Last Updated on August 7, 2025 by Chicago Policy Review Staff
When historians examine pivotal transitions in American governance, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal stands as perhaps the most consequential transformation of the federal government’s role in American life. Yet nearly a century later, the American right has undergone its own transition—from a movement defined primarily by opposition to expansive government power to one increasingly focused on adopting and utilizing government power for their own means. This shift has seemed to reach its apotheosis during this second Trump administration, which, rather than simply opposing the administrative state, sought to fundamentally remake it in ways that only parallel FDR’s own bureaucratic revolution, albeit with dramatically different aims.
For decades following the New Deal, conservative politics largely defined itself through resistance to the expanded federal bureaucratic apparatus that FDR established. From Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan, the right’s rallying cry centered on limiting government reach and rolling back regulations. At the height of this creed’s popularity, Reagan’s famous declaration that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem” encapsulated this philosophy which defined the post-war conservative movement.
However, the right’s relationship with federal power has undergone a remarkable transition. Only a few months into the second Trump administration, we have witnessed a significant departure from the traditional conservative skepticism of federal authority. Rather than simply seeking to limit government, Trump’s administration is attempting what his former strategist Steve Bannon termed the “deconstruction of the administrative state”—not dismantling it entirely, but dramatically reorienting its purpose and function.
The scale of bureaucratic transformation being attempted during this administration bears striking similarities to FDR’s revolutionary changes. Both presidents sought comprehensive structural realignments of federal agencies that reflected their distinctive visions of government’s proper role. Trump’s flurry of executive orders in his second term’s first 100 days is rivaled only by FDR’s long standing record of 99 – which was recently broken by this administration in late March.
Roosevelt created new agencies at an unprecedented pace—the Works Progress Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Securities and Exchange Commission—building a federal infrastructure that could actively manage economic recovery and implement social welfare programs. Trump’s approach, particularly with initiatives like Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Schedule F reform aim to reorient the federal workforce and infrastructure that was born from FDR’s New Deal programs. These reforms are the antithesis to the contemporary administrative state, working to dismantle this federal infrastructure and opt for greater political accountability rather than programmatic expansion.
Both presidents viewed existing bureaucratic structures as impediments to their visions. FDR saw an insufficiently empowered federal government unable to address the Great Depression’s challenges. Trump perceived a “deep state” of unelected and unaccountable career officials undermining his policy agenda. While starting from starkly different premises, both reforms aimed to overcome institutional resistance through bureaucratic reorganization, driven from the power vested in the executive branch.
The most significant aspect of this current transition is how it redefines conservative governance philosophy that public policy professionals should pay attention to. Traditionally, the right viewed executive power with suspicion, particularly when deployed to expand administrative authority. The right’s alternative vision to stronger executive power truly began to take shape in the Reagan administration, slowly culminating into Trump’s full embrace of robust executive action to reshape administrative agencies to fulfill his priorities.
Source: Pexels Images
This transition appears increasingly institutionalized within the conservative movement. The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” a comprehensive blueprint compiled for the administration, envisioned not only a smaller government but a differently oriented one, with expanded presidential control over federal agencies. Thought leaders such as Patrick Deneen, Curtis Yarvin, and Sohrab Ahmari that are increasingly influential in the conservative movement, especially with a notable influence on Vice President (and expected heir to President Trump) JD Vance, have expressed the intent of utilizing the power of the executive branch to alter the power dynamics between the President and the bureaucracy.
Unlike earlier conservative approaches that sought primarily to shrink government functions, this philosophy, which is skeptical of the established political liberal order, seeks to fundamentally reorient the administrative state’s ideological direction and accountability structures. Similar to how FDR’s presidency redefined federal governance that endured for generations, this transition in right-wing administrative philosophy may similarly reshape American governance for decades to come.
Why This Transition Matters
This transition carries profound implications for American governance. First, it suggests the right has moved beyond simply opposing the New Deal consensus, instead offering a competing vision of federal power—one that emphasizes political responsiveness and effectiveness over bureaucratic autonomy and expertise.
Second, this administration indicates a cementation on how conservatives conceptualize executive authority. Rather than viewing presidential power skeptically as potential overreach, many on the right now embrace expanded executive control, known as unitary executive theory, as necessary to overcome the entrenched bureaucratic resistance.
Finally, it reveals how the right increasingly views the existing federal bureaucracy not as a neutral implementer of policy but as an inherently political entity that must be aligned with presidential priorities. This represents a transition away from the mid-20th century ideal of apolitical expertise toward a more politically responsive—or politically captured—administrative state.
What began as a movement largely defined by opposition to FDR’s governance revolution has transitioned toward a competing vision of administrative authority—one that shares Roosevelt’s comfort with executive-driven bureaucratic transformation while directing it toward dramatically different ends.
This transition reflects a fundamental reconceptualization of how the right views government’s function and the legitimate exercise of executive power. Like FDR’s own governance revolution, this transition in right-wing administrative philosophy may reshape American governance for generations to come, moving beyond mere resistance to the bureaucratic state toward a fundamentally different vision of how federal power should be structured, deployed, and held accountable.