Ryan Boulanger, Editor-in-Chief
@RyanBCourant
This year’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference featured a host of notable moments: GOP strategist Steve Bannon’s questionable gesture, President Trump’s proposal for a third term, and most flamboyant of all Elon Musk’s chainsaw entrance to symbolize DOGE’s early-term bureaucratic layoffs.
So far Musk and DOGE have cemented themselves in the headlines throughout the opening weeks of the new presidency, pledging to close major government agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Education, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
With all of these legally questionable actions flooding the news cycle it’s important to keep track of the cuts that can and will affect everyday Americans.
So far Statista reports that 16,000 federal employees have been laid off as a result of DOGE’s funding cuts, on top of another reported 75,000 employees who took start-of-term buyouts offered by Trump. To put that into perspective, the largest current layoff in U.S. history was IBM’s release of 60,000 employees in 1993, the following year after which they posted an $8 billion loss in annual profits. When the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt leading to the 2008 financial crisis they only laid off 25,000 employees. Economists are still unsure how, if at all, these layoffs could potentially affect economic metrics, however that’s still potentially 75,000 (and looking as if that number will climb) federal employees with spouses, children, dependents, and lives.
Much of this DOGE talk has distracted the public from far bigger implications; on February 25th the House of Representatives adopted a federal budget mandating that the Energy and Commerce committee, which oversees Medicaid and Medicare, both federally-funded state-level programs that provide healthcare to low-income families and seniors, respectively.
Many Republicans defending the bill have raised the point that it does not ever explicitly mention Medicaid or Medicare, however the $880 billion in cuts that the Energy and Commerce Committee oversee will numerically necessitate major slashes to these programs. Democratic Representative Peter Aguilar (D-CA) articulated it best in a press conference after the bill passed: ‘Now some of our friends on the other side of the aisle will say, “This is just a procedural step. Please don’t hold this vote against me.’ Here’s the truth: This vote doesn’t just open the door for Medicaid cuts, it guarantees them.” Whether or not the bill specifically mentions these programs, there is no possible way to mandate such cuts over the next 10 years without touching Medicaid (Trump vowed on his campaign trail not to tamper with Medicare benefits for seniors, but we’ll see how that plays out.) According to NBC, in 2023 Medicaid covered the healthcare of 4 out of 10 American children, all of whom could be at risk of losing benefits should the bill be signed into law.
In addition to potential Medicaid cuts, DOGE is currently looking into major staff layoffs at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA). Around 2,400 employees were laid off last month, and according to Reuters total layoffs of up to 80,000 employees are being discussed within Trump’s circle. Albeit the Trump administration claims layoffs will not affect veterans’ access to healthcare and benefits, however any responsible business manager would tell you that a cut of 80,000 employees will surely impede day-to-day proceedings, which will put the nearly 9.31 million veterans the VA serves at risk of losing their benefits. Not to mention 25% of all VA employees are veterans who have served this country, many of whom are understandably frustrated that their efforts are being rewarded with punishment.
By strategically placing distance between the bill and Medicaid cuts, using the congressional committees as an intermediate, controlling House Republicans create substantial plausible deniability should their constituents, many of whom rely on Medicaid, ask questions. Moreover according to Senate Democrats this is the first bill in American history to be drafted without the consultation of the Democratic caucus, meaning the bill was written (quite literally) behind closed doors.
The general theme here seems to be cut, cut, cut. Where exactly will this money go? Leading GOP figures cite the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which drastically reduced corporate tax rates and extended some benefits to the upper and middle classes. This legislation is set to expire this year, and Republicans are seeking to extend cuts at the expense of Medicaid. While it is true that the middle class will receive a portion of cuts, the majority of the benefits will go to households earning more than $1 million a year, classified as the top 1%. Should the cuts be extended until 2027, the top 1% of earners will experience on average a 3.2% boost in savings, equivalent to around $70,000 on average, while comparatively the middle class will only see on average $1,000 in savings, around 1.3% according to NBC.
Along with the $880 billion in cuts mandated to the Energy and Commerce Committee, House Republicans also wove $230 billion in cuts to be overseen by the House Committee on Agriculture, which controls the budget for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP officials have warned that in order to meet the slashing quota SNAP benefits will see major cuts, which could potentially affect millions of Americans who are likely already reliant on Medicaid. According to data from Newsweek, in 2023 42.1 million Americans utilized SNAP benefits, receiving $187 a month per person to buy groceries essential to daily survival. For reference that’s 12.6% of the entire American population.
By drastically cutting these essential services and giving the ultra-wealthy and corporations a disproportionate tax break, the gap between the upper and lower classes in terms of income and wealth shares will only continue to divide. In Trump’s joint address to Congress on March 4th he stated: “By slashing all of the fraud, waste and theft we can find, we will defeat inflation, bring down mortgage rates, lower car payments and grocery prices, protect our seniors and put more money in the pockets of American families.” Almost exactly the opposite of this is true. By slashing social services the Trump administration will take money away from the pockets of American families, not put money into them.
On top of reduced government assistance, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan, independent, and nonprofit research organization, estimates that the implementation of Trump’s Canada and Mexico tariffs, which went into effect on March 5th will cost the middle quintile of American household earners an estimate $1,200 each year due to a rise in prices passed onto consumers (a commonly accepted theory among leading economists).
Perhaps the most egregious offense of Musk’s escapade is the lack of guardrails surrounding his decision-making process. While it is true that the courts system has already flagged many of his actions as unconstitutional, mounting a judicial opposition against him has so far proven to be mediocre at best in its results. Fortunately key members of Trump’s inner circle have begun to stand up to the unelected bureaucrat: according to the New York Times Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed his frustration with Musk over USAID cuts, under his purview, in a cabinet meeting on March 7th. In a press conference after the meeting Trump denied any clash, however NYT reports depict a tense standoff.
No one on either side of the aisle is against reducing wasteful government spending and fraud, however by erratically laying off tens of thousands of employees with days of notice and introducing massive budget cuts to widely relied-upon social services the class divide will only continue to shrink the middle class and harm working Americans and their families. Leaving these incredibly complex and investigative tasks up to a billionaire with little to no political experience, and especially hypocritical given that Musk’s operations have received an estimated $38 billion in contracts from the federal government since 2003, and still have billions up for grabs for the next four years.
Currently the spending bill awaits President Trump’s signature after having narrowly passed the Senate in a 54-46 vote. Two Democrats voted for the bill while one Republican opposed it, effectively keeping the government open for another six months.
