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

A Man Who Keeps His Word — Even When He’s Joking

U.S. President Donald Trump tours the Ford River Rouge Complex on January 13, 2026 in Dearborn, Michigan.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

A Man Who Keeps His Word — Even When He’s Joking

We’ve learned why it’s a mistake to treat Trump’s outrageous lines as “just talk”

“We shouldn’t need a mid-term election” is his latest outrageous statement or joke. Let’s break down the pattern.

When a candidate says something extreme, we, the public, tend to downgrade it: He’s joking. He’s riffing. He’s trolling the press. We treat the line like entertainment, not intent.

Keep ReadingShow less
From “Alternative Facts” to Outright Lies

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem on January 7, 2026 in Brownsville, Texas.

(Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images)

From “Alternative Facts” to Outright Lies

The Trump administration has always treated truth as an inconvenience. Nearly a decade ago, Kellyanne Conway gave the country a phrase that instantly became shorthand for the administration’s worldview: “alternative facts.” She used it to defend false claims about the size of Donald Trump’s inauguration crowd, insisting that the White House was simply offering a different version of reality despite clear photographic evidence to the contrary.

That moment was a blueprint.

Keep ReadingShow less
Zohran Mamdani’s call for warm ‘collectivism’ is dead on arrival

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his wife Rama Duwaji wave after his ceremonial inauguration as mayor at City Hall on Jan. 1, 2026, in New York.

(Spencer Platt/Getty Images/TNS)

Zohran Mamdani’s call for warm ‘collectivism’ is dead on arrival

The day before the Trump administration captured and extradited Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, many on the right (including yours truly) had a field day mocking something the newly minted mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, said during his inaugural address.

The proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America proclaimed: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Lie of “Safe” State Violence in America: Montgomery Then, Minneapolis Now

Police tape surrounds a vehicle suspected to be involved in a shooting by an ICE agent during federal law enforcement operations on January 07, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

The Lie of “Safe” State Violence in America: Montgomery Then, Minneapolis Now

Once again, the nation watched in horror as a 37-year-old woman was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The incident was caught on video. Neighbors saw it happen, their disbelief clear. The story has been widely reported, but hearing it again does not make it any less violent. Video suggest, there was a confrontation. The woman tried to drive away. An agent stepped in front of her car. Multiple shots went through the windshield. Witnesses told reporters that a physician at the scene attempted to provide aid but was prevented from approaching the vehicle, a claim that federal authorities have not publicly addressed. That fact, if accurate, should trouble us most.

What happened on that street was more than just a tragic mistake. It was a moral challenge to our society, asking for more than just shock or sadness. This moment makes us ask: what kind of nation have we created, and what violence have we come to see as normal? We need to admit our shared responsibility, knowing that our daily choices and silence help create a culture where this violence is accepted. Including ourselves in this 'we' makes us care more deeply and pushes us to act, not just reflect.

Keep ReadingShow less