On January 20, 2025, Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States, marking his return to the nation’s highest office. With the ceremonial transition of power complete, several of Mr. Trump’s Cabinet nominees have already been confirmed by the Senate, positioning them to assume key roles in the new administration.

The selection of Cabinet members has traditionally been guided by a blend of professional expertise, political acumen, and loyalty to the president. 

Yet Mr. Trump’s 2025 lineup has drawn significant scrutiny, with critics pointing to a conspicuous lack of qualifications among some appointees — a departure from past practices that has reignited debates over the standards for public service in the nation’s executive branch.

This shift reflects Mr. Trump’s prioritization of loyalty over expertise — a lesson seemingly learned from his tumultuous first term, which saw high turnover among more traditionally experienced appointees. 

2017 vs. 2025 Cabinets: Loyalty vs. Competence

Presidents naturally value the appointment of officials who demonstrate steadfast loyalty to their leadership and policy agenda. 

However, the traditional model of governance strikes a careful balance between political allegiance and professional competence — ensuring that those selected not only share the president’s vision but also possess the requisite qualifications to meet the demands of their roles.

In keeping with tradition, Mr. Trump’s 2017 Cabinet selections reflected a mix of GOP stalwarts, accomplished professionals, and MAGA loyalists. Key appointments included:

• Jeff Sessions (Attorney General): Longtime U.S. Senator with a strong conservative legal track record, including experience on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
• James Mattis (Secretary of Defense): Retired four-star general with decades of military leadership, notably as commander of U.S. Central Command.
• Rex Tillerson (Secretary of State): Former CEO of ExxonMobil with extensive global business expertise, though inexperienced in diplomacy or public service.
• Elaine Chao (Secretary of Transportation): Previously served as Deputy Secretary of Transportation and Labor Secretary under George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, respectively.

While these picks were largely qualified and experienced (with the exception of Tillerson, who was likely chosen for his corporate success and valued ties to Russia), only Jeff Sessions emerged as a staunch Trump loyalist. 

Tillerson, Mattis, and Chao — though faithful Republicans and established GOP figures — were not die-hard MAGA supporters. During Mr. Trump’s presidency, all three distanced themselves from his approach and ultimately left their posts amid disagreements.

Rex Tillerson was dismissed in March 2018 amid ongoing policy disputes and a strained personal relationship with Mr. Trump. Jeff Sessions was forced to resign in November 2018 after the president criticized his recusal from the Russian investigation. James Mattis resigned in December 2018 over disagreements with the president’s foreign policy — particularly the decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria — while Elaine Chao resigned in January 2021 following the Capitol riot, citing the event as a breaking point.

Ultimately, Trump’s 2017-2021 administration was, according to political analysts, a complete failure. His administration set a historic precedent for Cabinet instability, recording the highest turnover rate among senior officials in modern U.S. history. 

By the end of his single term, turnover for key White House roles—known as the “A Team”—reached an unprecedented 92%. This included frequent changes in critical positions like Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor, with 21 Cabinet-level officials departing during his tenure. 

The high turnover was attributed to a combination of public firings, resignations under pressure, and policy disputes. Analysts noted that this instability had significant impacts on the administration’s effectiveness and functionality, as key roles were sometimes left vacant for months. 

Moving forward, Trump has learned his lesson: loyalty must precede competence.

Trump’s Post-Turnover Strategy: Loyalty First

Having experienced repeated clashes with his first-term appointees, Trump’s recent Cabinet nominations appear to prioritize allegiance to his vision over concrete qualifications. Examples include:

• Elise Stefanik (UN Ambassador): Former Chief of Staff assistant under George W. Bush with no experience in diplomacy or foreign service.
• Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense): Former National Guardsman and Fox News commentator with no high-level military command experience.
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Secretary of Health and Human Services): Controversial figure with no healthcare expertise and an anti-vaccine platform.
• Kristi Noem (Secretary of Homeland Security): Former governor of South Dakota with no specific expertise in immigration or homeland security.
• Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence): Former congresswoman who has shown concerning sympathy for both Vladimir Putin and Bashar-al-Assad, Syria’s former dictator.

While none of these five appointees boast conventional experience in their respective fields, they do share one critical credential: unwavering allegiance to the president. 

Stefanik, though previously deemed a moderate in her early years as a New York congresswoman, has since become, as journalist Peter Stone of The Guardian has noted, a veritable “Trump cheerleader.” 

No matter what Trump does or says, Stefanik is seemingly always cheering him on from the sidelines — whether that means openly supporting the Jan. 6 riot, defending Trump against his many prosecutions, or pushing the narrative that Biden’s 2020 election win was a fraud. 

Tulsi Gabbard has not been a Trump supporter for quite as long as Stefanik, but her cheerleading isn’t any less impressive. After an eight-year tenure as a Democratic congresswoman in Hawaii, she departed the party in 2021, citing divisiveness, an overemphasis on wokeness, and hostility toward religious values. 

Since then, Gabbard has reemerged as a staunch MAGA ally, appearing a number of times on Fox News, endorsing at least a dozen Republicans during the 2022 congressional midterm elections, and even assisting Trump in preparing for his 2024 debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.

Where do Hegseth, Kennedy, and Noem stand on the loyalty spectrum? Well, their Senate confirmation hearings speak for themselves.

During Kristi Noem’s confirmation hearing, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut pressed Noem on the controversy surrounding JD Vance’s dismissal of concerns over withholding federal aid from California for fire relief. 

“I want to ask you a yes or no, with all due respect,” said Sen. Blumenthal during the hearing. “If President Trump were to say to you: ‘We’re going to withhold money from Connecticut or Michigan or any of the states […]  because we don’t like the governor or we don’t like the politics of the state’, you would stand up to him and say ‘Mr. President, we need to allocate that money’?”

Noem took to the mic to assure Blumenthal that disaster relief in America would not be politically biased under her leadership. She gave no direct “yes” or “no” answer, and made no comment as to whether or not she would remain loyal to Trump in this hypothetical scenario.

Pete Hegseth answered similarly when questioned by Senator Elissa Slotkin about whether or not Hegseth, as Secretary of Defense, would “stand in the breach and push back” if given an illegal military order by President Trump. 

“I reject the premise that President Trump would be giving any illegal orders,” said Mr. Hegseth during his confirmation hearing. His response, like Noem’s, provided little indication of the actions he might take if confronted with a loyalty conflict.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearing proved equally ambiguous. Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire questioned his abrupt shift on abortion policy, noting that Kennedy had been pro-choice as recently as 2023, but has suddenly sided with Trump’s anti-abortion agenda. 

“Mr. Kennedy, I’m confused,” Senator Hassan said during the hearing, “When was it that you decided to sell out the values you’ve had your whole life in order to be given power by President Trump?”

Kennedy fully evaded the question, repeating only the sentence “I agree with President Trump that every abortion is a tragedy.” Senator Hassan pressed further upon this unsatisfactory answer. 

“What you are telling us is if President Trump orders you to take action to make it harder for women to get direly needed healthcare, you’ll follow his order. If Mr. Trump, as he did yesterday, orders a halt on Medicaid payments that are essential for taking care of people with disabilities all around this country, you are going to follow that order because you are willing to sacrifice your values, your knowledge if President Trump tells you to do that.”

Kennedy focused his response on the Medicaid comment, narrowly discussing the policy details of that healthcare issue. Once again, he ignored the question surrounding the limitations of his devotion to Trump or the contradictory nature of his opinions on abortion.

During their respective Senate confirmation hearings, Kennedy, Noem, and Hegseth avoided any and all questions that hinted at potential disloyalty to the president, offering responses that were almost as vague as they were evasive.

In politics, not answering a question is an answer in itself. The refusal of Kennedy, Noem, and Hegseth to entertain even the slightest suggestion of prioritizing the interests of the American people over allegiance to the president signals unequivocally that, when push comes to shove, their loyalty will lie firmly with the White House.

Implications for Governance

This trending emphasis on loyalty in the White House suggests a deliberate effort by President Trump to avoid dissent within his administration, favoring ideological alignment over technical capability.

More loyalty means a more cohesive administration with fewer internal policy disagreements and a lower turnover rate than seen in Trump’s previous Cabinet. Fewer vacancies and firings may translate into an administration that functions more unitedly, enabling them to “get the job done,” so to speak.

Yet this potential for efficiency comes at a cost. While a loyal Cabinet might streamline decision-making, the reliance on candidates lacking conventional expertise raises concerns about the quality of policymaking. 

Legislation shaped by relatively inexperienced officials may overlook critical details, potentially leading to unintended consequences or the implementation of poorly executed programs. 

Moreover, the lack of dissenting perspectives within the administration could result in an echo chamber, where critical debate and alternative solutions are stifled. The absence of a healthy dose of internal criticism could leave policy shortcomings unchallenged until they manifest in tangible problems.

In effect, Mr. Trump’s loyalty-first approach represents a calculated gamble. It aims to ensure cohesion by minimizing friction, even if that means sidelining the experience and diverse viewpoints traditionally valued in public service. 

As this strategy takes shape, questions remain about whether a focus on unwavering allegiance can adequately address the complex challenges of governance, or if it will ultimately compromise the effectiveness of policy-making.