Following his decisive win in the 2024 election, former President Donald Trump has the unique chance to reshape the U.S. government, using Ron Paul’s “Restore America” plan as his guide. Targeting federal agencies like the Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Dept. of Commerce, and Dept. of the Interior for elimination, Trump could pave the way for economic freedom and local empowerment—mirroring bold reforms in Argentina under President Javier Milei. This initiative, focused on reducing excessive government, could counteract the nation’s mounting debt, address flagging educational outcomes, and tackle economic sluggishness.
Over a decade ago, Ron Paul’s call to dissolve specific federal departments faced skepticism, yet today, his ideas still resonate. Take the Department of Education, which has seen scores and skills plateau since its 1979 inception, despite ballooning budgets. If Trump’s plan is to hand educational control to states, it mirrors Paul’s belief in local solutions, which are often more effective and adaptable. The decentralization model, already seeing success in Argentina, could allow U.S. states to craft solutions that better align with their residents’ unique needs.
In Argentina, President Milei has redirected funds from education to stabilize the economy, sparking debates but also demonstrating the potential of prioritizing local over federal control. A similar shift in the U.S. could lead to educational improvements as states innovate and adopt best practices tailored to their communities.
The Department of Energy, created to steer U.S. energy policies, has faced criticism for its restrictive regulations, which some argue hinder economic growth and energy independence. If the Trump administration proposed to dismantle this department, it could unburden private energy firms, letting them innovate and compete in the marketplace. By reducing regulation, this strategy could foster a more self-reliant and competitive energy landscape, allowing companies to adapt more quickly to consumer needs.
Energy independence isn’t simply about cutting regulations; it’s about enabling competition. With a liberated market, American firms could more readily produce cost-effective domestic energy solutions, benefiting both consumers and national security.
HUD’s extensive regulations have long been criticized for driving up housing costs. Without federal control, private enterprises might create more affordable housing options that respond swiftly to local demand. By eliminating HUD, Trump’s administration would allow local markets to tackle housing issues more effectively, addressing both availability and affordability.
The Department of Commerce, meanwhile, exemplifies regulatory overreach, with policies that often restrict trade and raise prices for consumers. Removing such barriers could lower costs and expand choices, encouraging businesses to innovate without relying on protectionism.
The Department of the Interior’s control over vast U.S. lands doesn’t really equate to efficient or environmentally responsible management. Trump’s plan to privatize or return land control to the states could foster better stewardship, as private owners have strong incentives to preserve the value of their assets. Local oversight, in this case, may also bring about more effective environmental care than federal oversight.
A leaner federal government aligned with market principles fosters economic freedom and personal responsibility. If Trump’s proposes to reduce redundant federal departments it very well could enhance individual autonomy and promote sustainable growth across the country. As seen in Argentina, similar reforms may drive economic stability and prosperity, strengthening the nation by reducing the reach of a bloated government.
If Trump remains dedicated to cutting these departments, he could advance his vision to “Make America Great Again,” shaping a nation where states, rather than bureaucracies, lead the way in building an adaptable and thriving society. Whether Trump will actually pursue his “drain the swamp” agenda is still very much up in the air, leaving Americans to wait and see what steps he takes next.