One of the second Trump administration’s signature policies has been the shrinking of the US federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. Lee Cronk writes that the administration’s attempts to reduce the size of government and regulations are in sharp contrast with other policies which increase the government’s role in the US economy and society, like increased tariffs and targeting universities.
Making the federal government leaner and more efficient has been a goal of both Democratic and Republican administrations for many decades. For example, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, limited the growth of the federal workforce, cut taxes, and deregulated airlines and other industries. During his 1989 Inaugural Address, George H.W. Bush, a Republican, pledged to foster private sector volunteerism – which he poetically referred to as “a thousand points of light” –, rather than expanding government services. In 1992, during his presidential campaign, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, vowed to “end welfare as we know it.”
DOGE and government efficiency
Since it entered office in January, the Trump administration has also had a great deal to say about government efficiency. It has even gone so far as to mockup an unofficial “Department of Government Efficiency,” commonly referred to as DOGE, headed up by billionaire Elon Musk. In contrast to the more thoughtful and surgical approach taken by Carter and other past presidents, DOGE has taken a metaphorical chainsaw to many aspects of the federal government. Its efforts have led to firings of some federal employees and severe cutbacks to such programs as the United States Agency for International Development and the National Endowment for the Humanities. DOGE is also leading an effort to reduce regulations on showerheads, communications, coal, and many other things. Ironically, DOGE’s chainsaw approach has led to its own inefficiencies, such as the need to rehire some federal employees who were fired precipitously. Such clumsiness has the potential to give the whole idea of creating a leaner and more efficient government a bad name.
Removing regulations while increasing government control
More importantly, DOGE’s efforts to shrink the federal government and reduce regulations on business also stand in stark contrast to the many ways in which the Trump administration is increasing rather than reducing the federal government’s control over the American economy and society. That is the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of the Trump administration’s approach to the size of the federal government.
Consider, for example, the Trump administration’s approach to the economy. On the one hand, it seeks to reduce regulations. Though we have yet to see whether the deregulation it seeks will be thoughtful and careful or, in the manner of DOGE’s other actions, reckless and haphazard, getting rid of unneeded regulations is a laudable goal. But it contrasts starkly with Trump’s other trademark economic policy: tariffs higher than any seen since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s. Such an enormous imposition of federal power on the economy is in direct opposition to the administration’s stated goals of deregulation and increased government efficiency.
“President Trump signs executive actions to support the coal industry at an Unleashing American Energy Executive Order Event – April 8, 2025” by The White House is United States government work
The hypocrisy is also clearly visible in the Trump administration’s policy towards education and educational institutions. One of its goals is to reduce or eliminate the Department of Education. Given that that department’s own data show that it has done little or nothing to improve education in America since it was created forty-five years ago, that might not be a bad idea, provided that, in contrast with DOGE’S earlier efforts to shrink the federal government, it is done with the consent of Congress and while still fulfilling all the department’s existing contractual obligations. Compare that to the Trump administration’s heavy-handed attempts to micromanage higher educational institutions such as Columbia and Harvard, among other universities. In the case of Harvard, the Trump administration has threatened to cut off its federal funding, end its tax exempt status, and prevent it from enrolling foreign students if it fails to make changes to its internal governance, its hiring and admission practices, and its student discipline policies. Harvard is pushing back.
Finally, let’s consider the arts and humanities. The administration has taken steps to shrink the National Endowment for the Humanities and end subsidies to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio. Given that private funding of the arts and humanities in the United States far outweighs federal funding, this may be a laudable way to save taxpayers money and lower the federal debt (again, provided it is done with the consent of Congress and while still fulfilling the government’s existing contractual obligations). But let’s compare it to another of the Trump administration’s initiatives in the arts: the hostile takeover of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Trump first replaced all members of the center’s board of trustees with people loyal to him, and, on February 12, they voted him in as chair of the center. How does that do anything to reduce the size of government or end government waste? If freedom and government efficiency is what the Trump administration is all about, would it not make more sense to set the Kennedy Center free from both government funding and government control so that it can pursue its own vision? After all, why does the federal government need to own a performing arts facility in the first place?
It’s not about efficiency, it’s about Trump’s power
A cynic might say that when the Trump administration imposes tariffs, threatens higher educational institutions, and takes over a revered performing arts center, it is revealing its true goal: enhancing the power of President Trump regardless of how much it may cost to do so. And it’s easy to find additional evidence that that may be the case. Consider, for example, Trump’s dream of having a Soviet-style military parade in Washington, DC, on his birthday, June 14th, which also happens to be Flag Day and the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army. Estimates are that it would cost $113 million, $92 million for the military’s involvement and $21 million to ensure public safety. How does that make the government more efficient?
Despite the Trump administration’s hypocrisy, a leaner and more efficient federal government remains a worthy goal. It is also a goal that is difficult to oppose. After all, even people who would like the federal government to grow in various ways would never advocate for it to also become less efficient. Perhaps someday, when DOGE is behind us, that goal could be a unifying force in American politics, giving politicians and voters across the board a reason to work together to carefully and sensibly reduce the size of the federal government and deregulate the economy so that we all can be free to live and prosper in whatever ways we choose.
- Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
- Please read our comments policy before commenting.
- Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
