Ending federal overreach may come at a cost. Is it worth it?

It goes without saying that ending federal overreach — May’s COS monthly theme — will require bringing many government functions back to the state and local levels. This transfer of power isn’t always easy, which is why many leaders fall short of actually fulfilling their promises about reining in the government. But in the end, if we can rob Washington, DC, of its undue power, the process will be worth it.

With his recent efforts to reduce federal involvement in climate issues, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Lee Zeldin, has found himself at the center of the debate about the proper size of the government. On Friday, Zeldin announced the EPA was rolling back unnecessary climate programs, cutting costs, and reducing staffing.

“This reorganization will bring much needed efficiencies to incorporate science into our rule makings and sharply focus our work on providing the cleanest air, land, and water for our communities,” he said. “It will also save at least $300 million annually for the American people.”

This could be seen as an attempt to push back on federal overreach; after all, it seems unlikely that the Framers of the Constitution, even if they had foreseen the modern climate movement, would have wanted the federal government to get involved. But the media wasn’t so kind in its assessment.

“In His First 100 Days, Trump Launched an ‘All-Out Assault’ on the Environment,” Inside Climate News panicked. The Guardian called it an “onslaught upon the natural world.” Both outlets cite Zeldin’s EPA as a culprit in the crimes against the planet.

“By splitting things up or eliminating that expertise, we put people at greater risk and we put this country at greater risk,” former EPA official Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta said about Zeldin’s announcement.

Later on Friday, Trump unveiled a proposed federal budget for fiscal year (FY) 2026, eliminating $163 billion in government spending and, by extension, multiple government programs. According to a letter from the president’s office to the Senate, “The recommended funding levels result from a rigorous, line-by-line review of FY 2025 spending, which was found to be laden with spending contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.”

The media’s rebuke was once again swift. The budget’s biggest losers include the EPA, the State Department (set to lose 84% of its funding), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (44%), and the Department of Labor (35%), prompting a bout of hysteria from those who refuse to contend with whether such branches should even exist, let alone whether they deserve billions of dollars in funding. 

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, for example, blasted the proposed cuts as a “gut punch” and “all out assault on hardworking Americans.”

“President Trump has made his priorities clear as day,” said Senator Patty Murray. “He wants to outright defund programs that help working Americans … .”

Apparently, government programs are untouchable. At least, whenever anyone attempts to amend or delete them, their critics rush to accuse them of removing a vitally important program without which Armageddon will ensue and American Democracy will collapse. No wonder Ronald Reagan once quipped that “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”

Very few people appear willing to test these ideas against the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which assert that powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Government officials have conveniently ignored this stipulation for decades, churning out a vast array of programs to “help” the American people. The creation of such initiatives has often been swift and largely unopposed. However, any attempt to scale back or eliminate these programs is met with intense political resistance.

As constitutionalists, we must be careful to apply this standard to everyone — and everything they attempt to do. When Trump announces a “National Security threat” regarding movies made in other countries and implements a “100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands,” as he did over the weekend, our first question should be, does he have the authority to do that? When Congress funds a Michelle Obama Trail in Georgia, we should want to know, is that within its constitutional prerogative? If we can’t answer “yes,” the action in question is probably in violation of the “Supreme Law of the Land.”

The more exceptions we make to this rule, the further we drift from the Constitution. The government will never lack a (seemingly) rational excuse to overstep its bounds. It’s up to us to hold the line, defend the principles of liberty, and keep Washington in check. If that requires cutting back on popular (but unconstitutional) government projects, that’s a price we must be willing to pay.