Getting to effective government

The transfer of power in Washington, D.C. and President Donald Trump’s executive order launching an advisory commission called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), along with the administration’s attempted federal payment and hiring freezes and other executive actions, have generated enormous attention from the news media and members of Congress—not to mention taxpayers and recipients of federal benefits, the government workforce, contractors, interest groups, state and local government leaders, and others. 

While close attention to shifts in policy, spending, and other functions of government is vital in any democracy (and while these latest executive actions have already sown confusion and affected the operations of federally funded organizations and projects), it’s also critical to peer under the hood, so to speak, at what we learned over the last few years about government delivering results effectively and fairly to all. There are many lessons learned, both positive and negative, and the massive effort to deliver historic new public investments—our focus here—is especially revealing. Its lessons should not be lost in the frenzy of attention and concern about the DOGE startup and other actions. Indeed, understanding these lessons is important to protecting vital gains and broadly shared priorities in spite of profound new threats and partisan differences. 

The context and state of play 

Through four landmark laws—the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—the federal government has begun to invest more than $4 trillion in America’s communities, families, and businesses large and small. 

This historic set of investment laws, each with many programs, has also catalyzed enormous private investment. These laws were designed to address multiple national priorities: accelerating recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic; investing in our nation’s aging and long-starved infrastructure; supporting advanced domestic manufacturing; accelerating the transition to cleaner energy; and, though less widely acknowledged, modernizing and improving tax administration. In the U.S., as in other nations, that last goal is vital to pursuing many priorities and ensuring critical functions, such as fairly and effectively collecting taxes owed and delivering the benefits that people are eligible for. 

Adjusted for inflation and considered relative to the size of the U.S. economy, the investments of the last four years are roughly comparable in scope and significance to those of the New Deal and Great Society eras in the 1930s and 1960s, respectively—and in some dimensions, such as physical infrastructure investment, even larger. The elements most critical for national security and American competitiveness also echo the Space Race and other major commitments by the federal government during the Cold War. Now, as President Trump launches his agenda and the new Congress gets to work, the federal policy environment has changed dramatically and rapidly. We must be alert to and engaged in efforts around these changes, whether they seek to expand on prior efforts or undermine, distort, and dismantle them. 

The reality is that the implementation of these major investments is well underway, with much of the federal funding legally obligated (under contract), and thus with most authority and choices now sitting outside the federal government, despite the recent efforts of the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget to pause the disbursement of large swaths of previously appropriated, and now obligated, federal funding. Recent Brookings analysis, for example, shows that about two-thirds of IIJA funding, totaling $570 billion, has been awarded so far, roughly as expected for the five-year law. And last month, the Biden White House informed Reuters that about 84% of IRA clean energy grants, or $96.7 billion, had been obligated (though much of the congressionally authorized IRA funding is in the form of clean energy tax credits that have not yet been awarded). 

In response to Trump’s flurry of executive actions, the courts have strongly agreed that the law requires federal agencies to make good on their commitments and unfreeze duly appropriated and obligated funding. Brookings and other institutions have launched trackers of actual federal spending and funding availability. 

The reality is that effective implementation will need to be sustained for years to come, and the impact of these major investment programs hinges on how they are implemented by state, local, tribal, and even industry decisionmakers—as much as what political Washington is offering in the way of broad policy goals or additional funding.  

Principles of effective implementation 

At every level of government and decisionmaking, the core principles of effective implementation are often the same. To drive meaningful outcomes, we need to focus on five principles, each of which comes with lessons from recent innovations in delivering federal investments.  

Effective implementation should make people’s lives easier and better, period 

At its core, implementation must be about improving lives. This must be our North Star. Everything else—specific policy choices, budgets, regulations, and operational processes—should support that goal. 

While leading implementation of the IRA at the U.S. Treasury Department, one of us (Laurel) saw this firsthand when launching Direct File, the first-ever free tool that allows taxpayers to file their returns directly with the IRS. Thanks to the work of the IRS and Treasury teams, a measurably successful pilot in 12 states during the 2024 filing season paved the way for 30 million taxpayers in 24 states to be able to file their taxes in the current filing season using this user-friendly new tool. 

In the pilot phase, a survey found that 90% of Direct File users rated their experience as “excellent” or “above average.” On average, users reported that filing their taxes took less than an hour, with many completing the process in as little as 30 minutes. This streamlined process for taxpayers represents a positive change compared to traditional tax preparation methods, which can be far more time-consuming and costly for the public. A Treasury Department ​​​​analysis found that Direct File users claimed more than $90 million in refunds and saved an estimated $5.6 million in tax preparation fees on their federal returns.  

Though millions of consumers are accustomed to mobile apps and web-based order forms that work more or less seamlessly, the work of implementing Direct File in the federal government—and the sensitive and regulated arena of tax administration especially—wasn’t easy. The IRS’s technical teams worked around the clock for 10 months prior to launching the pilot in March 2024 in order to design a world-class product based on customer needs, in record time and under enormous pressure—not to mention the widespread skepticism that the government could pull it off.  

The IRS and Treasury teams worked alongside tax, technology, and management experts in government to deliver this product. They also worked in close partnership with external stakeholders and delivery partners ranging from state tax administrators to national civic tech organizations to local service providers and community advocates, ensuring it worked in the real world, especially that critical “last mile” where implementation can fall short, often for those most in need of responsive government. 

That implementation effort had its North Star of improving lives, which not only drove the operational approach, but also made it meaningful and motivating for the many public servants involved. As reported by Axios, people such as Marina Garcia, who works for a nonprofit in Texas, were able to pay their taxes more easily and saved time and money.  
 
This is what effective government looks like: ensuring programs make a meaningful difference in people’s lives. The last several years have brought to light new ways to do this, and the deployment of generative AI and related technology will offer more ways—but all consistent, in our view, with the well-documented need to make government more results- and outcome-driven, not just compliance-driven.¹ 

In a world of often dysfunctional and complex systems, we must build and strengthen ‘implementation muscles’  

The need is nothing new—naturally, effective implementation requires strong systems, processes, and collaboration—but the ways we respond to it need to change as technological, demographic, cultural, and other shifts unfold in and around government. 

Over the past four years (and not only at the federal level), hardworking teams have made great strides in building these muscles in government. For example, during Laurel’s tenure at Treasury, she worked closely with the nonpartisan nonprofit Partnership for Public Service to launch a federal-government-wide community of practice consisting of the leads from each of the agencies working to implement the enormous new investments outlined above. A community of practice allows for robust knowledge-sharing and iterative learning. Together, that group developed the first-ever Framework of Implementation Excellence, focusing on talent development, metrics, compliance, financial management, and procurement. 

This kind of implementation capacity-building—and the principles we are identifying here—will be essential not only for completing the implementation of the landmark laws we named, but for any ambitious future federal investments as well. This applies regardless of the changes the DOGE may recommend and how the Trump administration, Congress, and the public respond to those recommendations. This is even more important given that the Trump administration’s efforts to bring the federal workforce back to the office full time while pursuing buyouts and other changes could make attracting and retaining implementation talent more difficult.   

While larger-scale changes to federal systems—including reforms to the government’s human capital, technology, and procurement systems—are needed, it’s important that the implementation muscle built up over the past four years be visible and well understood. Congress can certainly help, especially with its oversight and appropriations functions, and so can the news media and a wide range of interest groups, regardless of their political views or partisan leaning. 

Follow the ball forward: Focus most intensively on the state, local, and community levels 

The flexible pandemic recovery funding provided by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 has been awarded and allocated, as Congress intended and as Brookings’ Local Government ARPA Investment Tracker details. But as we previewed above, for most of the programs in the IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS and Science Act, the current intensive phase of implementation is now centered outside of Washington, at the state, tribal, and local government level, working with communities and the private sector. 

This is good news, as it signals that the various grants, loans, and tax credits the federal funding programs provide are getting closer to the people and places they are meant to serve. But it also means our work nationwide must adapt. It will demand different skills, resources, and partnerships—even mental models—than those of us focused on the first wave of federal-agency-focused implementation (including labor-intensive and rule-bound program design and awarding of funds) have developed and relied on over the last few years. In many cases, this means turning to the work that many communities across the country have begun and supporting it wherever possible. 

From building out infrastructure projects and cutting-edge manufacturing plants to delivering financial benefits more effectively to those who need them most, there is much to learn about—and offer to—innovative approaches emerging across the country. For now, as the new administration launches, it’s worth noting a few early demand signals from state, tribal, and local leaders that will likely persist in the coming months and years.  

One example is the work state and local governments have undertaken to understand and take advantage of the IRA’s Direct Pay provision, which, for the first time ever, allows tax exempt entities to directly receive tax credits for eligible clean energy projects. Recent analysis by the nonpartisan World Resources Institute (WRI) shows why Direct Pay is so valued and how innovatively communities across the country are deploying the funding so far. In 2023, some 27 cities claimed a combined $12.6 million in tax credits that they would not have otherwise received. From small rural communities such as Pateros, Wash. to disaster-affected counties such as Buncombe, N.C., Direct Pay is not only financing key components of the clean energy transition, but is also offering much needed direct financial support for the operations of the public and nonprofit sector entities leading these projects.  

Once the IRA was enacted and the guidance for Direct Pay provided, governments around the country had the chance to access funds for projects, such as fleet conversions to electric vehicles or energy system upgrades, to significantly lower their operating costs, protect against power outages, and reduce their carbon footprint. 

But the biggest upfront problem was that many local governments were not aware of Direct Pay. To spread the word, the Treasury team launched a “Comeback Communities” tour to engage 150 of the lowest-capacity, most economically challenged cities across the country in the clean energy transition. The early results are clear and highly encouraging: Nearly 600 projects have been registered by tax exempt entities in the IRS’s pre-registration portal, up from only a few in the 2023 tax year. Word of mouth, amplified by national networks and associations, advocacy groups, think tanks, and others—the fabric of institutions that typically help public officials learn about new opportunities—went a long way. Based on growing awareness and steps taken to make it as easy as possible for eligible entities to apply for Direct Pay funding, even more projects from a wider range of communities are likely to file in 2025.  

Despite this progress, significant challenges in implementation at the local level remain, whether in city, county, or tribal governments. In October 2024, Treasury convened local government leaders, federal partners, and technical assistance providers to create a framework outlining how to best support implementation of Direct Pay moving forward. While specific to that program (which many have called a game-changer for local government especially), the guide speaks to the kinds of steps that will likely be needed in implementation efforts like these around the country, as implementation responsibilities shift away from Washington, D.C. to the local level. This work has been further advanced by key Direct Pay partners, including the WRI and its partners in the Lighthouse cohort of communities, who are learning first-hand how to make the most of the program to pursue locally defined priorities, as Congress intended.  

Nonetheless, the challenges the Direct Pay example illustrates are nothing new. For many years, practitioners seeking to leverage federal funds have wrestled with information and expertise gaps, capacity gaps (technical and human), and insufficient capital and operating funds. The urgent point is precisely that: These are not new challenges, but enduring ones, and we must not forget them and the role they play in supporting or hampering implementation in this critical era of showing what bold public investment can accomplish to improve lives. 

Use federal investment to leverage other capital and build effective new markets and products—and strengthen existing ones 

As Brookings research, conducted in collaboration with experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has tracked, the legislative accomplishments of the past four years were designed not only to deploy public investment, but also to drive or “crowd in” private sector investment in a variety of “strategic sectors” for the nation. As that analysis underscores, federal funding has done exactly that, and also created many jobs in infrastructure, manufacturing, business services, and many other industries, with more projected in the years ahead. Investment is up disproportionately in lower-income regions that have not shared in the economic innovation and growth of the past few decades. 

However, effective implementation cannot rely only on a market-driven response to federal investments. This is particularly true at the local level, for public and nonprofit organizations and small to midsized (as opposed to larger and higher-capacity) companies. Over-reliance on market mechanisms alone runs the risk of exacerbating long-standing inequities and reducing the investments’ impact on people’s lives, especially in historically disadvantaged communities of all kinds. That’s why each of the major federal investment laws created specific provisions designed to support more intentional and equitable market-building; for example, ARPA’s State Small Business Credit Initiative is providing technical assistance funding to jump-start more inclusive investment in small businesses, and the IRA includes the Clean Electricity Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Amount Program, a tax credit creating additional incentives for clean energy investments in lower-income communities that have long struggled to secure resources for capital projects. A recent Treasury report found that this credit catalyzed $3.5 billion in public and private sector investment into communities around the country, while creating an additional 1.5 gigawatts of energy generation capacity. 

But the work of implementing such provisions in a dynamic but fairly nascent marketplace for new financing products and energy project types is just beginning. In many parts of the country, for example, the project pipeline has not yet been developed at scale, and blending multiple sources of financing is unduly complex, the transactions unstandardized (the widely reported backlog of projects awaiting interconnection to the power grid is also a challenge). 

These are familiar challenges, just not in the community-scale energy sector. The community development field, centered mainly on financing housing, community facilities, and small businesses, has been wrestling with how to strengthen so-called capital absorption for years. Getting results on the ground—making lives better—is not simply a matter of expanding the supply of capital but of creating and sustaining the capabilities needed to absorb and deploy that capital well (on the demand side), in communities large and small, across the country. 

Research by the Urban Institute, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and other nonpartisan sources underscores that a multipronged “all of the above” approach to building these new markets, with effective capital absorption, is vital—and that it pays off in measurable and more inclusive results, such as better housing that allows low-income seniors to be healthier and more actively engaged in community life or, in the case of energy, bigger and more innovative projects that save families and community-serving facilities money on their electric bills each month while also protecting against costly power outages.  

The bottom line is clear: By blending public and private capital (and with a bit of learning from past efforts to drive the benefits of new capital sources far and wide), we can create new markets and ensure that the change new public investments have catalyzed benefit all communities—not just the most well-resourced and staffed up.  

Track the numbers, but remember to tell stories too  

Understanding the full impact of the programs being implemented through ARPA, IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS and Science will take years. For that reason, tracking the relevant program inputs and outputs as well as the longer-term impacts must continue. The data must be easy to access and publicly reported as consistently as possible. This is the only way that government leaders—and the public they are accountable to—will fully understand what works and what does not. But most of those data take the form of numbers: dollars awarded to projects by state, county, or type of project, for example. Numbers alone are simply not enough, especially in our current information environment, with rock-bottom levels of public trust in public institutions.   

The work of implementation can be decidedly unsexy and often arcane, and to the average person, many of the numbers lack meaning, especially when paired with the official government-speak that’s often required for legal and other reasons. This is why vivid, relatable, and compelling stories matter too. Stories can break through thanks to social media and other channels, beyond traditional news media coverage of what the government is (or is not) delivering. 

This is why, over the past two years, Treasury’s implementation efforts included the IRA Clean Energy Storytelling Program, engaging the agency’s many partners to amplify these narratives. Though it is often not a direct guide to government action, where critics tend to dismiss stories as “anecdotal,” a wide body of research and experimentation underscores how and why stories help cut through the noise and remind us why effective, responsive delivery matters to people; for example, highlighting widely shared values, aspirations, and experiences, and making complex ideas more accessible and emotionally resonant. 

We are now in a period of significant change and uncertainty in the U.S., and sudden and arbitrary funding freezes and similar executive actions only compound that. But we have found that the most important principles of effective implementation are remarkably constant. Five of those principles—improving lives, strengthening systems, adapting locally, building markets to better leverage capital, and sharing stories—will do much to determine the impact of the enormous effort to implement historic federal investments across the country. That’s true no matter the political environment and no matter the specific priorities of a given presidential administration or other authorities. 

Though the most critical implementation choices for these major federal investments in communities now lie outside the nation’s capital, when it comes to the federal level, the big questions are whether the new team in Washington, D.C. recognizes these realities about effective government and appreciates that they matter for real people—not just determined policy advocates, governments, and concerned members of Congress, but the everyday voters, taxpayers, workers, and businesses that are making their voices heard.