Short answer: it depends on what “improving” means to you. On some metrics, the federal government has become more assertive and less regulated; on others, management capacity, legal durability, and public trust have worsened. Here’s a concise, sourced overview since Donald Trump was sworn in again on January 20, 2025.
Where supporters see improvement
•Immigration enforcement: DHS and DOJ changed asylum and work-authorization rules and report far fewer Southwest border encounters than in 2023–2024; CBP’s public dashboard shows sharp declines through FY2026. Pew also notes encounters at multidecade lows (methods differ and data are revised).[1]
•Deregulation/permits: A renewed, government‑wide deregulatory push (e.g., EO 14192) and agency rule rollbacks have been a central management focus; Brookings tracks dozens of reversals and delays across labor, environmental, and other rules.[2]
•Economy (headline indicators): Real GDP growth accelerated in 2026 Q3, while unemployment has hovered near the low‑4% range in recent months. IMF and BEA show growth holding up, though with inflation risks; FRED/BLS show unemployment about 4.2% in Sept. 2026.[3]
Where critics see harm
•Politicization of the civil service: The administration reinstated and expanded the prior “Schedule F” concept (now “Schedule Policy/Career” and related categories) to let agencies move thousands of policy‑influencing career jobs outside normal civil‑service protections. The orders and implementation actions (EO 14171 and EO 14410) are documented in official records and CRS analysis; Federal News Network reported roughly 8,000 positions affected.[4]
•Capacity, vacancies, and turnover: Independent trackers and reporting describe unusually high vacancy rates and faster churn among political appointees compared with recent administrations—conditions that can slow decisionmaking and oversight.[5]
•Legal durability: Multiple high‑profile rules and directives have faced court pushback (for example, parts of 2025–2026 health and social‑policy changes); repeated defeats can create operational uncertainty and compliance costs for agencies and states.[6]
•Fiscal position and trust: Despite cyclical economic strength, CBO projects very large federal deficits around $1.9 trillion in FY2026, and surveys show record‑low trust in the federal government and record‑high perceptions of corruption. These are headwinds for governance regardless of party.[7]
Bottom line
•If “improving” means stricter border control and fewer federal rules, you can point to measurable changes in those areas. If it means stronger institutional capacity, stable staffing, legally durable policy, fiscal consolidation, and higher public trust, the picture looks worse. Reasonable people disagree because they weight these goals differently.[2]
If you tell me which aspects you care most about—immigration, regulation, economic management, civil service, budgeting, or public trust—I can dig into those metrics and the latest data for a more tailored assessment.
Backs: “Independent trackers and reporting describe unusually high vacancy rates and faster churn among political appointees compared with recent administrations—conditions that can slow decisionmaking and oversight.”
Backs: “Multiple high‑profile rules and directives have faced court pushback (for example, parts of 2025–2026 health and social‑policy changes); repeated defeats can create operational uncertainty and compliance costs for agencies and states.”
Backs: “Despite cyclical economic strength, CBO projects very large federal deficits around $1.9 trillion in FY2026, and surveys show record‑low trust in the federal government and record‑high perceptions of corruption. These are headwinds for governance regardless of party.”