Really?
A quick AI search:
The Trump administration has taken several steps aimed at
reducing the size and scope of the federal government, particularly during its second term. Here’s a breakdown of key actions:
Executive Orders and Bureaucratic Cuts
- Executive Order to Reduce Bureaucracy: Signed in February 2025, this order targeted unnecessary government entities and advisory committees for elimination or downsizing.
- Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): Created to identify and eliminate waste, fraud, and inefficiency across federal agencies.
- Termination of Programs: The administration shut down the Federal Executive Institute and paused foreign aid to certain NGOs and international contractors to ensure alignment with American values.
Workforce Reduction
- ederal Workforce Shrinkage: Between September 2024 and March 2025, the number of federal civilian employees dropped by over 23,000.
- Deferred Resignation Program: Set to remove hundreds of thousands more employees by October 2025.
- Hiring Freeze and RIF Notices: Hiring slowed dramatically, and many employees received reduction-in-force or termination notices.
Deregulation Initiatives
- 10-to-1 Deregulation Rule: For every new regulation introduced, ten existing ones had to be eliminated.
- Streamlining Rulemaking: Agencies were required to justify new rules with clear benefits, aiming to reduce regulatory burden.
Budget and Spending Cuts
- $4.4 Trillion in Proposed Cuts: The administration’s budget aimed to reduce spending and balance the budget by 2035.
- Nondefense Discretionary Cuts: Proposed a 5% cut to nondefense programs and a 2% annual reduction through 2030.
- Defense Prioritization: Maintained strong defense funding while cutting elsewhere.
These efforts reflect a broader philosophy of
returning power to states and local communities, reducing federal overreach, and promoting efficiency. If you’d like, I can dive deeper into any of these areas or explore how these changes compare to previous administrations.
Thank you for providing the list. I have not reviewed each item individually, but I trust your statement that these policies shift authority from the federal government to local and state governments. If this is accurate, I recognize President Trump’s actions in this regard.
However, these actions do not represent all of the initiatives undertaken by the current administration.
As I have previously stated, my political perspective aligns with the conservative values exemplified by Reagan, W. Bush, and Romney.
Even at his most assertive, President Reagan would likely not have considered contacting a major private company such as Apple to threaten a 60% tariff on their products if they did not relocate jobs and factories to the United States. Such an action would conflict with the principles of limited government that conservatives have valued over the past fifty years.
It is unlikely that President Reagan would have contacted the president of Harvard to dictate which programs, such as DEI, should or should not be taught at universities. Nor would he have directed Columbia University regarding the enrollment of foreign students. Such actions would contravene the principle of limited government that conservatives have advocated for over the past fifty years.
President W. Bush faced recessions in 2002 and from 2007 to 2008; however, at no point did he make public statements regarding then-Federal Reserve Chairs Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke. It is likely that President Bush and his team may have disagreed privately with the Federal Reserve chairman, but neither he nor his administration ever publicly addressed the matter, either in support or in opposition. This restraint aligns not only with the conservative principle of limited government, but also respects the boundaries established by the U.S. policies.
If Mitt Romney or John McCain had been president, it’s unlikely they would have argued on Twitter with a college president about a biological man competing in NCAA women’s sports.
If the concept of limited government is understood as allowing the President of the United States to direct major corporations on their operations, influence university curricula, or instruct the Federal Reserve Chair on setting interest rates, such an approach may reflect certain contemporary conservative policies. However, it does not align with the conservative principles associated with figures like Reagan, Bush or Romney.