Tom Nichols, a staff writer at The Atlantic and professor emeritus at the Naval War College, unpacks the implications of Trump's strategic military appointments. He critiques how Trump's loyalty-driven selections in the military and intelligence sectors could jeopardize civil-military relations and democracy itself. Nichols addresses concerns about the qualifications of key candidates and the potential erosion of constitutional obligations. Using humor, he also examines the normalization of political dysfunction and the importance of resisting such trends.
Trump's military appointments signify a troubling shift towards prioritizing personal loyalty over traditional military expertise and competence.
The nomination of unqualified individuals to key defense and intelligence roles raises serious concerns about the integrity and effectiveness of national security.
Deep dives
Centralization of Military Control
Donald Trump's military appointments signal a shift towards centralized control where loyalty to the president supersedes traditional civil-military relations. Recent discussions highlight Trump's evident disdain for military leaders who opposed his decisions during his first term, aiming instead to appoint individuals who prioritize allegiance to him. This strategy reflects a broader intent to undermine the autonomy of military officers, demonstrating a willingness to purge those he perceives as disloyal. The implication is that proof of loyalty will be the primary criterion for future military appointments, rather than competence or adherence to constitutional principles.
Concerns Regarding Pete Hegseth's Qualifications
The nomination of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense raises alarm due to his lack of relevant experience and qualifications to manage the complex Defense Department. While he has military service as a major, critics emphasize that high-level positions demand extensive knowledge in budgeting, strategy, and international relations—areas where Hegseth falls short. Concerns extend to the potential impact his leadership could have on the welfare and lives of American service members, as his management abilities are seen as inadequate for such a critical role. This perceived lack of expertise could lead to dire consequences for military operations and personnel.
The Threat of Loyalty Over Competence
The discussion around Tulsi Gabbard's nomination for Director of National Intelligence reveals a troubling pattern of placing loyalty above qualifications in pivotal government roles. Gabbard's nominal military background and lack of intelligence experience, coupled with controversial views on foreign leaders, illustrate a concerning trend of appointing unqualified individuals who are more aligned with Trump's ideology. This focus on loyalty threatens to undermine the professional integrity of the intelligence community, decreasing its effectiveness and further politicizing national security matters. The overarching concern is that such appointments serve to consolidate Trump's power, creating a scenario where government officials prioritize obedience to the president over their foundational duties.
With all the noise around Donald Trump’s nominees, it’s easy to lose sight of his administration’s bigger plan: placing people who are unfailingly loyal to Trump in key positions, so that the real power lies with the White House. The Atlantic staff writer Tom Nichols explains why Trump’s picks to oversee the military and intelligence community could be two of the most consequential—and dangerous.
Get more from your favorite Atlantic voices when you subscribe. You’ll enjoy unlimited access to Pulitzer-winning journalism, from clear-eyed analysis and insight on breaking news to fascinating explorations of our world. Subscribe today at TheAtlantic.com/podsub.