Dems Outnumber Conservatives in Government: Which Department Ranks the Lowest?

The Department of Government Efficiency has yet to initiate its key objective: implementing Donald Trump’s commitment to relocate 100,000 federal employees away from Washington, DC.

This initiative would expand on the president’s prior term strategies to shift federal agencies. While the financial savings could be significant, the primary advantage would be restoring a much-needed ideological equilibrium within the expansive federal bureaucracy.

The current federal system is more liberal than even the most progressive regions of the nation, often resistant to policies that do not align with its inherent biases.

Making the administrative framework more representative of the American populace would increase its accountability to both the citizens and the elected president.

Nearly everyone is aware of the federal government’s leftward tilt, yet I recently conducted a study that reveals just how liberal it genuinely is.

My analysis was based on approximately 25 years’ worth of data on federal employees, from the Clinton era to Trump’s initial term, which was cross-referenced with a national voter database.

While the relatively few presidential appointees usually mirror the political affiliations of the sitting president in both Republican and Democratic administrations, they do not manage the day-to-day operations of the government.

The responsibility for these tasks lies with the career Senior Executive Service, comprising thousands of assistant secretaries, deputy counsels, and program directors who direct federal regulation and ensure their agencies adhere to the president’s directives.

Among these senior officials, Democrats hold a substantial 30-point lead over Republicans—a statistic that has remained unchanged for at least 30 years.

At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for instance, Democrats have a staggering 55-point edge over Republicans, with 72% compared to 15%, while Health and Human Services exhibits a 63-19% disparity.

In welfare-related agencies, such as the portion of the Department of Agriculture responsible for food stamps, Democrats enjoy a 59-point lead, which is double that of the overall Agriculture Department.

The proximity to the capital only exacerbates the partisan divide within the bureaucracy.

Within the metropolitan DC region, Democrats have a 39-point advantage among agencies. In contrast, outside of DC, senior bureaucrats displayed only a marginal two-point Democratic lead.

Only three congressional districts in the United States exhibit a more pronounced leftward lean. Even in socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Vermont or socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s constituency, the DC bureaucracy’s liberalism is unmatched.

It’s important to clarify that hiring Democrats is completely legitimate.

However, the leftward dominance within federal agencies enhances the chances that bureaucrats may choose to disregard the directives of a duly elected Republican president and his legally appointed political appointees.

Obstruction from the bureaucratic ranks during Donald Trump’s initial term was both extensive and notorious. A survey conducted by the Napolitan Institute in January revealed that 46% of federal managers were still inclined to ignore the president’s orders—not due to illegality, but simply out of disagreement.

An additional 9% expressed uncertainty regarding their potential actions, but given the prevailing groupthink, it’s reasonable to suspect they would align with the resistance. The Trump administration has already identified several senior officials accused of attempting to undermine the president’s directives.

Conversely, when a Democratic president occupies the White House, the bureaucracy typically acts more swiftly and faithfully to the mandates from the Oval Office. This tendency is understandable—they often agree with him and are largely devoid of dissenting perspectives.

The federal bureaucracy must adhere to the instructions of every president, irrespective of party affiliation. The most effective method to ensure this is by cultivating a bureaucracy that reflects the diverse ideological spectrum of the country.

Realizing this goal necessitates relocating a significant portion of the federal government out of DC, where agencies are more prone to draw from a different, more nationally representative talent pool.

President Trump has already demonstrated the feasibility of relocating agencies and the associated advantages.

In 2019, the president declared a relocation of the Bureau of Land Management headquarters from DC to Colorado—a location that aligns more logically with the land it manages. Nearly 90% of the DC-based personnel left subsequently.

This not only resulted in cost savings for the government, but also facilitated the hiring of fresh talent in a politically mixed state—individuals less likely to embody the ideological biases endemic to the DC environment. Subsequently, Biden relocated the agency back to DC in 2021.

This time, empowered by DOGE, the administration should not only move the Bureau of Land Management but also transfer even larger agencies out of the nation’s capital and directly into the nation itself.

Consider relocating Health and Human Services to Cleveland, Ohio; Housing and Urban Development to Charlotte, North Carolina; and Labor to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, among others.

Such relocations would greatly increase the likelihood of hiring a more diverse political mix of local Republicans and Democrats. Bureaucrats would find it more challenging to resist a president—regardless of party—because they would better represent America and not perpetuate each other’s ideological inclinations.

The relocation of those 100,000 federal employees away from Washington, DC, is urgently required.

Hayden Dublois is the director of data and analytics at the Foundation for Government Accountability.