President Donald Trump might not handle everything the way Republicans were hoping, particularly the ongoing conflict with Iran, but one of the most promising, yet underrated reforms, has been his commitment to reducing the size of the federal workforce.
This is one change he’s made that will have a positive effect for the next election cycle, and hopefully beyond. Despite critics’ warnings of institutional failure, suggesting services to the American people would be drastically reduced, that hasn’t been the case at all. I wish even Democrats would give Trump more credit for something they would have applauded if a Democrat had done the same. The government is smaller. That’s a good thing.
Pew Research reports that during Trump’s first term, the size of the federal workforce decreased by a whopping 10%, an impressive figure given that the institution has only grown slowly over time.
In November 2000, federal employment, minus the U.S. Postal Service, employed approximately 1.9 million people. By March 2024, that number had grown to 2.4 million people. Now, in 2026, the federal workforce has reduced to about 350,000 positions, the smallest it's been since 1966. A little less than half of the federal employees who left did so of their own volition, motivated by buyouts.
Trump has aggressively targeted specific departments, like the Department of Education, which has seen its workforce nearly cut in half. To that I say, good riddance. The Department of Education costs taxpayers $268 billion in the last fiscal year, yet our kids are slipping further behind.
Removing federal bureaucrats makes room for state and local school officials to provide parents and kids with better educational options, such as education savings accounts or school choice. Most states now have some school choice program, and decreasing federal involvement only boosts that.
I don’t want people to lose their jobs, but if too many employees are working for an agency, and that role isn’t efficient or necessary, cutting the position benefits taxpayers.
Why aren’t Democrats applauding this change? It wasn’t long ago that the Democratic Party would have supported a reduction in the size of the federal government. So why haven’t they supported, applauded, or even really talked about this accomplishment?
Both political parties have become increasingly tribalistic. The Democratic Party has been reluctant to support anything Trump does, even if it’s something completely apolitical and objectively good for society, like lowering taxes. I’ve seen the joke among conservatives that if Trump cured an awful disease, like cancer, Democrats would find a way to criticize him for it. That seems true here.
It also seems like the Democratic Party has grown increasingly fond of growing federal programs, even more than Republicans. These need employees to operate them. President Barack Obama supported major expansions to SNAP, and President Joe Biden backed SNAP benefit expansions during COVID-19 relief efforts and touted the American Rescue Plan, which increased food assistance and expanded eligibility in some states. These are just two small examples—and they contribute to the government’s massive workforce.
There is still more work to be done. Spending under modern presidents has steadily increased, and this is disappointing. If Trump continues to increase military spending, reducing the federal workforce will only help so much. According to the Government Accountability Office, the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud. The government’s massive size contributes to its inefficiency, increasing the risk of misuse.
I hope Trump can continue to curb federal spending, shrinking the workforce, with or without Democrats’ support or applause.
