Oddly enough, The Apprentice reality TV series, commencing 2004, was premised on Trump, as host, seeking a leader for one of his Trump companies. The series was billed as the “ultimate job interview” in the “ultimate jungle” conducted by a successful businessman living in splendor. When Trump was offered the series by Mark Burnett, the show’s producer, Trump was demeaning of reality TV: “for the “bottom-feeders of society.” Trump, of course, did accept and The Apprentice along with its second, The Celebrity Apprentice, ran for more than a decade. The show was highly viewed particularly in its early seasons (20 million viewers in 2004 down to 7 million 2014). The Apprentice did indeed establish Trump, his brusqueness, and his famed “you’re fired” and “Trumponomics.” It is not clear how the series experience may have impacted Trump’s strategies and processes for executive recruiting, for selecting his immense Presidential administrative staff
Donald J. Trump came to the nation’s stage in a reality TV show where he was hiring an organizational head– establishing his company’s leadership by ‘interviewing” would-be/wanta-be’s, engaging them in skill testing tasks from which they survived or “you’re fired.” Today, Trump, newly elected by a plurality, is once again galvanizing the nation’s attention as he selects his leadership cast for the second Trump Presidency.
Any rigorous interview process for candidates for the nation’s 2025 top leaders – the cabinet and other senior officials- is less evidenced than on Trump’s reality TV show. How have the supreme core of his administration been chosen, assessed, scrutinized for fit to key positions, not in a Trump tightly controlled real estate organization, but for the real-time world leader nation – the United States? How are his appointees scrutinized for their potential impact on national security, financial prosperity, public health and good will with other nations? How is Trump’s process successfully selecting officials whose knowledge, skills, experience, and character will be in service to the nation, will protect and better the well-being of the nation and its people? Trump’s loyalty test– that he won the 2020 election- attractive TV presence or family connection are clear selection criteria: what more is assessed and how?
Trump initially refused to have his selections undergo the long-standing FBI vetting of presidential appointees but then his Attorney General candidate, Matt Gaetz, was outed. A thick file of illegal acts had been investigated by a House Committee set to air their finding. Gaetz bowed out. Matt Gaetz, a radical Representative from Florida, had served three terms in Congress with his sole legislative distinction being the termination of the GOP Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy. Representative Gaetz was not a Department of Justice stellar pick rather a B- or lower talent/character. No legal experience, questionable character.
Peter Hegseth, Secretary of Defense appointee, is next up for severe public scrutiny. Hegseth is under pressures from both parties for questionable behaviors/ statements, lack of demonstrated competencies for managing an immense organization, ill-fitting notions about women in the military as well as of Muslims in an era of Middle East turmoil. For Hegseth, Princeton and Harvard degrees along with a weekend gig on Fox are not A level qualifications for leading an $800 billion, three million person organization. B- talent and character - or lower ratings- are attributable to other cabinet selections: Kennedy (Samoa measles deaths, mental instability), Gabbard (connection with ousted Syrian President Assad) Patel (conspiracy laden) followed by McMahon, Noem, Bondi - an obscure Florida sheriff has stepped down from an appointment to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency.
Trump’s cast of appointees for senior administration offices are billionaires or B- talent/character wanta-be’s vs accomplished, prominent persons with experience in areas they are charged with managing. Trump’s swath of billionaire appointees (numbering so far seven) have garnered massive personal wealth yet what do they know or care about service to the nation, to its citizens? Are their priorities personal rather than national? What they have proven by their abundant wealth is preservation of self-interest along with a willingness to donate millions to campaigns pledged to lowering their taxes and eliminating costly governmental restrictions.
Though Trump in his candidacy firmly stated he knew nothing of, certainly had no support for Project 2025, his appointees include the founding core of Project 2025 — a project set to decimate the US government by unwinding citizen rights and access to long established programs and services: Social Security, health care, clean air and water, veteran benefits and more.
Many of us may liken our current status – post the 2024 Presidential election - to being in the cheap seats for the shaping of our coming years. The plurality-elected President has, as was expected, strong-armed most Presidential transition processes including the vetting of senior officials and ethical pledges regarding domestic and foreign conflict of interests. The ethical pledge finally signed by the Trump transition team, months after its due date, excludes the President-elect. Trump is positioning himself, his Presidency, the Oval Office to front his businesses – he is under no ethical restrictions and has been granted total criminal immunity.
Who will stand for the Constitution? Who in the legislature will enact the precepts of their responsibilities - adhere to their oaths? A long, hazardous transition ahead. Happy holidays.
“It’s ok to have your eggs in one basket as long as you control what happens to that basket.” —Elon Musk
Kathy Herald-Marlowe lives in Sharon.
