As President Trump’s more controversial cabinet appointments make it through the Senate’s confirmation process, I thought I might offer my opinion. It’s brief. With the exception of Marco Rubio, by whom I’ve been pleasantly surprised, I have found the appointments quite unimpressive.
Should they be confirmed? It’s a mixed bag. Of the most controversial (Hegseth, Kennedy, Gabbard, Patel), I doubt that under a normal administration any would ever have been nominated. In general, a newly-elected president deserves to be served by a cabinet of his choosing. But Donald Trump is anything but a “normal” president.
Let’s consider this passage from Article II, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
For my taste we are seeing somewhat too much acquiescent consent and precious little advice. When did the Senate stop offering advice on “officers of the United States”? I think the Senate is supposed to be more than a rubberstamp.
All of that said I noticed something interesting about President Trump’s cabinet appointments:
| Role | Biden | Trump | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secretary of State | Anthony Blinken | 62 | Marco Rubio | 53 |
| Secretary of Defense | Lloyd Austin | 71 | Peter Hegseth | 44 |
| Secretary of Treasury | Janet Yellen | 78 | Scott Bessent | 62 |
| Secretary HHS | Xavier Becerra | 67 | Robert Kennedy, Jr. | 71 |
| Secretary Homeland Security | Alejandro Mayorkas | 65 | Kristi Noem | 53 |
| Attorney General | Merrick Garland | 72 | Pam Bondi | 59 |
| Secretary of Interior | Deb Haaland | 64 | Doug Burgum | 68 |
I’ve included the role, appointment, age of each cabinet member for both the Biden and Trump administrations for easy comparison. There are two things that struck me about Trump’s appointments. The first is that on average Trump’s appointments are younger than Biden’s were. Even when you subtract four years from each of Biden’s cabinet members’ ages, on average Trump’s cabinet is still younger. It’s something of a “changing of the guard”. Many are Gen X. The only Trump appointment over 70 is RFK, Jr. and he’s by far the most controversial.
The other thing is that it appears to me that President Trump is both sending a message with his appointments and appointing cabinet officers who are less prepared to run the large bureaucracies they are being tasked with but much better prepared to communicate his policies to those bureaucracies, to the Congress, and to the media. Add JD Vance to that list and it’s even more notable.
So, what policies will they convey? Fasten your seatbelts, we’re in for a bumpy ride.
One of the factors I had thought about but didn’t manage to work into the post was this. IMO the federal government NEEDS major housecleaning. The bureaucracies are too entrenched and too complacent.
If you disapprove of what Trump and his administration are doing, IMO you have an obligation to tell us HOW we can do such an overhaul. It’s bound to be disruptive.
For one thing, you could leave Elon Musk in his rocket lab. He might be a smart fellow, but I have my doubts he’s acting out of pure patriotism.
First point. I look at the Biden column, then the Trump column. Trump’s column might not be the roster I’d choose, but compared to the incompetents and dishonest players in Biden’s column I find the criticism of Trump wholly ginned up and partisan. Selective outrage.
Second? Advice? Advice!!?? Seriously? The paid off shills? And let’s look at the reaction to USAID as an instructive. USAID is nothing but a slush fund for the CIA and other sleazy benefactors to further their leftist/control/financial goals in return many times for recycled money to campaigns. Even NPR cited only 20% as the supposed “human aid.”
Those whose filthy schemes are being disrupted are squealing like stuck pigs. Listen to the volume, and you will know the level of corruption. To Trump – Godspeed
Actually, I think it was 10%.
If you have little experience that is pertinent to the position for which you are named, of course you can be younger. Besides, it seems pretty clear that how you look on camera was important for a lot of these people. Also, if you have no idea what you are doing you will just carry out what Trump tells you what to do. For example, no like Mattis to tell Trump the last thing we want to do is put troops into Gaza.
I think Rubio is a good example here. I will probably disagree with most of Rubio’s policy, but he is qualified and knowledgeable about the area he will lead. He may or may not end up doing a good job. Way too many of Trump’s picks dont have the experience or skills. It makes it mcc likely they do a good job and much more likely they make major mistakes.
Steve
With the exception of Marco Rubio, by whom I’ve been pleasantly surprised, I have found the appointments quite unimpressive.
I’ve had the opposite reactions to Dave’s regarding Trump’s cabinet appointments.
Marco Rubio was not my first choice for SOS. However, his performance so far has exceeded my expectations – his fluency in Spanish has been a real asset.
Hegseth represents an alliance of on-the-ground experience with the rank and file military, restoring more enthusiasm to be listened to and to enlist – there has been a surge of enlistments. Scott Bessent’s monetary knowledge is an upgrade from Yellen’s. RFK isn’t in alignment with consensus medical thinking, which I see as a refreshing ability to see old problems with new approaches. The CDC, FDA, AMA all took a hit in having the public trust behind them. Hopefully this can be restored by cultivating a more honest relationship with the public. Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary, Mayorkas, made the border more insecure, and then lied about it. How Kristi Noem does remains to be seen. However, illegal border crossings are down 93%. Finally, Merrick Garland was a politically compromised AG, where 39% of the FBI were busy rounding up J6 defendants for 4 years, while violent crime went unfettered, blossoming 40%. With Pam Bondi’s AG record in Florida I believe her ability to bring crime down will be far better, and without any of the unfair lawfare in the mix.
I am trying to figure out what makes a good cabinet officer.
At first glance, the cabinet of Biden was full of “qualified” people, yet many turned in sub-par records, I’m think in particular Blinken, Yellen, Austen, and Mayorkas.
On Trump, I believe most of his cabinet are conventional (within the Overton window); i.e. Rubio, Bessent, Bondi, Noem, Burgum, Duffy, Collins, Zeldin, Ratcliffe, Greer.
The unconventional picks (Hegseth, Kennedy, Gabbard, Patel); two of them are for another aspect of cabinet — Kennedy and Gabbard are both rewards for helping the election be a clear Trump victory instead of a nailbiter and a way to cement those “dissident” Democrat voters into Trump’s coalition. Patel was picked to control and/or clean house on an agency that seriously hindered Trump’s first term (Russiagate) and could play that role again. Hegseth is the “black box” one; there’s not a single clear reason; but I could see multiple reasons.
Just because I think that Trump’s cabinet is lacklustre (except for Rubio) doesn’t mean I thought that Biden’s was good. It wasn’t good but it was ordinary—a bunch of Democratic Party apparatchiks.
As you note some of Trump’s appointments are ordinary. But, again as you note, some most certainly are not.
I see Hegseth as part of his “communicator” cadre which includes Vance.
As to your larger question, what makes for a good cabinet officer depends on the school of management to which you subscribe. There are basically two significant ones: a “staff management” model and the “president does everything” model. The best example of the “staff management” model was Eisenhower. Eisenhower communicated goals to his cabinet officers and left accomplishing the goals to them. That approach requires a more capable cabinet. President Trump pretty obviously favors the alternative model.
I do think it depends on what you want in a cabinet officer. With Biden, I think you knew what you were getting—experienced picks and insiders who would never be disruptors or reformers. Basically, with Biden, it was the status quo.
With Trump, it’s mainly disruptors with little or no experience and views outside the mainstream. It remains to be seen how successful they will be, particularly since Trump prioritizes loyalty and thinks he’s always the smartest guy in the room. How many of these will last? IOW, it’s an open question how much independence they will actually have.
I think we are missing a key part of being a Cabinet officer, which is managing politics (between the White House, Congress, the States, and the media).
Janet Reno was picked because she was a woman and she could be confirmed by the Senate. Clinton was picked not for her management skills but partly the politics of keeping the Democratic party united.
So for example, Kennedy not only is for appealing to “dissident” democrats, but he has a more moderate position on abortion the likely any Republican nominee for that position, and that probably is important since Trump won by getting a significant percentage of pro-choice voters. Notice Kennedy was grilled the most on vaccines, but not as much on what he would or would not do on abortion.
I think that Hillary Clinton was picked for strategic reasons—having been Secretary of State gave her credentials for being nominated to the presidency. She’d already flubbed her healthcare reform and other than being married to Bill Clinton was a lackluster senator.
Task and Purpose reports that the increase in recruits started early last year which is thought to be the result of new recruiting efforts. Hegseth reported that they needed to open up new training units, but those had been announced in August. It’s also odd that they didnt report totals only a per day number. Anyway, as I noted, for Trump and his people it’s all about the messaging. Take credit for what was already happening.
Distrust of the CDC, NIH etc is limited to MAGA Republicans for the most part. However, if the distrust those organizations they should have put someone competent and knowledgeable in charge to reform them. RFK is a lawyer who makes money suing people and by running an anti-vax organization. He has no experience running any kind of health care, no pertinent training and no knowledge about health care in general. He is very good at messaging and saying stuff some people want to believe.
Steve