Mad Money: The public believes the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal government will harm the U.S. economy and make the country less safe

Since taking office in January 2025, the second Trump administration has moved quickly to make substantial and arbitrary cuts to the federal government. These actions to end government programs, cancel contracts and grants, and lay off thousands of federal workers are disrupting services relied on by people across the country.

During this unique moment, the Partnership for Public Service sought to understand how Americans view the administration’s actions by conducting a nationally representative survey and a series of focus groups.

As found in our previous research, the cuts made by the Trump administration to the federal government and its workforce continue to be unpopular and most Americans think their impact will be problematic. By large margins, the majority of Americans believe the reductions will hurt the U.S. economy (55%) and make the country less safe (52%). And far more people say the layoffs and program cutbacks will make their lives and communities worse rather than better.

An additional goal for this work was to better understand the individuals who support Trump’s decisions and what they believe. Our research found that Republicans are mostly in favor of the changes while Democrats and independents are strongly opposed. Men are more likely than women (47% to 32%) to be supportive, as are people who live in rural areas or a suburb near a small town.

For those who are supportive, a primary characteristic is the belief that the administration’s actions will lead to significant savings for the average taxpayer. In fact, 81% of supporters say the reforms—led primarily by the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE—will result in “a lot” or “some” savings for the average taxpayer. This view is held despite evidence that DOGE’s actions have created confusion and their claims of savings are riddled with errors and are not meeting initial goals.

Many supporters of the Trump administration’s actions believe there will be some negative consequences. However, they also believe the overall effort will be worth any problems because they trust Trump and his administration will ultimately solve issues and find the right balance between funding cuts and keeping important government functions working.

Despite the criticism levied at federal employees that they are unproductive and often unnecessary, the public still has a positive view of civil servants—even among those who support the administration’s policies. The vast majority of supporters believe in the value of a nonpartisan, expert civil service—suggesting the support for layoffs does not translate to support for creating a more political workforce.

While many of the funding and staff reductions made during the first few months of the Trump administration were led by DOGE, this survey focused mostly on efforts of the Trump administration as a whole and survey questions were worded accordingly. The actions taken by the Trump administration go beyond DOGE. For example, the administration has made other changes in the way that our government is managed, including the large-scale firing of inspectors general and altering how determinations about federal funding are made. Many other organizations have published reports focusing on the political aspects of DOGE and its former leader, Elon Musk, showing they are generally perceived unfavorably.

Americans are generally opposed to the way the Trump administration is cutting key parts of the federal government and are concerned about the impact.

Overall, 49% of Americans oppose the Trump White House’s changes while only 39% support them and 12% say they are unsure. While most Republicans support such changes, Democrats and independents oppose them by large margins.

“Changes to the federal government” can mean a lot of different things. Interestingly, regardless of the type of cut named, the levels of support are quite similar. In fact, whether Americans are asked about “changes to the federal government,” “funding cuts” or “layoffs of federal workers,” the overall results and breakdowns by party affiliation are virtually identical. Half of Americans (50%) say they oppose the “funding cuts” made by the administration while 51% oppose the administration’s “layoffs of federal workers.”

Americans are pessimistic about the impact of workforce and funding reductions on their communities and lives.

Fully 55% of respondents say the funding and federal employee cuts will harm the economy compared with only 31% who do not believe so. In addition, 52% say the reductions will make the country less safe, compared with 33% who disagree.

Fifty percent of Americans say they expect the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal government will make their community worse compared with only 28% who think the efforts will make it better and 21% who are unsure. Almost as many (45%) believe the cuts will make their own lives worse, while only 30% expect some improvement and 24% are unsure.

Americans are also pessimistic about the impact on specific services and current events. Forty-nine percent say reductions will make air travel less safe while 44% say the recent outbreaks of measles and bird flu will be made worse.

Almost half (48%) say they have “very” or “serious” concerns that layoffs of federal workers will harm small businesses in their community, compared with only 35% who say they have “minor” or “no real” such concerns.

For each of these questions, at least 14% of Americans say they are unsure about the impact—a relatively high number compared with most of our past survey results. This degree of uncertainty aligns with findings from our focus groups. Even among people who favored the cutbacks, many expressed uncertainty about the details and long-term impact.

As one participant said, “I feel like we’re in a shock and awe period right now, and we’re waiting for the dust to settle. It could go either way at this point. Is it going to turn out for the best? I have no idea. And I think we’re all just going to have to give it some time to see how it shakes out.”

Another added, “Right now, it’s kind of just a whirlwind of changes and chaos…and we don’t know from day to day what we’re going to hear about next.”

Americans are particularly concerned about the impact on the delivery of key benefits

Far more than any other subject, Americans are concerned about the impact of the Trump administration’s decisions on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. More than half of Americans say delivery of such benefits are among their top concerns related to the government cutbacks.

A survey participant offered, “If they close the only [Social Security Administration] office in the city, the next nearest one is 80 miles away. If they start cutting social programs like [Social Security] and Medicaid…it’s going to hurt not only my city but the entire state.”

Another wrote, “The cuts to Social Security could affect our income. We could miss payments which then would cause us to not be able to pay our bills.”

In fact, Congressional pushback and country-wide protests against planned cuts to Social Security have contributed to paring back some of DOGE’s plans for altering some of its key functions.

The next issues of most concern include disease research and prevention (26%), food safety (26%) and veterans’ healthcare and benefits (25%).

About a third of Americans say they know someone personally impacted by cuts to the federal government

The public is beginning to see the impact on their lives and their communities as a result of government cuts. However, personally seeing the effect of the administration’s decisions does not necessarily directly lead to opposition to the cutbacks.

The survey, which was conducted prior to the 100-day mark of the Trump administration, showed that the impact of government program reductions and federal employee layoffs are not just an inside-the-Beltway phenomenon. Twelve percent of Americans say they personally have been impacted by the cuts while another 23% say they know someone else who has been affected. Combined, that means 35% of Americans say they—or someone they know—has been personally affected. This result continues a trend we found in an earlier poll in 2025.

In this most recent survey, 46% of Democrats say they know someone impacted by the cuts, which is more than Republicans (27%) and independents (26%). This is also true of people living in the western region of the country and those living in or around a large city.

People who oppose the Trump cuts are more likely to say they know someone who has been affected. Almost half of those opponents (46%) say they know someone impacted personally compared with 28% of those who support the administration’s actions.

The fact that almost one-in-three supporters of the Trump cuts are noticing the consequences suggests that people are paying attention and that the administration’s decisions are affecting communities. In some cases, however, seeing these results has not altered their overall support for the actions.

Of the people who say they do not yet know anyone personally affected by the cuts, 37% say it is likely that someone they know “will be impacted by cuts” at some point. That means even a significant portion of those who say they have not yet witnessed impacts personally do expect to see some in the future.

While partisan affiliation continues to be the biggest factor in Americans’ opposition or support for the administration’s agency program and workforce reductions, there are some differences along age and location.

Republicans are strongly supportive while Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed. Self-described independents are opposed by a margin of two-to-one, although a large portion (37%) say they are unsure of their opinion.

The partisan differences are likely due to how each group views the government generally. Republicans are more likely to say the government is “wasteful” than Democrats (69% to 55%). They are also less likely to say the government is “accountable for what it does” at 53% compared with 66% of Democrats. These differences are not nearly as large, however, as the differences in support for the administration’s cutbacks.

The likely inference is that while Republicans see more problems with the federal government, they are significantly more likely to believe that Trump’s reform efforts will have successful outcomes.

Levels of support by other demographic categories

Most age groups support the cutbacks at similar rates with the exception of people ages 35 to 49. In that group, only 31% say they are supportive while slightly more than 40% of the other age groups are in favor.

About half of rural Americans (51%) are supportive of the reductions compared with 35% of those who live in a city. For people living in suburbs, there is a substantial difference between the type of location of the suburb. Only 36% of those living in a suburb near a “bigger city” support the Trump efforts compared with 48% of those living in a suburb outside of a “small town.”

People without college degrees are slightly more likely to support cuts (40%) than college graduates (36%) or with graduate school experience (32%). However, people without college degrees are also more likely to say they are unsure of their support (16%) than people who have more education (at about 2%).

Men are more likely to support the administration’s cuts despite trusting federal workers as much as women

Men are far more likely to support the administration’s cuts than women. Slightly more men (47%) are supportive than opposed (44%). By contrast, 54% of women are opposed compared with only 32% who are in favor.

However, such differences are not necessarily the result of how each gender views the government and federal workforce overall. Both men and women have favorable views of civil servants at about the same rate (57% to 54%). Both groups are concerned that cuts to the government will hurt the economy at about the same rate. And about one-third of both groups say they know someone personally impacted by the administration’s cuts.

However, the areas of disagreement are of note. Men—at 74%—are far more likely to say the federal government is “wasteful” than women at 48%.

The fact that more men than women see the government as wasteful and support the administration’s cuts, even though their support for civil servants and their views on the impact on the economy are similar, suggest that men and women are making different determinations regarding the overall value of such reductions. More men seem to believe the positive benefits of cuts will outweigh the negative harms.

Areas where the supporters and opponents of the Trump cuts agree

As noted above, people who say they personally know someone affected by the administration’s efforts are more likely to oppose the cuts than those who say they do not know anyone impacted.

However, the levels of support for such cuts do not seem to correlate with other types of direct interactions with the federal government—contrary to what some might assume.

For example, whether or not someone has received benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits or housing assistance does not seem to have an impact on their views. Forty-one percent of people who have received government support back the cuts while about 51% are opposed. Those numbers are similar for people who have not received such benefits where 40% support and 52% oppose.

Similarly, whether or not someone knows a federal employee does not seem to be much of a factor in their views of the administration’s actions. Of people who know a federal employee, 40% support the cuts while 56% oppose them. Roughly the same amount (41%) of those who do not know a federal employee support the cuts, although a slightly lower percentage of such people are in opposition at 49%.

For the last few years, the Partnership has asked Americans to assess their personal experiences with the federal government. One might expect that those with positive personal experiences would be less likely to support the dramatic changes made by the Trump administration. However, that assumption would not be correct. People who say their experiences have been mostly positive are slightly more supportive of the White House’s efforts than those who do not say their experiences have been positive—albeit by a small amount (44% to 39%).

Although Americans are generally opposed to the administration’s changes, 39% say they approve of such efforts. The Partnership’s research was particularly focused on understanding the reasoning for those who are in favor.

Supporters of the Trump administration’s reductions, and DOGE in particular, believe the efforts will result in tangible cost savings for the American taxpayer. In fact, 81% of those who support the cuts say that DOGE will create “a lot” or “some” savings for taxpayers. By contrast, only 10% of opponents believe that DOGE will create such savings for the American taxpayer.

This belief—that the dramatic efforts to reduce government funding and layoff federal workers will result in real savings noticeable to the American people—appears to be one of the defining considerations as to why supporters expect the effort to be successful.

As one survey participant wrote, “I believe the savings from the DOGE fraudulent spending findings and cuts of unnecessary staff will ultimately have a positive trickle-down effect for all communities.”

Another added, “Cutting program funding and unnecessary extra jobs can free up money for better and stronger government programs in my area that are actually helpful. All the social security money they saved can actually go to my future and the future of my friends and family who will retire someday.”

Despite this belief, evidence suggests DOGE will not deliver large savings. By the 100th day in office for the administration, DOGE claimed to have found about $150 billion in savings by cutting waste and fraud. However, many of the cost savings listed by DOGE have included errors and unverified claims. That total is far less than the original promise made by DOGE of saving $2 trillion. In fact, overall spending by the federal government has increased during the first few months of the Trump administration and is 6.3% higher when compared with the first few months of 2024 according to Wharton professor Kent Smetters—despite the layoffs of thousands of federal employees.

Many supporters of the Trump cuts expect some negative consequences, but believe the overall efforts will be positive on balance

While the supporters believe the cuts to the federal government will ultimately be positive, a portion anticipate there will be some negative consequences while a large group is unsure.

While 62% of supporters say the cuts will make their community better, 16% say they believe the cuts will make their communities worse and another 22% are unsure. Combined, that means almost four-in-ten supporters are not convinced the cuts will result in improvements in their communities.

Almost 30% of supporters say the agency and workforce reductions will hurt the U.S. economy and that they will make “Americans less safe.”

These concerns align with previous Partnership research that showed significant portions of supporters also expressed concern that the exit of many federal employees would create a loss of “experience and knowledge.”

Ultimately, supporters seem to believe that the Trump administration will make overall improvements, even if mistakes and harm come during the process.

As one focus group participant said, “I think there will be enough oversight that anything really vital to the American people will not be trimmed.”

A survey participant wrote, “[The administration] will make mistakes, but they [will] fix [the mistakes] immediately when they happen.”

Those in favor of the Trump administration’s cutbacks have strong views that the federal government needs improvement, and that spending has gotten out of control because of special interests and dysfunction in Congress.

As one focus group participant said, “In a way [the Trump administration is] in the beginning stages of doing what I want them to do—getting rid of…a lot of that unnecessary spending that we as taxpayers have no say over where that money goes. That’s why we need somebody who’s in there now to do that for us.”

There is also belief that the federal government includes enough redundancy in important positions and processes that cuts will not be problematic. In our survey, 61% of Americans—and 77% of those who support the Trump reductions—say the government is “wasteful.”

One focus group participant stated, “I think there’s plenty of overlap already…I don’t think there’s a single person that if you lost them, the whole thing’s going to blow up…there’s probably enough redundancy in place.”

Even supporters of the administration’s cuts have mostly positive views of civil servants

Most Americans, including most supporters of the White House’s efforts to cut parts of the government, are positive about civil servants.

More than half of supporters say civil servants are “competent” and “committed to helping people like me.” Even more (63%) agree that working for the federal government is a “good way for a person to serve their community.”

A common theme among focus group participants who supported the White House’s efforts was the view that federal employees had career benefits unavailable to most Americans. One explained, “I feel like some [federal employees] are saying, ‘Well, I’m set for life.’ You don’t have to really work for it anymore, it’s just going to be handed to you to show up, get a paycheck…They don’t know what it is to have to really fight for their job like a lot of us do.”

“I feel bad for the people who are losing their jobs,” added another. “But if they’re not needed and they’ve been in the system for such a long time, I don’t think that’s a bad thing to change things up.”

Supporters of the Trump administration’s cuts do not want the civil service to be politicized

Support for an expert, nonpartisan civil service remains strong among the American public. This view is shared by supporters of the administration’s workforce reductions.

These results suggest that those who support the administration’s layoffs are not doing so because they want to create a political civil service.

Fully 76% of supporters of the cuts say civil servants should be “apolitical,” compared with 70% of opponents. Eighty-three percent of supporters agree that an “expert and non-political” federal workforce is critical to the country’s well-being, slightly more than the 77% of opponents who agree with that notion.

Supporters of the administration’s actions like the idea of cutting inefficiencies in the government and saving money. But they do not seem to be in favor of using such efforts to move away from an expert, nonpartisan civil service.

The future of many federal services the American public relies on is uncertain due to the nature of the Trump administration’s spending reductions and layoffs. The results of the Partnership’s research show that the Trump reductions are unpopular and there is widespread concern that such efforts will have a negative impact on people’s lives. Despite the administration’s attacks on federal employees, the Partnership found that civil servants are generally viewed positively and there is widespread agreement that a nonpartisan, expert civil service is important.

With announcements and changes to the federal workforce and programs occurring rapidly, there is a possibility that future cutbacks will get drowned out by other news. However, any future efforts by the administration to change course will be impacted by how Congress and the public respond to the reductions already made.

The current situation provides a unique opportunity to examine the public’s views of government and federal workforce. To best serve the interests of the country, we should have an open and constructive conversation about the role of government and what reforms are needed to meet the expectations and priorities of the public.