Newsmax host Carl Higbie pointed to the shrinking federal workforce under President Donald Trump while arguing that reductions in government employment could produce substantial long-term savings for taxpayers.
“The federal government is actually at its lowest number of employees since 1966,” Higbie said while displaying a chart tracking federal employment.
The Trump administration has also said the federal workforce has fallen to its lowest level since 1966.
Higbie contrasted the decline under Trump with federal hiring during former President Joe Biden’s administration.
He said the government added tens of thousands of positions before Trump returned to office and began reducing the workforce.
“But we’ve had various ups and downs, but we’ve never seen a rapid decline like we did over the last 2 years in Donald Trump’s second term,” Higbie said.
Higbie identified the Treasury Department, Social Security Administration, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Health and Human Services as areas where reductions have occurred.
He questioned the need for existing staffing levels at some agencies and specifically criticized the administration of Social Security.
“Social Security is one of the worst-managed things out there,” Higbie said.
He also argued that automation has reduced the number of employees needed to administer the program, pointing to changes in how benefits are distributed and how Americans interact with the agency.
“The administration of Social Security, of this program, is largely automated at this point,” Higbie said.
“They’re not like mailing out physical checks to almost anyone anymore. It’s it’s not like you can get somebody on the phone there, either. So like what are they doing? Good question. Easy cut.”
Higbie then played a clip of Rep. Debbie Dingell objecting to federal workforce actions and describing them as an attack on federal workers and organized labor.
“This action is clear retaliation and union busting, plain and simple, and it’s a threat to organized labor and workers everywhere,” Dingell said.
“Federal employees are absolutely essential to keeping our country running.”
Higbie rejected Dingell’s characterization and framed the disagreement as a fundamental dispute over the relationship between government workers and taxpayers.
“Not really,” Higbie responded.
“This is the lens and, honestly, the actual divide between producers and consumers. Producers are taxpayers. Consumers are the government employees, in this case.”
He argued that federal employment should depend on whether positions are necessary and whether employees are effectively serving the public.
“Government employees and their advocates believe that they’re somehow entitled to that job by like some divine right, regardless of their output, or the need of the people like us that they’re there to serve that they often don’t serve very well,” Higbie said.
Higbie also focused on federal compensation, saying the average federal employee earns $112,000 annually before benefits and retirement packages.
He contrasted that figure with what he described as average private-sector earnings of between $64,000 and $67,000.
“The average federal employee salary is $112,000 a year,” Higbie said.
“That includes lavish. That does not include, I should say, lavish benefits and retirement packages.”
He also discussed federal pensions, arguing that retirement obligations increase the long-term cost of government employment beyond annual salaries.
“You know what the average American in the private sector makes? 64 to 67,000, half of what a government employee makes, and they’re actually producing stuff,” Higbie said.
Higbie concluded by estimating the savings associated with the administration’s workforce reductions.
He said Trump had cut approximately 270,000 employees and argued that eliminating those positions rather than eventually refilling them would produce savings extending well beyond the immediate federal payroll.
“So by Trump cutting 270,000 jobs or employees or whatever, and eliminating most of their positions, by the way, so they can’t come back to them, with the average salary at $112,000 a year, that saves you $30 billion a year as a country,” Higbie said.
He extended that calculation over employees’ potential careers and retirement periods, arguing that the ultimate savings could reach into the trillions.
“Annualize that even further,” Higbie said.
“Go to the course of I don’t know, let’s say they work for 20 years. You take that $30 billion a year, 20 years, up to 50 years in pension as well, don’t forget about that, that’s going to save you $2 trillion for we the people.”
WATCH:
