The Reckoning

“It’s not revenge he’s after. It’s a reckoning.”
— Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday, Tombstone

There’s a persistent and deliberate falsehood making the rounds in the press that Donald Trump’s efforts to cut waste, root out corruption, and hold bureaucrats accountable constitute some kind of authoritarian power grab or Constitutional crisis. That narrative isn’t just wrong—it’s exactly backward. What we’re witnessing isn’t an extra-Constitutional attempt to remake government in Trump’s image. It’s a long-overdue course correction, undertaken entirely within the bounds of the Constitution and in line with both historical precedent and the Founders’ intent.

I opened with a great quote from the movie Tombstone. In the scene from which that quote is drawn, Wyatt Earp shows up at the train station to counter-ambush the bandits who’ve been sent to kill him and his family members. It’s an important line in the movie because it shows a key difference between Doc Holliday - renegade gunslinger - and Wyatt Earp - lawman. Doc would have sought revenge had he been wronged the way Wyatt was. But Wyatt wasn’t looking for petty revenge. He wanted justice, a reckoning. To understand the difference, and to really learn why the anti-Trump narrative about authoritarian disregard for the Constitution is so misguided, let’s turn to the source of all of our government’s authority and to the words of the people who codified it all for us.

The Constitution is not ambiguous when it comes to the President’s authority and responsibility over the Executive Branch. Article II, Section 1 vests “the executive power” in the President, while Section 3 states that he “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In other words, the President is not a passive participant in government. He is the CEO of the Executive Branch, charged with ensuring that agencies operate effectively, ethically, and in alignment with the law.

Beyond that, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution mandates that “a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” This is not optional. It is a Constitutional requirement that government spending be transparent and accountable to the people. Despite the assertions of some desperate and dishonest Senators of late, the American taxpayer absolutely has a right to see how their tax dollars are being spent. More, the Congress has a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to provide that, and the Executive Branch has a responsibility to ensure the government delivers on the promise. Cutting waste, exposing fraud, and demanding efficiency are not acts of revenge or tyranny. They are responsibilities of the office. When Trump and his administration investigate government agencies, audit budgets, eliminate unnecessary programs, and fire those who have abused their positions, they are fulfilling these constitutional mandates—not violating them.

One of the most controversial aspects of Trump’s return has been his willingness to fire federal workers, including U.S. Attorneys, agency heads, and long-entrenched bureaucrats. But here’s the reality: this is completely normal and in line with historical precedent. When a new administration takes office, especially one from an opposing party, it is routine for the President to clean house. Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys upon taking office in 1993. Barack Obama fired all Bush-appointed U.S. Attorneys when he took office in 2009. Trump’s critics, however, treated his firings as an unprecedented abuse of power. They weren’t. They were standard operating procedure. None of the histrionics and media lunacy about this have any basis in fact or historical precedent. It’s not serious discussion by serious people. It’s more like tantrum-throwing toddlers screaming at the sky.

The President is also well within his rights to fire federal workers who are corrupt, incompetent, or insubordinate. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 provides the Executive Branch with the authority to remove employees for inefficiency, misconduct, redundancy, or failure to carry out duties. And contrary to media hysteria, even career civil servants are not beyond dismissal—though government unions and bureaucratic red tape have made the process artificially difficult.

The real scandal isn’t that Trump is firing bureaucrats—it’s that more presidents haven’t done it. It goes beyond “cleaning house.” It’s one of the first steps in making any organization more efficient. The reorganization of government agencies isn’t just normal—it’s necessary. Over the years, the federal government has ballooned into a bloated, inefficient monstrosity, filled with redundant agencies (and with redundant roles within them), wasteful programs, and bureaucrats who enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. The Founders never envisioned an unchecked administrative state, and when government grows beyond its constitutional boundaries, course corrections are required.

Presidents throughout history have engaged in government reform efforts. Thomas Jefferson drastically cut federal spending, eliminated entire government departments, and fired unnecessary employees. Andrew Jackson famously took on the corrupt “spoils system,” sweeping out entrenched bureaucrats and replacing them with officials accountable to the people. Calvin Coolidge slashed government programs and expenditures to prevent bureaucratic overreach. Ronald Reagan targeted wasteful government programs, pushing deregulation and agency restructuring.

One of the most glaring hypocrisies of the current narrative surrounding Trump’s efforts to clean up Washington is that many of the very same actions he’s taking now have historical precedent under Democratic leadership—and were celebrated at the time. Consider Bill Clinton’s presidency. In 1993, Clinton took office and, within months, fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys appointed by George H.W. Bush. He did so without controversy, following the long-standing tradition that new presidents have the right to remove and replace top law enforcement officials to align with their administration’s priorities.

Fast-forward to 2017, and when Trump dismissed Obama-appointed U.S. Attorneys, the press framed it as a scandal, portraying it as an unprecedented purge. The hypocrisy was staggering. What was “routine house-cleaning” under Clinton was suddenly painted as “authoritarian revenge” under Trump.

But Clinton’s overhaul of the Executive Branch didn’t stop there. One of his most impactful and historically significant moves was his massive reduction of the federal workforce. Between 1993 and 1999, Clinton’s administration slashed approximately 380,000 federal jobs, primarily within the military and civilian bureaucracy. This was the largest reduction of government employees in U.S. history.

Why? Because even Clinton recognized that an over-bloated government was unsustainable. Cutting bureaucratic waste and reducing redundant positions helped streamline government efficiency and played a key role in balancing the budget.

The results were undeniable, and are still uncomfortable for some die-hard Republicans to admit. By 1998, Clinton achieved a budget surplus of $69 billion, the first federal surplus in nearly 30 years. By 1999, that number grew to $126 billion, and by 2000, it reached a record $236 billion. Programs and agencies that were inefficient or redundant were either eliminated or downsized, forcing a more streamlined approach to government services. At the time, Clinton was hailed—even by most Republicans—for his pragmatic approach to government efficiency. It was proof that reducing the size of government wasn’t an inherently partisan issue—it was common sense.

So why the double standard? If cutting government waste, firing entrenched bureaucrats, and downsizing the workforce was good policy under Clinton, why is it considered dictatorial under Trump? The answer is obvious: because Clinton’s actions served the interests of the political establishment, while Trump’s threaten them. Clinton’s government cuts helped polish his centrist credentials and proved that a Democrat could be fiscally responsible. Trump’s government cuts are a direct assault on the entrenched bureaucracy, threatening the very power structure that has insulated career bureaucrats and Washington elites from accountability for decades.

It’s also worth noting that Clinton wasn’t accused of “dismantling democracy” or trying to purge the government for personal reasons. Instead, his efforts were framed as pragmatic reform. One major factor that makes the conversation different today than it was then? The radicalization of the Democrat Party. This means the main difference between Clinton and Trump is not the policy, but the reaction to it. This is critical to remember when you watch the media and career bureaucrat/politician outcry. Don’t lose sight of it.

Trump is taking on the Administrative State directly—exposing corruption, waste, and inefficiency at every level. He’s cutting spending not just for fiscal reasons, but for accountability reasons. He’s ensuring that taxpayer dollars aren’t feeding a bloated and corrupt system designed to benefit career bureaucrats at the expense of the public. He’s cleaning house at an even greater scale, focusing on not just workforce reduction but also systemic reform—restructuring agencies, eliminating redundancy, and making the government work for the people, not the other way around. Trump’s critics are panicking not because he’s doing something unprecedented but because he’s doing something that works—and exposing a system that has benefited the political class for generations.

The lesson from history is clear: Cutting government waste is good for America. Holding bureaucrats accountable is good for America. Reducing inefficiency is good for America. The only people who don’t want this to happen are the ones who stand to lose their grip on power.

At this point, it may be valuable to go back in time a bit and see what the Founders themselves had to say about government overreach. The very men who designed our system of government warned us about what happens when bureaucrats and officials become unaccountable to the people.

Thomas Jefferson: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

James Madison: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

George Washington: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.”

When bureaucrats believe they are above the law, when unelected agencies impose regulations without congressional approval, when political operatives weaponize government institutions to serve their own ends, and when they presume to do it all in the shadows, without any accountability to the public —that is the real threat to democracy, and to the Republic.

Trump is not a dictator for doing what the Constitution and history demand. He is fulfilling a responsibility that too many presidents have ignored. At the core of all of this is a simple principle: the government serves the people, not the other way around. The moment public servants begin to see themselves as rulers instead of stewards, they must be reminded who is in charge.

The Founders built safeguards into the Constitution to prevent the rise of an entrenched political class that operates beyond accountability. When Trump fires corrupt bureaucrats, demands audits, and restructures failing agencies, he is not dismantling government—he is restoring it. The bureaucratic class and their media allies fear losing power, not democracy. That’s why they howl and rant and throw their tantrums about “authoritarianism” while defending institutions that operate without transparency or accountability.

The government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. It is not a self-sustaining, unaccountable entity. When Trump acts to remind Washington of this fact, when he acts to achieve his “reckoning,” he is not defying the Constitution. He is honoring it.

The louder they scream, the more you should pay attention to why they are screaming. Trump’s actions threaten their power, not “democracy.” His efforts threaten their racket, not the Constitution. Every accusation they throw at him is a confession of their own abuses. And they know it. So when you watch the media wring their hands over a “government purge” or a “dangerous restructuring,” remember: they didn’t care when Clinton did it. They didn’t care when Obama did it. They didn’t care when Biden did it. They only care now because they fear losing control.

Like I said - don’t lose sight of this! Don’t let them rewrite history. The political class depends on your apathy, your distraction, and your willingness to forget. But this time, they don’t get to sweep it under the rug. This time, they don’t get to gaslight the American people into believing that restoring accountability is tyranny. This is not revenge. This is a reckoning. And it’s long overdue.

So speak up. Stay engaged. Call out the lies. Demand accountability. Because if the American people make their voices heard—if they refuse to be silenced by media spin, bureaucratic panic, and the howls of a corrupt establishment—then Washington will finally be forced to remember who it works for.

Us.