Is Donald Trump improving the US government?

It depends on the metrics and one's political perspective—there is no objective yes/no answer. "Improving the US government" can mean different things: smaller size and lower costs, greater efficiency and reduced waste, better delivery of services, stronger accountability, alignment with voter priorities, fiscal responsibility, or enhanced capacity/expertise. As of mid-to-late 2026 (roughly 1–1.5+ years into Trump’s second term starting January 20, 2025), the administration has driven major, rapid changes—especially via the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE, involving Elon Musk initially)—but results are mixed, heavily disputed, and often polarized.[1]

Key Changes and Claimed Improvements

The Trump administration prioritized shrinking the bureaucracy, cutting regulations and spending it viewed as wasteful, and refocusing agencies on core (and campaign-aligned) missions:

•Workforce reductions: The federal civilian workforce shrank substantially—estimates range from ~10–11% net reduction (around 200,000–280,000+ net after separations minus hires) to higher figures including broader departures, bringing levels to multi-decade lows (e.g., lowest since the 1960s in some counts). Mechanisms included deferred resignation programs (“buyouts”), reductions in force (RIFs), probationary firings, attrition, and hiring freezes. Agencies like Education, USAID (effectively gutted), HHS, IRS/Treasury, EPA, and others saw steeper cuts (20–45%+ or more in extreme cases); DHS and some security/immigration areas were more protected or expanded in spots. Administration claims include the lowest federal workforce since 1966 and no government job growth contribution.[2]

•DOGE and efficiency/cost-cutting efforts: Established by executive order to modernize tech/software and cut waste. It drove contract/grant/lease reviews and terminations, procurement consolidation (e.g., at GSA), credit card limits, back-to-office mandates, and reviews for fraud/abuse. White House/OMB claims include ~$215 billion in savings (~$1,335 per taxpayer), GSA ~$60 billion in contract/real estate savings, and broader efficiency reforms. Deregulation was aggressive: OIRA reported 646 deregulatory actions vs. only 5 regulatory ones in FY2025 (129-to-1 ratio, far exceeding a 10-to-1 target), with claimed net cost savings of ~$212 billion. Examples include rolling back reporting requirements, certain FDA/TSA rules, and ending DEI-focused programs.[3]

•Fiscal and other metrics: The FY2025 deficit was ~$1.8 trillion (or ~$1.67–1.78 trillion in some calendar/FY views)—slightly lower than FY2024 (down ~$8–41 billion or so), aided by higher revenues (including a surge in customs/tariff duties to ~$195 billion) and cuts (e.g., big drop in Education outlays). Mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and interest continued rising, and total outlays still increased. Broader claims include better border control (negative net migration reports, sharp drops in illegal crossings/apprehensions, deportations/self-deportations), energy unleashing, tax policy changes (e.g., “One Big Beautiful Bill”), and focus on merit over other priorities.[4]

Supporters (including White House statements and conservative analysts) argue this fulfills a mandate to reverse “bloated” bureaucracy, eliminate waste/fraud/abuse/DEI excesses, reduce the administrative state, restore accountability to elected leadership, and deliver savings/efficiency after years of growth under prior administrations. Some point to record VA claims processing or procurement streamlining as service wins.[5]

Criticisms and Counter-Evidence

Critics (including GAO reports, Partnership for Public Service, media analyses from outlets across the spectrum, and Democratic-aligned groups) contend many changes caused chaos, degraded capacity, overstated benefits, and prioritized loyalty/power over competence or long-term effectiveness:

•Savings largely disputed: GAO and independent reviews found DOGE’s “Wall of Receipts” claims (e.g., ~$110 billion subset from contracts/grants/leases) riddled with errors, overstatements, unverifiable figures (96% of some grant savings), credit for pre-existing terminations, non-terminated contracts, and flawed methodology. Actual verified recurring savings appear far lower (some estimates in the low billions or less after costs); one analysis suggested net first-year costs after transition expenses. Overall federal spending rose, and the deficit remains historically large. IRS cuts raised concerns about lost revenue collection.[6]

•Service disruptions and capacity loss: Workforce cuts and related freezes/cancellations led to longer wait times (e.g., Social Security), backlogs, strained remaining staff, loss of institutional knowledge/expertise, delayed grants/contracts, supply issues (e.g., labs), reduced inspections/monitoring, and impacts on disaster response (FEMA), public health (CDC), weather forecasting (NWS/NOAA), parks/trails, VA care elements, IRS operations, and more. New approval layers sometimes created additional red tape. GAO flagged human capital risks in multiple high-risk areas. Entire functions or agencies (e.g., aspects of USAID, CFPB operations) were halted or gutted.[7]

•Accountability, politicization, and process: Firings of numerous inspectors general and other watchdogs reduced independent oversight. Hiring and personnel shifts emphasized loyalty; civil service norms were challenged. Heavy reliance on executive orders (hundreds) rather than legislation; fewer major laws passed than typical. Critics describe it as a power grab (aligned with Project 2025 elements), short-term disruption without durable efficiency gains, and risks to crisis response (pandemics, disasters, security). Some new procedures slowed operations.[8]

•Other: Legal challenges and court interventions reversed or delayed some actions. Public opinion early in the term was roughly split on whether it would improve government functioning. Long-term effects on expertise, morale, recruitment, and effectiveness remain debated.[9]

Broader Context

Trump’s approach contrasts with more incremental prior efforts. It has been faster and more aggressive in reshaping the executive branch than his first term, with measurable downsizing and deregulation. Economic indicators (growth, markets, energy) and immigration enforcement show gains per administration data, but government “improvement” specifically ties more to bureaucracy metrics, which remain contested. Spending drivers like entitlements and interest are structural and hard to cut quickly without legislation. DOGE itself was temporary (sunset around July 2026).

Bottom line: The government is smaller in headcount and has fewer regulations in many areas, with some claimed cost savings and policy realignments that supporters view as clear improvements in efficiency, fiscal discipline, and democratic accountability. Critics see overstated gains, degraded services/expertise, reduced oversight, and unnecessary chaos that may harm long-term performance and public trust. Outcomes vary by agency and will take more time (and independent audits) to fully assess. Evaluations often track partisan lines—Republicans largely positive, Democrats negative. For the latest data, check primary sources like CBO, GAO, OPM, Treasury, and White House/OMB releases.

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: “As of mid-to-late 2026 (roughly 1–1.5+ years into Trump’s second term starting January 20, 2025), the administration has driven major, rapid changes—especially via the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE, involving Elon Musk initially)—but results are mixed, heavily disputed, and often polarized.”
2cnn.comNews and mediaquality 0.66
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/01/politics/donald-trump-2025-federal-government
Backs: “Administration claims include the lowest federal workforce since 1966 and no government job growth contribution.”
3whitehouse.govGovernment
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/12/32750/
Backs: “Examples include rolling back reporting requirements, certain FDA/TSA rules, and ending DEI-focused programs.”
4cbo.govGovernment
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61950
Backs: “Broader claims include better border control (negative net migration reports, sharp drops in illegal crossings/apprehensions, deportations/self-deportations), energy unleashing, tax policy changes (e.g., “One Big Beautiful Bill”), and focus on merit over other priorities.”
5washingtonpost.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2025/trump-federal-government-workers-doge/
Backs: “Some point to record VA claims processing or procurement streamlining as service wins.”
6arstechnica.comNews and mediaquality 0.95
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/doges-inflated-wall-of-receipts-96-of-grant-savings-unverifiable-gao-says/
Backs: “Overall federal spending rose, and the deficit remains historically large. IRS cuts raised concerns about lost revenue collection.”
7ourpublicservice.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/a-government-in-chaos-trumps-first-year-back-in-office/
Backs: “Entire functions or agencies (e.g., aspects of USAID, CFPB operations) were halted or gutted.”
8theatlantic.comNews and mediaquality 0.80
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trump-first-year-powers/685670/
Backs: “Critics describe it as a power grab (aligned with Project 2025 elements), short-term disruption without durable efficiency gains, and risks to crisis response (pandemics, disasters, security). Some new procedures slowed operations.”
9pewresearch.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/02/07/public-anticipates-changes-with-trump-but-is-split-over-whether-they-will-be-good-or-bad/
Backs: “Long-term effects on expertise, morale, recruitment, and effectiveness remain debated.”