Table of Contents
Amy Tong and the AI Working Group Taking Shape at Ballard Partners
Amy Tong is leading a new AI working group at Ballard Partners, bringing deep public-sector technology experience into a firm operating at the center of Washington’s policy and advisory economy. Tong previously served as California’s Chief Information Officer, overseeing one of the largest state IT operations in the US. That background matters because the hard part of bringing AI into government is rarely the model itself. It is the work around it: procurement rules, aging systems, data handling, public accountability, and the political consequences when a technology program fails.
Tong spent years steering California’s sprawling technology infrastructure as the state’s Chief Information Officer. She built her reputation through work involving California’s Office of Digital Innovation and the Department of Technology, helping the most populous US state navigate legacy-system modernization and pandemic-era digital services. Those are not abstract policy exercises. They are the kind of large, difficult government operations where a promising technical idea has to survive budgets, contracts, security reviews, competing agencies, and the practical needs of the people using the service.
That experience gives the new working group a more useful starting point than the usual AI conversation, which can get stuck between broad enthusiasm and broad alarm. Government buyers are not simply deciding whether AI is impressive. They are deciding whether a tool can be bought fairly, deployed responsibly, supervised over time, and defended when legislators, journalists, watchdogs, or residents ask how it works.
For companies selling AI systems, that is a different challenge from persuading an enterprise customer to run a pilot. Public-sector technology decisions can involve a much longer chain of scrutiny. An agency may need to establish what data can be used, who remains responsible for decisions, how errors will be identified, and whether the system fits rules that were written before generative AI became a mainstream business priority. The technology sector often treats those questions as friction. In government, they are the job.
That is why Tong’s move is a notable career pivot without being a surprising one. The private sector increasingly wants people who understand how government technology actually moves from proposal to implementation. There is a growing market for advice that can connect corporate strategy with public policy, especially as AI vendors seek government contracts and established contractors decide how to incorporate AI into existing offerings.
The significance of the appointment is not just that Ballard Partners has added an AI label to its technology work. It is that the firm is putting someone with experience in large-scale public administration at the helm of a structured AI working group. That suggests an effort to treat AI as a policy and procurement issue as much as a technical one.
Why This AI Working Group Matters Right Now
Ballard Partners is expanding its technology practice at a critical moment for AI regulation and procurement policy. The firm is not a household name outside political circles, but inside them it carries serious weight. Founded by Brian Ballard, a longtime Republican fundraiser and former lobbyist for Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, Ballard Partners has built a reputation for access and results across both parties.
Adding a structured AI working group with Tong at the helm signals that the firm sees AI governance and procurement as a long-term, high-value practice area rather than a passing trend. That assessment is difficult to dispute. AI is now being discussed not only as a software category but as an issue touching workforce policy, privacy, security, competition, public services, and the rules governing federal and state purchasing.
The policy stakes are especially high because government is simultaneously a regulator, a major buyer of technology, and a provider of services that affect people at scale. A rule that changes how an agency evaluates an AI supplier can shape a market just as directly as a rule aimed at the private sector. Procurement language, vendor requirements, and contract oversight may sound less dramatic than headline-grabbing legislation, but they can determine which systems get deployed and under what conditions.
That makes government-savvy AI advisors more valuable as federal and state policy debates intensify. The demand is not merely for advocates who can describe AI’s potential. It is for people who can translate between technical claims, institutional constraints, and the legal or political questions that surround public adoption.
Washington is in the middle of a genuinely complicated debate about how to govern AI. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has been central to shaping voluntary AI risk frameworks, while Congress and federal agencies continue wrestling over how binding any AI rules should actually be. That divide between voluntary guidance and enforceable obligations is not a minor detail. It affects how companies plan products, assess liability, and decide what evidence they will need to provide to public-sector customers.
There is also no single “AI policy” question waiting for a single answer. One agency may be concerned with procurement integrity; another may focus on the security of AI-generated code; another may be trying to determine how automated systems fit within existing service delivery. Concerns around AI governance and procurement do not disappear simply because a product performs well in a controlled demonstration. They become sharper when that product is introduced into a real institution with real records, real users, and real consequences.
California is a particularly relevant vantage point for this work because state government is large enough for technology policy to become operational policy quickly. The lessons from managing sprawling infrastructure are not necessarily about choosing a single preferred technology. They are about recognizing that adoption is shaped by the systems already in place. Legacy environments, organizational incentives, and public expectations can turn a seemingly straightforward deployment into a difficult modernization project.
For Ballard Partners, Tong’s leadership gives the AI working group credibility on that operational side of the conversation. For clients, the potential value is clearer-eyed counsel: not just how to participate in an AI policy debate, but how policy debates may affect the path from product development to government use.
The larger message is that AI has moved beyond the stage where companies can treat government engagement as an afterthought. As rules, frameworks, and procurement practices take shape, the firms that understand the machinery of public technology will have an advantage. Ballard Partners appears to be positioning itself for that reality, and Amy Tong’s experience makes the move more consequential than a routine expansion of a technology practice.
