By: Yara Handschin
Donald Trump’s second-term cabinet, driven by personal loyalty over expertise, signals a dangerous drift toward authoritarian governance cloaked in patriotic spectacle.
When Donald Trump was elected to serve his first presidential term in 2017, the United States electorate warmly welcomed what they believed was a red-blooded freedom-fighter who would deliver the country into the forgiving lap of traditionalist patriotism. Was it anticipated that this patriotism would reach so far back into US history as to revive the transatlantic ideal of monarchic rule? Unlikely. In Trump’s current term, however, as U.S. citizens are left to meditate upon Trump’s slew of colonization threats, borderline-unconstitutional executive orders, and outbursts of censuring rage aimed directly at various world leaders, they are faced with a picture that that could almost be mistaken for a royal portrait of King George III. And much like any other sovereign, Trump has his very own high court officials, a cabinet of 21 senior executives who head the various agencies of the federal government.
While Trump’s cabinet appointments have drawn scrutiny for their overt emphasis on personal loyalty, it would be inaccurate to suggest that such considerations are unique to his presidency. George W. Bush, for instance, selected key figures not solely for expertise, but for their demonstrated allegiance to the administration’s agenda. Condoleezza Rice replaced Colin Powell as the U.S. Secretary of State not due to superior diplomatic capability, but because of her consistent alignment with White House policy. Similarly, Alberto Gonzalez—the U.S. Attorney General from 2005 to 2007— and Margaret Spellings—the U.S. Secretary of Education from 2005 to 2009—were promoted in part because of their ideological conformity. These examples reveal that loyalty, to varying degrees, has long factored into presidential staffing decisions. The distinction in Trump’s case lies not in the presence of loyalty as a criterion, but in the extent to which it eclipses all others. Whereas Bush’s loyalists possessed relevant experience and policy familiarity, Trump’s appointees often lack even the pretense of qualification. Secretary of State Rubio’s rapid transformation from critic to surrogate and Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s elevation despite negligible defense credentials reflect a deepened politicization of the executive branch, one that actively sidelines dissent and detaches governance from expertise. Trump’s innovation, therefore, is not loyalty itself, but the willingness to render experience irrelevant in favor of personal fealty – a dynamic that threatens the functionality of democratic bureaucracy.
Among the most telling appointments in the Trump administration are those of Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, two figures whose careers have been dramatically reoriented around service to the President’s personal agenda. Rubio, once hailed as a principled conservative with a distinct foreign policy outlook, was appointed Secretary of State despite having previously voiced deep reservations about Trump’s political character and global posture. His subsequent shift, evidenced by his support for key administration policies following Trump’s 2024 electoral victory as well as his defense of the President during impeachment proceedings, is emblematic of the cabinet-wide metamorphosis that characterizes Trump’s executive circle. Rubio’s tenure is less defined by the pursuit of the U.S.’ diplomatic strength than by an unwavering defense of the President’s political image abroad. Likewise, Hegseth’s appointment as Secretary of Defense can be read as a symbolic affirmation of the administration’s preference for ideological allegiance over military acumen. Known more for his television persona than any substantial record of defense administration, Hegseth’s qualification rests chiefly on his vocal loyalty to the president and his willingness to publicly challenge the so-called “deep state.” His role consolidates the administration’s militarized aesthetic of spectacle and ideological purity.
These appointments reflect a deeper pattern of loyalty-based governance that has steadily eroded the expectation of bureaucratic impartiality. Nowhere is this clearer than in the evolution of the U.S. Attorney General’s office. In his first presidential term, Trump ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from the Russia investigation – a procedural move that the president perceived as a betrayal. His successor, William Barr, demonstrated a sharply contrasting posture, particularly in his management of the Mueller report, the official document summarizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Barr preemptively framed the findings of the report in a manner favorable to Trump, effectively shielding him from legal and political fallout. In another notable example, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was removed after resisting the President’s proposal to deploy the military against civilians during protests. His replacement, Christopher Miller, was ideologically aligned with Trump and assumed the post without the hesitation or professional dissent that had marked Esper’s tenure.
But really, what does a firebrand powerhouse like Trump need toadies for? The reason blind loyalty has outclassed practical competence so starkly in the applicant-vetting process of the current administration is because the latter simply isn’t needed. The MAGA movement has consistently demonstrated a strong focus on the persona of Donald Trump, with many of its members showing deep loyalty to him rather than to a specific set of policies or principles. This loyalty is often reinforced by the repetition and internalization of narratives that have been widely disputed or disproven, such as claims of widespread election fraud in 2020. Its practical policy implementations this term have been widely criticized for eroding protections for America’s most vulnerable populations, tanking the S&P 500, and amplifying political polarization through performative media tactics – including alienating large parts of the electorate with bizarre, AI-generated reels. In this context, Trump’s cabinet isn’t judged as much by its results as by its ability to enrage Trump’s opponents. If the media is angry, Trump’s base is happy. That means they’ll cheer absurd pictures of the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, cosplaying as an immigration enforcement agent, holding a rifle and wearing a tactical vest, simply because it upsets their critics’ vision of responsible, sober leadership. And so we ask the same question that any economic-minded businessman would: Why bother genuinely serving an electorate that you could leave to rot under miserable policy decisions that are easily blamed on the blurry enemy that is the “woke left?” And more importantly, why rock the boat when the checks keep clearing? The coupled strategies of inflammatory speech and the gradual introduction of governmental groupthink seem to be padding a commendable career in politics for our spry new king. And until the U.S.abandons its willful ignorance and recognizes that democracy is a privilege and not a right, it will be seized – with force and partisan sycophancy.
“There won’t be a transfer, frankly. There’ll be a continuation.”
– Sept. 23, 2020, Donald Trump in a speech during a press conference
Leave a Reply