Trump, Progressivism, and My Lessons Learned at the White House

Originally published on Substack. 

If the economy feels harder to navigate—even after tax cuts, deregulation, and promises of growth—there’s a reason. I’ve seen it before, up close, from inside the White House.
​
This isn’t hindsight punditry. I lived it. Not sure how or why it happened, but God.

I served at the Office of Management and Budget from June 2019 through May 2020, at the pleasure of President Donald Trump as a political appointee as associate director for economic policy (“chief economist”).

I worked on what became the president’s final budget, which included $4.6 trillion in proposed savings over a decade—documented in the OMB Budget Historical Tables and scored against Congressional Budget Office baselines.
And even that wasn’t enough.

I’m writing this now because the second Trump administration reflects a deeper shift—away from pro-growth reform and toward national conservatism using progressive tools. If this continues, it will make life harder for millions of Americans, regardless of intent.

My goal here isn’t to attack; it’s to share lessons learned, warn about concerns, and offer a better path forward.

​What I Supported—and What I Warned About

Inside the administration, I strongly supported policies that genuinely helped people prosper:

• Tax relief and marginal rate reductions, especially the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which improved incentives for work, saving, and investment
• Deregulation, particularly in energy, finance, and labor markets, with compliance-cost reductions
• Pro-growth reforms that trusted people and markets—not Washington—to allocate resources

But I consistently raised concerns—internally—about three areas:

• Trade protectionism, which I warned would raise relative prices and distort supply chains—later confirmed by research
• Immigration restrictions, which reduce labor supply and long-run growth, as documented later
• Overspending, which I argued would eventually overwhelm much of the benefits of tax cuts and deregulation, which it did

At OMB, many of us pushed hard for spending restraint. The uncomfortable truth is that spending discipline was not a top priority for the president or many agency heads. Not then. And judging by today’s policies, definitely not now.

Internally, the warning was clear—and it bears repeating today: excessive spending and trade protectionism would undo the gains from tax cuts and deregulation.

When COVID Hit, Government Power Took Over

When COVID escalated in early 2020, I was often working with our senior leadership team at OMB and other executive personnel to devise ways to get government out of the way, not expand it—through regulatory relief, waivers, and flexibility consistent with OMB emergency guidance.

I also sat—more than once—in the White House’s Situation Room with economic teams to discuss how people (the economy) would respond to different policy paths.

I was vehemently opposed to lockdowns.

I warned senior leadership and others intensely that the policies being pushed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and others would:

• Break market coordination (supported by analyses on mobility restrictions and economic activity)
• Destroy small businesses (shown in data)
• Centralize power (massive expansion in spending by Congress and Fed)
• Cause long-run damage far worse than acknowledged (education loss, lockdown-related deaths, etc.)

Ultimately, whether President Trump agreed or not, he went along with lockdowns. That decision became one of the largest government failures in modern history—economically, socially, and institutionally.

Lockdowns didn’t just pause the economy. They rewired the relationship between government and markets, normalizing trillions in new spending, debt monetization by the Federal Reserve, and executive control over daily life.
Nearly every affordability crisis we face today traces back to then.

Why I’m More Concerned Today

Back then, there were still people inside the administration pushing back—arguing for restraint, markets, and limits on government power.

Today, I’m not sure that’s true.
​
It increasingly looks like national conservatives (“natcons”) have captured the MAGA policy agenda and are comfortable with:

• Government picking winners and losers through subsidies and mandates
• Price controls and caps on interest rates for credit cards
• Protectionism as an erratic policy with high tariff rates

• Industrial policy and subsidies for purchase of a share of Intel, use of $200 billion to purchase mortgage backed securities, Trump accounts, Trump RX, and more
• Carveouts and exemptions instead of pro-growth tax policy

That’s not conservatism.

It’s not libertarianism.

And it’s not free-market capitalism.
​
Functionally, it’s progressivism with different branding—and it erodes the institutional framework that made American prosperity possible.

Spending is the Problem: Economic Chain Reaction Too Few People See

Here are the steps for how spending seems benign but it is a malignant cancer metastasizing throughout our lives and livelihoods:

1. Overspending leads to deficits.
2. Deficits add to debt.
3. Debt pushes interest rates higher.
4. Higher rates attract foreign capital, strengthening the dollar.
5. A stronger dollar widens trade deficits (not an issue but some hate it), which politicians then “fix” with tariffs.
6. Higher rates pressure the Fed to buy Treasury debt.
7. Debt monetization fuels inflation, distorting the orders of production while reducing real wages and increasing inequality and poverty.

​This isn’t ideology. It’s arithmetic. And it’s happening now.

What Should Be Done Instead

The hopeful part is that none of this is irreversible.
​
That’s why my work has focused on sustainable budgeting with groups like Americans for Tax Reform, the Club for Growth Foundation, and others. You can see that framework here:

• Let Americans Prosper Project: Ensuring Fiscal Sustainability for America’s Future
• Responsible State Budgets Across the U.S.

States that limit spending growth to population growth plus inflation often run surpluses, cut taxes sustainably, and avoid debt spirals.

Washington should finally learn from them.
​
A real pro-growth agenda would:

• Spend less—now, not later (yes, cutting government spend is pro-growth!)
• End trade protectionism (end tariffs and have the focus on what we can control regarding policies at home instead of trying to change policies abroad)
• Reject price controls (say no to credit card interest rate caps, no to MFN drug pricing, and more)
• Stop picking winners and losers (don’t take shares of private businesses, don’t give $1,000 of taxpayer money to parents with newborns, don’t remove specific things like tips, overtime SS income, interest on car loans from the tax code but instead lower and flatten the income tax rates)

• Unleash supply in housing, energy, healthcare, and capital markets (end Dodd-Frank , CFPB and Section 1033 rule, empower patients, and remove incentives in demand and supply side of housing and other markets)
• Let people in markets work!

A Final, Personal Note—and a Small Ask

I’m not writing this to relitigate the past—or to score political points.

I’m writing it because I’ve seen how quickly good intentions turn into bad outcomes when government power replaces market institutions. I’ve also seen how powerful growth can be when policymakers trust people, markets, and sound rules.

The Trump administration has governed for growth before. It can do so again. But only if it rejects progressive tools—no matter how they’re labeled—and recommits to the institutions that allow people to prosper.
​
As Milton Friedman reminded us, policies should be judged by results, not intentions.