How to Rebuild Public Trust in Technology and Government

American trust in institutions is at record lows. This is not news. But even as people’s confidence has eroded over the years, memories of a time when technology was still seen as a neutral force — an enabler of democracy, transparency, and efficiency — are not too distant.

Since the pandemic, the public’s waning trust in both government and technology companies has deepened, and now, thanks to the legacy of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), we stand to see a steeper decline.

Other recent developments don’t help that trend. Last month, it was reported that the Trump administration plans to partner with Palantir to build a massive data system compiling personal information about Americans with little public explanation or oversight — ranging from tax records to immigration status. The Supreme Court also just handed DOGE a victory by allowing it to access information collected by the Social Security Administration, including medical and mental health records.

Technology is essential to the future of good government and good governing, and Americans’ trust in these tools is essential to making sure government modernization benefits the public — it’s a two-way street. For example, in order for people to feel comfortable sharing critical information about themselves with the government to improve public services, they must trust that the data will be used to better their lives. Both the Palantir and DOGE developments will likely lessen that trust. They showcase how technology, in the wrong hands and without public accountability, can fuel suspicion and fear.

Over the past decade, local governments, nonprofits, and civic technologists in the public interest technology movement have shown how to use digital tools to improve lives without sacrificing trust. This movement is made up of people who want tech to be applied in ways that address social issues and benefit the public. It’s a movement I’ve been a part of, having worked in local government and supported cities of all sizes to increase their technical capabilities. But now, to rebuild public trust in government and technology, public interest technologists need to double down on putting communities at the center of how our digital systems are designed and used.

For example, imagine trying to access federal assistance after a natural disaster that causes you to lose your home. To do this, you are typically required to fill out multiple forms and provide different types of identification for every aspect of the process. For many, you likely have no idea how related decisions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), city, county, or insurance officials are made. And ultimately, a combination of human and AI-enabled decision-making chooses what your home and possessions are worth, how long it will take to rebuild, and even what you are able to rebuild on your property.

These aren’t hypotheticals; they’re real experiences of people who live in Los Angeles, California, and Asheville, North Carolina — cities and states that ultimately wanted to use their digital tech to make their public services better, and yet still struggle to lead people to resources quickly, in times of need. In California, the pace of permitting was still falling behind the magnitude of the challenge, so last month the state announced that it would use AI to speed the process up.

Despite decades of modernization efforts, even well-intentioned digital tools can make the government feel more confusing and less human. And when tech is deployed without clear rules or accountability, as appears poised to happen in the case of Palantir, risks of misuse — like using individual’s data to surveil and track citizens — grow.

So what should public interest technologists persist in doing to center people in government tech and ultimately garner their trust?

To start, they should advocate for and implement more tech-enabled participatory governance. Participatory budgeting is one such example, a process in which cities’ residents join in determining how part of their local government’s dollars get spent. It’s been shown that such community-led decision-making fosters trust and engagement. In many large cities, we are seeing greater debates on how local budgets prioritize funding decisions.

Dramatic shifts in federal funding will likely call for changes at the local level. This is an opportunity for technology-enabled efforts to increase public input. But we shouldn’t just focus on budgets. By using our technology efforts to equip communities to engage in broader public policy decisions, local government priorities can shift toward resident needs — and overcoming the inertia of institutional processes that prioritize efficiency and tradition over impact. For example, growing investments in tech that supports citizen assemblies can help broaden input and dialogue for and increase trust in future public policy decisions.

Additionally, public interest technologists should continue to push for more open data projects that include the public in governance, which have boosted civic engagement and accountability. Most notably, Barcelona’s Decidim platform allows public leaders to create digital processes that engage residents on strategic planning, budgeting, and public consultation. These open-source solutions not only increase participation, but they also rely on a model of shared technical standards that create a sense of transparency and trust.

Some might argue that public engagement slows down progress. But the cases of Palantir and DOGE show that fast-tracking digital systems without transparency fuels backlash and mistrust from the people that governments are meant to serve. If we want systems that actually work for people, we need to bring them into the process from the start. This means designing systems that prioritize community feedback and co-creation, rather than top-down efficiency.

Today, we have a choice to make. And our decision will shape the future of democracy, public services, and governance for decades to come. Should we let data, technology, and digital governance become another battleground of polarization? Or do we treat this moment as a wake-up call to defend and build civic technologies that reflect democratic values?

Democracy is anchored on public participation that shapes civic life. In this digital era, we must now restore faith in government by strengthening one core principle: the public should shape the digital tools that influence their civic life. The time is now for nonprofits, local governments, civic technologists, and others in the public interest technology movement to work to make that a reality.