Donald Trump’s political resurgence and election victory has reignited debate about his unconventional leadership style and unorthodox decision-making. Now that his new administration is taking shape, the focus has turned on his cabinet and other appointments, and many are asking the following questions: Are these choices the most shocking in American history?
Shock is obviously a subjective concept, but Trump’s selection raises eyebrows for its sheer challenge to political norms and its surprising mix, or lack thereof, of qualifications for an absolutely basic role. Examining his choices reveals a broader story about the evolution of American politics and changing expectations of those in power.
To call Trump’s cabinet appointments ‘shocking’, we need to look at the context in which they were made. Trump has never avoided controversy. In 2016, his outsider status and his tendency to break with tradition were central to his appeal.
Voters knew he didn’t play by the old rules, and his latest choices appear to have doubled or tripled down on that character. The people his administration appoints often reflect not only his political priorities but also his emerging worldview, one shaped by business interests, populist rhetoric and disdain for traditional political expertise.
Trump’s choice highlights his broader agenda of challenging existing norms. Consider that he prefers appointees from the private sector rather than career politicians or bureaucrats. This emphasis is not entirely new. Dwight D. Eisenhower is famous for recruiting business leaders during his time in office, believing that their management skills would benefit the government.
But Trump went further, prioritizing loyalty and ideological alignment over traditional qualifications. His reliance on figures with limited policy experience but strong media influence signals a shift from expertise-driven governance to a more personality-driven approach. This break from tradition shocked many who thought governance required deep institutional knowledge.
Of course, the controversy surrounding Trump’s choice is intensifying due to the ideological polarization of today’s political environment. Presidents have historically sought balance within their cabinets, choosing individuals who can appeal to multiple factions or represent diverse viewpoints. Abraham Lincoln’s famous “Team of Rivals” approach illustrates this well. He brought together individuals with competing ideologies to foster discussion and ensure that all points of view were considered. Trump’s choices, by contrast, reflect a singular focus on loyalty and alignment with his agenda, deepening partisan divisions and leaving little room for compromise or dissent within his inner circle.
To understand the scale of Trump’s approach, it helps to examine as many historical parallels as possible.
Andrew Jackson’s administration in the early 19th century provides a striking comparison. Like Trump, Jackson presented himself as a defender of the common people and criticized entrenched elites. Jackson’s appointments to the so-called “kitchen cabinet”, like Trump’s choices today, were criticized for prioritizing personal loyalty over qualifications. Likewise, Franklin D. Roosevelt faced criticism during the New Deal era for appointing associates and allies whose primary qualifications were unwavering support for his ambitious agenda. Both presidents have been accused of undermining governing norms to advance their political visions.
Trump’s choice differs in the amount of unconventional appointments and the heightened controversy of the modern media environment. If appointees like Betsy DeVos, whose limited experience with public education drew widespread criticism when she was appointed Secretary of Education during Trump’s first term, symbolize this change, the appointment of wrestling mogul Linda McMahon is the next step.
This evolution of selection raises a sharp debate about the role of qualifications in leadership. Will new perspectives and adjustments to the president’s vision be enough, or will a lack of technical expertise risk reducing the effectiveness of federal agencies? The answer largely depends on one’s political views, but the pattern itself is intentional and unmistakable.
These changes also reflect a broader trend toward the politicization of expertise. In the past, technical knowledge and policy experience were considered essential for most cabinet roles. For example, John F. Kennedy’s appointment of Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense was widely praised for introducing a technical approach to military policy, but his later term ended in the Vietnam War. It has also been criticized for playing a role in expanding it. Trump’s choice, by contrast, appears to reject the idea that expertise is a prerequisite, perhaps suggesting a populist belief that ‘outsiders’ can break through bureaucratic gridlock and bring about real change.
This approach is risky. The federal government is a large and complex institution that requires a nuanced understanding to navigate effectively. Appointing individuals unfamiliar with these complexities risks inefficiency, mismanagement, or outright failure. Supporters see these risks as a worthy trade-off if they mean dismantling entrenched systems they view as inefficient or corrupt. Trump’s choices, then, are not about personnel but about the nature of governance and accountability.
The media’s role in amplifying the drama surrounding Trump’s appointment cannot be overlooked. In an age of 24/7 news and social media, every decision is scrutinized in real time and often sensationally framed. This creates a feedback loop. Trump makes controversial choices, critics and media outlets amplify the outrage, and Trump supporters rally around him, using the backlash as evidence that he is disrupting the status quo. This dynamic has heightened the perception that his appointment was shocking, even though historical comparisons may suggest otherwise.
In the end, whether Trump’s cabinet and related personnel are the ‘most shocking of all time’ depends on the perspective of the beholder. For his critics, this choice represents a dangerous departure from the norms and professionalism that have historically guided American governance. To his supporters, this is a bold rejection of a failed system and a necessary step toward draining the swamp. Historical comparisons with figures like Jackson and Roosevelt show that while unconventional appointments are not unprecedented, Trump’s unique mix of loyalty-driven choices, media-savvy appointees, and polarization have created a unique atmosphere.
Ultimately, Trump’s appointments are emblematic of his presidency. Unpredictable, polarized, and imbued with an outsider mentality. Whether shocking or simply reflective of the times, Americans must grapple with fundamental questions about leadership, governance, and the balance between disruption and tradition.
History will judge whether this appointment was a bold innovation or a reckless gamble, but its impact on the political landscape is undeniable.
Aron Solomon, JD, is Chief Strategy Officer. be more detailed. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the world’s top 50 legal innovators.
