Wait. Let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate because there is a massive amount of confusion floating around the beltway and LinkedIn right now. If you came here looking for a literal "GSA eliminates 18F technology unit" headline as a confirmed, done-deal fact, you’re actually looking at a misunderstanding of some pretty dry, bureaucratic shuffling.
Government is messy.
The General Services Administration (GSA) hasn't taken a sledgehammer to 18F. They haven't fired everyone and turned off the lights in the middle of the night. But, honestly? The vibe has shifted. The way 18F operates within the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) and its relationship with the Technology Transformation Services (TTS) is undergoing the kind of structural "realignment" that usually makes tech nerds and policy wonks break out in a cold sweat.
We need to talk about why people think 18F is disappearing, what is actually changing, and why the "startup inside the government" model is hitting a wall.
The GSA Eliminates 18F Technology Unit Myth vs. Reality
People love a drama. The narrative that the GSA eliminates 18F technology unit components usually stems from the perennial tension between 18F’s "move fast and break things" Silicon Valley DNA and the GSA’s "we have a thousand rules for buying a stapler" reality.
18F was born in 2014. It was the brainchild of the Presidential Innovation Fellows, designed to fix the disaster that was the Healthcare.gov rollout. For a decade, it’s been the cool kid in the room. They use agile. They use GitHub. They wear hoodies. But recently, the GSA has been moving toward a "centralized" model. This means folding 18F more tightly into the broader Technology Transformation Services (TTS) umbrella.
Is that "elimination"? No. Is it a loss of autonomy? Absolutely.
When the GSA integrates these units more deeply, 18F loses its distinct "agency-within-an-agency" feel. They’re becoming less of a rogue strike team and more of a standard service line. To the outside observer, or the disgruntled former staffer, this feels like the GSA is killing the spirit of the unit. That's where the "elimination" talk starts.
Why the Cost-Recovery Model is Basically a Nightmare
You've gotta understand how 18F actually makes money. They don't just get a giant bucket of tax dollars and go play with code. They operate on a cost-recovery basis.
This means other agencies—like the VA, the EPA, or the Census Bureau—have to hire 18F and pay for their time. It’s a consulting model. Here’s the rub: 18F is expensive. Because they hire top-tier talent from places like Google and Stripe, their billable rates are high.
If an agency is looking at their budget and they see 18F’s quote versus a traditional federal contractor like Deloitte or Accenture, sometimes the "cool" option loses. In lean budget years, the GSA starts looking at 18F’s bottom line. If 18F isn't "recovering" its costs—meaning it's losing money—the GSA leadership starts talking about "streamlining" or "consolidating."
It's basic math. If you don't pay for yourself in the federal government, you're a target.
The "Realignment" That Looks Like an Exit
Lately, the GSA has been pushing for what they call "Shared Services."
Instead of 18F doing one-off custom builds for every single agency, the GSA wants to build platforms that everyone can use. Think of things like Login.gov or cloud.gov. These are the crown jewels. But as the focus shifts to these massive, permanent platforms, the need for a nimble, "consultancy-style" 18F unit starts to look redundant to some bureaucrats.
The Identity Crisis of TTS
18F is part of TTS. TTS also includes:
- The Presidential Innovation Fellows (PIF)
- The Centers of Excellence (CoE)
- Solutions like Login.gov
When you hear rumors that the GSA eliminates 18F technology unit functions, it's often because the GSA is moving the people from 18F over to the Centers of Excellence or onto specific product teams. They aren't being fired; they're being reabsorbed.
But let’s be real. A lot of the talent that goes to 18F goes there specifically because it isn't the rest of the government. If you make it feel like the rest of the government, that talent leaves. We’ve seen a significant "brain drain" over the last three years as the culture has shifted from "let’s disrupt the system" to "let’s comply with the 400-page procurement handbook."
What Most People Get Wrong About Federal Tech
Most people think 18F failed because they couldn't code. That's nonsense. They can code circles around most legacy contractors.
💡 You might also like: Why failed to connect to api.anthropic.com: err\_bad\_request Is Breaking Your Claude Integration
The struggle is, and always has been, procurement.
You can write the most beautiful, elegant Ruby on Rails application in the world, but if the agency’s security compliance officer refuses to sign off on the cloud environment, that code is just sitting on a laptop. 18F spent 20% of its time coding and 80% of its time trying to convince 60-year-old career civil servants that the "cloud" isn't a magical, dangerous place where hackers live.
When the GSA "eliminates" or "reorganizes" a unit like this, they often claim it's to improve "interoperability." That's a fancy way of saying they want to make the tech people follow the same rules as the accountants. It’s a classic organizational tension.
The Political Blowback
Don't ignore the Hill. Congress has always been skeptical of 18F.
Republicans often viewed it as a "pet project" of the Obama administration that bypassed traditional private-sector contractors. Some Democrats grew frustrated that 18F wasn't fixing the big problems fast enough. 18F has survived multiple administrations now, but each time a new GSA Administrator comes in, 18F has to justify its existence all over again.
It's exhausting.
✨ Don't miss: Wait, What Does Pager Mean? Why Beepers Are Still Alive in 2026
If a new administration or a new GSA head decides that 18F’s mission is better served by the private sector, they don't have to formally "eliminate" it. They just starve it of projects. They stop "selling" 18F to other agencies. Without projects, the cost-recovery model collapses. The unit withers.
Is 18F Actually Dead?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: It’s unrecognizable compared to 2015.
The era of 18F being a "disruptor" is basically over. They are now an established part of the GSA machine. They are the "in-house experts" rather than the "outside radicals." For some, this is a victory—it means digital service delivery is finally being taken seriously as a core function of government. For others, it’s a funeral for the idea that government can ever truly innovate like a startup.
If you see headlines about the GSA eliminates 18F technology unit, look at the fine print. You'll likely see words like "merger," "absorption," or "operational efficiency." It's the death of a brand, perhaps, but the functions—the actual work of making government websites not suck—is too important to actually stop.
Actionable Insights for Federal Partners and Techies
So, if you're a vendor, a federal employee, or a developer looking at the GSA, what do you actually do with this information?
- Follow the Money (The Revolving Fund): Keep an eye on the Federal Citizen Services Fund. This is the lifeblood of TTS and 18F. If Congress cuts this, 18F is toast. If it grows, the unit is just rebranding.
- Watch the Centers of Excellence: If you’re a private contractor, this is where the action is. The GSA is leaning heavily into the CoE model, which uses a mix of 18F-style expertise and private-sector scaling.
- Pivot to "Product," not "Project": The GSA is moving away from sending five developers to help an agency for six months. They want to sell products (like Login.gov). If you're looking for work or partnerships, focus on scalable tools, not just "man-hours."
- Don't Fear the Reorg: If you're an agency leader, don't assume 18F is gone. They still have some of the best UX researchers and engineers in the country. Just be prepared for more "GSA-style" paperwork than you would have dealt with five years ago.
The "Startup in the White House" (even though they were in the GSA) was a beautiful, chaotic experiment. Whether it's being "eliminated" or just "growing up" depends entirely on who you ask and how much you value the old, wild-west days of federal tech.
The reality is that 18F changed the conversation. Even if the unit were deleted tomorrow, the expectation that government software should actually work is a bell that can't be un-rung.
Keep your eyes on the upcoming GSA budget justifications. That's where the real story is written—in the footnotes of a 400-page PDF.