Haste Lays Waste
The Ominous Certitude Behind Trump’s Frenzied Nominating Process
Welcome to the Civic Way journal, our quick take on the relevance of current events to America’s future governance. The author, Bob Melville, is the founder of Civic Way, a nonprofit dedicated to good government, and a management consultant with over 45 years of experience improving public agencies.
Trump’s … appointees are not intended to be his advisers. They are his shock troops. – David Remnick
The Leadership Challenge
President-elect Trump is moving at breakneck speed to form his new administration. He appreciates how little time there is to make the massive federal bureaucracy as responsive to him as a small family business. He understands, in a way he couldn’t begin to grasp in 2017, that he cannot do what he wants to do without an army of submissive political crusaders.
The federal government, with a $6.8 trillion annual budget and over 2.2 million civilian employees, rivals the nation’s largest corporations[i]. The President oversees the federal bureaucracy primarily through the Executive Office of the President (EOP)[ii] and presidential cabinet[iii]. The executive branch also includes several independent agencies[iv]and government-owned corporations[v]. Under the current rules, there are about 4,000 presidential appointees, including 1,340 eligible Senate-confirmed positions.
Given the sheer number of appointments, a president can benefit from experience managing large organizations. In recent decades, some candidates had experience running large entities (e.g., Reagan, Dukakis and Romney) and some did not (e.g., Kerry, McCain and Obama). However, given the President’s unique role as “leader of the free world,” managerial experience is but one factor.
The presidency requires qualities far beyond managerial competency—like vision, character, temperament, humility and charisma. A president must possess the skills to forge an administration that will advance the national interest. A president must surround him or herself with good leaders who will, in turn, recruit, direct and motivate others. An effective president must seek other views (no matter how unpleasant), build consensus among diverse interests and embrace accountability.
During his first term, Trump bragged about hiring the “best people” for government positions, but he never defined “best.” Given the ethical issues that surrounded some appointments, this definition remains a mystery. However, for his second term, it appears that Trump’s definition of “best” seems clearer, with a single-minded focus on one simple factor, fealty to Trump’s agenda.
The US Senate’s Vital Role
One of the Senate’s functions … is to shield the decision-making process against the transient moods and trends of society at large ... – Hannah Arendt
Trump does not seek input on his nominees. While he may occasionally feign interest in the opinions of others—like Elon Musk—regarding potential appointments, he trusts his own instincts above all others. That is one reason he has little patience for the Senate confirmation process. He already knows who he wants to appoint so why should he have to seek the Senate’s permission? Instead, ever swaggering and defiant, Trump has insisted that the Senate rubber stamp his appointments.
Many Senators, eager to curry favor, no doubt agree with Trump’s position. Senator Mullin (R-OK) said, “His picks have maybe been unconventional, but … the American people wanted that.” Senator Tuberville (R-AL) denied the Senate’s duty to advise the president-elect on his Cabinet nominees outright, arguing that “Democrats ... should do all the background work.” Senator Graham (R-SC), with the spine of an invertebrate, appears willing to approve any Trump nominee.
According to the US Constitution, however, the president “shall nominate” and “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.” Federal law allows for temporary recess appointments (during a Senate recess), but the Supreme Court has limited this provision. In a 2014 decision, the Court curbed Obama’s power to make recess appointments[vi].
Trump may not agree, but second opinions usually help us make better decisions. To that end, most Americans appear to support the way we have always made presidential appointments. According to a recent CBS News-YouGov poll, 75 percent of Americans—and over 50 percent of Republicans—believe that Trump should appoint agency leaders subject to Senate hearings and approval.
The Method to the Madness
Barely one month has passed since the election. With uneven, if not negligible, vetting, Trump has announced over 60 nominees thus far. There have been so many nominees, and they have come so fast, that it has been hard to fully assess their credentials, let alone investigate any ethical issues as they arise.
However, the president-elect’s approach appears to be relatively simple, making each nominee’s suitability a function of the nominee’s designated landing spot. The first round of nominees is slotted for three broad types of agencies: 1) power departments, 2) promise departments and 3) serenity departments. As explained below, from a Trumpian perspective, the agency type determines the leadership needs.
The power departments are those with the military or legal means to enforce Trump’s agenda[vii]. They include Defense, CIA, NID, Justice and FBI, agencies created by Congress to protect our security. Generally, Trump has named fanatical foot soldiers to fill these positions often without regard to character or qualifications. Examples include Hegseth (Defense), Ratcliffe (CIA), Gabbard[viii] (NID), Gaetz[ix] (Justice) and Patel (FBI). Another power agency is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) where Brendan Carr, who wrote the Project 2025 FCC chapter, is nominated for chair.
The promise departments are those best positioned to fulfill Trump’s loudest campaign promises. They include Homeland Security (deportation), Interior (fossil fuel drilling), Education (curriculum) and Health and Human Services (vaccines). Illustrative nominees include Noem and Homan (Homeland Security), McMahon (Education) and Burgum (Interior[x]). The Kennedy nomination is odd, not because of his MAGA-friendly conspiracy theories, but for his non-MAGA ideas (e.g., abortion and drug pricing).
The serenity departments are entities Trump will likely employ to assure allies and markets. Amid Trump world’s constant chaos and drama, it is easy to overlook Trump’s focus on potential threats to his legitimacy. Always aware of domestic markets and world events, he needs some agencies to calm international waters (e.g., State and National Security Council) and some to mitigate domestic storms (e.g., Treasury and Council of Economic Advisers). Examples of relevant nominees include Rubio (State), Waltz (NSC), Bessent (Treasury) and Hassett (CEA Chair).
Finally, Russ Vought’s nomination as Director of the Office of Management and Budget Director (OMB) marks Trump’s commitment to Project 2025. Vought, acting OMB director in 2020, is a Project 2025 architect. More than any other nominee, Vought confirms Trump’s intent—despite earlier disavowals—to aggressively expand the executive branch. Vought, who views Democrats as an existential threat, has pledged to “bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will.”
Spotting the Initial Patterns
It is still early, but enough nominees have been announced to make a few general observations about the nomination process, and the nominees it has produced:
The obsession with presidential loyalty has left insufficient time for testing the experience of potential nominees, thereby producing a cabinet with inadequate relevant experience.
While some nominees are serious public servants with diverse views, the cabinet is the most politically extreme in memory, with many nominees dedicated to upheaval or revenge[i].
Despite Trump’s professed ignorance of Project 2025, several nominees have strong ties to Project 2025 or participated in its development.
The cabinet’s Fox News connection and imprimatur are glaring. Some nominees are regular Fox hosts, some are paid Fox contributors, and many have become Fox fixtures[ii].
Despite Trump’s promise to fight for ordinary Americans, he is building the wealthiest cabinet in history, one with several billionaires (plus Musk and Ramaswamy)[iii] and megadonors.
Several nominees raise serious moral questions about their behavior and character.
· Trump’s tendency to reward family members is just starting to reemerge[iv].
This time, some of us hoped that Trump would rise to the job. That he would form a cabinet that would help him govern the entire nation. That he would recruit leaders with the character and aptitude to manage federal agencies in the public interest. That he would set aside grievances and select the most able people to help him find consensus and solve the nation’s most serious problems.
Thus far, Trump’s hasty post-election casting call gives us little reason for hope. His cabinet nominations demonstrate a puzzling contempt for our nation’s most fundamental values and traditions. While some nominees are capable public servants, most are better known for their extremism. More hostile takeover than collaborative transition. An inexplicable avoidance of transition protocols. The triumph of resentment over aspiration and retribution over redemption. Promises of payback instead of revival. Potential conflicts of interest. Shameful allegations of selling access.
If Trump’s goal was to find qualified leaders prepared to govern and bring out the best in him and the nation, the nomination process is failing him. However, if his aim was to find disciples who will blindly carry out his whims and satisfy his craving for retribution, his process is delivering the goods.
Weimar Redux?
We know that elections have consequences, but the implications of 2024 election remain unknown. However, Trump’s nominees, especially those chosen to lead the power agencies, offer some clues to Trump’s plans for his second term. If Russ Vought, the chosen OMB Director, is any indication, the Trump administration will pursue every opportunity to override constitutional guardrails and expand the power of the executive branch.
It is clear that Trump intends to establish what Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. once labelled an Imperial Presidency, but to what end? We can only speculate. One likely move will be to seize direct control of the federal government’s independent agencies, such as the Federal Reserve, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The results will depend on the degree of interference.
The second term agenda could entail even more extreme measures. Obliterating democratic norms.
Gutting the civil service. Resurrecting the spoils system. Weaponizing federal agencies against political opponents. Invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops on domestic soil. Such measures won’t disrupt our Constitutional system so much as they will lay waste to it.
One serious question: what further damage will he do to the Supreme Court? Its Citizens United decision has corrupted our legislative branch. Its Roe versus Wade mistake has directly damaged our personal rights and freedoms. What is next?