HARMFUL POLICIES OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Trump administration policies are doing wide-ranging harm to people and our society. We need to protest and resist to convince elected officials, business and academic leaders, and others to stand up and push back.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

Trump administration policies are doing wide-ranging harm to people and our society. This is why we need to protest and resist in every way possible and however each of us can. We need to make it clear these policies are unpopular and convince elected officials, business and academic leaders, and others to stand up and push back. Perhaps some of the topics below will suggest wording for your protest signs. This previous post highlighted some of the harms of the recently passed Trump / Republican budget and thisprevious post documented some of the harm to seniors.

This post highlights harmful policies in crime and violence prevention, in children’s health and well-being, and for low-income seniors. It also notes harms to economic data and states’ finances.

CRIME AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION: The Trump administration has slashed funding for multiple programs that fight crime, reduce violence, and improve public safety. In April, the Department of Justice (DOJ) canceled $820 million in grants that had supported over 500 organizations working to reduce crime and promote public safety. This included $13 million for a program that funded rural law enforcement, supporting investigations of sexual assaults and reductions in child abuse. It cut a $3.5 million collaboration program for law enforcement, community leaders, and researchers to reduce violent crime – a program that Trump had touted as a success in his first term. These cuts are literally defunding the police. [1]

These programs had been working. After a spike in violent and property crimes during the pandemic, over the last three years crime has fallen substantially. Homicides have fallen in major cities, e.g., down 62% in Baltimore to a record low and also to record lows in Chicago and New York.

YOUNG CHILDREN’S WELL-BEING: The Head Start program provides essential services and supports to almost 800,000 low-income children up to age 5 and their families each year. The services include early education and child care, health and dental referrals, nutrition, and parenting supports, including support for getting a job.

The Trump administration’s ban on enrolling children who are undocumented is punishing children for their parents’ status and behaviors. This is like telling parents they can’t send a child to school because they got a ticket for running a red light. Denying them Head Start services will jeopardize the children’s development and ability to succeed in school and in life – early nutrition and development have life-long effects. Moreover, parents may not be able to work because they will have lost their child care. [2]

Head Start has provided these services and supports to over 40 million children and their families since 1965 with no questions asked because they benefit the children as well as their and our society’s futures.

Moreover, between Trump’s inauguration on January 20 and April 15, 2025, according to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Trump administration illegally withheld more than $800 million from Head Start programs. Some Head Start programs were forced to close at least temporarily, negatively affecting thousands of children and hundreds of staff. [3]

CHILD MALNUTRITION: The Trump administration recently ordered the destruction of over 500 tons of emergency high-nutrition biscuits that would have prevented malnutrition for about 1.5 million children for a week. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had spent about $800,000 on this important food source for distribution to children in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was in storage when the Trump administration gutted USAID stopping its distribution. Secretary of State Marco Rubio assured the House Appropriations Committee that the food would get to the children before it spoiled. However, the State Department ordered the destruction of the food because providing food to Afghanistan might benefit terrorists (although no reason was given for destroying the food destined for Pakistan and apparently no option of delivering the food to another country was considered). Destroying it will cost the U.S. taxpayers $130,000. [4]

WORK PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS: The Trump Labor Department has quietly ended that Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). This program helped tens of thousands of seniors (55 or older) who are living on the edge of poverty get part-time employment. The Labor Department withheld about $300 million from grant recipients in July. This is doubly cruel as the Trump / Republican budget is putting work requirements in place for these seniors to qualify for Medicaid health care coverage and for food assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). [5]

ACCURATE ECONOMIC DATA: The accuracy of economic data provided by the Trump administration has been a matter of concern for months. Cuts to staff at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a key source of economic data, have hurt the timely production of accurate data. For example, the Consumer Price Index and related data that the BLS produces have included a lot more estimated data than in the past. [6]

When the August 1 jobs report from the BLS showed low job creation for the last three months, Trump falsely claimed that the data had been manipulated to make him look bad. So, Trump fired the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Dr. Erika McEntarfer. With a Trump replacement, future data from the BLS, which is important to investors and business leaders making decisions about hiring and growth, will be even more suspect that it has been to date.

IMPACT ON STATES’ BUDGETS: Massachusetts Governor, Maura Healey, has introduced legislation to spend $400 million of emergency state funds on research and development. This is an effort to soften the blow of Trump administration cuts of research and development grants. MA state programs have lost $714 million in federal funding already this year and universities and other entities have also lost federal research and development funding. MA receives over $8 billion annually in federal research and development funding, which supports 81,300 jobs and generates $16 billion in ancillary economic activity. In New England, the Trump administration has canceled hundreds of research grants from the National Science Foundation and the Health and Human Services Department totaling over $3 billion. [7]

[1] Waldman, M., 7/22/25, “Trump defunds effective crime-prevention policies,” Brennan Center for Justice: The Briefing (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trump-defunds-effective-crime-prevention-policies”

[2] Hilliard, J., 7/14/25, “Immigration policy shift threatens Head Start,” The Boston Globe

[3] Conley, J., 7/23/25, “Nonpartisan watchdog agency finds Trump admin illegally withheld Head Start funds,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/head-start-trump)

[4] Cox Richardson, H., 7/15/25, “Letters from an American,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-15-2025)

[5] Johnson, J., 7/20/25, “‘Extra cruel’: Trump admin ends job program for seniors as work requirements loom,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/senior-job-training-program)

[6] Cox Richardson, H., 8/1/25, “Letters from an American,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-1-2025)

[7] Gross, S. 8/1/25, “Mass. Research would get $400m,” The Boston Globe

EXAMPLES OF THE SOCIETAL TOLL OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS

The actions of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are inflicting a serious toll on our society. Examples include their efforts to defund foreign aid and public broadcasting, their weakening of our cybersecurity defenses, and their efforts to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not to mention all the horrible things in the budget bill.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

The actions of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are taking a heavy toll on people, on our society, and on our democratic institutions. Here are some examples.(See this previous post for more examples.)

ACTION #1: Republicans in U.S. House recently passed a bill to rescind $9.4 billion of previously approved funding for foreign aid ($8.3 billion) and public broadcasting ($1.1 billion). The good news is that the Trump administration is tacitly acknowledging that it is illegal for it to cut congressionally approved funding through executive orders or actions by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The vote to pass the bill was 214 to 212 and occurred only after Republican Speaker Johnson had pressured a few Republican representatives to switch their “no” votes and support the bill. [1] Republicans in both the House and the Senate have expressed concerns about this bill.

The bill would rescind funding for foreign aid programs that some of them support, such as President George W. Bush’s emergency AIDS program that has saved over 25 million lives around the globe. These cuts will ultimately harm health and result in deaths here in the U.S. as diseases spread across international borders.

It also would rescind funding that supports 1,500 public TV and radio stations, including many in rural, Republican areas where they are a vital, local resource.

ACTION #2: The Trump administration is weakening America’s cybersecurity defenses at a time when the likelihood of cyberattacks is growing. Trump fired the general who led the National Security Agency and other leaders of our cybersecurity agencies. He has cut staffing and funding for cybersecurity agencies. [2]

This makes no sense because the likelihood of cyber warfare is growing as global tensions and conflicts escalate – in Ukraine, the Middle East, and over Taiwan. U.S. adversaries Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea all have significant cyber warfare capabilities, and there are signs of cyber activity cooperation among them. Cyberattacks can be used for espionage – to steal valuable corporate or government information. Or they can be used to disrupt public infrastructure such as electric power supplies, phone and Internet services, hospitals, banks and financial services, and water supply systems. Recently, Russian hackers disabled the automatic control systems at a rural Texas municipal water plant. This was probably just a test of their capabilities or a warning about what they can do.

ACTION #3: The Trump administration, Republicans in Congress, and their wealthy backers in the financial industry are working hard to eliminate or at least emasculate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB was created in response to the financial industry corruption that caused the 2008 financial collapse and resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes due to abusive and fraudulent mortgages. Since its creation, the CFPB has returned more than $21 billion to consumers through enforcement actions on illegal behavior by financial companies. It has also saved consumers untold additional money through its regulation of the financial industry. [3] For example, it has capped exorbitant fees such as credit card late payment penalties and bank account overdraft charges.

The Trump administration and Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have been trying to cut CFPB funding, fire its employees, and eliminate the agency. On February 14, a federal judge ordered a halt to these actions. The Trump administration responded by placing most of the CFPB staff on administrative leave and preventing them from performing their jobs.

On June 10, the head of enforcement for the CFPB resigned, writing: “It is clear that the bureau’s current leadership has no intention to enforce the law.” [4] (Russell Vought is the Acting Director of the CFPB and the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, as well as a key author of Project 2025.)

To benefit the wealthy executives and corporations in the financial industry, the Trump administration is persistently trying to eliminate the only independent agency protecting consumers from predatory and illegal practices of financial industry companies.

YOUR ACTION: Please contact your members of Congress and ask them to oppose these actions of the Trump administration in every way they can. Urge them to speak out against these actions and to explain to their constituents the toll Trump administration’s actions are taking on them and our society.

You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[1] Edmondson, C., 6/12/25, “House votes to claw back $9 billion for foreign aid and public broadcasting,” The Boston Globe from the New York Times

[2] Klepper, D., 4/21/25, “Nations ready cybersecurity defenses,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[3] Economic Policy Institute, 6/12/25, “Trump administration attempts to close the CFPB, block agency’s work,” (https://www.epi.org/policywatch/trump-administration-closes-the-cfpb/)

[4] Economic Policy Institute, 6/12/25, see above

SHORT TAKES #11: CORPORATIONS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Here are short takes on three important stories that have gotten little attention in the mainstream media. Each provides a quick summary of the story, a hint as to why it’s important, and a link to more information. These three highlight the relationships between corporations and the federal government.

STORY #1: In 2023, $2,974 of the average taxpayer’s federal taxes went to the Defense Department. Of that amount, $705 went to salaries for the troops, while 2 ½ times that, over $1,700, went to for-profit corporate defense contractors. Among others, $87 went to Boeing, whose V-22 Osprey military aircraft has crashed multiple times, most recently last November, killing eight service members. The $2,974 to Defense is more than two months of rent for the average renter with well over a month’s rent going to defense contractors. Another $112 from the average taxpayer went to support for foreign militaries.

For the sake of comparison, the federal government spent, from the average taxpayer, $516 for food assistance for low-income Americans, $346 for K-12 education, $110 for the Child Tax Credit which lifts poor children out of poverty, and $58 for diplomacy. These data come from the Institute for Policy Studies’ annual receipt for the American taxpayer.

STORY #2: To penalize the greed of large corporations that have made record profits by increasing prices, the Ending Corporate Greed Act has been introduced in Congress. It would put a 95% tax on the profits of large corporations (over $500 million in yearly revenue) that exceed their average profits in 2015 – 2019. The goal is to heavily tax the windfall profits large corporations have made in the pandemic and post-pandemic years by hiking prices on gas, food, rent, drugs, and other products. Large corporations have used the smoke screen of supply chain problems and other effects of the pandemic to create price “inflation” that did not reflect increased costs but was simply greed, using a catastrophe as a pretext for raising prices and profits. [1]

In 2023, corporate profits rose to record highs due to price gouging. If the 95% windfall profits tax had been in place in 2023, just ten large corporations would have had to pay $300 billion on their excess profits. For example, Amazon’s profits were $37.6 billion, a 444% increase from its average profits from 2015 to 2019. It would have paid $19 billion if a 95% windfall profits tax had been in place. Other notable increases in profits occurred at Marathon Petroleum (up 325%), Chevron (up 289%), Exxon Mobil (up 165%), Google (up 195%), and Microsoft (up 190%).

STORY #3: Large chemical corporations, such as ones that produce pesticides, routinely work to influence the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For example, the EPA recently proposed easing restrictions on the pesticide, acephate. The European Union banned this pesticide over 20 years ago. It’s a type of chemical called an organophosphate. These chemicals are linked to detrimental effects on children’s brains including autism, hyperactivity, and poorer cognitive performance. [2]

Several studies suggest that even at currently allowable levels acephate may be causing learning disabilities in children exposed to it while in utero or during their first years of life. In 2017, researchers found that children of Californians who, while pregnant, lived within 1 kilometer of where the pesticide was applied had lower IQ scores and worse verbal comprehension on average than children of people who lived further away. Two years later, another group of scientists reported that mothers who lived near areas where acephate was used during their pregnancies had children who were at increased risk for autism.

In 2021, the EPA effectively banned another organophosphate pesticide, chlorpyrifos, based in part on evidence linking it to detrimental effects on children’s brains. (Based on a lawsuit by a company that sells chlorpyrifos and several agricultural groups, a court blocked the ban. This allows the use of chlorpyrifos on some crops, including cherries, strawberries, and wheat.) While some health and farmworker groups are petitioning the EPA to ban all organophosphate pesticides, the EPA is arguing that it can adequately protect children by limiting the amounts farmers can use.

The U.S. regulation of pesticides (and other chemicals) is weaker than in other well-off countries because it’s particularly vulnerable to industry influence in multiple ways. The chemical corporations are responsible for paying for research to establish the safety of their chemicals (because the U.S. government doesn’t want to pay for the testing itself). This, of course, creates huge conflicts of interest. There’s a lot of evidence that the testing research is biased in favor of the corporations and the (supposed) safety of their chemicals.

Furthermore, the corporations are pushing the EPA to allow a new type of toxicity testing that is quicker and cheaper. Rather than relying on the traditional animal testing, the industry wants to do testing just on disembodied cells. This type of testing is not as sensitive and, therefore, tends to find more chemicals and higher levels of chemicals to be safe. Scientists have warned the EPA not to use these new tests to loosen regulations.

In addition to doing the testing, the corporations also work to influence the EPA through lobbying, campaign contributions to elected officials, and the revolving door for personnel. People move back and forth between the chemical corporations and the EPA division that regulates them. If an EPA employee wants to get a job with a chemical corporation when they leave the EPA, they have an incentive to act in ways that don’t alienate prospective future employers.

The EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has been criticized for allowing pesticides to be sold without required toxicity testing. In 2018, staff members celebrated having waived 1,000 legally required tests for pesticides! It was noted that this had saved the chemical corporations more than $6 million.

[1] Johnson, J., 6/21/24, “Bowman, Sanders propose 95% tax on corporations exploiting inflation to jack up prices,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/windfall-tax-inflation)

[2] Lerner, S., 4/24/24, “10 times as much of this toxic pesticide could end up on your tomatoes and celery under a new EPA proposal,” ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-acephate-pesticide-adhd-autism-regulations)