The incoming US president, Donald Trump, is clearly committed to bringing loyal allies into his top team, even if they have little political experience. The most important factor appears to be allegiance to the Trump flag.
Examples include Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News presenter accused of sexual assault (which he denies), who is nominated to serve as defence secretary, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is critical of US vaccine policy, is nominated for health secretary.
RFK Jr. was a presidential candidate himself, and had been critical of Trump in the past. When he stepped aside and threw his support behind the Republican campaign, RFK Jr. said he was surprised to find they had a lot in common.
Other Trump picks include billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk to lead the department of government efficiency, which is not actually a department but a consulting group. Charles Kushner, a lawyer disbarred in three states and real-estate developer, has been picked as ambassador to France.
The future US president appears keen to shake up Washington and satisfy his supporters, who don’t believe that the political establishment is capable of delivering real change.
It is also possible, however, that Trump is using a strategy commonly employed by rulers of highly centralised authoritarian regimes. Many authoritarian leaders are worried about being forcefully removed from power and choose to surround themselves with loyalists, cronies and family members rather than competent and experienced politicians.
They also look for tests of loyalty, as we’ve seen with RFK Jr. being expected to eat what appears to be fast food with Trump, even though he speaks out against ultra processed meals.
Trump may have strategic reasons for these appointments, but such an approach also comes with risks.
Loyalty or truth?
In authoritarian regimes, it is treason – not incompetence – that poses the greatest threat to the ruler. Experienced politicians are more likely to betray the leader, because they are better able to assess the success chances of a potential plot to remove him or her from power.
Competent politicians can also count on being rewarded with a new position in any future administration. This makes them more willing to take risky decisions and further decreases their loyalty to the leader.
Incompetent advisers, on the other hand, will find it difficult to secure an alternative career if the current administration fails. This makes them more loyal to leaders who put them in power. Because they owe their position to a single individual, they are unlikely to side with his or her opponents. The leader’s failure is too closely tied with their own.
While Trump comes to the post of president in a democratic context, he may be keen to use this authoritarian tactic to avoid repeating past mistakes. After his last term (2016-20), much of his administration eventually turned against him. This includes his vice-president, Mike Pence, his attorney general, Bill Barr and two of his secretaries of defence – James Mattis and Mark Esper.
This damaged his reputation and made it more difficult to fight the 2024 election. While this is the last term he is able to serve as a US president, political loyalty clearly still matters to him. Trump may sense that his political legacy within the Republican party depends on a unified administration dedicated to delivery.
Dangers of hiring ‘yes men’
Trump’s strategy of hiring “yes men” might lead to a smoother presidency, but it could also backfire.
Research on authoritarian regimes tells us that loyalists tell their superiors what they want to hear rather than give sensible advice. This means that rulers end up pursuing risky policies without understanding their consequences. For example, research shows that authoritarian leaders who surround themselves with loyalists are more likely to start a war with another country.
Some scholars even suggest that “yes men” were responsible for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Vladimir Putin’s advisers were simply too scared to tell him that what he thought would be a quick military operation would turn into a drawn-out conflict.
While it might seem odd to compare a future democratic leader to a dictator, US presidents already enjoy a high degree of autonomy and there are signs that Trump may look for even more presidential powers.
During his first term as president, despite challenges from a Democrat-controlled Senate, Trump was able to make a number of controversial decisions. He started a trade war with China, walked away from the Iran nuclear deal and withdrew from the Paris climate change agreement.
This time, the stakes are even higher. The west is facing the threat of a conflict with Russia, while Israel and Iran stand on the brink of war.
Trump will have to choose how to handle the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and decide whether the US will continue to play the lead role within Nato. This time, with the Republican Senate firmly on his side, he is likely to face fewer obstacles when making these decisions. In this highly dangerous new world, it is even more important than ever that he choose advisers wisely.
Barbara Yoxon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
