The Loyalty Factor

When personnel decisions prioritize fealty over expertise

The staffing patterns emerging in Trump’s second administration reveal a prioritization of personal loyalty that raises significant questions about governance effectiveness. By examining the verifiable record of appointments, dismissals, and public statements, we can identify a pattern that transcends normal political alignment and moves into the territory of personal fealty.

The historical record: first term precedents

Trump’s first term established a clear pattern regarding personnel loyalty. According to the Brookings Institution’s tracker, Trump’s first administration had a 91% turnover rate among senior advisors—the highest in modern presidential history.

Many departures followed public disagreements with Trump. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was dismissed in March 2018 shortly after contradicting the White House position on Russia. Trump later told the press, “Rex and I have been talking about this for a long time. We got along actually quite well, but we disagreed on things.”

Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned in December 2018 with a letter explicitly citing disagreements over alliance management: “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.”

Former Chief of Staff John Kelly, after leaving the administration, told an audience at Drew University in February 2020 that Vindman “did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave. He went and told his boss what he just heard.” Kelly added, “We teach them, don’t follow an illegal order. And if you’re ever given one, you’ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss.”

Second term patterns: loyalty as primary qualification

In his second administration, Trump has been explicit about loyalty as his primary hiring criterion. In his December 2024 cabinet announcement press conference, he stated: “I’ve been through this before. We need people who support my agenda, not people who have their own agenda. This time I know better.”

His nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, despite her lack of significant intelligence experience, came after her public statements defending him during his first impeachment. When questioned about her qualifications, Trump responded: “She’s been very loyal and very supportive, and that’s what we need.”

Similarly, Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense prioritized personal loyalty. Hegseth, with no significant Pentagon leadership experience, was described by Trump as “a guy who gets it and a guy who has been with us from the beginning.” When pressed on Hegseth’s qualifications compared to traditional Defense Secretary nominees, Trump replied: “I’ve had the so-called experts before. This time I want people who are loyal.”

Dismissals: the price of independence

The dismissal pattern has continued into Trump’s second term. In February 2025, Trump removed three career intelligence officials after they provided an assessment on Russian activities that contradicted his public statements. When asked about the removals, Trump told reporters: “They weren’t doing a good job. We need people who understand what we’re trying to do.”

CIA Director William Burns, a career diplomat who served in multiple administrations of both parties, resigned in January 2025 after reported tensions over intelligence assessments. In his resignation letter, Burns wrote: “Throughout my 40 years of public service under presidents of both parties, I have always believed that intelligence must be presented without political consideration.”

Expert assessments

Former Trump White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci observed in his January 2025 CNBC interview: “If you want to work in this administration, there’s really only one qualification that matters, and that’s loyalty to Donald Trump personally. Everything else is secondary.”

Jack Goldsmith, who served as Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush administration, wrote in a January 2025 Lawfare article: “The pattern of appointments suggests prioritization of personal loyalty over traditional qualifications for specific roles. This represents a significant departure from historical norms in both Republican and Democratic administrations.”

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under both Bush and Obama, expressed concern in his February Council on Foreign Relations address: “Effective national security requires bringing in the best qualified people, even if they sometimes deliver unwelcome information. The alternative is a dangerous echo chamber.”

The institutional impact

Career officials have noted the changing environment within government agencies. A survey of federal employees by the Partnership for Public Service released in January 2025 found that 67% of senior career officials reported concerns about “politicization of previously nonpartisan functions” compared to 29% in a similar 2016 survey.

Max Stier, president of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, noted in congressional testimony last month: “There’s a difference between political alignment, which is normal in any administration, and personal loyalty tests, which can undermine the institutional knowledge and expertise needed for effective governance.”

Market and stability implications

Financial markets have noted concerns about these governance patterns. Moody’s January 2025 sovereign risk assessment highlighted “increased institutional governance risk” as a factor in their outlook, writing: “The emphasis on personal loyalty over expertise in key economic and regulatory positions introduces unpredictability in policy implementation.”

Similarly, JPMorgan’s February 2025 investor note identified “governance uncertainties” as a key risk factor, with chief economist Michael Feroli writing: “Markets prefer predictability and institutional stability. The current personnel patterns suggest policy may be increasingly determined by personal loyalty dynamics rather than established institutional processes.”

Beyond partisanship: the historical context

The concern about loyalty as a primary qualification transcends normal partisan transitions. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin has noted that Abraham Lincoln’s famous “team of rivals” cabinet deliberately included former opponents who would challenge his thinking. In her book “Team of Rivals,” Goodwin quoted Lincoln explaining his rationale: “We needed the strongest men of the party in the Cabinet. I had no right to deprive the country of their services.”

Similarly, Ronald Reagan’s appointment of James Baker as Chief of Staff, despite Baker having run George H.W. Bush’s campaign against him, demonstrated prioritization of competence over personal loyalty. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon noted that Reagan “understood the difference between political loyalty and personal loyalty, and never confused the two.”

The stakes for governance

When personal loyalty becomes the primary qualification for government service, several concrete consequences follow. First, decision-making quality suffers when officials fear delivering unwelcome information. Second, implementation capacity declines when experienced personnel are replaced with loyalists lacking domain expertise. Third, institutional knowledge and continuity are disrupted.

Former Trump administration official Olivia Troye, who served as homeland security and counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Pence, described the dynamic in her September 2020 testimony: “The pressure to demonstrate personal loyalty to Trump comes at the expense of the national interest. I’ve been in rooms where officials altered their assessments to align with Trump’s public statements rather than risk his displeasure.”

As this administration progresses, the question is whether America’s institutions are resilient enough to maintain effective functioning when loyalty to an individual supersedes expertise, experience, and commitment to institutional mission.