Alumni Spotlight: TechCongress Alum Julie Lin Stars in Roadtrip Nation Documentary ‘Tech for Us’

“I wasn’t sure if I would like policy or what it would look like, but I wanted to see if I could use my technology skills for something more meaningful.”

— Julie Lin

This thought led Julie Lin, a 2022 TechCongress Congressional Innovation Fellow and former hardware engineer at Microsoft, to a collaboration with Roadtrip Nation that would take her and two others, Anthoni and Demaceo, on a road trip from Maine to Kentucky spanning 21 days. The result is a documentary, Tech for Us, that highlights the manifold paths within public interest technology.

In this 20-minute interview with TechCongress, Julie reflects on her journey from the private sector to public service, breaks down preconceptions about working in tech policy, and shares insights about her experience filming Tech for Us. We also discuss the process of soul-searching that often comes with career transitions, and what it means to be a public interest technologist.

Read on to learn more about how technologists across the nation leverage their skills to serve their communities and make a lasting difference.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

---

Thanks again for doing this, Julie. Let’s start with an overview of your career. What led you to TechCongress and what have you been up to ever since your fellowship?

Julie: I feel like I’ve had a very untraditional career path, but I think very common for TechCongress fellows. I started off my career at Microsoft working as a hardware engineer where I was building next generation devices, like laptops, phones, tablets, and I even worked on their AR/VR device like HoloLens. So, I feel like I was working on all these cool devices and because we don’t manufacture in America, I did a lot of traveling to Asia, working with suppliers and manufacturers. It was a very hands-on engineer experience, and I think during the pandemic when the world was crumbling, it was an inflection point to me of “What am I doing with my life? What impact is my career having?” I can work on the next device, but it only gets so much better. Is there something more to this? So I started looking for opportunities to use my technology experience and maybe thinking about what it could look like. So, I’m honestly not sure how I found TechCongress. Twitter, maybe? But it was this interesting nexus because I didn’t know what policy meant. I knew a little bit about government, just at the high school level. I did it as an experiment. I wasn’t sure if I would like policy or what it would look like but I wanted to see if I could use my technology skills and experience for something more meaningful and impactful. So that’s how I got to TechCongress, and ever since then, I’ve been at this nexus of technology policy and strategy. A lot of the skills that I developed through TechCongress and being on the Hill, I’ve taken that and worked with nonprofits and foundations and people in the tech policy space to help them get smarter and more strategic about how to use technology for the public good. So that’s what I’ve been up to.

You describe the trajectory that a lot of our fellows have been through—coming from technical backgrounds, really hands-on engineering experience or data science and then finding themselves in a field that is both entirely relevant to and very different from what they’ve done before. Were there any expectations that you had to unlearn or reframe when you transitioned from Microsoft to TechCongress?

Julie: I think it’s not a skill set, but I think coming from big tech, you just have a lot more resources, whether it’s people, money, and time. I think that’s a luxury that we did not have in Congress. In tech there are very established processes, but on the hill there are no 30-, 60-, 90-day plans of ramping up. You just get thrown in. Maybe you get a checklist of something but you just are thrown into it. There’s just not enough time to build these systems and processes and that was a shocking thing for me, especially because I feel like big companies always have systematic approaches to everything. There’s a way to do everything on some document somewhere, and I think on the Hill it was like a word-of-mouth thing. Someone trains you up, but there’s no paper trail. You can build one yourself, but a lot of the information is definitely word-of-mouth and it gets lost sometimes because it’s not documented as well, but there’s just so many things going on, right? It’s hard not to keep track of everything.

L to R: Anthoni, Julie and Demaceo interviewing a subject on a park bench. Photo credit: Roadtrip Nation

Tell us all about your road trip and collaboration with Roadtrip Nation. How was it?

Julie: For those who don’t know, it was essentially a month-long road trip where me and two other people who are in the public interest tech space went on a road trip from Maine to Kentucky. So we lived in an RV and we went down the East Coast through all these different states interviewing all sorts of cool people in public interest tech; so, academics, artists, small business owners, government folks, journalists… a whole spectrum of public interest tech. I think what drew me into it was I had just finished the TechCongress fellowship, and I was starting to get a taste of what this ecosystem looked like, but it was through a policy lens. I saw this opportunity and I thought it would be really interesting to expand what that looks like beyond policy. I think policy is important and is a very interesting nexus of tech and public interest technology, but I wanted to see what else was out there. I was like, why not live in an RV? That seems fun and cool. I honestly didn’t think too much of it. I get to travel, I get to talk to people and learn more about this field, so let’s do it. So that’s kind of how it came to be.

How would you say that diversity of experience or background prepares you for a career in tech policy? Could you tell us more about the people you’ve encountered during your road trip and describe any conversations that stood out to you?

Julie: I feel like everyone that I talked to on the road trip had such wild backgrounds. What they’re doing now is not what they’ve envisioned they would be doing earlier in their careers. It was kind of piecemealing it together. A lot of people were mentioning they were just following various interests that drew them and it kind of led them down this path. And I kind of feel like that’s how I am with my career. I’m just following things that are interesting. But in terms of diversity of experience, I have this tech background, I traveled a lot to Asia. There’s that whole element, but I also used to volunteer for an education nonprofit where we provided virtual tutoring to underserved communities and also was a founding board member for my alma mater’s alumni community. So, I feel like these random things were helpful. I don’t even know how to explain how they’re helpful, but these little pieces affect everything else. Some of the things I worked on in Congress had to do with the intersection of education and tech and how to train up the workforce, and thinking about that ecosystem and having volunteered in the education nonprofit, it gave me a glimpse into what that experience was like. I feel like everything is very relevant. Everything shapes you to be who you are. So I think seeing the diversity of people including the two other roadtrippers that I was with… one of them had a background in marine biology and then became a software engineer. So his view on technology is fascinating, because he thinks about it in terms of climate tech, biotech, very different things. And then the other person came in with a background in psychology and has no technical background. But he also should be in the conversation because he’s like, “Okay, when we think about technology and the psychology of it and maybe the addiction of social media, we do need the social science aspect of it too.” So I feel like all of us work together on different aspects of technology, and I think it’s really helpful and useful. And it was nice to see the way different people are doing it.

Was there a personal or professional character development moment for you at any point? Was there a Eureka moment, an insight that you gained that really stood out to you?

Julie: I think one of the biggest “Aha” moments that I had was some time in the middle of the road trip. Even though it was a very cool, novel experience, just like anything else, you got into the rhythm of it, right? A few weeks in, I woke up on the RV, and I was taking a step back and thinking about the whole experience, and it was just so cool that it intersected all the things that I was interested in. Like technology, thinking about how it could be used for the public good, talking to policy people, but also this travel element and being able to just talk to anybody and to hear their stories and get their career advice. I feel like that intersection was crazy. To be able to have an experience that encompassed all of that was very wild to me, because I feel like a lot of my interest areas seem really random but for it to come together in a very cohesive thing, for this documentary to come out, I think that changed my brain waves. There’s so much out there that you don’t even know exists. The intersection of all these things.

You mentioned being at a crossroads in the documentary. Could you share a little about which paths you were considering and the type of environment that you now view as most aligned with your ambitions?

Julie: At that time I was thinking about going back into tech and doing more technical work again because I kind of missed it. There’s nothing like building a product and being able to see the thing that you’re building, whether it’s physical or if it’s an app or website or whatever. There’s nothing like being able to do it from start to finish that you don’t necessarily see in policy because policy is such a long, drawn-out process. One of the things that I was reflecting on was also that policy doesn’t have a lot of metrics built in. Engineering is very black and white. There were quantitative elements to it but I think policy, that’s not something that people build into policy development. So that was really irking me because I think being an engineer, I’m used to those metrics and you’re like “How do I know if things are moving” and “How do I know if I’m having impact?” if you don’t have the numbers to prove it. So I think that was a big thing that I was thinking through, “Should I go back into tech purely for that? Or should I stay in this intersection?" Since then I’ve actually been able to do both. I’m still in the policy space, but I’m also working on building a policy product, like a tool. At that crossroads, it was important to know or to think about what I liked or didn’t like and what I thought was missing in this work that I was doing and exploring. But I feel like I’m still trying to figure it out. I feel like I just keep gravitating towards things that are interesting to me.

L to R: Julie, Anthoni, an interview subject, and Demaceo pictured outside their RV. Photo credit: Roadtrip Nation

And it’s starting to materialize, right? I mean, tangent, but we’d love to hear more about this policy tool.

Julie: It’s actually funny because I’m working on it with someone else from TechCongress. So I feel like a lot of us who have a technical background and go into Congress, we’re shocked by just how it works. There’s nothing like learning about how it is from the inside. And even internally in Congress when you talk about a certain bill or certain policy area, it’s kind of unclear why certain bills move. All of a sudden something can just have momentum, and sometimes you know what’s going on but sometimes you have no idea why, even if you’re in it. There are all these influences, whether it’s a corporation, or the history of a Member that affects policy, but there’s not a lot of transparency to it. Or you have to deep dive a 100 different Google articles and then maybe there’s this one line that links this one thing that you thought was random to a Member and you’re like, “Oh, that’s why there’s movement in this” or “That’s why they wrote a bill in this specific way.” So, the tool that we’re trying to build is like a policy transparency tool that tries to map all of these influences that affect policy. On the other side of it is policy advocacy. There are a lot of people who come in with pressing issues, like education or technology or broadband. A lot of people came into our offices asking for help. That’s another component of it, being able to link all of the things together to make advocacy and the space more transparent and effective. So that’s what we’re hoping this policy tool will help with: transparency and also making advocacy more effective.

Bringing it back on topic, how can institutions better support people making the leap to public interest tech? What do you think needs to change? What do we need more or less of? 

Julie: I feel like a lot of industries are very siloed, right? Tech is very siloed, policy in general is very siloed, government, art, all these things are very siloed. I think we need more people in the middle of all of them that can talk to each other and understand the value of the other thing. For example, in tech policy, pure policy people need to understand some of the technical things and understand the value of that but on the other side of technology and technologists and engineers, they also need to understand the value of policy and how it’s like a collaborative thing and how they both need to exist in order for us to build something more well-rounded and have safeguards and all that stuff. But I feel like there’s not enough people in the intersections to be able to translate them and to tell both sides that they’re both important, but they also need to be able to understand why they’re important. And I think it’s hard for engineers and technologists to translate how their skill set is important in the policy space and vice versa. I think we need more people talking about that and the gaps or bridging the siloes. I feel like even talking to TechCongress alumni and people trying to figure out what to do after, there’s like this small bubble of TechCongress fellows who understand each other because we’re like “Oh, we both went from tech policy. We understand both.” But there’s still not enough people who understand the value of both individually and can see the value of them coming together. So, I don’t know how we can fix that. But I think these intersections, these nodes, I think we need more people in them.

In closing, what advice would you give to someone who might be going through a similar situation as you? So maybe an early career technologist who wants to make a transition into public interest tech but doesn’t know where to start. 

Julie: The advice I’d probably give is to just go and collect experiences. I always say this, but “you don’t know what you don’t know.” And that’s like finding out about TechCongress, right? I think you just have to do random things that pique your interest and you never know where it’ll take you. But specifically with public interest tech, every organization has some arm of tech for good. So I remember exploring that even internally when I was at Microsoft and what that looked like and looking at all these initiatives they had. So within the ecosystem that you’re in, go find those areas that are interesting to you and learn more. Go talk to people and see if you can work on a project or do something. I think people are always willing to talk about their experiences, so reach out to anyone who seems interesting and you never know where it’ll take you.

It’s been such a pleasure having you on for this, hopefully, first of many TechCongress alumni interviews. We look forward to hearing all about what you do next.

Julie: Yeah, thanks for having me. This was so fun!

---

Julie Lin

Julie Lin is an engineer turned policy entrepreneur passionate about the intersection of technology and social impact. She currently advises on technology policy and strategy as an independent consultant, drawing on her background in engineering and product development to translate complex technical concepts into initiatives that empower and protect everyday people.

Julie Lin holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Michigan.

Watch Tech for Us here.

LinkedIn: Julie Lin

TechCongress Bio

TechCongress is a technology policy nonprofit that helps Congress meet the demand for tech expertise through our Congressional Innovation Fellowships. We help provide Congress with the talent it needs to navigate the fast-moving technology landscape. Julie Lin is among 123 TechCongress alumni who continue to sustain impact in civic tech, so that digital services reach those who need them most. 

Watch Tech for Us here. For more on TechCongress, check out our website and follow us on LinkedIn and X. 

This piece was transcribed by Emmy Ly (TechCongress Communications Intern) and edited by Timour Razek (TechCongress Communications Manager)

Reflections from TechCongress Programs Intern, Christina You

What I Learned From One Year Interning at TechCongress

One year ago, I had zero experience in the tech policy space. Now, I have learned from two cohorts of fellows, attended–and hosted–conferences, and connected with partners across civic tech. TechCongress serves as a pipeline for tech expertise into the public sector, but our mission to build government capacity goes beyond Capitol Hill. Building pipelines for talent starts with reaching young people, and while I may not yet qualify for our Congressional Innovation Fellowship, being an intern for the great team behind the fellowships has taught me invaluable lessons about government, community, and the future. 

I joined the team as the Communications Intern in August 2024, working remotely from Los Angeles as a student at the University of Southern California, and continued as the Programs Intern this past summer in Washington, DC. Prior to TechCongress, I worked in nonprofits and state legislation and was involved with my university’s socially responsible technology club, but I had yet to combine the two by approaching policy from a technologist’s perspective. Serendipitously, I stumbled across a farewell post on LinkedIn from the previous TechCongress intern. The more I read about TechCongress, especially from blogs like this, the more intrigued I was about its mission. As a computer science major expecting to do software engineering, I was never exactly advertised that “tech policy advisor” was a career path. TechCongress opened the door for me to explore that possibility.

Reflecting upon the past year, I leave three lessons–in both tech policy and in life–I learned from my time with TechCongress:

1. In ever-evolving environments, work with intention. 

The technology policy landscape has changed tremendously over the past five years. In January 2020, no one had heard of Zoom or ChatGPT. Now, millions of people use them everyday. 

Google Trends interest over time graphs for the search terms “ai policy” (above) and “tech policy” (below) over the past five years.

My generation grew up in an environment that constantly changed. The pandemic started during my freshman year of high school, and by the time I entered college, ChatGPT had irrevocably changed higher education. Gen Z, in their formative years, have been affected by multiple rapid shifts, contrasting the structural slowness of government. Congress was designed in this way to safeguard the legislative process, but the dissonance is felt even more strongly on the topic of technology.

At TechCongress, we believe that the key to closing that gap is people. More specifically, having people equipped with the knowledge and expertise be at the table when lawmakers address technology. Over the past ten years, we have placed 123 fellows into Congressional offices and committees, and in 2026, we hope to place 20 more fellows through our largest cohort yet.

Our Programs Associate Mya St. Louis and I released TechCongress’s first Impact Report showcasing our organization’s advancement over the past ten years. This is me holding the first physical copy!

As a Programs Intern, I assisted the team throughout the fellowship timeline, coordinated outreach, and organized events. Being a part of a small team means that I also have had the opportunity to take on tasks with greater responsibility, from helping write grant reports for funders to ideating long term initiatives. Through this, I have seen from a bird’s-eye view how TechCongress communicates its goals and growth. Over the past five years, even with external shifts, TechCongress has remained relevant because of its foundational goal to share knowledge. When faced with the pandemic, we launched the Congressional Digital Service Fellowship. When faced with the rise of AI, we launched the AI Safety Fellowship. These one-time fellowships have met the challenges of emerging technology, while our flagship program continues to support the needs of Congress. This resiliency inspires me, not only as a young person navigating my professional evolution, but as a citizen hoping for more policymakers that are ready for the future. 

2. People can come together when there are first spaces to be together. 

During March, I visited the TechCongress office in Washington DC and met my coworkers in person for the first time. My spring break coincidentally overlapped with our 10th Anniversary Summit, and I was grateful to have the opportunity to see our months of planning come to life. It was our first time convening fellows, alumni, and partners for an entire day of talks and conversations, and besides the insight into actual tech policy happening, what I was surprised to take away was how moving it was to be a space built on simply sharing what people care about.

Seeyew Mo (TechCongress 2022 Congressional Innovation Fellow) on “Small Moves, Big Impact” during the TechCongress 10 Year Anniversary Summit this past March

Bipartisanship and bringing people together is core to TechCongress’s identity. We strive to have party parity in each of our cohorts, and we hope that bringing together fellows from different backgrounds provides more opportunities for collaboration. Having grown up in New Orleans, Louisiana, I deeply resonate with that value, and working at TechCongress has helped shape how I communicate with others to find common ground for incremental change.

The TC team at Code for America Summit and the AI+Expo earlier this summer

3. Build trust in organizations by building trust in its people. 

I love TechCongress’s mission and the work that we do, but I love the people that I work with even more. The TechCongress team has made this past year unforgettable. From eating lunch together every Wednesday to reflecting on our growth during a team retreat to the National Arboretum, the saying “the people make the place” rings true. Even with the number of staff doubling in the past two years, the culture of trust TechCongress has built has stood strong.

Whenever I find myself in periods of uncertainty, I think back upon the trust that the team has given me. Every single person at TechCongress–Travis, Grace, Mallory, Mya, Timour, and especially my direct supervisor and mentor Aleena–has been incredibly supportive of my growth. They see me as more than just an intern, but as an individual. 

I came to Washington DC with an outsider’s perspective. What I left with was the understanding that at the end of the day, people are people. And people want trust: in government, in institutions, and in other people. TechCongress is just one part of making that a reality. It starts with building trust that the people in government are equipped with the expertise to make decisions. It continues with bringing people together for face-to-face conversations to connect as individuals. And hopefully, it ends with a government ready to serve its people through innovation, into the future.

Thank you TechCongress!

---

Christina You

This piece was written by Christina You, a former TechCongress intern (Fall 2024-Summer 2025). 

Christina You is a student at the University of Southern California studying Computer Science and Philosophy, Politics, and Law. Christina has a background in grassroots advocacy and state legislation with the New Orleans Children & Youth Planning Board and the Louisiana Legislative Youth Council. She also served as a tech policy fellow for the Paragon Policy Fellowship and led Shift SC, USC’s first and only student-led organization for socially responsible technology. 

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/youchris/

Day in the Life of a TechCongress Fellow: Lars Erik Schönander

My workday typically fell into three buckets. The first was policy research. This was the process of actually coming up with legislation, and disguises a lot of different tasks. Sometimes, it was reading Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports to see how a specific program worked. Other times, it was bringing in outside experts to answer our questions. Most of the time, it was spent writing the legislation, reading it over, and rewriting it. 

The second typical task was stakeholder meetings. I worked as a committee staffer, and therefore had fewer of these meetings than usual. However, they still occurred, albeit infrequently. I would meet constituents who cared about specific small business issues, from tax policy to research and development programs. My boss cared a lot about bringing people together. One of the highlights of my time working for the Senate Small Business Committee was the startup expo Senator Ernst ran. The startup expo was an event that brought together small businesses and people who could contract with them. They included Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program officers, offices across the Department of Defense, and small business contract officers at large defense companies.  

The third, and more unusual, part of my day as a Hill staffer was working as a data scientist. There is a large need for data on the Hill, however, Congress does not have the resources for intense data science work. Staffers can ask CRS for data analysis, but data science is not their specialty. During my fellowship, I helped fill this gap. I analyzed data on the SBIR program to strengthen our justifications when writing various pieces of legislation. I also wrangled data from the Federal Procurement Data System to help a colleague answer questions about federal contracting.

I decided to enroll as a TechCongress fellow because of my interactions with congressional staffers when I first worked for the Foundation for American Innovation (FAI). I always felt strange providing recommendations without knowing what it was like to make policy in Congress. TechCongress helped me gain a policymaking perspective from the side of someone trying to implement policy, and the complexities that come with that, versus someone pitching ideas. It makes me a more effective advocate having that insider perspective. 

My proudest moment was working on due diligence in the SBIR program. Through open-source research, I helped track down companies that had foreign risks. This had two peaks. First, in a hearing back in March, Senator Ernst called out a company whose CEO was on the board of multiple Special Purpose Acquisition Companies associated with a state-owned Chinese bank. Second, in May, a report I worked on about due diligence was launched and received excellent media coverage from outlets including Bloomberg, Politico, and National Review. It was nice to see a year's worth of work result in good coverage for the boss. 

I learned a lot through TechCongress. I learned how policymaking functions inside a committee. I also gained in-depth policymaking experience on a specific subject area, the SBIR program. Chiefly, I learned how to manage bureaucracy and how to get things done despite sometimes dealing with more processes than I was used to working with. Working on the Hill and collaborating with many innovative companies made me realize that while I love policy, the policy area I am most interested in—industrial policy—requires a perspective on both industrial needs and legislation. I believe that working on the Hill took me over the finish line for admittance as an MBA student at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. There, I plan to focus on operations management and eventually do something manufacturing-related.

---

Lars Erik Schönander

This piece was written by TechCongress alum, Lars Erik Schönander (Congressional Innovation Fellow, January 2024).

Lars Erik Schönander is a Research Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. He holds a BA from The George Washington University in International Affairs and Economics and is an incoming MBA student at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, American Affairs, the National Interest, Tablet, and elsewhere.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lars-erik-schonander-32b57a13b/

Twitter: @LarsESchonander

TechCongress Bio

Day in the Life of a TechCongress Fellow: Crystal Grant

Something really interesting about working on the Hill was that you often didn’t know how your days would go when they started. Late-breaking news, a leak from a private company, or even a tweet could totally change the outcome of the day. I learned how to be very adaptable, even with my working conditions. I started my fellowship in the summer of 2020, meaning I spent its entirety working from home. Despite not having the in-person experience of the fellowship, 2020 marked the first time our national systems grappled with deep-seated health inequities and understanding how our technology may be worsening both inequity and privacy concerns. In this pivotal time, I got to play an important role pushing this discourse forward.  

Something I grew to really appreciate during my TechCongress orientation was the clear explanation of oversight as a tool in our toolbox as Hill staffers. I have always had a strong sense of justice and fairness and wanted to be able to affect change. This is what made working in Senator Warren's oversight office the perfect fit for me. When I began my TechCongress fellowship, Democrats were in the minority. I knew realistically that a piece of legislation I worked on might never see the light of day simply because of who my boss was, in addition to the math of Congress requiring 60 votes. As a result, I believed oversight investigations would allow me the most impact. I was nervous about being new to the policy space but, on my first day in the Warren office, they expressed how excited they were to have someone with a health background join, especially given the Senator’s placement on the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) and the ongoing pandemic. From day one, I felt my expertise and unique background were seen as a benefit that strengthened the office, for which I was so grateful.

When I joined my office, I began some work around federal pandemic preparedness and response, as well as around the spread of the pandemic among incarcerated individuals. I really enjoyed holding the government accountable for their response to the pandemic. Another thing I did in my office was meet with the constituents who were more scientifically and technically minded. I always found these constituent calls fascinating. Massachusetts is home to a lot of world-class universities, biotech companies, and science advocacy groups. It was rewarding to solicit their expert advice on a new piece of legislation and how the Senator's support of that legislation could really benefit the science they were doing. 

Sometimes, my days were spent building a coalition of other members in the House and Senate for an oversight product or bill that I was working on. This involved being really thoughtful about which members to include by knowing who was likely to throw their support behind your member—more member support for a product meant it gained more visibility and was more likely to affect change. There were certainly some challenges; I spent time working on three different bills, none of which made it to the introduction stage.

Other times, my work could be highly technical in nature. These outputs highlighted the utility of my PhD training. Through a PhD, we become experts in spotting issues, identifying what could be done better, and offering suggestions for follow-up experiments or remedies. I saw a direct connection between my technical training and subsequent ability to advise on technical solutions. An average day typically involved reading and researching, whether it was a new scientific publication, the Twitter feed of a well-accomplished epidemiologist detailing how scientists were being sidelined, late-breaking headlines or even meeting with academics or civil society leaders to better understand policy changes they suggested for a bill we were drafting. Some projects that resulted from my issue-spotting included: work on how tenant screening algorithms could worsen the post-COVID housing crisis; a deep dive into studies detailing how racial biases were encoded in medical devices, resulting in the FDA taking action; researching the statistical methods used by the CDC, leading to the agency correcting its miscalculated COVID mortality risk for people of color; and raising the issue of racial bias in clinical algorithms, prompting the federal government to investigate this for the first time.

I learned that sometimes a single letter from a member or members of Congress is enough to end an improper practice or spark long overdue changes. While not every project I worked on was a win, I came into the fellowship with a clear goal—to advance equity in health and to address algorithmic and AI biases. I am proud to say that my time on the Hill was incredibly impactful, not just for the American people, but for my career and for moving my office closer to the forefront of these issues.

---

Crystal Grant

This piece was written by TechCongress alum, Crystal Grant (Congressional Innovation Scholar, January 2020).

Dr. Crystal Grant is a Senior Fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks’ Janne E. Nolan Center on Strategic Weapons. At CSR, she is interested in the impact of AI and other emerging technologies on biosecurity. Dr. Grant holds a Ph.D. in Genetics and Molecular Biology from Emory University, and a B.A. in Biological Science with a minor in Anthropology from Cornell University.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/itscrystalgrant/

Twitter: @itscrystalgrant

TechCongress Bio

Announcing Our 2025 Fellows

With now a decade of running our Congressional Innovation Fellowship, TechCongress has demonstrated our dedication to bridging the divide of knowledge and experience between politics and tech. Each cohort has seen us build and iterate upon our systems for providing fellows with the training and mentorship to support the transition from the technology to public sectors. Still, with every new orientation workshop or programming opportunity, TechCongress has remained focused on creating a non-partisan pipeline for tech expertise into government, one technologist at a time.

Our past recruitment cycle was our most competitive one yet, and our selected fellows have demonstrated the outstanding expertise and passion to excel in their future offices on the Hill. We are excited to welcome our 15th cohort of Congressional Innovation Fellows, and we look forward to seeing them shape the future of tech policy.

• Ilona Bodnar is a data scientist specializing in machine learning and software development. Ilona brings experience from industry, including Google and NerdWallet, and most recently, working at a medical AI startup. She is committed to safeguarding consumer rights and promoting the transparency and accountability of impactful technical systems at scale.

• Matthew Burtell is a technologist with interests spanning AI, national security, China competition, energy, industrial policy, and business innovation. Matthew holds a BS from Yale, where he studied Computer Science and Mathematics, and has published both technical and policy AI research at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.

• Joshua Chavez is a technologist with engineering and product experience in defense hardware, data, and processing. Joshua recently served as the Director of Products & Technology at HawkEye360 and the Lead Technical Product Manager at SeaWatch Labs. He graduated in 2019 with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Yale.

• Rahul Hebbar is a technologist committed to AI serving humanity, not outpacing social readiness. Rahul was a Project Researcher for the New York City Council’s Legislative Division. Previously, he interned at Koopid.io, where he built machine-learning algorithms. Rahul has his B.S. in Computer Science from Rutgers University and a Master of Public Policy from Duke University.

• Shourya Jain is a product manager passionate about leveraging data and AI to strengthen American infrastructure. He previously worked at Microsoft, building features for the Azure AI platform, and Neufin, developing a platform to drive investment in energy and carbon projects. He holds a B.S. in Computer Science from the University of Washington, Seattle.

• Avanti Joshi received a B.S. in Computer Science and began as a software engineer at Goldman Sachs before pivoting to infrastructure and security at Trussworks, a civic technology company. She worked with government agencies to modernize cloud infrastructure and promote application security. Avanti is excited to advise on policy issues such as cybersecurity and data privacy.

• Dhruv Kathuria holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from UC Berkeley. He was most recently a Senior Engineer at Pavilion, where he worked on procurement modernization, and previously contributed to Trust and Safety at Nextdoor. Dhruv is passionate about digital privacy and improving how governments adopt and regulate impactful software technologies.

• Lauren Luo is a software engineer interested in data privacy and governance. She most recently worked at Instagram, where she built privacy-aware infrastructure to support consent order responses and established data consistency and governance mechanisms for sensitive user data. Lauren earned her B.A. in Computer Science and American Studies from Wellesley College.

• Sabelo Mhlambi is a technologist and AI ethicist who bridges technology, human rights, and ethics. A former fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman-Klein Center and Carr Center and Stanford's Digital Civil Society Lab, he now leads a Techstars'22 backed fintech startup. His work maximizes AI benefits while addressing risks and ensuring equitable access for underrepresented communities.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

• Anna Nickelson is a technologist with a PhD in robotics, researcher, and science communicator dedicated to safe and responsible implementation of emerging technologies. Her academic research focuses on adaptive and ethical AI, and she formerly worked at Dolby Labs, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Brookings Institution. Her policy interests include equitable access to technology and data privacy.

• Joe Putnik is a data scientist and business owner with expertise in AI and machine learning, digital infrastructure, and process automation. He has led technology transformation initiatives across enterprises in nearly every industry and size. His policy interests include ethical AI frameworks, government efficiency, and leveraging data science to enhance decision-making and serve the public good.

• Connor Sandagata is a data scientist who seeks to bring his expertise in machine learning, data analysis, and causal modeling to inform policy. Connor was the Senior Data Scientist at WPA Intelligence, where he specialized in using machine learning to analyze public opinion in political campaigns. He holds a Bachelors in International Relations from the University of Rochester.

• Pauls Toma is a computer scientist and a lawyer. Pauls interned with SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, where he bridged the gap between blockchain technology and securities law. He previously interned at DOJ, where he combatted the criminal misuse of cryptocurrency. He has a BS and MS in Computer Science and a JD from the University of Detroit.

• Akash Wasil is a technology and national security professional with experience in research, entrepreneurship, and AI policy. His work has involved AI and cybersecurity, US-China tech competition, semiconductor policy, national security preparedness, and applying AI in healthcare. Akash was an NSF-funded Ph.D. student at UPenn and holds a B.A. from Harvard University.

#AskTechCongress: What does it mean for Congress to be at the end of a session?

TechCongress aims to bridge the divide of knowledge and experience between politics and tech for better outcomes for both. Our new #AskTechCongress series will answer your questions about Congress, providing insight into the legislative process from an introductory perspective. Submit questions and keep updated with the series by subscribing to our Today In Tech newsletter.

On January 3, 2025, the second session of the 118th United States Congress will officially come to a close, marking the end of this legislative period. In the time leading up to January, Congress may finalize pending bills, address budget appropriations, and attempt to pass key policies before the transition of power to newly elected Congress members. Negotiations and compromises on last-minute “omnibus” bundle bills and other unresolved pieces of legislation are common. With 18,455 bills and resolutions currently before Congress, and only about 7% passing and becoming law¹, this session marks an important shift in both legislative priorities and political dynamics. 

The term “session” describes the series of meetings held by the House of Representatives and the Senate each year. With elections every two years, each Congress serves for two legislative sessions. Because of the 20th Amendment, Congressional sessions have started and ended at noon on the January 3rd of odd numbered years since 1935². Before this amendment, sessions began with inaugurations in March and ended with elections in November. This created a four month “lame duck” period where members of Congress serving out the rest of their term were limited in their ability to hold meetings and carry out major changes during their last days in office. This shift in the timing of Congressional sessions provides a framework for understanding how the legislative calendar unfolds, from the introduction of bills to the final adjournment.

The legislative timeline consists of bill introductions, committee hearings, debates, votes, and more, but it typically concludes with a sine die adjournment. “Sine die”—“without a day” in Latin—signifies an end to a session without a specified date to reconvene, meaning Congress will not meet again until the next session. The exact timing of adjournment depends on various factors including legislative deadlines and elections, so instead, a target adjournment date—December 20th for this session³—is set before the holidays.

Ending a session plays a crucial role in legislative strategy, as any bills that are not passed into law by the end of the session will “die” and must be reintroduced in a future session. This puts lawmakers under pressure to pass—or block—critical measures before the session ends. Issues such as budget, defense, and healthcare are frequently brought up in last-minute policy proposals, and multiple bills may be repackaged into a single one to be voted on. The end of session may even include Senate confirmations of federal positions and judicial appointments. 

This waiting period before the new year puts Congress under a magnified lens of public scrutiny. People evaluate the “productivity” of a Congressional session by how many significant bills it passes. This adds more pressure for parties to push initiatives in the final months, and especially during a Presidential Election year since both major parties pivot priorities to fulfill campaign promises. 

The legacy of the 118th Congress will depend on how it prioritizes different issues and navigates the political landscape. Recognizing the importance of this phase of the legislative process is the first step in understanding the nuance and impact of the Congressional session. 

References

¹https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/#bystatus 

²https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-20-date-changes-presidency-congress-and-succession

³https://www.senate.gov/legislative/2024_schedule.htm 

From the Courtroom to Congress: Bridging the Gap Between Law, Technology, and Policy

Earlier this month, the Congressional Internet Caucus Academy (CICA) hosted a panel discussion titled, “Tech Platforms and the 1st Amendment: Impact of Supreme Court Rulings.”
Separate from the Congressional Member Organization known as the Congressional Internet Caucus, CICA is a project launched by the Internet Education Foundation (IEF), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting informed policy making and digital literacy for all Internet stakeholders. The panel was moderated by Nadine Farid Johnson (Knight First Amendment Institute) and hosted panelists Steve DelBianco (NetChoice), Yaël Eisenstat (Cybersecurity for Democracy), Olivier Sylvain (Fordham University School of Law), and Vera Eidelman (ACLU).

In an effort to prevent social media platforms from deplatforming political officials, Florida and Texas enacted laws in 2021 that attempted to regulate how social media platforms exercised their content moderation guidelines and policies. However, NetChoice – an association of businesses and online consumers – challenged these laws on the basis of a violation of both the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. After hearing oral arguments in February of this year, the Supreme Court decided on both NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC at the beginning of this month. There was no clear cut decision; in fact, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to lower courts, citing the lower courts’ lack of proper analysis in relation to the First Amendment and the regulation as part of its reasoning.

After panelist Vera Eidelman set the scene with an extensive description of the First Amendment, she also pointed out that the Supreme Court justices made it clear in the majority that the First Amendment applies to activities both online and offline, with social media platforms exercising these protected rights at their own discretion. However, as online platforms exercise these rights, we encounter blurred lines, a facet of internet governance that panelist Steve DelBianco touched upon: how do we ensure we get content moderation “right,” while pleasing both the user community and the advertisers? 

Alongside Steve and Vera’s statements, panelist Yaël Eisentat offered an alternative perspective through highlighting some main points from the Supreme Court justices’ opinions: a need for further transparency in the tech industry’s algorithm explanations, and the possibility that not every action taken by a social media company will qualify as expression protected by the First Amendment. What this would look like, however, is not specified–the Supreme Court has left the door open as to what such legislation would look like. 

As the conversation continued, a common theme arose: the gray area that is internet governance – more specifically, content moderation – and a need for both Congress and the Supreme Court to modernize. It’s in the intersection of technology and policy that the concrete wires and machines that power our networks become much more abstract and opaque, even with the Internet’s nearly 60 years of existence. In the midst of this current lack of clarity, panelist Olivier Sylvain emphasized that cases such as these open up space for Congress and regulators to think creatively about navigating the territory and additional considerations accompanied by conversations about content moderation in online spaces, namely that of consumer protections and the meaning of “free expression.”

As Congress thinks through such considerations for legislation, TechCongress can step in to fill in the gaps. Since 2016, we have worked tirelessly to bridge the gap between technology and policy, placing 109 fellows in Congressional offices and committees as subject matter experts in pre-existing and emerging technology policy issues. While policymakers work on up-to-date content moderation and transparency legislation that reflect how the Internet operates today, it is imperative they are backed by tech talent eager to pitch in based on their own backgrounds in technical expertise.

If you believe you have the wealth of knowledge necessary to guide and support such conversations, please consider applying for our Congressional Innovation Fellowship for early to mid-career technologists! Applications close on August 5th, 2024.

Day in the Life of a TechCongress Fellow: Joel Burke

Ask a Congressional staffer what their day to day is like and you’ll never get the same answer twice. For many, that’s partially why working in Congress (or on “the Hill” as it’s colloquially known) is so fulfilling. One day may be dedicated to meeting with constituents and hearing about the issues most important to those your boss represents. Another day may be spent preparing for a congressional hearing by writing up a memo, providing background on witnesses, prepping potential questions for the Congressperson to ask, and elaborating on how the hearing fits into a broader legislative agenda both for the office and the caucus. No matter what the day entails, whether it be attending mundane meetings or developing novel policy ideas, Congressional staffers are in a privileged position to create real change and serve the American people.

As a staffer who worked in both the House and Senate, I’ve been fortunate enough to experience many different days and work on a wide array of tasks for my bosses. I have found that most of the work of a staffer falls into three distinct buckets: research and policymaking, meeting with constituents and relevant stakeholders, and member support.

The first bucket, research and policymaking, is probably what most people think of when they imagine working in Congress — finding legislative holes that need to be filled and coming up with the right law (or letter, or even just the right hearing question). However, unlike traditional staffers, as a TechCongress fellow you are in a unique position to use your expertise on technology matters to contribute to your job. In my case, having previously worked an at A.I. startup gave me tremendous insight as to how the office of Senator Rounds should approach A.I. legislation, and helped to inform my work in the A.I. Insight Forums and multiple National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) amendments.

The second bucket of constituent and stakeholder meetings is relatively straightforward, but incredibly underrated in its importance. Every meeting with a constituent is an opportunity to understand an issue directly affecting someone within your office’s district; which can then inform your offices, and sometimes your personal legislative priorities. When I served as a staffer, meeting with a university in the district hugely influence the legislative ideas I worked on, especially around high skill immigration and entrepreneurship, Meetings with other stakeholders are important too; lobbyists, especially those who are former Congressional staffers, can be a great source of information as to the priorities of businesses, and are also some of the most knowledgeable and experienced resources available on legislative processes. Critically as important is building your own trusted stakeholder network so that you have a “braintrust” to turn to when issues out of your immediate area of expertise come up — TechCongress is an incredible shortcut here, as you go into Congress already having your cohort and alumni who are always happy to help. (Although TechCongress is an amazing foundation, beginning to build your network should be one of your first priorities when you start out on the Hill.)

The final bucket, member support, is the most vaguely defined, partially because every member and every office is very different. You’ll frequently hear that Congress isn’t a unified body, but rather hundreds of small businesses — and that’s the truth. If you’re like me, you might start out by joining a House office alongside a new member who is still learning the ropes, In many instances, you may have colleagues younger than yourself who have never heard of things like OKRs or standups, or even had a job outside Congress. On the other hand, you might end up working for a committee with staffers who have been there for a decade or longer and are old hands with deep real-world experience, or even working for members who wrote some of the original legislation affecting the tech industry. How you provide support to the member (directly or through the chain of command) also varies widely, and will mostly be based on the member’s preference. Because of this, it is important to adapt. Some members are rigid and structured and have defined processes to follow, and some will text you on the fly to get your thoughts. What is important to remember is that it is their name on the door — they are who the voters chose to represent them — and it’s your job to make sure they’re best equipped to serve their constituents in the way that they are most effective.

An average day in the life of a Congressional staffer is impossible to describe because it is constantly changing. Instead, I’ll share a few of my favorite moments to provide a taste of what a Congressional staffer may be in for. Some treasured memories include: standing by the water cooler and talking with the senator about the emerging impact of drone warfare and its role in the Nagorno-Karabakh ; seeing amendments I had drafted included in the NDAA and eventually pass into law; introducing my first bill; writing a letter that ended up being covered in Wired; and so many small moments with colleagues and friends celebrating a win or lamenting a loss.

Of course, it’s not all glamor and wins — there were scores of times where I was told my idea was impossible or had been tried before (take this feedback with a big grain of salt), probably hundreds of hours spent in meetings that could have been emails and frustrating bureaucratic hoops to jump through, numerous angry or uncomfortable meetings with constituent, and even a day spent sheltering in the office during an active shoorter incident.

Despite this, I wouldn’t trade my experience for anything and consider my time in Congress as a highlight of my career and an honor to be able to give back to my country in some small way. If you’re still wondering what a day in the life of a TechCongress fellow is like, I urge you to apply and find out for yourself firsthand.

---

Joel Burke

This piece was written by TechCongress alum, Joel Burke (Congressional Innovation Fellowship, January 2022). Joel is a technologist and Georgetown University alumnus based in Washington D.C., with experience working on four continents, advising startups and governments alike. Most notably, Joel led a team for the Republic of Estonia’s e-Residency program, and has advised members of Congress on tech and AI policy. During his time with TechCongress, Joel served with the office of Representative August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and worked on issues related to technology, defense, and energy. Now, Joel currently works for Mozilla, helping the company address urgent policy questions in A.I., privacy, and national security.

Website: rebootinganation.com

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joelburke1/

Twitter: @billyjoelburke

TechCongress Bio