Donald Trump's current administration has entered office with a mandate and a promise to shrink the size of the federal government. Central to this agenda is "shattering the deep state and returning power to the American people," a slogan that has justified mass layoffs of federal employees and the dismantling of key government agencies.
At the forefront of this effort is Elon Musk, appointed as the head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. Under his leadership, the Department of Education and the Department of Energy have seen layoffs, all in the name of maximizing efficiency. What is unfolding is not merely budgetary trimming but a full-scale dismantling of the administrative state.
The Democratic Party, long positioning itself as the defender of FDR and LBJ-era social programs, has offered rhetorical resistance but little in terms of concrete action. The scale and speed of these cuts, coupled with a political landscape shaped by billionaire donors, makes the prospect of restoring the administrative state a Herculean task. Additionally, many wealthy Democratic donors directly benefit from privatization and reduced federal oversight, making them unlikely to support efforts to fully restore regulatory agencies.
The precedent set by previous Republican administrations, such as Ronald Reagan’s successful push to erode the social safety net, suggests that once government programs are dismantled, they rarely return in full force. Even when programs like the Affordable Care Act survive conservative assaults, they often do so in a weakened and fragmented state. Without a fundamental ideological shift within the Democratic Party — one that directly challenges the interests of its affluent donor class — any future administration will struggle to undo the damage.
In response, state and local governments must step up to preserve essential public services. We are already seeing this in action. California has pledged millions to legal battles against federal rollbacks, particularly in areas like environmental protection and immigration. The state’s ongoing high-speed rail project faces scrutiny from the federal government, yet remains a priority for state leadership. Similarly, the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority has filed lawsuits to prevent the Department of Transportation from blocking congestion pricing, a vital initiative for the city’s infrastructure funding.
Historically, states have filled federal voids in times of crisis — during the Civil Rights Movement, for instance, when the federal government was slow to act, progressive states enforced anti-discrimination measures on their own. More recently, when the Trump administration pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, states like California, New York and Washington formed their own climate coalitions to uphold emissions reductions.
In North Carolina, these federal rollbacks present a unique set of challenges, particularly given the state's political divide. With a Democratic governor facing a Republican-controlled legislature, efforts to maintain critical social services will require strategic maneuvering and targeted policy initiatives. Medicaid expansion, which Governor Josh Stein has advocated for, is now more essential than ever in the absence of federal support.
Expanding access to state-funded healthcare programs could help mitigate the effects of federal cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Education is another key battleground. With reduced federal funding, North Carolina must prioritize state investments in K-12 education and public universities. This includes increasing teacher pay, and ensuring that the UNC System remains affordable despite potential federal cuts to student aid.
The decline of federal intervention in social services signals a broader shift in American governance. If these trends continue, state and local elections will become more critical than ever, determining whether essential services remain accessible to millions. The assumption that a future administration will simply restore what is lost is dangerously naive. The future of governance in the United States may well depend on the ability of states and municipalities to adapt to this new reality — and whether the public is prepared to fight for what remains of our social services.
