top of page
Search
Jeffrey A. Rendall

Transition to Trump 2.0: Trump’s insistence on loyalty from administrators is natural – and wise

The Trump transition’s first non-shock reveals a Nikki Haley/Mike Pompeo ban from Trump 2.0

 

Is it possible to say goodbye before a friend or colleague even arrives?


Possible or not, president-elect Donald J. Trump accomplished the feat this past weekend when the future 47th president announced via social media that neither former Trump U.N. Ambassador and 2024 GOP primary antagonist Nikki Haley nor former Trump Secretary of State (in the first Trump administration) Mike Pompeo would receive invitations to serve in his reformulated White House.

 

Both Haley and Pompeo had been prominently mentioned as high-profile possible additions/rehires to the new Trump transition, both being well-known and generally well regarded by the party establishment and establishment media as potential spokespeople for the next executive to hit the ground running by dropping names who Americans recognize.

 

In a report titled “Trump announces former WH officials Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo will not be in his next administration”, Anna Young shared the story at the New York Post:

 

“Haley, who has been both publicly supportive and critical of her former rival, publicly announced back in August that she had no interest in serving in Trump’s administration — stating the ‘campaign was never about a position.’

 

“Pompeo, who served as both secretary of state and CIA director in Trump’s first administration, has been widely criticized for remaining silent throughout the presidential race until just days before Election Day.

 

“Republicans have also blasted him for supporting special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of Trump over the possession of alleged classified documents.”

 

The last fact, if true, would certainly constitute a disqualifier. Throughout the campaign, Trump made no attempt to conceal his distaste with the senile Joe Biden/Kamala Harris/Merrick Garland-inspired lawfare criminal witch hunts of himself and many other members of the 45th president’s administration, and any hint, by anyone, of agreement with Smith’s investigation would raise red flags in the former president’s mind.

 

Some things are forgivable; others aren’t. Disloyalty, especially when there’s no prompting for it, ranks among the biggest possible transgressions where Trump is concerned.

 

There’s always been an uneasy tension between Trump and Haley, so him crossing off her name as a possible high-ranking lieutenant was surely expected, including by Nikki herself. Haley willfully joined the 2024 general election campaign late and offered to stump for the top guy, but this move was purely to preserve her future ability to run for the high office again. The two clearly didn’t like each other very much, and there’s no reason why Trump would keep the South Carolinian around this time and just look the other way as treachery was going on.

 

You may recall how Vivek Ramaswamy held up a “NIKKI = CORRUPT” sign in one of the

RNC’s primary debates, and the Ohioan’s sentiments weren’t all that far off.

 

You also might remember that Pompeo was possibly being considered by Trump for his veep slot, the position that ultimately went to 40-year-old rising star J.D. Vance. It’s unknown just how serious the rumors were surrounding Trump and the Kansan regarding the post vacated by Mike Pence, but here’s thinking the president-elect didn’t come to his conclusion about Pompeo overnight. Or in the spur of the moment.

 

At any rate, the preemptive “banning” of Haley and Pompeo had the aura of Trump wanting to get it over with promptly, most likely in hopes of squelching establishment media condemnation and rampant speculation about Trump’s treatment of former rivals.

 

One thing is evidently clear: Trump decides what he wants quickly and doesn’t hesitate. Prepare for more such “He/She’s not invited” announcements soon.

 

Since when is “independence” from your boss considered a political virtue?

 

As it’s been barely a week since Donald Trump won his triumphant victory in the presidential election and his focus has now turned to assembling the gigantic “team” who will populate his new administration, there’s been much non-insider talk about the “type” of people he should be considering to work for/with him.

 

Needless to say, commentators on the liberal end of the ideological spectrum are smearing Trump as a megalomaniac who first demands blind obedience and loyalty from his minions and therefore, they will, gulp, take his orders and fail to demonstrate “independence” or offer tacit resistance to Trump’s supposedly worser instincts, therefore permitting him to “dictate” his wishes and have them carried out to the letter regardless of what they are.

 

To present such an “I say, You do” scenario is frightening to Trump’s nemeses, all of which, to put it mildly, do not trust him to so much as dress himself without a government appointed watchdog looking over his shoulder to ensure he’s not doing anything damaging or destructive to the government policies and mandates they believe in.

 

Kamala Harris and senile Joe both said it a lot – that Trump purportedly purged the opposition voices from his inner circle and won’t have anyone to slow him down or tell him “no” when he proposes something like moving Israel’s capital to Jerusalem. Oh wait, he already did that!

 

Or how about laying punitive tariffs on China or Mexico, not to raise money for the Treasury, necessarily, but to compel the rival nations to cooperate and play fair with important aspects of the MAGA agenda. Oh! The horrors! “Trump’s gonna be mean to the new president of Mexico and threaten her with 25% tariffs if our southern neighbor doesn’t get tough on illegal immigration!”

 

Or, and this is one of my favorites, Trump plans to make changes in the way NATO does things, even going so far as threatening to pull the United States out of the alliance and compelling the longtime diplomatic and military partners to risk going it alone against fiendish Vladimir Putin if they don’t maintain their individual commitments to devote two percent of their GDP towards ensuring deterrence against hypothetical Russian aggression.



Relax, people. Such a tack is basically a negotiation tactic. Does anyone truly believe Trump wants to take the U.S. out of the alliance and then dawdle as the European continent squirms while Putin stations Russian troops at their borders, readying for an invasion? After the three-year war in Ukraine, does Putin even have excess troops left to contemplate such a happenstance?

 

And yes, as with all of these policy areas, the naysayers claim, Trump wants “Yes (people)” to carry out his instructions. But Trump was elected president, and a certain amount of power goes along with the office. Would a CEO of any company tolerate his directors’ outward defiance? What kind of company would that be?

 

Besides, what’s wrong with the concept of top-down political offices? Is there a congressman or congresswoman in this country who would look the other way towards staff insubordination? Did Kamala Harris herself fail to get rid of staffers who didn’t do what she ordered them to do? Would senile Joe have been in better position if he’d allowed calm voices and gentle hands to suggest to him that maybe, just maybe, he shouldn’t have blown the doors off the treasury to rain checks down on his Democrat backers?

 

The notion Trump no longer has anyone to stand up to him, like former Chief of Staff John Kelly, or former Attorney General William Barr, or Mike Pence after the 2020 election, or some schlep in a bureaucratic role in a federal executive department – is absurd. Trump has acquired a reputation for consulting advisors on important decisions, but ultimately trusts his instincts to choose between alternatives.

 

Is there anything wrong with that? If you think it’s a bad thing, please provide an example of an effective leader who takes a vote among subordinates on crucial matters of policy. Anyone? Anyone?



  • Joe Biden economy

  • inflation

  • Biden cognitive decline

  • gas prices,

  • Nancy Pelosi

  • Biden senile

  • Kamala Harris candidacy

  • Donald Trump campaign

  • Harris Trump debates

  • J.D. Vance

  • Kamala vice president

  • Speaker Mike Johnson

  • Donald Trump assassination

  • Donald Trump

  • 2024 presidential election

  • Tim Walz

40 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page