Just months into the second Trump administration, the federal government is undergoing a sweeping transformation—one that’s left agencies reeling from mass layoffs, a reshaping of data and technology policy, and a conspicuous silence on the morale of the remaining workforce. At the center of this dramatic overhaul is a bold bet on artificial intelligence, with top officials promising that AI will fill the void left by more than 148,000 departed civil servants and drive a new era of government efficiency.
Gregory Barbaccia, named the federal chief information officer barely a week after President Trump returned to office in January 2025, has emerged as the administration’s public face for this technological pivot. In a recent interview with Nextgov/FCW, Barbaccia made no bones about the stakes. “I think [AI] is the number one thing that is going to help people mitigate the staffing shortages,” he declared, underscoring that the administration is “100%” committed to leveraging artificial intelligence to compensate for the loss of thousands of federal employees.
Barbaccia, who previously worked at data analytics giant Palantir, has also taken to calling himself the federal chief AI officer—a sign of just how central AI has become to the White House’s vision for government operations. Since January, the administration has pressed forward with significant layoffs and voluntary buyouts, aiming to shrink the federal workforce and, as Barbaccia puts it, “do more with less.” His main challenge? “How to still have the level of efficiency, following up on your agency’s mission for the taxpayer, operating in an environment of lean staffing.”
“AI is a huge part of that, so that’s a major focus for me,” Barbaccia told Nextgov/FCW. He sees AI not just as a stopgap, but as a potential boon for streamlining government. “What AI needs to be doing,” he explained, “is collating and collecting this data that a human needs to make a decision and getting it to them in a way that makes sense, in a way that's quick, so they're able to make a decision with all the information they need as quickly as possible.”
To accelerate this push, the administration in August launched USAi, a new evaluation platform designed to help agencies adopt AI models from tech powerhouses like Anthropic, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and OpenAI. Several of these companies have recently inked government deals to provide their AI software at nominal fees, further fueling the administration’s ambitions. Proponents argue that AI could help agencies make sense of their vast troves of data, support remaining federal employees, and even offer real-time assistance to citizens seeking government help—without the need for traditional call centers.
“How do we use tech to take the excellent humans that we still have and make them as efficient as possible?” Barbaccia mused. “How do we get them doing what they were doing before, but doing it way faster and better?” For him, the “holy grail” is clear: “If we're automating more things that can be done by a computer, what are humans doing that they could not do before?”
But not everyone is convinced that technology alone can solve the government’s problems. Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, told Nextgov/FCW that federal leaders “have an obligation to leverage cutting-edge technology to address our collective problems.” Yet, he cautioned, “The civil service needs to evolve, but it cannot be replaced by AI.”
Others are even more skeptical. Suresh Venkatasubramanian, who directs the Center for Technological Responsibility, Reimagination and Redesign at Brown University and previously served in the Biden administration, warned, “What doesn't work is firing government workers who have expertise and then trying to use AI to replace their years of knowledge and experience. And what certainly doesn't work is forcing the remaining workers to be constrained to use only AI tools that conform to Administration speech requirements. Fast is not synonymous with better, and in fact is often the opposite of it.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s drive for efficiency has sparked a series of legal battles and policy controversies—nowhere more so than at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As of August 18, the administration was seeking court permission to finalize the mass layoffs of 10,000 HHS employees. Many of these reductions in force (RIFs) have been held up by a July injunction issued by District Judge Melissa DuBose, who reaffirmed her order on August 12, though she narrowed its application to specific HHS offices. The Justice Department has appealed the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with a ruling expected soon.
The administration’s legal team argues it is fully within its rights to conduct mass layoffs and that courts should not “micromanage federal personnel policies.” They maintain that affected employees must seek redress through established federal channels like the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Supreme Court has previously sided with the administration on the broad legality of RIFs, though it stopped short of ruling on any particular agency’s plan. Still, critics argue that the scale of the layoffs—and the speed with which they’ve been carried out—threatens both the continuity of government services and the morale of those left behind.
That morale, however, is now harder to measure. On August 18, the administration canceled the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) for 2025—a signature survey that has long tracked federal workers’ motivation and job satisfaction. According to POLITICO’s E&E News, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) plans to remove questions added by the Biden-Harris administration and return the survey in 2026, after a thorough revision. OPM Director Scott Kupor explained, “A transformed workforce requires a transformed Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. We are revising FEVS to remove questions added by the Biden-Harris Administration and to refocus on core administration priorities: to restore a high-performance, high-efficiency, and merit-based civil service.”
This move, while consistent with the administration’s broader goals, leaves the public in the dark about how remaining federal workers are coping amid layoffs and budget cuts. With no official data on morale, speculation abounds about the impact of these changes on the effectiveness and stability of government agencies.
Complicating matters further are persistent rumors and media reports about the administration’s approach to data. Outlets like Wired, CNN, and The New York Times have reported that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is building a “master database” by collecting sensitive information from agencies like the IRS and SSA, ostensibly to track undocumented immigrants. House Democrats have echoed these concerns in a whistleblower-informed report. Yet, Barbaccia insists he has no knowledge of any such effort. “I can’t find it for the life of me,” he said. “I have no insight into any sort of master database going on. I asked agencies at IRS and SSA. They don't have anything they're building outside of their internal data. I've asked the vendors who are in the news, too. They're not tracking what the news is about.” He attributes the rumors to misunderstandings about the roles of different vendors and agencies.
Amid all this, the administration’s push to break down data silos and encourage cross-agency data sharing continues, with proponents arguing it’s essential for powering the next generation of AI-driven government services. Critics, however, worry about privacy, oversight, and the risk of automating bias at scale—especially given the administration’s stated intent to crack down on so-called “woke” AI, a move some warn could chill free speech and responsible risk management within agencies.
With mass layoffs, a radical AI agenda, and a cloud of legal and ethical questions hanging over Washington, the federal government is bracing for a turbulent period of change. Whether AI will truly deliver the promised efficiency—or simply mask deeper problems—remains to be seen. For now, what’s certain is that the public, and the remaining civil servants, are watching closely as the administration’s experiment with the machinery of government unfolds.
