The Presidency of Donald Trump 2.0 has been disruptive. Very disruptive. The closest parallel is the first term of Ronald Reagan who also focused on cutting the Federal workforce, except for the Dept of Defense of course.
There was mass confusion at first and predictions of disaster. But it never happened. Reagan was easily re-elected in 1984.
One thing we know for sure in 2025: things will not be the same in Washington DC, even after Trump is gone. To quote a certain President, “the era of Big Government is over.” (That was Bill Clinton by the way).
The Trump methods to trim the Federal workforce include early buyouts and requiring in-person work. A related tactic is simply to fold up Federal agencies: USAID today, Department of Education tomorrow. Is this legal? Can the President unilaterally dismantle the Federal government?
No. The U.S. Constitution does not permit an Imperial Presidency. Article I authorizes the Legislative Branch to pass laws. Article II empowers the Executive Branch to enforce the laws. Nothing allows the Presidency to ignore its legal obligations, even if it’s operating under a perceived mandate.
Ironically, a major conservative victory in 2024 — the overturning of Chevron v. NRDC (1984) – is now saving the Democrats and Federal workers. Previously, a Federal agency was allowed to interpret Federal law and Courts would grant it great deference. In other words, if USAID said “we don’t exist anymore,” the Federal courts would have to take that claim seriously.
Chevron was great for Democrats when they controlled the Presidency. Democratic Presidents could issue Executive Orders on everything from DACA students to transgender athletes and Congressional Republicans were helpless to stop it.
In 2024, through the opinion of Loper v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court struck down that pro-agency bias. Instead, Federal courts will rule on statutory interpretation de novo.
Republicans rejoiced. Then they won the White House.
Without Chevron deference, the Trump executive orders will be suspended or even voided if they conflict with Federal law, e.g. by ignoring authorized expenditures. A good example of this was the recent opinion overturning the Trump “freeze” on Federal appropriations. Conversely, the Orders will be upheld if they dictate the manner in which funding is authorized. (A “return to work” order is obviously legal).
It is sad to see hard-working Federal workers put in jeopardy by this mess, but two things must be acknowledged:
- The evolution of the DC suburbs into a one-party regime means there are no relevant voices to advocate for Federal workers; Previously you could count on a Frank Wolfe or Tom Davis. Now there is nobody.
- This is a winning issue for Republicans. Nobody is running for President in 2028 on the slogan of “let’s increase the Federal workforce.” Moreover, many of these jobs are now portable. To put it simply: if work can be done remotely, why pay a premium for the DC suburbs? Why not do it in Omaha?
The impact on Virginia’s economy will carry over generations. We need a plan to adjust and we need it now.
Outrage is meaningless. It’s time to deal with reality.
