Is Trump's overhaul improving government? I'll gather recent data on his reforms to present a balanced view.
Assessment of whether Donald Trump is improving the U.S. government is disputed and depends on how "improvement" is measured. Different sources and groups point to different metrics:
What the Administration and Supporters Point To
The White House describes its agenda as historic results including government-wide deregulation and efficiency reforms:
•The administration projects its deregulatory mandate will save $1.5 trillion in FY2026 alone , and that revoking the Obama-era Endangerment Finding was the single-largest deregulatory action worth $1.3 trillion.
•It claims government efficiency reforms have saved an estimated $215 billion — about $1,335 per taxpayer — and shrunk the federal workforce to its lowest level since 1966 .
•In July 2026 the administration identified 702 existing rules slated for elimination, described as a record for a semiannual plan, in addition to 752 regulatory cuts already finalized since October 1, 2025 .
•Other stated goals in the President's Management Agenda include eliminating "woke" programs, downsizing the government workforce and real estate portfolio, implementing workforce reforms and modernizing government technology.
•The fiscal 2026 budget outlines proposals to reduce the federal workforce, keep defense spending flat, cut funding for foreign aid and public media, and launch a reform initiative through the Department of Government Efficiency.
•The White House also cites a 74% drop in the backlog of veterans waiting for benefits as evidence of more efficient service.
Supporters generally point to:
•Deregulation freeing businesses to grow
•Stronger border security as contributing to national safety
•Cost savings from reducing migrant-related spending, expected economic boost and job creation from deregulation, and strengthened national security from border control
•Other achievements cited include tax cuts, judicial appointments, deregulation efforts and border security initiatives as evidence of success
Some supporters argue voters will ultimately judge the administration on economic performance and quality-of-life improvements rather than polling fluctuations.
What Critics and Independent Assessments Point To
•Federal judges have said the Trump administration's Department of Justice has destroyed the "presumption of regularity" — the traditional trust that government is acting in good faith — with statements that it has been "dislodged," "destroyed," and "undeniably eroded".
•The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was presented as falling short of a promised $2 trillion in savings, claiming $215 billion instead, with experts questioning the savings and some concluding DOGE actually cost the government money. A Government Accountability Office report found nearly $7 billion was paid to federal workers not to work under the DOGE effort, while the federal workforce shrank 12 percent.
•More broadly, critics have argued the fallout illustrates risks of overly aggressive fiscal policies, with Democrats pointing to institutional damage and Republicans framing it as reducing federal overreach.
•Other criticism has focused on reduced public input in environmental reviews and other regulatory processes.
Public Opinion Polling
Polling in late 2026 shows divided public views:
•A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll in October 2026 recorded President Trump's approval at 33%, described as the lowest recorded at any point in either of his terms.
•Other national averages showed approval around 38-39% at the end of September 2026, with several polls in the 31-36% range ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.
These low approvals have been linked in polls to concerns about inflation, cost of living, and overall performance, while supporters tend to emphasize border security, deregulation, and fiscal discipline.
Summary
•If improvement is measured by smaller federal workforce, fewer regulations, claimed cost savings, and stricter border enforcement, the administration and its supporters argue the government is improving.
•If improvement is measured by institutional trust, court deference, regulatory oversight, public input, and consistency of services, critics argue the changes have damaged core government functions.
Whether the changes constitute improvement therefore depends on which outcomes and values are prioritized.