Last year, I wrote to my senators, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, because I was uneasy about the direction the Trump administration appeared to be taking with its Cabinet appointments. My concern wasn’t rooted in party affiliation or personal animus; it was about whether the people being placed in charge of critical federal agencies had the experience, judgment, and ethical grounding required for the roles they were assuming.
Senator Cornyn responded with a reminder of the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on nominees. That response was procedurally correct, but it didn’t fully address the substance of my concern: what happens after confirmation, when theory becomes practice and decisions begin affecting real lives, institutions, and national stability.
Now, months into these appointments, the consequences are no longer hypothetical.
In national security and defense, the importance of steady, credible leadership cannot be overstated. Pete Hegseth entered the role of Secretary of Defense with a strong media presence and some military experience, but without a background in senior strategic leadership. Since his confirmation, reports have pointed to friction between civilian leadership and career military professionals, along with confusion in communications with allies and service members. These aren’t abstract bureaucratic issues; they affect readiness, morale, and trust at a moment when global tensions demand clarity and coordination.
At the State Department, Marco Rubio brought a conventional political résumé and deep familiarity with foreign policy debates. However, his hardline approach toward adversaries like China and Iran has coincided with increased diplomatic strain. In an era where alliances are already fragile, an overly confrontational posture risks escalation when restraint and coalition-building are often more effective.
The Department of Homeland Security offers another example of how leadership decisions ripple outward. Under Kristi Noem, DHS has faced operational crises and sharp congressional backlash, particularly following enforcement actions that resulted in civilian deaths. At the same time, the removal of climate-related preparedness programs has raised concerns about disaster readiness. Homeland security works best when it is boring, competent, and trusted—not when it becomes a flashpoint for political conflict during emergencies.
The administration’s approach to government restructuring has also revealed tensions between private-sector logic and public responsibility. The creation of the Department of Government Efficiency under Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy was pitched as a bold attempt to streamline bureaucracy. In practice, rapid reorganizations, mass firings, and the removal of public records have weakened institutional memory and raised questions about transparency and conflicts of interest. Innovation matters, but government is not a startup; it exists to provide continuity, fairness, and accountability.
Public health may be where the stakes are most immediate. At Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has overseen deep restructuring, including significant cuts to research funding and staffing at agencies like the NIH and CDC. Regardless of one’s views on regulation or federal scope, these institutions form the backbone of disease surveillance, vaccine development, and emergency response. Weakening them doesn’t just affect bureaucrats—it affects families, hospitals, and communities when the next outbreak or crisis emerges.
Veterans Affairs tells a similar story. Doug Collins’s proposal to reduce VA staffing by roughly 15 percent may be driven by cost concerns, but the practical effect is longer wait times and reduced access to care for veterans who already struggle to navigate the system. Fiscal responsibility is important, but it must be balanced against the government’s obligation to those who served.
Beyond these headline roles, the pattern repeats across the administration. Tulsi Gabbard’s service as Director of National Intelligence brings valuable military and foreign policy perspective, but limited operational intelligence experience has complicated coordination across the intelligence community. Dr. Mehmet Oz’s leadership at CMS has been marked by staffing cuts and policy shifts that have slowed access to healthcare services. Mike Huckabee’s appointment as ambassador to Israel highlights the risks of prioritizing ideological alignment over diplomatic training in sensitive regions. John Ratcliffe’s tenure at the CIA raises concerns about managing complex intelligence operations without deep operational background.
Environmental and economic oversight have also shifted. Under Lee Zeldin, environmental protections have been rolled back in ways that reduce accountability for pollution. At Commerce, Howard Lutnick’s focus on private financial interests has left trade policy uneven. Across agencies, figures like Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem have emphasized ideological alignment, often at the expense of operational expertise and humanitarian considerations.
Taken together, these choices suggest a governing philosophy that values loyalty, visibility, and disruption over experience, continuity, and institutional knowledge. That approach may appeal to voters frustrated with bureaucracy, but governing is not the same as campaigning. Institutions weakened in the name of efficiency or alignment are difficult to rebuild, and the costs are often borne by ordinary people rather than political leaders.
When I first contacted Senators Cruz and Cornyn, my argument was simple: ideology and loyalty cannot substitute for competence. Looking at the cumulative impact of these appointments—across national security, public health, veterans’ care, environmental protection, and public trust—it’s hard to argue that those concerns were misplaced.
The American people deserve leaders who are qualified, ethical, and capable of stewarding the institutions that protect us all. When those standards slip, the consequences don’t fall along party lines—they fall on the country as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment