Trump’s Efforts to Dismantle Government Could Be Hard to Reverse
Americans have grown used to significant policy shifts whenever the presidency changes hands between parties. However, former President Donald Trump is going beyond traditional policy changes—he is pushing for structural overhauls of the federal government that could be extremely difficult for future Democratic administrations to undo.
Rather than simply reducing spending or rolling back regulations, Trump is actively working to weaken the federal government’s ability to shape domestic and foreign affairs. He is tearing down key mechanisms that Washington has relied on for a long time to advance its goals, and he is doing so more aggressively than he did during his first term. With the support of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, the Trump administration has accelerated efforts to deconstruct government institutions. These actions include cutting grants to nonprofit humanitarian organizations and academic research institutions, selling off government properties, eliminating entire agencies like the Department of Education, which Trump is expected to begin dismantling soon, and significantly reducing the federal workforce. “This level of disinvestment in federal capacity is unprecedented,” said Donald Kettl, former dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and an expert on federal bureaucracy. “We have never seen a deliberate effort to dismantle so much of the government’s infrastructure with so little regard for the consequences.”
If Trump succeeds, his actions will significantly limit the ability of future administrations to restore federal influence. Even a Democratic president eager to rebuild government institutions would face an uphill battle, requiring years to rehire agency experts, reopen shuttered research labs, and reestablish partnerships with humanitarian organizations weakened by canceled contracts.
Some conservatives believe Trump’s aggressive push against the so-called “administrative state” could have a more lasting impact than even Ronald Reagan’s sweeping government cutbacks in the 1980s. “This is a bigger deal,” said longtime conservative activist Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform. "The landscape has changed, not Reagan," the statement reads.
Breaking the Cycle
In recent years, each new president has swiftly reversed many of their predecessor’s policies through executive orders, creating a cycle of policy whiplash with every White House transition. President Joe Biden, in his first days, overturned dozens of Trump-era executive actions—just as Trump, upon taking office in 2017, swiftly dismantled many of Barack Obama’s policies. Trump has continued the pattern in his second term by quickly undoing numerous Biden initiatives. This bickering has almost become routine. One of the most well-known examples is the Mexico City policy, which restricts foreign aid to organizations that provide or discuss abortion services. First implemented under Ronald Reagan, the policy has been rescinded by every Democratic president and reinstated by every Republican president since Bill Clinton’s tenure in 1993.
Breaking the Wheel is
Donald Trump has gone far beyond the typical partisan policymaking debate in his second term. To borrow from *Game of Thrones*’ Daenerys Targaryen, Trump’s goal seems not just to spin the wheel—but to break it entirely.
His approach to foreign aid is a stark example. Not only did he swiftly reinstate the Mexico City policy, but under the leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his administration has gutted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Most of its staff have been fired, over 80% of its contracts canceled, and its independent status eliminated as its diminished remains were absorbed into the State Department. (A federal district court judge said on Tuesday that Musk's actions at USAID "likely violated the U.S. Constitution.”)
Environmental policy provides another telling indicator. During his first term, Trump significantly weakened Obama-era regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions from vehicles and power plants, both major contributors to climate change. However, at that time, he stopped short of directly challenging the legal foundation for those rules: the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which declared carbon emissions a threat to public health and the environment.
That finding has been the foundation of Clean Air Act regulations limiting climate pollution in transportation and energy production for 15 years. “If it is repealed, those standards could all be dead,” warned David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Trump’s first-term EPA administrators resisted calls from conservative allies to overturn the endangerment finding. But last week, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency would formally reconsider it—along with all the carbon regulations that depend on it.
Doniger, like many environmentalists, contends that the EPA would struggle to legally justify reversing the endangerment finding in light of the overwhelming evidence of the effects of climate change. However, simply reopening the issue could create a bureaucratic and legal maze that delays future climate action.
“They want to make it either impossible—or at the very least exponentially harder—for the next administration that acknowledges reality and wants to address climate change to do so,” Doniger said.
"Deconstructing the System" Donald Trump has pursued a much more far-reaching transformation of the federal government than the usual partisan policy debates during his second term. To borrow from *Game of Thrones*’ Daenerys Targaryen, his objective appears not merely to spin the wheel of governance—but to break it entirely.
This shift is exemplified by his approach to foreign aid. Trump not only reinstated the Mexico City policy but, under the direction of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has effectively dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The agency has lost most of its staff, had over 80% of its contracts canceled, and lost its independence as the State Department took over its remaining functions. (On Tuesday, a judge in a federal district court ruled that Musk's actions at USAID "likely violated the U.S. Constitution.”)
Environmental policy provides another striking case. During his first term, Trump weakened Obama-era regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions from vehicles and power plants—two of the largest sources of climate pollution. He did not, however, attack the EPA's 2009 "endangerment finding," which formally determined that carbon emissions pose a threat to public health and the environment, which served as the legal basis for those regulations at the time. That finding has been the foundation of Clean Air Act regulations for the past 15 years, supporting efforts to reduce climate pollution in a variety of industries. “If it is repealed, those standards could all be dead,” warned David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
During Trump’s first term, his own EPA officials declined to reopen the endangerment finding despite pressure from conservative allies. However, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made the announcement last week that the agency would officially reevaluate it, as well as the entire framework of carbon regulations that is dependent on it. Doniger, like many environmental advocates, argues that given the overwhelming scientific evidence linking carbon emissions to climate change, the EPA would struggle to justify legally overturning the finding. However, he warns that even revisiting the issue could entangle future climate action in bureaucratic and legal battles that could take years to resolve.
“They want to make it either impossible—or at the very least exponentially harder—for the next administration that acknowledges reality and wants to address climate change to do so,” Doniger said.
The Long-Term Effect of Gutting Expertise Neera Tanden, who was Biden's domestic policy adviser at the White House, provided a stark illustration of how significant personnel reductions can disrupt essential government functions. After severe flooding hit Asheville, North Carolina, last fall, the Biden administration quickly realized that the disaster had shut down a factory responsible for producing the majority of IV bags used in American hospitals.
Within days, Tanden said, the administration had assembled a task force to oversee the emergency importation of IV bags from abroad. The effort depended heavily on staff from the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services that coordinates the government’s response to public health crises. But under Trump, ASPR has already seen major layoffs and dismissals, raising concerns about how effectively it—or other agencies—could respond to future emergencies.
During her time in the White House, Tanden said, longtime career staff across government agencies could sometimes be “persnickety,” but their deep institutional knowledge allowed them to solve problems quickly. She warned that losing that expertise would have serious repercussions. The disruption might also make it harder for the United States to carry out cutting-edge scientific research. While the federal government directly employs more than 200,000 scientists and engineers, it has long driven technological and medical breakthroughs through grants to universities. Federal funding accounts for 55% of the $109 billion colleges and universities spend annually on research, with that share even higher in specialized fields.
For decades, this partnership has fueled advancements in computing, medicine, and engineering, from the development of the internet to life-saving cancer treatments. But the policies of Trump and Musk threaten to halt that innovation pipeline.
By canceling grants and limiting how much recipients can spend on overhead costs, the administration isn’t just ending specific projects—it’s weakening the long-term ability of universities to conduct research at all. As funding dries up, some schools are admitting fewer graduate and PhD students, while others may delay or cancel investments in new laboratories and research facilities, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Once universities scale back in these areas, rebuilding their research infrastructure will be slow and difficult—even if a future administration restores federal funding. “What history has shown us is that it’s easy to dismantle areas of science and technology,” Carney said, “but it’s difficult to rebuild.”
In response to a request for comment, White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the administration’s decision to halt federal grants to universities, arguing that it was necessary due to their failure to address rising antisemitic violence and protect “biological women” on campus—issues he claimed were not conducive to intellectual inquiry or scientific advancement. “The Trump administration is committed to increasing transparency in our scientific research apparatus while cutting waste, fraud, and abuse,” Desai said.
A Generational Struggle
Trump’s second-term agenda goes far beyond the usual policy shifts between administrations. He and his Republican allies in Congress are pursuing deep structural changes that could reshape the federal government for decades.
Among his targets is the U.S. Postal Service, which Trump has suggested should lose its independent status and be folded into the Commerce Department—or even privatized—though legal experts say he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally.
Additionally, Republicans in Congress are attempting to deprive California of its long-standing authority to establish stricter emission standards for automobiles. Since 1967, the state has used a federal waiver to enforce air quality rules beyond national standards, pushing automakers toward cleaner technology. Now, GOP lawmakers are working not only to revoke that specific waiver but also to permanently strip California of its authority to regulate emissions. At the same time, Senate Republicans are pushing to extend—and potentially make permanent—the tax cuts passed under Trump in 2017. Locking in those reductions would significantly shrink federal revenue, limiting the ability of any future Democratic president to fund social programs or expand government initiatives.
A New Peak in the Conservative Push to Reshape Government
Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who has worked for a long time, believes that Trump's efforts for a second term are the culmination of a movement that has been going on for decades to reduce Washington's power. Norquist, one of the most vocal advocates for reducing the size of the federal government, once famously said, *“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” *
Small-government conservatives have long admired Ronald Reagan, who stated in his inaugural address that "government is the problem" and "government is not the solution to our problem." But despite his rhetoric, Reagan had only limited success in actually reducing government spending. His tax cuts in 1981 permanently lowered top marginal rates and served as a model for subsequent Republican tax cuts during George W. Bush's administration. Bush and Trump. However, his efforts to significantly cut federal programs largely fell short.
According to Norquist, Reagan’s ambition to shrink government was no less than Trump’s—but the political and institutional landscape was less receptive at the time. Norquist argued, "I don't see a different level of ambition." *"I see a new level of capacity." *
Republicans never had a majority in the House under Reagan, and even though they controlled the Senate for six years, many Republican senators were moderates who opposed his agenda. Also acting as barriers were Republican governors and even a Supreme Court that was more centrist. At the time, elected Republicans were more hesitant to challenge career federal employees.
Trump, on the other hand, operates in a much more favorable setting. *“You start with a House and Senate that shares the president’s commitment to tax less, spend less, grow more, and regulate less,”* Norquist explained. *“And a Supreme Court that is not trying to trip you up and a bureaucracy that they no longer defer to.” * Trump also stands out for his combative demeanor. Norquist added, "He faces adversity and does not blink." Norquist believes that Trump and Elon Musk's aggressive budget cuts to federal agencies are only the beginning. He envisions Republicans working to reduce the scope of important federal programs like Medicaid and food assistance by converting them into block grants with fixed funding over time. Norquist stated, "You don't have to do everything right now." *“You have to govern to make things better to get the right to win the next election to continue to govern.”
But Neera Tanden, Biden’s former domestic policy adviser, views Trump’s efforts in starkly different terms. She believes Trump, along with key figures like Musk and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, is attempting to permanently cripple the federal government’s ability to function. *“They fundamentally believe that the agencies of the federal government and the people who work in them are obstacles to their libertarian fever dreams,”* she said. *"So they want to kill these organizations," *
While Norquist sees a long-term conservative victory in the making, Tanden predicts a public backlash that could protect key government programs. She points to Trump’s failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act as an example—his effort to dismantle it only made the program more popular. *“It’s not a minor fact that he tried to destroy the ACA, he was foiled, and the next president (Biden) comes along and significantly expands coverage,”* she noted. * "And that was not at all controversial because the ACA had become popular, so it had become popular to expand it,"
She believes that in response to Trump's current efforts, the same dynamic could emerge. *“He breaks things, and the question is: does the public basically go along with breaking it, or can you make clear to the country that this is something that should not be broken?” Tanden stated.
0 Comments