[skissane]

Not strictly speaking a government agency, but what about the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937?

I think there was another possible reason for getting rid of 18F, separate from any concerns about its political culture – there was a lot of overlap in the mission statements of 18F and USDS, and it wasn't clear why both existed. Yes, I do understand that they differed somewhat in their working methods and area of focus, but I don't think anyone can deny that they were both ultimately trying to do the same thing. In fact, at one point 18F was even going to be called USDS, until GSA was forced to pick a different name when they discovered OMB was already using it. Abolishing 18F can be seen as a way of rationalizing federal technology modernization efforts.

18F hasn't been without its share of controversies, including an OIG finding that GSA leadership retaliated against a whistleblower who reported doubts about 18F's legality: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-GS-PURL-gpo134276...

And 18F wasn't formally speaking a government agency – it was just a team within GSA. It hadn't been established by law, just by an internal executive branch policy decision. Hence, abolishing it is just an internal restructure within GSA, it isn't a genuine case of "abolishing a government agency".

I believe laid-off 18F workers are still allowed to apply for open positions in the US government, including DOGE positions. So if they are still keen on contributing to 18F's mission, they may have the opportunity.

[djur]

I don't think a failed attempt at court reform (ideologically motivated or no) from almost a century ago is very convincing evidence that this is typical practice on both sides of the aisle.

> there was a lot of overlap in the mission statements of 18F and USDS, and it wasn't clear why both existed

And now neither of them exist (the vast majority of what once was USDS is gone, and what remains has been converted into "DOGE").

I don't know what the quotes around "abolishing a government agency" indicate -- those words weren't used previously in this thread.

[skissane]

> And now neither of them exist (the vast majority of what once was USDS is gone, and what remains has been converted into "DOGE").

Do any of the old USDS staff survive? I don't know. USDS acting administrator, Amy Gleason, used to work for USDS under the Trump and Biden admins, so it sounds like there is still room for "old USDS" staff in "new USDS" – if they are happy to be there, and if the new administration is happy to have them.

And I don't think DOGE's remit is completely distinct from that of USDS. Of course, DOGE is a lot broader in scope than USDS, but according to Executive Order 14158 which established it, a big part of its mission is software modernization–same as old USDS was–and DOGE staff appear to include a number of software engineers, which also aligns with that mission.

> I don't know what the quotes around "abolishing a government agency" indicate -- those words weren't used previously in this thread.

You asked the question "Which government agencies have been targeted by Democrats for being too conservative?" – which seems to put 18F in the category of "government agencies" - if it isn't one in some sense, then the question isn't asking for a relevant comparator. And the title of this thread is "GSA Eliminates 18F", and "eliminates" is a synonym of "abolition". So, the premise of your question implies "abolishing a government agency". Which in a sense abolishing 18F is, since it was sort-of-kind-of a government agency – but strictly speaking it isn't, since strictly it wasn't – hence the quotes.

[djur]

> Do any of the old USDS staff survive?

40 were laid off and 21 resigned (and Musk claimed that they would have been fired for being Democrats, regardless). That's approximately 60% of the total.

https://apnews.com/article/doge-elon-musk-federal-government...

As for "government agency", I was using your language:

> If a government agency has a culture [etc]... the agency becomes a target

Again, your claim here is that it's typical and predictable that new administrations conduct ideological purges on the civil service. So far, you haven't actually been able to name a single example of a Democratic administration doing that, and instead you're saying that maybe 18F was bad anyway, etc. Would you consider just admitting that your claim is false rather than resorting to this "by definition, strictly speaking, the premise of your question implies" ink cloud?

[skissane]

> Again, your claim here is that it's typical and predictable that new administrations conduct ideological purges on the civil service.

No, I'm not denying this is reaching a level which hasn't been seen before.

But, perceptions of political impartiality of civil servants have been greatly eroded.

Imagine if the situation were reversed, if Democrats had a widespread perception that the federal bureaucracy had a pro-GOP/anti-Democrat bias – can you be so sure they wouldn't do similar things?

[djur]

I don't have to imagine.

The ICE union endorsed Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024 -- the only presidential endorsements it has ever made.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/immigration-customs-e...

The FBI has traditionally leaned Republican (it has never had a Democratic director), as has the US military (especially the Air Force).

Biden did not purge ICE, nor did he replace Trump's FBI director, etc.