With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency once more, a term will once again be in wide usage, as it had been during Trump’s first year in office. However, this time there will not be individuals like James Mattis, John Kelly, or Dan Coats at the helms of cabinet offices and whole U.S. departments. The individuals at the helm of these monolithic and important agencies will be of lesser quality, lacking in experience, deficient in character, and most of all, loyal to their commander in chief.
Kakistocracy, as Merriam-Webster defines, is a “government by the worst people”. Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and scholar emeritus at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), provides further clarity that the term “can mean the most inept and cringeworthy government [led by] the worst and most unscrupulous kind of people” while Moisés Naím, a leading journalist on Latin American affairs and global politics, found kakistocracies to “proliferate in weak and disorganized political systems that repel the talented and attract the inept and most debased”.
It should be clear that Donald Trump attracts the most untalented, the most incompetent, and the most morally sullied individuals within his inner circle and entourage. What less can be expected from an individual convicted of 34 felony charges, an adjudicated rapist, and a con man? However, this will have many serious implications for American national security and the security cooperation systems many foreign nations and governments rely upon.
The Appointees
In the days following the election, Trump made known his desires to appoint and have confirmed certain individuals to his cabinet and those who would serve in his administration. Some of these individuals do not require Congressional confirmation, such as lobbyist and campaign manager Susie Wiles as Chief of Staff, white supremacist extremist Stephen Miller as the deputy chief of staff for policy, and early family separation proponent Tom Homan as Trump’s border czar. These individuals would hold immense sway upon many domestic security, social, and political policies in a Trump administration, so their appointments and selections within Trump’s White House is telling of those who will be in his cabinet.
Already, the individuals promoted by Trump for high-ranking departmental positions are worrying. He has announced (among others) John Ratcliffe as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Tulsi Gabbard as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Pam Bondi as the U.S. Attorney General, and Pete Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense.
Starting first with the Intelligence Community heads, Tulsi Gabbard is a figure many will be familiar with. The former Democrat Congresswoman from Hawaii, she is also a combat veteran and Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve’s Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command and has a long record on the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, and Homeland Security Committees of the U.S. House. Most recall her performance during the 2020 U.S. presidential election and her change from political parties to the Republican Party, however she has a history of deeply troubling foreign policy stances. She has, since 2015, questioned Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s human rights violations (only somewhat recanting this in 2019 during her presidential run) and blamed the United States for the Syrian Civil War, has repeated and promulgated Russian disinformation about the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and has made numerous public statements that speak adoringly of Putin. Even more troubling is the fact that Russian state television (long an apparatus of the Russian government) has referred to her as “[Russia’s] girlfriend” and jokingly referred to her as “some kind of Russian agent”, using her interviews to help “sell” the war to the Russian public. In short, she is an individual who has never served in an intelligence setting, never been exposed to intelligence matters while in Congress, and, in spite of her foreign policy and military experience, holds views that could severely complicate the advice she provides to the chief executive on intelligence and, effectively serve Russia better than the United States.
John Ratcliffe as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency would be familiar territory for him, having been the Director of National Intelligence under Trump from 2020 to 2021. However, he was far from qualified for the post; when first nominated in 2020, Wiredwrote Ratcliffe had been a medical malpractice attorney, the “part-time mayor” of small Texas town, a one-time federal prosecutor, and had been in Congress for only five years, at the time of his nomination a junior member of the House Intelligence Committee, misrepresenting much of his prosecutorial and Congressional career during his nomination as well. In large part, Ratcliffe’s appointment was seen by many former intelligence officers as a way for Trump to consolidate “personal control over the intelligence community” while also being a strong and vocal antagonist of the FBI. While Ratcliffe would tow a centered view and push back to some level with Trump, many current and retired CIA officers are doubtful that Ratcliffe serve the role of “speaking truth to power” effectively enough. John Sipher, a 27 year veteran of the CIA and former Chief of Station, wrote in a 2020 op-ed that Ratcliffe “seems to think his job is to serve only his boss, who requires that everyone agree with him at all times … Mr. Ratcliffe appears to regard the nation’s secrets as a place to hunt for nuggets that can be used as political weapons — sources and methods be damned”.
Pam Bondi is the second nominated person for the post of U.S. Attorney General, after Matt Gaetz withdrew following controversy over “growing allegations of sexual misconduct”. A career prosecutor from Florida who served as the state’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, she at least has more prosecutorial and legal experience than Gaetz for the position, however her past actions including acting as a lobbyist for foreign nations is concerning. Nonetheless, her policy positions will be the same as Gaetz’; she stated in a 2023 interview “The Department of Justice, the [bad] prosecutors will be prosecuted … The investigators will be investigated”, clearly meaning those who investigated Trump will be removed and prosecuted for nonexistent crimes. This falls in line with Trump’s desire to prosecute his enemies and, with Bondi’s past accepting Trump donations in controversial and illegal instances, being a cheerleader for him since 2016, and defending Trump in his 2020 impeachment trial, this is an Attorney General who will ultimately serve Trump’s interest more than the Department of Justice’s, yet like Ratcliffe, can be expected to have a more complete understanding of U.S. law. In this author’s opinion, Bondi will serve as a William Barr type figure, how far her sycophancy will go though being unknown at this time.
In prosecuting cases that relate to national security, one could expect a department that would be hampered with inexperienced prosecutors and unlikely to prosecute individuals at the behest of their superiors, not due to a lack of evidence, rather due to the president’s desires.
Finally, Pete Hegseth would serve as perhaps the most unqualified Defense Secretary in modern times, if not in American history. Hegseth is a current Fox News host and a current Major in the Army National Guard, having been in since 2003, his other work experience being a financial analyst at Bear Sterns and a conservative political action committee head; zero experience with running an organization nor in government outside of being a junior (and effectively inconsequential) officer in the military. His views however are incredibly harmful as he has openly promoted firing effectively the entire general staff, eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, has questioned the ability of women not only in combat but the military overall and has defended and advocated for servicemembers like Clint Lorance, Matthew Golsteyn, and Edward Gallagher, all of whom committed war crimes in theater. Brandon Friedman, a veteran and former executive within the Departments of Veteran Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, wrote in an MSNBC op-ed that Hegseth’s “lack of qualifications and experience are an asset [he] will be pliable, a yes man who will do whatever Trump wants. That makes him a danger to the U.S. military and the country at large”.
These are not the only appointees or announcements made in Trump’s administration. Mike Waltz, Trump’s National Security Advisor, has been a strong supporter of sending U.S. military forces into Mexico. Mike Huckabee, Trump’s choice for the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, has zero foreign policy experience, being chosen at a time of crisis in the Middle East purely because of his staunch, Evangelical (almost apocalyptic) support for Israel. Elise Stefanik, Trump’s pick for the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is similar to Huckabee in she has no foreign policy experience but has called the United Nations infected with “antisemitic rot” and promoting an “America First” policy.
All these individuals holding high-ranking positions within the U.S. government would be a disserve to the many passionate and dedicated civil servants while also serving larger ulterior motives of the commander in chief. These individuals would command huge departments, numbering hundreds of thousands of personnel and be in control of billions of dollars in budgets and funds. Furthermore, their departments would be responsible for making policies that not only impact every American citizen, but impact citizens far and away from the nation’s borders. Their appointments and confirmations would usher in an age of sycophancy never before seen. With the background of these individuals on display, this coming administration will be one that is extreme in policy, yet led by individuals who have immense defects in character, are overall unintelligent (despite whatever credentials they may hold or experiences they may have), and misshapen worldviews that will only work to serve America and her allies less safe.
Conclusion
American national security will be disserved by these individuals in power. These individuals do not have the qualifications we have seen in past cabinet secretaries and leaders. They were not chosen for their abilities by which to carry out their department’s duties. They were not selected or nominated because of their past records or their abilities to command large organizations. These individuals were chosen for one reason; loyalty.
While this is a good quality in normal circumstances, they were not chosen for their loyalty to the U.S. Constitution or the United States. They were chosen for their loyalty to the President-elect of the United States, Donald Trump. Like with Trump’s selection of JD Vance, these individuals were selected not because they were competent, rather because they played to the most extreme desires of the Republican Party and the modern conservative movement; they were selected because they would do anything to protect their commander in chief, even if it means breaking the U.S. Constitution and longstanding departmental norms and rules that are in place for the preservation of democracy.
They were chosen because one and all are “yes men” who will carry out their leader’s orders no matter the request and do so to gain power and status and wealth. These selections will not make America a safer, stronger, or more stable country; rather it will allow Donald Trump the ability to engage in every whim desired and allow anti-American despots abroad, like Vladimir Putin, to accomplish their own domestic and foreign policy goals.
