Trump's Second Round Picks—The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
The Most Disruptive Unorthodox Candidate in American History Assembles The Most Disruptive Unorthodox Team.
I had been waiting patiently over the last few weeks to collect myself in the aftermath of the election results and wait for enough of President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominations to begin trickling in. (It is strange to use that title for a second time in a row; this hasn’t occurred in 132 years). Of course, in typical Trumpian fashion, some picks are good—a testament to his aytpical, though not infrequent, moments of sheer brilliance; some are bad, lacking the expected caliber required for the Federal government; and a few are outright ugly—in the political sense.
Beginning with the most important nomination the president presents to the United States Senate—Senator Marco Rubio for Secretary of State—I commend Mr. Trump for what is, without question, the greatest nomination to that post in the last 42 years. Mr. Rubio has been one of the most proactive advocates for a hawkish “peace through strength” foreign policy doctrine and one of the Senate’s greatest champions of American national interests.
Mr. Rubio's nomination comes as a welcome relief for our partners in the Middle East, particularly given his replacement of Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who disgracefully blackmailed Israel on top of his cowardly conduct of appeasement that has enabled Iranian aggression in the region. Mr. Rubio has been a consistent hawk on Iran, warning back during the Obama administration’s nuclear deal appeasement how Iran is “led by a Supreme Leader who is a radical Shia cleric with an apocalyptic vision of the future. He is not a traditional geopolitical actor who makes decisions based on borders...he has a religious apocalyptic vision of the future.”
Such common sense, that being that one cannot negotiate with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is an unhinged lunatic seeking to bring about the end times and the destruction of the United States, the House of Saud, and the State of Israel, is lost on our present so-called foreign policy elite.
Mr. Rubio will goad Mr. Trump into the correct direction on Russia—a policy of strength and of the United States being proactive rather than merely reactive, like under Biden—with the implementation of sanctions and an increased amount of lethal aid to Ukraine. He will, ideally, help Mr. Trump remember to be wary of the charms and false promises of Vladimir Putin, whom Mr. Rubio has always described as a criminal adversary no better than a thuggish gangster during his inevitable negotiation of a peace settlement with Ukraine.
Israel will no longer face unjust and arbitrary pressures from the United States, and support will not be conditioned on adhering to the whims of Hamas. Instead, it will be met with unwavering support from a State Department that will restore U.S. dominance on the world stage and confront adversaries with uncompromising resolve. Mr. Rubio will also restore much-needed credibility in the United States' conduct towards Nicolás Maduro and unwind our failed policy, that I have previously critiqued, and reimplement sanctions to bring that brute to heel.
Mr. Rubio is a phenomenal choice for Secretary of State, and he and the rest of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy team will be equally well served by Mike Waltz's nomination as National Security advisor. Mr. Waltz is one of the House’s most hawkish voices, particularly on China; formerly a Green Beret and Pentagon official, Mr. Waltz has called for “a new Monroe Doctrine” to block Chinese economic and military influence in the Americas, warning of “a clear and present threat to our country given the sophistication of the CCP's espionage operations.”
Mr. Waltz has raised awareness of the dangers of our dependence on Chinese resources, particularly relating to our national defense, citing that “South America offers a wide array of critical minerals” vital to U.S. strategic interests—he and Mr. Rubio would do well to negotiate an agreement with several of these nations on behalf of the Trump White House. Mr.Waltz has been a strong proponent of arming Ukraine, confronting Iranian proxies in the Middle East, and countering the growing alliance between Russia and North Korea—another exceptional pick by the president-elect.
Mr. Trump has several additional strong picks. Doug Burgum, who I erroneously predicted would be Mr. Trump’s Vice President, at the Interior Department will excel. Lee Zeldin, a relatively moderate former representative from Long Island, will do a brilliant job heading the EPA, and John Ratcliffe will do the same at the CIA. Chris Wright brings much-needed private sector expertise to the Department of Energy. One looks on with near admiration at these choices—stellar choices, choices that cynics would have expected of a Republican administration, but ones that the public as a whole could look at with confidence. This assumption, however, is predicated on the condition that one ignores Mr. Trump’s more controversial picks.
Mr. Trump ran on a promise to shake up Washington, to “drain the swamp,” and to utterly disrupt the status quo. In doing so, he achieved the largest Republican victory since 1988—therefore departures from traditional orthodoxies are expected, in some cases were demanded by the public, but that does not necessarily excuse, nor should it encourage, the confirmation of some of his choices. The grumblings began when he announced his pick for Secretary of Defense, FOX News host and former director of Vets For Freedom, Pete Hegseth. He is an unorthodox pick with an atypical resume for a Secretary of Defense, though many attacks against his nomination and himself are unfounded and disgraceful.
The View host Whoopi Goldberg insinuated that Mr. Hegseth, a twenty-year Army veteran with two Bronze Star medals who saw combat in deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, “clearly does not know anything about the military” and mocked him for being a weekend host rather than the full-time host of FOX and Friends. Senator Elizabeth Warren bizarrely chimed in, “All three of my brothers served in uniform. I respect every one of our servicemembers,” adding that “Donald Trump’s pick will make us less safe and must be rejected,” without ever elaborating on how Mr. Hegseth poses a risk to national security.
Now, there are legitimate concerns about Mr. Hegseth’s nomination—namely, his lack of managerial experience. In 2024, the Department of Defense had $1.99 trillion distributed among its six sub-components—a budget equivalent to the entire GDP of Russia. Overseeing it is a huge responsibility, but these pressures can be alleviated by nominating competent deputies, perhaps returnees familiar with the department's bureaucracy, who can lend a hand in that regard. I maintain that the benefits of Mr. Hegseth’s nomination outweigh the cons of his inexperience.
Mr. Hegseth has a demonstrated reverence for the military and a manifest desire to work toward reforming an institution that has faced severe challenges to its reputation and credibility over the past few years—an erosion of confidence following its disgraceful and humiliating exit from Afghanistan in 2021, dismal recruiting numbers, and an atrocious leader in Lloyd Austin, who kept the President of the United States, Joe Biden, in the dark for three days that he was hospitalized. Someone should inform Mrs. Warren that the pick who “makes us less safe” is the present occupant of the office, who went A.W.O.L. while American servicemen were actively in harm’s way, fighting against drone and missile attacks in the Middle East.
Mr. Hegseth knows the military and is the type of candidate prime for reform and returning it to its apex as the undisputed number-one fighting force on the planet. Having a Secretary of Defense who has fought in modern combat and served in our most recent wars—not as a General in headquarters but as a boots-on-the-ground infantryman—will lend a unique insight and a severe amount of credibility to modern warfare. Mr. Hegseth is a strong hawk on Iran, containing the influence of China, and supporting Ukraine in their fight for preservation against Russia—stances he will no doubt elaborate on during his Senate confirmation hearing, where he is likely to excel. Charles Cooke’s excellent defence of Mr. Hegseth summarizes the hidden brilliances of the pick
Similar sentiments of confidence cannot be expressed about Tulsi Gabbard, the formerly staunch progressive Democrat who conveniently reappeared into the political scene as a “born-again” Republican, who has been selected as Mr. Trump’s pick for Director of National Intelligence. Mrs. Gabbard is an odd choice for a plethora of reasons, the kindest being that she is simply at odds with the worldview of the rest of Mr. Trump’s administration, and the harshest being that her nomination and potential confirmation could be damaging to our national security given her foreign policy views.
Before elaborating further, I would note that the following critiques of Mrs. Gabbard’s worldview and previous comments are not to call into question her patriotism nor accuse her of treason. This is a woman who has risked her life on behalf of the United States and continues to do so as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve. Such service is to be commended and appreciated but does not deter criticism.
Mrs. Gabbard has expressed a series of concerning foreign policy views over the years, beginning in her tenure in Congress, where she decided to journey to Syria unilaterally, meet with Syrian dictatorial President Bashar al-Assad, and, months later, voiced doubts that Mr. Assad authorized the use of chemical weapons against the people of Khan Shaykhun—a view shared by the Syrian and Russian governments and contradicted by those of the United States, European Union, and the United Kingdom, whose representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Sir Geoffrey Adams, noted that:
[No] party to the conflict in Syria, other than the Syrian Government, has access to a complex nerve agent such as sarin…only the Syrian Air Force has the capability to launch a chemical weapons attack from aircraft, and it has already been condemned by this Council for having been found to have used chemical weapons, deployed from aircraft, on at least three occasions in 2014 and 2015.
Evidence of the Syrian government’s involvement was so strong and damning that Mr. Trump launched a retaliatory strike against the Sharyat Airbase, where U.S. intelligence believed the attack was launched from. This strike destroyed 20 percent of the Syrian Air Force and negated their ability to launch further attacks—a decision justified by Mr. Trump as being in “the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” Mrs. Gabbard criticized this decision as “short-sighted” and potentially prompting “nuclear war between the United States and Russia.”
Mrs. Gabbard additionally criticized Mr. Trump for his assassination of IRGC terrorist Qassem Soleimani, saying that it had “no justification whatsoever” and posing the question, “Is our country’s national security better off because of Donald Trump’s actions and decision? And the answer to that is no.”
Most concerning are her views on Russia and its military actions in Ukraine—opinions that have led to some outright labeling her as a Russian asset. This charge was bolstered by an accusation from Hillary Clinton during the 2020 Democratic primaries, in which Mrs. Gabbard was a candidate, that the Russians were bankrolling one of the candidates. Upon Russia’s full-scale invasion of mainland Ukraine in February 2022, Mrs. Gabbard posted a bizarre message on X, stating that Presidents Zelensky and Biden needed to work with Mr. Putin to embrace “the spirit of aloha” by agreeing that Ukraine would remain a neutral nation—and never join NATO—before elaborating that Russia's “legitimate security concerns” stem from NATO expansion. I would allege that this is a Kremlin talking point—but even the Kremlin would disagree with such absurdity! Tucker Carlson did hawks everywhere a great service in his interview with Mr. Putin, for even Mr. Putin refused to cite NATO expansionism as his reason for invading Ukraine. Instead, he explained that he took it simply because he believes it belongs to Russia, per borders from 700 A.D., and that he does not recognize their right to self-determination.
Lastly, pertaining to the Pacific, Mrs. Gabbard voiced another outlandish view on the military buildup of Japan, an important national security partner and close ally of the United States. She warned that “We remember Japan's aggression in the Pacific; we need to ask ourselves this question: is the remilitarization of Japan, which is presently underway, truly a good idea? We need to be careful that shortsighted, self-serving leaders do not end up bringing us again face-to-face with a remilitarized Japan.” Bluntly speaking, as it pertains to the Pacific theater, I have never come across such a witless foreign policy viewpoint in my life. While her attitudes toward appeasing dictators echo the failures of the 1930s, they do not justify drawing parallels between modern Japan and its actions during that era.
If confirmed as head of DNI, Mrs. Gabbard’s attitudes toward the United States and her seeming ambivalence toward the threat of China, Russia, and Iran are dangerous and would weaken America’s security. Mrs. Gabbard’s confirmation would offer nothing but a plethora of bad ideas, delivered with a misplaced sense of self-righteousness, disgusting false equivalencies between the U.S. and Putin, and vapid “feel-good” opinions on foreign policy and war. Her track record and judgment—or lack thereof—on foreign policy is atrocious and would seriously damage the credibility of our intelligence community.
The DNI coordinates with foreign intelligence services to integrate and analyze data. Even if Mrs. Gabbard miraculously gets confirmed by the Senate, how many foreign allies are going to feel comfortable sharing intelligence with the U.S. if they even suspect it will end up in her hands? Furthermore, the DNI prepares the President's Daily Brief. It is irrefutable that Mrs. Gabbard would elevate or diminish particular threats in her communications to the president, likely raising nonsensical concerns about Japan, an ally, while diminishing the threats and motivations of Russia, China, and Iran.
But while Mrs. Gabbard’s nomination is offensive on the basis of her policy, Mr. Trump also felt it prudent, oddly enough, to nominate the man most worthy of bipartisan contempt and scorn to the office of Attorney General—that being Matt Gaetz. There is the conventional theory of “Trump playing 4-D chess,” the idea being that Mr. Gaetz’s nomination is designed for failure, to rid the House of his antics—while providing him immunity from a scathing ethics investigation—and to lay the groundwork for a more acceptable MAGA candidate later on. If it is not, then Mr. Gaetz will be shot down by the Senate upon arrival, as he should be.
His qualifications for the position are non-existent. The man practiced law for less than 1,000 days at a small firm in Northern Florida. He is an agent of chaos, legislatively incompetent, most notable for a coup against House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and being a man devoid of principle, integrity, honor, or wit.
The ethics investigation suggests that he is a statutory rapist—a source of pride for him, it seems, as Mr. Gaetz bragged to his colleagues about his sexual conquests, showing other Republican congressmen nude photos of them, much to their discomfort, and boasting about how he mixed energy drinks with ED medication so he could “go all night.” In testimony to the House Ethics Committee, two women—one of whom was 17 years old at the time—reported how Mr. Gaetz paid them for sex. Mr. McCarthy revealed that Mr. Gaetz’s true motive in ousting him as speaker was his refusal to cull the ethics investigation into him. Mr. McCarthy added, “A lot of people have concerns about him. And I’m not sure if he’s on something, but I do hope he gets the help that he needs. But more importantly, I hope the young women get the justice they deserve when it comes to him.” Hardly words of praise from a man who would know him best.
Matt Gaetz is so manifestly unqualified, so morally bankrupt, so glaringly absurd as a nominee for Attorney General, that even entertaining his credibility is an act of political malpractice and a denigration of the credibility of the United States. His confirmation, unlikely as it may be, would signify not just a loss of Republican resolve but a wholesale abdication of their constitutional responsibility to the nation. In no world should a legal amateur—and potential statutory rapist—be elevated to the highest law enforcement position in the land. Mr. Trump should err on the side of caution given his threats to gamble with constitutional norms by attempting to adjourn Congress to ram through this preposterous appointment. He will not only fracture his own party, but expending political capital on such an indefensible nominee would sully his administration unnecessarily.