Ecosystem building is coalition building
But ecosystem building is about bringing together diverse groups to support entrepreneurship, technology and economic development.
So despite national political turmoil, many local organizers remain focused on practical solutions and community-driven economic growth. Shared goals like job creation can bridge political divides.
One definition of justice is ensuring everyone has a fair shot at thriving.
That's what lights me up about entrepreneurship, technology and career training. It's also why I care about information resources (read: journalism) and the rule of law.
I'll talk to practically anyone who is serious about this work, even if I disagree with them on plenty else. This is the heart of ecosystem building, which I think of as the art of encouraging the big and the small, the weird and the square, the fast and the slow to inhabit the same environment. Not all species need to interact, and when they do some may even be at odds. My pursuit: Find the most important work that stitches together the most good-faith actors.
Ecosystem building is coalition building, then — and boy could we use coalition building right now.
This week, I recorded the next in Technically's ecosystem-building podcast with investor Brian Brackeen, the founding partner of Lightship Capital, and small business advocate Victor Hwang, the founder/CEO of Right to Start. What unites us is a passion for how local organizing and entrepreneurship define the American project. Our intention is to focus on that local work, which we've all found is better at uniting than dividing.
'When you start talking about entrepreneurship and the power to create jobs, to lift communities, to create wealth, to raise incomes, to fight poverty, fight inequality, it's pretty universal how [popular] that is,' Hwang said. 'But it's also one of those issues that doesn't get talked about much, which means it's still pretty fresh.'
Trouble is, I feel unable to ignore how a bombastic start to the Trump administration has impacted local organizing around the country. In addition to firing an estimated 200,000 federal workers and cutting federal funding less out of budgetary consequence than political motivation, the bipartisan Tech Hubs program has been under fire, as Technical.ly has reported, alongside data gathering and AI research.
And so, with a pledge to work to focus more on local, Hwang, Brackeen and I took some time to gather our advice for each other, and peers, that are in ecosystem building work around the country.
Local bright spots in entrepreneurship
Plenty of local organizing continues.
Brackeen praised Endeavor, a global network that supports entrepreneurs outside traditional venture capital strongholds like Silicon Valley and New York.
'[Endeavor is] doubling down on ecosystems and investing in positive entrepreneurs who create a multiplier effect in their communities,' Brackeen said.
Hwang, reflecting on a road trip he took last fall, emphasized the unlikely places where entrepreneurial energy is thriving.
'In Portland, Oregon, there's an effort to build a shoe innovation district in Old Town,' Hwang said. 'In Akron, Ohio, they turned an old Goodyear tire plant into Bounce Innovation Hub, a massive coworking and innovation space.'
The federal policy landscape: A challenge for local builders
Entrepreneurship-led economic development may be on the rise. But strategies developed under the climate and racial justice–focused industrial policy of the Biden administration are being scrutinized, if not abandoned altogether.
A report released last fall by Senate Republicans as an analysis of National Science Foundation grants titled ' DEI: Division. Extremism. Ideology. ' was recirculated this month by organizations attempting to redact politicized terms from their websites and applications.
Of the major innovation role research universities play in many regions, Brackeen said: 'If you're Columbus and your ecosystem is driven by Ohio State spin-offs, you could be affected more than, say, Tulsa, which relies on philanthropic private capital.'
'The news makes it seem like we're at war with each other, but when you actually visit communities, people are just focused on doing the work.'
Victor Hwang, Right to Start
Technical.ly's national Map of Innovation Ecosystems includes an index that relies heavily on the influence of major R&D investments. How much those investments change over time will shake up where technology is commercialized. Federally-funded Tech Hubs organizers are nervous.
Yet Hwang says on the ground, local organizers and entrepreneur supporters can only focus on what they can control — and many are doing just that.
'It's almost like we live in two different universes,' he said. 'The news makes it seem like we're at war with each other, but when you actually visit communities, people are just focused on doing the work.'
Coalition building as a path forward
As ecosystem builders look for ways to sustain momentum, the conversation turned to coalition building as a strategy for navigating political uncertainty. Hwang's Right to Start organization is actively working across political divides, launching in-state coalitions in places like Arkansas and Indiana, with plans for expansion into California, Michigan, Missouri, New York and North Carolina.
'We had over a dozen Right to Start Act bills introduced across states with vastly different political leadership,' he said. 'Creating an office of entrepreneurship, tracking entrepreneurs, shifting economic development priorities — all of these are ideas with broad appeal.'
Brackeen added that economic development strategies differ by region but ultimately share the same goal. 'Ohio's model is very different from New York's, but at the end of the day, they both want the same thing — thriving businesses,' he said. 'If you strip away the political middleman, it's clear that entrepreneurship is a common ground.'
Can local ecosystem builders continue to thrive in an era of political division? Hwang and Brackeen remain optimistic but realistic.
'This is still a bottom-up democracy,' Hwang said. 'Both parties haven't quite figured out how to tap into the energy of entrepreneurship, but the leader who does will have a major political advantage in the coming years.'
Policing language is easier than forging connections
My favorite social video of the week is from TikTok user @nopebrigade0 who identifies as a sociology PhD candidate and argues two of my favorite points: If you call everything fascism, the word loses meaning, and policing language is often classist virtue signaling.
After I published an op-ed critiquing Elon Musk for arrogantly overriding democratic ideals, plenty of readers criticized me for not being critical enough. Following my last Technical.ly column in which I argued that a Trump-championed witch hunt for DEI programs was no less an attack on free speech than mandating DEI language, one friend belittled my writing as daring to equate his political views with those of his political opponent. I find this unproductive.
As the social activist Bernice Johnson Reagon, who sadly died last year, put it: 'If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition.'
It is so much easier to police the language of someone you mostly agree with, than it is to build bridges to someone you mostly disagree with. Better to build a coalition around important issues we can agree on.
'What we need is a narrative of who we are together, who we are as a nation,' as that TikTok user eloquently puts it. 'It can be a big, expansive, wonderful one.'
National politics and federal priorities do shape state and local strategies. They did under the Biden administration, and they will under Trump. Activism is necessary, so do call your elected officials and attend town halls. For most of us though,the best path forward remains at the community level.
'People ascribe evilness to the 'other side' without actually knowing them,' Brackeen said. 'But when you focus on real entrepreneurs, real businesses, and real job creation, you can find common ground in any political environment.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Technical.ly
4 days ago
- Technical.ly
Universities are economic engines. Will they survive?
American higher education faces several intersecting challenges, including declining enrollment, reduced job prospects for graduates, demographic shifts and political funding pressures. International competition, particularly from China, is eroding the US's long-held research dominance, with experts pointing to immigration policy, lack of coordinated innovation strategy and underinvestment in science as key factors. Emerging reforms suggest paths forward for universities to adapt, re-engage with their communities and sustain their role as essential 'anchor institutions' for local economies. Victor Hwang's immigrant parents started a small business to help pay for his shot at an elite university that changed the course of his life. Brian Brackeen dropped out of a state school to start a tech career that led him to launch one of the country's few Black-led venture capital firms. Both represent how American higher education has changed over the last 50 years. Each can tell us something about where this country's colleges and universities might go in the future. No question it's a moment of peril. For centuries, universities have intended to do two things: create new scholarship, and train students in it. In the American style, this meant colleges and universities have been powerful economic engines, most notably through breakthrough invention. The world's first supercomputer and the mRNA research that powered the historically-fast deployment of the COVID-19 vaccine happened at the University of Pennsylvania. Johns Hopkins University researchers isolated the first human embryonic stem cells and landed the first spacecraft on an asteroid. Modern robotics and artificial intelligence were pioneered at Carnegie Mellon University. Examples like this come from across the country. Big breakthroughs are historic. More practically though, higher education commanded social currency in the United States by driving economic mobility for individuals. After the Second World War, elite universities established a merit-based admissions system. For a time, standardized tests gave kids from different backgrounds a better shot at prestigious schools. As the American economy changed, the so-called college wage premium grew. By 2012, a college-degree holder could expect nearly double the earnings of a peer with only a high school diploma. The relatively big generation of millennials stormed college campuses throughout that decade — reshaping cities along the way. The peak had already passed. College enrollment in the United States hit its zenith in 2010 and has declined since. Worse still, 2018 marked a reversal: For the first time on record, the unemployment rate for recent college graduates (those aged 22-27) was higher than the national average, and it has accelerated since the pandemic. Whether that's because of encroaching artificial intelligence or an over-supply of degree holders is for another story. The point is that existential threats are growing for US higher education. Alongside the so-called enrollment cliff, due in part to continuing demographic changes, American research universities are losing status abroad, and entangled in a political battle domestically. Where do we go from here? Hwang, founder of entrepreneurship advocacy group Right to Start, told me during a recent Builders Live podcast recording that universities are overdue for an overhaul, from their century-old curricula to how they handle innovation and research. 'The way our current university curricula are designed, they were created over a hundred years ago,' Hwang said. 'If I were running a university now, I would shift the focus toward how you apply knowledge to actually make stuff happen in the world — make people into builders, makers and doers.' Brackeen, a managing partner at Cincinnati-based venture firm Lightship Capital, agrees institutions must adapt. He advocates making higher education more flexible and accessible, reshaping the very structure of how universities deliver learning. 'This idea that you all have to start as one class and finish in a specific amount of time — why does it matter?' Brackeen said. 'Decoupling line-by-line matriculation would allow more people to participate.' American higher education is at a crossroads These shifts are not merely hypothetical. The data shows that American higher education is at a crossroads. Controversially, the Trump administration has withheld federal funding from a growing list of universities on cultural issues. University of Virginia's president resigned amid the pressure. The administration's anti-immigrant rhetoric is suppressing international students, long prized by college admissions for high tuition fees. Already cash-strapped community colleges are enacting budget cuts. Close to 100 colleges and universities are expected to close in he coming years, according to a Federal Reserve Bank analysis. Dozens have already shut down, of the close to 6,000 that exist. No question some consolidation and closures are an inevitable response to a changing landscape. Even higher ed insiders have acknowledged that colleges and universities let a liberal bias grow, leaving the trade politically vulnerable. Meanwhile, higher ed has suffered 'administrative bloat,' in which an arms race of services has propelled spiraling professional staff that do not contribute to core learning. So higher ed has problems, yes, but its importance is unrivaled. The Federal Reserve Bank's 'anchor institutions' initiative has quantified the economic impact of 'eds and meds,' or the preponderance of universities and health systems at the center of local economies. Weak regions rely on them, and strong regions are powered by them. What can be done about it? One key point from the Fed research is that colleges and universities ought not be seen as solely coastal phenomena. According to a analysis of federal data, every US state has at least one university that is among the 200 largest R&D spenders in the country, and most rank in the top 150 (South Dakota State University is a laggard). Each contributes meaningful inventions to our lives, and effective graduates to our communities. That story is lost on a growing number of Americans. University communication strategies matter. Elite schools like Harvard and Yale, with endowments in the tens of billions, attract particular criticism: that they're hedge funds with mascots hoarding resources rather than investing in broader economic growth. Competing for lower acceptance rates is an unjust — and politically tenuous — strategy for nonprofit institutions, Brackeen notes. Brackeen advocates for redistributing some of these financial resources across the higher education system, particularly to historically underfunded institutions. 'I would love to see the larger universities democratize their access to financial resources,' Brackeen said. 'Their immense war chests could provide critical support to smaller state institutions and HBCUs.' One analysis in the United Kingdom, which itself faces a high cost higher education system, advocated for a two-tier system: national institutions that should be evaluated on selective admissions and scientific breakthroughs, and local ones that should be evaluated on producing more in-demand graduates at ever lower costs. A 'lifelong-learning entitlement' is being piloted there, reflecting that though there may be fewer younger people now, a growing share of the population is older. Continuing education, both for career changing, upskilling and fulfillment, seem obvious priorities. The 'university retirement community' seems like a bet on that the international reputation of American research universities — long an undisputed advantage — is under pressure. According to Nature's latest global university rankings, only two US institutions remain in the top 10 (Harvard and MIT), while Chinese universities dominate. This marks a profound shift from two decades ago, when American institutions filled most top slots. Victor Hwang points to outdated federal immigration policies and a lack of strategic thinking about global competitiveness as partly responsible for this decline. 'We trained up the best minds in the world and sent them back home again,' Hwang said. 'We haven't fundamentally redesigned our scientific-industrial complex since World War II. We need to intentionally focus on innovation and entrepreneurial activity.' Whether the Trump administration's attacks allow that to happen, or not, remains unclear. One analysis is tracking more than $3.5 billion of federal funding to colleges and universities that is in question. But amid the gloom, signs of change are emerging, particularly from regions and institutions experiencing a renaissance. The Midwest, notably, is experimenting with solutions. Ohio, for instance, implemented the 'Ohio IP Promise,' which streamlined intellectual property rules across all state universities to accelerate innovation. Marshall University in West Virginia, under former Intuit CEO Brad Smith, now mandates design thinkin g as part of its freshman experience — a practical move to foster problem-solving and resilience in first-generation college students. These examples may offer a blueprint for broader reforms. 'There is not a vibrant ecosystem in our country that is not situated in some form or way to a university. They're vital,' Brackeen said. 'But they need to get off the sidelines and actively invest in communities again.'
Libya Observer
7 days ago
- Libya Observer
Washington welcomes gas MoU between Libya's NOC and America's ExxonMobil
The US Embassy in Libya has welcomed the announcement of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between American energy giant ExxonMobil and Libya's National Oil Corporation (NOC), aimed at facilitating the exploration and production of natural gas in Libyan offshore areas. The embassy said that the partnership would benefit not only the Libyan partners but also 'the American people and the US long-standing oil and gas industry.' The agreement comes at a critical time as Libya seeks to boost its energy production and attract foreign investment to develop its untapped resources—particularly in the gas sector, which is gaining increasing global importance. In its statement, the embassy expressed its satisfaction 'to see growing commercial partnerships that advance the prosperity of both the United States and Libya,' signaling a path for broader economic cooperation in the future. The NOC signed the MoU with ExxonMobil on Monday evening in the British capital, London. According to the NOC, the memorandum outlines plans for ExxonMobil to conduct detailed technical studies on four offshore blocks near Libya's northwestern coast and the Sirte Basin. The goal is to assess potential hydrocarbon resources through advanced geological and geophysical studies. It is worth noting that ExxonMobil had previously expressed strong interest in participating in the NOC's latest licensing round, which offered 22 offshore and onshore blocks for investment. Tags: US Embassy ExxonMobil National Oil Corporation
Technical.ly
28-07-2025
- Technical.ly
As Trump admin promotes AI plan, experts consider next steps for regulation
As the debate over artificial intelligence regulation intensifies, the divide over how and whether to rein in the technology is becoming increasingly stark. That dilemma was on display yesterday at Broadband Breakfast's latest weekly live virtual session, where a panel of experts debated competing visions for the future of AI. The panel aired the same day the Trump administration announced its AI action plan, a series of policy recommendations that pushed scaling back regulations and eliminating what a statement called 'ideological bias' in AI. The plan outlines priorities including expanding data center infrastructure and promoting American AI technology in both government and private sectors. The online discussion was moderated by Drew Clark, CEO of Breakfast Media and a longtime advocate for broadband expansion. As part of the organization's work to cover tech developments and broadband issues, Clark regularly hosts the weekly panels, which cover a wide range of topics related to internet policy. The most recent discussion touched on issues such as federal versus state AI regulations and the potential impact of AI on jobs. Here are a few key takeaways from the discussion. Best regulator remains unclear Since the president's reconciliation bill dropped a proposed AI moratorium, which would have barred states from regulating AI for 10 years, experts differ on how to best approach AI regulation. Sarah Oh Lam, senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, emphasized the need to strike a balance between protecting state interests and fostering AI innovation. She noted that while many existing state laws are narrow and sector-specific, targeting areas like employment or judicial proceedings, recent legislation in states like Colorado and California takes a much broader approach. 'I think it's more art than science … coming to the right balance of being able to set a floor to protect innovation and advancement of frontier models, but also letting states have some local jurisdiction,' Lam said. Chris Chambers Goodman, a professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law in Los Angeles, also acknowledged the downsides of a patchwork of state laws, warning that inconsistencies in definitions and regulatory scope could lead to compliance challenges and legal uncertainty. At the same time, she argued that states should serve as laboratories for experimenting with new regulations. The scholar, whose work focuses on equal protection issues including algorithmic bias, is concerned about the shift from the Biden administration's focus on safety and privacy to the Trump administration's push for rapid AI acceleration. 'We're supposed to let the states try things out, come up with rules and regulations, and then after studying if these have been effective, Congress could decide on legislation that was actually based on best practices,' Goodman said. How Trump's plan influences competition with China The experts also debated the role of China in shaping US AI policy, offering sharply contrasting views on whether the United States should treat artificial intelligence as a geopolitical race. While some panelists called for urgency and limited regulation to stay ahead, others warned that framing AI development as a race with China could lead to risky, short-sighted decisions. Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the free market-focused R Street Institute, argued that the US is locked in a 'stiff competition with China,' where leadership in AI has national security and ideological implications. He supported the Trump administration's new plan as a step toward fostering innovation and asserting American leadership in emerging technologies. 'It's not just about money and commerce,' Thierer said. 'It's also about values.' Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law took a more cautious view. While he agreed that the US should remain competitive, he pushed back against the 'race' narrative, questioning what winning actually means in a fast-evolving field where breakthroughs are quickly matched. Arbel warned that racing ahead without proper safeguards could create harms that are difficult to undo, especially as AI systems become less transparent. 'I don't love the race metaphor, and I think it leads us down a very dark road where we have to win no matter what the price is,' Arbel said. The people's role in responsible AI use Goodman warned that AI use in government services can impact due process. She cited Covid-era welfare benefits systems that used algorithms to flag people as fraudulent based on frequent address changes, which were common due to the instability of the pandemic. 'The government owes its citizens and residents the right to due process,' she said. 'And when decisions are made by AI technologies that are infringing on those rights, then we really do have a big issue.' Lam also pointed out how humans still play a role in deploying and interpreting AI tools and how that can affect liability moving forward. 'Officials have choices between different models,' Lam said. 'So one pushback is: How is AI different from just software liability?' Maria Eberhart is a 2025-2026 corps member for Report for America, an initiative of The Groundtruth Project that pairs emerging journalists with local newsrooms. This position is supported in part by the Robert W. Deutsch Foundation and the Abell Foundation. Learn more about supporting our free and independent journalism.
