The United States federal deficit has long plagued administrations on both sides of the aisle. In my lifetime, a balanced budget has only been achieved twice — first in 1969 under President Richard Nixon, then again from 1998 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton. The deficit steadily increased in the 29 years between those presidencies, and it has done so again since 2001.
The following represents the deficient at the end of each term of presidents since 9/11, according to the U.S. Treasury:
- President George W. Bush (R): 2001-2009 — $1.4 trillion
- President Barack Obama (D): 2009-2017 — $665 billion
- President Donald Trump (R): 2017-2021 — $2.77 trillion
- President Joe Biden (D): 2021-2025 — $1.83 trillion
- President Donald Trump (R): 2025 — TBD
To be fair, the deficit is not solely the result of presidential actions. Congress develops legislation to support and fund each budget proposal before the budget bill heads to the president’s desk for signature.
Bottom line: Deficit spending upon deficit spending is not sustainable, particularly because, as a simple matter of economics, a deficit will become harder to overcome as it exponentially rises. I know this. You know this. We’ve been saying it for years, and yet, here we are.
To grasp our current economic predicament, it’s important to understand our modern history of both spending and attempts to reduce spending — and ultimately the impact on the fire service.
[RESOURCE: A timeline of program changes impacting the fire service]
9/11 changes everything
Setting aside the politics of it all, I believe it was the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that set the stage for where we are today. Following 9/11, our public safety posture under President George W. Bush transitioned to homeland security, bringing forward massive shifts in government spending, organization, operational practices and personnel assignments. The product of such a shift in spending was a $1.4 trillion deficit.
The U.S. Digital Service (USDS)
In 2014, under President Obama, the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) was established to improve digital service efficiency. In theory, this was an attempt to improve government efficiency through the organization and modernization of digital data collection and processing across government systems. The USDS reported $285 million in savings through an improved Social Security Administration website as well as a modernized Veterans Administration Caseflow system for appeals. It was my observation that the USDS operated with little fanfare in the shadows, and I still agree with this July 2024 statement from the Federal News Network: “The impact of the U.S. Digital Service is difficult to measure in real numbers or data sometimes.” Obama left office in 2017, having enacted policies that reduced the deficit to $665 billion.
DOGE — the new USDS
In 2025, President Trump renamed the USDS the United States DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) Service by Executive Order, with staff that was working at the USDS now working at DOGE. DOGE’s mission was very similar to the USDS: “… modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”
While the stated purpose centers on technology, the primary public policy presentation from DOGE has been twofold:
- Reduce the federal workforce through “early-outs,” involuntary separations and funding reductions.
- Reduce federal budget expenditures through multiple methods: “claw back,” the recovery or return of previously allocated or disbursed funds, typically by the government reclaiming money that has not been spent or that was allocated but is no longer justified; cancellation of grant programs; consolidation of office space; and other means as necessary to produce savings.
Before we look at where we are with DOGE today, let’s gain some perspective from the most recent balanced budget.
[READ NEXT: The big picture: FEMA, DOGE and your local fire department]
How did we balance the budget last time?
While campaigning for the presidency in 1992, then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton pledged to balance the budget:
“We can no longer afford to pay more for — and get less from our government. The answer for every problem cannot always be another program or more money. It is time to radically change the way government operates — to shift from top-down bureaucracy to entrepreneurial government that empowers citizens and communities to change our country from the bottom up. We must reward the people and ideas that work and get rid of those that don’t.”
Similar to President Trump’s most recent election, the case was made that President Clinton’s election was a mandate from the people to reduce the federal deficit. When Clinton came into office, the federal budget deficit had grown to about $300 billion.
Adding some fire service context, in 1993, the U.S. Fire Administration was positioned under FEMA, whose administrator reported directly to the president. Back then, the USFA’s budget was approximately $44 million for base operations. Most of the grant programs the fire service benefits from today did not exist in 1993. It’s important to note that it is nearly impossible to draw parallels between now and then, as the USFA budget was previously a patchwork of underfunded appropriations on top of the base operations budget, highly influenced by FEMA’s other missions. We do know that overall government spending shrank by more than 22% under President Clinton; however, FEMA funding was static. FEMA funding and expenditures are impacted by the ever-changing number of natural disasters — so much more than the USFA alone.
Clinton’s 1993 initiative to balance the budget was labeled “Reinventing Government.” Although reducing the deficit would be difficult, it was something the administration wasted no time attacking. Clinton made significant and controversial reductions in federal spending and raised certain taxes to achieve the balance:
- Defense spending reduced (riding the wave of cessation of the Cold War). Although $26 billion was cut initially, defense spending slowly rose over the years, regaining all of those reductions and more by 2000 [but the budged was still balanced until 2001?].
- Corporate and high-income taxes increased. The revenue increase was projected to be $123 billion over five years (approximately $25 billion annually). A 2006 U.S. Treasury analysis reported the actual revenue increase over that period was $210 billion ($42 billion annually).
- Federal government reduction in force (RIF): 400,000 positions cut for a reduction of $146 billion.
During the Clinton terms, the RIF of approximately 400,000 jobs was primarily achieved through buyouts and early retirements, similar to Trump’s recent reductions.
“Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse” in 2025
President Trump has repeatedly stated that his desire to reduce the size of the federal government part of a broader plan to “return power to the states.” I wish I could put my hands on a roadmap to further help articulate “the plan,” however, I cannot find such a roadmap.
Let me be clear that I appreciate the desire to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in ANY organization, especially one using my own tax dollars! I challenge you to show me one ethically disciplined person who would not support such an effort, with a plan.
Acknowledging that I have been accused at times of being a proverbial “bull in a china shop” under certain operational circumstances, it is my observation that DOGE has been like a herd of bulls in the same china shop, indiscriminately recommending or directing the slashing of jobs and functions without regard for or understanding of their national security significance. Multiple RIFs were later reversed when it was learned that critical positions had been cut. Trying to quantify actual reductions (as opposed to proposals) that are the result of DOGE recommendations or presidential action has been clouded by the bevy of lawsuits filed following the announcement of proposed cuts. It has been widely reported that over 200 lawsuits were filed against the administration in its first 100 days, many of these lawsuits a direct result of the RIF attempts.
Setting aside their tactics, DOGE does claim billions in savings, available to review here. With an original goal of reducing spending by $2 trillion in just 18 months. DOGE currently reports savings of $199 billion. As for the RIFs, the best information I can find places the current number of actual job reductions between 59,000 and 150,000. It is believed that the administration desires to reduce the force by hundreds of thousands more. And remember, Clinton’s RIFs achieved a cut of 400,000 positions.
Now, back to the USFA. In FY 2025, the USFA was budgeted at $65 million for base operations. Additionally, $95 million was allocated for operations over the five-year authorization (FY 2023-2028) of the Fire ACT grant. Fire ACT grants have already been under attack, with SAFER funding reduced by 10% ($36 million) from FY 2023 to FY 2024. While there has been some streamlining and incremental progress, the USFA budget continues to be a patchwork of underfunded appropriations.
Funding reductions so far
While some agency funding has simply been slashed, other savings are being achieved through the reduction of grants. As many of the fire service grant opportunities and some of the emergency management grant opportunities were created after the 9/11 attacks, a significant or wholesale reduction in federal grants stands to adversely impact our emergency services. There have also been “claw back” efforts from some grant programs, taking back money that was already allocated. Specifically, it is reported that $3.6 billion of previously approved grants were revoked when the “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities” (BRIC) program was eliminated — these were projects benefiting communities as well as emergency services.
Furthermore, recent proposals for $1 billion in FEMA grant funding cuts included a significant amount of funding for programs that directly involve fire departments.
Then, only days later, FEMA made the same amount of disaster preparedness and homeland security funding available to communities nationwide. As has been the case with many decisions, this chaotic shift of proposals, halts and starts gives us some pause that we should use for some planning and reflection. As we’ve seen these proposals come, go and come back again, we must consider the potential impact: Are efforts born out of and supported by the Fire ACT program, like Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), Assistance to Firefighter Grants (AFG) and Fire Prevention & Safety (FP&S) important to you?
The proposed FEMA cuts would have impacted those programs and more:
- Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) — $500 million in cuts
- Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) and Homeland Security Grant
- Next Generation Warning
- Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)
- The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium
- Rural Development Community Facilities Grant and Loan program
- Community Development Block Grant program
What can we do?
Understanding the scope of our country’s budget is important to forging a strategy forward. In 1993 and today, the USFA budget accounts for approximately one ten-thousandth (yes, 1/10,000) of 1%, of the entire U.S. budget ($7.8 trillion x 0.00001 = $78M). Add the bevy of grant appropriations, and the USFA total still only accounts for about one one-thousandth (1/1,000) of 1%. If we’re talking about cutting, we’re certainly not talking about a gold mine in cut possibilities at the USFA. Any cuts in such a thin margin will impact you as a firefighter, directly or indirectly.
No level of fire service is free. Volunteer, paid or a combination thereof, a community will receive the level and quality of service it is willing to accept and pay for — period. (Many FireRescue1 readers shared similar sentiments recently following the news of more FEMA cuts.). I would never suggest that the fire service be immune from helping reduce the federal deficit, but the public’s safety and firefighter safety should be immune from federal budget cuts. How do we achieve savings without cutting our programs? There’s the question.
It is prudent to consider what you could do without. This is where I’m asking you to decide what’s important enough to fund in support of balancing the federal budget. If that means “no cuts” for you, fine, then fight the political fight for it. If you see the opportunity for cuts, then ask yourself how it would impact you. For example, “If SAFER were cut, how would it impact us?” Here’s how I see it: SAFER has bridged a gap across the country; however, all hiring of firefighters has always been local, and local governments should find that funding. So, if I was faced with that do-or-die decision, I’d find a way to save there, gradually and temporarily.
Then there’s UASI. That’s where I draw that line. The originally proposed UASI cuts would adversely impact the urban search and rescue (USAR) programs that many of you support and for which some of you are even part of task force teams. The money that supports those programs fills gaps across state borders and are programs the federal government should fund. Is that important enough to save and to do something about? I think so.
To be clear, I am not suggesting the USFA’s one one-thousandth of 1% of the federal budget should be considered for reductions. I am, however, trying to be a realist in today’s political environment, and I recognize that sometimes we need to be prepared to help the greater good.
So, when you’ve answered these questions for yourself, then do something about it. Reach out to your legislators, many of whom are currently home during the congressional summer recess. Let them know how any proposed cuts will affect your fire department and our fire service. At a minimum, I implore you to reach out via email. You can find your representatives’ information and much more from the Congressional Fire Services Institute. And for some of you, maybe it’s time to consider a run for office — we need that advocacy from within!
Whether you believe the process to be chaotic or not, our best efforts may be to make our voices heard loud and clear through your legislators. Call it the “squeaky wheel” or “the right thing” or whatever else you want to call it, but these proposed reductions will have long-lasting and dynamic effects on emergency services across the United States. And if we believe these are adverse cuts, but we simply sit back and do nothing, then we will be complicit in the outcome.
We have underfunded the fire service for so long that we now have people that really believe we can do anything with nothing. They believe that there is widespread waste, fraud and abuse in the fire service. There is not. Yes, there will be bad apples here and there, but the problem is far from widespread. I am quite sure we could all point to things we could do more efficiently in our lives, not to mention waste that we’d like to reduce. Throwing the baby out with the bath water will quickly erode our capabilities and the public’s trust in our ability to do our jobs.
I have not been a fan of DOGE’s process. And while not targeting DOGE specifically, House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX) addressed budget reconciliation during the May 2025 “Fiscal State of the Nation,” stating: “What we’re lacking in Washington is courage to do what is necessary.” I would add, “what’s right.” After all, the haphazard way DOGE has gone about its expanded mission has been neither necessary nor right — and emergency services are too often caught in the crosshairs.
There is 99% of the federal budget beyond the USFA — let’s make sure we’ve reduced where public safety isn’t impacted before we cut the bone. Difficult decisions will need to be made, and what’s right and what’s necessary are not mutually exclusive. Contact your elected officials today. Choose wisely. Our future depends on it.
What federal funding is most important to you?
