Not Everything Trump Does is Bad. Fighting the “Lernaean Hydra”

Image by Hans Sebald Beham: “Hercules slaying the Hydra,” 1545. Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons

Any leader of any state at all times has faced the issue of advisability of maintaining some parts of his country’s state apparatus - the bodies of government, defense, justice, provision of the needs of society, etc. Mr. Trump also came to this in his second term as president. One of the main innovations of the new old US president was the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the leadership of E. Musk which only in March 2025 fired about 216 thousand federal employees. This caused some criticism from Americans and, naturally, from those fired themselves. Many went to court and began the process of reinstatement.

That is the nature of democracy and I can understand Mr. Trump's anger.
In order to bring almost any change in the country (and he was elected just for that), Mr. Trump needs to have the freedom to act. So, he is trying to add some power to himself and the entire executive branch since the US Constitution, other two branches of government, Democratic Party with its voters and democratic traditions of the country limit his actions. Mr. Trump calls that a fight against the “Deep State.” By breaking numerous laws and taboos, Mr. Trump desperately tries to shift the center of the decision-making in America to his administration and encounters resistance from all of the above.

Reuters recently summarized the interim results of DOGE’s activity in its article titled “100 days of DOGE: lots of chaos, not so much efficiency”:
“DOGE efforts lead to bottlenecks, longer wait times for public, and brain drain. Musk to step back from DOGE, future of cost-cutting uncertain. Critics question DOGE's claimed savings and its lack of transparency.”

Yes, there is a lot of chaos at the federal level of government now. In this regard, it is interesting to notice that, while cutting federal employees, Mr. Trump forgets that he is a federal employee, too.

Democracy as an obstacle to necessary (and unnecessary) changes.

I wrote once, that democracy is harmful in times of crisis. Authoritarianism is a tool for overcoming crises (economic, political, military) when you need something right or wrong to be done quickly.

The paradox of Mr. Trump’s current situation is that it is possible to change anything in the country quickly (and he has just four years for that) only by the authoritarian means which is what he is trying to do. That is correct, basically, if something really needs to be changed. And it is quite another matter that Mr. Trump does everything quickly, thoughtlessly, rudely, offending many and without any apologizing.

The transition to authoritarianism is very difficult to achieve in the US because the majority of the people and both major parties
1. sincerely believe that democracy is the best system of governing the country,
2. do not see that the US is not even a “flawed democracy”, but an aristocracy (or oligarchy)
and
3. do not see that the US has entered a crisis long ago and kept deteriorating.

Former President Biden said in his “State of the Union” speech, addressing the joined session of the US Congress in February 2023:
“For decades, the middle class has been hollowed out, and more than — and no one administration, but for a long time.”
It is correctly said, but Mr. Biden did nothing about the problem. If the middle class - “the backbone of America” - “has been hollowed out,” this means that the country is moving in the wrong direction, and since this has been going on “for decades,” the US should be already in crisis.

Another mistake is that most Americans feel a crisis in the country, but attribute it to Mr. Trump's rise to power.
No, actually, it’s the opposite. Mr. Trump became president (for the second time, by the way) as a result of deepening crisis in America, led “for decades” by both major parties together with indifference and ignorance of the people. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have been killing the US middle class for a long time and brought the country into a systemic crisis which is simply exacerbated by Mr. Trump’s actions recent times.

Mr. Trump is serious about dismantling the “Deep State” which is hindering and resisting his policies. Only one of them will survive in this fight. Why?
Because Mr. Trump’s fight against the “Deep State,” if successful, leads to a rigid vertical of the president’s sole power (which is a dictatorship), and if unsuccessful, completely paralyzes the activities of the federal government, so the states will need to solve their issues without regard to the federals. That's why I once wrote that there were only two possible outcomes: a deep crisis which is orchestrated by Mr. Trump destroys the federal government (interestingly enough that in this case Mr. Trump loses his job), or the federals strengthen their power to the point of dictatorship.

I think America is not ready for a dictatorship yet. So, there will be a paralysis of federal government and collapse of the country which will be a good thing for the Americans (if there is no civil war), since the separate states can take care of their people more efficiently.
And I think this will happen during Mr. Trump's current term or immediately after it.

Only about a third of the Americans are in favor of changes, although after the election it seemed that Mr. Trump had more supporters. No. Two-thirds are against.

These are the quirks of the democratic electoral system which does not take into account the opinion of voters who did not come to vote, and yet they, in essence, thus spoke out against both candidates and, in particular, against Trump's changes. And it turns out that there were about 93 million of them.

Let me remind you the results of November 5, 2024 general election: 77 million Americans voted for Mr. Trump and 75 million votes were cast for Mrs. Harris out of approximately 245 million Americans who were eligible to vote. In that case, Mr. Trump and his changes were supported by 31% of Americans with voting rights. Considering the total number of people living in the country at that time - about 340 million - the percentage of supporters of changes would be even lower. Can you imagine how difficult it is for Mr. Trump to overcome the reluctance of at least 69% of the Americans to support his changes?

Only a few outstanding statesmen managed to fully turn around during 20-30 years their nations’ movement in the direction of development in 20th century: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, Park Chung Hee in South Korea and Deng Xiaoping in China. These are truly wise leaders and creators. And, please, note that none of them were democrats, that is probably why they succeeded. Once in my article I called them “enlightened leaders” as opposite to “obfuscated” ones. There are no such leaders now. Mr. Trump is clearly neither a creator, nor the “father of the nation» (“Atatürk” means “Father of the Turks”), but he is able to destroy the country with his irrepressible ego and emotions.

America needs an “enlightened” dictator who can do something for the nation and not only for the elites to get out of the crisis. However, an “enlightened” dictator cannot appear in the US because of the two main parties getting in the way. They do not need “enlightened” dictators at the helm of the country. And the people of the US do not care about all that, they do not see beyond their noses and are busy with making money to pay their bills.

The state apparatus lives its own life in any country and it is against any changes.

The state apparatus is a great inertia and a great force in any state. It is also called “a bureaucracy.” Its functioning reminds me of what the flywheel does in an internal combustion engine.

I noticed the ability of the state apparatus to survive in Ukraine around 2005-2007. I realized then that it was an independent, powerful, self-sufficient and self-developing structure, living its own separate life and supporting the unique (correct or incorrect) way of living of the state.
V. Yushchenko has just become the President of Ukraine on the wave of protest events against the protégé of the previous president, known as the “Orange Revolution.” Ukrainian society was experiencing great euphoria about that in 2005 and the new president, of course, began to carry out urgent reforms. One of them was also aimed at reducing the state apparatus. The bureaucracy in Ukraine is still all-powerful, has strong Soviet roots and always was extremely ineffective and slow. I have read then cheerful reports about the cutting of about 20 thousand of "unnecessary" government officials. A couple of years passed, practically nothing changed in the country, and I found an information that the state apparatus during this time had grown by around 25 thousand of new employees. It occurred to me to compare this recovering ability of the Ukrainian state apparatus to Lernaean Hydra, the mythical snake-dragon, which Heracles could hardly kill somewhere in ancient Greece. In place of the chopped off head, the monster immediately grew two new ones, so even Heracles needed the help of his nephew.

Any state apparatus in any country always grows quantitatively, it is its property. This is also true for the US. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is the heads of various government departments of different levels open new vacancies for their relatives, friends, lovers, etc., regardless of the need. They receive money from the budget and do not care about the taxpayer’s dollar.
Private business is organized differently - it automatically maintains the optimal number of employees, but hired managers in large companies quite often also stand out with large salaries, abuse their official position and opportunities, but here the owners must have their say.
The state apparatus is not limited by earned income in its expenses like a private company, and simply gets funding from the budget which is filled by the people and which is not sufficient for all needs of the country (this is called “budget deficit”), so the government constantly borrows money.

It is practically impossible to objectively assess the necessity, expediency and effectiveness of any state structure - they do not create profit, but only distribute funds and can do that better or worse. The only reference point is mass complaints from citizens. However, it is possible to take an experimental approach by firing a certain number of employees of a certain department, and if after some time it keeps functioning normally, then these positions (or the entire department) were not needed. This is what Mr. Musk is doing now, but again it is unclear whether he is doing that bad, good, or whether it should be done at all.

Is Mr. Trump right or wrong to fire federal employees?

There is a lot of debate on this topic now, but the answer is obvious: yes and no. It depends on who is fired and which agencies are closed/cut. Unnecessary and ineffective ones, of course, need to be cut, but how to determine the efficiency of any government department or any of its employees? This is a very hard task. It needs to be thoroughly examined, but Mr. Trump apparently does not have time or desire for that which is why he involved Mr. Musk.

As far as I understand Mr. Trump's program of action "Project 2025,” he is going to increase country’s revenues and reduce its spending. This is very correct, because America under the leadership of both main parties constantly spends more than it earns, and, therefore, destroys itself. Why?
Because the country lives beyond its means and has to pay interest for using borrowed money. Starting in 2024, federal interest payments exceeded, for example, the US Defense spending for the first time in the US history and the debt (and interest payments) will only increase in the future. The US is heading towards bankruptcy. This is a systemic crisis that deepens over time.

Reducing the state apparatus is one way to reduce expenses, like, for example, raising the retirement age for the Americans or cutting Medicare and Medicaid. However, various side effects are always possible down the road and the task of the leader is to correctly assess all the consequences and then act carefully. This is something Mr. Trump can't do.

The “Hydra” grows two new heads in place of the chopped off one. Mr. Trump's fight against the "Deep State" continues and only one will survive.

Not everything Trump does is bad other than his habit of being rude.

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump does everything in a rude manner. He has such a style and it irritates many people. Mr. Trump once said in an interview: “He who saves his country doesn’t violate any law.” No, he constantly violates one of the main laws of human communication - the law of politeness.

There is a Latin saying “Nihil probat qui violenter probat” — “He who proves rudely proves nothing.” I would rephrase it as “He who speaks rudely gets nothing.” I think Mr. Trump will fail with his innovations because of his obvious rudeness, in particular. In my opinion, politeness is the basis of proper communication when making deals in business, politics and anywhere else. I wonder if politeness is mentioned as one of the main ingredients of any deal in Mr. Trump's book “The art of the deal”.


P.S. It is a pity that Mr. Trump started with cutting federal employees, and not the cost of health care in the US. Then all Americans (and even the Democrats’ supporters) would immediately nominate him as a candidate for President in 2028, despite the US Constitution.