A Decidedly Mixed Bag
Some early thoughts on the potential national security team for Trump 2.0.
The Cabinet is an institution that has lasted just as long as the American republic – nearly 240 years now. It has been part of the constitutional order from the very beginning, aiding the president in his responsibilities. It allows the chief executive to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and defend our interests at home and abroad. The most important members of that advisory and executory body deal with national security matters, both internally and externally, as this is the paramount responsibility of the federal government. These appointments – made by the president and given the advice and consent of the Senate – are some of the most significant decisions a national leader will make during his tenure in office. So, yes, the Cabinet matters a lot.
And as the re-inauguration of Donald Trump rapidly approaches, his choices for these key posts are under a great deal of scrutiny. As long-time readers of this blog will know, I am no fan of the incoming president. I think he is a charlatan of the highest order, a carnival huckster like none other in American history, and a man who has no business even visiting the highest office in the land. But luckily for Trump, my opinion is not controlling on American affairs. He was duly elected in a sizeable nationwide victory in November and will rightfully be seated in the Oval Office on January 20, 2025, despite any and all protestations. As such, he has the right to nominate whoever he chooses to staff his Cabinet and executive office, just as the Senate has the right to accept or decline those nominations.
When it comes to his national security picks, the group is hit-or-miss. Some are stellar, others less so. Some are abhorrent, others excellent. What follows is a letter grade and some basic thoughts on each of 9 crucial Cabinet picks in the realm of national security and foreign policy. I have plenty of thoughts on picks that don’t fit this criterion – RFK Jr. and Lori Chavez-DeRemer are a disaster and the energy team is spectacular – but this list focuses exclusively on those that do. I will not harp too much on Trump loyalty, despite my distaste for it, as those people are the universe of possible picks in a Trump administration. A MAGA Cabinet will never be full of my personal favorites, but it could be full of competent and qualified choices – or not.
Secretary of State: Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)
This is the best choice that Donald Trump could have made for the position of America’s top diplomat and number two presence in foreign affairs. Senator Rubio is a serious man who understands geopolitics, supports American primacy abroad, and knows the challenges we face from our enemies. He is steadfast in his backing of American power, desires a confrontational strategy against our dictatorial foes, and is whip-smart and highly knowledgeable about the diplomatic process and apparatus. He will not cower or conciliate our adversaries, nor will he repudiate our allies. If Rubio is allowed a largely free hand at State, the next four years could be truly transformational for American foreign policy – and in the best possible way.
Grade: A+
UN Ambassador: Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
Representative Stefanik is another excellent choice, particularly for the position she has been selected for. As anyone who has read my work knows, I am no fan of the United Nations. In fact, the best descriptor of that malign institution comes from Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars: “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.” The job of America’s ambassador to the UN is to attack the institution, push back forcefully against its anti-American sentiments and hardcore progressive bent, call out its rampant antisemitism, prosecute the case against our foes, and generally throw as big a wrench in the works as is humanly possible. And Elise Stefanik is the right woman for that job. Her work in the House of Representatives in calling out progressive overreach and anti-American sentiment has been stellar, as evinced by her utter gutting of the presidents of several Ivy League colleges over the antisemitism on their campuses. She will follow in the well-trodden footsteps of Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Nikki Haley in lambasting the UN from inside the house.
Grade: A
Secretary of Defense: Pete Hegseth
Hegseth is a decorated veteran, has served as the leader of various military charities, has written multiple popular books on reforming the armed forces, and serves as a recurring host on Fox News. He is young, charismatic, and well-spoken. His opinions on military affairs are generally good, as he is a proponent of peace through strength, sees our adversaries clearly, and wants to refocus the military on warfighting prowess. He would be perfectly fit for a position revamping the recruiting process in the military, something that is highly necessary if we are to remain a strong fighting force. But he is seriously underqualified to run the largest and most complex bureaucracy in the federal government. Prior management experience is a must for the top job at the Pentagon, and Hegseth essentially has none. He would get absolutely steamrolled in the position, would not operate well with our allies or strongly against our enemies, and would fail to make the much-needed reforms he campaigns for. His personal behavior and character are also highly suspect, but that is far less concerning than his genuine incompetence at the role. He has the right ideas, but no path to achieving those aims.
Grade: C
National Security Advisor: Representative Mike Waltz (R-FL)
The position of National Security Advisor is one of paramount importance in any administration. The person who holds that job has the ear of the president on everything related to the exceptionally broad field of national security. The voice of this person is perhaps the most powerful in the executive branch on these topics, so the choice is critical. Those who fail at the job, like current occupant Jake Sullivan, make lasting negative impacts on both American interests and the world itself. The job has been filled by such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Colin Powell. Representative Mike Waltz, a former Green Beret and serious foreign policy hawk, is a very good pick to fill the shoes of those legends and undo the disastrous policies of the past four years. He is perhaps the most clear-eyed congressman on the China threat – now that Mike Gallagher is no longer in the legislature – and is a reliable and knowledgeable proponent of a strong America with a forward posture overseas. His presence at the head of the president’s national security table will be a highly welcome one given Trump’s natural inclinations to listen to whoever last holds his ear.
Grade: A-
CIA Director: John Ratcliffe
Under the first Trump administration, Ratcliffe, a former Texas congressman, served as Director of National Intelligence. In that role, he was both an attack dog for Trump and someone who was unafraid to buck the entrenched consensus of the intelligence community. He was accused of playing politics with intelligence, but this was a largely-overblown criticism leveled by those who would oppose any nomination made by Donald Trump. He was deeply critical of the Russia investigation, which, in hindsight, was not at all unreasonable. He also publicized, against the wishes of the intelligence community, the fact of Iranian interference in the 2020 election intended to oppose then-President Trump. This willingness to go against the consensus will be a net positive in his job as CIA Director. That institution – one which should project American competence and power abroad – is basically useless at this point at doing anything other than collecting signals intelligence and creating novel ways of intervening in domestic affairs. Change is needed, and Ratcliffe is meant to deliver it. Given his past experience, he may actually be able to do it. He is far too much of a Trump sycophant for my taste, but he is certainly qualified for the job.
Grade: B
Director of National Intelligence: Tulsi Gabbard
The position of DNI is one that focuses on coordination between intelligence agencies, the preparation of the president’s daily briefing, and the overall collection and dissemination of intelligence products within the administration and to Congress. It is not itself supremely powerful, nor does it direct intelligence collection in any truly meaningful way. And thank the good Lord above for that, because former Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) belongs nowhere near the levers of power of the American intelligence apparatus. Gabbard is a progressive ideologue who burnished her anti-war stance by licking the boots of (now-former) Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. She parrots Russian, Iranian, and Chinese propaganda like she is a wind-up doll with no other lines. Her ideas are fundamentally antagonistic to the robust defense of American interests and play right into the hands of our foes. She is not, as some critics contend, a literal Russian asset, but she is the dictionary definition of a useful idiot. And useful idiots should not be nominated for the position of DNI.
Grade: D
Secretary of Homeland Security: Governor Kristi Noem (R-SD)
Another bad pick from the Trump team is South Dakota governor Kristi Noem for DHS. She was selected largely because Trump likes her, she is a governor, is physically attractive, and she was passed over for the vice-presidential slot. Other than that, she is not at all qualified for the job. DHS is a large and unwieldy bureaucracy that probably shouldn’t exist; after all, it was purely a creation of the post-9/11 era and has exceeded its remit repeatedly. The largest job of DHS is immigration enforcement, one of the most important issues of this election cycle to the American people. Nothing Noem has done in her career shows she is capable of implementing the massive changes to policy that must be carried out to accomplish the goals Trump outlined in his campaign. She won’t necessarily endanger the United States with her incompetent buffoonery, but she will certainly be a net negative for the administration in a job it is relying on to succeed.
Grade: C-
Attorney General: Pam Bondi
Pam Bondi, the former Attorney General of Florida, is a perfectly fine choice for the same position nationally. She is a highly-qualified lawyer who has a long history in Republican electoral politics, has a good relationship with the president-elect, and is experienced at running a large legal bureaucracy. She will do just fine at the job. She won’t be exceptional, nor will she be terrible. For a Trump administration pick, that’s well above par. And compared to the other Floridian who was named to the post before her – former Representative Matt Gaetz – she is positively sterling. Gaetz would have been an F—- pick, combining smarmy personal behavior with obscene Trump flattery and incredible inexperience with a genuinely anti-American plan to use the Justice Department as a personal vendetta settler. Bondi has none of those problems, but is still a fierce presence who will deliver the reforms that Trump is expecting. In that, she is a massive upgrade from a man who was almost universally despised by his colleagues – and for good reason.
Grade: B+
FBI Director: Kash Patel
Kash Patel was a former federal prosecutor, a high-ranking congressional legal aide on the intelligence committee, and served as a top advisor to both the Pentagon and the DNI during the first Trump administration. He is, in this respect, basically qualified to take on the position running America’s top law enforcement agency. Some, including myself, would prefer a nominee with a stronger law enforcement background, but Patel meets the basic criteria necessary for the job. Outside of those basic qualifications, however, Patel is highly problematic as a pick for the FBI. He has pushed for not only reform of the institution, which is absolutely needed, but for a total destruction of the whole FBI edifice. He has argued for the political prosecution of Trump’s enemies in government and media – a deeply anti-American position that should be unacceptable coming from either party. He wants to further politicize the federal justice system instead of de-politicizing it. He may not be able to carry out all of these aims, but the fact that he desires to do so is worrying enough.
Grade: C-
These are the most important national security picks that are currently on the docket for Senate approval in the coming months. Many, if not most, of these choices will be ratified by the legislature. Some will succeed in their jobs – Rubio, Waltz, and Stefanik come to mind – and some will fail – here’s looking at you, Kristi Noem and Kash Patel. Ideally, some of these nominees (cough, Tulsi Gabbard, cough) will falter either before reaching the Senate (a la Gaetz) or be rejected by a majority of the body. But we should act as though these picks are the ones who will staff the incoming administration and prepare for policy ideas and outcomes accordingly. In that way, these selections are a decidedly mixed bag, neither great nor terrible. One can only hope the good outshines the bad and the Senate does its job of advising the president on his flawed selections.
In short, more Rubio, less Gabbard, please.