Why Term Limits Should Be the Norm for Government Innovators
I’ve seen this problem from nearly every angle.
At the Defense Digital Service (DDS), I built tools side-by-side with warfighters whose lives depended on getting it right. Later, standing up the Customer Experience Office (CXO), I helped craft enterprise strategy and policy across sprawling federal systems. Outside government, I served as a general manager at Rebellion Defense, and now as an advisor to MO Studio, supporting mission-driven design and technology teams working in complex public environments.
Through these experiences, one truth stands out:
The department suffers from a lack of motion.
Roles meant to spark transformation too often calcify. Change agents become gatekeepers. And teams that were once built for speed become anchored by tenure. That’s why I believe it’s time to institutionalize term limits for civil servants in innovation-focused roles—not to disrupt progress, but to protect it.
The Tour of Duty Model
The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), DDS, and Presidential Innovation Fellows (PIFs) were all founded on a radical idea for government: you don’t have to stay forever to make an impact.
These teams operate with a tour-of-duty mindset, bringing in designers, engineers, and strategists for 12 to 48 months of high-intensity service. These short tenures aren’t a limitation; they’re a design principle. They create urgency. They bring new blood. And they force focus.
When you know your time is limited, you work differently. You strip out bureaucracy. You build for the user. And you move fast.
Why Term Limits Work
They create urgency.
Like Amazon’s “Day One” mindset, term-limited roles make every week count. When you know your clock is ticking, you skip red tape and get to the heart of the problem.They attract bold, mission-driven talent.
The best technologists, designers, and policy thinkers aren’t always looking for a 30-year government career. But many will give two or three years of their life for something meaningful—if the role is built for real outcomes.They prevent drift and stagnation.
Innovation roles can’t become fiefdoms. Term limits prevent that. They ensure that “change” stays the goal, not self-preservation.They build systems that outlast individuals.
With rotation built in, teams document better, mentor intentionally, and leave behind a stronger foundation than they found.
A Real Example (Product Development): Building for the Battlefield
One of the clearest examples of this came during my time at DDS.
We were tasked with a high-stakes mission: reduce the threat of green-on-blue attacks—deadly incidents where supposed allies turned on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The solution had to be fast, secure, and field-ready.
We developed BOBA (Basic Optical Biometric Analysis), a lightweight biometric app that allowed troops to enroll and verify identities in seconds using facial recognition, fingerprints, and iris scans—right from an Android phone, even in disconnected environments.
But this wasn’t built in a vacuum. We brought in four soldiers from the Army Cyber School at Fort Gordon to work alongside DDS engineers and product managers. They weren’t just advisors—they were co-builders.
We didn’t have years to deliver this. We had months. That timeline wasn’t a constraint—it was a forcing function. We pushed prototypes into the field quickly, integrated user feedback in real time, and iterated constantly. The product worked because we didn’t wait for perfection—we prioritized impact over process.
The result was a mission-ready, user-informed solution that lives up to the urgency of its use case.
A Real Example (Policy Innovation): Solving the Real Problems, Not Just Checking Boxes
This model isn’t just for engineers or product teams—it works for policy, too.
Too often, government policy becomes synonymous with compliance: Did we update the memo? Did we hold the meeting?
But policy should be about outcomes. The real question is: Did we solve the right problem?
Take the Risk Management Framework (RMF).
RMF was designed to ensure systems are secure before launch—but in reality, it often bogs down delivery. PMs, engineers, and security leads spend months chasing paperwork, duplicating evidence, and navigating a process that’s divorced from real operational risk.
Now imagine a rotating, term-limited policy fellow embedded inside DoD CIO—not tasked with defending the status quo, but with making RMF more usable:
Mapping the current pain points by shadowing real ATO processes.
Prototyping a “fast lane” RMF path for low-risk systems and DevSecOps pipelines.
Simplifying documentation to reflect tools teams already use.
Focusing on speed-to-field and risk mitigation—not paperwork volume.
And when their tour ends? They don’t just move on—they hand it off.
Just like in the military, where transitions require binders, continuity memos, and AARs (After Action Reports), these fellows pass on lessons, pilots, and improvements so the next person isn’t starting from scratch.
The result? A living policy infrastructure—iterative, contextual, and human-centered.
Making It Real
This model already exists—we just need to scale it.
We can:
Codify 2–4 year terms for key innovation roles.
Require documented handoffs and onboarding guides at transition points.
Create alumni networks for continued mentorship and institutional memory.
Incentivize movement between functions—not just upward promotions.
Public Service on Purpose
We say we want a government that moves faster, builds better, and listens to users. But motion doesn’t happen on its own. It has to be built into the structure. Term limits don’t hinder public service—they protect it. They prevent power consolidation. They encourage urgency. And they institutionalize the idea that government exists to serve the public, not itself. Borrowed time creates bold impact.
Let’s design for that—on purpose.
