Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s Different ‘Big’ Government

Opinion

Trump’s Different ‘Big’ Government

U.S. President Donald Trump walks to the White House after stepping off Marine One on the South Lawn on October 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Tasos Katopodis

When Trump assumed the presidency again, one of his stated aims was to make the government smaller, whether by getting rid of federal employees, cutting "unnecessary" allocated funds and grants, or limiting the scope of the government's work.

So on the one hand, Trump and his MAGA allies are very anti-federal, traditional, big government. And Trump has, through his executive orders and DOGE, stopped much of the work that the federal government has done or has funded for decades—work that supports people in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the common good. (See my post, "Trump's Destruction of Government.") It is the culmination of Ronald Reagan's mantra: Government is not the solution; government is the problem.


On the other hand, Trump has made the federal government (the executive branch) more intrusive in the lives of America's people, businesses, and local governments than perhaps ever before. Among those actions are:

  • His tariffs have wreaked havoc on the economy and American corporations.
  • He has made all institutions—educational, cultural, and municipal—cease from engaging in policies that seek to better integrate the poor, people of color. and women into our society through DEI programs.
  • He is attempting to reshape the judicial branch of government as subservient to him in a way that no former president has (he goes much further than FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court).
  • He has brought about the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and thus, intruded the government into the private world of a woman's control over her body.
  • He is punishing his enemies through the power of the federal government.
  • And most recently, he is using the military to police cities that he feels are out of control.

This is not a man who seeks to make the federal government smaller in terms of its impact and intrusiveness. He only wants to do that in certain policy areas—he is against the traditionally progressive action of the federal government. But he is more than willing—eager—to use the power of the federal government to subdue those elements that he is against and to carry out policies that he is in favor of.

This is yet another example of Trump's hypocrisy—he is only true to what he thinks is in his best interest; there is no larger philosophy that he is devoted to. And so he seems capricious in his actions, veering one way one day, and in another direction the next day. His only loyalty is to himself.

When our country was founded, one of the main points of contention between the various delegates to the Constitutional Convention was how strong the federal government should be vis-à-vis the states. After the weak Articles of Confederation failed, the current Constitution was drafted, giving much more power to the federal government.

Conservatives have always been against "big" government, which is to say a government that helped those in need, helped people make the most of themselves, and regulated business to protect the public good is a progressive government. That is what Trump has been dismantling.

But some Founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, also worried about the stronger central government taking away individual rights, which is why he proposed the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Trump paints himself as a big supporter of individual rights—but that applies only to his rights and the rights of his supporters; those who oppose him have no rights in his view (as an example, Kimmel has no right of free speech to criticize Trump).

While Trump is making the helping part of the federal government smaller, he is creating a different "big" government, using the government to control what people do, intruding in their lives; using the military to usurp the power of local government; and interpreting the law so as to enable the aggrandizement of his power. What he has been doing in his second term is Orwellian in scope. This is very much what the Founding Fathers feared, and what they tried to prevent.

The Founders were also adamantly against anything in the structure of the new government that would allow the development of an executive with the power of a king—which is to say almost absolute power. (See my post, "Why the Declaration of Independence Argues for the Removal of Trump.") Which is why the Constitution was drafted with a carefully defined balance of power between the three independent branches of government—legislative, judicial, and executive. But Trump is seeking to make the other branches subservient to him—he has already rendered the legislative branch virtually impotent and is attempting to control the judicial branch.

The Declaration of Independence is, in large part, a recitation of the colonists' grievances against the king's exercise of absolute power over the colonies—greater power than he had over English citizens. That is why the Declaration states that the government derives its power "from the consent of the governed." This, as opposed to the divine right of kings.

True, Trump was elected, fairly, by not just carrying the Electoral College but a slim majority of the popular vote. (He would not be the first autocrat in the world who was elected into office by the people.) But regardless of their consent, or what he would call "mandate," the governed cannot give consent to violate the Constitution.

Here again, as I've urged in other posts, it is the task of the Democratic Party to bring these facts to the attention of the public in an organized, effective manner. While at the same time, showing their own bonafides in implementing the promise of the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson was worried about the potential power of the federal government and of a single individual within that government—Donald Trump is his nightmare come alive.


Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com

Read More

The map of the U.S. broken into pieces.

In Donald Trump's interview with Reuters on Jan. 24, he portrayed himself as an "I don't care" president, an attitude that is not compatible with leadership in a constitutional democracy.

Getty Images

Donald Trump’s “I Don’t Care” Philosophy Undermines Democracy

On January 14, President Trump sat down for a thirty-minute interview with Reuters, the latest in a series of interviews with major news outlets. The interview covered a wide range of subjects, from Ukraine and Iran to inflation at home and dissent within his own party.

As is often the case with the president, he didn’t hold back. He offered many opinions without substantiating any of them and, talking about the 2026 congressional elections, said, “When you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Facts about Alex Pretti’s death are undeniable. The White House is denying them anyway

A rosary adorns a framed photo Alex Pretti that was left at a makeshift memorial in the area where Pretti was shot dead a day earlier by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, on Jan. 25, 2026.

(Tribune Content Agency)

Facts about Alex Pretti’s death are undeniable. The White House is denying them anyway

The killing of Alex Pretti was unjust and unjustified. While protesting — aka “observing” or “interfering with” — deportation operations, the VA hospital ICU nurse came to the aid of two protesters, one of whom had been slammed to the ground by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent. With a phone in one hand, Pretti used the other hand, in vain, to protect his eyes while being pepper sprayed. Knocked to the ground, Pretti was repeatedly smashed in the face with the spray can, pummeled by multiple agents, disarmed of his holstered legal firearm and then shot nine or 10 times.

Note the sequence. He was disarmed and then he was shot.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Deadly Shooting in Minneapolis and How It Impacts the Rights of All Americans

A portrait of Renee Good is placed at a memorial near the site where she was killed a week ago, on January 14, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Good was fatally shot by an immigration enforcement agent during an incident in south Minneapolis on January 7.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

The Deadly Shooting in Minneapolis and How It Impacts the Rights of All Americans

Thomas Paine famously wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls," when writing about the American Revolution. One could say that every week of Donald Trump's second administration has been such a time for much of the country.

One of the most important questions of the moment is: Was the ICE agent who shot Renee Good guilty of excessive use of force or murder, or was he acting in self-defense because Good was attempting to run him over, as claimed by the Trump administration? Local police and other Minneapolis authorities dispute the government's version of the events.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone tipping the scales of justice.

Retaliatory prosecutions and political score-settling mark a grave threat to the rule of law, constitutional rights, and democratic accountability.

Getty Images, sommart

White House ‘Score‑Settling’ Raises Fears of a Weaponized Government

The recent casual acknowledgement by the White House Chief of Staff that the President is engaged in prosecutorial “score settling” marks a dangerous departure from the rule-of-law norms that restrain executive power in a constitutional democracy. This admission that the State is using its legal authority to punish perceived enemies is antithetical to core Constitutional principles and the rule of law.

The American experiment was built on the rejection of personal rule and political revenge, replacing it with laws that bind even those who hold the highest offices. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The essence of these words can be found in our Constitution that deliberately placed power in the hands of three co-equal branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

Keep ReadingShow less