Is Donald Trump improving the US government?

Whether Donald Trump is "improving" the U.S. government is a subject of intense debate, reflecting fundamentally different philosophies on the role, size, and accountability of the federal bureaucracy.

Since taking office for his second term in January 2025, President Trump has enacted sweeping changes to the structure of the federal government. Supporters argue these changes are making the government leaner, more efficient, and more accountable to the American people. Critics, however, contend that these reforms are undermining the competence of public institutions, eroding the nonpartisan civil service, and disrupting essential services.

The primary arguments from both sides of the debate center around key initiatives of his second term.

The Case for "Improvement" (The Proponents' View)

Supporters of the administration’s actions argue that the federal government had become an bloated, unaccountable "administrative state" that resisted the will of democratically elected leaders. From this perspective, Trump’s reforms are improving government by:

Upon taking office, Trump established the temporary Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which operated until July 2026. The administration reported that DOGE’s initiatives—which focused on modernizing outdated government software, automating processes (such as federal retirement systems), and cutting redundant programs—saved taxpayers roughly $215 billion.

Through the reinstatement of Schedule Policy/Career (formerly known as Schedule F), the administration converted thousands of high-level career civil servants into "at-will" employees. Supporters argue this allows the president to fire bureaucrats who actively resist or fail to implement the administration’s policies. They contend that the executive branch must ultimately be answerable to the president, who was elected by the public, rather than operating as an independent, unelected "deep state".

The administration has pushed aggressive regulatory rollbacks, streamlining environmental reviews and permitting processes to accelerate housing, energy, and infrastructure development. Proponents argue that reducing these regulatory hurdles lowers costs for everyday Americans and fosters domestic economic growth.

The Case Against "Improvement" (The Critics' View)

Critics—including democratic lawmakers, federal employee unions, and public administration experts—argue that the administration’s reforms are dismantling essential government capabilities and politicizing the civil service. From this perspective, the reforms are damaging the government by:

Opponents strongly condemn the Schedule Policy/Career reclassifications. They argue that stripping civil service protections from thousands of senior career professionals risks returning the U.S. to a 19th-century "spoils system," where federal jobs are awarded based on political loyalty rather than professional merit and expertise. Critics warn that this transition leads to a loss of institutional knowledge, as qualified experts are replaced by political appointees.

Critics point to the heavy toll of the DOGE-driven cost-cutting measures, which triggered the separation of over 260,000 federal employees through layoffs, early retirements, and resignations. Opponents argue these rapid workforce reductions severely disrupted the functioning of federal agencies and led to critical staffing shortages, forcing several departments to try to reverse these cuts after DOGE dissolved in mid-2026.

Those against Trump’s regulatory reforms argue that rolling back rules on the environment, public health, and labor safety places corporate profits ahead of public welfare. They contend that regulatory bodies are being weakened to the point of being unable to adequately protect Americans from pollution, unsafe working conditions, or financial fraud.

Conclusion

Whether these actions represent an improvement depends on one’s view of how the executive branch should function: