During the government shutdown, President Trump asserted that his administration was addressing issues like “cleaning up dead trees, waste, and fraud,” suggesting that the Democratic Party was responsible for initiating the closure. He referred to the situation as an “unprecedented opportunity” to dismantle “Democrat-oriented” programs in a way that turns the tables on his opponents.
Trump shared an image on Truth Social of himself signing a document with the message: “Cry as much as you like.”
He didn’t clarify what he meant by “Democratic leanings.” However, it’s clear that cutting federal agencies will impact many Americans, especially low-income families. Interestingly, millions of these individuals voted for him.
The shutdown’s effects have already been challenged in court. Programs within the Department of Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Department of Education have faced layoffs.
Most staff in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services have been let go. This agency is crucial as it allocates around $15 billion in federal funding for special education under federal law, ensuring compliance and notifying families about their rights.
Similarly, virtually all personnel involved in college preparation programs for economically disadvantaged students have been dismissed.
Under Trump, there are plans to eliminate the Department of Education, which oversees Title I funds for schools in low-income areas, assisting financially challenged and first-generation college students, as well as historically Black colleges and universities.
In the Treasury Department’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, all 83 employees responsible for financing public-private partnerships supporting low-income communities have been let go. Just a few months prior, a bipartisan group of senators warned the president that this fund generates significant private investment.
Additionally, around 100 workers from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration were terminated, further cutting its staff almost in half since Trump took office. This agency, established in 1992, plays a key role in allocating its budget for mental health and addiction treatment directly to states.
On October 10, 1,300 employees from the CDC faced layoffs. Initially, notifications went to 700 employees, but some of these dismissals were later reversed due to processing errors. Since January, the CDC—once viewed as a leader in public health—has seen a third of its workforce disappear.
An official stated, “If you want to quietly undermine America’s public health capabilities, this is how to do it: remove the people who stabilize things and keep the public informed.”
It’s clear that this wave of layoffs continues the efforts to dismantle federal services, a trend that began earlier this year.
The “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act” signed by Trump on July 4 aims to cut $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, which could drastically reduce coverage for millions of low-income Americans.
Changes to policies that simplify Medicaid applications may lead to 1.3 million eligible seniors not receiving necessary benefits. For instance, a senior couple making $21,000 a year could see a significant rise in their health insurance premiums.
These shifts could lead to an increase in emergency room visits among the uninsured, further burdening hospitals that must provide care regardless of coverage. Rural areas, in particular, could be affected, with potential hospital closures looming.
In August, funding that supports contraception access for low-income women was also put at risk, leading to legal action from multiple advocacy groups.
Subsidies under the Affordable Care Act are set to expire at the end of 2025, affecting many households, especially in Republican districts. A large number of these households are expected to face steep hikes in premiums.
According to reports, around 22 million people could be impacted, some facing an average premium increase of 75%. The Congressional Budget Office projects that around 4 million individuals may lose their health insurance. Are these programs really “Democrat-leaning”?
This raises a broader question: Are these programs a wise use of taxpayer funds? How do they compare to “Republican-leaning” priorities? These priorities include projected increases to the deficit and significant tax benefits for wealthier individuals, alongside boosted funding for agencies like ICE.
In a democracy, shouldn’t “we the people” be the ones responding to these important inquiries?
