Original article: Google, Meta y reuniones sin registro: el estilo empresarial de Lincolao abre nuevo flanco en el Ministerio de Ciencia
The troubles for Ximena Lincolao continue to mount, starting with omitted companies, followed by the resignation of Deputy Secretary Rafael Araos and significant staff changes within the Ministry of Science. Recently, allegations of mass layoffs and increasing internal discontent have surfaced. Now, a new chapter reveals unregistered meetings and contacts with representatives connected to Google and Meta that, according to La Tercera, were not initially recorded in the lobbying platform.
This situation is not an isolated incident. Instead, it adds to an ongoing sequence of events that have been straining a ministry that rarely finds itself in the political spotlight. The minister, one of the technical figures the government of José Kast aimed to promote narratives of efficiency, innovation, and business speed within the public sector, is once again caught in a fundamental problem: governing is not managing a business.
While the difference may seem evident, it is crucial in this context. In the private sector, meetings can be resolved quickly through calls, direct contacts, and trust between executives. In contrast, every interaction with companies, lobbyists, or representatives of major corporations in government must adhere to transparency standards. This is not because every meeting is suspicious, but because the public has a right to know who meets whom, when, where, and why.
According to La Tercera, on Saturday, April 4, while still in the United States, Lincolao held a teleconference from her home with representatives connected to Google. The issue is that this meeting was not recorded in the lobbying register.
When asked by the aforementioned outlet, the minister denied deliberately violating regulations. Regarding the meeting, she stated, «we held a virtual meeting of a technical and administrative nature with BS Tecnología, a provider of the institutional email platform, and with members of Google Administration’s technical team.» She explained that the goal was to «coordinate the recovery of access to the institutional web domain console.»
This response seeks to frame the meeting as strictly technical and administrative. However, the underlying issue remains. When a minister meets with a supplier and teams linked to one of the world’s most influential tech giants, public standards cannot be reduced to a subsequent explanation. The concern is not simply whether lobbying occurred in the strict sense but rather traceability.
In other words, transparency serves not only to pursue irregularities once they arise but to prevent gray areas from developing. If a public official meets with private representatives concerning institutional matters, there should be a clear, timely, and verifiable record.
Meta, Rincón, and Another Unclear Visit
La Tercera also reported that five days later, on Thursday, April 9, back in Santiago after an incident at the Universidad Austral de Valdivia, Lincolao welcomed Energy Minister Ximena Rincón, accompanied by a lobbyist from Meta, at the ministry.
Social media recorded Rincón’s supportive visit. However, according to the same outlet, there was no public record of executives or representatives related to the tech company being present. Initially, there was also no record of this meeting in the lobbying platform.
What is documented, according to the reported information, is that Meta’s lobbyists met with Rincón at 1:00 PM that day. They subsequently visited Lincolao to express support following the previous day’s incident, even bringing her a bouquet of flowers. However, no record of this visit or the topics discussed was made.
According to La Tercera, members of Lincolao’s circle explained that the then-Deputy Secretary Rafael Araos met with representatives from Meta in the morning, which was registered in compliance with the Lobby Law. However, the afternoon visit involving the lobbyist and Rincón did not appear in the official records.
This raises a sensitive point. It’s not about turning a bouquet of flowers into evidence of anything, nor is it about insisting that every protocol greeting constitutes lobbying. The real issue is the expectation: when a lobbyist from a Big Tech company enters a ministry and ends up in a meeting with the ministry’s highest official, even during a supportive visit, the standard of transparency demands more than an informal explanation.
Internal Alert: The State Doesn’t Operate on Trust Alone
This episode, according to La Tercera, has raised internal alarms. Officials and advisors claim they have warned the minister multiple times that any meeting with representatives from companies or interest groups needed to be recorded, even if it was not formally requested under the Lobby Law. «The administrator always indicated as much,» stated a source cited by the publication.
This statement is significant as it takes the discussion out of the purely administrative realm. If internal warnings were indeed given, the problem would no longer be just a specific omission but a broader understanding of public power exercise.
In the private sector, speed is often seen as a virtue: resolve quickly, bypass procedures, call directly, unlock issues. In the State, that same logic can become problematic. Procedures are not just bureaucratic adornments: they are mechanisms of control, integrity, and public trust.
Thus, Lincolao’s unregistered meetings create a larger political flank. It’s not merely about conversing with technology companies, but because the Ministry of Science is a department where relationships with the private sector, innovation, data, artificial intelligence, and digital platforms must be managed with special care.
Google and Meta are not minor players. They are global corporations with economic interests, technological influence, and the capacity to pressure public agendas. Consequently, any contact with authorities demands utmost clarity.
Kast’s Business Narrative Collides with Institutional Integrity
This new episode resonates directly with the previous article from El Ciudadano titled “Governing is Not Running a Business: Lincolao Caught in Omitted Societies, Mass Layoffs, and Crisis in Science”. It discussed how the minister found herself at the center of a crisis combining asset omissions, internal tensions, the departure of high-ranking officials, and leadership shaped by the business-oriented ideology that Kast’s government has attempted to project onto the State.
Lincolao’s entry into the Ministry of Science was viewed as part of that strategic bet: technical profiles, private sector experience, a connection with the productive world, and a promise of swift management. On paper, this formula seemed appealing. In practice, the clash with institutional integrity has been much harsher.
The minister herself defended her orientation in front of La Tercera, stating, “Scientific and academic research is the heart of this ministry; without it, there is no knowledge to transfer.” She went on to add that “to make that science impactful for the country’s development, we need to better connect our scientific capacity with the productive sector.”
While this statement itself is not problematic, the key point is that this connection cannot be built as if the ministry were a business accelerator, a consultancy, or a networking table. In the State, the relationship with the private sector demands rules, records, and clear boundaries.
“She Has Another Speed”: The Cultural Clash Within the Ministry
According to La Tercera, those who have worked with Lincolao in recent months describe a blend of business speed, confidence in her convictions, and little willingness to adapt to institutional logic.
“She operates at a different speed and with a different logic,” insiders recounted to the cited outlet. Those sources indicated that the cultural clash was immediate. “She expected things to progress at a corporate pace. But the public sector functions differently, with processes, controls, and political discussions.”
This description aligns with the internal crisis observed in the Ministry of Science. The resignation of Araos and significant cabinet departures did not occur in a void. The allegations regarding daily treatment and tensions with teams also reveal ongoing friction between leadership presented as technical and efficient and a public apparatus that demands deliberation, formality, and balance.
Inside the ministry, according to La Tercera’s reporting, several officials describe a leadership marked by distrust towards teams and low tolerance for criticism. A recurring phrase among those who have worked with her has been: “In this place, I am the person who knows the most about science and technology.”
“You could arrive with all the technical, legal, or political arguments,” recounted a witness from within the ministry. “But she would dismantle everything based on that premise. It was a way of invalidating any counterpoint.”
Lincolao disputes this characterization. According to the minister, “leading such a strategic portfolio demands a high level of expectation, technical rigor, and an intense work pace.” She also denies there being a permanent climate of tension among officials.
Lincolao’s Unregistered Meetings: More Than an Administrative Omission
Lincolao’s defense attempts to frame the events within a technical logic: a meeting to resolve an access issue with Google, a supportive visit involving a representative from Meta, encounters that may not have the nature critics attribute to them.
However, politics does not operate solely on subsequent explanations. It also works through signals. The complex signal left by this episode is concerning: a minister already scrutinized for her management style is once again under fire due to untransparent contacts with private entities.
Therefore, this situation cannot be viewed as merely an agenda mishap. Lincolao’s unregistered meetings once again highlight the limitations of applying a business narrative to the State. Efficiency cannot supersede transparency. Speed cannot replace procedures. Personal trust cannot substitute for public control mechanisms.
This fundamental discussion arises. Kast has sought to present a business logic as a solution to the supposed slowness of the State. Yet, the State is not slow by whim— it operates by rules because it manages public goods, public power, and public information. When these rules are relativized, the result is not modernization but opacity.
Science Should Not Be a Gray Area Between Government and Big Tech
The Ministry of Science should be a showcase for public modernization. However, modernizing the State does not mean privatizing its logic or turning public management into a network of relationships with large tech companies. Modernization also means keeping records, clarifying agendas, safeguarding conflicts of interest, and recognizing that the relationship with Big Tech necessitates special vigilance.
This new challenge not only complicates Lincolao’s position but also undermines a central idea of Kast’s governance: the fantasy that the State can be fixed by importing managers, accelerating decisions, and treating public policy like it’s a business.
Governing is not about networking. Governing is not managing a personal brand. Governing is not hosting tech giants without the public being able to clearly see what happened, who was present, and what issues were addressed.
The crisis within the Ministry of Science no longer appears to be an isolated incident. It now seems a warning. When speed is confused with effectiveness, business with the State, and personal conviction with public authority, the result is not innovation. It is institutional disorder wrapped in technological rhetoric.
