Trump's New Nominees: Loyalty Over Competence?

On April 1, 2025, the Trump administration unveiled a slate of nominees for key federal positions, a list that reads like a roll call of loyalty over competence. From Marc Andersen tapped for Assistant Secretary of the Army to Susan Monarez poised to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, these appointments reveal a troubling pattern. This isn’t just about filling seats; it’s about stacking the deck with allies who will toe the line, no questions asked. For those who care about a government that works for everyone, not just a select few, this moment demands scrutiny.

Look at the names. Anthony D’Esposito, a former New York representative, is slated to become Inspector General at the Department of Labor. Jonathan Berry, a Maryland lawyer, is nominated as Solicitor for the same department. These aren’t random picks; they’re calculated moves to cement control over agencies that shape workers’ lives, veterans’ care, and even the future of space exploration. The White House wants us to see this as business as usual, but it’s anything but. It’s a power grab dressed up as governance, and it threatens to unravel decades of hard-won progress.

What’s at stake here isn’t abstract. Real people—veterans waiting for benefits, workers fighting for fair wages, families relying on a robust CDC—will feel the fallout if these nominees prioritize ideology over expertise. History tells us diversity and competence in leadership deliver better outcomes; this list suggests a return to a narrower, less accountable vision. We’ve seen this before, and it didn’t end well.

Let’s dig into the evidence. The Biden administration, for all its flaws, set a high bar for diversity and professional depth in its appointments. Over 60% of its confirmed judges were women, with unprecedented numbers of racial minorities and LGBTQ+ voices joining the bench. Research backs this up: diverse judicial panels make fairer, more trusted decisions. Contrast that with Trump’s first term, where 64% of appointees were White men, a statistic that didn’t just reflect a preference—it signaled a rejection of broader representation. This new batch of nominees, heavy on Virginia insiders and party loyalists, hints at a sequel to that approach.

Take Susan Monarez, nominated to head the CDC. A Wisconsin native, her credentials aren’t the issue; it’s the context. The CDC needs a leader who can navigate public health crises with independence and scientific rigor, not someone beholden to an administration skeptical of expertise. Remember Trump’s dismissal of multiple Inspectors General in January 2025, flouting the 30-day notice to Congress required by law? That wasn’t an anomaly; it was a preview. Appointing figures like D’Esposito to oversee labor accountability raises the same red flag—watchdogs don’t bite the hand that feeds them.

Then there’s Gregory Autry, pegged as NASA’s Chief Financial Officer. NASA’s 2025 budget, a modest $25.4 billion, already strains under inflation and congressional mandates to prop up legacy programs like the Space Launch System. The Artemis program, vital for keeping America competitive in space, can’t afford a CFO who prioritizes political alignment over fiscal innovation. Space exploration isn’t a partisan toy; it’s a national asset. Yet this administration seems intent on treating it as such, risking our edge in a global race.

Opponents will argue these nominees deserve a chance, that their loyalty ensures a unified vision. But unity at the expense of competence is a hollow promise. The Pendleton Act of 1883 fought cronyism by establishing merit-based hiring; initiatives like Project 2025, which these appointments echo, threaten to drag us back to a spoils system. History shows that politically driven appointees erode trust and efficiency—look at the delays and vacancies that plagued past administrations when Senate confirmations stalled. We can’t afford that now.

The Senate, too, bears responsibility. Confirmation delays under Biden averaged over 100 days, a far cry from Reagan’s 56-day average. Partisan gridlock isn’t new, but it’s a luxury we don’t have when agencies are already stretched thin. These nominees aren’t just names on a list; they’re a test of whether our government will serve the public or a single agenda. The evidence points to the latter.

This isn’t about resisting change for its own sake. It’s about defending a system that, however imperfect, has moved us forward. The Inspector General Act of 1978 gave us independent oversight; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent orders pushed for a government that reflects its people. Biden’s appointees—public defenders, civil rights lawyers—brought lived experience to the table, proving that diversity isn’t a buzzword; it’s a strength. Trump’s 2025 picks, by contrast, lean on a narrower playbook, one that prioritizes control over capability.

We’re at a crossroads. Will we let this administration hollow out agencies that protect workers, veterans, and our place in the cosmos? Or will we demand leaders who put the public first? The Senate can still act as a check, but only if it rejects blind loyalty and insists on nominees who embody the best of us. The stakes are too high for anything less.