Attacking Government Workers Has Long Been a Presidential Pastime

Key Takeaways:

• Aggressive efforts to reduce the federal workforce: President Trump and Elon Musk are implementing strategies to shrink government by urging resignations and eliminating departments.
• Elon Musk’s involvement in government downsizing: As an advisor, Musk is playing a significant role in pressuring civil servants and accessing key government departments.
• Historical precedents of attacking government workers: Similar efforts by past presidents have met with challenges and mixed results.
• Potential impact on government services and constitutional norms: The aggressive tactics may affect essential services and test legal boundaries.
• Public reliance on government despite criticism: Despite attacks on bureaucracy, Americans depend on federal workers for vital services.

Trump and Musk’s Crusade to Shrink the Government

President Donald Trump and his advisor Elon Musk have embarked on an aggressive campaign to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy. The newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has become Musk’s platform to pressure civil servants into resigning or face termination. In the first few days of Trump’s new term, federal workers received emails offering a deal: receive pay and benefits until September 30 if they choose to “resign” by February 6.

One of Trump’s initial actions was a back-to-work executive order requiring federal employees to return to the office, hoping that many would decide to stay home instead. The administration is also targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, aiming to eliminate them from all offices—including private institutions and state governments receiving federal funds.

Dismantling Agencies and Forcing Resignations

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been folded into the State Department, diminishing its autonomy and leaving many staff members overseas on paid leave. This move follows the administration cutting ties with contractors who make up more than half of USAID’s workforce. Trump has stated that Linda McMahon, his nominee for education secretary, should prioritize eliminating the entire department.

Elon Musk raised alarms when he gained access to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Fiscal Service, responsible for distributing millions in payments, including federal salaries—despite internal efforts to prevent his involvement.

Historical Echoes of Government Downsizing

Trump’s aggressive tactics are the latest in a long history of presidents attempting to shrink the federal government. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan declared in his inaugural address that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Attacking civil servants has been a recurring theme, often resonating with citizens frustrated by bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Past efforts to reduce government size have included purges and loyalty programs. In 1947, President Harry Truman initiated a loyalty program for federal employees. Senator Joseph McCarthy amplified these efforts by accusing government workers of being communists, leading to extensive screenings and thousands of resignations and terminations.

The “Lavender Scare” and Presidential Overreach

In 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower’s executive order broadened the definition of national security threats, resulting in approximately 7,000 to 10,000 federal employees losing their jobs or resigning during the “Lavender Scare.” Similar tactics resurfaced in 1972 when presidential advisor Fred Malek orchestrated a “responsiveness program” under President Richard Nixon to replace long-time civil servants with loyalists.

Challenges and Consequences of Downsizing

While some presidents successfully reduced federal employment—such as Bill Clinton, who decreased the workforce by over 270,000—others faced setbacks. George W. Bush’s attempts were complicated by post-9/11 security expansions.

Efforts to significantly cut the workforce often strain the remaining employees and hinder the government’s ability to meet increasing demands. Research by Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution notes that despite a population increase of two-thirds over the past 50 years, the federal workforce size has remained roughly the same.

Testing Constitutional Boundaries

Trump’s approach differs from his predecessors by aggressively attempting to dismantle agencies through executive actions, potentially bypassing Congress. His tactics test constitutional limits, such as the Impoundment Act of 1974, which restricts presidents from withholding funds for programs.

Elon Musk’s influential role as a private citizen and wealthy business leader raises ethical questions. Without undergoing any election or confirmation process, Musk appears to be handling significant governmental decisions with little oversight.

Public Dependence on Government Services

Despite political rhetoric against big government, Americans rely heavily on federal services, from national security to healthcare benefits. Reducing the workforce may lead to unfilled positions, causing delays and gaps in essential services.

Conclusion: A Caution from History

History suggests that while downsizing initiatives can temporarily reduce government size, they often face legal challenges and public backlash. As Trump and Musk push forward with their agenda, there is concern about the potential disruption to government functions and the lives of citizens who depend on them. Recognizing the value of federal workers is crucial, as they play a vital role in maintaining the nation’s well-being.