Former President Donald Trump’s proposal to fire 85% of the federal government workforce has sparked intense debate across political and social circles. This dramatic reduction, often touted as part of his broader commitment to reduce bureaucracy and streamline governance, raises critical questions about its feasibility, implications, and potential impact on the United States.
Trump’s plan is rooted in his longstanding criticism of what he calls the “Deep State,” a term he uses to describe entrenched federal employees who he believes obstruct conservative policy objectives. He has argued that reducing the size of the federal workforce would curb inefficiency, reduce government overreach, and save taxpayers billions of dollars. This aligns with conservative ideals of smaller government and a leaner administrative state.
Reports indicate that Trump’s strategy involves expanding “Schedule F,” a policy he introduced via executive order in 2020 during his presidency. Schedule F would reclassify a significant portion of federal employees as “at-will” workers, making it easier to fire them. Although this policy was rescinded by President Joe Biden, Trump has pledged to reinstate and expand it if reelected.
Proponents of the plan argue that such a drastic reduction in government staff could address inefficiency, reduce waste, and empower state governments to take on responsibilities currently managed at the federal level. For conservatives, the move symbolizes a decisive step toward restoring what they view as constitutional limits on federal power.
Economically, reducing the federal workforce could cut spending on salaries and pensions, redirecting resources to other priorities, such as infrastructure or tax cuts.
Critics warn of significant risks. Slashing the federal workforce by 85% could cripple essential services, from Social Security administration to disaster response. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Education could struggle to fulfill their mandates, leading to delays, reduced oversight, and diminished public trust.
Moreover, such sweeping changes might face legal and political hurdles. The federal workforce is protected by civil service laws designed to ensure impartiality and prevent political interference. Mass layoffs could trigger lawsuits, legislative pushback, and public protests.
Donald Trump’s proposal to fire 85% of the federal government workforce is emblematic of his bold and controversial leadership style. While it appeals to his base, the plan is fraught with legal, logistical, and ethical challenges. If pursued, its success or failure could redefine the scope and function of the American government, leaving a lasting impact on the nation’s administrative and political landscape.