by Michael A. Smith, Professor of Political Science, Emporia State University
Why is the Trump administration determined to cut funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service? The entire NOAA budget is 0.1% of federal spending. More generally, the Administration is determined to slash the federal workforce. The combined costs of pay and benefits for civilian federal workers (not just the ones laid off) are less than 5% of the budget. Why do this? The answer may be, because they can – and because cutting the larger parts of the federal budget is nearly impossible.
NOAA’s modest budget is part of a larger category called nondefense discretionary spending. This accounts for most of what the federal government does aside from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt, and defense. In total, it accounts for about 15% of federal spending today. In inflation adjusted dollars, nondefense discretionary has risen somewhat since 2005, starting at roughly $600 billion, spiking at about $850 billion due to COVID-related expenses in 2020, then settling down to about $750 billion in fiscal year 2024.
Many economists argue that federal spending should be measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. By that standard, nondefense discretionary spending was at the same level in 2024 as in 1962: 3.3% of GDP. In between, as the Library of Congress notes, “nondefense discretionary tended to rise in recessions and fall in expansions and was generally higher from the late 1960s to early 1980s than before or after.” It’s always fun to invoke Senator Everett Dirksen’s famous quip that “a million here, a million there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money,” but the real story here is one of remarkable stability.
So, where is the money going?
As we have known since the mid-1980s, the growth in the federal budget is driven almost entirely by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This was occurring long before the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) passed in 2009, with its incentives for states to expand Medicaid. Eligibility for Social Security and Medicare is based on age– typically about 65 years old, but there are formulas that determine eligibility and benefit levels at various ages starting at 62. What may not be as well known is that a good deal of Medicaid also goes to those over 65. Because Medicare does not pay for long term care, those who have exhausted their other resources rely on Medicaid to pay for this. Today, Medicaid is the primary payer for 6 in 10 nursing home residents. In sum, all three of these drivers of increased federal spending can be traced to the same source: Americans are getting older.
Other sources of federal spending include defense discretionary, which rises and falls depending on the U.S.’s role in the world and is currently about 3% of GDP. This is about one third of what it was during the midst of the Cold War, in 1962. There is also interest on the national debt, which rose from about 1.5% of GDP in 1962 to about 3.75% in 2024. This is a function of how much we borrow, of course, but it is also highly dependent on interest rates. In fact, increased interest rates, not higher and higher levels of spending, account for nearly all the increase in interest expenditures since 2020. The U.S. Federal Reserve raises benchmark interest rates when necessary to calm inflation.
In sum, in FY 2025, Social Security led the pack at nearly 22% of federal spending. Next came interest, at nearly 14%, then Health (mostly Medicaid) at about 13.5%. Medicare and national defense each came out to about 13%. Just these few categories add up to three-quarters of total federal outlays!
Social Security does have its own trust fund. For decades, the use of combined budgeting has used surpluses in this fund to mask federal deficits run in other areas. The trust fund surplus is expected to run out by 2034.
President Trump is one of many Republicans who got elected over the years promising to cut wasteful federal spending. In general, these ideas poll well. Supermajorities of Americans prefer being called “conservative” instead of “liberal”, and they agree with statements like “the federal government is too big,” and “people should be more self-reliant and less dependent on government.”
Things get a lot trickier when getting down to specifics. Defaulting on interest payments would be economically disastrous, so those are off the table. Regarding the other big-ticket items, cutting Social Security and Medicare have always been spectacularly unpopular. The cuts to Medicaid in Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” are not polling well, either – particularly as Medicaid advocates highlight the nursing home connection, which they and their allies in the Democratic Party are certain to do as the 2026 midterms approach.
Nor are things much better at the state level – public schools and the state’s share of Medicaid make up the lion’s share of most state budgets, and these are nearly as popular with voters as are statements like “government is too big,” leaving state policymakers in the same quandary as their federal counterparts.
Finally comes the impact of tax cuts. The Tax Foundation notes that Trump’s bill cuts spending by $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Unfortunately, by making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, it will increase revenue shortfalls by about $4 trillion. Combining this with interest payments on the additional borrowing, they estimate that the bill would increase the national debt by about $3.8 trillion during this period.
This brings us back to where we started – why are the President and Congress taking a chainsaw to some of the smaller portions of federal spending? Pundits can only speculate. It may be that they are simply cutting wherever they can. It may be that they are trying to soften up Americans for deeper cuts, for example to Social Security. In a particularly provocative response, the Atlantic Monthly’s Franklin Foer suggests that Trump and his allies’ real goal is to attack a social class. Foer suggests that they are fueled by a deep resentment of university educated professionals, particularly those who work for government or government-funded organizations. Perhaps eliminating jobs for this resented class is a goal to be pursued in and of itself, even if it generates minimal savings for taxpayers.
Whatever the reason for their choices, Trump and his supporters now face the same conundrum as generations of policymakers – a balancing act between placating Americans who insist on smaller government, but without too many cuts to the popular programs that make up the lion’s share of actual government spending. Now law, their budget framework is certainly big and bold. Whether or not it is beautiful is a matter for continued analysis, opinion and debate.
About the Author
Michael A. Smith is a Professor of Political Science at Emporia State University. He has authored or co-authored five books, the most recent of which is Reform and Reaction: The Arc of Modern Kansas Politics (co-edited with H. Edward Flentje, Kansas 2024). He has other academic publications as well, and also writes newspaper columns carried throughout Kansas as part of the Insight Kansas group and blogs for the MPSA. Michael appears occasionally on television and radio in Kansas and western Missouri to discuss state and national politics. He was an expert witness for the plantiff in the Bednasek v Kobach case, decided together with Fish v Kobach by the federal district court for Kansas in 2018. Michael teaches courses in American politics, state and local government, and political philosophy. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri in 2000. Follow Michael on X (formerly known as Twitter).
The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the MPSA (Midwest Political Science Association). Any content provided is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as official statements or endorsements by MPSA.