As President-elect Donald Trump prioritizes loyalty while assembling his team for a second term, he seems to be overlooking a critical requirement for these key roles: substantial experience at a high level.

Traditionally, individuals appointed to a presidential Cabinet or to lead major federal agencies have extensive backgrounds in government service or the private sector.

However, Trump’s nominee for the Department of Education has only a year of experience in managing public schools, while his choice to direct the FBI has notable national security experience but lacks expertise in criminal justice. Similarly, his pick for the Department of Defense exited the National Guard as a mid-level officer.

Moreover, the nominee to oversee the nation’s intelligence operations has minimal intelligence background and is a mid-level reserve officer. His selections to head the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation are former congressmembers without significant credentials in those fields. Additionally, the nominee for health secretary is an environmental lawyer, health advocate, and longshot presidential candidate.

Many of these appointees lack experience in managing large teams, yet they are set to lead federal agencies staffed by tens of thousands of people. For instance, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary, would oversee about 3 million personnel after transitioning from a role as a Fox News host.

Supporters of the president-elect claim these selections are disruptive figures who are strong communicators ready to execute Trump’s commitment to overhaul the system. They argue that their limited time spent in Washington, D.C., positions them as assets rather than liabilities, making them less tied to a system they see as requiring change. Many Trump supporters nationwide express enthusiasm for these appointments.

The federal government holds extensive authority that includes areas ranging from military operations to mail delivery, food safety, and emergency response. Ineffective management in these areas can have dire consequences, particularly when leaders are chosen based on political loyalty rather than expertise, as some experts caution.

The array of inexperienced appointments represents a significant risk concerning essential federal operations, according to former officials and public administration experts.

“The issue we’ve seen over time is that when you prioritize personal loyalty over technical skills and leadership experience, you are more likely to encounter problems when difficult, complicated situations arise,” stated Donald Kettl, a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland and former dean of its public policy school, who has written about government competence. “That’s the inherent danger here.”

Concerns about the qualifications of appointees have arisen in previous administrations.

Former President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert F. Kennedy—now the father of Trump’s Health and Human Services nominee— as attorney general, and many questioned his lack of experience, noted Lindsay Chervinsky, a presidential historian and executive director of the George Washington Presidential Library. There are other parallels in history as well.

“It’s always possible to criticize individual nominees for specific roles within a given administration,” Kettl mentioned.

Nonetheless, having so many high-ranking appointees with limited qualifications in a modern Cabinet is unusual, Chervinsky and Kettl agreed.

“The overall absence of policy and management experience among Trump’s appointees is unparalleled,” Kettl remarked.

The Trump transition spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, asserted that the president-elect’s victory was a mandate for “changing the status quo in Washington.”

“That’s why he has selected brilliant and highly esteemed outsiders to join his Administration, and he will continue to support them as they combat those trying to undermine the MAGA agenda,” she added.

‘It’s not rocket science’

In recent years, both Republican and Democratic presidents have considered high-level experience a fundamental qualification for these roles.

Trump adhered to this standard during his first term, typically opting for nominees with extensive service histories and relevant expertise, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, as well as former National Security Advisers John Bolton and H.R. McMaster.

According to Chervinsky, Trump’s second Cabinet represents not just a break from other presidencies but also from his previous term. One reason for this change is that many individuals who he appointed in his first administration eventually became critics.

Frustrated with his earlier personnel choices, Trump has expressed a desire to surround himself with those more committed to his vision for the country during his second term.

At times, Trump and his political movement have been critical of experts and the kind of professional leadership associated with what they consider the inefficiencies of the federal government.

“This isn’t rocket science,” declared Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga. “Ninety-nine percent of what you do in life is just about relationships, networking, and people. There is no secret formula within those agencies.”

A lack of understanding of the complexities of public administration hindered Trump during his first presidency, said John Graham, a professor at Indiana University and former official in George W. Bush’s White House focused on the Office of Management and Budget.

Trump called for deregulation, which necessitates federal rulemaking, yet a significant portion of the rules proposed during his first term contained “basic errors,” Graham reflected.

“With competent staff, they would have executed their agenda much more effectively,” he noted.

Former Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., remarked that some of Trump’s nominees “might not achieve as much effectiveness as they desire” due to limited management backgrounds.

Although the risk of having inexperienced nominees might lead to unintentional disruptions or poorly implemented policies, many of Trump’s allies believe these selections are better positioned to bring the intentional upheaval they seek in Washington.

For instance, Linda McMahon, who served as the small business administrator during Trump’s first term and is now nominated to lead the Department of Education, has little background in public schooling. However, as Tina Descovich, co-founder of the conservative education advocacy group Moms for Liberty, stated, this does not trouble her. She views it as an advantage in reforming a “broken” system.

“If something is broken, you need fresh ideas and perspectives, which is what Linda McMahon represents,” Descovich asserted.

Broadly speaking, Descovich expressed that people are weary of “out-of-touch elites making decisions for them” and believes Trump’s nominees generally reflect “ordinary citizens,” despite some, like McMahon, being quite affluent.

Controversial selections

While many MAGA supporters may regard individuals with Washington experience as Concerns regarding insufficient high-level qualifications could arise for certain senators during the confirmation process.

Trump campaigned on the promise of reforming the system and was expected to form a less conventional Cabinet, yet some of his unusual appointments are testing lawmakers’ willingness to break from the established norms regarding the qualifications required for top positions in the federal government.

“He’s selected nominees who are largely inexperienced and unqualified, whose main trait seems to be their unwavering loyalty, or perhaps more accurately, their sycophantic behavior,” remarked U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Schiff expresses particular concern about nominees such as Hegseth, the director of national intelligence candidate Tulsi Gabbard, and FBI Director nominee Kash Patel.

Hegseth, a combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Army National Guard, has led a couple of veterans’ organizations but has not held prominent positions in the military, government, or the defense sector, which are typically prerequisites for defense secretaries.

Instead, Hegseth caught Trump’s attention as a Fox News host who vocally opposes what he perceives as “woke” military policies.

Gabbard, who is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, also has a mid-level military background. While she served in Congress as a Democrat for eight years, she did not belong to the Intelligence Committee. Her final two years were spent on an intelligence subcommittee within the Armed Services Committee, and she participated in the Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs committees. Gabbard ran for president as a Democrat in 2020 and later endorsed Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Patel, initially a public defender and federal prosecutor, gained recognition from Trump for his work with congressional Republicans who were refuting allegations of Russian interference in Trump’s 2016 campaign. He became part of Trump’s administration as a deputy at the National Security Council and served as chief of staff to the acting Defense Secretary when Trump concluded his term.

William Webster, who held leadership roles under both Democratic and Republican administrations and is the only person to have led both the FBI and CIA, recently communicated to senators his worries about Patel’s “impartiality and integrity,” as well as Gabbard’s considerable “lack of intelligence experience.”

Other controversial picks by Trump raising questions about their qualifications include nominees for various health roles, Lee Zeldin to oversee the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Sean Duffy for the Department of Transportation. Both Zeldin and Duffy are former congressmen with limited visibility in the fields they aim to manage.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s candidate for the Department of Health and Human Services, spent decades as an environmental lawyer before running for the presidency last year, later endorsing Trump after he withdrew. He is most recognized for his criticism of vaccine safety, a stance he promotes through his organization, Children’s Health Defense.

The nation’s health agencies are extensive, with substantial budgets and thousands of employees. However, many of Trump’s nominees for leadership positions in these agencies lack experience in managing large federal organizations, and most have not held other high-ranking managerial roles.

Some of Trump’s choices for key government roles possess significant leadership experience and relevant qualifications, including his selections for secretaries of State, Interior, Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce, as well as the attorney general.

Concerns over experience are merely one aspect of the challenges facing Trump’s more controversial nominees.

Hegseth’s personal history has garnered attention, as he faced allegations of sexual assault, which he firmly denies. Gabbard’s seemingly favorable views towards foreign autocrats like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Syria’s ousted leader Bashar al-Assad raise red flags for some legislators. Kennedy faces criticism from certain conservatives for his previous support of abortion rights and skepticism regarding vaccines. Critics of Patel express apprehension that he may undermine the Justice Department’s independence and seek retribution on behalf of Trump.

‘Experience is Crucial’

Trump has vowed to implement significant modifications to federal agencies, with some of his more contentious Cabinet appointments expected to lead these initiatives.

The agenda includes dismantling the Department of Education, reforming the Department of Justice and intelligence services, and rolling back military policies he disagrees with, including diversity initiatives.

The leaders he has appointed for these agencies are perceived as disruptors who will enforce bold policies, and their lack of conventional experience in Washington D.C. is seen by some conservatives as a benefit, identifying them as outsiders ready to challenge established interests.

Hegseth has criticized “woke” military initiatives, a sentiment shared by Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas.

“The opposition may have known how to manage people effectively but their policies were often destructive within the organization,” Sessions commented.

The intricacies of the federal government mean that a lack of understanding regarding agency functionality could lead to unforeseen issues if agencies are poorly managed.

“Experience is indeed significant. Each of these agencies is large and complicated,” stated Elaine Kamarck, founding director of the Center for Effective Public Management at The Brookings Institution.

Kamarck has experience in Democratic politics and previously worked in former President Bill Clinton’s administration, heading the National Performance Review, which aimed at reworking government initiatives.

This initiative focused on reducing regulations and federal expenditures while looking to the private sector for enhanced government efficiency.

Trump has initiated a similar project with his new Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, led by entrepreneurs and close associates Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Kamarck mentioned that while there are numerous aspects of government that could be improved, it’s vital to have a fundamental grasp of how government agencies operate.

“The issue with inexperienced individuals is that they lack the understanding of how things function in the first place, which hinders potential fixes,” Kamarck explained.

Additionally, the government has critical responsibilities that could evoke backlash if disrupted.

“The most severe consequence could result in significant backlash,” Kamarck noted.

Kettl cited the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 as an example of the dangers of placing an unfit leader in an agency.

When former President George W. Bush appointed Michael Brown as FEMA Director in 2003, he had minimal experience in emergency management. Brown, who was a lawyer, had spent a decade at the International Arabian Horse Association before becoming FEMA’s general counsel in 2001.

Brown oversaw the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina and faced extensive criticism for his slow actions in helping affected individuals.

This event has long been viewed as a stain on Bush’s presidency, detrimental to public confidence in his administration and affecting the effectiveness of his second term.

“There is a broad consensus that the federal government’s initial reaction to the hurricane was a disaster in itself due to FEMA’s mismanagement,” Kettl asserted.

Graham, however, posits that public administration skills are more critical for the No. 2 individual at an agency and those lower in the hierarchy. He remarked that Cabinet officials often serve more as representatives than as implementers of policy.

Many of Trump’s contested appointees are figures from the media who excel in communication.

“Individuals who can effectively convey messages are essential,” Graham concluded.