As a Professor of Criminology who has spent a career researching and teaching about police authority and accountability, I was particularly interested in President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Attorney General. Then he chose Matt Gaetz: a member of congress under federal investigation and known for his incendiary rhetoric, he lacks the impartiality and character needed to lead the Justice Department.
And then the hits kept coming:
Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense: A former Fox News host with no government experience, Hegseth has faced allegations of sexual misconduct and has publicly opposed women serving in combat roles.
Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence: A former Member of Congress who has expressed sympathy for Russia and propagated unfounded theories about Ukrainian bioweapons, raising concerns about her alignment with U.S. intelligence objectives.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services: A known vaccine skeptic with a history of spreading health misinformation, his appointment could undermine public health initiatives.
Mehmet Oz as Administrator of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: a celebrity doctor famous for promoting unproven health remedies
These proposed cabinet members are not merely unqualified—they are deeply irresponsible. As the Los Angeles Times recently editorialized, Trump’s choices reflect more than incompetence. They appear to be part of a larger effort to consolidate power, marginalize dissenting voices, and undermine institutional accountability. This is not the behavior of an administration aiming to govern responsibly; it is a strategy for ensuring that critical checks and balances are hollowed out from within.
But there is another, equally troubling possibility behind these proposed appointments: perhaps these individuals are being chosen because no credible conservative wants to serve under Trump. The potential reluctance of qualified Republicans to join his administration may have created a vacuum that is now being filled by ideological loyalists and media personalities. This dynamic—Trump appointing the unqualified because the qualified refuse to engage—could have catastrophic consequences for the nation.
Public reluctance to serve in the Trump administration is understandable. His presidency remains polarizing, and working with him could carry personal and professional risks. But by refusing to step forward, conservatives with the expertise to guide the next Trump administration are leaving that administration in the hands of individuals who are fundamentally unfit to advise, let alone, lead.
The incoming administration faces significant challenges, including navigating international instability, addressing healthcare reform, and rebuilding trust in our democratic institutions. None of these challenges will be met with the current roster of nominees. Worse, Trump’s claims of an electoral “mandate” embolden the idea that his choices are above scrutiny. But these claims fall apart under closer examination.
Despite winning the Electoral College, Trump has lost his popular vote majority, capturing 49.83% of the vote. His lead over Vice President Kamala Harris is less than two percentage points. This razor-thin margin does not signify a mandate—it signifies a deeply divided nation that craves stability. The results further highlight the importance of competent governance that can serve all Americans, not just those in Trump’s political base.
This is why qualified conservatives -- some of whom have declared their fed-up-with-Trump sentiments -- must step forward. Figures such as Bob Corker, Doug Burgum, and Linda McMahon bring not only expertise but also integrity and credibility. Their participation in the administration would not signify blanket approval of Trump’s policies. Instead, it would represent a commitment to responsible governance and a willingness to temper the administration’s worst instincts.
Qualified conservatives are uniquely positioned to bring stability to Trump’s presidency, ensuring that decisions are grounded in reason and expertise rather than ideology or cronyism. Their presence in key roles would also serve as a check against the erosion of institutional accountability. Public service in this context is not about endorsing Trump—it is about protecting the country from poor governance and the long-term damage it could inflict.
Critics may argue that joining Trump’s administration could amount to complicity in its actions. This is a fair concern. But there is a greater danger in leaving the administration in the hands of the unqualified and the unprincipled. The cost of inaction is far greater than the personal reputational risks that come with engaging.
This is not about politics—it is about patriotism. The time has come for credible conservatives to overcome their hesitations and serve. The stakes for our democracy, our institutions, and our country demand nothing less.
Comments