A week ago, we independently analyzed some of the potential cabinet selections from Donald Trump, who is speculated to reassume the presidency. It struck me that a select group of readers expressed stronger reactions to those names I hadn’t touched upon, more so than those I had. Among the most notable of these overlooked nominees were Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Health and Human Services Secretary, Kash Patel for Federal Bureau of Investigation Director, and Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary. These choices strike as somewhat atypical or ‘controversial’, if you will.
Indeed, the proposing of Kennedy, Patel, and Hegseth as potential candidates is an act that one might characterize as thinking beyond the bounds of conventional wisdom. Clearly, these are unconventional nominations – but that’s precisely the point. Some among these represent the more traditional political figures who exhibit a predilection for inside-the-Beltway methods – a departure from their predecessors in terms of policy, but not so much in essence – they remain politicians through and through.
For instance, Elise Stefanik, the New York Representative has been suggested for the position of the UN ambassador; Mike Huckabee, the Governor of Arkansas is in talks for the Ambassador to Israel. These potential assignments fit the norm as far as conventional political nominations go. Making appointments for those who have proven their loyalty isn’t always a wrong strategy. Consider the nomination of the former Acting Attorney General and Iowa football player for U.S. Ambassador to NATO – seems promising.
It could be beneficial to frame the viewpoint on Trump’s more ‘unconventional’ picks in more uncompromising verbiage: The nominees don’t induce loathing, but rather amuse us somewhat. Let’s take Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for instance. There was a time when he was considered for the Environmental Protection Agency by President Barack Obama. RFK Jr.’s views on vaccines have led some to believe that he might wipe out the polio vaccine, which would indeed pose a considerable issue for many.
In response, RFK Jr. has clarified that he does not plan to get rid of the polio vaccine. Trump has echoed this stance and assured that he harbors no intention of adopting such a policy. Still, the selection of non-traditional figures for less recognized HHS roles does spike my interest. Case in point, the nominations of Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon and professor at Johns Hopkins University for the FDA, and Jay Bhattacharya, a medical professor at Stanford University for the National Institutes of Health.
One critical point in Bhattacharya’s portfolio is his co-authorship of the Great Barrington Declaration, alongside other infectious disease specialists. The declaration cautioned against measures like school closures and lockdowns, arguing that these steps could pose greater risks on the physical and mental health of low-risk populations than COVID-19 itself.
Both Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins have vacated their positions at the NIH, leaving room for Bhattacharya, assuming he secures confirmation, to fill in Collins’ previous role. For those affected by lockdowns and mask mandates, seeing Bhattacharya succeed in this role could bring a sense of justice. His extensive experience in dealing with tough situations could serve him well in this endeavor.
An outside-esque candidate like Kashyap Patel for the role of FBI director also sparks intrigue. Conversations with former coworkers suggest that Patel won’t exact retribution on Trump’s adversaries, contradictory to what his background as a federal prosecutor might suggest. Instead, they believe, he understands the necessity of maintaining an impartial justice system and the importance of keeping governmental excesses in check.
Undeniably, Patel faces a substantial challenge ahead, aiming to lead an organization often captained by insiders. Pete Hegseth, presuming he survives the rigorous confirmation proceedings, could find himself in a similar fix as potential Defense Secretary. His past is fraught with controversial issues – a couple of messy divorces, an anonymously lodged sexual misconduct allegation accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement, and accusations made under anonymity of his alleged mismanagement at the veteran organizations he worked for.
Hegseth ought to be accorded the full opportunity to refute these accusations. Equally, senators must hold the liberty to probe deeper and seek clarity. Assuming all the allegations wash away, it’d be judicious for Hegseth to avoid even a whiff of alcohol publicly and ensure he only interacts with his spouse. The refrain here being a heed to steer clear of controversy.
Without knowing the inner workings, one could speculate that Team Trump understands the electorate’s plea: they’re seeking not just an alternate president, but an overall change in the country’s course. Trump may have been the ‘shake it up’ candidate, but battling the entrenched Beltway bureaucracy is easier said than done.
There’s a plethora of D.C. insiders with vested interests, banking on the bureaucracy status quo to continue unabated. It’s unlikely to find enough ‘outsiders’ with the right blend of composure, patience, and skills necessary to bring about a lasting governmental reform. However, these unconventional nominees chosen by Trump represent a stark shift from previous administrations, even though they are relatively few in number.
This dramatic shift in nomination philosophy indicates the major guiding principle behind Trump’s possible return to the White House. This pivot isn’t lost on American voters who seem ready to test the waters for improvement. In their viewpoints, the selection of these nominees is not merely an alternative to the established order, but a direct challenge to it.
Though the landscape may appear awash with political maneuvering, it is important to remember that these are still only proposed nominations. The confirmation processes ahead will test the mettle of these nominees, their beliefs, and their capacity to lead in these significant roles.
There is no denying that the nominations have been made with an intention to shake up the traditional system, a desire reflected in the voting populace as well. Whether these unconventional or ‘controversial’ nominees will be able to effect meaningful change within the governmental systems they seek to lead remains to be seen.