Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Continues the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy

TLDR

The referenced executive order targets “non-statutory” federal agencies for elimination, claiming to reduce waste and overreach. It establishes a “10-to-1” rule for regulations and creates a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Critics note the order targets small-budget agencies providing vital services (labor mediation, minority business support, homelessness coordination), would save minimal money (~$0.3B of $6.3T budget), lacks evidence of claimed waste, may violate statutory authority, and ironically creates new bureaucracy while claiming to reduce it.

This is a “fact” sheet for a recent executive order aiming to continue the reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy. There are several issues with both the order and this press release:

Claim: “Eliminating Waste and Reducing Government Overreach”:

• The order targets “non-statutory components,” but many agency functions evolve through regulatory authority or bipartisan consensus (e.g., FMCS’s conflict-resolution training programs). These often address emerging needs not explicitly codified in original statutes.
• Requiring agencies to pare back to the “minimum presence required by law” could cripple core functions. For example:
  • The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) is mandated to promote minority-owned businesses, but its grant programs and regional offices—critical for outreach—are not explicitly defined in statute.
  • The Arctic Research Commission coordinates climate science vital for national security and environmental policy, which depends on flexible, non-statutory collaboration.

Claim: “Saving Taxpayer Dollars and Reducing Waste”:

• Most targeted agencies have small budgets. For example:
  • FMCS: $53 million annually (mediates ~15,000 labor disputes yearly).
  • Institute of Museum and Library Services: $265 million (supports 123,000 libraries nationwide).
  • Eliminating these would save ~$0.3 billion—a negligible fraction of the $6.3 trillion federal budget.
• “DOGE Identified Billions in Waste”: No evidence or audits are provided. Similar past claims (e.g., Trump’s 2017 “two-for-one” deregulation) often conflated minor cost savings with significant societal harms.

Claim: “Returning Power to States and Local Communities”:

• Agencies like the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) coordinate federal-local partnerships. Disbanding it would fragment efforts to address homelessness, which spiked 12% in 2024.
• The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI) provides loans to underserved areas. Rural communities and minority-owned banks depend on these funds, which states lack the capacity to replace.

Claim: “Reforming the Bureaucracy”:

• Creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) adds a new federal layer—counter to the stated goal of shrinking government.
• The “10-to-1” rule could force agencies to repeal protections (e.g., workplace safety rules) to implement new ones, prioritizing quantity over public benefit.
• FEI trained 2,000+ federal leaders annually in crisis management. Its elimination occurred amid rising cybersecurity threats and pandemic preparedness gaps.

Omissions and Context:

• Targeting FMCS aligns with Project 2025’s goal to weaken federal mediation in labor disputes, favoring corporate interests over unions.
• Similar attempts to dismantle agencies (e.g., Trump’s 2017 effort to close MBDA) failed due to bipartisan pushback and proven cost-effectiveness.
• Past executive orders targeting agencies (e.g., 2020 USPS overhaul) were blocked by courts as overreach.

The fact sheet employs vague populist rhetoric (“drain the swamp”) while omitting:

• Proof of actual waste in targeted agencies
• Analysis of downstream costs (e.g., economic fallout from unresolved labor disputes)
• Acknowledgment of these agencies’ bipartisan origins (e.g., USICH established under Reagan)

This executive order appears less about efficiency and more about ideological dismantling of federal capacities in labor, minority advocacy, and scientific coordination.