Governing in a bubble where loyalty is required and disagreement is punished eventually pops under the reality of crises that cannot fit ideologically-curated facts or be managed by a weakened administrative state.
The Trump administration has recently fired prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 cases against the President in an effort to “purge agencies of career employees seen as insufficiently loyal” as reported by the Associated Press. This demand for allegiance over truth or justice bakes a proneness to contradiction directly into the Trump agenda, wedging open gaps where the administration becomes vulnerable.
By refusing to adhere to facts, the administration undermines its ability to effectively govern. It’s a worldview that disregards expert consensus – whether that be scientific, legal or otherwise – and collapses in confrontation with reality when it comes home to roost.
On the other hand, failing to acknowledge the existing competence of the new regime risks underestimating it.
Trump isn’t merely blustering through governance non-strategically.
The new administration has evidently drawn heavily from “Project 2025,” a right-wing Heritage Foundation presidential transition plan. Several strategic actions by Trump have aligned with the policy plan, which boasts the goal of “closing wasteful and corrupt bureaus and offices” on its official website. Trump has, for instance, established the Department of Government Efficiency to “shrink the administrative state” according to a White House fact sheet.
But rather than appoint qualified officials to the various institutions that comprise the federal government, Trump has prioritized subservience over experience.
Among his picks are names like Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence and Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Neither of these picks have prior experience in their respective departments. Yet both, like several others, have been confirmed by the Republican-led Senate.
One thing these picks have in common? Both were handpicked by the Trump administration.
“The nation should not have to worry that the intelligence assessments the President receives are tainted by a Director of National Intelligence with a history of alarming lapses in judgment,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, the only Senate Republican to vote out of party line for Gabbard’s confirmation.
Regarding Hegseth, McConnell said that the former Fox news host had “failed to demonstrate he will pass the test” of “effective management of nearly 3 million military and civilian personnel, an annual budget of nearly $1 trillion, and alliances and partnerships around the world … with staggering consequences for the security of the American people and our global interests.” McConnell voted to confirm Hegseth despite this assessment.
With few exceptions, Congressional Republicans have failed to challenge the legion of questionable nominations and executive actions that have flowed from the White House since the start of Trump’s second term.
With the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) broad-scoped funding freeze, which halts funds appropriated by Congress and directly challenges the body’s constitutional-sanctioned power of the purse, few Republicans have pushed back substantively.
Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, for example, states: “All agencies shall immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.”
When pressed at his confirmation hearing on whether the Impoundment Control Act, a law which has been upheld by the courts that requires the executive branch to request permission and negotiate with Congress to pause Congressionally-approved funds, “Project 2025” co-author and Trump appointee Russell Vought stated: “The President ran on the notion that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. I agree with that.”
Vought was then confirmed by Senate Republicans as the head of Trump’s OMB.
In conditions such as these, when even allies of the president whose power is threatened by his demands don’t use their lawful power to challenge him, Trump becomes vulnerable to acting on select information that is not necessarily complete or correct.
One inexperienced Director of National Intelligence is emblematic of the administration’s larger predicament, but not the end of the story. With the choking of funds and the dismantling of agencies that help the Federal Government make informed decisions, it is dissolving its own capacity to respond to forthcoming crises.
CLARIFICATION: This article has changed from its original printed version in the Feb. 21 issue of Collegian.
