For a president-elect, finding the right people to lead our nation is no easy task. From maintaining diplomatic relations in the State Department, to keeping the U.S. safe from external threats in the Department of Homeland Security, to building up infrastructure and living conditions in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, each cabinet position requires great skill from the secretaries who take control of them.
Thus, when the time comes to choose these leaders at the onset of a new presidential term, the president-elect has an important job. Whomever he selects to lead the executive branch alongside him will determine its effectiveness. But more importantly, these cabinet leaders will be the face of the United States, showing the rest of the world our strength in who we are and the policies we uphold.
Sadly, based on some of Donald Trump’s recent cabinet picks, it’s clear that the executive branch will not stand strong if they are confirmed.
Some of Trump’s picks are much more qualified and better suited to lead compared to others. Among all, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who has been tapped to lead the State Department, has had critical experience as the Vice Chair of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence and a senior member of the Committee on Foreign Relations. In the past two decades since he served as a member of the West Miami City Commission, his views on issues such as immigration and foreign policy have certainly shifted. However, it is still likely that he will have a more moderate voice in the second Trump administration.
However, other picks are drawing negative attention from the media, especially Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence. Understandably, this is because of their lack of experience for these positions and their approaches to them.
First, Hegseth is not qualified enough to be Defense Secretary. It’s not just because he has tattoos or because he’s only a veteran-turned Fox News personality. More notably because of the plan, or lack of thereof, he has to change the military’s structure and his controversial views that go along with it.
Having served in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hegseth is not fond of the diversity, equity and inclusion programs that have made the military turn “woke,” as he has put it, over the years. In particular, he has mentioned that advertisements featuring diverse groups in the military are hindering recruitment and preventing higher numbers of men from joining. But no evidence exists to back up this point. Additionally, he has been vocal about his problems placing women in “physical, labor-intensive jobs” in the military, such as infantry artillery positions. These positions should be based on merit, regardless, but Hegseth doesn’t seem to believe in this aspect.
Meanwhile, one sexual assault allegation from 2017 is plaguing his reputation. Specifically, this incident took place between him and a woman at a hotel party they attended following a California Republican conference. Details have emerged of him yelling at her while intoxicated. In response to the charges, he has acknowledged the sexual encounter but said it was consensual, while the woman who made the allegation hasn’t spoken out.
Trump has pinpointed Hegseth as “tough, smart and a true believer in America First.” Ultimately, this illustrates how he is only willing to put those loyal to him and his “America First” policy in power. However, I believe that if he could see beyond Hegseth’s loyalty and actually notice the more problematic aspects, he would choose someone else who could better represent the nation’s defense forces.
On the other side of this lies Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic Hawaiian congresswoman-turned Republican who was heavily involved in Trump’s second campaign. While he has tapped her as Director of National Intelligence, many of her comments about Russia have especially drawn negative attention. In interviews and social-media posts, Gabbard “has blamed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and reiterated a Kremlin claim that Ukraine hosted U.S.-funded labs researching dangerous pathogens,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Despite this, however, she rejects accusations that she is an apologist for the Russian regime.
Some Democrats have made louder, false claims about this aspect of Gabbard’s views towards the war in Ukraine. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts even went as far to call her a “Russian asset,” which has since sparked criticism from Republicans on the other side of the aisle. Ultimately, while skepticism of her capabilities is understandable, I believe that it is important to let the process of her nomination roll out and, thus, allow senators to decide if she is worthy of the position.
Likewise, come 2025, we will see how all of Trump’s other nominees handle the pressure while sitting before Congress and, ultimately, if they are seen as truly fit to lead alongside the president-elect.
