Trump Promised To 'Drain the Swamp.' He Did the Opposite.
Total spending under Trump nearly doubled. New programs filled Washington with more bureaucrats.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump promised to "drain the swamp!"
The "swamp" is the permanent Washington bureaucracy working to perpetuate itself.
In 2020, then-President Trump said he was succeeding: "We're draining the Washington swamp!"
But it's not true.
"He made government bigger," Economist Ed Stringham says in my new video. 'That's going in the wrong direction. Looking through a list of agencies, every single one I could see, there were more employees after his presidency than before."
Trump added almost 2 million jobs to the federal workforce.
He did make some cuts at the State Department, Labor Department, Education Department, and his own office. But total spending under Trump nearly doubled. Some was in response to COVID-19, but billions in extra spending came before.
That spending increased the size of the swamp. New programs filled Washington with more bureaucrats.
Trump launched a $6 billion "Farmers to Families" Food Box Program to bring food from farmers to families.
"Last I checked," jokes Stringham, "we have an industry for that. It's called the supermarket industry. It exists for a reason. Markets are good at getting things from farmer to consumer."
Trump pandered to women, signing a Women, Peace, and Security Act, the Woman Entrepreneurship and Empowerment Act, the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, a Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative.
That just made the swamp bigger.
Probably permanently.
"Once government implements a program," Stringham points out, "it becomes very difficult to roll that back. You've created a whole new constituency of lobbyists who love their new income."
Seventy years ago, Congress feared America wouldn't have enough mohair for soldiers' uniforms. So they subsidized mohair production.
Today, the military doesn't use mohair. But the subsidy continues.
"We're stuck with it," says Stringham, "because now there's a whole group of new people on the payroll who like what they have."
At least Trump acknowledges his failure to drain the swamp.
"When I said it, it sounded very easy and it was going to happen real fast," he says. "I didn't know the swamp was this dirty and this deep."
Elect me again, he promises, and "we will drain the swamp once and for all."
I doubt it.
Trump doesn't understand the source of the swamp.
When a reporter called him out, saying, "You didn't drain the swamp like you said you would," Trump replied, "I did. I fired Comey. I fired a lot of people."
"He fired a couple people," replies Stringham, "but hiring additional people for government jobs—that's not draining the swamp; that's making things worse."
Much worse, because once you hire government employees, it's nearly impossible to fire them.
They "can show up late, not show up at all, show up drunk," says popular YouTuber Armand Curet, who works for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Instead of hiring more bureaucrats, Trump could have turned to the private sector.
"Privatize!" exclaims Stringham. "Government doesn't need to be doing all these things. We have markets."
Markets work better. They even create things people assume can only be done by government.
When I ask people, "Who built NYC's subways?" everyone answers, "Government."
But it's not true. Private companies built most of them.
Politicians then forbade the entrepreneurs to raise prices from a nickel to a dime, driving them out of business. The city took over the subways and, guess what—raised the price much more.
Private enterprise is simply more efficient.
America doesn't need the Labor, Agriculture, Commerce Departments. Those things just happen. They work better if government gets out of the way.
Trump didn't privatize any department.
"He did do some deregulation," I say to Stringham.
"Government spending increased dramatically," Stringham replies. "I don't see that as draining the swamp. I see that as making the swamp a lot bigger."
There's only one way to drain it, he adds: "Don't have the government in control of so many things."
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just out of curiosity, did Trump make the swamp bigger than Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Biden, or was he slightly more restrained than all those gentleman.
Start here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001
So pretty much level since Nixon and Ford.
Certainly no evidence that Trump was more restrained than Obama or Clinton for example. Clinton comes out looking pretty good.
But of course it's not just employees. It's contractors, etc.
Yeah, let’s just forget all the regulations Trump got rid of, that Biden restored.
That's kind of an interesting plot. The little spikes must be for census. But interesting that there wasn't a census spike 1950 or 1940.
Looks like Johnson and Nixon and Reagan added the most. But Biden is trying to give them a run for their money.
Just out of curiosity, did any of those other Presidents promise to “drain the swamp?” Put the campaign promises of politicians in one hand and a measure of feces in the other – which hand is holding more? For the record, I suspect most people who heard Trump promise to drain the swamp thought he was talking about eliminating corruption and self-perpetuating power trips, not downsizing government. No one alive back then – including Trump himself – could possibly have explained what “drain the swamp” even meant, so this is essentially a tempest in a teapot.
As I recall, the "swamp" did everything possible to keep Trump under attack and unable to pursue them. It has now been established that they lied to him about intelligence regularly in the attempt to steer his opinions and policies.
I have a suspicion that he will be much more aggressive addressing the swamp the next time. It won't be enough for me, but then the Congressional UniParty will be fighting him tooth and nail.
I would like to see entire agencies abolished and for SURE the top of the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc, canned with security clearances revoked.
Hello, bipartisan spending increases passed by veto proof majorities, did you somehow forget that? Or that it's been illegal for a while now for Presidents to refuse to spend money that's been appropriated?
I'm not saying the guy was into balls to the wall austerity, but, come on now! Be accurate about who was driving spending levels!
Come on now? Congress passed veto proof budgets in the Trump era? I see that for the defense bill but not for much else. Trump was right out in front spending money. When Congress refused to spend money on the wall, he never built he appropriated money from other defense sources. He was right out in front spending money during the pandemic. You are rationalizing.
I see that for the defense bill but not for much else.
Just a little thing called the CARES Act. No biggy though. A mere $2.2 trillion.
For most of the past dozen years or so Congress hasn't even passed real budgets, just one continuing resolution after another.
When did you start to hear the voices telling you that Presidents care whether their actions are legal or not? When you start hearing voices telling you to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, give me a ring - Ima make you a great deal on it!
Trump is a confidence man, and his goal is not to do things but to make you think he will or has done things. There is nothing to suggest his four years really did anything he talked about. He spent more, he did little to deregulate or change, and he generally was incompetent. What he good is at is talk, he is a salesman selling people an idea that he cannot actually deliver to people.
Trump is a confidence man
Politicians are confidence men. Even Paul and Massie. The only ones that aren’t are nepotists and cronies.
Politicians’ acolytes are confidence men. That’s why you’re here trying to convince us that Biden or Ronnie D. or someone else is better than Trump. That Trump is the bigger nepotist, crony, con man than the entirety of the swamp he promised to drain.
The difference is that you’ve conned yourself into thinking you’re informing people of something they don’t know and that you, and even Stossel, are nowhere near good enough to convince people not to believe their lying eyes, ears, and minds.
Moderation4ever is a salesman selling other midwits and bien pensants ideas that he picked up by watching Democratic Party talking heads on CNN.
Don’t forget the ideas I picked up reading articles in Reason, like John Stossel’s piece here. And for the record the only two CNN programs I watch with any regularity are Michael Smerconish and Fareed Zakaria. Michael is middle of the road and Fareed has a good sense of world events.
Don’t forget the ideas I picked up reading articles in Reason, like John Stossel’s piece here.
ML takes great pride in being impervious to ideas.
I thought he was a sock exposing the ridiculousness of centrist positions on everything.
Your comment is a cynical take. Politicians are certainly people with strong ego and self-confidence to seek leadership positions. That could be said of leaders from the time of this countries founding.
But they are also people committed to serving people. Trump is a narcissistic con-man. There is nothing to suggest he seeks leadership other than his own self-aggrandizement. His run is 2024 is not about our country but about his bruise ego and trying to avoid a criminal conviction.
Your comment is a cynical take.
I said you’d conned yourself into thinking you were informing people of things that weren’t plainly obvious or transparent. You don’t have to keep proving me correct or correct, but cynical, or whatever.
And who has done better as a president than that in the last couple of decades?
Both Obama and Biden Doubled government right out of the gate.
Never-mind exiting the Paris Accord, Cutting the EPA budget, cutting the USPS out of subsidizing for the UPU, cutting taxes and negotiated a new trade deal and yes, spend more on border security (one of the very few actual reasons of having a union of states gov).
You can hope for perfect (or better) all you want but until anyone demonstrates better Trump is the best I've seen in a long time.
Sure, I agree with a lot of that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the negatives. Trump is certainly preferable to Biden, but that isn't saying much. Trump is not a small government guy by any means. Anyone not trying to actually make government smaller and less costly is part of the problem.
Trump's not preferable just to Biden! He's preferable to Bush (Jr. or Sr.), Obama, McCain, Gore, Clinton (either of them), or Dole, at least. Who do we have who's even nearly as good who could survive the nomination process? Or could perform as well with a Congress ranging from divided to oppositional?
I don't disagree, but Biden's the only one of those people on the ballot. We should still be honest and critical of Trump too. That's all I'm saying. I'm not an activist or part of the campaign, so I'm just going to say what I think and argue about things. And I'm not quite convinced that Trump is all that great at dealing with congress.
Heck, I criticized even Howard Stern, and I was the one who got him to seek the LP nomination for governor.
Both Obama and Biden Doubled government right out of the gate.
Not quite.
Obama came into office right after Bush signed emergency spending for the housing bubble (TARP), and made that emergency spending the new baseline.
Similarly Biden came into office right after Trump signed emergency spending for COVID (CARES Act), and made that emergency spending the new baseline.
Turns out the Republicans double government under the excuse of it being temporary, and then the Democrats make it permanent.
Takes two.
I mean, they’re stupid for continuing to try and kick that ball, but blaming Charlie Brown for Lucy’s bullshit seems a little misplaced.
Also, I would note that one Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House both times those “emergency” spending measures were passed. But I’m sure that was just a coincidence.
As I've said to ML and others who say Trump is blameless because he faced a veto-proof majority, I'd agree had he exercised that power. But he didn't. So he's not.
Holy crap... Even TARP was a Democrats brain-child.
Introduced in the House as H.R. 1424 by Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI)
Not even I had that one guessed right. So far on the Root-Cause your so obsessed on kicking down the road (Bush first, Trump first) you're scoring a 0 of 4 on.
You claimed it was Republicans faults that those emergency measures got passed and then made the baseline. I’m saying that they were not primarily at fault because they were stupid enough to believe it would be one time spending as promised by the Democrats (read Pelosi) that was immediately made the baseline by the Democrat controlled Congress and Presidency, both times. Now, if you wanted to argue that a lot of RINO’s had no problem with that, I would definitely agree with you there.
Also, I didn’t say he was blameless. In fact both I and ML have said in the past that his handling of Covid (and the subsequent spending) was horrible. But I can understand the political calculation of a) not giving the opposition a sound byte of you vetoing a spending package being sold in the media as relief for the average voter; and b) arguing for more money for that average voter over local/state governments and special interest groups.
That stupidity is pretty inexcusable. They know how it works in Washington.
They should, but a lot of them have this pollyannaish idea that politics is a gentleman’s sport (with their talks of compromise and “true bipartisanship”) rather than a street fight. That’s part of why Trump appealed to so many people (especially in the GOP), he would at least verbally get in the trenches, sometimes to the cringing of normal people. But he pushed back against their rhetoric.
Again, I'm not vaxxed because I didn't think the disease was that much of a threat to me, and that, like TARP, paying up front was a bright red line as far as free markets and free minds go.
That said, even I can admit to an "I'm probably going to regret this because it's not going to be two weeks, but as long as it's only two weeks to make sure people aren't actually infecting everyone within a roving 100 ft. radius of everything they touch, bleeding out of their eyeballs, and dying within 72 hrs., it shouldn't be too bad."-style under appreciation of the impending, insane power grab that was about to take place.
I didn't mean for you to take my comment personally, which is why I said "ML and others" not DesigNate. He is free to take it personally because it was directed at him.
My claim is that, historically, Republican presidents sign UGE spending bills, ditch town, and then Democrats get all the blame for making it the new baseline.
Are Democrats to blame for making it the new baseline? Of course. But would they have had the opportunity had Republican presidents not jacked up the budget in the name of an emergency? We'll never know.
I didn’t take it personally, just responding to your response of my response (responseception duh duh da duh duh). I mentioned ML because I remembered seeing him blast Trump on the Covid response.
FWIW, I didn’t think you were just blaming Trump, I guess I just disagree on laying the good or bad spending policies at the feet of the president when the most they can usually do is waste political capital by symbolically opposing spending increases or cuts. Obviously that calculus should change if the veto could actually do something.
That's why we're not politicians 🙂
Also, when I was waiting in line at the last concert I went to, the people I struck up a conversation with flew in from TX because the band didn't do a show in the Lone Star State. So I'm starting to understand your pain in being skipped.
Then again I drove to Boston from Maine...
Careful Stoss, you're treading on thin ice here. Trump's Deranged Supporters will start accusing you of TDS if you don't start praising the man.
What about village drunks? Will they try to troll the Trump supporters?
Well, I'm glad that someone pointed that out.
But just like when Bush jacked up spending for TARP and Obama took the one-time emergency spending hike as the new baseline, Trump jacked up spending for COVID and Biden's handlers took the one-time emergency spending hike as the new baseline too.
Spending was 4 trillion a year as recently as 2018. Now it's over 6 trillion, just 6 years later. Tax revenues are running around 4 trillion a year now, meaning the budget could be balanced today if spending were cut back to just 2018 levels. It seems like the government was already way too big in 2018. Why does it need to be 50% bigger now?
Because government is a one-way ratchet.
the budget could be balanced today if spending were cut back to just 2018 levels.
Except $4 trillion today doesn't buy what it did even as recently as 2018, thanks to massive inflation. We're in a debt trap and it only ratchets one way.
Sorry, you misconstrue "the swamp". Most federal employees aren't the swamp. The swamp is the bureaucrats and advisors who are working directly against our policy interests. So, for instance, most of the armed forces aren't the swamp; the swamp is those officials who deliberately hid US activities and falsified intelligence to keep the armed forces at risk and working against our interests overseas.
Most notably the intelligence agencies.
Fuck Republicans (mostly the RINO’s) for not having the balls to cut spending at the same time they cut taxes (hell, just reducing the rate of growth like they had just a few years prior with Sequestration would have helped at least a little), but I wonder how many of those new employees were mandatory hires/spending that’s baked in to every omnibus bill that Congress passes. I also wonder how often Trump was smacked down by the courts for trying to axe “civil servants” from any given department.
At the time, it seemed pretty obvious that a lot of the #Resistance were public sector union thugs who were genuinely scared he’d take a chainsaw to their department, so I’m inclined to believe he did the best he could within those parameters.
but, but, but ... He "hollowed out our public institutions."
Right there at the start of the DNC's very platform pg 3 pr 4.
Apparently the Democrats noticed he didn't 'grow' the government.
Between FY 2017 and FY 2019, the Trump Administration has cut nearly eight regulations for every new, significant regulation—more than fulfilling the promise of Executive Order 13771 to cut two regulations for every new regulation imposed. *
Yep, no question the swamp is solely composed of the federal employment record.
* https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/articles/president-trumps-regulatory-relief-helps-americans/
The swamp is also the largesse to politically favored industries, including tariffs on lots of products and an huge increase in agricultural subsidies.
I would argue that Trump replaced a swamp with a sewer.
"But it's not true. Private companies built most of them."
No, it is true. Private companies were paid BY THE GOVERNMENT to build the first two of NYC's three subway systems. The third was built directly by the government.
Total spending under Trump nearly doubled.
Remind me again, who controls spending? The President or Congress? Oh, now I remember. It's Congress.
Course by the metric used to support that; It didn't just *nearly* triple under Biden and Obama it actually more than tripled. It did go up a whopping 100B when [R]'s had congress and 300B when [D]'s took the House and then literally 1T when the Trifecta hit and that's omitting all the COVID spending.
Stossel:
"I'll find a reason to strategically vote for droolin' Joe, regardless of how the data must be tortured"
Fuck you Stossel, with a barb-wire-wrapped broomstick.