Donald Trump’s Team of Yes Men and Ideologues Shows There Will be No Guardrails Around His Presidency

As Donald Trump rolls out appointments to his Cabinet and White House staff, it is clear that personal and ideological loyalty to him and his agenda is more important than competence or adherence to ethical or constitutional norms.  

His most egregious hires include designating former Fox News host and Army veteran Pete Hegseth as Secretary of State for Defence, a man who has previously expressed support for overturning convictions against soldiers found guilty of war crimes, and scepticism about women serving in the military.

Trump has appointed Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, neither of whom have any experience working in government, to head a new body to cut government spending, eliminate regulations and re-structure federal agencies.

This will probably result in the shredding of vital environmental, health and consumer protection measures, and the firing or resignations of thousands of experienced officials, to the detriment of government services.

Trump has also selected former Arkansas Governor Mick Huckabee to be the US Ambassador to Israel, a man who has supported the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in direct violation of international law. 

Elise Stefanik, tapped to become US Ambassador to the UN, vigorously defended Trump through his two impeachments, has little foreign policy experience, and is primarily known for her staunch defence of Israel and criticism of the UN’s approach there – hardly traits which will smooth her path in New York. 

Trump announced that former Congressman Lee Zeldin from New York would become Head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Zeldin has limited environmental experience, has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries, supported Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords, and expressed scepticism about renewable energy targets. He was also one of 126 Republican House members to sign onto the Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 

Trump has also appointed officials known for their willingness to adopt extremely harsh measures against illegal migrants, such as Tom Homan, a champion of Trump’s family separation policy, to be his new “border czar”, and immigration hardliner, Stephen Miller, to be his deputy chief of staff.   

Yet even worse than these appointments are the designations of Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida as Trump’s Attorney General, and Tulsi Gabbard to be his Director of National Intelligence, overseeing all 18 of the nation’s intelligence agencies.

Gaetz shot to fame for encouraging the rioters on January 6th, and has railed for years against both the Department of Justice and the FBI for alleged politicization. His  resentment against them is probably fuelled by the fact that he himself has been under investigation for sexual misconduct, illicit drug use and dispensation of special favors to cronies.

Tulsi Gabbard  is a former democratic congresswoman turned Trump stalwart, who dabbles in conspiracy theories, has engaged with autocrats such as Syrian President Assad, and frequently propagates Russian propaganda. It boggles the mind to think how Justice and Intelligence officials are going to be able to work with leaders whose views are so utterly opposed to their institutions’ values and missions.

Trump’s least contentious appointment so far is probably former Army Green Beret service member, and current Florida Congressman, Mike Waltz, to be his National Security Advisor.

Waltz has supported Trump’s calls for Europeans to pay more into NATO, expressed scepticism about how long the US should continue to support Ukraine, favouring greater focus on the threat from China, and criticised the military leadership for being excessively focused on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at the expense of performance and accountability.

But Waltz has not endorsed pulling out of NATO, has expressed support for allies in the Pacific, and draws on extensive security policy experience, for example, through serving as defence policy director for two former defence Secretaries, Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, and as current chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on military logistics. He is also on the select committee on intelligence.    

Some Republican foreign policy experts in the more traditional, internationalist mould, also detect a sliver of hope in the announcement that Florida Senator Marco Rubio will become Trump’s Secretary of State.

Rubio has previously differed with Trump over support for alliances, and long been an advocate for principled US leadership in the world. The question is whether this is the version of Rubio we will actually get, given his more recent willingness to kowtow to Trump, even to the extent of voting to block aid to Ukraine earlier this year, on the flimsy excuse that the US needed to focus on security along its borders.  

However, the fear that Trump would surround himself largely with yes men and women is being borne out. Trump has made clear that there is no place in his administration for well-qualified officials who served in his first term in office, but also occasionally stood up to him, such as former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, or former US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley.

In this election, the Republicans also won back control of the Senate, and have narrowly retained control of the House of Representatives. Thanks to appointments made in Trump’s first term, the Supreme Court contains a locked in conservative majority, and has displayed in its previous rulings its willingness to give Trump a free hand in how he conducts his Presidency.

Trump’s choice as Chief of Staff, his former campaign manager, Susie Wiles, is known for her discretion, and willingness to give advice behind the scenes, but also for not confronting Trump.  

There will be no guardrails around this Presidency. This will be an imperial administration. 

The most immediate danger is that Trump will be surrounded by fawning advisors who suffer from groupthink, with no one willing to point out the risks or drawbacks of his policy impulses. This is likely to lead to even worse policy decisions and outcomes, as is seen in all authoritarian regimes, where officials are too scared to speak up.  

One of the most chilling rumours is that the Trump transition team is considering a draft executive order to establish a military review board of retired military personnel, with the power to review senior generals, and recommend the removal of any deemed unfit for leadership.

Not only will this inhibit the willingness of senior military commanders to “tell truth to power”, but it also reduces the potential obstacles in Trump’s way if he orders the military to act in controversial ways – such as to control alleged civic unrest at home, or participate in mass deportations. 

Another consequence is a likely increase in self-censorship, as agencies, organisations, and businesses all try to avoid incurring “the wrath of Sauron” upon their heads. Already, before the election, newspapers like the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post decided not to issue any election endorsements, for fear of being on the wrong side. 

I have heard from colleagues in the think tank world that they are being told to tone down their public criticisms of Trump policies.

Non-governmental agencies and international aid bodies fear that Trump will slash the foreign aid budget. 

Education experts fear that Trump appointees will impose mandates on school authorities to change their curriculum, for example to downplay controversial historical episodes, such as the displacement of native Americans, and America’s history of racial injustice. 

Amidst this catalogue of woe, I can’t help but retain a degree of anger at Joe Biden’s role in enabling this outcome. For all the critiques of Trump’s undoubted authoritarian nature, it could be argued that Biden frequently conducted himself in stubborn, tin-eared, high-handed ways as well, which paved the way for Trump’s election victory.  

Consider his disregard for the pleas of allies, and the views of many of his own national security officials, not to withdraw from Afghanistan in the way that he did.  

Consider his refusal to give Ukraine all the weapons it needed, when it needed them, and without restrictions. Consider his decision to oppose granting Ukraine NATO membership at the summit his administration hosted in Washington this summer.  Of what avail is it for Anthony Blinken to assure Ukraine and NATO members this week of America’s enduring support? Too little, too late.  

Consider his decision to retain many of the tariffs on foreign goods introduced by Trump, despite criticising Trump’s plan to introduce more tariffs in his second administration, because they drive up consumer prices and inflation. 

Consider his disregard for the growing pleas of border communities and urban mayors, even in Democrat districts, to take more seriously the massive influx of immigrants across the border with Mexico, as a result of his rescinding of numerous Trump-era restrictions. His open border policy, for the first three years of his term, even managed to alienate Hispanic communities living in the US legally, for fear they would get caught up in the public backlash.  

Consider his attempts to bypass Congressional authority on the budget, to ram through student loan write-offs, which largely benefited the prosperous middle class, at the expense of non-college educated citizens.  

Consider his tone-deaf boasts about his economic record, even as working-class Americans struggled with unprecedented cost-of-living increases.  

Consider his failure to understand the degree of public antipathy to identity politics, even amongst minorities themselves.

Consider his decision to run again for President, after having initially declared that he would be a transitional figure. Consider his refusal to step down even when his mental and physical frailties became glaringly apparent, until Nancy Pelosi engineered his ouster. Consider the role of his closest advisors, and even his Vice President, Kamala Harris, in covering up the extent of his decline.

Consider his dismissive reference on the very eve of the election to Trump supporters as “garbage”. 

Consider his refusal, even now, to restrict arms sales to Israel, despite UN agencies confirming that Israel has failed to adhere to his own administration’s demand that it allow more aid into Gaza. This is in naked contradiction with US legal requirements under Section 620i of the Foreign Assistance Act, which requires that the President halt security assistance to any foreign government that restricts US humanitarian aid. 

Under Biden’s watch, Gaza has been obliterated, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, and millions of Palestinians face starvation. His administration has failed to secure the release of the hostages, bring about an end to the conflict or alleviate the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Millions of Lebanese are also now displaced and facing a cruel winter. Yet, still the arms flow to Israel.

Is it any wonder that Trump made inroads amongst almost every category of voter? 

As Democrats wring their hands over what faces the country and the world under Trump, they would do well to also ask themselves, where were their guardrails around Biden?