As President-elect Donald Trump is finalizing his Cabinet picks, controversies have erupted over the chosen individuals. We feel that the way his administration is shaping up to be is shocking and cause for concern. With varying levels of experience and questionable elements in their respective backgrounds, many of Trump’s selections have led the public, and us, to question whether or not they’re fit to run government.
As young adults in America, these Cabinet picks, and the overall shift to a right-leaning political system, is cause for alarm. The changes that many of Trump’s picks could implement have the potential to negatively harm the country, and the world, in the long term.
In his upcoming, second term as president, Trump will have both a Republican-controlled Senate and House on his side. This red wave within our political system will likely lead to the Senate pushing these controversial nominees through, solidifying their place to head government initiatives. Following the election, and after witnessing these Cabinet decisions by Trump, we’re apprehensive about the future of this country.
Two of the most controversial nominations for the Cabinet are Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who will partake in Trump’s vow to reduce federal spending, and he has taken to creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for the two. It seems ironic that DOGE is the only department listed within Trump’s Cabinet picks that contain more than one person. We feel that two minds might accelerate the pace of the department’s initiatives, and we’re uncertain as to why two people would be needed to run DOGE.
However, Trump has suggested that DOGE will not be a formal government agency, stating, “They (Musk and Ramaswamy) will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before.” We feel that, regardless of its official status, the power the department would wield in relation to the government seems to negate describing it as a separate entity.
To us, DOGE raises a lot of questions regarding plans to reduce federal spending. Supporters of these nominees feel that as billionaires, Musk and Ramaswamy’s experience handling finances makes them a good fit for the new department. Yet, we view their status as billionaires in government as a step toward federal corruption. We think that if massively rich individuals are put in charge of advising government spending, they could increase funding to expenditures that would benefit them. Initiatives to curtail government spending should center the needs of the American people, not the rich.
We feel that another surprising pick is Linda McMahon, Trump’s candidate for the Secretary of Education. Following in the footsteps of her father-in-law, McMahon spent much of her professional career working in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), which she co-founded. In addition, recent news reports have discussed allegations against her for potential negligence in a case surrounding WWE child sexual abuse. We feel that nominating McMahon while these allegations surround her is a poor decision, especially when there are many other qualified individuals that could have been nominated.
McMahon’s political career began in 2010, when she ran for a U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut, losing her race. Later, during Trump’s first presidency, he selected McMahon to lead the Small Business Administration, an office she served in without scandals or controversies. Regardless of her prior work under Trump, we feel she is still not fit to lead the Department of Education.
According to AP News, McMahon has claimed to have a lifelong interest in teaching, although she has primarily only involved herself in the Board of Trustees at Connecticut’s Sacred Heart University. For us, an obvious question lies– what qualifications does McMahon have to be in an education administration role with so much authority?
Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek that controversies surrounding McMahon’s qualifications (or lack thereof) may be a disqualifying matter. We continue to wonder about her eligibility for the role, with educators nationwide challenging it just the same.
In addition to qualification speculations, there are allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Trump’s Cabinet picks. While Pam Bondi, Trump’s former attorney, is nominated for attorney general, this choice was announced only hours after Trump’s original choice, Matt Gaetz, withdrew from consideration. We believe this was due to the allegations against Gaetz relating to inappropriate sexual encounters with minors, as well as additional allegations from adult women. While it is a relief that he has withdrawn his name, it is important to acknowledge that our president-elect, who has allegations of his own, nominated such a controversial person to be attorney general.
In addition to Gaetz, Trump’s Defense Secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, also has sexual assault allegations against him. A report made to police stated that a woman was sexually assaulted in 2017 by Hegseth, who reportedly took her phone and blocked the exit of a California Hotel room, refusing to let her leave. According to the Associated Press, this was investigated and Hegseth was not charged. Despite the police report, which shows a lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is still concerning that these allegations surround Hegseth.
Allowing people, including Trump, who have assault allegations against them to be considered for the highest positions within government reinstates the corrupt idea that these people can be made “untouchable.” We can infer that our current, corrupted system allows a political agenda to be of more importance than sexual assault allegations. We feel this is the opposite of how a political system should function, as we deserve to have officials who aim to serve the American people first and foremost.
Another major concern with Trump’s Cabinet selections is the appearance of five co-authors of Project 2025, the controversial presidential transition plan created by the Heritage Foundation. These contributors include new “border czar” Tom Homan, FCC Director Brendan Carr, Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought.
While Trump has denied having any knowledge of or involvement in the plan, Project 2025 was co-authored by not only some of his new Cabinet appointees, but dozens of former members of his administration. Trump also spoke at a 2022 event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, and was quoted saying “This is a great group and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do… when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”
Between nominating Project 2025 contributors, a defense security pick that’s had sexual assault allegations against him and an underqualified secretary of education, these choices signal a concerning shift in American politics. If Trump’s picks are approved by the Senate, we think it will be necessary to keep an eye on them and continually hold them accountable throughout the next four years.
