No objective yes/no answer exists—“improving the US government” is inherently subjective. It depends on metrics (efficiency, spending, regulation, staffing, service delivery, corruption, constitutional fidelity, outcomes for citizens), time frame (first term 2017–2021 vs. second term starting January 2025), and political values. Claims of dramatic improvement or catastrophe are usually partisan. Below is a fact-based overview drawn from public records, official data, and reporting.
First Term (2017–2021): Record and Metrics
•Deregulation and bureaucracy: The administration emphasized reducing federal regulations (e.g., via executive orders requiring two regulations repealed for every new one). The Federal Register page count fell notably in some years compared to prior administrations. Agencies saw some workforce reductions in certain areas, though overall federal civilian employment did not shrink dramatically. Supporters cite faster permitting and lower compliance costs for businesses; critics argue it weakened environmental, consumer, and safety protections and that many changes were reversed or litigated.
•Spending and deficits: Federal spending and the deficit rose substantially, accelerated by COVID-19 relief (CARES Act and others). Pre-pandemic, tax cuts (TCJA 2017) reduced revenue while spending continued upward. Debt-to-GDP increased. This is not unique—deficits grew under multiple recent presidents of both parties.
•Appointments and Schedule F: Efforts to make it easier to fire policy-influencing civil servants (Schedule F) were started late in the term and reversed by the Biden administration. Proponents called it accountability; opponents called it politicization of the civil service.
•Outcomes mixed by issue: Criminal justice (First Step Act) had bipartisan support. Foreign policy, trade (USMCA), and energy production saw shifts. Government “improvement” claims often focus on these rather than core bureaucratic metrics. Oversight reports (GAO, inspectors general) documented both successes and management problems, as under other administrations.
•COVID and final year: Operation Warp Speed accelerated vaccines (public-private). Handling of the pandemic, January 6 events, and end-of-term actions remain highly polarized.
Independent trackers (e.g., regulatory budgets, Federal Register data, OPM employment stats, CBO budget figures) show incremental rather than transformative shrinkage of the administrative state. Many changes were executive and reversible.
Second Term (2025–): Early Actions and Stated Goals
Trump took office in January 2025. Early focus has included:
•Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) concept: Announced involvement of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (and later iterations) to target waste, fraud, and bloat. Goals publicly stated include large spending cuts, workforce reductions, and deregulation. This is not a cabinet department but an advisory/outside effort feeding recommendations. Actual statutory cuts require Congress. Early reporting describes reviews of contracts, regulations, and agencies; concrete large-scale enacted savings and permanent headcount reductions were still developing in the initial months and face legal, congressional, and practical limits.
•Executive actions: A wave of executive orders on day one and afterward targeted DEI programs, remote work policies, border/immigration enforcement agencies, energy permitting, and Schedule F revival efforts. Federal hiring freezes or reviews in some areas were reported. Impoundment and spending-control theories have been discussed, raising constitutional questions (Congress holds the power of the purse).
•Appointments: Nominees and picks emphasized loyalty, deregulation experience, and skepticism of the “administrative state.” Confirmation battles and resignations/retirements in the civil service have been noted in coverage.
•Spending trajectory: FY2025 and budget proposals will be the real test. Historical pattern: presidents propose cuts; Congress (even same-party) often protects priorities. Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare), defense, and interest dominate the budget and are politically hard to cut deeply.
•Early data points: Track Federal Register rules, OPM workforce numbers, GAO reports, agency budgets, and inspector-general findings over 2025–2026 for measurable change. Media and think-tank analyses (left, right, and center) already diverge sharply on whether initial steps constitute “improvement.”
Broader Context and Caveats
•Size of government: US federal spending as % of GDP, regulatory restrictions, and civilian workforce have grown long-term under both parties, with spikes in crises. Reversing this requires sustained legislation, not just executives. “Waste/fraud/abuse” exists (improper payments run tens of billions annually per GAO) and is a legitimate target, but it is a fraction of the budget; most spending is mandatory or popular discretionary.
•Performance metrics: Customer satisfaction with federal services (e.g., VA, IRS, Social Security), procurement efficiency, IT modernization, and FOIA backlogs are tracked by agencies and watchdogs. Results vary by agency and administration; sweeping claims of unique success or failure rarely hold.
•Rule of law and norms: Critics highlight rhetoric and actions they view as eroding institutions (pressure on DOJ, Schedule F, impoundment ideas, treatment of inspectors general). Supporters argue prior “deep state” resistance and lawfare justified stronger presidential control and that elections mandate change. Courts and Congress remain checks.
•Comparisons: Similar efficiency drives (Grace Commission under Reagan, NPR under Clinton, various IG/GAO efforts) produced reports and some savings but rarely transformed the trajectory. Partisan control of Congress heavily constrains presidents.
How to Evaluate for Yourself
Look at primary sources rather than cable news or social media:
•Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget, GAO, and agency financial reports for spending/employment.
•Federal Register and Reginfo.gov for regulatory volume.
•OPM for workforce data.
•Legislation actually enacted vs. executive orders (the latter are easier to reverse).
•Outcome data: inflation-adjusted spending, deficit, specific program performance, economic indicators tied to policy, and court outcomes on challenged actions.
Bottom line: Trump’s approach prioritizes deregulation, executive control over the bureaucracy, spending restraint rhetoric, and outsider disruption (DOGE-style). Measurable, lasting “improvement” in core government functions is not yet proven at scale in the second term and was incremental/mixed in the first. Whether this equals improvement is a values judgment—efficiency and democratic accountability to the elected president vs. risks to expertise, stability, legal constraints, and program continuity. Polarization means most sources will frame the same facts as either long-overdue reform or dangerous overreach. Track legislation, budgets, and independent audits over the full term for clearer evidence.