As a midwestern Republican, I oppose gutting national service
Don Bacon, a Republican, represents Nebraska's 2ndCongressional District in the U.S. House. He co-chairs the bipartisan National Service Congressional Caucus.
As a small-government conservative who supports a leaner and more efficient federal bureaucracy, I have cheered President Donald Trump's efforts to identify and eliminate fraud and waste in Washington. We've been spending ourselves into oblivion and getting remarkably little in return.
But there's a difference between common-sense cuts to underperforming or bloated agencies and haphazardly eliminating every program a software engineer fails to appreciate, as the U.S. DOGE Service, or Department of Government Efficiency, is attempting with national service.
AmeriCorps has been one of the most effective public service initiatives of the post-Vietnam era. It allows young Americans to serve their country — many for the first time — through efforts ranging from disaster recovery and food-bank staffing to teaching and tutoring students and supporting our veterans and senior citizens. The program fosters civic pride, develops life-changing job skills and strengthens communities in every corner of this country.
I was honored to serve for nearly 30 years in the U.S. Air Force, and I recognize that not everyone is suited for the military. But many of those patriotic Americans still wish to contribute to our country. AmeriCorps is a way to do that.
These young men and women don't serve for accolades or headlines — they simply believe in making a difference. And their work, often behind the scenes, brings hope and practical support to thousands of Americans every day. AmeriCorps is national service at its best: voluntary, community-based, impactful and efficient.
If DOGE were genuinely focused on creating a more efficient federal government, it would model everything on AmeriCorps. Unlike most federal agencies, AmeriCorps is almost exclusively directed by state governors, who are always better positioned than Washington to decide where and how to spend and deploy resources. It is a public-private partnership that marries nominal federal investment with matching private contributions. Every federal tax dollar invested in its programs generates a $17 return to society at large through increased earning potential (both by AmeriCorps members and those they serve) and reduced reliance on state and federal government support.
I know of no other federal agency that generates that kind of taxpayer return on investment through positive, measurable outcomes. For these reasons, I am profoundly troubled by the recent wave of national service cuts directed by DOGE.
Not only are we stripping Americans of a chance to serve, but the communities these services support are left scrambling. Teach for America, Habitat for Humanity, City Year, Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers Big Sisters — each of their budgets, workforce and impact will be gutted by these cuts. At the same time, disaster response efforts and AmeriCorps Senior programs that connect senior volunteers with second-act opportunities, including foster grandparents and senior companion programs, are similarly being shut down. These cuts are being implemented without a clear strategy — just an arbitrary push to meet a numeric goal.
It's a sledgehammer approach when a scalpel is what's needed.
We can and should focus on eliminating waste, but we must also protect what works. AmeriCorps is not a bloated bureaucracy — it's a lean, high-return investment in service, leadership and community resilience. With every dollar spent, the return in lives changed and communities improved is undeniable.
At a time when division dominates our headlines, AmeriCorps brings people together around a common purpose. That's something worth preserving.
I urge my colleagues and the administration to pause and consider the long-term implications of these decisions. If we want to build a stronger nation, we must continue supporting service, not sidelining it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
26 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Greenland Miner Eyes US, EU Deals After Trump Boosted Interest
Greenland's biggest miner Amaroq Minerals Ltd is in talks with several state-backed agencies as Donald Trump's political spotlight translates into concrete investor interest, the company's chief executive officer said. The US and Europe are racing to secure critical minerals and reduce reliance on China, which currently dominates global supply chains for materials used in electric vehicles, wind turbines and defense technologies. Once dismissed as remote and inaccessible, Greenland is gaining strategic relevance as melting ice improves access to its mineral-rich terrain.
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Why Trump needs the world to believe Iran's nuclear program is ‘obliterated'
There are two reasons why President Donald Trump needs the world to believe his adamant claims that Iran's nuclear program has been obliterated. First, his entire presidency is set up to reflect glory on his own strongman persona, fueling a narrative of courageous, unique and infallible leadership. Information that contradicts the myth is not welcome. Second, any evidence that Iran retains the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons or to restart its program after daring US bombing raids would raise an uncomfortable question: Should the United States use military action again to try to finish the job and meet any future advances in Iran's capabilities with more strikes? This would potentially open a yearslong period of quasi-war with Iran for which Trump has no appetite; raise the risks of a wider conflict; and anger his MAGA base. Trump and his top lieutenants are conjuring amped-up outrage and slamming the media for reporting an initial, 'low confidence' assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency that US attacks on three of Iran's facilities failed to destroy the core components of its nuclear program and likely only set it back by months. Trump redoubled his efforts in a news conference at the NATO summit to portray the raid as 'very, very successful.' He added, 'It was called obliteration. No other military on Earth could have done it.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a theatrical outburst against CNN and The New York Times after they reported on the assessment. Such outlets 'try to find a way to spin it for their own political reasons to try to hurt President Trump or our country, they don't care what the troops think,' Hegseth said, showing the performative zeal that prompted the president to lift him from Fox News to head the Pentagon. The White House highlighted an assessment from Israel's military chief of staff Wednesday that Iran's nuclear program suffered 'systemic' damage and was set back years, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe said in a statement that the agency had evidence it had been 'severely damaged.' But these statements, while suggesting Iran has suffered a serious blow, do not yet fully support Trump's expansive claims. The president's tactics were familiar. He is going global with his strategy of creating his own narratives whether or not there is yet evidence to prove them. He showed how successful this could be with his false claims of election fraud in 2020. If the world believes that Iran's nuclear program is destroyed and all sources suggesting otherwise are discredited, Trump has a rationale for taking no further action. Everything that involves intelligence is, by definition, opaque. And lasting judgments, from technical or human sources, on how far the US set back Iran's nuclear program could take months. It's also not possible to know whether the administration does have more information on the aftermath of the strikes that it is not releasing for operational reasons. A more judicious initial White House response to the raids might have avoided the current controversy. But its frantic spin was inevitable, since Trump declared while B-2 bombers were still aloft that Saturday's mission was a total, overwhelming success. Any contrary evidence would mean an embarrassing reversal and challenge his ego and credibility. But the hyper-emotional response to honest questioning over whether Iran's nuclear program has truly been wiped out makes the White House look defensive, raising doubts about its truthfulness. And it is distracting from aspects of the mission for which Trump can claim credit – a flawless round-the-world bombing raid with no US casualties and his effective pressure on Israel and Iran to stop fighting as well as his success in not being pulled into a longer war. Growing controversy over Iran also overshadowed an undeniable achievement by Trump at the summit in the Netherlands in getting a commitment from member states to spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035. The target will be hard to reach. But no other president came close to achieving anything similar. The White House only has itself to blame. Its failure to properly explain to Americans why Trump's administration suddenly came to believe Iran was weeks away from building a nuclear weapon created suspicion over its motives. Its failure to inform some top Democrats that the B-2 bombing mission was underway needlessly politicized an issue on which Trump could expect substantial support across the aisle. The administration then postponed Capitol Hill briefings on the strikes until Thursday. It's unclear whether those sessions will be productive. Trump's intelligence chiefs rushed to bolster his claims on Wednesday. Ratcliffe's statement said the CIA had obtained 'a body of credible evidence' that Iran's nuclear program had been 'severely damaged.' This included intelligence from a 'reliable source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years,' Ratcliffe said. His comments fell short, however, of Trump's claims of obliteration. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard posted on X that 'new intelligence' showed that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'destroyed.' None of the pushback offered evidence that would allow Americans to make up their own minds. It did nothing to back up Trump's claim in the Hague Wednesday that Iran had not moved any of its stock of enriched uranium before the raids. Nor did it address whether Iran maintains secret facilities that it could use to race toward a bomb. Contrary to what Hegseth claimed, it is not unpatriotic to report information confirmed by administration officials questioning the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program. And no one is attacking the pilots of the B-2 bombers who undertook the hazardous multi-hour mission. The tone of media coverage of their efforts has been marked by marveling rather than criticism. The issue is whether the bunker-busting bombs, used in action for the first time, really did penetrate the Fordow nuclear facility, buried under hundreds of feet of rock and cement, and destroy centrifuges that spin uranium. And it's about whether Trump is truly fulfilling his duties as president if he ignores any evidence the objectives were not fully met. The administration's wild reaction to the preliminary, low-confidence Pentagon intelligence report creates another dangerous possibility – that it's pressuring the intelligence community to tailor intelligence to meet its political needs. This corrosive trend has been disastrous to US national security in the past. Such behavior is a major concern with huge national security implications under a president who has trashed the US intelligence community and appointed officials to lead it who share his politicized views. Future intelligence reports – which could take months to conduct – might well conclude that Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed or set back far from the point of approaching a weapon. If they don't, Trump has a huge political and diplomatic problem. Now that the United States has taken military action alongside Israel in an attempt to eradicate Iran's nuclear program, he has created a standard for himself. If credible evidence emerges that Iran has salvaged aspects of its program, either centrifuges or stocks of enriched uranium, as has been reported, the president – or Israel –will come under pressure to take new action to stop it. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said it's possible that Iran moved uranium, which is easily portable, before US and Israeli raids. Future US action against Iran could create the conditions for the prolonged war or deeper low-level conflict in the Middle East that Trump has sworn to avoid, and that would threaten to create a new fracture in his 'Make America Great Again' political base. There is a precedent for such prolonged and expensive engagements. After the 1991 Gulf War, the US-led coalition maintained no-fly zones in Iraq to protect the Kurdish minority in the north and Shiites in the south and to contain Saddam Hussein's military for more than a decade. Uncertainty over the fate of Iran's nuclear program could also complicate efforts to reach a diplomatic solution with the Islamic Republic. Trump said at the NATO summit on Wednesday that US and Iranian negotiators would meet next week. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff told CNBC on Wednesday that his boss was looking for a 'comprehensive peace agreement' with Iran that would go beyond the nuclear question. It would be an extraordinary breakthrough after 45 years of antagonism. If Trump could end the US estrangement with the Islamic Republic – perhaps after breaking the foundation of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's power with military action – he could rightfully claim a major legacy achievement. 'I think that they are ready; that is my strong sense,' said Witkoff. Yet such hopes are dependent on developments in the opaque Iranian system; political forces that the US cannot control; and extremist elements, including in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that have a lot to lose in terms of prestige and economic power if the regime changes or falls. Some experts believe that Iran will respond to the US and Israel assault by reasoning that it is even more imperative to develop a nuclear bomb to ensure the regime's survival. And if Tehran rejects cooperation with the IAEA and its inspectors, it might be able to evade outside monitoring. Trump, however, played down expectations for a lasting agreement with Iran on Wednesday. 'We may sign an agreement. I don't know. To me, I don't think it's that necessary. I mean, they had a war. They fought, and now, they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not,' the president said. He implied that a statement by Iran not to seek nuclear weapons would undercut his own claim that their program was obliterated. The complete truth may not be known for months. But it would be a deep irony if, 20 years after a war provoked by cherry-picked intelligence on a weapons of mass destruction program that did not exist, another White House tweaked intelligence to misrepresent a program in Iran that was active.
Associated Press
31 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump's latest rejection of intelligence assessments reflects a long distrust of spy agencies
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's fights with the intelligence community were a running theme of his first term, as he raged against an investigation into his campaign's alleged links to Russia. Now, a sequel is playing out as Trump battles to shape the public's understanding of his foreign policy gamble in Iran. An early U.S. intelligence assessment said Iran's nuclear program has been set back only a few months after American strikes on three sites last weekend. Trump has rejected the report and pronounced the program 'completely and fully obliterated.' The dispute is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Top administration officials are pressing Trump's case, with a news conference set for Thursday at the Pentagon. Briefings also are scheduled for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, though the White House plans to limit the sharing of classified information after the initial intelligence assessment leaked this week. 'Intelligence people strive to live in a world as it is, describe the world as it is, where politicians are all about describing the world as they want it to be,' said Larry Pfeiffer, a 32-year intelligence veteran who held positions including CIA chief of staff and senior director of the White House Situation Room. Though it's hardly unheard of for presidents to bristle at what they perceive as bad news from the intelligence community, it's rare for the conflict to spill into public view as it did this week. 'I don't think we've seen another president push back as strong as this guy has,' Pfeiffer said. Trump has a history of distrusting spy servicesTrump's suspicion of the intelligence community, particularly when its assessments do not align with his worldview, dates back to even before his first term. His 2016 campaign was shadowed by an investigation into whether his team had coordinated with Russia to sway the outcome of the election. He was so infuriated by the scrutiny over a dossier of unverified and salacious claims connecting him to Russia that, one week before he was sworn in, he tweeted: 'Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to 'leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?' Trump disputed the assessment that Russia had interfered in the election on his behalf, decrying as a 'hoax' and a 'witch hunt' an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately concluded the Trump campaign had welcomed Moscow's help but did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Trump also openly challenged the judgment of his intelligence agencies alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at a Helsinki summit in 2018. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,' Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be.' Such public protestation takes its toll on an intelligence community that historically has endeavored to produce data-driven and apolitical judgments, said Frank Montoya Jr., a former FBI supervisor who served as director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. 'It's really demoralizing because nobody is looking at this stuff from a political perspective. They're looking at the data and they're analyzing the data,' he said. 'When you get this kind of unfounded criticism, especially from the policymaker in chief, it just destroys morale.' Tensions with the intelligence community persist Trump tapped loyalists to lead America's intelligence services in his second term — Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence and John Ratcliffe as CIA director. They promised to end what they said was the weaponization of intelligence and root out disloyal officers. But there have already been conflicts. Last month, the National Intelligence Council declassified a memo in response to an open records request that said American spy agencies found no coordination between the Venezuelan government and the Tren de Aragua gang, contradicting statements the Trump administration used to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act and deporting Venezuelan immigrants. Gabbard later fired the two veteran intelligence officers who led the council because of their perceived opposition to Trump. More trouble came after the war between Israel and Iran began nearly two weeks ago. Trump dismissed Gabbard's testimony to Congress in March that U.S. spy agencies did not believe Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Trump insisted Iran was very close. 'I don't care what she said,' he told reporters last week. Gabbard later accused the news media of mischaracterizing her testimony, noting that she had mentioned Iran's large stockpile of enriched uranium that goes beyond levels needed for civilian uses. Iran maintains that its nuclear program was peaceful, though the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly warned that Tehran has enough highly enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs if it chooses. A preliminary report from the Defense Intelligence Agency that emerged this week said that while the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities did significant damage, the facilities were not totally destroyed and the program was only set back by a few months. The White House called the assessment 'flat-out wrong.' The DIA said the initial findings will be refined as new information becomes available. Given Trump's skeptical view of intelligence officials, Pfeiffer said, 'his initial instinct is to assume that if the intelligence community is telling him something different than he would like it to be, that it's because they're trying to undermine him.' Trump team says there's no conflictGabbard and Ratcliffe have sought to brush off any perceived conflict between their agencies and Trump. Ratcliffe said Wednesday that new intelligence from a 'historically reliable and accurate' source reveals that U.S. strikes 'destroyed' several of Iran's nuclear facilities that would require years to be rebuilt. 'CIA continues to collect additional reliably sourced information to keep appropriate decision-makers and oversight bodies fully informed,' Ratcliffe said in a statement. 'When possible, we will also provide updates and information to the American public, given the national importance of this matter and in every attempt to provide transparency.' Gabbard noted the DIA assessment was of 'low confidence,' an acknowledgment by its authors that their conclusions could be mistaken. 'The propaganda media has deployed their usual tactic: selectively release portions of illegally leaked classified intelligence assessments,' she wrote on X. Trump narrated his own intelligence assessment while attending the NATO summit in the Netherlands. He mentioned satellite images showing the area around nuclear facilities 'burned black' and said the underground tunnels had 'all collapsed.' He also suggested Israel had sources on the ground in Iran: 'They have guys that go in there after the hit' to evaluate the damage. The White House pointed to an Israel Atomic Energy Commission assessment that the U.S. and Israeli strikes have 'set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years.' Assessing the US strike will take time Intelligence officers routinely craft assessments about global threats and specific incidents — information vital to the decision-making of national security officials and lawmakers. Assessments are regularly updated as new intelligence is produced from sources including field agents, informants, open source material and secret surveillance. The work is secretive to protect the methods and sources of intelligence agencies and to avoid becoming a political football. Former intelligence officials said it's likely to take days, weeks, or even months to form a full picture of the impact of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear capabilities. 'I would call for patience,' said John Negroponte, a former ambassador who served as the first director of national intelligence under President George W. Bush. 'Avoid the temptation to rush to judgment.' ___ Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani contributed to this report.
