National Goals, Private Ingenuity: Rekindling the Spirit of American Collaboration

From IBM building mission-critical systems for NASA to the acceleration of the Manhattan Project powered by America’s brightest scientists and engineers, the story of U.S. innovation was once defined by deep collaboration between the public and private sectors. Over the past several decades, however, the focus of American innovation has shifted. Efforts once aimed at advancing national progress have increasingly turned toward refining consumer experiences. Much of today’s technical talent is concentrated in building tools for convenience, entertainment, and efficiency, rather than addressing the country’s most pressing public needs.

As outlined in The Technological Republic by Palantir co-founder Alex Karp and author Nicholas W. Zamiska, this shift has left significant innovation gaps in areas like defense, medicine, education, and basic science. Palantir was created as a response to this disconnect, moving away from conventional corporate models and embracing a more collective, adaptive structure—drawing inspiration from systems like honeybee swarms and improvisational theater, where creative tension leads to effective problem-solving. In its early days, the company developed software to help locate roadside bombs in active combat zones. It was grounded in the belief that those building technology have a responsibility to contribute to the broader well-being of society through ruthless pragmatism and a focus on achieving shared national goals.

This article examines how legal frameworks and corporate governance structures can help reestablish a stronger connection between private enterprise and public interest. By rethinking the relationship between business and government, we can work toward a more constructive alignment of innovation with the shared values and needs of American society.

The Rise of Public Benefit Companies

Some have asserted that there is an innate conflict between the fiduciary duties of managers and pursuing public benefit causes. More specifically, managers of a corporation are consigned with the responsibility of pursuing the company’s interests to the greatest extent feasible, which means maximizing profitability and shareholder value. This obligation may result in managers determining that they would be placing the public interests over the company’s by pursuing social welfare projects, violating their duty of loyalty to the corporation. In turn, even managers who are proponents of corporate activism have stagnated from pursuing this goal.

In response to this divide between social responsibility and shareholder loyalty, Public Benefit Corporations (“PBCs”) were established. PBCs also referred to as B-Corps are a hybrid corporate structure that remain a for-profit business while pursuing public benefit causes. In particular, the governance of a PBC requires that directors and managers pursue social causes and remain transparent in their execution of these goals by publishing annual reports. The rise of corporate social responsibility underscores that many consumers and activist shareholders positively respond to public benefit causes, thus bolstering their loyalty to a company’s products or services. As a result, customer attainment and retention increase, and profits increase.

A notable example of a PBC includes Open AI. The company has recently announced that it intends to transition from a for-profit company to a public benefit corporation. Similarly, another AI company, Anthropic, has organized itself as a public benefit company. However, significant levels of water and electricity are needed to run the generators powering each AI inquiry. Moreover, the “data labelers” used to cipher through extremely harmful data sets to make the AI programs safe for training are often paid minuscule wages and subjected to traumatizing images to earn their salary. In turn, how committed can these entities be to public welfare when creating a product that seemingly substantially harms society? Thus, some critics have questioned the companies’ true loyalty to public benefit causes, considering the environmental and social harms often associated with AI programs.

However, a question arises as to whether the goals of fiduciary duties and social responsibility are always in conflict. Can both be achieved in a normal for-profit corporation entity? Federal incentive programs, such as tax breaks and government contracts, could encourage companies to balance profit with societal benefit, especially in sectors like education, healthcare, and technology. A strategic legislative approach fostering closer collaboration between government and private companies could drive innovation to address systemic issues, such as social inequities in education and medical technology.

Streamlining Government Procurement: FASA & Reform

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994 marked a pivotal reform in U.S. government procurement. FASA aimed to modernize and simplify the acquisition process, encouraging government agencies to engage with commercial technology firms. Before FASA, the procurement system was cumbersome, often preventing cutting-edge private-sector solutions from reaching government needs. FASA’s goal was to remove unnecessary barriers, allowing innovative private companies to offer cost-effective and efficient solutions, particularly in defense and technology sectors.

Despite FASA’s intentions, challenges persisted in its implementation. The Department of Defense (DoD) continued to develop in-house systems instead of leveraging commercial solutions, undermining FASA’s core principles. This issue came to a head in 2016 when Palantir sued the U.S. Army for violating FASA by failing to consider commercial software before developing its own system. The court ruled in Palantir’s favor, underscoring the importance of adhering to FASA’s mandate for commercial engagement.

In April 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order aimed at addressing ongoing challenges in federal procurement. The “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” executive order seeks to streamline the procurement process by eliminating outdated regulations and encouraging federal agencies to prioritize commercial products and services. This order reinforces the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994, which sought to integrate private-sector innovation into government solutions for greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

These recent efforts by the Trump administration highlight a potential shift, where private companies may play an increasingly important role in addressing government needs. By aligning public procurement processes with the innovation of the private sector, there is potential for improved national readiness and broader societal progress.

The Way Forward: Proposed Legislative Changes

The Trump administration’s executive order incentivizes private companies to collaborate with the federal government but does nothing for companies not contracting with it. To incentivize the development of technology for the benefit of society generally, changes to two existing incentives for corporations could have the desired effects: 1) The existing R&D tax incentive, and 2) the fiduciary duty of corporate directors.

The former incentivizes reinvestment into research and development but it does not take into account the societal impact of the technological developments that come from it. For example, technologies that automate processes and replace workers without adding significant improvements to efficiency or quality of a product or system only have a detrimental effect on society. This tax incentive could be limited to investments in R&D that successfully pass a three-factor balancing test: 1) expected profitability; 2) improvements in quality or efficiency; and 3) impact on society and the company’s workforce. This would eliminate tax breaks for technological advances that have a net negative impact on society.

The fiduciary duty of corporate agents has been the primary driver of a shareholder primacy, a form of corporate governance that focuses on maximizing the value of shares ignoring societal costs. This model has drawn consistent criticism from legislators and academics. It was also briefly reconsidered by the Business Roundtable, which in 2019 issued a statement suggesting a shift toward stakeholder capitalism—but ultimately reaffirmed its commitment to shareholder primacy. While the PBC initiative is showing promising results, PBCs still remain a small fraction of the total number of corporations. One approach to keep in mind is Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Accountable Capitalism Act. The bill notably called for the including a public benefit purpose in the corporate charter. This may have the desired effect of incentivizing publicly beneficial technological development by businesses. Although the bill was criticized as unrealistic, it may be worth reconsidering in the future should PBCs and self-regulation fail to nudge technology in the right direction.

Conclusion

Procurement reform and corporate innovation models like PBCs offer complementary paths to reuniting private enterprise with public mission. These tools, when aligned, create a dynamic framework for mission-driven collaboration.

In a time of political polarization, collective progress may seem elusive. Yet by framing innovation as a shared endeavor—guided by common purpose—we can shift from individual gain to national good. Legal reforms and corporate structures already hint at a renewed sense of civic responsibility. By realigning incentives and embracing our collective duty, we can revive the spirit of partnership that once powered American innovation.

*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.