Short answer: it depends on what “improving” means to you.
A few concrete things we can say
•Who’s in charge and what he’s tried to do: Donald J. Trump has been president since January 20, 2025. His administration has focused on shrinking and centralizing control over the federal bureaucracy, rolling back DEI-related programs, and using executive orders to steer agencies’ priorities. Several of those orders have been challenged in court; some provisions have been paused while litigation proceeds.[1]
•Federal workforce and management: Official OPM and GAO data show notable staffing changes across agencies since 2025 and an ongoing push to “right‑size” workforces. The Office of Personnel Management now publishes monthly workforce data (about 2 million civilian employees as of late summer 2026), and GAO has documented significant workforce reductions at multiple agencies, along with operational risks those cuts can create.[2]
•Service delivery examples (mixed): Some program metrics have improved—for instance, VA reports that the disability‑claims backlog has fallen to its lowest level in years, though GAO still flags enduring management and IT challenges. Other services (like passports and immigration benefits) set timeliness goals and publish updates; performance has varied by program and over time.[3]
How different people judge “improvement”
•If improvement means a smaller federal footprint, fewer DEI initiatives, and more direct presidential control over policy‑influencing civil‑service roles, supporters will say yes—the administration has moved decisively in that direction.[4]
•If improvement means institutional stability, insulation of career civil servants from politics, and fewer abrupt policy shifts tied up in court, critics will say no—pointing to legal uncertainty and the risks GAO highlights when large workforce cuts happen quickly.[5]
If you tell me which outcomes you care about—economy, immigration enforcement, environmental rulemaking, veterans’ services, passport wait times, etc.—I can pull the latest program‑level data and give a more targeted answer.
Backs: “The Office of Personnel Management now publishes monthly workforce data (about 2 million civilian employees as of late summer 2026), and GAO has documented significant workforce reductions at multiple agencies, along with operational risks those cuts can create.”
Backs: “Other services (like passports and immigration benefits) set timeliness goals and publish updates; performance has varied by program and over time.”
Backs: “If improvement means a smaller federal footprint, fewer DEI initiatives, and more direct presidential control over policy‑influencing civil‑service roles, supporters will say yes—the administration has moved decisively in that direction.”
Backs: “If improvement means institutional stability, insulation of career civil servants from politics, and fewer abrupt policy shifts tied up in court, critics will say no—pointing to legal uncertainty and the risks GAO highlights when large workforce cuts happen quickly.”