A TV star government: Trump’s controversial appointees face Senate scrutiny

RU

A second attempt to “drain the Washington swamp”

When Donald Trump first ran for president as the Republican nominee in 2016, he presented himself as an outsider and promised Americans that he would drain the “Washington swamp” by clearing out its established political elites. However, it quickly became evident that this task was easier said than done. Lacking both political experience and his own team, Trump found himself relying on mainstream Republicans — the very establishment he had vowed to dismantle — once he entered the White House.

This reliance led to frequent clashes between Trump and members of his administration, often resulting in high-profile resignations and firings. At the same time, the Republican mainstream acted as an extra check, tempering Trump’s most risky and extravagant ideas — such as bombing Iran, deploying troops to suppress Black Lives Matter protests, or overturning the results of the presidential election.

However, even after leaving the White House, Trump maintained his grip on the Republican Party, easily winning its primary process in 2024 and becoming just the second American president to return to the presidency — a feat last accomplished by Grover Cleveland in 1892. Once more, Trump crafted the image of an outsider battling against Democrats, whom he accused of stealing the 2020 election and of conspiring with the so-called “Deep State” to bring politically motivated charges against him, subverting what he claimed was true democracy.

Trump has once again pledged to purge Washington's bureaucracy and replace it with loyal supporters. But while the loyalty of his high-level nominees appears to be assured, his incoming administration can hardly be called ideologically uniform. It includes both hawks and isolationists, advocates of free trade and ardent protectionists. Billionaires from Wall Street and tech libertarians from Silicon Valley share the stage with Christian nationalists and former Democrats.

In recent years, Donald Trump has undoubtedly tightened his personal control over the Republican Party, but that control is not yet absolute. This was evident in the president-elect’s failed attempt to appoint former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz as Attorney General.

Gaetz has a bad reputation within the party, frequently clashing with more moderate Republicans. He spearheaded the motion of no confidence against Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy in the fall of 2023, and his behavior and penchant for controversy outside of the legislative chamber caused widespread frustration. Colleagues complained that Gaetz boasted about nude photos of women he had slept with, and ultimately, his personal life derailed his chances of leading the Justice Department. The Ethics Committee found that Gaetz regularly used drugs at parties and paid women for sex, including with one partner who was underage.

Several Republican senators made it clear that they would not support Gaetz, and Trump’s co-partisans in the Senate hold only a slim majority over the Democrats. As a result, Gaetz conceded to withdraw his candidacy.

The confirmations of several other controversial figures are hanging by a thread. At least four candidates for influential positions in Trump’s administration are facing opposition from Republican senators. These list of controversial nominees includes potential Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and FBI Director Kash Patel.

Crusading alcoholic to head the Pentagon

The Secretary of Defense oversees the U.S. government’s largest department, with a budget of over $800 billion and more than 700,000 employees — and that’s not counting America’s 1.3 million military personnel. Therefore, it came as a surprise to many that Trump nominated Pete Hegseth, a host at the conservative Fox News channel, for the position.

Hegseth served in the military for over ten years, participating in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and earning two Bronze Stars. However, he has never commanded anything larger than an infantry platoon, let alone managed a large organization.

Hegseth compensates for this lack of experience with his unwavering loyalty to Trump. He supported the president-elect back in 2016 and actively defended him on Fox News. At that time, he was considered for the position of Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a post often held by former military personnel. However, back then Trump was then more constrained, both by public opinion and by establishment influences within the Republican party, and Hegseth was deemed too inexperienced and unqualified even for that lesser role.

In his books American Crusade and The War on Warriors, Hegseth argued that the U.S. should not adhere to the Geneva Conventions and expressed outrage over the membership of “Islamist Turkey” in NATO. He has called on the military and police to take sides in a future civil war, which he describes as a “holy war” against left-wing ideology. Hegseth himself has Jerusalem Cross tattoos on his body, along with the crusader slogan Deus Vult, which led to him being banned from guarding Biden's inauguration, as the authorities at that time considered him to be an extremist.

Hegseth’s nomination for Secretary of Defense has opened the Pandora's box of his personal life, and stories about past scandals involving him now number in the dozens. Journalists recalled a police investigation in California, where Hegseth was suspected of sexual violence. Charges were never filed, but only because he signed a non-disclosure agreement with the woman involved, who accused him of rape. Meanwhile, Hegseth's mother reportedly criticized him for cheating on and humiliating his two former wives, although she later retracted her statements.

Violence and sex are not even the whole story. Former colleagues accused Hegseth of mismanaging the budgets of veteran-focused NGOs he has led. However, most frequently, they spoke of his alcoholism: at times, he would drink so heavily that he had to be carried out of events. Rumors about his regular drinking were confirmed by many of his colleagues at Fox News. Hegseth even promised Republican senators that he would quit drinking if they voted for him, but at least six of them remain skeptical of his candidacy. There are even rumors that Trump may replace Hegseth and offer the position of Secretary of Defense to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

On Jan. 14, the Senate held hearings specifically on Hegseth's nomination. During the proceedings, former Democratic Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Jack Reed directly stated that reports like those appearing in the media about Hegseth, as well as the nominee’s own scandalous statements, would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military, let alone the role of Secretary of Defense.

“Your goal, as I see it, is to politicize the military to serve your specific agenda,” Reed attacked the potential Defense Secretary. Other Democratic senators criticized him for his lack of management experience, his marital infidelities, and of course, his alcoholism. In response, Hegseth called all the accusations a targeted smear campaign led by left-wing media. Republicans, on the other hand, highlighted his lack of experience and his TV work, comparing him to Trump.

A separate topic of discussion was the role of women in the military. Contrary to his previous misogynistic remarks, Hegseth agreed during the hearings that women could serve in combat units, provided they pass rigorous selection standards. Just a month earlier, he had stated that this was unacceptable.

During the hearings, Hegseth set very vague goals, such as reducing bureaucracy, increasing the efficiency of the department, and improving the combat readiness of the armed forces while restoring a “warrior ethos” to the military. When asked about his past efforts to lobby for the pardoning of military personnel convicted of killing civilians, Hegseth did not answer directly, instead criticizing the rules of engagement by claiming they were written by “lawyers from Washington.” Such rhetoric, according to those same lawyers — as well as toAmerican combat veterans — could create a false impression among service members about which rules they should follow and whether they should report the crimes of their comrades.

It comes as no surprise that the possible future Secretary of Defense intends to eliminate any racial and gender quotas in the military, a practice he has accused the Biden administration of instituting. He promises to vet all current officers for suitability for their positions — or, as some put it, to conduct large-scale purges.

Earlier, Hegseth claimed that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Charles Brown got his position because he is African American, and that Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti got hers because she is a woman. Conservative NGOs have already prepared a list of 20 generals and admirals, mostly women, who they argue should be fired.

As the Pentagon prepares for Hegseth's potential arrival, a senior Defense Department official said they are taking no steps to defend the Biden administration's policies, perhaps because, in the military's view, “there’s not much to defend.” As a result, if approved by the Senate, the incoming Secretary of Defense will have the authority to reverse any policies he deems necessary to undo.

Anti-vaxxer to head Health and Human Services

The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head HHS was much less surprising. The former Democrat became an outcast even within his own family after he decided to challenge Joe Biden in the party’s primaries, and after an abortive attempt to run for president as a third party candidate, Kennedy offered his support to Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in exchange for a government post. Trump agreed; Harris did not.

Although Kennedy was once one of America’s leading experts on environmental law and spent much time fighting industrial pollution, today he is mainly known for his anti-vaccine activism. This resonates with many Republicans, whose similar views became impossible to ignore during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kennedy believes that none of the vaccines in use today are safe and has claimed that they cause various diseases, including autism. His advisor, Aaron Siri, who is set to help out with appointments to key positions at HHS, has attempted to overturn court rulings allowing the use of various vaccines, including the polio vaccine. Kennedy himself stated that this vaccine has killed more people than polio itself. He also denies the link between HIV and AIDS and has claimed that 5G networks and Wi-Fi cause cancer and “damage DNA.”

HHS employs over 80,000 people, and Kennedy likely plans to carry out his promised purges among the staff of agencies under the department's oversight, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, perhaps even more significant than dismissals and appointments could be Kennedy's long-term impact on medical research and federal vaccine policies. His allies Marty Makary and Dave Weldon, who have also questioned the effectiveness of many vaccines, are set to take positions as the heads of the FDA and CDC, respectively.

Approximately 17,000 physicians have already signed a letter opposing Kennedy's appointment as HHS Secretary, citing his lack of experience and qualifications, as well as his stance on vaccination. Another open letter was published by a coalition of healthcare professionals and scientists, including some from Yale and Harvard universities. The authors state plainly: “His unfounded, fringe beliefs could significantly undermine public health practices across the country and around the world.”

Unlike Hegseth at the Department of Defense, however, Kennedy will not have such a convenient hierarchical structure. The United States is a federal system, and issues like vaccination and water fluoridation, which Kennedy has threatened to ban, fall under state jurisdiction.

Kremlin mouthpiece to lead intelligence

Another former Democrat who may join the Trump administration is Tulsi Gabbard, whom Trump has proposed for the role of Director of National Intelligence. If confirmed, Gabbard would coordinate the work of 18 different intelligence agencies and oversee the preparation of the president’s daily intelligence briefing, conducted each morning.

By law, the Director of National Intelligence is recommended to be an active-duty military member or someone with experience in military intelligence. Formally, Gabbard remains in the Army Reserve, having served in the military since 2003 and completed a deployment to Iraq. In 2013, she was elected to Congress as a Democrat, representing Hawaii until 2021. Gabbard initially aligned with the party's progressive wing, supporting Senator Bernie Sanders in the party’s 2016 presidential primaries. Four years later, she ran for president herself. However, after leaving Congress, Gabbard adopted increasingly conservative positions and endorsed Donald Trump in 2024.

Gabbard has faced significant criticism for her various foreign policy stances. She opposed U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Syria and in 2017 even met with the country’s then-president, Bashar al-Assad. In interviews, she questioned whether the Syrian army had used chemical weapons, though she later acknowledged that it had.

Former campaign staffers and aides claim that Gabbard regularly watched Russia Today, and her statements have often echoed narratives promoted by the Kremlin propaganda outlet. For instance, shortly before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Gabbard claimed that Biden could have prevented the war simply by promising that Ukraine would not join NATO. She has also referred to Ukraine as a “corrupt so-called democracy” and accused U.S. authorities of seeking to overthrow the Putin regime. Clips of Gabbard’s statements have become a regular feature on Russian state media, and propagandist Vladimir Solovyov called her the only “ally” of Russia among the members of Trump’s team.

In her new role, Gabbard could oversee Trump’s promised purge of intelligence and national security agencies. Within the National Security Council, which includes the Director of National Intelligence, members of the future administration have reportedly begun questioning staff about their voting records and political donations.

Trump’s National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, even pledged that anyone failing the scrutiny would be dismissed. Intelligence employees are particularly worried that Gabbard might censor intelligence assessments critical of Russia or cut funding for investigations. Some intelligence officials have privately considered resigning if Gabbard is approved as DNI, and more than a hundred national security experts who served under Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden have signed a letter urging against her nomination.

“Some of Gabbard’s past actions raise serious doubts about her ability to provide impartial intelligence briefings to the president, Congress, and the national security apparatus,” the letter states. Questions about her fitness for the job have also been raised by several Republican senators, while Democrats are trying to delay her confirmation, demanding information from intelligence agencies charged with vetting her background. For now, Trump has not withdrawn her nomination.

Major Overhaul at the FBI

Trump is promoting loyal allies in other security agencies as well. Current FBI Director Christopher Wray, whose term runs until 2027, announced before the inauguration that he would resign — though this came after Trump stated his intention to fire Wray, whom he appointed to the post back in 2017. Trump plans to replace Wray with 44-year-old attorney Kash Patel. Patel previously worked as a prosecutor at the Department of Justice and later served as an aide to Republican Congressman and House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes. Alongside Nunes, Patel co-authored the so-called “Nunes Memo,” which accused the FBI of illegally surveilling Trump and his presidential campaign of 2016.

In 2019, Patel was appointed to the National Security Council, where he collaborated with then-Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell — now slated to be Trump’s envoy for special missions — on plans for massive staff reductions. Patel later became chief of staff to the acting Secretary of Defense, and after the 2020 election, Trump considered appointing him as deputy director of the CIA or FBI. At the time, CIA Director Gina Haspel threatened a high-profile resignation, and former Attorney General William Barr wrote in his memoirs that upon learning of Trump's plans to bring in Patel, Barr told the president: “Over my dead body.”

After Trump’s departure, Patel (like the late Wagner Group founder Yevgeny Prigozhin) published several children's books. In one of them, titled The Plot Against the King, the villain chasing “King Donald” is a thinly veiled representation of Hillary Clinton, while Patel portrays himself as a wizard called “The Great Uncoverer,” who exposes the devious conspiracy.

Like Trump, Patel maintains that much of the nation’s law enforcement and national security apparatus needs to be purged of bias and held accountable for what he calls the “unconstitutional circus” of prosecutions against Trump and his allies. In his chapter book, Government Gangsters, Patel argued for sweeping reforms at the FBI, which he labeled a “threat to the people,” and suggested converting the Bureau's Washington headquarters into a “Deep State Museum.” Finally, in an interview with former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, Patel vowed to relentlessly pursue government officials who leak information to journalists and to revise the law to make it easier to prosecute reporters.

If confirmed as FBI director, Patel would be the Bureau’s most politicized leader in decades, if not of all time. He could weaponize the FBI against those he perceives as political adversaries or internal critics. Still, there have been similar precedents in U.S. history: under the FBI’s first director, J. Edgar Hoover, who led the agency for nearly half a century, agents surveilled leftist activists and leaders of the civil rights movement.

“I don’t think people truly realize how powerful an FBI director can be, unrestrained,” said former FBI Deputy Director Frank Figliuzzi. He also noted that Patel could exert influence over security clearance processes necessary for access to classified information.

Patel’s appointment has drawn criticism, including from Charles Kupperman, a former deputy national security advisor during Trump’s first term — and also Patel’s former direct superior. “He is absolutely unqualified for this job,” Kupperman said. “He is untrustworthy. It’s an absolute disgrace to American citizens to even consider an individual of this nature.”

Even a few years of Patel’s leadership could inflict significant, long-term damage to the institution. One of the key ways a director wields influence is by promoting senior agents — division heads, section chiefs, special agents in charge, assistants, and executive assistants to the director. These personnel decisions could shape the Bureau’s operations for decades.

Senate's advice and consent

To assume government positions, Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Kash Patel must secure approval from at least 50 senators — a tie can be broken by Republican Vice President J.D. Vance. With Republicans holding 53 Senate seats, they can afford to lose the support of no more than three senators from their party. However, moderates like Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and John Curtis have previously expressed reservations about Gabbard, Hegseth, and Kennedy. Former Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, a frequent critic of Trump and his policies, may also oppose some of these nominations.

Yetit remains unlikely that the Senate will outright block Trump’s nominees during voting. Such rejections are exceedingly rare. The last instance occurred in 1989 when George H.W. Bush’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, John Tower, was denied confirmation over allegations of heavy drinking and multiple extramarital affairs. Moreover, it has been over 100 years since the ruling party blocked one of its own president’s nominees.

Typically, senators warn the president in advance if a nominee is unlikely to secure enough votes, as happened with Matt Gaetz. Over the past 50 years, 17 of the 21 individuals who withdrew their nominations for government positions did so because of opposition coming from senators within their own party. Of these, three were brought down by sex scandals, while five faced accusations of employing undocumented workers or hiring individuals without proper work authorization.

These historical patterns could work in Trump’s favor: Kennedy, Gabbard, and the other nominees have not been implicated in any illegal activity. However, their controversial records and unconventional backgrounds present an unprecedented challenge. No prior administration has appointed figures with such polarizing profiles, making the upcoming confirmation votes a test of just how far out Trump might be able to go before facing pushback from his Republican party.