As President-elect Donald Trump selects his Cabinet for a second term, he is prioritizing loyalty over one important factor: extensive experience.

Typically, individuals appointed to a presidential Cabinet or as leaders of significant federal agencies have a long background in either high-level government roles or relevant sectors in the private industry.

However, Trump’s nominee for the Department of Education has only a year of public school oversight experience, his choice for the FBI has significant national security expertise but lacks knowledge in criminal justice, and his pick for Secretary of Defense left the National Guard as a mid-tier officer.

Moreover, his appointment for the intelligence agencies is a mid-level reserve officer with limited intelligence background, while his choices for the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation are former congress members lacking expertise in those areas. His nominee for health secretary is an environmental lawyer and health advocate who also has a history as a longshot presidential candidate.

Many of these nominees have never handled large teams, yet they are set to oversee federal agencies that employ tens of thousands. For instance, Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, would manage approximately 3 million personnel after previously serving as a host for Fox News.

Supporters of Trump celebrate these selections as disruptors to the Washington establishment, highlighting their abilities as strong communicators who will help the president-elect fulfill his commitment to reform the system. They argue that the nominees’ limited time in D.C. is advantageous, as it makes them less tied to the system they believe needs change. Many of Trump’s voters across the country are enthusiastic about these appointments.

The federal government possesses considerable powers that touch on aspects from military actions to mail delivery, food safety, and emergency rescues. Mismanagement of such important functions can lead to serious consequences. Experts suggest that when presidents choose individuals mainly based on political alliances rather than their qualifications, it increases the risk of dysfunction.

The influx of inexperienced nominees represents significant risk for handling essential federal responsibilities, according to former government officials and public administration specialists.

Donald Kettl, a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland and a former public policy school dean, states, “The issue has been that the more you prioritize personal loyalty over technical ability and leadership experience, the more difficulties you’re likely to encounter when inevitably challenging situations arise.” He emphasizes that this is a concerning risk.

Concerns regarding the qualifications of appointees are not new.

Former President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, to Attorney General, which raised eyebrows due to his perceived lack of experience; some of the same critiques are now aimed at Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, whose qualifications are also in question, according to presidential historian Lindsay Chervinsky.

Kettl acknowledges, “You can always question individual nominees for specific roles in different administrations,” but he adds that it’s uncommon to have numerous top selections with such limited qualifications in a modern Cabinet, a sentiment echoed by Chervinsky.

Kettl remarked, “The overall deficiency in policy and management expertise among Trump’s appointees is unprecedented.”

Trump transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt asserted that the president-elect’s victory signifies a mandate to overhaul the existing system in Washington.

“That’s why he has chosen brilliant and respected outsiders for his Administration, and he will continue to support them as they face challenges to the MAGA agenda,” she stated.

‘This is straightforward’

In recent decades, a solid background has been a key qualification for high-level appointments, whether for Republican or Democratic presidents.

In his first administration, Trump adhered to this precedent by adopting a more conventional strategy for his Cabinet selections, often choosing Republicans with extensive service records and relevant experience, such as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, along with National Security Advisers John Bolton and H.R. McMaster.

Chervinsky notes that this new Cabinet not only deviates from other presidential practices but from Trump’s own earlier choices. One reason for this shift is that many of his first-term hires eventually become critics.

Trump has openly criticized several of the personnel decisions he made previously, seeking individuals who are more aligned with his vision for a second term.

Moreover, Trump and his political base have sometimes shown disdain for experts and the professional approach seen as emblematic of the federal government’s operations.

Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., remarked, “This isn’t rocket science. Ninety-nine percent of what you accomplish in life relies on connections and networking. There’s no hidden formula in those agencies.”

John Graham, a professor at Indiana University and a former official in George W. Bush’s White House described how a lack of understanding of public administration complexity hindered Trump’s first presidency.

Graham noted that Trump’s push for deregulation necessitated federal rulemaking, and many of the rules proposed during his first term included “basic mistakes.”

“With the right people, they could have carried out their agenda more effectively,” he added.

Former Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., pointed out that Trump’s nominees “might not achieve as much effectiveness as they desire” due to a lack of management experience.

While the risk of having underqualified individuals could result in unintended disruptions or poorly implemented policies, some Trump supporters believe these choices are better prepared to bring about the intentional changes they wish to see in Washington.

Linda McMahon, Trump’s nominee for the Department of Education, may lack experience in the public education sector, but according to Tina Descovich, co-founder of the conservative education advocacy group Moms for Liberty, this is “irrelevant.” She views it as a benefit for reforming a “broken” system.

“If something’s not working, you need to inject fresh ideas and faces, and that’s Linda McMahon,” Descovich affirmed.

Descovich further suggested that people are weary of “disconnected elites making decisions for them” and argues that Trump’s nominees often reflect “ordinary people,” despite McMahon and others being quite affluent.

Contentious Selections

While many MAGA supporters might favor individuals with experience in Washington,

During the confirmation process, some senators may be wary due to concerns over the lack of high-level credentials among certain nominees.

Trump promised to shake up the political landscape and was expected to appoint a less conventional Cabinet. However, some of his unique choices are challenging lawmakers’ willingness to stray from the established norms regarding the qualifications necessary for the highest federal positions.

U.S. Senator Adam Schiff, D-Calif, expressed his concerns: “He’s chosen some nominees who are completely inexperienced and unqualified, whose primary qualification seems to be their extreme loyalty, or rather their sycophancy.”

Schiff has highlighted concerns especially regarding Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard (the nominee for director of national intelligence), and Kash Patel (the nominee for FBI Director).

Hegseth is a combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Army National Guard. He led two veterans’ organizations but did not achieve the high ranks typical of defense secretaries in either the military, government, or the defense industry. Instead, he gained Trump’s attention through his role as a Fox host, known for his outspoken views against what he sees as “woke” military policies.

Similarly, Gabbard is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and has eight years of congressional experience as a Democrat, but she did not serve on the Intelligence Committee. Her last two years in Congress were spent on a subcommittee focused on intelligence within the Armed Services Committee, alongside her roles on the Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs committees. Gabbard also ran for president in 2020 as a Democrat and supported Trump’s bid for 2024 after exiting her campaign.

Patel had a career as a public defender and federal prosecutor but rose to prominence working with congressional Republicans to counter claims of coordination between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. He later joined Trump’s first administration as a deputy on the National Security Council and was chief of staff to the acting secretary of Defense during Trump’s final days in office.

William Webster, who has held leadership roles in both the FBI and CIA under various administrations, recently expressed his worries to senators about Patel’s “impartiality and integrity,” as well as Gabbard’s “serious lack of intelligence experience.”

Trump’s other nominees also raise red flags concerning their backgrounds, including candidates for different healthcare roles, Lee Zeldin for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Sean Duffy for the Department of Transportation. Both Zeldin and Duffy are former congressmen lacking significant public experience in the relevant areas they will oversee.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Trump has chosen to head the Department of Health and Human Services, has worked as an environmental attorney for many years before his presidential bid last year, after which he endorsed Trump following his exit from the race. He is most widely known for his criticism of vaccine safety, which he has pursued through his Children’s Health Defense organization.

The nation’s health agencies are extensive, managing large budgets and employing tens of thousands of people. However, many of Trump’s nominations for top leadership in these agencies come without experience managing such large federal bodies, with most lacking high-level management backgrounds.

On a positive note, some of Trump’s nominees for key government roles do possess significant leadership skills and relevant qualifications in areas like State, Interior, Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce, and the Attorney General’s office.

Nevertheless, experience concerns are only one issue troubling Trump’s more contentious nominees. Hegseth’s personal life has also garnered attention, including allegations of sexual assault which he denies. Gabbard’s seemingly sympathetic stance toward foreign leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the recently ousted Bashar al-Assad of Syria raises eyebrows among some lawmakers. Meanwhile, Kennedy has faced backlash from conservatives over his previous support for abortion rights and skepticism around vaccines, while critics of Patel are worried he might undermine the Justice Department’s independence, potentially seeking revenge for Trump.

‘The Importance of Experience’

Trump has committed to making significant reforms in federal agencies, with some of his more controversial Cabinet members expected to spearhead these initiatives.

His agenda includes eliminating the Department of Education, restructuring the Department of Justice and intelligence agencies, as well as reversing military policies he finds objectionable, including diversity initiatives.

The leaders he has appointed for these agencies are seen as disruptors dedicated to enforcing aggressive policies. Their lack of experience in Washington, D.C., is viewed by some conservatives as a benefit, positioning them as outsiders ready to challenge established interests.

Hegseth has openly criticized “woke” policies in the military, a sentiment echoed by Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas.

“The opponents may have been skilled in managing people, but their policies were disruptive within the organization,” Sessions noted.

The nature of the federal government is intricate, and a lack of understanding regarding its operations could result in unintended consequences if agencies are poorly managed.

“Experience is crucial. Each agency is extensive and complex,” stated Elaine Kamarck, who is the founding director of the Center for Effective Public Management at The Brookings Institution.

Kamarck’s background includes work in Democratic politics prior to her role in former President Bill Clinton’s administration, where she led the National Performance Review, known for its government reform initiatives that focused on cutting regulations and federal spending while seeking innovative efficiency from the private sector.

Trump has initiated a similar approach through the establishment of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by entrepreneurs and close associates Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

While Kamarck acknowledges there are areas of government that can be improved, she emphasizes the importance of having a foundational knowledge of how government agencies function.

“The downside to having inexperienced individuals is that they lack the understanding needed to implement necessary changes effectively,” Kamarck explained.

Moreover, the government plays vital roles, which could trigger backlash if disrupted.

“The most detrimental outcome is when things backfire,” Kamarck stated.

Experts like Kettl recalled the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 as an illustration of the dangers of appointing an unqualified individual to lead an agency. At that time, FEMA director Michael Brown was appointed by former President George W. Bush even though he had little background in emergency management. Previously, Brown worked as a lawyer and had spent ten years with the International Arabian Horse Association before becoming FEMA’s general counsel in 2001. He led the response to Hurricane Katrina and was widely criticized for the slow pace of assistance provided to victims.

Katrina is often viewed as a significant blemish on Bush’s presidency, undermining public trust in his administration and hindering the effectiveness of his subsequent term.

“There’s a strong consensus that the federal government’s initial response to the hurricane was disastrous, largely because FEMA mishandled the situation,” Kettl noted.

Senator Graham opined that skills in public administration are crucial for the second-in-command at an agency and lower-ranking officials, while Cabinet members often act more as figureheads than active policy implementers.

“Individuals who excel as communicators play a crucial role,” Graham concluded.