The IRS may owe you over $3,000 this year. Here's how you can use it to build long-term wealth
Time is ticking for you to get your tax return filed this year—with April 15 now less than a month away. But there's good news: you might be getting more back than expected.
This year's average tax refund is $3,324—up 5.7% compared to last year when it was just $3,145, according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This is a welcoming prospect for many Americans who are feeling a financial squeeze due to inflation, debt, and economic uncertainty. Nearly two-thirds of Americans feel like they live paycheck to paycheck, including those who make six figures.
However, receiving a high tax refund is not necessarily a reason to splurge on a trip to Disney World or a kitchen renovation; in fact, getting a large refund may actually be a bad sign, says Jere Doyle, an estate-planning strategist at BNY Wealth.
'Using tax refunds as an investment strategy is counterproductive and doesn't make sense,' Doyle tells Fortune. 'A tax refund is, in effect, an interest-free loan to the government. By overpaying your tax liability, you are giving up the use of that money and getting no investment return.'
View this interactive chart on Fortune.com
Ashley Weeks, a wealth strategist at TD Wealth adds that it pains him when clients get excited about a larger-than-expected tax refund since it's not really 'free money.'
Going into credit card debt to make up for income withheld by the government can be especially worrisome, Weeks says—but for many Americans, that's reality. A survey from TaxSlayer finds that over three-quarters of Americans plan to use their refund for necessities, like rent, groceries, and credit card debt.
The tax filing process can be stressful, and it drives many Gen Zers in particular to tears. But while getting a refund can feel like a reward and serve as a savings mechanism, the process can be simplified. If you owe or are refunded more than $1,000 during tax season, Weeks suggests revising your W4 on file with your employer and update your withholdings.
'Ideally, tax filing should be a mild annoyance,' he says. 'It probably shouldn't be a really exciting event, like a treasure hunt where you get a big ton of money, and it shouldn't be a terrifying event where you know you're expecting to write thousands of dollars and send it to the government with interest in penalties.'
If you find yourself one of the over 100 million individuals or households who will receive a refund, there are several strategies you can use to stretch those dollars and turn them into a long-term strategy.
Over 1 in 4 Americans do not have a financial safety net, meaning when an unexpected expense arises like needing new car tires or repairing an air conditioner, they are left scrambling. This can sometimes lead to early withdrawals from their 401k, which Weeks says can do 'real damage' to one's long-term financial success.
Starting an emergency fund is thus one of the most important steps one can take in their financial life. Having three to six months of expenses in a readily available account, like a high-yield savings account, is an important consideration, says Roberta Fitzgerald, a financial advisor at Northwestern Mutual.
'Consider this a safety net to help cover unexpected costs like home or car repairs, medical emergencies or even temporary job loss, so that you stay afloat when life throws a curve ball,' she adds.
After establishing an emergency fund, a tax refund can also be used to make substantial progress toward paying off debt like credit card balances or car loans. Targeting high-interest consumer debt, such as from credit cards or payday loans, should be a high priority, Weeks says.
'Found money is certainly a good opportunity to reduce some of that debt and reduce some of the outflows every month for servicing the interest,' he adds.
A substantial tax refund can also be a perfect opportunity to invest—and let the money grow, which is a 'better use' than spending it on something fun, Doyle says.
For example, a CD can yield 4% to 4.5% in less than a year. But because the gain is taxed as ordinary income, putting money in a mutual fund with a growth objective might be a better choice, Doyle adds, due to lower long-term capital gain tax rates.
A hypothetical $3,000 investment in a S&P 500 index fund during March of last year would have grown by over $500 by now. And while 2024 had an above-average stock market performance, a yield of just a few hundred dollars can compound into thousands of dollars in the long term.
'For those with a long-term investment horizon, it makes sense to stay invested. Trying to time the market is not a good idea. There will always be ups and downs in the market. If one cannot tolerate volatility, they might want to consider doing something else with the money like paying down debt,' Doyle says.
A tax refund can also be a great opportunity to bolster contributions to a retirement savings account like a 401k or Roth IRA. However, for those worried about market uncertainty, Andrew Crowell, financial advisor and vice chairman of wealth management at D.A. Davidson, says making an extra payment on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise idea since it can reduce interest payments.
'When it comes to 'found money' like a tax refund, investing can be a sound approach to help feather one's nest egg a bit more—but in uncertain market climates like we're seeing, other strategies might be even more valuable,' he adds.
Crowell also suggests that investing in yourself can be smart, like taking a class, joining a health club, or starting a new hobby like piano lessons.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
Pete Buttigieg's DOT spent $80 billion on DEI grants, delayed air-traffic-control upgrades: records, industry insiders
WASHINGTON — Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg failed to replace outdated air-traffic-control systems while in office — with his agency instead shelling out tens of billions of dollars on a DEI agenda, according to federal spending records and airline-industry insiders. In one meeting, Buttigieg — who is said to be eyeing a 2028 presidential run — told industry executives that air-traffic-control upgrades would just allow them to fly more planes, 'and so why would that be in his interest?' sources said. 11 Buttigieg told industry executives that air-traffic-control upgrades would just allow them to fly more planes. Getty Images What his department was really interested in was handing out hundreds of diversity, equity and inclusion grants totaling more than $80 billion over four years — at least half of the DOT's entire budget for a typical fiscal year, records show. 'He was definitely pushing an agenda,' an air-industry official said, noting the transportation secretary had 'little to no interest' and took 'definitely zero action' toward air traffic control modernization. Buttigieg spent his time in Biden's cabinet blaming the airlines for their delays and 'vilifying' the industry as a whole while denying his department's DEI agenda led to any air-traffic-control staffing shortages or was maintaining an ailing safety system that hasn't been updated since the Carter administration, sources told The Post. 11 'He was definitely pushing an agenda,' an air-industry official said. AFP via Getty Images The flying public paid the price, insiders said. 'At first, [the Department of Transportation] and he were reluctant to say there was an air-traffic-controller shortage or that the shortage had anything to do with flight delays or flight cancellations,' the air-industry official said. Chris Meagher, a spokesman for Buttigieg, rejected both claims and pointed to increased air-traffic-controller hiring under the former transportation big, as well as software changes to improve efficiency at airport runways, new flight routes projected to cut up to 100 hours off travel time annually and the development of communications technology to decrease flight delays. 11 Buttigieg spent his time in Biden's cabinet blaming the airlines for their delays and 'vilifying' the industry as a whole. Getty Images Former President Joe Biden's infrastructure law also provided $5 billion to improve air-traffic facilities' towers and power systems, he noted. 'Suggesting that Secretary Buttigieg chose not to pursue air traffic control modernization is absurd,' said Meagher, adding that Biden's budget request for fiscal year 2025 included another $8 billion in funding that congressional Republicans blocked. 'Secretary Buttigieg's focus was always on safety — not just in aviation, but also on roads and bridges, where 40,000 Americans die on our country's roads each year. Fixing issues with air traffic control was a priority.' 11 Chris Meagher, a spokesman for Buttigieg, rejected both claims and pointed to increased air-traffic-controller hiring under the former transportation big. Getty Images The DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows that most flight cancellations (54.3%) were caused by weather during Buttigieg's term, whereas a little more than one-third (34.7%) were attributable to air carriers. Just 10.6% were due to failures in the National Aviation System. Nearly 80% of flights were on time between January 2021 and 2025. Almost 7% of delays were due to air carriers, another 7% for late-arriving aircraft, and 5% was attributable to the aviation system. Fewer than 1% were attributable to weather. Airline-industry officials acknowledged that carrier delays persisted coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic but argued much of the infrastructure law's funding 'went to maintenance' of facilities and equipment, which is roughly $3.5 billion annually, not 'modernization.' 11 Former President Joe Biden's infrastructure law also provided $5 billion to improve air-traffic facilities' towers and power systems. AFP via Getty Images They argued that while hiring improved in recent years, there was still a high dropout rate and surging retirements from veteran air-traffic controllers. 'If you start with a thunderstorm early in the day, and it ripples throughout the day, which is the way it usually works … by the time you get to the eighth flight … it's just tagged as a late-arriving aircraft,' an industry official said. 'No matter what the original cause of the delay was, that always gets tagged to us as our fault. So it's a complicated story.' Despite the requested changes to the air-traffic-control systems early in his term, Buttigieg seemed more interested in being 'good on TV' than fixing the archaic systems that were flying up to 182 million passengers per year, officials said. 11 Nearly 80% of flights were on time between January 2021 and 2025. The Washington Post via Getty Images The Federal Aviation Administration has been chronically understaffed for years, with the agency employing only around 80% of the target for certified professional controllers at least since fiscal year 2017, which airline officials argued was the main factor forcing delays and cancellations. In January 2023, the agency ordered the first nationwide grounding of flights since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that left thousands of passengers stranded. The 2023 grounding was due to an FAA system outage. In an urgent letter to Buttigieg's DOT in April 2024, air-industry trade association officials warned that at the current rate of hiring, it could take as many as 90 years for the FAA to reach its targeted staffing levels in some of the critical New York air-traffic-control centers. At the same time, the focus of the department under Buttigieg also shifted, with roughly 400 DEI-related grants approved, according to a review of federal spending between 2021 and 2024. 11 They argued that while hiring improved in recent years, there was still a high dropout rate and surging retirements from veteran air-traffic controllers. Bloomberg via Getty Images Just 60 grants for diversity, equity or inclusion initiatives were approved during the previous administration, totaling no more than a few billion dollars. Programs such as 'Justice40' ended up shelling out 55% of around $150 billion in infrastructure investments to 'disadvantaged communities,' pursuant to an executive order Biden signed to 'advance equitable outcomes.' Biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure law in 2021 provided much of the funding, but some Democrats were critical of the outcomes — including a $5 billion equity effort to build 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations that resulted in just seven being built by June 2024. 'Internal White House polling showed that airline issues and airline consumer issues were' key polling successes, an industry official said. 'At this point that White House didn't have a lot to sink their teeth into from a PR standpoint.' 11 In January 2023, the agency ordered the first nationwide grounding of flights since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that left thousands of passengers stranded. Getty Images Meagher said the department's DEI grants didn't delay 'the work of the FAA' and were 'a separate, siloed transportation mode.' 'You can walk and chew gum at the same time,' he responded. 'FAA operates completely separately than other modal administrations. So what happens at FHWA doesn't have a meaningful effect on FAA or NHTSA because they operate independently. It's separate staff, separate budgets, separate programs.' Buttigieg often lashed out at the airlines, blaming the industry — not the FAA which controls airspace nationwide — for canceling flights and bilking passengers for 'junk fees.' Just 12 days before the election, Buttigieg's DOT moved to implement a federal rule giving passengers compensation for every delay and cancellation of up to $1,000, even if it was higher than the original fare, prompting a blistering statement from a top airline trade association calling it a political stunt. 11 Meagher said the department's DEI grants didn't delay 'the work of the FAA' and were 'a separate, siloed transportation mode.' AP 'Secretary Buttigieg is proud of the work he did to improve the rights and protections of consumers – like making refunds automatic when airlines cancel a flight, proposing a rule to ensure parents can sit with their children for no charge when they fly, and ensuring individuals that fly with wheelchairs are compensated if airlines damage them,' Meagher said. 'USDOT also ensured nearly $4 billion in refunds to consumers as a result of investigations into consumer complaints.' David Grizzle, who served under former President Barack Obama as the FAA's chief counsel, acting deputy administrator and chief operating officer of its Air Traffic Organization, pointed out that paying 'less attention to aviation than highways or bridges' wasn't abnormal for a transportation secretary. 11 Just 12 days before the election, Buttigieg's DOT moved to implement a federal rule giving passengers compensation for every delay and cancellation of up to $1,000. Getty Images It's 'a very big job, and it covers seven different modes,' Grizzle noted, while acknowledging, 'There certainly were no remarkable achievements in aviation during his [Buttigieg's] term. 'The shortfall in budget is something that really began in the [2010s] and has really gotten worse over time,' he added. As of last month, an Emerson College poll of registered voters found the former transportation secretary leading the 2028 Democratic presidential primary field with 16% support, followed by ex-Vice President Kamala Harris at 13%. 11 Buttigieg often lashed out at the airlines, blaming the industry — not the FAA which controls airspace nationwide — for canceling flights. An Echelon Insights in July showed him in second place for the potential primary, trailing former Harris by 15 percentage points, 26% to 11%, in support from Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters. With the passage of President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill earlier this month, Republicans have now approved $12.5 billion in additional spending for Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to revamp the old Federal Aviation Administration systems. 'It's not so much that prior administrations have been especially indifferent; he's just been exceedingly attentive,' Grizzle said of Duffy. 'I've been on blue ribbon panels in Trump and Biden. … He will stand out for decades as one of the most engaged secretaries we've had.'
Vox
4 minutes ago
- Vox
Cutting five words from this law could make houses cheaper
is a policy correspondent for Vox covering social policy. She focuses on housing, schools, homelessness, child care, and abortion rights, and has been reporting on these issues for more than a decade. There exists an almost absurdly simple fix that could help ease the housing crisis. It would cost the government nothing, require deleting just five words from a 50-year-old federal law, and has enjoyed quiet support from housing researchers and leaders for decades. The target is an obscure regulation that requires every manufactured home to be built on a 'permanent chassis' — a steel trailer frame that can attach to wheels. The idea was that the chassis was necessary — even after the home was installed and the wheels taken off — because manufactured houses, which trace their roots to World War II trailers, could theoretically be moved. Yet by the mid-1970s, most never left their original site, and the chassis remained unused, notable only as a design feature that made the homes stick out. Getting rid of this 'permanent chassis' mandate could make manufactured homes — already home to 21 million Americans, most of whom earn under $50,000 a year — more attractive, more socially accepted, and even more affordable than they already are. Roughly 100,000 new manufactured homes are produced each year, but production is down sharply from the 1970s, just before the rule took effect. With 152 existing factories already capable of producing these types of homes, industry leaders say striking the chassis requirement could help scale up manufacturing by hundreds of thousands of houses, especially if paired with zoning reforms. The policy tweak could offer real relief for the housing crunch, especially for first-time buyers and older adults looking to downsize. Although the change seemed simple to implement, lawmakers failed to amend the mandate for over three decades. There wasn't overwhelming opposition to the proposal, but just enough resistance to nudge politicians toward issues more likely to boost their political capital. But as the housing crisis has intensified nationwide, pressure on Congress to use one of its few direct tools to boost housing supply has become harder to ignore. Advocates of eliminating the chassis rule think victory might finally be in reach: The Senate Banking Committee is expected to take up the issue in a hearing later this month, as part of a housing package sponsored by Tim Scott, the committee's Republican chair. The permanent chassis rule and its history offer a window into how smart ideas that could solve real problems can still languish for decades in the fog of federal process. But it also shows what it takes to move even obvious reforms from inertia to action. The rule Nearly 40 years ago, policy experts began to notice a troubling trend: For the first time since the Great Depression, homeownership rates were dropping and home prices were going up, partly due to higher interest rates. In 1990, the typical first-time homebuyer earned about $23,400 annually — enough to afford a home up to $59,600, according to the Los Angeles Times, citing data from the National Association of Realtors. But the median price of a new single-family home was roughly $129,900, and existing homes weren't much cheaper, with a median price of $97,500. But there was a bright spot: manufactured homes. Built in factories on assembly lines, these homes benefit from standardized materials, streamlined labor, and weather-controlled conditions, making them significantly less expensive than traditional site-built housing. Though long associated with dingy mobile trailers, by the late 20th century many manufactured houses were nearly indistinguishable from site-built ones, offering full kitchens, pitched roofs, and front porches. Nearly 13 million people lived in them. Consumers buying manufactured homes 'are demonstrating a preference for new construction that is less spacious, has a simpler design with fewer amenities, and uses less expensive materials,' read one HUD-commissioned report from 1998. 'Any perception that consumers today would not be interested in new conventionally-built starter homes with very basic designs and fewer 'extras' is mistaken.' Yet despite evident consumer demand, the chassis mandate held the sector back. It made production more expensive, restricted architecture flexibility, and gave state and local governments a pretext to exclude the homes through zoning. The permanent chassis feature allowed cities to more easily ban the housing in a given area for being 'mobile' structures, even when they were permanently installed. The chassis requirement originated in the Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, Congress's first and only national housing code. Lawmakers justified the need for federal standards both to streamline manufacturing and to protect consumers, especially from fire hazards. The law was modeled on the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, reflecting the industry's roots in homes on wheels. RIVERSIDE, CA – SEPTEMBER 23: Workers weld a chassis together at a Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. factory on September 23, 2005 in Riverside, California. Getty Images Yet many advocates believe that the chassis rule was included as sabotage by the powerful National Association of Home Builders, which saw manufactured housing as a fast-growing rival to its site-built homes. 'They put it in the original law in 1974 because they were worried about a competitive disadvantage and it's lived there ever since,' said Lesli Gooch, the head of the Manufactured Housing Institute, the largest trade group for the industry. Regardless of whether one believes the site-built housing industry was originally responsible for hobbling manufactured housing with the chassis rule, it's indisputable that NAHB was one of the most ardent champions for keeping it there. The fight Following a failed lawsuit in the mid-1980s to eliminate the rule, the first major legislative attempt came in 1990, when Rep. John Hiler, a Republican from Indiana, introduced amendments to the law. Despite backing from the manufactured housing industry and initial subcommittee approval, the effort ultimately died. Democrats caved to consumer groups concerned that striking the requirement could lead to lowering other safety standards and to opposition by both the site-built housing industry and HUD. Whether through bureaucratic complacency or regulatory capture by traditional homebuilders, the federal housing agency rarely pressed, and in some cases actively opposed, amending the law, despite its own research detailing again and again the problems a permanent chassis posed for manufactured housing. Four years later, the National Commission on Manufactured Housing formally recommended eliminating the chassis requirement, affirming that the homes could be built just as safely without one. (Homes without a chassis would still be subject to all HUD construction standards.) But the report arrived just months before the 1994 midterm elections, and Congress was already consumed by fierce partisan battles over budget and crime bills. Some critics believe the two main trade groups — the Manufactured Housing Institute and the less prominent Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform —often failed to be as politically aggressive about removing the chassis rule as they could have been. When I asked Gooch why it's taken so long for Congress to tackle this issue, she acknowledged her group didn't really start applying pressure until eight years ago. 'In 2017, I had a dialogue with our technical activities committee, and we said, 'Okay, what is it that we need to do to move manufactured housing forward?' and the chassis issue was raised,' Gooch recalled. It was then, she said, that MHI started to really discuss how to change the legislation. MHI now takes credit for neutralizing opposition from traditional homebuilders, and notes some of its biggest members are also members of NAHB, which likely helped too. Other advocates I spoke to argue that NAHB just is in a weaker place politically to fight these kinds of reforms than in the past, given the scale of the housing crisis. Liz Thompson, a spokesperson for NAHB, told me that while her group is not 'publicly lobbying' against changing the chassis rule, they do still have 'concerns' that the manufactured housing sector is being held to less stringent wind and energy standards, creating 'an economic disadvantage' for their site-built home members. Mike Kinsella, who leads Up for Growth, a federal housing supply advocacy group, said his lobbying over the last eight years has led him to conclude there's no such thing as a straightforward fix in Congress. 'Even the most practical and well-reasoned proposals face uphill battles and significant delays,' he said. Many housing advocates working at the state level are used to a more linear legislative process, where bills move predictably through committees to a governor's desk, Kinsella noted. But in Congress, where standalone bills rarely advance, the whole process becomes a more intense battle of competing priorities on larger, must-pass packages. So for decades, the issue has languished, too technical to generate public pressure, too threatening for quiet passage, and not high-profile enough for any politician to really champion it. New urgency to solve the housing crisis Manufactured housing has never lacked a compelling economic case — but today, it's become far harder to dismiss. Factory-built homes stand out as one of the most obvious ways to move the needle on affordability—and one of the few housing tools within the federal government's reach. That it doesn't deepen the deficit is an added plus. The buzzy 'abundance' movement, fueled by Ezra Klein (a Vox co-founder) and Derek Thompson's bestselling book, has also helped shift the politics around regulatory reform — including most recently in California, where Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation to weaken a state environmental law long blamed for blocking housing construction. And Barack Obama, who spoke about the need to build more housing at the Democratic National Convention last August, came out harder this month with a blunt assessment, telling donors that 'I don't want to know your ideology, because you can't build anything. It does not matter.' Removing the old rule? Even with everyone supposedly on board, legislative reform can still move surprisingly slowly. In 2023, Republican Rep. John Rose of Tennessee introduced a bill to strike the five words 'built on a permanent chassis' from the definition of a manufactured home in federal law. But MHI withdrew its support. The trade group, which represents not just manufacturers but also lenders, retailers, and insurers, cited the need to further study the proposal to assess potential ripple effects that could hurt state and local players. This vague stance puzzled advocates, given that any federal change would still include a transition period for states and cities to align their regulations. Similarly stymied — though for different reasons — was Sen. Scott's Road to Housing Act last year, a package of bills aimed at boosting affordability that included striking the chassis rule. Then-Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, blocked the package because it also included a bill that could have required minor changes from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and possibly the Dodd-Frank Act — a can of worms Brown preferred not to open. Brown lost his election in November, and Scott now sits as chair. Scott's bill proposes a somewhat softer version of Rose's 2023 legislation. Scott's would offer states flexibility around chassis requirements, with the idea that states would have time to harmonize whatever other laws and rules they needed to. Though this offers a less immediate fix, most advocates are cautiously hopeful about this state opt-in strategy, so long as it doesn't include legislative poison pills — meaning provisions that would make the policy unworkable in practice. 'We're open to multiple approaches, we just want to make sure that there aren't any drafting errors in a state-by-state certification approach that might permanently prevent states from certifying their compliance…in the event that they miss their first certification deadline,' said Alex Armlovich, a Niskanen Center housing analyst who has been advocating for the change. Sean Roberts, the CEO of Villa, a company that produces factory-built accessory dwelling units, says removing the permanent chassis rule will result in more homes getting built across the board. 'People could afford the homes more easily. Kind of everybody wins, you know, there's not a whole lot of downside to it,' he said. 'So we're very supportive of it, and we see it as being a really positive thing.'
Newsweek
4 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Six Months In, Trump Has Too Many Failures To Count
Six months into the second Trump administration, not only is the president's agenda failing on its own terms—we have already witnessed a series of policy fiascos that would have completely upended any pre-Trump presidency. President Donald Trump's careless personnel decisions, slapdash executive orders, whiplash-inducing policy pivots, and general malevolence have combined to make this among the most disruptive yet least successful first six months of any presidency in American history. So far, the president's two signature policy initiatives have been disasters. His "Liberation Day" tariffs triggered a financial and bond market meltdown so catastrophic that the White House was forced to reverse course within days. All of his antics, threats, promises, and claims have produced a handful of nebulous trade "agreements" with the United Kingdom, Vietnam, and Indonesia. The tariffs have already led to a fresh round of inflation that will only get worse if the U.S. doesn't back down, and have damaged America's reputation so thoroughly that other countries are working together to build a new trade regime without us. The 90-day "pause" is up and we're left with an effective tariff rate that is higher than it was when markets panicked during the first two weeks of April. Trump's mass deportation fixation just led Congress to pass one of the most regressive budget packages in American history, funneling hundreds of billions of dollars away from food pantries, rural hospitals, and working Americans to erect an un-American internal detention gulag filled by masked ICE agents terrorizing hard-working people at farms, Home Depots, and schools. The ugliness of this wasteful, inane operation has instantly turned the American public against the president and his party on his signature issue of immigration. Even if you believe this insanity is necessary (to be clear: I do not), it would take decades to remove all of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants from the United States at our current pace. We are spending enormous stacks of money on a toy shovel to scoop water out of the Titanic. But because it satisfies the far right's bottomless lust for inflicting human suffering, it goes on. US President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on July 15, 2025. US President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on July 15, 2025. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP/Getty Images If only the disasters ended there. But Trump's liquidation of the federal government has also led to unimaginable catastrophe. His decision to begin shuttering the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had already resulted in an understaffed, demoralized organization that would be incapable of properly responding to disasters. The chaos at FEMA left Texans to fend for themselves amid catastrophic floods on July 4 that left at least 134 people dead. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem waited an unconscionable 72 hours to authorize the deployment of FEMA Urban Search and Rescue teams to help flood victims, in large part because of an arbitrary rule that requires her personal sign-off on any expenditure over $100,000. Let's not forget the seemingly daily parade of MAGA-driven calamities like the biggest measles outbreak in three decades, exacerbated by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the brain-wormed anti-vaxxer that the Senate inexplicably confirmed as secretary of Health and Human Services. Rather than encouraging his credulous followers to take the miraculous vaccine that had virtually eliminated the disease, Kennedy announced in May that he would look for new treatments and encouraged people to try cod liver oil. His reign of error is just beginning, with thousands likely to die this fall because the administration has dramatically limited access to Covid boosters, interfered with the once-routine rollout of annual flu shots, and halted work on a bird flu vaccine. Documenting the mistakes this administration has already made could fill entire volumes—condemning millions to death by withholding international food aid, demoralizing federal workers, presiding over the worst domestic air travel catastrophe in 16 years, collapsing the consumer sentiment index with erratic economic leadership, generating negative real GDP growth, launching an unprovoked war against Iran and then forgetting about it 48 hours later, striking out humiliatingly in diplomatic mediation efforts between Russia and Ukraine, and on and on and on. The worst is very much yet to come. A hollowed-out government will be incapable of responding to the next real crisis (as opposed to the ones Trump generates himself) or delivering the services that Americans apparently took so thoroughly for granted that they elected people explicitly promising to destroy them. In six short months, President Trump has made Americans poorer, less secure, less healthy, and more isolated while carrying out morally depraved policies and further degrading the rule of law. The scariest part might be that he has 41 more months to make this mess even worse. Neither a complacent, neutered Congress nor a Supreme Court controlled by lifelong GOP partisan operatives appear willing or able to stop it. David Faris is a professor of political science at Roosevelt University and the author of It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. His writing has appeared in Slate, The Week, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Washington Monthly and more. You can find him on Twitter @davidmfaris and Bluesky @ The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
