While Trump Cuts Federal Waste, He Must Also Tackle Air Safety, Social Security, and Other Concerns
Anyone who advocates for limited government must support the Trump Administration’s efforts to scrutinize and reduce the excessive number of federal agencies. Eliminating unnecessary and divisive programs centered around race or unfeasible climate objectives is a logical approach.
Currently, the primary challenge for the administration comes from the federal judiciary, as highlighted by this week’s ruling from US District Court Judge John Bates, which mandates the CDC and FDA to reinstate websites that were removed for potentially breaching the president’s executive order regarding biological males’ participation in women’s sports and other gender-related matters.
This ruling marks the latest loss in a series of court challenges for the White House, raising concerns for those who hope that DOGE will facilitate government reform.
However, supporters of the president and Elon Musk should also be wary of the potential dangers posed by the Department of Government Efficiency—not only for ineffective civil servants and the Deep State but also for the overall success of the Trump Administration.
This concern can be termed the “Hollow State” risk—a government stripped not only of waste, fraud, and abuse but also of its ability to respond effectively to crises and to perform the essential roles that the American public expects it to undertake competently.
Consider crucial services like air traffic control, food safety, prompt social security disbursements, public health management, and, most importantly, law enforcement.
A recent series of troubling public crises—such as disrupted disaster responses, the near-assassination of Trump, contamination incidents at a meat processing plant, and cybersecurity failures exposing federal personnel records—might initially appear unrelated.
However, deeper investigation uncovers common underlying factors: ongoing shortages of essential personnel.
For the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), vital for assisting Americans during disasters like last fall’s flooding in Florida and North Carolina, the Government Accountability Office reported an “overall staffing gap of around 6,200 employees (35%) across various roles and cadres.”
At the Secret Service, “at least 1,400 of its 7,800 employees left during the 2022 and 2023 fiscal years—the largest attrition from the agency in at least two decades,” federal data indicates.
Following significant incursions into government databases, “the supply of qualified cybersecurity professionals continues to lag significantly behind what’s necessary to fill roles across all sectors, and this gap is only increasing,” according to a 2023 report.
These shortages extend to positions critical for food safety and transportation. Before a deadly listeria outbreak linked to a Virginia meat processing facility last year, a federal inspector general’s report noted that “historically, the federal Food Safety and Inspection Service has struggled to maintain adequate inspection staff to fulfill its mission.”
Likewise, a report for the federal Department of Transportation acknowledged that “although the United States boasts one of the safest air traffic systems globally, the shortfall of fully qualified [air traffic] controllers, operational supervisors, and traffic management coordinators poses a potential risk to air traffic operations.”
It may feel like ages ago as the administration pushes for mass resignations among federal employees, yet recent years have demonstrated a systemic issue in attracting sufficient talent—not for DEI initiatives but for essential governmental functions.
These roles encompass specialized positions such as cybersecurity experts, where Washington faces competition from the lucrative private sector.
This challenge has been the focus of the nonpartisan Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit established by former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, aimed at cultivating a pipeline of skilled public servants.
As the Alliance has asserted, the government is encountering an “ever-growing need for knowledge-based skills in the fast-evolving, complicated, global environment in which it operates.”
Nevertheless, as Volcker notes, “merely 6 percent of federal employees are in their 20s, in contrast to 21 percent of private-sector employees, and that already low statistic is declining.”
Additionally, federal “agencies took an average of 106 days to hire new employees.”
It is likely that younger professionals with the increasingly specialized skills essential for effective governance will eagerly accept Trump’s early February offer to resign with pay until September—while they seek better opportunities. Furthermore, it’s improbable that talented replacements will emerge.
A seasoned federal human resource officer, with experience spanning multiple government sectors including the CIA, expresses this sentiment: “if I were finishing college today, federal civil service would be my very last option.”
This stands in stark contrast to the vision articulated by Trump/Musk in the January 20 executive order: “We will guarantee that the Federal workforce is equipped to achieve American greatness and attracts the talent necessary to serve our citizens effectively.”
A widespread wave of resignations may not contribute towards that objective, nor will a blanket return-to-office mandate.
The risks for Trump are clear. Any incident of a terrorist breaching a compromised TSA checkpoint or an uninspected coal mine collapsing could lead to disasters for which a weakened government would rightfully face scrutiny.
As it seeks to eliminate decades of inefficiency, the White House should also recognize and possibly exempt those agencies and functions deemed essential to governance, which the American public believes must be sufficiently staffed.
A streamlined government should be the ultimate goal for Trump—because a hollow government serves no American’s interests, including those of Elon Musk.
Howard Husock is a senior fellow in domestic policy at the American Enterprise Institute.
