Is Donald Trump improving the US government?

No simple yes/no exists—“improving the US government” is subjective and depends on metrics (efficiency, waste reduction, regulatory burden, fiscal discipline, competence, corruption, service delivery, or ideological alignment). As of late 2025, the second Trump administration has pursued aggressive downsizing, deregulation, and restructuring via the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative (led with Elon Musk’s involvement), Schedule F reinstatement, and agency cuts. Results show measurable reductions in some areas of bureaucracy and spending growth, mixed operational outcomes, legal/political pushback, and no wholesale transformation yet. Data over rhetoric.It depends on the metric. “Improving the US government” is not a binary outcome. It can mean smaller/more efficient bureaucracy, less waste and regulation, greater accountability to elected leadership, better fiscal outcomes, stronger core functions (defense, borders, veterans’ services), or broader measures like competence, service delivery, institutional knowledge, and long-term sustainability. As of late 2025 into 2026 (well into Trump’s second term), there have been real, measurable changes—some that align with campaign promises of “draining the swamp” and efficiency, others that fall short or create new problems. Claims of trillion-dollar savings were heavily overstated; structural spending drivers (entitlements, interest, defense) remain largely untouched.[1]

Workforce and Bureaucracy Reduction (Clear Progress on Size)

The federal civilian workforce saw the largest peacetime reduction on record: roughly 9–12% net decline (around 220,000–280,000+ fewer employees by various counts through late 2025/early 2026), returning headcount to roughly mid-2010s levels. This came via deferred resignation/buyout programs (“Fork in the Road”), reductions in force, attrition, hiring freezes (with exceptions for national security/immigration), and agency downsizing.[2]

•Agencies like USAID were effectively gutted or eliminated; Education Department staff cut deeply (aiming toward elimination); significant reductions at IRS, HHS, and others. ICE expanded for enforcement priorities.

•Buyouts involved substantial paid administrative leave costs (GAO estimates in the $6.7–9.5 billion range for leave payments), a one-time hit that critics call inefficient but defenders note buys permanent annual savings (federal fully loaded employee cost ~$150k/year).

•Some rehiring occurred later in mission-critical areas; institutional knowledge loss and temporary disruptions (e.g., processing delays) were widely reported. Schedule Policy/Career (rebranded Schedule F) was reinstated, converting thousands (initially ~8,000 senior policy roles, short of earlier 50k estimates) to easier-to-fire status for greater presidential accountability—praised by supporters for ending “resistance,” criticized as politicizing the civil service.[3]

This is a genuine shrinkage of the administrative state, reversing prior growth. Whether it improves function depends on if the remaining workforce is more effective or hollowed out.

Spending, Deficit, and “Efficiency” Claims (Limited/Mixed Results)

DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency, with Elon Musk’s early involvement) disrupted contracts, grants, leases, and programs, claiming tens to hundreds of billions in savings (official tallies later around $200B+ range combining various categories; site claims varied). Independent analyses (NYT, Cato, others) found major overstatements: many “terminations” were accounting adjustments (ceiling reductions without actual de-obligations), already-expiring items, or errors. Real cash savings were far smaller (low billions in verifiable de-obligations beyond baseline trends). Spending rose overall in 2025 (e.g., ~$248B higher in first 11 months vs. prior year); DOGE did not bend the total outlay curve because ~90%+ of the budget is mandatory (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), defense, and interest—areas largely untouched.[1]

•Deficits remained high: FY2025 ~$1.8 trillion; FY2026 tracking ~$1.9–2+ trillion range (influenced by tax cuts in the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” tariffs providing some revenue offset later challenged, interest costs rising). Debt-to-GDP stayed elevated/near or above 100%. Tax cuts and priorities increased projected long-term deficits even as some rescissions and discretionary restraint occurred.[4]

•Positive notes: Identified some waste/fraud/improper payments; credit card audits, contract reviews; Congress passed some rescissions. Musk himself later called it “a little bit/somewhat successful.” Disruptions hit foreign aid, research, and local providers hard.

Net: Smaller discretionary footprint in targeted areas, but no fiscal turnaround. Entitlement reform (the real driver) requires Congress and remains politically toxic.

Deregulation (Strong Progress)

A signature 10-to-1 (or better) deregulatory executive order produced high ratios of rollbacks to new rules. FY2025 claims included hundreds of deregulatory actions vs. handful of new ones (ratios reported as high as 129-to-1 in admin tallies), with net cost savings estimates from ~$130B to $200B+. Major examples: power sector GHG rules (hundreds of billions claimed savings), beneficial ownership reporting relief, workplace/safety/energy rules, TSA changes. Paperwork hours reduced. This continues first-term trends and exceeds Biden-era additions. Critics cite environmental/safety trade-offs and litigation; supporters point to lower compliance costs, energy prices, and growth.[5]

Other Changes and Trade-offs

•Priorities realigned: Stronger immigration enforcement, energy (fossil fuels back in federal buildings), veterans’ claims processing claimed as record; DEI/civil rights offices cut; some media contracts ended; return-to-office mandates.

•Disruptions and criticisms: Agency mission shifts or eliminations; research freezes; temporary inefficiencies from new approval layers or staff gaps (Social Security, IT support cited); legal challenges (hundreds of suits); buyout costs; foreign aid fallout. Some agencies later restaffed. Polarization intensified; competence debates rage (loyalty vs. expertise).

•Broader context: Government still delivers core services; private-sector job growth emphasized over public. Long-term effects on capacity (e.g., tax collection, science, diplomacy) will take years to assess fully. No evidence of systemic “corruption purge” beyond rhetoric and personnel changes.

Bottom line: Trump is shrinking and reorienting parts of the government apparatus more aggressively than recent predecessors—workforce down significantly, regulations rolled back substantially, some waste targeted, executive control tightened. This matches “smaller government” and accountability goals for many supporters and shows concrete results on size and red tape. It has not delivered promised massive spending cuts or deficit reduction (structural realities + policy choices like tax cuts dominate), and the process involved chaos, overclaimed savings, knowledge loss, and service risks that critics reasonably call net damage or inefficiency in the short term. Improvement is real in efficiency/size metrics for those who prioritize them; incomplete or counterproductive for those focused on fiscal health, continuity, or expansive government roles. Outcomes will hinge on sustained implementation, court rulings, Congress, and economic results over the full term. Data evolves; primary sources (Treasury, OPM, GAO, CBO, Federal Register) beat partisan spin.

Citations (5)

1nytimes.comNews and mediaquality 0.86
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/us/politics/doge-musk-trump-analysis.html
Backs: “It can mean smaller/more efficient bureaucracy, less waste and regulation, greater accountability to elected leadership, better fiscal outcomes, stronger core functions (defense, borders, veterans’ services), or broader measures like competence, service delivery, institutional knowledge, and long-term sustainability.”
2cato.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://www.cato.org/blog/doge-produced-largest-peacetime-workforce-cut-record-spending-kept-rising-0
Backs: “Claims of trillion-dollar savings were heavily overstated; structural spending drivers (entitlements, interest, defense) remain largely untouched.”
3lawfaremedia.orgNews and media
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/inside-the-implementation-of-schedule-policy-career
Backs: “Buyouts involved substantial paid administrative leave costs (GAO estimates in the $6.7–9.5 billion range for leave payments), a one-time hit that critics call inefficient but defenders note buys permanent annual savings (federal fully loaded employee cost ~$150k/year).”
4azfreenews.comNot yet classified
https://azfreenews.com/2026/09/u-s-deficit-reaches-1-97-trillion-with-one-month-left-in-fiscal-year-2026/
Backs: “Spending rose overall in 2025 (e.g., ~$248B higher in first 11 months vs. prior year); DOGE did not bend the total outlay curve because ~90%+ of the budget is mandatory (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), defense, and interest—areas largely untouched.”
5miragenews.comNews and media
https://www.miragenews.com/trump-administration-achieves-record-1597615/
Backs: “A signature 10-to-1 (or better) deregulatory executive order produced high ratios of rollbacks to new rules.”