SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Our polling finds that voters want the government to do more to help them," said Data for Progress' leader, warning that "their view of DOGE and the administration could quickly sour."
Survey results released Thursday show that majorities of U.S. voters think billionaire Elon Musk will use his position in the Trump administration for self-enrichment and fear that the presidential advisory commission he is chairing will target Social Security, food assistance, healthcare programs, and more.
Data for Progress and the Progressive Change Institute conducted a series of surveys about Musk—the world's richest person—and the new Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) in the lead-up to and shortly after Republican President Donald Trump's return to the White House on December 14-15, January 10-11, and January 24-27.
Watchdogs and some lawmakers have sounded the alarm about Musk—whose business affiliations include social media platform X, space exploration company SpaceX, and electric vehicle makerTesla—potentially using his post at DOGE to benefit himself, and the new polling suggests voters share those concerns.
Pollsters found that 51% of voters across the political spectrum agreed that Musk "isn't interested in efficiency, he's only interested in enriching himself," and he will be able to use DOGE to direct resources—including more federal contracts—toward his companies and weaponize the government to undermine competitors.
There were clear divisions among party lines: 74% of Democrats expect self-enrichment from Musk, while just 29% of Republicans have such concerns. Independents and third-party voters were split at 49%. Among all respondents, 14% said they "don't know," and 35% believe that "Musk has shown he has experience saving taxpayers money and helping the government improve."
Trump announced that the billionaire would lead DOGE—which is focused on gutting federal regulations and slashing spending—shortly after his November victory, which was aided by over a quarter-billion dollars from Musk. They initially floated cutting $2 trillion but Musk has since tempered expectations.
The pollsters found that 87% of U.S. voters are somewhat or very concerned about DOGE and the Trump administration targeting Social Security for cuts. Similarly, 84% fear cuts to veterans' healthcare, and 83% worry about cuts to the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, or Medicare.
The polling shows that 79% are worried about reducing food inspections as well as research for cancer, chronic illness, and infectious diseases. Additionally, 78% fear cuts to food assistance for low-income families, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Majorities of voters are concerned about downsizing national defense as well as cutting the federal workforce and funding for national parks, according to the surveys. They are also worried about reducing: federal disaster response and weather monitoring, environmental and toxic waste cleanup, road maintenance, mail delivery, and student loan aid.
The surveyers also questioned voters about messaging on the Musk-led commission. As Data for Progress detailed in a Thursday blog post:
When a case for DOGE is tested against two alternative messages against DOGE, saying DOGE will "steal from you by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and veterans healthcare to give tax breaks to giant corporations and billionaires like Musk" performs better with Independent voters, whose views on DOGE shifted 24 points more unfavorably on net, compared with simply saying DOGE will cut those programs or simply saying DOGE will benefit billionaires...
Additionally, while saying DOGE will cut programs to "give tax breaks to giant corporations and billionaires like Musk" effectively decreases DOGE's favorability, a message that combines "steal from you" and "give tax breaks" has an even greater negative impact on voters' opinion on DOGE, particularly among Independents whose views on DOGE shifted 14 points more unfavorably on net with the combined message.
Another round of tax cuts for the wealthy, similar to the law Trump signed in 2017, is a top legislative priority for Republicans, who now control both chambers of Congress in addition to the White House.
The pollsters also found that 56% of all voters—including 67% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and 45% of Republicans—believe "the government should do more to solve problems and help Americans." Another 19% believe the government is doing "the right amount," while 22% think it is doing "too much" and 7% aren't sure.
Data for Progress executive director Danielle Deiseroth noted in a Thursday statement that the survey results were published amid mass chaos over a now-rescinded Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo about Trump's federal funding freeze, which led to lawsuits and the Tuesday shutdown of Medicaid payment portals nationwide.
"As Trump's chaotic OMB memo showed, his administration is using 'government efficiency' as a way to slash the healthcare and benefits that Americans rely on each day from the federal government," she said. "Our polling finds that voters want the government to do more to help them, and as they learn more about these disruptions led by Trump and Elon Musk, their view of DOGE and the administration could quickly sour."
"It's simply a shocking power grab by the president that will sow chaos in the economy and around the globe," said one advocate.
Calling a federal grant and loan funding freeze announced by the Trump administration "a massive, massive overreach," U.S. Sen. Patty Murray was among those expressing fury on Tuesday over a move that could have far-reaching implications for millions of Americans who rely on federal food assistance and education and healthcare programs, among other necessities.
"We are talking about our small towns, our cities, our schools, our universities, and a lot more," said Murray (D-Wash.). "Will local Head Start facilities get their funding? Will grantees at our local universities get the funding that they use to continue clinical trials? What does this mean for our homeless veterans we are working to get housed?"
The senator, who serves as vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was speaking at a press conference given by Democratic leaders Tuesday morning, hours after the acting director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Matthew Vaeth, sent a memo to the heads of all government agencies announcing an imminent pause on all federal grants and loans.
The Trump administration's move was ideologically driven, the memo suggests, with each federal agency required to conduct a "comprehensive analysis" in the coming weeks to ensure its grant and loan initiatives operate within the bounds of President Donald Trump's executive orders banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, denying the existence of transgender people, and limiting spending on renewable energy.
"The use of federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and Green New Deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve," reads Vaeth's memo. "This temporary pause will provide the administration time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of the funding for those programs consistent with the law and the president's priorities."
Murray called on Americans to "ask themselves: Is it 'woke' to fund cancer research or to rebuild an unsafe bridge? All of these critical priorities are funded by the grants the Trump administration would pause tonight... The American people did not vote for this kind of senseless chaos."
The precise impact of the administration's order, which is set to go into effect at 5:00 pm ET on Tuesday, is not made clear by the memo, but Vaeth stated that the federal government spent more than $3 trillion in fiscal year 2024 on federal financial assistance including grants and loans.
The memo says the funding pause should not be "construed" to include Social Security or Medicare and "does not include assistance provided directly to individuals"—but Democratic lawmakers and economic justice advocates were quick to point out that millions of people will be affected, including those whose paychecks depend on federal funding.
Diane Yentel, the president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, called the memo "a potential five-alarm fire for nonprofits and the people and communities they serve."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned that "no one should believe" the funding freeze is temporary, and said it was illegal to pull back funding that has already been appropriated by Congress.
" Donald Trump must direct his administration to reverse course immediately and the taxpayers' money should be distributed to the people," said Schumer. "Congress approved these investments and they are not optional; they are the law... These grants help people in red states and blue states, support families, help parents raise kids, and lead to stronger communities."
The pause, he said, "will mean missed payrolls and rent payments and everything in between: chaos for everything from universities to nonprofit charities."
Yasmina Vinci, the executive director of the National Head Start Association, which provides early childhood education to low-income families, said the funding pause "at best, will slow down Head Start agencies' ability to pay hundreds of thousands of staff, contractors, and small businesses who support Head Start operations in every corner of the country."
"At worst, this means that hundreds of thousands of families will not be able to depend on the critical services and likely will not be able to work," said Vinci.
Dom Kelly, co-founder and president of New Disabled South, a disability justice advocacy group, said he confirmed the funding freeze will apply to Centers for Independent Living, which serve people with disabilities.
While the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the Women, Infants, and Children nutritional program include benefits that are distributed to individuals, Kelly noted that the programs are implemented by state and local governments—so the memo's impact on them is unclear.
What is clear, said Kitty Richards, senior fellow at Groundwork Collaborative, was that "this blatantly illegal and authoritarian act threatens programs and aid that millions of families rely on."
"Working people could lose their healthcare," said Richards. "Lifesaving research will stop. People won't know the status of their student loans. Kids could go hungry. And there's no reason to believe that this will be temporary. It's simply a shocking power grab by the president that will sow chaos in the economy and around the globe. This is exactly what Trump's extremist allies planned for his presidency. Now they're trying to make it a reality."
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), pointed out that the OMB threatened the funding just as the Senate "confirmed a billionaire hedge fund manager to run the Treasury Department.
He also noted the Senate is preparing to confirm Trump's pick to lead OMB, Russell Vought, "the architect of Project 2025, who will immediately seek to slash public services to hand out trillions in tax cuts to his wealthy friends."
"Billionaires and their anti-union extremist friends have amassed more power and influence than ever," said Saunders, "and they are using it now to rob working people."
"They do not reliably increase employment, but they do kick people off essential benefits like food assistance and healthcare," said an expert at the Economic Policy Institute.
After nominees for U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet this week endorsed work requirements for social safety net programs, an economic think tank released a Friday report detailing the policy's drawbacks.
"Work requirements for safety net programs are a punitive solution that solves no real problem," said Economic Policy Institute (EPI) economist and report author Hilary Wething in a statement about her new publication.
"They do not reliably increase employment, but they do kick people off essential benefits like food assistance and healthcare," she stressed. "If policymakers are genuinely concerned about improving access to work, they should support policies like affordable child- and eldercare."
"The existing safety net is too stingy and tilts too hard toward making benefits difficult to access."
EPI's report explains that recently, congressional Republicans—who now have a majority in both chambers—"have embraced proposals to ratchet up work requirements as conditions for the receipt of some federal government benefits. These proposals are clearly trying to exploit a vague, but pervasive, sense that some recipients of public support are gaming the system to get benefits that they do not need, as they could be earning money in the labor market to support themselves instead."
"However, a careful assessment of the current state of public benefit programs demonstrates that almost none of the alleged benefits of ratcheting up work requirements are economically significant, but that the potential costs of doing this could be large and fall on the most economically vulnerable," the document states. "The most targeted programs for more stringent work requirements are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, popularly referred to as food stamps) and Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income people."
"EPI has surveyed the research literature on work requirements and how they interact with these two programs in particular, and we find that the existing safety net is too stingy and tilts too hard toward making benefits difficult to access," the report continues. "Tightening eligibility by increasing work requirements for these programs will make this problem even worse with no tangible benefit in the form of higher levels of employment among low-income adults."
Wething found that work requirements generally target nonelderly adults without documented disabilities who don't have official dependents living in their homes, formally called "able-bodied adults without dependents" (ABAWDs).
"While ABAWDs might not have documented disabilities that result in benefit receipt or have dependent children living at home full-time, they often experience health challenges and must take on some caregiving duties, each of which could provide a genuine barrier to finding steady work," the report says. "We find that 21% reported having a disability that affects their ability to find and sustain work, suggesting that adults with genuine health barriers are being swept up in overly stringent work requirements."
Additionally, "13.8% of ABAWDs live with an adult over the age of 65 in their household, suggesting that many are potential caregivers in some form and likely have caregiving responsibilities beyond what is captured on paper," the document notes. "Despite ABAWDs having health challenges and caregiving responsibilities that make participation in the labor market difficult, our current social safety net does very little to support these adults."
The publication highlights that "low-income adults generally face steep labor market challenges, making it difficult to meet work requirements," including that "low-wage work is precarious, making work time hard to maintain."
The report also emphasizes that "by making the process of applying for crucial safety net programs more burdensome, work requirements effectively function like a cut to programs," and "the consequences of losing access to SNAP and Medicaid for low-income adults are severe, often resulting in food and health insecurity."
Despite the abundance of research about the downsides of work requirements, Brooke Rollins, Trump's nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture—which administers SNAP—expressed support for the policy during a Thursday Senate confirmation hearing, echoing what Russell Vought, the president's pick to direct the Office of Management and Budget, said about Medicaid on Wednesday.
Rather than pushing work requirements, the EPI report argues, decision-makers could advocate for "policies that would measurably improve employment in low-income households," including "macroeconomic policy to maintain full employment."
The publication also promotes policies that increase scheduling predictability, provide better help with caregiving responsibilities, assist formerly incarcerated people with finding and maintaining jobs, reduce unnecessary education mandates for employment, and improve transportation options. It further calls for reducing existing work requirements.
"It is entirely possible that reducing eligibility barriers to safety net programs—barriers like work requirements—may well be more effective in promoting work than raising those barriers would be," the report states. "A majority of adults who gained coverage through Medicaid expansion in Ohio and Michigan found that having healthcare made it easier to find and maintain work."