Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-02**Lead**
In a year that many political analysts expected to be consumed by legal battles and administrative resistance, President Donald Trump has accomplished a sweeping overhaul of the federal government—from aggressive deregulation to a reallocation of executive power—that has no parallel since the wave of Great Society programs in the 1960s. While the 1960s saw an expansion of federal reach, Trump’s first year has been marked by a sharp contraction, dramatically altering how Washington operates. From the swift passage of major tax reform to the targeted dismantling of Obama-era regulations, the administration has moved with a speed and determination that has left both allies and critics scrambling to keep pace.
**Contexto**
The scope of the change is visible in the executive branch’s daily functioning. The Department of Justice has shifted priorities, pivoting from civil rights enforcement to a focus on violent crime and immigration. The Environmental Protection Agency, under new leadership, has rolled back dozens of Clean Power Plan rules and water regulations, signaling a decisive departure from previous climate policy. The State Department has seen a significant reduction in personnel and a reorientation toward bilateral diplomacy over multilateral commitments. Meanwhile, the Department of Education has reduced its role in federal student aid and school discipline guidelines, pushing more authority back to states and local school boards.
Behind these shifts is a coordinated effort from the White House, supported by a Republican-controlled Congress, to pass legislation and executive orders that reshape the federal apparatus. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law in December 2017, not only cut corporate rates but also eliminated the individual mandate for health insurance, a core pillar of the Affordable Care Act. Fewer regulations were approved in the first year than any year since the 1960s, a statistic that speaks to the administration’s commitment to reducing the regulatory footprint.
**Análise**
The speed and depth of this overhaul are unprecedented in modern history. Scholars of presidential power note that the 1960s brought a massive expansion of federal authority—from Medicare and Medicaid to the Voting Rights Act and the creation of the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Trump’s approach, by contrast, seeks to roll back the administrative state itself. For example, the White House has issued executive orders requiring federal agencies to propose two regulations for every new one, a move that has slowed the issuance of new rules dramatically. This has led to a reordering of the federal bureaucracy, with some agencies facing budget cuts and staff reductions, while others, like the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Veterans Affairs, have seen increases in funding.
The long-term implications are profound. By shifting power back to the states and the private sector, the administration is betting that economic growth and individual initiative will fill the void left by federal retrenchment. Proponents argue that this would reduce red tape, spur innovation, and restore accountability to government. Critics warn that the cuts could harm vulnerable populations, undermine environmental protections, and weaken consumer safeguards. Early indicators are mixed: while stock markets have risen and business confidence has improved, many social safety net programs are facing strain, and a widening budget deficit raises questions about fiscal sustainability.
**Fontes**
This article draws on public records from the White House, official press releases from federal agencies, and reports from the Congressional Research Service and the Office of Management and Budget. Executive orders and legislative text cited are available from the Federal Register and the Library of Congress. Statistical trends regarding regulatory changes are based on analyses by the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University, which tracks regulatory activity across administrations. Fiscal impact data are sourced from the Congressional Budget Office. All figures referenced are approximate and derived from publicly available documents or authoritative tracking organizations, without reliance on unverified internal information.