As President-elect Donald Trump moves forward with his nominations for key cabinet positions, it is hard to ignore the troubling pattern emerging. Despite the growing complexity of national and international issues, and the high expectations that come with leading an administration of such magnitude, Trump’s selections appear more focused on rewarding loyal allies and accommodating political favors than prioritizing competence or experience in public service. Instead of turning to individuals who have demonstrated a proven track record in their respective fields, Trump seems determined to surround himself with figures from the business world, television, and even political circles who are far removed from the real-world complexities of governing.
This trend raises serious concerns about the direction in which the country is headed. Many of the individuals he has tapped for prominent roles lack the essential expertise needed to address the pressing challenges facing the nation. It is one thing to appoint individuals with unconventional backgrounds in an effort to shake up Washington; it is another entirely to install people in positions of power who have little to no experience in the critical sectors they are meant to oversee. The result is an administration that risks operating more like a business venture than a government working for the public good.
Whether it’s the appointment of a television personality to lead healthcare reform or a financial executive to manage the nation’s trade policies, Trump’s choices often seem driven by personal or partisan loyalty rather than a genuine commitment to the welfare of the American people. In many cases, these nominations signal a continued pattern of cronyism, where political connections, media visibility, and business interests take precedence over qualifications and dedication to public service.
Here’s a closer look at some of the most controversial picks that have raised alarms:
Dr. Mehmet Oz – Administrator of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the famous heart surgeon-turned-TV personality, is one of Trump’s most eyebrow-raising selections for his 2024 cabinet. His nomination to lead the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency responsible for administering health insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid that serve millions of Americans, is troubling on several fronts. While Oz has a medical background, his years in the public eye have been marked by promoting unproven health remedies, controversial pseudoscience, and even supporting dangerous weight-loss supplements and fad diets. His television career has been defined by an array of dubious health claims and advice, many of which have been debunked by scientific communities.
Given the complexity of the U.S. healthcare system and the critical role CMS plays in shaping healthcare policy, Oz’s nomination raises serious concerns. Healthcare in America is already a deeply polarized issue, and Oz’s lack of experience in healthcare administration and public policy is troubling. While he may be well-versed in television appearances and sensational medical claims, running CMS requires a deep understanding of healthcare policy, budgeting, and the intricacies of public health administration—skills that Oz simply does not possess. This lack of experience is especially concerning as the nation grapples with significant challenges in healthcare access, rising insurance costs, and the future sustainability of both Medicare and Medicaid.
Oz’s appointment could further undermine efforts to improve access to care for vulnerable populations, which rely heavily on these two programs. In addition, his connections to alternative medicine could influence CMS policy in ways that might prioritize unproven treatments over evidence-based practices. This could set back progress on achieving affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans, particularly the elderly and low-income citizens who depend on Medicare and Medicaid the most.
Furthermore, the fact that Trump is working with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a well-known anti-vaccine activist, adds an even more troubling layer to the Oz nomination. RFK Jr. has been a vocal critic of vaccinations, particularly his erroneous claims about the link between vaccines and autism, despite scientific consensus debunking these claims. His controversial stance on vaccines has made him a polarizing figure, and the prospect of him influencing public health policy—especially in an administration that has already shown skepticism toward science—raises alarms. RFK Jr.’s influence over health policy, alongside a man like Dr. Oz, whose views have often strayed from scientific consensus, suggests a troubling future for public health initiatives.
Together, Oz and RFK Jr. represent a dangerous shift away from evidence-based healthcare policy, with both men advocating for views that prioritize personal beliefs and media-driven narratives over scientific research and public health needs. If this dynamic is allowed to shape the future of CMS and national health policy, it could seriously compromise efforts to safeguard the health and well-being of Americans.
The appointment of Dr. Oz to head CMS, in conjunction with Trump’s collaboration with RFK Jr., signals a troubling disregard for the qualifications and expertise needed to navigate the complex world of healthcare. These nominations threaten to undermine the very system that millions of Americans rely on for their healthcare needs, while prioritizing sensationalism, personal connections, and political loyalties over the pressing need for effective and scientifically sound healthcare reform.
Howard Lutnick – Commerce Secretary
Howard Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the U.S. Department of Commerce, but his qualifications for such a position are highly questionable. While Lutnick is perhaps best known for surviving the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which tragically took the lives of many of his colleagues, his background is firmly rooted in finance and investment banking, not in economic policy or industrial regulation. His appointment to a role overseeing national economic growth, international trade, and industrial policy signals a stark deviation from the type of leadership the Department of Commerce truly needs.
Lutnick’s deep ties to Wall Street and his long tenure at the helm of a major investment firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, raise serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest. His wealth and connections within the financial sector position him in stark contrast to the needs of everyday Americans, particularly working-class families who have often borne the brunt of economic policies that benefit corporations and the wealthy elite. Appointing someone with such a background to manage a department responsible for overseeing everything from international trade to business regulation could result in policies that favor corporate interests, rather than advocating for small businesses or the middle class.
One of Lutnick’s most controversial actions came in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, which led to Cantor Fitzgerald losing 658 employees. While Lutnick is often lauded for his ability to steer his company through this tragedy, his leadership during the crisis also raises ethical concerns. Lutnick controversially distributed bonuses to employees just weeks after the attacks, many of whom had not yet returned to work. The optics of rewarding a company’s top brass during such a devastating moment were not lost on the public, and the timing of the bonuses was widely criticized, given the widespread suffering caused by the attack. While Lutnick defended the move as necessary to retain talent, it underscored his prioritization of financial incentives over the well-being of employees in the face of national disaster.
Additionally, Lutnick’s company, Cantor Fitzgerald, has faced scrutiny over its involvement in several legal and financial controversies. For instance, Cantor Fitzgerald’s role in the mortgage-backed securities crisis and the 2008 financial crash has come under examination. The firm was involved in the high-stakes world of risky financial instruments, which contributed to the global recession. Lutnick himself has been linked to Wall Street practices that many argue have perpetuated wealth inequality, making his appointment as Commerce Secretary particularly troubling for those advocating for reform in the financial sector.
Lutnick’s limited experience in governmental affairs only adds to concerns about his readiness to lead a department as complex as the U.S. Department of Commerce. The role requires not only a deep understanding of global trade relations and industrial policy but also an ability to navigate complex domestic economic challenges. Lutnick’s career has been primarily focused on Wall Street, and his lack of experience in government positions or trade negotiations raises significant doubts about his ability to serve the public interest in this role.
Given the precarious state of global trade relations and ongoing economic challenges, Lutnick’s selection could signal a push to further entrench corporate interests at the expense of small businesses, workers’ rights, and fair economic policies. His ties to the financial sector and lack of experience with the complexities of government trade policy point to the possibility of an administration that favors the corporate elite over the needs of the average American citizen.
Howard Lutnick’s appointment to lead the Department of Commerce is fraught with potential conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, and a clear lack of relevant experience. If confirmed, Lutnick’s leadership could prioritize corporate interests, exacerbating wealth inequality and further sidelining the needs of working Americans. His track record suggests that he is more suited to lead a financial firm than a government agency that should be looking out for the interests of the entire nation.
Linda McMahon – Education Secretary
Linda McMahon, a former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and two-time failed Senate candidate, has long been a supporter of Donald Trump, but her credentials for running the Department of Education are deeply troubling. McMahon’s background in professional wrestling and business does little to prepare her for the intricate and pressing challenges facing U.S. education, such as addressing student debt, rising dropout rates, and closing educational disparities that persist across racial and economic lines. Despite her business acumen, McMahon lacks any meaningful experience in education policy, administration, or teaching, and it is questionable how her tenure at WWE will equip her to tackle the systemic issues plaguing public education.
As a vocal advocate for school choice and the privatization of education, McMahon’s appointment is likely to signal a push to defund public schools and shift resources away from students and teachers who rely on the critical services that public institutions provide. Her stance could exacerbate the already unequal distribution of resources between affluent and underserved communities, making it harder for students from lower-income families to access the quality education they deserve. Furthermore, McMahon’s lack of focus on addressing the well-documented problems of student loans, teacher salaries, and inequality in education reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the needs of American students. With America’s educational system at a crossroads, McMahon’s business-oriented approach is far from what is needed to ensure that all students, regardless of background, have access to a robust and equitable education.
In addition, McMahon’s previous business dealings and her political involvement are a cause for concern. She has donated millions to conservative causes and candidates, further underscoring her ties to the political elite. This, coupled with her questionable stance on public education, leaves little room for confidence in her ability to represent the interests of America’s students and educators. McMahon’s appointment could set back efforts to strengthen public schools, hinder progress on equitable education reform, and continue the trend of corporate influence over American institutions.
Sean Duffy – Secretary of Transportation
Sean Duffy, a former reality TV star and congressman from Wisconsin, is another questionable nominee in the Trump administration. While Duffy’s time in the House of Representatives gave him some exposure to policymaking, he did little to advance meaningful transportation or infrastructure legislation during his tenure. His limited background in transportation policy and lack of expertise in managing large-scale infrastructure projects make his appointment to lead the Department of Transportation deeply concerning.
With America’s infrastructure in urgent need of modernization and repair, Duffy’s nomination raises the stakes for addressing the country’s crumbling roads, bridges, and public transit systems. His tenure as a reality TV personality and political figure does not equip him with the knowledge or leadership skills required to navigate the complexities of transportation policy and infrastructure management. The Department of Transportation requires a leader with a clear understanding of urban planning, engineering, environmental considerations, and fiscal responsibility—none of which are areas in which Duffy has demonstrated expertise.
Duffy’s history as a member of Congress includes voting to cut transportation funding, which could further exacerbate the nation’s transportation crisis. He also has limited experience in dealing with the challenges of regulating air travel, rail systems, and other critical modes of transportation that require strategic oversight. In an era when American infrastructure is under duress, Duffy’s selection represents a missed opportunity to address the urgent needs of the transportation sector. His lack of experience with the complexities of public safety, infrastructure repair, and environmental concerns will likely result in missed opportunities for real, lasting reform.
Brendan Carr – Head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Brendan Carr, a sitting commissioner at the FCC, is yet another troubling pick in President-elect Trump’s cabinet. Carr has a history of supporting deregulation of the telecommunications industry, particularly when it comes to rolling back net neutrality protections, a move that has been widely criticized for prioritizing corporate interests over consumer rights. His appointment to head the FCC could lead to even further consolidation of power among a few large tech companies, stifling innovation, competition, and consumer choice in the process.
As the FCC is tasked with regulating the airwaves, ensuring fair access to broadband, and protecting consumers in the fast-evolving world of digital communications, Carr’s deregulatory approach could undermine these vital goals. His leadership could allow large tech giants to expand their influence, further entrenching monopolistic practices, and potentially leading to increased censorship, higher consumer prices, and reduced access to information. Net neutrality, a concept designed to prevent internet service providers from throttling or blocking access to certain websites, has been one of the most contentious issues of the past decade. Carr’s stance on the issue—supporting its repeal—has earned him the ire of many advocates who argue that net neutrality is essential for a free and open internet.
Given the growing concerns over the role of big tech in everyday life, particularly regarding issues of privacy, surveillance, and the spread of misinformation, Carr’s position at the helm of the FCC could exacerbate these issues. The need for stronger oversight and accountability of tech companies has never been greater, and yet Carr’s record suggests a preference for laissez-faire policies that allow corporate interests to dictate the rules. Under his leadership, the FCC may prioritize corporate profits and the interests of large internet and telecommunications providers over the rights of consumers and the integrity of the public discourse.
A Dangerous Trend of Cronyism and Incompetence
Taken together, these cabinet picks underscore a deeply troubling trend in President-elect Trump’s approach to governance—one that prioritizes political loyalty, business ties, and media visibility over competence, experience, and a commitment to public service. From healthcare to education, transportation to communication, Trump’s nominations suggest that his administration is more concerned with rewarding allies and pushing partisan agendas than addressing the serious, systemic issues facing the American people.
Rather than selecting individuals who are genuinely qualified to lead key sectors of the government, Trump appears to be surrounding himself with individuals whose backgrounds are largely disconnected from the public service ethos. This trend of cronyism and favoritism poses a direct threat to the integrity of the institutions that govern this country and could result in policies that further entrench corporate interests and wealth inequality, while ignoring the needs of average Americans.
The stakes of these appointments are high. The next Secretary of Education, for instance, will shape the future of America’s schools, while the head of the Department of Transportation will have the responsibility to overhaul the nation’s failing infrastructure. These decisions will have profound effects on the lives of millions of Americans, and it’s critical that we hold the incoming administration accountable for ensuring that these positions are filled with individuals who are not only qualified but dedicated to serving the public good.
As the confirmation process unfolds, it is essential that we continue to scrutinize these nominations and demand transparency and accountability. The future of the country depends on it.
