Is Trump Punking us?
Watching Donald Trump pick nominees for high level government positions in his next administration practically begs the question: Is Trump punking us? Sure, there are a few level-headed picks. Marco Rubio for Secretary of State? Not bad. Scott Bessant for Treasury Secretary? Alright – that’s okay. Then we have Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. Seriously? Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary. Who? Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence? WTF??? RFK Jr. to head up the Department of Health and Human Services? Wait – that HAS to be a joke!!! Kash Patel as Head of the FBI? No! Just…No!
Nope. Not a joke. This latter group of people were actually nominated by our incoming POTUS to fill some of the most powerful and important positions in the federal government. There are two things all these people have in common. One is that they are all completely inexperienced and unqualified for the positions to which they’ve been nominated. Two - and this is the most important – they’d shoot their own mother in the face if Donald Trump asked them too (maybe with the exception of RFK Jr.)! These are full-fledged members of the MAGA cult.
MAGA seems to want to throw a bomb in the middle of the government and societal structures in America with the woefully misguided assumption that this will make them better off. For the wealthier, this might turn out to be the case if they see their taxes cut, which is highly likely. However, the Trump base, who typically are not well-heeled, will be lucky if they maintain the status quo. Make no mistake, our enemies, and that includes Russia, are sitting back with popcorn and a beer laughing hysterically while they watch this shit show.
There is a theory that Trump knows these people will probably not get confirmed, and that his real goal is to see how far he can push GOP Senators to bow to his every demand. Maybe, but personally, I’ve never bought the idea of Trump playing 3-dimensional chess. I believe he is a creature of instinct above all. This is not to discount his obvious con man talents that were honed by his mentorship with McCarthy hearings mastermind, and all-around piece of garbage, Roy Cohn.
I believe Trump wants loyalty above all else, so that he will be able to punish his enemies through extrajudicial means. He has said as much out loud, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. These nominations confirm that.
Matt Gaetz - Attorney General
Donald Trump’s initial pick for Attorney General was Matt Gaetz. Even though Gaetz has already pulled himself out of the running for AG, I think it’s worth reviewing him. He and other Trump picks give us an indication of what we can expect in the next four years.
The U.S. Attorney General (AG) is the chief law enforcement officer and legal advisor for the federal government, heading the Department of Justice (DOJ). This position holds immense importance as it oversees the enforcement of federal laws, prosecution of significant cases, and the defense of the United States in legal matters. The AG advises the President and executive departments on legal issues, ensures civil rights protections, and upholds the integrity of the legal system. As the nation’s top legal authority, the Attorney General plays a pivotal role in maintaining the rule of law, safeguarding constitutional rights. On a broader level, with the AG being the face of the country’s legal system, another important aspect of the position is to foster trust in the American legal system.
With all of this in mind, what makes Matt Gaetz qualified to be Attorney General. Honestly, besides have a law degree from William & Mary, practically nothing. He’s worked in politics since he was 27. First as a state legislature, and then in the U.S. congress. His only real claim to fame is as a political “bomb thrower”. That is, his only real accomplishment has been to disrupt congressional proceedings in a manner that has drawn hatred from both Republicans and Democrats. Obstructionism has been his calling card, with seemingly little interest in actually governing. His particular modus operandi is to say controversial things, often touting conspiracy theories, and valuing speaking spots on Fox News.
If his constant political grandstanding, conspiracy mongering, and singular focus on self-promotion wasn’t enough, he has recently been under investigation by the DOJ for “sex trafficking”.
Numerous women have now come forward alleging he paid them for sex. Others In addition, (video below). Gaetz has been called out by colleagues for showing videos on the House Floor of him having sex.
So, obviously he is the sort of man Trump would pick to lead the DOJ, since Trump has had 27 different women accuse him of sexual assault and lost a civil case to one of those accusers. Gaetz resigned from Congress one day before the report of an ethics investigation was due to be released. The official story was that he was gearing up for confirmation hearings, but it’s pretty obvious that he didn’t want the report to be made public. Of course, now we know that Gaetz has removed himself from consideration as AG. The sad thing about this is that he was nominated in the first place.
Pete Hegseth - Defense Secretary
Next up is Pete Hegseth - A Fox News TV host that Trump has tapped for Defense Secretary. At least you can say he has some military experience, having served in the Army National Guard, and achieving the rank of Major. Unfortunately, that’s where the good stuff ends.
One thing I want to get out of the way quickly is the allegation that Hegseth is an alcoholic who has exhibited some extremely unprofessional and disturbing behavior. To me, addiction is not a character issue, but character is a significant issue with Hegseth. Unsurprisingly, we’ve already seen a few instances of marital infidelity and sexual assault. His own mother had previously called him “an abuser of women” but is now coming to his defense.
To be clear, it’s not that I don’t think Hegseth’s drinking is problematic, it’s just that I believe he should be excluded before even considering possible alcoholism. His beliefs, and some of the causes he is aligned with are what I think is the primary issue. The scariest part is his strong connections with Christian Nationalism.
Church & State
Christian Nationalism is an ideology that promotes the belief that the U.S. is divinely chosen or should prioritize Christian values in law and policy, marginalizing non-Christian or secular individuals. It poses a significant danger by intertwining religious identity with national identity, often undermining the principles of pluralism and secular governance foundational to American democracy. It can erode the separation of church and state, leading to policies that favor one religious practice at the expense of others. Historically, such movements have fueled exclusionary practices, intolerance, and even violence against minority groups. By equating patriotism with adherence to specific religious beliefs, Christian Nationalism undermines one of our most basic rights laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Christian Nationalists love to talk about the U.S. being a “Christian” nation, despite the 1st Amendment specifically stating that that no religion can be held above another. In fact, the concept of freedom of religion is the first right ever mentioned in the constitution, even before freedom of speech.
hint that they believed it to be the most important right there is. It would also be the case that the Founders knew the danger of combining church and state. History is rife with atrocities that occurred when a government ordains a particular religion.
Here are Hegseth’s views on government and religion:
“Voting is a weapon, but it’s not enough,” [Hegseth] wrote in a book, American Crusade, published in May 2020. “We don’t want to fight, but, like our fellow Christians one thousand years ago, we must …”
In his book, Mr. Hegseth also offered a nod to the prospect of future violence:
“Our American Crusade is not about literal swords, and our fight is not with guns. Yet.”
Ed Kilgore – Intelligencer Pete Hegseth’s Christian Nationalism Is Fair Game for Confirmation Hearings
It’s the “Yet” that gets me every time! It negates any argument Hegseth might use to suggest these comments are just symbolic. Hegseth is obviously paralleling current times with the Crusades, a series of violent confrontations between Christians and Muslims around 1000 years ago. If asked about it in confirmations, assuming he gets that far, he should be forced to elaborate as to against whom he thinks “Christians” will have to take up arms, and why.
Which purposely illustrates the problem with having him as Defense Secretary.
“While the U.S. Constitution rightly prohibits any religious test for holding public office, Hegseth illustrates a case where religious identity is about more than religion. He comes from a branch of conservative Christianity that wants to impose its narrow views on the rest of society.”
Mark Wingfield – Baptists News Global It's Pete Hegseth's theology that ought to concern us – Baptist News Global
Tulsi Gabbard – Director of National Intelligence
And the hits just keep on coming. Gabbard, like most of the other high-profile picks, has no particular experience relevant to the position, nor does she have any qualms about promoting ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Her nomination for Director of National Intelligence (DNI) raises serious concerns, with her controversial foreign policy positions and history of acting as an apologist for authoritarian regimes. As DNI, she would oversee the coordination of all U.S. intelligence agencies and provide crucial insights to the President. However, Gabbard's past actions suggest a troubling tendency to sympathize with leaders and movements hostile to U.S. interests.
Her 2017 meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a leader widely accused of war crimes, drew bipartisan criticism and called into question her judgment and alignment with democratic values. Elevating her to the DNI role risks undermining U.S. credibility in addressing threats from adversarial nations.
Moreover, Gabbard’s stances on issues like Russia and her criticism of U.S. intelligence operations have raised alarms about her ability to prioritize national security over her personal ideological viewpoint, with some of her actions making her own staffers believe she is what the Russians used to call a “useful idiot”. She has repeatedly downplayed Russian aggression and criticized efforts to hold Moscow accountable for election interference. With that record, how could we possibly expect her to lead an intelligence community tasked with countering cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and espionage from adversaries like Russia and China. For whatever reason, her refusal to acknowledge and confront such threats would embolden adversaries and leave the United States vulnerable.
Finally, Gabbard’s history of downplaying the risk from certain political factions, may conflict with the DNI's role in preparing the U.S. to preemptively address global security threats. At a time when the U.S. faces multiple evolving security threats in an increasingly unstable world, Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination poses risks to the effectiveness and impartiality of U.S. intelligence operations.
RFK Jr. - Secretary of Health and Human Services
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) poses a grave threat to the integrity and effectiveness of the U.S. healthcare system. Kennedy is widely known for promoting discredited conspiracy theories, particularly about vaccines, which could undermine decades of progress in public health. HHS oversees critical agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), institutions that rely on public trust to implement life-saving programs and policies.
Appointing someone with a history of spreading misinformation about vaccines could erode confidence in these agencies, leading to lower vaccination rates and the resurgence of preventable diseases like measles and polio. In a nation still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, Kennedy’s appointment risks derailing efforts to strengthen public health preparedness and response.
Kennedy’s conspiratorial views could also obstruct science-based policymaking, with potentially deadly consequences. He has repeatedly challenged the scientific consensus on vaccine safety and efficacy, a stance that contradicts the overwhelming evidence supporting their role in saving millions of lives. As HHS Secretary, Kennedy would have significant influence over public health messaging, regulatory decisions, and funding priorities. His leadership could embolden anti-science movements, increase health disparities among wealthy and poor, and sow confusion during public health emergencies. This would weaken the nation’s ability to respond effectively to future pandemics, bioterrorism threats, or other health crises, costing countless lives in the process.
Furthermore, Kennedy’s appointment could damage the U.S.’s standing in global health initiatives. International partnerships depend on the United States as a leader in combating infectious diseases and advancing scientific innovation. Kennedy’s track record of undermining scientific consensus could alienate key allies and disrupt collaborative efforts to address global health challenges such as vaccine distribution and emerging disease surveillance. In this critical role, the U.S. needs a leader who prioritizes evidence-based policy, fosters trust in public health institutions, and strengthens the nation’s resilience against health threats. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination fundamentally undermines these priorities and represents a dangerous gamble with public health.
Kash Patel – Director of the FBI
Kash Patel’s nomination as Director of the FBI is deeply concerning due to his history promoting conspiracy theories and signaling intentions to politicize federal law enforcement. Patel has been a vocal advocate for unfounded claims regarding the FBI and Department of Justice, including allegations that these institutions are part of a "deep state" conspiracy targeting former President Donald Trump. Such rhetoric undermines public trust in federal law enforcement agencies and could lead to a dangerous erosion of the FBI’s independence under his leadership. As the nation’s top investigative agency, the FBI must remain impartial, but Patel’s past actions suggest he may prioritize personal loyalties over the rule of law.
Of equal concern is Patel’s stated willingness to target perceived political opponents of Trump. Public statements and actions indicating a readiness to investigate or prosecute individuals based on their political views would threaten the foundational principle of equal justice under the law. This approach could transform the FBI into a tool of political retribution, undermining its mission to protect the United States from crime and terrorism.
“Kash Patel, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to replace Christopher Wray as director of the FBI, has threatened to "come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens" and "helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections." What exactly does he mean by that? Given the position that Patel will hold if he is confirmed by the Senate, the answer could have serious implications not only for the anti-Trump journalists he has in mind but also for freedom of the press generally.”
Jacob Sullum - Reason
This is how justice systems work banana republics, and totalitarian political systems. Such politicization would likely damage morale within the agency, discourage nonpartisan professionals from serving, and compromise the FBI’s ability to effectively carry out its duties.
The FBI’s role is critical to upholding national security, civil liberties, and public trust. Patel’s record and his apparent willingness to use the agency to settle political scores jeopardize these priorities, making his confirmation a risk to the integrity of federal law enforcement and the broader principles of democracy.
Stark Naked
Few folktales have as much history and relevance as The Emperor Has No Clothes. It’s a classic tale of society’s fear of speaking “truth to power”. It took a child in the story to finally tell the truth about the emperor’s fake clothes, because the child believed his own eyes, and ignored the crowd. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has been unable to do the same. In democratic societies, such groupthink still exists, but the free flow of information usually provides a foundation for truth to prevail. However, when advanced societies start lowering their guard against authoritarian regimes, and unfit leaders gain an inordinate amount of power, it becomes dangerous to oppose the ruling regime.
Donald Trump’s nominations of people to critical government roles reflect a broader pattern of valuing loyalty and conspiracy-laden ideologies over competence, expertise, and the public good. These choices reveal a leader who prioritizes personal allegiance and political theatrics over the integrity of institutions vital to the nation’s security, health, and rule of law. Much like the fabled "Emperor with no clothes," Trump’s approach exposes the hollowness of his leadership: bold, brash, and self-assured on the surface but devoid of substance when scrutinized.
By elevating individuals who threaten to undermine public trust in the government through conspiratorial rhetoric and partisan agendas, Trump risks ripping the very fabric of American democracy. As his choices strip away the façade of careful governance, the dangers of his reign become increasingly transparent to those willing to see them.