entirely new expectations on the roles of Congress and the executive branch; how the changes in federal financial assistance put new burdens on states; how artificial intelligence opens up entirely new horizons for organizing work; and how the federal government has both made miracles happen in science and still struggles to address generational challenges in climate change and basic service delivery.  

There is no one answer to any of those challenges, and the federal government won’t be the only part of the equation. But we can start with making talking about the future of government a regular practice and an expectation. And you can join in.

This summer, the Future State project, in collaboration with the Federation of American Scientists, convened a series of futures exercises to do just that. Using visioning, world-building, scenario planning, and other foresight tools, participants set aside today’s constraints to design blue-sky models of a future American government. These models ranged widely: decentralized, AI driven, technocratic, outcomes oriented, community-based, and much more. The goal was not to predict the future, but to create space to imagine preferred futures in vivid, actionable detail—beyond slogans into the weeds of how they would actually work.

You can join the conversation too–all it takes is a willingness to explore what might be, and discipline to explore how. Try this: fill in the blanks of this statement. I want government to prioritize _____ so that in 2050, [what would be different / what will have happened / what the world would be like; what government will be capable of].

Got it? You’ve done the hardest part. If you want to play along, we’ve shared a simple facilitation guide here for the whole community dedicated to reimagining government. Here’s how we did it, but you can adapt to your workplace, your classroom, or your happy hour. 

Methodology

Fifty-plus participants were guided through a visioning exercise set in the year 2050, imagining themselves as architects of a transformed government and describing the successes, partnerships, and public impacts that would define it. Working together, they developed vision statements of their desired governance model, identified both the best and worst possible versions of their proposed operating models, and explored the tradeoffs each might entail. Using foresight mapping techniques, they charted first-, second-, and third-order consequences of this model (both positive and negative) across political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental dimensions. In the final phase, participants moved from broad concepts to concrete details, specifying key management increments, governments, and relationships needed to bring their vision to life.

Reimagined Governments

The models that emerged (summarized below) are not meant to be definitive answers–yet! They are provocations and starting points for deeper discussion, experimentation, and collaboration. Summaries below only scratch the surface of conversations that were exciting, terrifying, inspiring and hilarious all at once. Even better: they’re starting points for you as you consider the future of public sector talent, data, structural organization, partnerships, and more. 

Abundance

Core Goal

To drive down the cost of essential “building blocks to life and scientific progress” by 2050, enabling Americans to pursue their version of the good life, with needs met, and ensuring the nation is a leader in building and research

Key Characteristics

Critical ingredient

Government as an enabler. This involves redesigning the policy process to be more iterative and less risk-averse, with experts in charge, allowing for quick approvals and clear communication. The government prioritizes innovation and aims to drive down the cost of life’s building blocks.

Potential Benefits

Increased household incomes, reduced eviction rates, improved mental health, and greater social mobility

Potential Risks

Could lead to low-quality investments or compromise quality for speed. Risks of over-simplification, losing trust, and picking the wrong problems Potential for short-term state budget crises due to increased mandatory spending

Outcomes

Core Goal

To establish a government entirely service delivery focused, organized around desired outcomes, with transparent performance tracking and rapid adjustment capabilities. The aim is to shift political debate and policy design towards measurable results and citizens’ priorities.

Key Characteristics

  • “Law as code” approach, where policy is iteratively tested and updated in real-time based on feedback, ensuring “survival of the fittest” ideas. Coders attuned to slow downs, breakdowns, and want to optimize for impact and seamlessness.
  • Government organized around people’s experiences and needs, providing essential goods, dignity in jobs, and basic freedoms.
  • Significant shift in talent: need people who can write outcome-based legislation and policy; sociologists who can understand community impact; monitoring, evaluation, and learning experts who can devise effective measures and oversee implementation.
  • Agencies given more power to decide their strategy, with a talented civil service that moves fluidly between sectors.
  • Heavy reliance on data gathering, modeling, and real-time policy updates.
  • Outcome-based contracts for procurement and budgeting.
  • Practical and outcomes oriented oversight, bring in lived experience and communities (e.g., to hearings).

Critical ingredient

Outcomes-oriented policy modeling and adaptive governance. This vision centers on focusing political debate on tangible results, using real-time feedback, and updating policies as “law as code.” This approach ensures that only ideas achieving desired outcomes are kept, allowing government to rapidly adjust and drive towards goals like clean energy, affordable housing, and healthcare. It emphasizes continuous evaluation and flexibility for agencies to adapt to changing conditions without constant legislative intervention.

Potential Benefits

Highly responsive, adaptive, and effective government that delivers tangible results and fosters greater accountability.

Potential Risks

Outcomes could become politicized, leading to a lack of sustained agreement. Need to address current culture of fear of litigation and risk. Risk of being too technocratic, leading to distrust, bias towards majoritarian policy, and neglecting intangible values like dignity and justice. Danger of ends justifying the means..

Distinguishing factor

Aspiration for a government that operates on a “law as code” principle, where policy updates are done in real-time, and policy itself becomes a “survival of the fittest” based on continuous testing and real-time feedback to achieve desired outcomes. This framework aims to focus political debate on measurable results rather than getting mired in strategic decisions.

Equity

Core Goal

To ensure that no one’s future is limited by their background (race, gender, zip code, income) by 2050, narrowing economic gaps and enabling all communities to flourish.

Key Characteristics

Critical ingredient

Deep community engagement and co-governance. This involves fostering cultural competence among staff, and creating participatory or citizen boards where experts in lived experience advise. The goal is to ensure a responsive government that meets people’s needs and that all Americans, regardless of background, experience that government works for them. Resiliency planning in advance, with community engagement, is also highlighted.

Potential Benefits

Greater trust in government, stronger democracy, reduced wealth gap, and increased civic participation.

Potential Risks

Risk of equity being viewed as zero-sum rather than additive, further entrenching existing disparities.

Distinguishing factor

Directly integrating community members, particularly those with lived experience, as advisors in policy design and implementation and oversight.

Dignity

Core Goal

To ensure every person’s basic needs are met, they find purpose and connection, and feel valued and respected in every government interaction by 2050. This aims to foster deep interconnectedness and mutual flourishing.

Key Characteristics

  • Government interactions are rooted in compassion and consistency, particularly for marginalized people
  • Incorporation of citizen feedback transparently and in real-time, with immediate feedback and proactive engagement
  • Measures of success go beyond economic metrics to include affordability, community thriving, and levels of trust and respect in government interactions
  • Policymaking is guided by how it advances the dignity of individuals, families, and communities; driven by consensus based decision-making
  • Greater accountability for wrong doing; greater emphasis on going upstream to root problems
  • Emphasis on human-centered design, behavioral economics, and positive feedback loops in service delivery

Critical Ingredient

Human-centered service design and compassionate interaction. This means government treats all people, especially the marginalized, with dignity and respect, rooted in compassion and consistency. Feedback loops are essential for incorporating citizen input in real-time and real ways to build trust.

Potential Benefits

Increased trust, willingness to pay taxes, greater community safety, and a sense of purpose and connection among citizens.

Potential Risks

Challenges in accounting for all diverse lived experiences and engaging distrustful populations. Risk of divided purposes leading to a less functional government and further declines in trust.

Distinguishing factor

Proposing a “dignity score” to measure and improve government’s compassionate and consistent service delivery. 

Place Based and Customer Experience Focused

Core Goal

To create thriving communities with energy-efficient infrastructure and effective service delivery that is easy for people to use. This involves building world-class in-house government teams.

Key Characteristics

Critical ingredient

Integrated, localized, and seamless service delivery. This section envisions government meeting people where they are, providing a “one-stop shop” for services, and ensuring cross-enterprise seamlessness. The federal government supports state and local governments with research and resources, aiming for services that are responsive, easy to use, and foster a feeling of being seen by customers. It prioritizes understanding problems locally and filling gaps.

Potential Benefits

Builds trust, faster recovery, and more engaged government. Increased household incomes and consumption due to frictionless safety net benefits

Potential Risks

Significant privacy concerns due to massive data sharing. 

Distinguishing factor

Bringing world-class technical and service delivery expertise in-house rather than relying on external contractors. This is coupled with the aim of creating “one-stop shops” for government services and redesigning the customer experience to be as seamless and responsive as the private sector.

Burden Reduction

Core Goal

To create a government that trusts its citizens, assumes positive intent, and reduces administrative burdens so people can easily access services they deserve. 

Key Characteristics

  • Shifting from fraud management and process compliance to supporting people, 
  • Consider universal basic income-like model where people raise their hand to receive benefits rather than applying
  • Focus on agile government that responds quickly to crises and changes
  • Oversight based on outcomes (e.g., “did we end childhood poverty?”) rather than process
  • Making civil service enticing, empowering, and highly talented through competitive hiring/firing and shorter stint with cross-pollination. Attracts the best people to public service because they are empowered to do the work they need to do and make decisions to get there
  • Automated tax collection and public service delivery using existing government data, following a “tell us once” principle

Critical Ingredient

Trust-based, frictionless access to essential services. This aims for a government that trusts its citizens and is designed to support people rather than primarily manage waste, fraud, and abuse. It envisions radically simplified processes, potentially moving towards models like universal basic income where people receive benefits by “raising their hand” rather than navigating complex applications, thereby reducing poverty and increasing access to vital services. 

Potential Benefits

Improves lives, engages citizens in problem-solving, and fosters a low-burden, high-trust government. Easier access to services, leading to more resources/tools and less stress for individuals.

Potential Risks

Risk of diseconomies of scale if excessively centralized or dispersed. Danger of losing focus by prioritizing access over actual need, potentially running out of resources or not reaching full potential.

Distinguishing factor

Moving away from a system primarily built to manage waste, fraud, and abuse towards one that implicitly trusts its citizens and radically reduces administrative burdens. An extreme example is the idea that people could “just raise their hand and then received,” based on the assumption that the vast majority of applicants are eligible.

AI and Tech for Good

Core Goal

To utilize AI to create a smaller government that can effectively provision services and benefits and manage tasks. The aim is for “AI for Good” that supports public and national interest.

Key Characteristics

Critical Ingredient

AI-driven efficiency and automated governance. This envisions a much smaller government that can still effectively provision resources and manage tasks through the extensive use of AI for streamlined service delivery and standardized systems. AI would replace some human capital, consolidate platforms, and contribute to a stronger data and evidence base for policy decisions, allowing for agility in regulation and policy.

Potential Benefits

Increased access to services, significant business and economic benefits, and greater trust in agencies like VA or Social Security.

Potential Risks

Concerns about decreased personal privacy and potential increases in poverty and economic inequality due to job displacement.

Distinguishing factor

Leveraging artificial intelligence to significantly reduce the physical size of government.

Decentralized Government, Delegated Authority

Core Goal

To achieve responsiveness, speed, and quality of service grounded in customer knowledge through a delegated governmental structure that centers communities.

Key Characteristics

  • Enables customization and tailoring of responses to specific needs
  • Aims for greater staff productivity, better outcomes, and innovative solutions by unleashing the workforce
  • Facilitated by enabling digital technologies and attracting quality talent
  • People experience faster results, feel more respected and engaged, and are more willing to interact with government, leading to increased trust and co-creation of solutions
  • Involves a shift in talent management from federal to local focus, emphasizing digital customer experience and AI tech talent, and a qualitative shift from compliance to delivery/creative roles 
  • Oversight moves towards carrots instead of sticks, focusing on interoperability, coordination, standards, and best practices

Critical ingredient

Customer-centric responsiveness and localized service delivery. This approach prioritizes responsiveness, speed, and quality of response grounded in customer knowledge, allowing for the customization and tailoring of services to individual and local needs. This fosters a more positive citizen experience, leading to people feeling results faster, more respected, and more engaged, thereby increasing trust in government and encouraging greater interaction and potential co-creation of solutions.

Potential Benefits

Improved quality of life for all citizens; positive impact on front-line workers deeply engaged in mission and communities with a profound commitment to serve. 

Potential Risks

Potential for stakeholder capture and inter-agency conflict due to conflicting goals. Risk of loss of value congruence and economies of scale. Challenges with best practices not being shared and a lack of adherence to consistency or merit systems. Could lead to different parts of government working at cross-purposes and internal competition for resources. May increase demand that needs to be managed and measured differently.

Distinguishing factor

Fundamental re-orientation of government operations from federal to localized service delivery. This entails a shift of resources and talent from the federal to the local level, specifically emphasizing the need for digital CX/AI tech talent to manage increased incoming demand and drive technological innovation at the local point of service. While this model fosters responsiveness, speed, and quality of response directly grounded in customer knowledge, it inherently faces unique challenges such as the potential for stakeholder capture, loss of value congruence, and the risk of unshared best practices and internal competition across jurisdictions.