Trump’s Cabinet Appointments Set A Worrying Precedent For Future Of Public Governance In The United States

The composition of the Trump cabinet and his advisors is an interesting grouping of corporate executives, military generals, and people that closely align with Trump’s ideology. With Donald Trump announcing his pick for Secretary of State being the current CEO of Exxon Mobil, the majority of the most important positions have been filled. Like many of Trump’s statements and proposed policies, his cabinet is a cause for concern for the direction that Trump will take the United States.

While there has been much guessing, regarding the composition of the Trump cabinet, the final nominations are moving into place. The first sign of concern regarding the Trump cabinet is that, other than, probably, the Secretary of Defense, James Matthis, all other appointees share that same social and political outlook as Mr. Trump, himself. Many are corporate CEOs, such as Wilbur Ross and Andrew Puzder, own service type businesses whose products cannot be easily traded. Others, such as hedge fund manager, Steven Mnuchin, used to work for banks, deal with mortgages, and speculate about high-risk funds on the stock market. One of Trump’s main selling points during the election campaign had been that he was a businessman and, therefore, he knows how to make deals and bring back manufacturing. However, given his cabinet appointments, he has appointed few, if any advisors, that have experience in manufacturing. The non-businessmen on Trump’s cabinet are exclusively Republicans, who have a mindset almost identical to Trump, including cutting public services, government intervention, and they are very aggressive on international relations issues. Like George W. Bush’s “Vulcans,” Trump’s cabinet lineup share common interests and ways of thinking. While it might be a good thing, such as less internal squabbling, but it can all too easily fall into a “group-think” situation, where members all think the same way and steadily isolate themselves from reality. Considering many of the Bush Administration’s blunders can be attributed to a closely knit group of advisors who all think alike, Trump runs the very real risk of repeating that same experience.

The issue of how Trump would handle his business assets to avoid a conflict of interest has been brought up again and again. With Trump’s cabinet lineup, this concern now extends to a vast number of potential Trump appointees. Trump announced during his interview on Fox, on December 11th, that he planned to leave the management of his business to his children. This would not avoid a conflict of interest, as his business remains managed in the hands of his family members, and there is less constraint that can stop Trump from using his official position for private gain. This would also apply to Trump’s appointees that own business interests, the newly appointed Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, included. With a combined net worth of $14 billion, Trump’s cabinet may be the wealthiest cabinet, yet, in the history of the United States. Composed of hedge fund managers and CEOs heading many of the major portfolios, what these appointees will do with their current businesses once Trump becomes President in January can affect the future protocol of appointing public officials in the United States. If Trump remains adamant that his arrangement, which is to leave his business interests with his children, solves the conflict of interest issue, his advisors and secretaries may follow suit. This would set a dangerous precedent for future public officials in the United States, who would combine their private interests while holding public office. It would not only violate the current political protocol on avoiding conflict of interest but can also open a potential floodgate to more abuse of political office for private or corporate gain. Given that Trump had also campaigned actively against lobbyists and accused of “corporate interests” running Washington, it would be the height of irony for Trump to be given even more latitude for these same corporate interests to extend their political influence and corruption.

Finally, there is the question of what would the status of Trump’s children be in the administration. Despite having no official positions, Donald Trump allows his family members, most notably Ivanka Trump, to sit with him during his meetings with foreign dignitaries. This trend first began with Trump’s first official meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, in which Ivanka also used to extend her own business interests in Japan. Furthermore, foreign leaders that wish to meet with Mr. Trump, apparently, can to go through his family members, rather than through the State Department as is the protocol. This was the case with Trump’s meeting with Teresa May in November. Trump let his family members attend sensitive diplomatic meetings, despite having no security clearance or official approval. Trump denied that he is seeking security clearances for his family members, possibly in an attempt to assure the public that he is not seeking to turn the United States government into his family estate. This only makes the matter worse, because his family members are functioning as his secretaries and staff, without having any sort of official approval or mandate through the proper channels. There are laws prohibiting the president from appointing family members to official positions, but with Trump openly flaunting these laws and a lack of criticism from the Republic side demanding Trump to act within the formal and informal parameters, there is a real danger that the Trump Presidency can initiate the transformation of the U.S. into some form of dynastic government, once the formal and informal norms regarding family members are no longer respected.

There is a lot to be worried about with the new incoming Trump administration, not only about its policies, but also its way of doing things. First, Trump is apparently picking syncopates for his cabinet, rather than actual political advisors, which is worrying. This is precisely the type of behaviour that liberal democracies, especially the American variation, with its extensive separation of powers, was supposed to avoid. Group-thinking leads to no critique of the government’s actions from within, which only assures the leader of his own righteousness. It can lead to disasters, from George W. Bush to, perhaps, many of Trump’s ill-thought-out and failed business ventures that have seen Trump being bankrupt numerous times. Second, given Trump’s cabinet of millionaires and billionaires, Trump’s decision to hand-off his business to his children set-off a worrying precedent. Such behaviour would only encourage corporate and private abuse of public trust to enrich themselves. Finally, whether Trump would indulge in nepotism by ignoring existing laws and by appointing his family members as advisors, representatives or any other form, in an official or unofficial capacity, should set off alarm bells. Having power circulate within a small kinship circle has been a hallmark of many ailing Third World authoritarian regimes. Having such a system established in the United States sets a worrying trend for all other countries that may look to the U.S. for inspiration and leadership. Trump’s behaviour in all these regards, perhaps, mirrors his almost childish behaviour during the election, where he threw a fit over the size of his hands and his lack of restraint on Twitter. With the world entering a time of uncertainty and as the relative standing of the U.S. in the world wanes, having a leader that is constantly throwing tantrums, while doing his best to snub liberal democratic governance when its legitimacy is increasingly challenged, is not one of history’s bright spots.

Hanyu Huang

Related