Trump's cabinet picks are a diverse group.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
I haven’t seen much commentary about one feature of Trump’s reported picks for high level jobs — their diversity. His picks are diverse both in the identity politics sense and in the ideological sense. I’ll try to document this below.
First, though, let’s ask whether these two kinds of diversity are desirable, undesirable, or neutral.
Diversity in the identity politics sense is neutral, as far as I’m concerned. The racial, gender, sex orientation, etc. of top-level administration personnel is a matter of complete indifference to me.
Diversity in the ideological sense is great if we’re talking about a college campus (where generally it is sorely lacking). If we’re talking about top administration jobs, it depends.
Absolute uniformity of thought on the national security team, the economic team, the public health team, etc. is undesirable. A president should hear differing views on important and controversial issues. High-level staff meetings shouldn’t be an echo chamber. To that extent, ideological diversity is desirable.
However, the existence of wildly divergent views among top officials can be undesirable, in my view. It tends to produce chaos, especially if the president is prone to swaying back and forth (as Trump seemed to be during his first term). It can result in an administration that lacks moorings.
It remains to be seen whether the ideological diversity in Trump’s team turns out to be a plus or a minus.
Now let’s turn to the diversity of Trump’s picks.
In terms of identity politics, they are plenty diverse. Nearly every group I can think of is represented: Whites (obviously), women in abundance (Tulsi Gabbard, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, Elise Stefanik, Linda McMahon, among others), Latinos (Marco Rubio) and Latinas (Lori Chavez-DeRemer), Blacks (Scott Turner), Asians (Vivek Ramaswamy), Pacific Islanders (Gabbard), Jews (Howard Lutnick), Hindus (Gabbard and Ramaswamy), and Gays (Scott Bessent). In addition, Trump’s picks come from all regions of America, though Floridians are overrepresented.
Trump has not selected a transgender person, as Joe Biden did. Nor, to my knowledge, has he picked a Native American (though Markwayne Mullin might not be far from selection). However, the rest of the rainbow seems present and accounted for.
There’s also plenty of ideological diversity. To some extent, this was inevitable. Trump put together, and won because of, a new, ideologically diverse coalition. Thus, while some might yearn for a Cabinet dominated by Reagan Republicans, for example, it was unrealistic to expect one. His high-level appointees were always going to be ideologically diverse given the nature of Trump’s coalition. The questions are, has he gone too far and, if so, what will the consequences.
Trump certainly went far. Two of his picks — Gabbard and RFK Jr. — were liberal Democrats until fairly recently. Both support abortions, I think. The former ran for the honor of being the Democrats’ standard bearer against Trump in 2020. The latter did so this year.
Gabbard’s views on foreign policy and national security differ wildly from those of John Ratcliffe, the nominee for CIA director. Having so much disparity between the two top intelligence officials seems like a recipe for chaos.
However, because Gabbard is an outlier in the administration and because Ratcliffe seems to have a good pre-existing relationship with Trump, it’s possible that Gabbard’s influence will be too minimal to cause chaos or other harm.
Kennedy’s views on health are far outside the mainstream. I’m not sure how much they differ from those of Trump’s other top health-related selections — such as David Weldon, Janette Nesheiwat, and Marty Makary — but I’m pretty sure there’s more than a little bit of disconnect. Enough to cause chaos? If Kennedy is confirmed, we’ll see.
Trump’s pick for Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer. is one of the most liberal Republicans in the House. She tilts strongly in favor of labor unions. As I discussed here, she’s a favorite of the American Federation of Teachers (headed by arch-leftist Randi Weingarten) and the SEIU. These are probably the two most influential radically-left unions in America.
Chavez-DeRemer is a proponent of hiring illegal immigrants and an opponent of school choice. Her stance on illegal immigration, if she adheres to it, will put her at odds with every Trump appointee who deals with that issue. Her position on school choice will have a similar effect.
My guess is that Chavez-DeRemer will have considerable influence when it comes to matters that fall solely or mainly within the Labor Department’s purview, but not when it comes to broader issues like immigration and education policy.
Two things seem clear. First, the confirmation process will be more dramatic than normal. Second, the drama surrounding a fair number of these nominees won’t end when the confirmation process is finished.