Filenews 3 January 2026 - by William Hartung
The New York Times published an article in which they attempt to assess the impact of Trump's moves to reduce the size of the federal government. The bottom line is that the federal government's workforce has indeed shrunk by about 250,000 people, or 10 percent.
However, the cuts have been implemented unevenly and, despite the layoffs, overall spending has not been significantly reduced, according to the NYT, based on an analysis of the data from the Cato Institute:
"According to Romina Boccia, director of the budget and rights policy division at the Cato Institute, most federal funds go to Medicare and Social Security, two programs that no political party has the will to fundamentally change. The same goes for another big expense: the repayment of interest on loans."
It is noteworthy that the Pentagon's budget, which will reach $1 trillion for the first time in its history in 2026, has not been touched, increased by more than $100 billion compared to the peak of the Cold War. There is room for cuts in the Ministry, but that would require central policy changes – not just minor changes to this or that program. A more restrained policy that limits foreign interference – as promised by the Trump administration in the recently released National Security Strategy – could save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade by reducing the network of 750 US military bases abroad, limiting the number of Navy aircraft carriers and "wiping out" unattainable objectives such as effective defense against all types of missiles. Instead, Washington is stepping up its effort to develop the Golden Dome missile defense system, committing to the production of a new, expensive fighter jet (the F-47) and planning the development of a new generation of battleships, to be known as the "Trump Class".
And then there is the so-called "Donro Doctrine" for the Western Hemisphere – a variation of the "Monroe Doctrine" proposed 200 years ago by President James Monroe. So far, the Doctrine has been used to justify a series of escalating attacks against Venezuela, a country that does indeed have an oppressive government, but does not pose a significant threat to U.S. security. In fact, the main justification put forward for the attack on this country – based on drug trafficking to the United States – is self-undermining. Venezuela is not the largest drug trafficking route to the U.S. and has little involvement in trafficking the deadliest imported drug, fentanyl. Trump's document pledged to use force only to defend U.S. "core interests." The attacks against Venezuela are not in line with this logic.
In the meantime, the part of the budget that concerns the citizens has been significantly damaged. The dismantling of the main channel for providing external financial and humanitarian aid, the Agency for International Development (AID), has left hundreds of thousands of recipients of U.S. aid around the world without access to programs that save lives and provide food, drinking water, and public health services. It has also deprived America of an important source of influence in the rest of the world. The NYT article quotes a farmer from northern New York who says that, since the Department of Agriculture's staff has been reduced by 20%, he can't even contact the local office by phone to find out the status of the aid programs he regularly received in the past, as a result, he claims, "To see a huge number of farms close this year." In addition, a Department of Agriculture program to monitor foodborne illness has been cut, as have key agencies responsible for protecting the public, from the Centers for Disease Control to the Environmental Protection Agency, units whose total annual budget is less than the money the Pentagon spends each year on the dysfunctional F-35 program.
The White House budget director, Russell Watt, argues that all the cuts in the workforce are justified because "the agencies have become a tool of the left". "Under Trump's presidency, those days are over," he said in June.
Nicholas Christoph has opposed the way of thinking advocated by Bott, acknowledging the need for reform, but without destroying vital services:
"It is true that American social support agencies needed reforms. Too much money was spent on projects with unclear results. However, the Trump administration's view that the U.S. Agency for International Development led by "radical paranoids" is just a waste is frightening. By 2025, U.S. aid amounted to just 22 cents for every $100 GDP, while saving a life every 10 seconds. Can any other government agency boast of having performed more impressively?"
Could it be the case that ensuring adequate food for people, preventing the spread of disease or taking a constructive role - on the part of the US - at global level through humanitarian aid programmes are of interest only to the 'left'? We will see in 2026, when the cuts approved this year begin to be implemented, affecting states and citizens, regardless of whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
