In less than a month since his inauguration, President Donald Trump has initiated a fierce conflict within his own administration, sparking widespread apprehension among federal employees and beneficiaries of government aid. Trump is pushing the boundaries of his authority to reshape the functions and nonpartisan nature of government without the approval of Congress, using obscure agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management to curtail funding for various domestic and international programs, streamline the process of firing federal workers, and compel more employees to resign. Despite facing legal obstacles and public backlash, Trump’s executive order remains in force, leaving federal workers caught between conflicting directives from the courts and the president.
Multiple federal workers have expressed feelings of fear, uncertainty, doubt, and frustration within government agencies in recent weeks. Many civil servants believe they are under heightened surveillance since Trump’s return to power. As public trust in government continues to decline, Trump is implementing longstanding Republican strategies to reduce and reorganize the federal government. Critics argue that dismantling the government in such a dramatic manner will render it less effective, inefficient, and vulnerable to partisan influence.
Following Trump’s directive to freeze funding for global aid programs, nearly 60 employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development were placed on administrative leave, with discussions underway to merge the agency into the State Department without congressional approval. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland criticized Trump’s actions, suggesting they could complicate efforts to secure enough votes to prevent a government shutdown. Van Hollen questioned the president’s commitment to bipartisan negotiations, accusing him of selectively enforcing policies to suit his agenda.
In defense of Trump, Republican Senator Jim Banks of Indiana asserted that the president is delivering on his campaign pledges to eliminate government waste and bring practicality back to the White House. Trump’s bold approach to overhauling the federal government is a risky gamble, counting on public support and Republican backing for his aggressive reform agenda.
The president’s allies argue that the current approach has been excellent, with Trump facing the least risk as he is ineligible for re-election. However, concerns have been raised about the recent dismissal of top FBI officials, which may pose challenges for Trump and his administration externally. Despite potential backlash, the operative believes Trump should not be worried, as he is not seeking re-election, and reducing the federal workforce is part of his agenda. Any fallout from these actions may fall on Vice President JD Vance and current officials to defend.
In some instances, Trump is not waiting for natural attrition and has taken direct action, such as firing FBI leaders and Justice Department prosecutors involved in Capitol siege cases. He has also issued pardons and commutations related to the January 6 attack on Congress. Federal workers have been warned of consequences if they do not report on colleagues working on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues. Trump has even attributed a mid-air collision to “DEI” hires at the Federal Aviation Administration without evidence.
Critics argue that the president’s words and actions are designed to demoralize and intimidate the federal workforce. Elon Musk and his allies, under the Department of Government Efficiency, are offering buyouts to civil servants in exchange for their resignations. Employees have been bombarded with messages about deferred resignation options, causing unease among many.
There are reports of increased control and surveillance, with OPM now directly contacting federal employees, bypassing the usual channels through agency heads. This has led to suspicions and concerns among staff about potential motives behind this shift in communication. While acknowledging the need for reforms within the federal government, some individuals believe that the rushed implementation of drastic changes will not lead to actual improvements in the civil service.
“Time,” this individual stated. “There might be positive ramifications if this were executed intelligently. And many individuals would embrace that. However, this is merely spreading fear. It’s nothing more than being intimidating. … That’s not how it operates. I mean, if you’re Elon Musk, it operates that way. But that’s not how it functions in government.” At the U.S. Forestry Service, a civil servant mentioned that a superior advised them, in response to their inquiries and concerns about the evolving directives, to simply maintain a low profile. This individual “informed me that, if I were in my position, the best course of action for me would be to lay low, keep a low profile, and just carry out my duties,” the Forestry Service employee explained. “While I can somewhat comprehend that, it’s not a particularly great response.” Republicans contended that there was minimal risk in Trump’s actions, considering that civil servants are perceived to be unsympathetic to the broader population, and the president does not need to seek office again and face any potential repercussions personally from the electorate. “Not to sound flippant, but I believe his aim is precisely what he stated it is — to drain the swamp,” remarked one of Trump’s allies. “Essentially, to purge the career bureaucrats who are present. I think the risk is low — very low.” “Any disruption in services would mainly involve direct payments to individuals, which are mostly automated,” this individual added. “And if we are reducing the amount of money spent, essentially reducing wasteful transfer payments, I doubt many will feel the impact.” Representative Riley Moore, R-W.Va., asserted that Trump’s endeavor to realign the federal workforce is centered on aligning it directly with his and his movement’s worldview. “What President Trump is trying to accomplish is to enhance efficiency and outcomes for the American taxpayer and the tax dollars expended to sustain our society with security and essential services,” Moore articulated. “Simultaneously, the president aims to revise the mission statement and guiding principles of these departments and agencies to orient them towards an America First ideology.” Neera Tanden, who served as President Joe Biden’s domestic policy adviser, remarked that there exists a tension between the anti-government advocates in Trump’s circle and the voters who propelled him to victory in November. This was evident in the backlash generated by the OMB memo, which was interpreted by many civil servants, lawmakers, and recipients of federal aid as necessitating a halt in funding grants for a myriad of services ranging from local fire departments and police programs to community health centers. “The fundamental challenge for their coalition is that it includes working-class individuals and billionaire libertarians, and they are at odds,” Tanden observed. “I don’t believe all those white working-class and Latino working-class individuals who voted for him are thinking, ‘I really want to lose my healthcare.'” Whether Trump can diminish the federal workforce and slash trillions
