Is Donald Trump improving the US government?

No simple yes/no answer exists, as “improving the US government” is subjective and depends on priorities such as size/efficiency versus service delivery/expertise, enforcement of laws versus humanitarian concerns, short-term disruption versus long-term outcomes, and partisan values. Donald Trump’s second term (starting January 2025) has produced rapid, large-scale changes via executive actions, the short-lived Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE, led initially by Elon Musk), legislation like the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” deregulation, border policies, and more. Results are mixed by objective metrics, with sharp partisan divides in public perception.[1]

Key Changes and Claimed Improvements (Administration/Supporters’ View)

White House and supportive sources highlight efficiency, security, and economic gains:

•Workforce and bureaucracy reduction: The federal civilian workforce shrank substantially—by roughly 10–12% (net ~238,000–256,000 or more in various tallies through early 2026), reaching levels not seen in decades (sometimes cited as lowest since the 1960s in certain measures). This came via hiring freezes, deferred resignations/buyouts, reductions-in-force, and attrition. DOGE and related efforts targeted waste, contracts, grants, and “non-essential” functions. Proponents claim annual savings in the tens of billions from lower payroll alone, plus fraud crackdowns uncovering hundreds of billions.[2]

•Deregulation and efficiency: Agencies finalized hundreds of deregulatory actions (e.g., 646 vs. 5 regulatory in one reported period, far exceeding a 10-to-1 target), with claimed net cost savings of ~$200+ billion. Examples include ending certain reporting requirements, airport screening changes, and rolling back rules. DOGE claimed ~$175–215 billion in savings via contract/lease cancellations, asset sales, improper payments, and workforce cuts (roughly $1,300+ per taxpayer in some tallies).[3]

•Border and immigration: Ended “catch-and-release,” achieved negative net migration in 2025 (first in ~50 years per some analyses), large drops in encounters/apprehensions (80–95% lower in periods), millions of migrants leaving or deported, and low asylum grant rates. Framed as restoring control and rule of law.[1]

•Crime and other security: Claims of historic low murder rates in 2025 and large drops in violent crime after federal crackdowns and ending certain prior policies. Energy production/dominance increased; gas prices fell in periods; private-sector job growth emphasized (with native-born gains); trillions in announced investments; tax relief (permanent 2017 cuts elements, no tax on tips, etc.).[4]

•Broader: NATO allies increased defense spending commitments; actions on Iran, ceasefires, tariffs generating revenue (hundreds of billions claimed); focus on core missions over DEI/foreign aid (e.g., USAID effectively dismantled).

Supporters argue this drains the “swamp,” reduces bloat, prioritizes Americans, and delivers on campaign promises of efficiency and sovereignty. Some conservative analyses list dozens of 2025 accomplishments.[5]

Criticisms and Counter-Evidence

Independent analyses, critics, and data show significant downsides and overstated gains:

•DOGE and cuts’ limited/net impact: Independent reviews (e.g., New York Times) found many large claimed savings erroneous or inflated (top claims inaccurate; actual de-obligations modest). Federal spending did not fall overall—deficits remained high (~$1.8 trillion in FY2025, or ~5.8% of GDP; FY2026 tracking similar or higher at points, projected ~$1.9T+). Entitlements, defense, and interest dominate the budget and were largely untouched; tax cuts and other policies add to long-term deficits. Workforce cuts caused disruptions: longer SSA/IRS/VA wait times, backlogs, loss of expertise, canceled research/grants, and service gaps. Some firings faced lawsuits/reinstatements; deferred resignations had costs. USAID cuts linked by critics to excess deaths abroad. Savings claims disputed as accounting artifacts rather than structural reform.[6]

•Service delivery and capacity: Partnership for Public Service and others describe “chaos”—arbitrary cuts harming national security readiness, disaster response, public health, FOIA/transparency, and core functions. Federal employment fell sharply, but critics say it was ideological (e.g., targeting certain programs) more than purely efficient, with loyalty concerns in hiring.[7]

•Other issues: Tariffs unpopular and disruptive in some analyses; executive overreach claims (hundreds of EOs, agency dismantlings without full congressional buy-in, troop deployments, targeting of opponents/firms); human rights/immigration enforcement concerns (harsh measures, due process questions); ethics/conflicts; and democracy/rule-of-law erosion allegations from left-leaning sources. Crime/economic gains are debated for attribution and sustainability.[8]

Deficits persist because mandatory spending and interest dominate; true fiscal reform requires Congress on entitlements. Long-term effects of expertise loss or reduced capacity remain uncertain.

Public Opinion

Polls show majority skepticism. A Pew Research survey found 53% saying Trump is making the federal government work worse, vs. 27% better (rest mixed). This held with partisan gaps: most Republicans positive (though less so than early expectations), overwhelming Democrats negative. Overall job approval has been low/mid-30s to low-40s in various 2025–2026 polls (net negative, often lower than early term or comparable points for prior presidents), with particular weakness on economy/inflation handling for some. Views of specific policies (tariffs, the big tax/spending bill, cuts) are more negative than positive overall.[9]

Trust in government was already low; these changes amplify polarization.

Bottom Line

Trump has substantially altered the US government: smaller workforce, aggressive deregulation and immigration enforcement, shifted priorities away from certain progressive/international programs, and claimed efficiency wins. In areas like border control and reducing headcount/regulatory burden, measurable “improvements” align with conservative goals of limited government and law enforcement. However, independent scrutiny questions the scale of savings and efficiency gains amid disruptions, persistent high deficits, service impacts, and legal/political controversies. Public opinion leans toward “worse” overall.

Whether this constitutes net “improvement” hinges on one’s criteria—e.g., smaller/faster/leaner vs. more capable/stable/expert-driven government. Outcomes continue to evolve with data on economy, crime, budgets, and court rulings. For the latest official stats, check CBO, OPM, Treasury, or nonpartisan trackers; partisan sources (White House vs. progressive watchdogs) diverge sharply.

Citations (9)

1whitehouse.govGovernment
https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/09/president-trump-delivers-historic-results-for-the-american-people-in-under-two-years/
Backs: “Results are mixed by objective metrics, with sharp partisan divides in public perception.”
2pewresearch.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/13/federal-workforce-shrank-10-in-trumps-first-year-back-in-office/
Backs: “Proponents claim annual savings in the tens of billions from lower payroll alone, plus fraud crackdowns uncovering hundreds of billions.”
3whitehouse.govGovernment
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/12/32750/
Backs: “DOGE claimed ~$175–215 billion in savings via contract/lease cancellations, asset sales, improper payments, and workforce cuts (roughly $1,300+ per taxpayer in some tallies).”
4newsweek.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-three-biggest-successes-after-one-year-office-11381614
Backs: “Energy production/dominance increased; gas prices fell in periods; private-sector job growth emphasized (with native-born gains); trillions in announced investments; tax relief (permanent 2017 cuts elements, no tax on tips, etc.).”
5washingtonpost.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/02/donald-trump-accomplishments-2025-marc-thiessen/
Backs: “Some conservative analyses list dozens of 2025 accomplishments.”
6nytimes.comNews and mediaquality 0.86
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/us/politics/doge-musk-trump-analysis.html
Backs: “Savings claims disputed as accounting artifacts rather than structural reform.”
7ourpublicservice.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/a-government-in-chaos-trumps-first-year-back-in-office/
Backs: “Federal employment fell sharply, but critics say it was ideological (e.g., targeting certain programs) more than purely efficient, with loyalty concerns in hiring.”
8hrw.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026/country-chapters/united-states
Backs: “Crime/economic gains are debated for attribution and sustainability.”
9pewresearch.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/14/trumps-tariffs-and-one-big-beautiful-bill-face-more-opposition-than-support-as-his-job-rating-slips/
Backs: “Views of specific policies (tariffs, the big tax/spending bill, cuts) are more negative than positive overall.”