Trump’s Government Overhaul: A Modern-Day Spoils System?

As President Donald Trump pushes forward with a sweeping purge of the federal bureaucracy, the long-term impact remains uncertain. Legal challenges are already mounting, with lawsuits expected to delay or potentially derail his efforts to fire career government employees and dismantle key agencies. However, one thing is clear: by the end of his second term, the federal government will likely look very different from the one he inherited.

Trump’s goal is to reshape the government into an entity more directly aligned with his political vision, drawing comparisons to the 19th-century spoils system established by President Andrew Jackson. Under that system, government jobs were awarded based on political loyalty rather than merit. But historians argue that Trump’s overhaul could go even deeper than Jackson’s.

Lessons from History

Daniel Feller, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Tennessee and an expert on Jacksonian politics, explains that while the spoils system involved mass firings and political appointments, its primary function was not to change policy direction but rather to reward loyalty. Jackson believed he was clearing out a lazy and entrenched bureaucracy, though many of his replacements were simply party loyalists.

One infamous example was Samuel Swartwout, whom Jackson appointed as the customs collector for the Port of New York, despite warnings from his own advisors. Swartwout ultimately embezzled over $1 million in tariff revenue and fled to Europe, demonstrating the risks of prioritizing political allegiance over competence.

Feller argues that Trump’s efforts go beyond mere patronage. “Trump’s attack on the bureaucracy is much, much deeper,” he said. “It’s an attempt not only to switch some people out and improve efficiency, but to entirely restructure—and in some cases, overtly destroy—aspects of the federal government.”

A Fight Over Power and Influence

Trump’s restructuring effort has drawn fierce opposition from Democrats, labor unions, and government watchdogs, who argue that his moves undermine institutional stability. His attempts to slash agencies, replace career officials with loyalists, and consolidate executive power have sparked lawsuits and emergency court rulings.

Additionally, Trump’s views on tariffs, the Federal Reserve, and economic policy have created further tensions. While he has claimed to follow Jackson’s legacy, historians point out key differences. Jackson sought to reduce tariffs and dismantle concentrated economic power, whereas Trump has increased tariffs and floated ideas like a government-controlled sovereign wealth fund.

As Trump continues his efforts to reshape the federal government, the coming months will determine whether his vision prevails or if legal and political resistance forces him to scale back his ambitions. What remains certain is that the battle over federal power is far from over.