Wendy R. Anderson is a former senior official in the Defense and Commerce departments under the Obama administration and former senior vice president of national security at Palantir Technologies.
A political coalition is forming around the people turning America’s technological innovation into national strength — and Democrats must decide whether to lead it or lose it.
In an era where competitiveness is measured by how quickly a country can build, produce and deploy technology, this coalition of investors, founders and public leaders will shape economic power and national security. And they are drifting away from Democrats, not because of ideology, but because the party is not seen as capable of transforming innovation into strategic advantage.
The Trump administration, in less than a year, has moved fast, launching an artificial intelligence action plan and fast-tracking permits for data centers and computing platforms that power large-scale artificial intelligence systems. The plan also ties the awarding of federal AI funding to a state’s regulatory posture, favoring those seen as supportive of rapid innovation.
In a recent speech, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made “commercial first” the default at the Pentagon, meaning it will turn first to technologies already proven in the private sector, rather than designing systems from scratch, building on the prior administration’s push to move tech into the Defense Department faster. This puts big defense contractors on notice: move faster or be sidelined. Whatever one thinks of its politics, this administration governs by assuming technological advantage must be accelerated.
I’ve worked for three Democratic senators and Obama administration Defense Secretaries Chuck Hagel and Ash Carter. A decade ago, the party saw innovation as a civic mission. The White House created the U.S. Digital Service and Presidential Innovation Fellows to bring engineers and digital policy experts into government. But after the 2016 presidential election, Democratic concern over social media’s role in spreading misinformation hardened into something broader: suspicion of technology itself. Polling shows Democrats are likely to view major tech firms as too powerful and needing stricter oversight.
I experienced that suspicion. In 2020, the Biden campaign told me that I could not work or be affiliated in any way with it — not for my experience or views, but because I worked at Palantir, a software and data analytics company. (The Trump administration has awarded the firm multiple new and expanded contracts this year.) When Democrats treat companies as politically toxic, especially those supporting national security in the United States, they alienate the builders trying to serve and advance the country.
That suspicion mindset shapes how the U.S. government engages with technology through two reinforcing drags: procurement and capital. When the government can’t buy fast, investors hesitate to build. When investors hesitate, the government has fewer domestic options to procure.
Defense and infrastructure innovations often stall after pilot projects, caught in outdated acquisition rules and year-to-year budget delays. The pattern is clear: America can invent faster than any other democracy, but our government cannot adopt innovation at speed.
As venture funding tightened in 2022 and 2023 — with higher interest rates, falling tech stocks and few companies going public — Democrats doubled down on antitrust enforcement. The Federal Trade Commission’s posture under Chair Lina Khan signaled hostility toward company acquisitions, regardless of size or strategic value, cutting off the main way start-ups grow or get bought. This discouraged new investment. Adobe’s abandoned $20 billion takeover of online design company Figma became a cautionary tale for founders building toward acquisition.
If Democrats don’t change course, they won’t just lose a constituency; they’ll lose a critical governing asset. Once that talent consolidates elsewhere, it won’t drift back easily.
Here’s what Democrats should do:
Invest at speed. Launch a $50 billion emergency innovation fund for AI, quantum and advanced manufacturing. Pair it with a national dual-use technology fund — backing innovations with civilian and military applications — to coinvent alongside private capital. Designate 15 federal innovation zones with radically shortened permitting, procurement and review timelines.
Compete smart. End blanket suspicion of mergers. Establish a safe harbor for acquisitions less than $1 billion with fast-track review. Launch a $2 billion start-up competitiveness fund to help new tech firms scale through federal contracts. Protect open-source AI from regulations designed for the largest, most established tech companies.
Rebuild trust. Expand the U.S. Digital Service tenfold and make it permanent. Embed start-up founders, engineers and product leaders in operational roles across federal agencies as decision-makers. Spend time with people building solutions — sit in their labs, watch their technology demos, see their prototypes and understand their challenges.
Track the scoreboard. Publish a state of American innovation report annually, benchmarking progress against adversaries such as China. Set measurable goals: cut defense acquisition timelines in half, double the number of companies building dual-use tech, and get AI-based systems out of pilot projects and into everyday use.
Governing like the future depends on it means channeling the spirit of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s mobilization and President John F. Kennedy’s moon shot: urgency matched with competence; ambition anchored in delivery. Trump’s message is direct: Technology is how America wins. You can debate its execution, but not its clarity. If Democrats want to lead, they need a vision that is as compelling, with a plan and the will to execute it.
The post Can Democrats move fast on tech? Their future depends on it.
appeared first on Washington Post.
