7:34 pm - February 23, 2025
CNN’s What Matters newsletter recently published a story comparing President Donald Trump’s efforts to purge the federal bureaucracy to Andrew Jackson’s spoils system, a 19th-century system that reshaped how the government operated. Though the full extent of Trump’s purge may take years to fully understand due to lawsuits and administrative delays, it’s clear that the government Trump leaves behind will likely be fundamentally different from the one he inherited. Trump’s goal is to make the federal government more responsive to his political agenda, a philosophy reminiscent of Jackson’s approach but with significant differences.
Jackson’s presidency was marked by a dramatic overhaul of federal personnel, often driven by a belief that he was the outsider hero cleaning up a corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy. This mindset led him to replace many of the previous administration’s appointees with his own loyalists, a strategy that echoed Trump’s recent actions. However, Jackson’s method was largely policy-driven, while Trump’s purge has appeared to be more personal, with a focus on retribution against perceived enemies and loyalists to his political base.
One of Jackson’s most infamous decisions was appointing his Army buddy, Samuel Swartwout, as the customs collector for the Port of New York in 1829. At the time, the federal government’s revenue depended heavily on tariffs, with nearly 90% of its income coming from imported goods. Swartwout, a seemingly trustworthy figure due to his military service, ended up embezzling millions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury. Despite warnings from his incoming vice president, Martin Van Buren, Jackson defended Swartwout, stating his belief that an honest man was the “noblest work of God.” Swartwout’s corruption eventually forced him to flee to Europe to avoid accountability, leaving a significant financial stain on Jackson’s presidency.
The spoils system itself, while not entirely Jackson’s creation, flourished during his presidency. It was rooted in the rise of political partisanship in the early 19th century, as party loyalty became a key criterion for federal appointments. Jackson’s intent was to replace lazy or corrupt bureaucrats with individuals who would work tirelessly on behalf of the “cause of the people.” However, this system became increasingly institutionalized, with appointees being replaced whenever a new administration took power. Over time, the spoils system became criticized for prioritizing party loyalty over competence.
When asked whether there were particularly problematic spoils system appointees, historian Daniel Feller highlighted Samuel Swartwout as one of the most egregious examples. Feller noted that Jackson’s blind faith in his military buddies, like Swartwout, led to significant issues. “Jackson had an incredible sense of loyalty to people who had served with him in the military,” Feller explained, “and along with that, he could not believe that anyone who had served bravely in combat and shed their blood for their country could be anything other than scrupulously honest and efficient in civil office.”
When comparing Trump to Jackson, some historians draw parallels in their desire to weaken established power structures and replace them with loyal allies. Both leaders framed their actions as reforms aimed at the greater good, with Trump emphasizing his role as an outsider and Jackson viewing himself as a defender of the common man. However, there are notable differences. While Jackson’s purges were not driven by specific policy grievances, Trump’s efforts appear to be more ideological, with a focus on reshaping the bureaucracy to align with his “America First” agenda.
Today, these historical parallels are easy to spot. Just as Jackson opposed concentrated wealth and power, modern leaders like Joe Biden have criticized the influence of tech moguls and Wall Street executives. Biden has termed this as an “oligarchy,” echoing Jackson’s concerns about wealth concentration. Meanwhile, Trump’s actions toward the Federal Reserve and his push for a U.S. sovereign wealth fund have raised questions about his motivations, drawing comparisons to Jackson’s battles with institutions like the Bank of the United States. However, while both leaders have criticized established powers, their methods and motivations are deeply different.
In conclusion, while Trump’s efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy may bear some surface-level similarities to Andrew Jackson’s spoils system, the underlying motivations and impacts are distinct. Jackson’s reforms were policy-driven and rooted in a vision of government as a force for the common good, while Trump’s approach appears more personal and ideological. As history unfolds, it remains to be seen whether these efforts will leave a lasting mark on the U.S. government, or if they will fade like earlier reforms.