A First Step Toward Shrinking Government

National Review Online

Tuesday, April 07, 2026

 

Don’t look now, but the federal government might actually have gotten leaner.

 

The most recent data show that fewer people now work for the federal government than at any point since 1966, when Lyndon Johnson expanded the bureaucracy to construct his “Great Society.” As a share of the total U.S. workforce, the figures are even more impressive: Less than 2 percent of people employed work for the federal government — the lowest share since before World War II.

 

The Trump administration gets credit for this milestone. Federal employment has been falling only since President Trump was inaugurated last January, after growing during the Biden years. In the past 14 months alone, the government has shed 352,000 workers, a stunning 12 percent decline. Military personnel are excluded from the count, so all reductions were in civilian staff.

 

The process that got us here was less messy than it appeared. Haphazard firings by the short-lived Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, received the most media attention. Yet the lion’s share of workforce reductions came through orderly layoffs. Over 150,000 federal employees accepted a buyout offer from the Trump administration early in his term. Tens of thousands more were let go in lawful “reductions in force” as agencies reorganized. As separations rose in 2025, hirings to fill vacancies slowed.

 

Layoffs were concentrated in administrative positions, which have long been due for contraction. The overgrown Defense Department bureaucracy saw the largest absolute reduction. Several departments that should not exist — Education, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development — also underwent deep cuts.

 

Trump deserves credit for achieving the lightest federal workforce in living memory. The federal government should employ as many people as necessary to perform its legitimate functions, and no more. Hundreds of thousands of duplicative workers have been released to find productive employment in the private sector, rather than merely being a drain on society’s resources. Lower compensation and retirement costs may save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming decades.

 

Still, even with fewer employees, the size of government has not been tamed much. Federal spending accounted for a near-record share of the U.S. economy in 2025 and is projected to grow much further.

 

That’s because pay and benefits for civilian employees make up just 6 percent of total federal spending. The bulk of federal spending is on transfer payments to private citizens, grants to the states, and interest on the national debt. Ultimately, the federal government is not expensive because it employs too many people but because it gives away too much money.

 

In this regard, Trump is headed in the wrong direction. He recently proposed a 2027 budget that would dramatically cut non-defense discretionary spending, in line with his workforce reductions. But those savings would be swamped by the large-scale yet necessary defense expenditures he’s proposing. Meanwhile, unlike in past presidential budget proposals, Trump makes no effort to even mention entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security — the true drivers of gaping deficits. Almost no one in Washington has any vision of bringing long-term revenues and total spending into accord.

 

Nonetheless, trimming the federal bureaucracy was a needed step toward rationalizing the size and scope of government. It may result in a more productive economy and, on the margin, decrease spending relative to the alternate path. But there is much more work to be done.