By The Editorial Board
In an era that demands stable, experienced leadership, President Donald Trump’s decision Friday to remove Gen. Charles Q. Brown as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — alongside other military firings and a series of contentious Cabinet appointments — underscored once again an alarming preference for loyalty over expertise. This shift doesn’t just undermine the future of policy and governance; it destabilizes the very foundation of the institutions that have long safeguarded America’s democracy and substitutes politics for professionalism.
The ousting of Brown, a leader celebrated for his strategic acumen, deep experience and steady guidance, in favor of a less-tested and seemingly more compliant figure raises urgent questions: Will the new Joint Chiefs chair dare to give Trump honest advice that he doesn’t want to hear? How will the president try to exert power over the Joint Chiefs, who have historically been essential sources of expertise and seasoned counsel? How would a politicized change in Joint Chiefs leadership affect complex discussions about geopolitical priorities, from tensions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East to the South China Sea?
Friday’s purge at the Pentagon isn’t an isolated maneuver — it’s indicative of an administration intent on reshaping itself around the president’s personal network. Consider what we now know of who will serve as Trump’s Cabinet. These selections follow a perilous trend where qualifications take a back seat to fealty, and where the echo of agreement becomes more valuable than evidence-based expertise.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s most notable qualification for his job was his tenure as a Fox News political commentator, a credential that has frequently eclipsed any engagement with the complex realities of defense strategy for the president. Hegseth’s confirmation hearing raised serious concerns about excessive drinking and how he treats women. To date, his leadership suggests a Pentagon more attuned to the president’s political playbook than the sobering calculus of global military engagement. His recent remarks on retreating from Ukraine, for instance, sent allies in Europe reeling, and the administration scrambling to walk them back.
Then there’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr., named to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has been a vocal skeptic of vaccines, promoting misinformation that undermines public health. His appointment to HHS doesn’t just defy logic; it represents an affront to the foundational principles of the department he now oversees, which is already shelving some campaigns for flu shots and other vaccines. In this context, science is sidelined in favor of fringe theories, jeopardizing the nation’s ability to effectively manage current and future health challenges.
Similarly, Tulsi Gabbard’s appointment as the country’s top intelligence officer raises multiple red flags. Beyond her military background and support of Trump’s agenda, what are Gabbard’s qualifications to oversee the president’s intel briefings and to coordinate the various branches of the intelligence community? Her foreign policy views frequently conflict with established U.S. approaches, and she has demonstrated sympathy for and defended authoritarian figures such as Bashar Assad, the former Syrian dictator, and President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
In voting against her confirmation, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former Republican majority leader, said the director of national intelligence should not be someone “with a history of alarming lapses in judgment.” But McConnell was the only Republican senator to vote against her; the others in his party ignored serious questions about the coherence of defense policy under Gabbard’s influence.
Kash Patel’s confirmation as director of the FBI is perhaps the most worrisome illustration of this loyalty-first strategy. Patel’s past efforts to undermine critical investigations highlight a prioritization of political interests over the impartial execution of justice, a core tenet expected from the nation’s top law enforcement agency. He has frequently trafficked in conspiracy theories, enemies lists and unfounded vendettas over facts.
Patel’s post calls upon him to be independent, steadfast in his integrity and sober in his decision-making. Like the military, the bureau’s mission needs to transcend partisan politics to maintain public trust, and its leader should not only understand the intricacies of national security law but also adhere to truth and transparency. Patel hasn’t demonstrated he has either the qualifications or the disposition for the position he has now accepted.
“My reservations with Mr. Patel stem from his own prior political activities and how they may influence his leadership,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said in a post on the social platform X. Murkowski voted against his appointment, saying, “The FBI must be trusted as the federal agency that roots out crime and corruption, not focused on settling political scores.”
The Senate, in confirming all these Cabinet members on behalf of the president, accepted responsibility to oversee their actions and to intervene when any of them endangers effective — and frankly, given its track record so far, legal — governance.
Congress always has the right to speak up and object to Trump’s actions. Yes, many senators gave deference to the president’s Cabinet preferences and approved his nominations, in some cases quite narrowly. Already, though, many appear concerned about the consequences of those choices. Members of both parties have expressed worry about Trump’s outrageous parroting of the Russian line on Ukraine. They are likely to be even more upset when Elon Musk’s cuts reach their states, when record-breaking measles outbreaks happen, or when a weakened FBI misses an important national security warning or fumbles an investigation.
Trump can fire the lawyers, but he can’t silence elected officials, and they need to do their jobs and raise their voices.
Comentarios