By Darin Lawson Hosking in Citizenship — Feb 27, 2025

Trump's Pay-to-Play Government

Trump’s governance means a United States that is more exclusive, transactional, and stratified by wealth. Just as a homeowners’ association provides amenities only to those who pay dues.

Trumps Pay to Play Governance Project 2025 and the HOA Model

0:00

/1511.48

Donald Trump’s Current Presidency: Journey Towards “HOA-Style” Governance?

Donald Trump’s second administration has pursued sweeping policy changes in economic management, social programs, and governance structure. Many of these shifts emphasize pay-to-play or “HOA-like” principles – where financial contribution or wealth confers greater access to benefits. Below is an analysis of key policy areas, the controversial “Gold Card” citizenship program, the Project 2025 blueprint, the new Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk, major budget proposals, and how these trends compare to historical governance models.

The USA was born in 1776 with the "Declaration of Independence" NOT the "Constitution" and the key moral code behind that was;

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.” - John Adams

Not some HOA rules Trump and co want to use, where only those that pay can play or Elon's apartheid system imported from South Africa (because it failed there too)

Economic Policy: Tax Cuts, Trade Tariffs, and Budget Tightening

Tax Policy: President Trump has doubled down on tax reforms favoring businesses and high earners, while adding some populist-themed cuts. He vows to extend and deepen the 2017 tax overhaul, including slashing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15% and repealing President Biden’s tax hikes on top incomes

These moves predominantly benefit corporations and wealthy Americans. At the same time, Trump touts targeted relief for workers – proposing to exempt certain earnings like tips, overtime, and Social Security-taxed wages from income tax. However, experts note this could create loopholes for high-paid individuals (e.g. reclassifying pay as “tips”) and even undermine funding for Social Security/Medicare if payroll tax bases are affected. Overall, the tax agenda skews toward business and investor interests, consistent with Trump’s first-term approach, while offering modest symbolic breaks to middle-class paychecks.

Trade and Industry: Trump’s economic nationalism is on full display. He proposes across-the-board tariffs of 10–20% (or higher) on foreign imports to protect U.S. industry. His administration already set a date (March 4) for new tariffs in response to “unacceptable” levels of fentanyl entering the U.S., tying trade tools to other policy goals. In addition, he reinstated a federal “Buy American” mandate for essential medicines (requiring government agencies to purchase from U.S. companies) and vowed to bar Chinese firms from buying U.S. “vital infrastructure” assets. These protectionist measures reflect Trump’s skepticism of global free markets, aiming to leverage America’s market power. Critics warn broad tariffs function like a tax on consumers and could invite retaliation, but Trump argues they will boost domestic jobs and reduce reliance on adversaries.

Spending Cuts and Deficit: A hallmark of Trump’s second-term economic policy is aggressive budget cutting – a pivot from the debt growth seen in his first term. The administration, working with congressional Republicans, is pursuing budgets that trim “hundreds of billions” from programs like Medicaid over a decade. Trump has publicly mused about selling assets or visas to shrink debt – even floating an outlandish scenario of selling 10 million “Gold Cards” (explained below) to raise trillions in revenue. More concretely, Trump empowered the new DOGE department to find $1 trillion in spending reductions, a target Elon Musk (DOGE’s chair) predicts is achievable. Early steps include a federal hiring freeze (with no exception for critical roles) and buyout offers to downsize the civil service. For example, federal employees were incentivized to resign by Feb. 2025 in exchange for full pay through September – a dramatic attempt to “right-size” government. Collectively, these fiscal measures aim to curtail government’s footprint, even at the risk of reduced services, reflecting a belief that private sector efficiency and personal responsibility should fill the gap.

Deregulation: Consistent with an HOA-style preference for lean administration, Trump swiftly reversed many Biden-era regulations across energy, environment, and labor sectors. On Day 1, he issued a “regulatory freeze” halting pending rules and began rescinding climate-related and other regulations. He claims cutting “red tape” will spur growth – promising lower utility bills by unleashing fossil fuel production and cheaper housing by easing construction permits. Indeed, Trump has opened all federal lands to oil & gas leasing and moved to speed up projects by curbing environmental reviews and lawsuits. This aggressive deregulation is framed as an economic boon, though environmentalists and consumer advocates worry about long-term costs. Importantly, Trump’s approach consolidates power in the executive branch: he is reclassifying thousands of federal workers to strip them of civil-service protections, making them easier to fire. This not only enables faster deregulation (by removing staff who might slow-roll policies) but also weakens institutional checks on presidential authority. In essence, Trump’s economic governance favors swift, centralized decision-making and minimal government “interference,” consistent with an HOA analogy of a strong board collecting dues (taxes/tariffs) and tightly controlling expenditures.

Trump’s health and social policy agenda markedly shifts government support toward a privatized, pay-as-you-go model, echoing an HOA’s limited common services. His administration has rapidly adopted recommendations from the conservative Project 2025 blueprint to overhaul health programs:

Medicaid Restructuring: Changes to Medicaid (the public insurance for low-income Americans) epitomize the new approach. Project 2025 called for letting states impose premiums, work requirements, and even lifetime coverage caps on Medicaid beneficiaries. The Trump administration is embracing these ideas. While such rules don’t formally change who is eligible, they effectively “ration coverage by complexity and ability to pay,” in the words of health policy expert Larry Levitt. Even small premiums deter the poorest from enrolling, and work documentation rules often cut off eligible people who struggle with red tape. Independent analyses estimate the emerging GOP budget would cut Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years – a massive rollback of the program’s expansion under Biden. Fewer people covered means those who can’t pay out-of-pocket or via private insurance may simply go without care. This is a stark shift from treating basic health services as a right, moving instead toward a “membership” model where only those who contribute (through work, premiums, or state funds) get full access.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Insurance Markets: Trump has signaled support for health plans that skirt ACA regulations – for instance, expanding short-term plans or association health plans that don’t meet ACA coverage standards. The rationale is to offer cheaper choices, but these often exclude essential benefits and can leave patients with huge bills. Project 2025 explicitly endorsed more non-ACA-compliant plans to increase “choice,” even if it means higher risk of uncovered costs. In parallel, the administration is hostile to the ACA’s subsidies and Medicaid expansion, viewing them as government overreach. Indeed, a Heritage Foundation analysis for 2025 envisioned gutting protections for pre-existing conditions and other ACA provisions as part of returning healthcare to a market-driven footing. Trump’s team has downplayed any direct attempt to repeal the ACA legislatively, but these administrative moves achieve a partial rollback by nudging consumers toward private alternatives (and away from subsidized public options).
Public Health and “Anti-Woke” Medicine: Consistent with its ideological stance, the Trump administration has slashed funding for health initiatives it deems politically biased or non-essential. In one surprise early move, it cut billions from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – particularly targeting funds for university research – under the argument that NIH’s “monopoly” on research must be broken. (A judge temporarily blocked some of these cuts amid legal challenges.) Internal documents made clear this was foreshadowed by Project 2025’s view that NIH and universities allegedly push “leftist agendas” with taxpayer money. International health aid has also been pared back: Trump’s January directive “curtailed international medical aid” in areas like maternal health if programs didn’t align with conservative values. He reinstated and broadened the “Mexico City” global gag rule, banning U.S. funding to any foreign NGO that even provides information on abortion. This has already stripped millions of dollars from health programs abroad and had a chilling effect on services from Africa to Turkey. Domestically, Trump rolled back Obama/Biden-era policies on LGBTQ health: an executive order now bans federal funds for gender transition care for minors and mandates that the government recognize only male or female sexes assigned at birth. Following this, agencies like CDC even took down web information on transgender health (later restored by court order, but with the administration adding disclaimers calling the info “extremely inaccurate”). These steps align with Project 2025’s call to purge terms like “gender identity” from federal programs and redefine civil rights protections narrowly. In effect, public health policy is being filtered through a cultural lens – services are curtailed if deemed part of a “radical…agenda”. The trend is a privatization not just of funding but of values: individuals are on their own to seek services (e.g. reproductive or LGBTQ-related care) unless they align with the administration’s defined core missions.
Social Safety Net Programs: Beyond healthcare, Trump’s budgets signal across-the-board cuts to social programs. For instance, the administration froze funding and started phasing out Head Start (preschool for low-income children) and universal free school meals, programs which Project 2025 recommended eliminating. In housing and food assistance, officials have pushed for stricter work requirements for SNAP (food stamps) and federal housing aid, echoing an HOA mindset that members must “do their part” to earn benefits. While exact cuts are still unfolding, the ethos is clear: federal aid should be minimal and conditional. Even veterans’ programs are not entirely spared (see below), despite political sensitivities. All told, Trump’s social policy moves the U.S. closer to a minimal welfare state – one where those with means (savings, jobs, private insurance) gain security, and those without must rely on charity or fend for themselves, much as in pre-New Deal eras.

Education Policy: From Public Funding to “Pay-to-Play” Schooling

Education has seen perhaps the most radical proposals, with Trump seeking to essentially dismantle the federal role in education. In a conversation with Elon Musk during the transition, Trump vowed that one of his first acts would be to “close the Department of Education [and] move education back to the states.” This agenda, also championed in the GOP platform and Project 2025, marks a sharp turn from decades of federal support for schools.

Abolishing the Department of Education: Trump has indeed moved toward eliminating the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Shortly after the 2024 election, Senator Mike Rounds introduced the “Returning Education to Our States Act” to do just that, explicitly aligning with Trump’s vision and the Project 2025 blueprint. The plan would scatter ED’s programs to other agencies or end them outright. Trump signaled his approval, naming billionaire donor Linda McMahon as Education Secretary during the transition – presumably to oversee the unwinding of the department. Supporters argue that state and local authorities, not Washington, should control schools. Critics counter that this is like an HOA dissolving its community services: vital funding streams would vanish and inequalities likely widen. Notably, federal Title I aid – in place since 1965 to support high-poverty schools – is targeted for elimination. In its place, states might get lump-sum block grants “with zero regulations or oversight”. This means states could use (or misuse) the money freely, and no guarantee it reaches poor classrooms. Education analysts warn that removing Title I would strain local budgets and cost an estimated 180,000 teaching positions, overwhelmingly in low-income areas. An Education Department study estimated 2.8 million disadvantaged students would lose resources. This reflects a pay-to-play logic: wealthy districts that can raise local funds will manage, while poor districts (formerly bolstered by federal funds) may fall further behind – effectively making quality education more dependent on local wealth.

Diverting Funds to Private Schools: Hand-in-hand with cutting public school aid, Trump’s agenda boosts school choice and private education. Project 2025 explicitly proposes to “redirect taxpayer funds” to private and charter schools via vouchers. Trump has echoed support for letting education dollars “follow the student” to any school. In practice, this means public funding could pay part of a private school’s tuition. However, families would often need to pay the difference (many private schools cost more than vouchers cover), again favoring those with means. This trend mirrors an HOA offering premium services at extra cost – here, basic public schooling remains for those who can’t pay, but the best “amenities” (elite or specialized schooling) increasingly require a private purchase. Meanwhile, Trump’s budget also seeks to end federal aid for preschool (Head Start) and other programs that primarily benefit lower-income children, potentially widening early-learning gaps. Education advocates describe these combined moves as “devastating” for equitable education.

Curriculum Control and Culture Wars: The administration is also leveraging federal influence to impose conservative cultural priorities in schools. While slashing funding, Trump supports a federal “Parents’ Bill of Rights” that would enforce curriculum transparency, book restrictions, and limits on teaching about race or gender. A previous version of this idea failed in Congress in 2023, but Project 2025 promises to revive it, effectively making book bans and classroom censorship a national policy if enacted. This would be an unprecedented federal intrusion into local education content, contradicting the usual states-rights rationale – but it aligns with Trump’s political messaging against “woke” education. Additionally, his administration has moved to scrap protections for LGBTQ students. Biden-era Title IX rules (which bar gender identity or sexual-orientation discrimination in schools) are being reversed. Trump’s policy is to revert Title IX to cover only “biological sex,” explicitly allowing schools to exclude transgender students from facilities or sports and to rescind accommodations. Project 2025 advocates for these changes, stating the next administration should “abandon the redefining of ‘sex’… in Title IX immediately”. This effectively codifies anti-LGBTQ policies in education, such as permitting misgendering or barring trans youth from activities, under the banner of parents’ rights and religious freedom. In sum, Trump’s education policy removes federal support in dollars but increases federal dictates in culture – a paradox that reflects prioritizing ideology over broad public access. Wealthy families can always opt out (placing their kids in private schools aligned with their values), whereas families relying on public schools may have less say, especially if local districts feel pressured by new federal rules to avoid losing any remaining funds.

The “Trump Gold Card”: Citizenship for $5 Million

One of the most striking HOA-like policies is Trump’s proposal to sell immigration access to those who pay. In February 2025, he announced a “Trump Gold Card” visa program that would offer a pathway to U.S. citizenship for a $5 million fee. This “Gold Card” is set to replace the existing EB-5 investor visa (which required a ~$1 million business investment and job creation). By contrast, the new Gold Card dramatically raises the price of a green card and, notably, drops the prior job-creation rules. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (a Trump appointee from the finance world) explained that wealthy individuals would effectively buy permanent residency – “at a higher level of sophistication,” as he put it – and even suggested companies could sponsor talented workers by paying the fee. Trump emphasized that these immigrants will be “wealthy, successful…paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people,” painting the program as an economic win. He even mused that Washington could sell up to 10 million Gold Cards to slash the deficit – an offhand remark implying $50 trillion in revenue.

The Gold Card plan has drawn sharp debate. Supporters note that “golden visas” are common worldwide – over 100 countries, including the US and UK, already offer investor visas for residency. In that sense, America is merely monetizing citizenship like many others do. However, the scale and framing of Trump’s proposal are unprecedented for the U.S. Setting the price at $5 million (5× higher than the old EB-5 minimum) explicitly prioritizes the ultra-rich. And by bypassing Congress (Trump claims he can create the visa by executive action), it raises legal questions, since the Constitution gives Congress authority over naturalization rules. Critics argue this is citizenship for sale to the global elite, clashing with the American ideal of equal opportunity. It creates a literal price tag on becoming American – a stark example of governance by the highest bidder. The HOA analogy is evident: like an exclusive community charging steep membership dues, the U.S. under Trump would grant the privileges of citizenship (security, rights, opportunity) in exchange for a hefty “initiation fee.” Meanwhile, traditional paths for refugees or low-income immigrants are being narrowed (e.g. stricter asylum rules and border enforcement), highlighting the contrast. Historically, the U.S. has welcomed many penniless immigrants who built fortunes here; the Gold Card inverts that ethos, preferring those who already have fortunes. Such a system resembles historical practices of aristocracies selling titles or citizenship – for example, 19th-century European nations that sold noble ranks, or small countries today that sell passports to wealthy investors.

Trump’s framing is that America “benefits” by importing moneyed individuals who will donate, invest, or spend. Indeed, he sees it as a financial transaction for government revenue. This is governance by entrance fee – much as an HOA might require a large buy-in to join a gated community. It may also feed a pay-to-play political culture: wealthy foreign nationals could become U.S. citizens (and donors/voters) quickly, potentially grateful to the administration that sold them entry. While the economic rationale is debated, the Gold Card undeniably symbolizes Trump’s broader approach: advantages and access are available – for a price.

Project 2025 and Governance Overhaul

Many of these policy shifts trace back to a comprehensive playbook known as Project 2025, compiled by the Heritage Foundation and allies as a roadmap for a conservative takeover of government in 2025. Trump publicly distanced himself from this 920-page “Mandate for Leadership” during the campaign, but in practice his administration is closely following its prescriptions. The project’s overarching goal is to reshape federal governance to centralize power in the executive and shrink the administrative state, and Trump’s early moves reflect that.

Expanding Executive Power: Project 2025 explicitly views the next president’s term as an opportunity to “dramatically expand presidential power” and gut checks and balances. In action, Trump wasted no time. He reissued and broadened Schedule F, an executive order from late 2020 that reclassifies potentially tens of thousands of federal employees as at-will appointees, stripping them of civil service protections. This means career officials can be fired and replaced with loyalists much more easily, weakening the independent implementation of laws. Already, over 1,000 federal workers (many at Veterans Affairs) were summarily fired in the first weeks of Trump’s return. A top priority of Project 2025 – “stacking” the bureaucracy with those loyal to the President’s agenda – is being realized in real time. Trump also places more decision-making directly in the White House or with hand-picked czars, bypassing expert agencies. For example, rather than independent regulatory boards setting rules, Trump prefers to dictate deregulation from the Oval Office (as seen with the Day 1 regulatory freeze). Oversight mechanisms are being curtailed; agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) face potential downsizing or abolition because they are viewed as unaccountable “nuisances” to business. Heritage’s Kevin Roberts lauds that many “people who embody [their] principles are being tapped for top positions” in Trump’s team. In short, the administration is implementing a form of executive-centered governance where the President’s directives hold sway with minimal institutional friction – akin to an HOA board empowered to make rapid changes, with the usual slow bureaucratic process swept aside.

Downsizing Agencies (“Deconstructing the Administrative State”): A key component of Project 2025 is reducing or eliminating numerous federal agencies and programs. Trump’s actions so far indicate a willingness to take an axe to large parts of the federal apparatus. One example is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID): Trump and Elon Musk (leading DOGE) moved to dramatically cut USAID’s budget and programs, exceeding even the Heritage plan’s call to modestly scale it back. They argue USAID under the previous administration was “radicalized” and that foreign aid should be sharply curtailed. In another instance, Project 2025 recommended considering breaking up or even dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (which was deemed unwieldy). Trump has not taken that route; instead he expanded DHS powers, for example by appointing a strict “border czar” and pushing aggressive enforcement. However, he has followed through on merging or trimming other departments – notably the plans to abolish the Department of Education (discussed above) and merge certain welfare programs into block grants. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy face major budget cuts and possible consolidation of functions, aligning with Heritage’s view that environmental regulation should be largely left to states or scrapped. Internally, officials speak of “right-sizing government” – code for layoffs and budget cuts – in virtually every domestic bureau. Cabinet members publicly cheered these cuts, insisting “we’re going to right-size this government”. The result is a government that does less, and what it does do is often contracted out or left to states (many of which themselves may outsource to private entities). This is consistent with privatization trends: for instance, fewer HUD housing projects in favor of vouchers for private rentals, or fewer VA clinics in favor of veterans using private hospitals. America’s governance is thus inching toward a “limited common goods” model, not unlike an HOA that maintains only core infrastructure while leaving most services to individual homeowners.

Erasing “Equity” and Civil Rights Initiatives: From day one, Trump moved to eliminate programs and rules associated with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or other social justice aims. He quickly ended all DEI training programs in federal agencies and ordered removal of terms like “equity” from strategic plans. This symbolic purge, as trivial as editing words in documents, was paired with substantive changes: civil rights offices in departments (Education, HHS, etc.) have been curtailed, and investigations into discrimination cut back. Trump frames these efforts as stopping “woke bureaucracy” and says it lets agencies focus on their “real” missions. But opponents argue it rolls back decades of progress on equal access, whether in housing (e.g. suspending rules that diversified suburbs) or education (as noted with Title IX changes). In effect, federal enforcement of anti-discrimination – a kind of referee role the government played to ensure fair access – is being withdrawn. This too fits an HOA analogy: the government-as-referee is stepping back, leaving it to individual “members” (states, localities, or businesses) to police themselves. Historically, when such oversight is removed, marginalized groups often lose access (as seen when Reconstruction-era federal protections were removed in the 1870s, or when courts struck down Voting Rights Act preclearance in recent years). The long-term governance change is that policy will depend more on who holds power locally or privately – those with wealth or numbers in a given locale – rather than on universal federal guarantees.

Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) and Elon Musk’s Role

A New “Efficiency” Czar: Among Trump’s more novel moves is the creation of a Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) – an initiative outside the traditional cabinet structure, tasked with cutting waste and streamlining government. Trump appointed tech billionaire Elon Musk as the de facto head (Chairman) of DOGE. Musk’s mandate is to apply a Silicon Valley disruptor mindset to federal operations: identify redundancies, slash budgets, and inject private-sector techniques. In a way, Musk serves as an unelected “HOA president” of the federal bureaucracy, empowered to make or recommend sweeping changes in how agencies function.

Musk’s Influence and Initiatives: Elon Musk embraced the cost-cutting crusade with characteristic boldness. He publicly set a goal for DOGE to cut $1 trillion in federal spending – whether through efficiency gains or program eliminations – and expressed confidence this target will be met. Early DOGE-led actions include the aforementioned USAID cutbacks and a review of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (with an eye toward defunding or abolishing it). This has already raised alarms; Senator Elizabeth Warren, who helped create the CFPB, is enraged at the prospect of gutting it. Musk’s team is also auditing agencies’ tech and data use, which has raised privacy concerns. For instance, the VA acknowledged sharing veterans’ data with DOGE analysts, prompting fears that sensitive personal info could be misused. Internally, some describe DOGE’s approach as “move fast and break things” – a mantra from the tech world. Indeed, over 1,000 VA employees (mostly newer hires still on probation) were abruptly fired in February at DOGE’s recommendation, on the theory that a leaner workforce will spur efficiency or justify outsourcing. Veterans’ advocates and some lawmakers like Rep. Mike Levin have cried foul, noting these cuts “create conditions that could ultimately privatize essential VA services” if the agency becomes unable to deliver. Musk counters that “wasteful spending” in agencies like VA must be eliminated and that private healthcare networks might serve veterans better in some cases – a classic privatization argument.

Political Reactions: Initially, Democrats and government worker unions sounded the alarm about Project 2025, but as Trump and Musk have rolled out DOGE, the focus of criticism shifted to this new department. Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts noted that “first it was Project 2025, now it’s DOGE – different name, same baseless fearmongering” from the left.

Republicans in Congress have largely backed DOGE’s mission. A “DOGE caucus” was even formed, led by Rep. Aaron Bean and Sen. Joni Ernst, to support Musk in “taking on the crazy bureaucracy”. To many conservatives, Musk’s involvement brings credibility to the effort – he’s an outsider with business success, unafraid to make big changes. They compare it to bringing in a tough property manager to fix a decaying apartment complex (with Washington being the complex). Detractors, however, see an unelected billionaire exerting enormous influence over public policy, effectively superimposing a corporate boardroom ethos onto democratic governance. There is irony, too: Musk’s companies have benefited from government contracts and subsidies in the past, yet he’s now trimming government programs. Some worry about conflicts of interest – for example, will DOGE push privatizing functions (like space exploration or transit) in ways that could benefit SpaceX, Tesla, or other private entities? No evidence of self-dealing has emerged, but the concentration of power is noteworthy. In American history, it’s unusual for someone with no public office to wield such direct authority over federal spending. It recalls instances like industrialist Bernard Baruch advising war mobilization in WWI, or Donald Trump’s own reliance on businessman Carl Icahn briefly as a deregulation advisor. Musk’s role might be compared to a powerful HOA management company brought in to cut costs – effective perhaps, but raising questions of accountability since homeowners (voters) didn’t directly hire that manager.

In summary, DOGE under Musk is a flagship of Trump’s HOA-style governance: an efficiency committee that values cost-cutting and privatization over public sector expansion, led by a figure who himself epitomizes wealth and private enterprise. Whether this yields a sleeker government or simply erodes public services remains hotly debated.

Budget Proposals and Funding Cuts: Who Loses Access?

Trump’s budgets outline stark funding cuts across Medicaid, education, veterans’ services, and social welfare, consistent with the administration’s priorities discussed above. Here are key highlights of the budgetary shifts and their implications:

Medicaid and Healthcare: As noted, hundreds of billions are slated to be cut from Medicaid over the coming decade. This would be achieved by capping spending growth and imposing state-level restrictions (work requirements, etc.). The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office warned that such changes would result in millions fewer insured Americans over time, as people get pushed out of the program. Simultaneously, the budget zeros out funding for programs disfavored by conservatives: for example, Planned Parenthood is targeted for complete defunding (it currently receives ~$700 million via Medicaid and other programs). Family planning grants, teen pregnancy prevention, and HIV/AIDS prevention programs have been scaled back as well. The CDC and NIH face ~20% budget cuts in Trump’s FY2026 proposal, with research funds redirected to defense and “America First” projects. The net effect is that public health is de-prioritized – fewer free services or screenings for the poor, less research on diseases – unless it aligns with specific administration goals (like veterans’ health or opioid enforcement).
Education: The FY2026 budget (Trump’s first full budget of the term) essentially eliminates federal K-12 grants over a two-year phase-out. In addition to terminating Title I aid, it calls for ending Title II (teacher training) and Title IV (student support) grants, and cutting special education (IDEA) funding by at least 50%. The only education expenditures seeing increases are those for school choice programs – e.g. a new federal tax credit to incentivize private school scholarships. By design, this budget pressures states to either raise their own taxes to replace lost federal funds or accept scaled-back school services. Education groups estimate that without federal funds, low-income districts could face severe teacher layoffs and larger class sizes, while wealthier districts would more easily compensate using local property taxes. In higher education, Trump’s budget and policies also make college aid more “pay-to-play.” He supports cutting federal research grants to universities deemed “politically biased” and has floated requiring colleges to lower tuition or lose certain federal funds (an unlikely stick, but rhetorically emphasizing that students should rely on private loans or personal funds). The administration already moved to end President Biden’s free community college initiative and reduce income-based student loan relief, suggesting students should “have skin in the game” and not expect loan forgiveness. All of these measures align with an ethos that education is an individual or state responsibility, not a guaranteed public good – paralleling how an HOA might say each homeowner is responsible for their own property upgrades, not the association.
Veterans Affairs: Despite Trump’s frequent pro-veteran rhetoric, his efficiency drive hasn’t spared the VA’s budget. The VA saw an unexpected workforce reduction (firing of 1,000+ staff as noted) and a proposed 5% cut in discretionary funding (excluding medical care which was roughly flat-funded). Areas like mental health programs, homelessness assistance for vets (HUD-VASH), and some educational benefits for veterans are facing cuts or stricter eligibility. Veterans’ advocacy groups are alarmed, as these cuts come even while defense spending is increased – a signal that funds are going to hardware (weapons, etc.) over human support. Lawmakers from both parties have pushed back, and VA Secretary Doug Collins had to publicly reassure veterans that “benefits aren’t getting cut”. However, the numbers in the budget draft suggest otherwise: certain VA educational stipends and job training programs would be merged or downsized. The worry is that as VA services diminish, veterans will be nudged to use private options via the VA Choice program – effectively a slow march to privatizing veterans’ healthcare, consistent with DOGE’s indications. In HOA terms, the association (federal government) is stepping back from its promise to take care of those who served, potentially expecting veterans to “use their own insurance or savings” for some needs that were previously covered as communal obligations.
Other Social Programs: Many domestic programs face cuts reminiscent of proposals from Trump’s first term (many of which Congress then ignored). These include: food assistance (SNAP) – with tighter work requirements and time limits for able-bodied adults without dependents; housing vouchers – a cap on the number available, even as homelessness rises; disability benefits – proposals to require more frequent re-certifications to remain eligible (which advocates say is a way to knock people off the rolls); and cuts to Social Security administrative funding, which could slow down claims processing. Notably, Trump has not proposed direct cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits (honoring a campaign promise), but some in his party continue to discuss raising eligibility ages or other long-term changes. By slashing the administrative budgets and other indirect levers, the effect can still be fewer people accessing what they’re entitled to. Environmental and community development grants are virtually eliminated. Even disaster relief funding was trimmed in the name of deficit reduction, meaning states may need to pick up more disaster recovery costs. All these budget choices reflect a consistent philosophy: reduce dependence on federal aid and encourage private or local solutions. For those with resources (savings, family support, private insurance), the impact might be minimal, but for vulnerable populations, the safety net is visibly fraying. It’s a modern return to pre-1930s norms, when charities or local governments bore the brunt of aiding the poor – and many in need simply went without if that help wasn’t available.

Trends Toward Privatization and “Pay-to-Play” Governance

Across Trump’s policies runs a common thread: a shift from public provision to private provision, and from rights to privileges that often require payment or wealth to obtain. This is the essence of the “HOA-like” governance analogy – government behaves less like a universal provider and more like a membership organization where fees and dues determine benefits. Several trends highlight this evolution:

Privatization of Services: Functions once firmly in the public sector are being opened to private actors. Education and veterans’ healthcare are two primary examples (vouchers for private schools, outsourcing VA care to private clinics). Additionally, Trump has revived talk of privatizing infrastructure – for instance, leasing interstate highways to private toll operators to raise funds, or selling off the postal service’s operations to private delivery companies. While none of these big privatizations have fully materialized yet, the administration’s budgets and task forces are studying them. The Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) explicitly looks at where private firms could do the job of an agency “better and cheaper.” In some cases this may improve efficiency, but it also means citizens might have to pay user fees for things that used to be free. For example, a privatized toll road means drivers must pay tolls for a highway that was previously taxpayer-funded; a privatized national park service (another idea floated) could mean higher entrance fees. The philosophy is that those who use a service should pay for it, rather than broad tax subsidies – a classic pay-to-play premise.
“Membership Tiers” for Citizens: The Gold Card visa is literally selling membership in the polity. But even among citizens, Trump’s policies often imply tiered access based on contribution. Consider healthcare: if you can pay (through work, premiums, or buying private insurance), you’ll have access; if you can’t, the government is less likely to help than before. Consider education: families with money can move to a good school district or afford private school, and Trump’s policies reinforce that advantage by pulling back equalizing federal funds. Even disaster relief now may hinge on states matching funds or individuals having insurance, rather than full federal coverage. It’s as if American society is being treated more like a club with membership levels – platinum members (the wealthy, donors, states that align with the administration) get VIP treatment, while basic members (average or poor citizens) receive fewer guaranteed benefits. For instance, during policy negotiations Trump has hinted that “red” states that support his agenda will not be hurt by certain cuts as much as “blue” states – a form of political patronage. While not formally codified, it suggests access can depend on loyalty or contribution in a political sense too (much like an HOA might enforce rules selectively). This blurs into outright pay-to-play politics: watchdogs have raised concerns that Trump’s donors and business allies gain influence or contracts. Indeed, several Trump donors received prestigious ambassadorships or posts, a practice not new in politics but accentuated. The difference now is the open framing of policy in transactional terms – e.g. Trump openly saying allied countries must “pay up” for U.S. military protection, or wealthy immigrants can buy citizenship.
Erosion of Universal Entitlements: Historically, programs like Social Security, Medicare, K-12 public education, and voting rights have been regarded as universal entitlements of citizenship or residence – available to all, rich or poor. Trump’s governance shifts some of these closer to a conditional model. While Social Security and Medicare remain intact for now, the rhetoric around them (especially by think tanks influencing Trump) frames them as unsustainable unless trimmed. Education, as discussed, may cease to be guaranteed in quality across the nation. Voting rights is another area to watch: already, some states under conservative leadership (encouraged by Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in 2020) have imposed stricter voting requirements that can disadvantage those who can’t afford ID or can’t take time off work. This isn’t direct federal policy, but it’s part of a broader ideological ecosystem that Trump champions. The concept of tying participation to economic stake has echoes in early U.S. history – in the 18th century, only property owners (usually white men) could vote in most states, on the theory that they had a tangible stake in governance. Over time, America abolished property qualifications for voting, moving toward the ideal of equal political rights regardless of wealth. Trump-era policies are not reverting to formal property requirements, but by emphasizing financial contribution (paying taxes, working, etc.) as the ticket to benefits, they symbolically hearken back to a more exclusive vision of citizenship.
Historical Parallels: The trends under Trump’s presidency can be compared to several historical governance models:
- Gilded Age & Laissez-Faire (1870s–1900): Much like in the late 19th century, we see reduced regulation on business, weak social safety nets, and open mingling of wealth and politics. In that era, industrialists often bought influence (the era of “Robber Barons” and political machines). Trump’s donor-driven appointments and gold card scheme parallel the notion that money opens doors. The difference is Trump frames it as populism – in the Gilded Age it was more behind-the-scenes. But the outcome (government policy favoring those with capital) is reminiscent of that period.
- “Pay-to-Play” Corruption in 20th Century Cities: In some city governments during the early-mid 20th century, services were distributed based on patronage – if you donated to the mayor’s campaign or belonged to the right circle, you got contracts or help. Trump’s Washington has some shades of this, albeit more policy-driven than overt graft. For instance, his administration’s openness to industry lobbyists (especially in deregulation tasks) means those industries effectively pay (through campaign support) for favorable rules. The difference is that Trump is ideologically in favor of deregulation and privatization, so it’s both philosophy and interest combined.
- International “Managed Democracy” or Oligarchy: Some analysts liken Trump’s model to systems in countries where wealthy oligarchs and strongman leaders dominate, and the state’s role is chiefly to facilitate business for the well-connected. While the U.S. hasn’t gone that far, elements like Musk heading DOGE (a billionaire steering government downsizing) or cabinet members drawn from billionaire ranks (Commerce Secretary Lutnick, Education’s McMahon) point to governance by a wealthy class. In an HOA, typically a few influential property owners or a management company call the shots; likewise here, the administrative state is being run by and for those with significant capital.
- Global Immigration Markets: Selling citizenship (the Gold Card) has precedents: many countries sell residency or passports (so-called “Golden Visa” programs), from the U.K. investor visa to island nations granting passports for a fee. Historically, even the U.S. had the EB-5 program since 1990 that traded investment for green cards. Trump’s twist is setting an exorbitant price and framing it as a pure fiscal tool (reduce the deficit). This resembles historical episodes like when cash-strapped governments sold titles or offices – for example, French kings selling noble titles in the 17th–18th centuries to finance their debts, effectively creating a class who bought status. The Gold Card similarly creates a formal avenue to buy status (citizenship) in America. It’s a stark departure from the poem on the Statue of Liberty (“give me your tired, your poor…”), indicating a philosophical shift to “give me your rich, your millionaires….”

In concluding, the “HOA model” of Trump’s governance means a United States that is more exclusive, transactional, and stratified by wealth. Just as a homeowners’ association provides amenities only to those who pay dues (and often nicer amenities to those who pay more), Trump’s policies provide access and benefits in proportion to one’s contributions or resources. Economic, healthcare, and education policies are reducing universal guarantees and replacing them with pay-to-access systems, from health premiums and education vouchers to literally buying citizenship. Project 2025 and DOGE underscore a belief that government should operate like a lean business, cutting costs and focusing only on core tasks, while leaving many functions to private enterprise or individual initiative.

Whether this experiment will succeed or face backlash remains to be seen. Critics argue it undermines the social contract and exacerbates inequality, effectively turning back the clock on the 20th century’s expansion of middle-class opportunity and protections for the vulnerable. Supporters counter that a slimmer government boosts freedom and prosperity, and that rewarding contribution creates incentives for all to work and invest. Historically, the U.S. has oscillated between periods of laissez-faire and periods of expanded government role – Trump’s current presidency marks a decisive swing toward the former. The “pay-to-play” paradigm he champions will likely be a defining legacy, with America’s governance looking less like a broad public service and more like a club where money talks.

Sources:

Associated Press – Trump’s proposed second-term policies (taxes, trade, DEI, bureaucracy)news4jax.comnews4jax.comnews4jax.com
NBC10 (AP) – Announcement of $5 million “Trump Gold Card” visa for citizenshipnbcphiladelphia.comnbcphiladelphia.com
KFF Health News – Analysis of Trump adopting Project 2025 health policies (Medicaid work requirements, ACA rollbacks, global gag rule, gender policy)kffhealthnews.orgkffhealthnews.orgkffhealthnews.org
National Education Association – Impact of Project 2025 on education (eliminating Title I, Head Start, Title IX protections)nea.orgnea.org
Chalkbeat – Trump’s plan to abolish the Department of Education, quote to Elon Musk about “closing” itchalkbeat.org
Fox News – Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) launched, Elon Musk as chair, targeting $1T in cutsfoxnews.comfoxnews.com; Heritage commentary on Project 2025 vs. DOGEfoxnews.com
Rep. Mike Levin press release – Warning of DOGE-driven VA workforce cuts and privatization riskslevin.house.govlevin.house.gov
Center for American Progress data via NEA – Public opinion on Project 2025 and its extremity (expanding exec power, firing civil servants, slashing Medicare/Social Security)nea.orgnea.org
Colonial Williamsburg history – Early America’s property-based voting qualifications (only property owners could vote, reflecting financial stake governance)colonialwilliamsburg.org
NBC10 – Note that “golden visas” exist in 100+ countries, U.S. included (context for Gold Card policy).