Cost to Your Community FEDERAL HARMS TRACKER The Cost to Your Community Jump to The Cost to Your Community Interactive Map Analysis Methodology The Cost of The Shutdown The Cost to Your Government Back to Overview The Cost to Your Community is the third product in the Federal Harms Tracker series and is designed to show the federal government’s footprint and impact across states and communities nationwide. This interactive map combines state- and congressional district-level data on federal personnel, funding and infrastructure to show how government resources are distributed around the country and how that presence is shifting amid unprecedented changes under the Trump administration. But this tool is not just about numbers—it is about people and communities. Every congressional district is paired with at least one story of harm or risk at the local level. While a smaller federal government may be a reasonable goal, these stories reveal that the Trump administration’s often haphazard funding and personnel cuts, from food assistance and education to public health and care for veterans, have led to a less effective government and are negatively affecting the public in real and everyday ways. The Trump administration’s cuts to federal health research funding have stalled and terminated studies on infectious disease, reproductive health, HIV and chronic disease across Louisiana health institutions, including at least five grants totaling over $5 million at LSU Health Sciences Center. Ohio Fair Housing Resource Center lost 90% of its federal funding, leading to layoffs and cuts to free services for communities in need. An Arlington, Va. afterschool learning program that supports low-income families lost $350,000 overnight, forcing it to cut students and causing families to scramble for new childcare options after students had to be cut from the program. Dallas County Health and Human Services lost more than $4 million in federal funding leading to staff layoffs and canceling 50+ community vaccine drives. Kalamazoo Loaves & Fishes, the largest charitable food assistance organization in the region, lost about half of its federal funding—forcing it to reduce portion sizes and cut purchases of fresh produce from local farmers. The Cost to Your Community brings together data and stories that track the federal government’s changing footprint across the country, reflecting how the federal workforce and funding have been reshaped during the first year of the Trump administration. Over time, additional information and insights will be added, building a clearer picture of how communities are being affected by workforce reductions, funding changes and the reshaping of the government. We invite you to explore the map, share what you find and contact your member of Congress about the harms happening in your community. If you have a story to share, please connect with our team by completing this form. THE COST TO YOUR COMMUNITY Clear search Federal Harms Tracker: The Cost to Your Community Harm Story Data Stories of Harm Share this data Share what you've learned about the cost to your community Via Email On Facebook On Twitter On LinkedIn Last Updated CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS DISPLAYED ARE THOSE FOR THE 119TH CONGRESS (2025-2026) What changes are we seeing? Federal Workforce Since the beginning of the Trump administration on Jan. 20, 2025, the federal government has shed more than 322,000 employees. Most of these employees left government through administration initiatives, such as the Deferred Resignation Program, which were explicitly designed to shrink the federal workforce. Others were fired or left through traditional routes such as quitting and retiring. In September 2024, before the start of the Trump administration, more than 2.2 million federal employees worked within the United States. By November 2025, after the reductions coupled with the hiring of roughly 102,000 new employees, the government workforce was 220,000 employees smaller, a decrease of almost 10%. This is the largest decrease in the federal workforce since the 1990s when the government lost about 400,000 employees between 1993 and 1998 as part of the Clinton administration’s Reinventing Government initiative. The Washington, D.C. area—home to the largest number of federal employees—saw a decline of 46,797 civil servants under the Trump administration as of November 2025, or nearly 15% of the region’s federal workforce. However, the decrease in the federal workforce was not just concentrated in the national capital region. The largest percentage decrease took place in Montana, which lost 19.1% of its federal employees between September 2024 and November 2025, going from 12,539 employees to 10,149. About two-thirds of this decrease occurred at public land agencies—the Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—that together manage around 30% of Montana’s land and are a critical part of the state’s economy. Several other western states, such as Idaho, Alaska and Oregon, also lost at least 15% of their federal workforce between 2024 and 2025. In all of these states, the Forest Service and National Park Service are among the top federal employers. Only Connecticut experienced an increase in the size of its federal workforce between September 2024 and November 2025. The number of federal employees in Connecticut rose from 7,748 to 8,026, an increase of 3.6%. Agencies located in Connecticut that experienced increases in their workforces included the FBI and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Federal Assistance While freezes and reductions in federal grants have had a significant, negative impact on sectors like education and scientific research, the total value of federal assistance obligated to state, local and tribal governments and organizations–including formula grants, project grants and direct payments–increased slightly in 2025. In fiscal 2024, the federal government obligated $1.8 trillion in assistance across the country. In fiscal 2025, that number rose by almost $42 billion, a roughly 2% increase. While states like Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York saw net decreases ranging from $3 billion to more than $8 billion, other states experienced sizable increases in grants and direct payments from federal agencies. In fact, just five states–Connecticut, Nebraska, North Carolina, Hawaii and South Carolina–accounted for nearly two-thirds of the net increase nationwide, underscoring the geographic concentration of these gains. Looking one level deeper, the increases within these states were driven by a small number of congressional districts. In Connecticut, for example, one of the two congressional districts that together accounted for over 80% of the state’s net increase is its third district, home to Yale University. In North Carolina, 60% of the state’s increase was concentrated in its second district which covers part of the Research Triangle–a major technology, research and education hub–while the remaining gains were spread thinly across the rest of the state. Federal Contracts Through cuts, freezes and cancellations, the Trump administration reduced federal contract obligations from $658 billion in fiscal 2024 to $579 billion in fiscal 2025, a net decrease of nearly $80 billion or 12%. Nationwide, 45 states posted a net decrease in federal contracting dollars. Maryland, Virginia and California–three states where the federal government has traditionally had a significant presence–saw the largest net decrease in contracts, losing an average of nearly $10 billion between 2024 and 2025. By contrast, only a handful of states recorded net increases in federal contract obligations during the first year of the Trump administration. Contracting rose sharply in Connecticut by $9 billion in 2025, in Texas by $989 million and in North Carolina, Mississippi and Indiana by $975 million, $307 million and $265 million, respectively. As with federal assistance, these state-level contract increases were concentrated in a small number of congressional districts. In Connecticut, for example, gains occurred in the district where Yale University is located, with obligations increasing by nearly $12 billion, more than offsetting declines elsewhere in the state. Similar patterns appear in other states, where a handful of districts posted multi-billion-dollar gains that masked sizable losses in surrounding areas. Why do these issues matter? As the map demonstrates, federal institutions and activities are woven into the fabric of almost every community in the country. Federal Employees: Federal jobs traditionally provide stable employment and support local economies. Federal employees also can be a critical access point between their neighbors and essential public services. Federal Assistance: Grants and direct payments to state and local governments help sustain schools, housing, health programs and other critical services. Federal Contracts: Federal spending fuels local businesses and supply chains, strengthening industries and creating jobs. What harms are we seeing? We analyzed more than 530 stories featured on the map to provide a snapshot of the harm and impacted caused by federal cuts and mismanagement across the country. Notably, more than 45% of these stories involve harms to science-related sectors, including agricultural research, healthcare and public land management. Together, they show the direct, tangible consequences these changes are having on individuals, organizations and communities. Education: Funding cuts and freezes at the Department of Education have disrupted after-school programs, literacy initiatives and school repairs. All while billions of dollars’ worth of revoked research grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have hit colleges and universities nationwide. Agriculture: Reduced Department of Agriculture funding for local farm partnerships has strained food banks, school lunch programs and senior meal services. Health: Personnel cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute have slowed critical research and public health work, and changes at the Department of Veterans Affairs are straining care for veterans. We also continue to see that harms across sectors like public services, safety and infrastructure are compounding. Canceled funding for nonprofits, housing programs, and public broadcasting has weakened essential local support systems, while diminished investment in emergency response and energy infrastructure has left communities more vulnerable to crises. See this blog post for a deeper analysis of the stories featured on the map, including a breakdown of science-related harms. Looking for more data? We invite you to visit The Impact Project to explore additional data points on government changes and their localized effects, including socioeconomic data and program-specific data. DATA DEFINITIONS This tool brings together multiple federal datasets, hundreds of news stories and exclusive spotlights to provide a community-level view of the federal government’s footprint and impact. The data and stories will be updated monthly as new sources become available. Workforce data at the state level is drawn from the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Workforce Data site and represents actual headcounts at executive branch, civilian agencies (excluding the U.S. Postal Service). The 2024 data reflect values as of September 2024 while the 2025 data reflect values as of November 2025. State-level personnel data previously sourced from OPM’s legacy FedScope platform has been replaced with historical data from the new Federal Workforce Data site. Data for the “D.C. Area” is not limited to the District of Columbia itself but also counts employees located in the broader Washington, D.C., metropolitan area that includes portions of Maryland and Virginia. Congressional district counts are estimates derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2024 American Community Survey and cover the executive, legislative and judicial branches, as well as government-owned corporations such as Amtrak). District totals, therefore, do not add up to state totals. Assistance and contract data are taken from USASpending’s assistance and contracts datasets for awards in fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Funding values reflect federal obligations for formula, block and project block grants, cooperative agreements and direct payments to state and local governments. Contract values reflect federal obligations for award transactions performed within a state or district. Historical values are not adjusted for inflation. Negative values represent de-obligations and may be greater than -100% if obligation cancellations or reductions outweigh new awards recorded during the fiscal year. Infrastructure is defined as federally owned and leased properties managed by the General Services Administration, including land and buildings. Counts are derived from the GSA’s Inventory of Owned and Leased Properties dataset as of July 2025 and filtered to include only active properties. However, the IOLP dataset only covers properties within GSA’s portfolio, which is estimated to be about 30% of the federal government’s total real estate holdings. Learn more “Under 30” is defined as employees between ages 20-29. “STEM” is defined as occupations in the fields of science, health, technology, engineering and mathematics. Median salary comparisons are derived from Census’ 2024 Current Population Survey. Demographic percentages (e.g., the share of federal employees in STEM or under age 30) are calculated using only employees with available location data. Because some locations are redacted in the source data, these figures may not reflect the full federal workforce in each state. For this analysis, the District of Columbia is treated as both a state-level entity and as an at-large congressional district. Stay up to date with the Partnership Subscribe to our emails to receive our latest news and updates.
