Two examples come to mind. The first is the president’s Department of Government Efficiency experiment. The concept was simple, and music to a conservative’s ears: Reduce the actual size of government by cutting out the superfluous bits. Elon Musk was assigned the task and proceeded with a chainsaw (literally and figuratively). Many examples of truly absurd government spending were identified, but the slapdash and theatrical manner also led to several embarrassments, such as the firing of some 350 employees of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which was reversed the very next day as someone realized that nuclear security might be essential even under a libertarian assessment of government’s role.
Ultimately, the haphazard approach lost public support, fizzled out, and set back the pursuit of that honorable goal at least a generation. Watch any attempt at responsible entitlement reform be tainted with the epithet of “DOGE” for years to come.
The second example stems from another worthy endeavor: dismantling the obsession with social engineering, which is often couched in such terms as “social justice” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Among the most beneficial policies enacted by the Trump administration has been the reversal of these ideological instruments at the federal level.
Consider, for instance, the Biden-era grant to the Climate Justice Alliance. In March last year, the EPA under Trump canceled a $50 million annual grant to this left-wing group whose own website states, I kid you not, that “climate justice travels through a Free Palestine.” Millions of federal taxpayer dollars had been flowing into a radical activist organization whose only concern with the environment was making sure it was conducive to supporting Palestinian terrorist activities in the Middle East. Expunging this grant was a proper reform.
But, as with DOGE, reckless application risks obscuring priorities.
The administration recently set its anti-DEI sights on the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program, created in 1978 to assist small businesses owned by disadvantaged people, mainly by fast-tracking access to federal contracting opportunities. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently said he would be “taking a sledgehammer” to the program.
The 8(a) program has certainly seen its share of abuse. In one recent case, a USAID contracting officer took more than $1 million in bribes and favors to steer roughly $550 million in contracts to preferred 8(a)-linked vendors, turning a set‑aside meant to help small disadvantaged firms into a pay‑to‑play pipeline.
Given such an example of waste and fraud in the program, coupled with the government’s demonstrated proclivity for egalitarian excess, one can sympathize with Hegseth’s rhetoric. But examining the details reveals that applying a sledgehammer may cause unintended dislocations that could obstruct the administration’s higher strategic priorities.
Among the worthiest beneficiaries of the 8(a) program that ought to be spared the sledgehammer are Alaska Native Corporations, added to the eligibility list in 1986.
A few facts about Alaska are pertinent here: The state contains 49 of 50 critical minerals the administration has identified as being of vital strategic importance; Alaska’s location is particularly conducive to detecting and intercepting incoming missiles from adversaries, as well as to securing the Arctic, which the Russians (logically) and Chinese (curiously) have shown inordinate interest in; and there are accordingly a great many government contracts in the state involving the recovery of strategic minerals and the mounting of our national defense.
It should come as no surprise that Alaska Native Corporations provide much of the manpower for these contracts. The Red Dragon Mine, one of the world’s largest zinc mines, is owned by NANA Regional Corporation, an ANC. (Zinc is on the list of critical strategic minerals because it is highly resistant to corrosion and therefore indispensable in military applications). The Golden Dome ballistic missile defense system relies heavily on ANC contracts to execute it. Fort Greeley, home to one of America’s two ICBM interceptor bases, depends on ANCs for several maintenance and logistical functions.
One might wonder if these contracts could have been awarded without a government program. Perhaps, but it’s a question asked four decades too late: The primary reason ANCs were added to the 8(a) eligibility list was because the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act abrogated aboriginal land claims in exchange for land being transferred to Alaska Native Corporations, for the purpose of providing economic self-sufficiency. Congress decided in 1986 that the terms of the settlement could only be assured via the 8(a) mechanism. So stripping it now could expose corporations developing Alaska’s natural resources to lawsuits by groups seeking claims to those resources, potentially granting legal muscle to those obnoxious “stolen land” proclamations one hears recited at awards shows.
Done properly, reform can be constructive. When Hegseth terminated $5.1 billion in wasteful Pentagon contracts, his memorandum identified specific problems, such as duplicative consulting contracts and others for non-essential activities, including DEI consulting and COVID-19 response services that were no longer relevant. This measured approach enacted reform that advanced the president’s agenda rather than eroding it.
TRUMP-LED GOP LACKS CLEAR MIDTERM LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AFTER STATE OF THE UNION
Conversely, the proposed sledgehammer approach to the 8(a) program would achieve the opposite, disrupting strategic programs to make an ideological statement. Exercising the power to distinguish between harmful DEI initiatives and programs that serve concrete strategic purposes aligned with the president’s stated priorities would seem to be in order.
Conservatives may wish to take guidance from Edmund Burke, the father of modern-day conservatism, who cautioned against rash, radical change and counseled prudence. The temptation for enacting massive reform by tomorrow morning is understandable, but conservatives ought to take a longer view and keep ultimate objectives in mind. Leave the chainsaws and sledgehammers to the ideologues of the Left.
Kelly Sloan (@KVSloan25) is a Denver-based public affairs consultant and columnist.
