Reducing the U.S. federal government by 80% would be a drastic and transformative policy that would likely have profound consequences on the structure, functions, and capabilities of the United States government. This kind of massive reduction would entail a sharp contraction of the government’s ability to provide services, maintain public infrastructure, and ensure national security. The U.S. federal government currently plays a crucial role in a wide array of sectors, including social welfare, national defense, public health, education, and scientific research. Such a substantial decrease would have far-reaching impacts on every aspect of American life.
One of the most significant and immediate consequences of an 80% reduction in the size and scope of the federal government would be on the U.S. military, which accounts for a substantial portion of federal spending. The Department of Defense (DoD) would face extreme cuts, which would have critical implications not only for military readiness, the economy, and global security but also for the role the U.S. plays in international relations. This article explores the consequences of such a reduction, with a particular emphasis on the U.S. military, while also examining the broader social and economic impacts of scaling down the federal government to such a degree.
Current Size and Scope of the U.S. Federal Government
Before discussing the impacts of reducing the federal government by 80%, it is essential to understand its current size and scope. As of fiscal year 2023, the U.S. federal government spent approximately $6.3 trillion. This spending is divided across various categories, including mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare, discretionary spending, and interest on the national debt. Mandatory programs account for about 60% of federal spending, with Social Security and Medicare alone making up nearly half of that. The rest is discretionary spending, with the largest portion dedicated to defense, accounting for around 16% of the overall budget.
The U.S. federal government employs around 2.1 million civilian employees, not including military personnel, and its activities span everything from regulating commerce to providing public safety and disaster relief. The federal government also funds a large portion of public education, scientific research, and transportation infrastructure.
Impact on the U.S. Military
The U.S. military is one of the largest and most well-funded in the world. The Department of Defense (DoD) budget for fiscal year 2023 was approximately $858 billion, a sum that supports nearly 1.4 million active-duty personnel, over 800,000 reservists, and more than 600,000 civilian employees. The DoD also operates hundreds of military bases around the world, maintains a vast arsenal of cutting-edge technology, and invests heavily in research and development.
Reducing the federal government by 80% would necessitate significant cuts to the defense budget, which could have the following implications:
- Reduction in Active-Duty Military Personnel and Civilian Jobs
One of the most immediate effects of an 80% cut would be the downsizing of the military workforce. With personnel costs constituting a significant portion of the defense budget, the military would be forced to discharge large numbers of active-duty personnel. A reduction of this magnitude could see the number of troops reduced to a fraction of current levels, limiting the military’s ability to respond to global threats and conflicts.
The civilian workforce that supports military operations would also be severely impacted. With over 600,000 civilians employed by the DoD, an 80% reduction in the federal workforce would mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. This would not only hurt individuals and families dependent on these jobs but would also have broader economic consequences, particularly in regions where military bases and defense contractors are significant employers.
- Closure of Military Bases and Facilities
The U.S. military currently operates over 800 bases around the world. Many of these bases play crucial roles in projecting U.S. power, maintaining alliances, and ensuring quick responses to potential threats. However, with an 80% reduction in the defense budget, maintaining this vast network of bases would be financially untenable. A large number of these bases, particularly those overseas, would likely have to be closed, reducing the U.S.’s global presence.
Domestically, base closures would be a blow to local economies, particularly in small towns and rural areas that depend on military bases for employment and economic activity. The closure of bases would also impact logistics, training, and rapid deployment capabilities, further eroding the military’s effectiveness.
- Reduction in Technological Superiority and Defense Innovation
A significant portion of the U.S. defense budget is allocated to research and development (R&D), which has enabled the U.S. military to maintain technological superiority over potential adversaries. From stealth aircraft to advanced cybersecurity systems, much of the U.S. military’s global advantage comes from its cutting-edge technology. An 80% reduction in defense spending would mean deep cuts to R&D programs, limiting the military’s ability to innovate and stay ahead of evolving threats.
The loss of funding for defense innovation would also impact private defense contractors and research institutions that rely on government contracts. This could have a broader impact on technological advancements in other sectors as well, as military R&D often leads to civilian applications, such as the internet and GPS technology. The slowdown in defense innovation would not only affect military capabilities but also hurt the U.S.’s position as a leader in technological advancements.
- Weakened Military Readiness and National Security
A significantly downsized military would face major challenges in maintaining readiness and effectively responding to threats. With fewer personnel, reduced funding for training and equipment, and fewer bases from which to operate, the U.S. would find it increasingly difficult to project power and defend its interests abroad. National security would be compromised as the military would struggle to sustain operations across multiple theaters or respond to large-scale emergencies, whether they be natural disasters or armed conflicts.
Moreover, the military’s ability to deter potential adversaries such as China and Russia would be diminished. The U.S. military currently serves as a counterbalance to these nations’ ambitions in regions such as Eastern Europe and the South China Sea. A significantly weakened U.S. military would embolden these adversaries and could lead to greater instability in key regions of the world.
- Impact on Global Alliances and U.S. Influence
The U.S. military plays a crucial role in supporting global alliances such as NATO and maintaining the international order. With an 80% reduction in the federal government, the U.S. would likely be forced to scale back its commitments to international organizations and alliances, leading to a shift in global power dynamics. Allies that have historically relied on U.S. military support for their defense would be forced to seek alternative security arrangements, potentially aligning themselves more closely with other global powers like China or Russia.
The U.S. military also plays a significant role in humanitarian missions, disaster relief, and peacekeeping operations. These activities, which often rely on the logistical and operational capabilities of the U.S. military, would be drastically curtailed, leaving a void in global humanitarian efforts. The erosion of U.S. military presence and influence would signal a retreat from the U.S.’s leadership role in world affairs, potentially leading to a more fragmented and unstable international system.
Broader Implications of Reducing the Federal Government by 80%
While the military would undoubtedly be one of the most severely impacted areas, the broader consequences of reducing the federal government by 80% would extend to all aspects of American life.
- Social Safety Nets and Public Welfare
The federal government is responsible for funding and administering crucial social safety nets such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs provide essential support to millions of Americans, particularly the elderly, disabled, and low-income populations. An 80% reduction in the federal government would necessitate either the complete elimination or drastic reduction of these programs, leaving millions of Americans without access to healthcare, retirement benefits, or other forms of social support.
The reduction in these safety nets would likely exacerbate poverty and inequality, as vulnerable populations would be left without the resources they need to survive. This could lead to increased homelessness, hunger, and social unrest, as more Americans fall through the cracks of an eroding social support system.
- Infrastructure and Public Services
Federal spending plays a critical role in maintaining and developing the nation’s infrastructure, including roads, bridges, airports, and public transportation systems. An 80% reduction in federal spending would mean less funding for these vital projects, leading to the deterioration of infrastructure across the country. This could have serious economic consequences, as businesses and individuals rely on a well-functioning infrastructure to conduct daily activities and maintain productivity.
Public services, such as disaster relief, public health, and environmental protection, would also be severely impacted. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which responds to natural disasters, would have its budget slashed, leading to slower and less effective responses to emergencies like hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be unable to enforce environmental regulations, potentially leading to increased pollution and public health crises.
- Education and Research
The federal government provides significant funding for education at all levels, from K-12 schools to universities. This funding supports everything from teacher salaries to student loans. With an 80% reduction in federal spending, education funding would be slashed, leading to larger class sizes, fewer resources for students, and higher tuition costs. This would exacerbate existing educational inequalities, particularly for low-income and minority students who rely on federal support.
Federal funding also supports scientific research in areas such as medicine, energy, and technology. Reducing the federal government by 80% would drastically reduce the amount of funding available for research, slowing down innovation and technological advancements that are critical to the country’s economic growth and global competitiveness.
Economic Consequences
The economic impact of reducing the federal government by 80% would be catastrophic. The federal government is not only a major employer but also a significant driver of economic activity through its contracts, grants, and programs. A sudden and drastic reduction in the federal government would have the following far-reaching economic consequences:
- Massive Job Losses
The federal government employs millions of people directly and indirectly. In addition to the 2.1 million civilian federal employees, there are contractors, businesses, and organizations that rely on government funding and contracts to operate. Reducing the federal government by 80% would lead to massive layoffs across the public sector and severely impact private sector industries that depend on government contracts, such as defense, technology, construction, and healthcare.
The resulting unemployment spike would have a ripple effect across the economy. Unemployed workers would reduce their spending, leading to decreased demand for goods and services, which would then result in further job losses in other industries. This cascading effect could push the economy into a deep recession or even a depression, especially if there is no coordinated effort to mitigate the damage.
- Cuts to Social Programs and Increased Poverty
An 80% reduction in the federal government would almost certainly lead to the elimination or severe downsizing of key social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance, unemployment insurance, and housing programs. These programs are lifelines for millions of Americans, particularly the elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals. Without them, poverty rates would skyrocket, leading to a humanitarian crisis on a massive scale.
The social safety net in the U.S. is already considered by many experts to be weaker than those in many other advanced economies. Cutting these programs would further exacerbate income inequality and leave millions of people without access to basic necessities like food, healthcare, and housing. This could also increase social unrest as more Americans find themselves without a means to support themselves and their families.
- Reduction in Federal Grants and State Budgets
Many state and local governments rely on federal grants to fund key services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. A reduction in the federal government’s size would likely mean the elimination or severe reduction of these grants, forcing states and municipalities to either cut services or raise taxes to make up for the shortfall.
States with weaker economies or higher levels of poverty would be hit particularly hard, as they tend to receive more in federal aid. This could lead to a further divergence between wealthy and poor states, exacerbating regional inequalities and creating stark disparities in public services like education, healthcare, and transportation.
- Decreased Consumer and Business Confidence
The federal government plays a crucial role in stabilizing the economy, particularly during times of crisis. When economic recessions or natural disasters strike, the federal government often steps in with stimulus spending, disaster relief, and other forms of support to help mitigate the damage. Reducing the government’s capacity to do so would leave the country more vulnerable to economic downturns and crises.
Without the federal government as a stabilizing force, both consumers and businesses would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage the economy. This could lead to decreased investment, slower economic growth, and more volatile financial markets. Businesses may become hesitant to invest in long-term projects or hire new workers if they fear that the government will not be able to step in during a crisis.
Impact on U.S. Global Standing
In addition to the military-specific consequences discussed earlier, reducing the U.S. federal government by 80% would have profound implications for the country’s global standing. The U.S. has long been a dominant force in international affairs, largely because of its economic and military power. A smaller, less capable federal government would affect the U.S.’s ability to maintain its influence on the world stage in the following ways:
- Decline in Soft Power and Diplomacy
The U.S. federal government plays a crucial role in international diplomacy, foreign aid, and cultural exchanges. Agencies such as the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other diplomatic organizations work to foster relationships with other nations, promote democracy, and provide humanitarian aid. Reducing the federal government by 80% would severely limit the capacity of these agencies, weakening the U.S.’s ability to engage in diplomacy and influence global events through non-military means.
Soft power, which refers to the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction rather than coercion, would be diminished. The U.S. has traditionally used soft power to promote its values, economic model, and culture around the world. Without a robust federal government to support these efforts, other nations such as China and Russia, which have been increasing their diplomatic and economic influence, could step in to fill the void, shifting the balance of global power.
- Reduced Foreign Aid and Global Humanitarian Assistance
The U.S. is one of the largest providers of foreign aid in the world, contributing billions of dollars annually to support humanitarian efforts, development projects, and emergency relief in countries affected by conflict, natural disasters, and poverty. This aid not only helps improve conditions in recipient countries but also fosters goodwill toward the U.S. and helps stabilize regions that could otherwise become breeding grounds for terrorism or other forms of instability.
An 80% reduction in the federal government would likely lead to steep cuts in foreign aid, reducing the U.S.’s ability to assist struggling nations. This could lead to increased instability in certain regions and harm the U.S.’s relationships with key allies and partners.
- Diminished Economic Leadership
The U.S. has long been a leader in global economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The federal government’s role in shaping global economic policy, promoting free trade, and providing economic aid has been central to the post-World War II global order.
A drastically reduced federal government would weaken the U.S.’s ability to lead in these international forums. As the U.S. retreats from its global leadership role, other nations, particularly China, may fill the void. China has already been expanding its influence through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, and a diminished U.S. presence could accelerate this shift in global power dynamics.
Environmental Impact
The federal government is also a key player in environmental regulation and the fight against climate change. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy are responsible for enforcing environmental laws, managing public lands, and funding clean energy research. A reduction in the federal government by 80% would cripple these agencies, leading to:
- Weakened Environmental Protections
Without the federal government’s regulatory enforcement, environmental protections would be severely weakened. This would likely lead to increased pollution, deforestation, and degradation of natural habitats, as businesses and industries would face fewer constraints on their activities. The long-term consequences for public health, biodiversity, and ecosystems could be severe.
- Setback in the Fight Against Climate Change
The U.S. federal government plays a critical role in addressing climate change, both domestically and internationally. Federal agencies regulate emissions, promote renewable energy development, and fund climate research. A dramatic reduction in the size of the government would undermine these efforts, delaying the transition to a clean energy economy and making it harder for the U.S. to meet its international climate commitments, such as those outlined in the Paris Agreement.
Without strong federal leadership on climate change, the U.S. could fall behind in the global effort to combat rising temperatures, which would have dire consequences for future generations.
Conclusion
Reducing the U.S. federal government by 80% would have devastating and far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military, the economy, and society at large. The military would be particularly hard-hit, losing much of its capacity to defend the country and maintain global stability. The broader effects on social safety nets, public services, infrastructure, education, and environmental protections would be equally profound, leading to increased poverty, inequality, and instability both domestically and globally.
While there is room for debate about the appropriate size and scope of government, an 80% reduction would represent an extreme and unsustainable approach that would leave the U.S. vulnerable to a host of social, economic, and security challenges. The federal government plays a critical role in maintaining the well-being of its citizens, protecting national security, and upholding international leadership. Dismantling it to such a degree would fundamentally alter the United States, and not for the better.