Blind loyalty trumps experience, expertise in Trump administration

Conservatives have long argued that the government should be run more like a business, and Donald Trump’s own campaign rhetoric focused on his businessman acumen and ability to cut through the red tape and inefficiency that too often characterizes Washington, D.C.

For his supporters, Trump’s appeal is deeply rooted in his reputation as a leader, able to act responsibly, much like a CEO tasked with successfully operating a company for its owners. Indeed, many Americans elected him with the expectation that he will serve as the nation’s CEO, with the U.S. Senate effectively serving as a “board of directors” offering advice and consent on his Cabinet nominations, and voting on significant policy changes via changes in federal law.

Yet, a review of Trump’s recent Cabinet appointments suggests that he is failing in this crucial duty. Instead of prioritizing experience, knowledge and management acumen for the good of the nation, he appears to be filling America’s highest offices based on personal loyalty and political expediency.

As a developer, Trump would never put people in charge of a construction site just because they praised him but had never built anything before or managed a project. But many of his early Cabinet picks have never managed anything, never been responsible for significant decision making and lack relevant expertise.

This is not an issue of partisanship or political ideology, it is a question of competency, fiscal responsibility and national security.

Take Pete Hegseth, who Trump has said he will nominate to serve as secretary of defense. Hegseth is a decorated combat veteran, and for that, he deserves the respect and gratitude of the American people. However, a closer look reveals that Hegseth lacks the senior military or national security experience typically expected of a defense secretary. He has no experience managing complex military operations, nor does he have the strategic background necessary to handle volatile international conflicts.

If confirmed, Hegseth would oversee one of largest, most complicated, far-reaching and critical portions of the federal budget, yet it’s not clear that he has any previous budget experience, nor managed far-flung personnel, a complicated chain of command and literally thousands of sub-contractors and affiliated entities. Composing a pithy TV hit or an adoring X post is not relevant experience.

The U.S. military is focused on multiple complex global conflicts, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the introduction of North Korean troops to that conflict, mass violence and destruction in the Middle East, and an emboldened China testing the limits of diplomacy in the South China Sea. Due to these and other geopolitical scenarios, the role of secretary of defense demands extensive experience in military strategy, diplomacy and high-level crisis management.

A true CEO would insist on a candidate with this expertise and a track record of success, not just a pandering personal loyalty. The consequences of installing an unqualified leader are not abstract or hypothetical — they are real, with the potential to endanger American lives and stability around the world.

Domestically, Trump has selected Matt Gaetz to serve as attorney general. Gaetz’s loyalty to Trump is well-known, but his credentials fall short of the minimum qualifications one might expect for the country’s top legal officer. Gaetz has only two years of experience as a lawyer and no experience as a prosecutor, judge or law enforcement officer. Yet Trump wants him to serve as head of the Department of Justice, the country’s chief law enforcement officer and principal adviser to the president on all legal matters.

In addition to decades of legal experience, past attorneys general have had proven management skills that equipped them to handle the department’s vast, varied and complex responsibilities — including managing 115,000 employees.

Gaetz has never managed more than a small staff of just a couple dozen people, raising serious questions about his ability to lead an agency as crucial to public safety as the Justice Department. His nomination not only risks diminishing the credibility and effectiveness of the department but also makes it difficult to see how Trump is prioritizing competency over cronyism in his administration.

The issue at hand is not that these nominees are Republicans or that they align ideologically with Trump. There are many well-qualified Republican leaders who could capably and responsibly serve in these roles. Rather, Trump’s choices reflect a pattern of preferring unqualified but personally loyal candidates, overlooking more competent and experienced Republicans who might bring both loyalty and professional expertise to these crucial positions. The absence of serious consideration for qualified Republican candidates undermines the very essence of Trump’s appeal as a CEO who would lead the nation with business-like pragmatism and skill.

When you give people with no experience meaningful power in a complicated situation, chaos is all but guaranteed.

Instead of being a different kind of leader, Trump’s decisions are perfectly in line with the worst kind of political tradition — appointing friends and allies to positions of power. This tradition is exactly what he has campaigned against for nearly a decade, promising to “drain the swamp.”

According to Trump, neither the U.S. economy nor our national security apparatus, nor even our communities, can afford unqualified leadership in these arenas. Yet Trump appears committed to putting personal loyalty above the public good and betraying his promise to run the country like a business.

The Senate, America’s board of directors representing us, the owners of the nation, must take a serious look at these nominees — not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans entrusted with a duty to protect our nation’s best interests. That is the purpose of the “advice and consent” demanded by the Constitution, and it is every senator’s sworn oath to only consent to nominees with the experience and expertise necessary to serve effectively.

Serving as a member of the president’s Cabinet is not a place for “on-the-job training.” America deserves leaders who are up to the task, and for the sake of our national security and prosperity, the Senate must fulfill its obligation to properly vet Trump’s nominees.