The Best Part of Trump's Speech Was the List of Spending Cuts
If only they were as big as the list of new spending.

In his speech to both chambers of Congress tonight, President Donald Trump rattled off a list of specious grants allegedly uncovered by his newfound Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
"Twenty-two billion dollars from [the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)] to provide free housing and cars to illegal aliens," said Trump from the podium tonight, apparently referencing multiple years of spending by HHS' Office of Refugee Resettlement, as detailed in a recent report from OpenTheBooks.
The president also listed a number of other dubious foreign aid grants, including $45 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion scholarships in Burma, $8 million for LGBTQI programs in Lesotho ("which no one has ever heard of"), and $40 million to improve the social and economic inclusion of sedentary migrants (a grant Trump has repeatedly referenced in past remarks).
In those brief, fleeting moments, Trump's speech amounted to the most libertarian (not) State of the Union address one could hope for: a president just rattling off wasteful spending to be cut in the service of a smaller, saner, more fiscally sustainable federal government.
It didn't last.
The president quickly transitioned to suggesting that more savings could be found by cutting off Social Security registrants who are improbably old. Yet, as Reason's Eric Boehm noted last week, none of these 130-year-olds are receiving benefits. The bad data are bad, but the savings to be found by cleaning them up are minimal.
As Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) noted on X, the same House members who applauded Trump's list of wasteful spending also just passed a continuing resolution filled with deficit spending in the Republican-controlled House.
Congress just stood up and applauded DOGE for exposed wasteful and fraudulent programs that Congress itself funded… and plans to fund in the coming CR.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 5, 2025
This was followed by his touting of increased military spending, his new extreme round of tariffs on Mexico and Canada, his administration's crackdown on immigration, and his plans for a "golden dome" missile defense shield.
As always, Trump's government-cutting zeal was focused squarely on comparatively small pots of money spent on ungrateful foreigners. Unworthy as these causes are of taxpayer support, they pale in comparison to the portions of government Trump either is happy to keep around or is eager to expand. (And as with all DOGE-identified grants to be cut, there's a chance they already have been cut or the actual spending is much smaller than claimed.)
It would be great if a president identified, with wry and populist humor, more substantial line items of federal spending to slash. For a few brief moments tonight, Trump seemed like he could deliver a call for such cuts.
No such luck. Oh well.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
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
Trump's government-cutting zeal was focused squarely on comparatively small pots of money spent on ungrateful foreigners.
Seems like a good place to start as any.
You mean like small pots of money spent on ungrateful foreigners for goods and services for USA taxpayers, which are often cheaper and better than "buy American" for USA Government Almighty purchases? "Both sides" do that shit (exclude the un-Americans) a LOT, ya know! I for one would like the cheaper and better, for my tax money, ass well ass for my personal purchases!
ENOUGH of protectionism!!! Ya want my money? Produce better, more affordable shit, no matter WHO ye are!
No, that’s not I mean at all, but you knew that.
Yes, I already knew that you were stupid and ignorant. Butt thanks for cuntfirming shit!
PS, did shit ever occur to Trumpaloos that small pots of money spent on ferriners can often buy the USA some international good will, which can be VERY valuable? Shit does SNOT pay to piss off EVERYONE, which is twat Trump and Trumpaloos seem to be hell-bent on doing!
Even free-market grocery stores sell "loss leaders" (often milk or bread, for examples) at a loss, to attract customers! THIS is WISDOM here, which many Trumpaloos are lacking!
It’s funny you still don’t get it.
I don't want to "get" hardly ANY of the shit that Ye are PervFectly Peddling, Oh PervFected and Mind-Infected, Truth-Neglected One!
(I like to stay clean of mind infections.)
Seems like a lot of the cuts are focused on reducing the number of federal public employee union workers on the taxpayer payroll. Which seems long overdue.
Cuts are wrong for not following the proper processes!!!
Why come cuts are not bigger!!!!!
LMAO this is glorious.
"Yet, as Reason's Eric Boehm noted last week, none of these 130-year-olds are receiving benefits."
What Boehm noted last week:
"The crucial question, however, is whether Social Security's lack of "death information" about those people means they are still receiving benefits.
The vast majority are not. According to the inspector general's report, 98 percent of them (18.4 million) "are not currently receiving" Social Security payments."
None equaling 2% of 18.8 million people is Lying Jeffy dishonest.
Oh, but wait:
"Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation, crunched some of those figures in a post on X."
This seems important!
Let's play over under on the number of links to actual numbers or just actual numbers "crunched". I'll go with 1.
"I ran the numbers from this table, and can assure you that Social Security isn't actually paying anywhere near this many beneficiaries. Short version: if this table were accurate, Social Security would cost $1 trillion per year more than it actually does."
"can assure you", "anywhere near this many" and "shorter version" of something that was already woefully short are not a good start, but I'm sure the rest of the math is concrete.
"Even if we assume that only 40% of 60-69 year olds are receiving benefits (a low estimate)"
I have no reason to assume otherwise!
"(which will rise slightly throughout the year)"
Phew, thank god.
"I can't find a line-item projection for how much will go to retirees in 2025, but it typically runs ~85%, and 85% of a $1.5 trillion budget is $1.28 trillion.
I'm convinced! I actually followed this guy for future number "crunching"! I hope you're all excited for me quoting him in the near future. But wait, before I do that, let me check his bio.
"Jared’s work is regularly cited in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Politico, AP, and many other prominent national and state outlets."
I'm sure he's a fine, honest fellow. I'm convinced. Next?
"Another possible explanation is offered by Wired"
Another "possible" explanation? I was assured "none" received benefits. I'm beginning to suspect you are completely full of shit.
There may not be many getting direct payments, but a “live” ss number is used to fraudulently claim other government benefits.
Why can't you just be happy for a change, Christian?
He wasn't my #1 choice for President either, but I'm not hating it - at least not with this go around.
I'm pretty convinced at this point that the Losertarian/Reason position is: "I'm getting everything I ever wanted, just not from the person I wanted to get it from. And I don't know how to deal with that."
The Democrats failed you. The Republicans failed you. The Libertarian Party is a laughingstock (Chase Oliver??? Really????)
Trump is at least trying not to. Give him that.
Facts are hurty.
I could have predicted you would silently rule out all new investment. Because --- you can't help it : modern Libertarians want every improvement to be from the government
Reaon loved CHIPS , a massively stupid program, and this news makes you yawn
Taiwanese Chipmaking Giant TSMC to Invest $100 Billion in U.S., Trump Says
But that is the traditional textbook way to cut outlays and increase GDP, get new investiment , new jobs --- without masive pissing of taxpayer dough, eg :
Just $50B for Semiconductors; It’s a $318B Grab Bag of Waste
(National Taxpayers Union)
Reason often reminds me of Woodrow Wilson
Biden and EV charging stations :Woodrow Wilson administration thought it could produce armor plate for battleships cheaper than the steel companies. The plant the government built, millions over budget when completed, could not produce armor plate for less than twice what the steel companies charged. In the end it produced one batch—later sold for scrap—and shut down.
Trump knows that you leave things like trucking to truckers, even though BIden at the age of 80 still said he had driven an 18_wheeler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR2mMXEC2Cs
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking serious money. We are 43 days into a 1440 day presidency.
Can we hold off on declaring defeat until maybe day 600? = It would be great if a president identified, with wry and populist humor, more substantial line items of federal spending to slash. For a few brief moments tonight, Trump seemed like he could deliver a call for such cuts. No such luck. Oh well.
The non-essential bureaucrat body count is 300K. We've had 2-3 entire agencies (USAID, CPFB, etc) fed to the woodchipper.
But for Britschgi, it is no such luck. Talk about missing the boat. There are none so blind who refuse to see.
You know that almost every member of the Reason staff was seething with pure unadulterated rage throughout this entire speech, right along with their fellow democrats like Al Green. And just like him, most of them also have a couple of screws loose.
Personally, I absolutely loved it! That amazing little kid D.J. Daniel damn near almost brought tears to my eyes.