What Trump’s ‘shocking’ Cabinet picks reveal about his next administration

Donald Trump’s political resurgence and election victory have reignited debates about his unconventional leadership style and unorthodox decision-making. Now that his new administration is taking shape, the focus has turned to his Cabinet and other appointments, prompting many to ask: Are these selections the most shocking in American history?

While shock is admittedly a subjective concept, Trump’s choices undeniably raise eyebrows due to their sheer defiance of political norms and the surprising mix of qualifications — or lack thereof — in absolutely foundational roles. Examining his selections reveals a broader narrative about the evolution of American politics and the shifting expectations for those in power.

To call Trump’s Cabinet appointments “shocking” requires a look at the context in which they are made. Trump has never shied away from controversy. His outsider status in 2016 and his penchant for breaking with tradition were central to his appeal.

Voters knew he wasn’t playing by the old rules, and his latest choices appear to double or triple down on that persona. His administration’s appointees often reflect not just his political priorities but also what has become his emerging worldview: one shaped by a veritable stew of business interests, populist rhetoric, and a disdain for conventional political expertise.

Trump’s choices underscore his broader agenda of challenging established norms. Consider his preference for appointees from the private sector rather than career politicians or bureaucrats. This emphasis is not entirely new; Dwight D. Eisenhower famously brought in corporate leaders during his administration, believing their management skills would translate well to government.

But Trump has gone further, prioritizing loyalty and ideological alignment over traditional qualifications. His reliance on figures with limited policy experience but strong media presence signals a shift from expertise-driven governance to a more personality-driven approach. This break from tradition has shocked many who view governance as requiring deep institutional knowledge.

The controversies surrounding Trump’s picks are, of course, profoundly intensified by the ideological polarization of today’s political climate. Presidents have historically sought a balance within their Cabinets, choosing individuals who could appeal across factions or represent a diverse array of perspectives. Abraham Lincoln’s famous “Team of Rivals” approach exemplifies this; he brought together individuals with competing ideologies to foster debate and ensure all viewpoints were considered. Trump’s selections, in contrast, reflect a narrower focus on loyalty and alignment with his agenda, deepening partisan divides and leaving little room for compromise or dissent within his inner circle.

To understand the magnitude of Trump’s approach, it’s helpful to examine as many historical analogues as we can.

Andrew Jackson’s administration in the early 19th century offers a striking comparison. Like Trump, Jackson presented himself as a champion of the common man, railing against an entrenched elite. Jackson’s appointments to his so-called “Kitchen Cabinet” were lambasted for prioritizing personal loyalty over qualifications, much like Trump’s choices today. Similarly, Franklin D. Roosevelt faced criticism during the New Deal era for appointing confidants and allies whose primary qualification was their unwavering support for his ambitious agenda. Both presidents were accused of undermining the norms of governance to push their political visions forward.

Trump’s choices differ in the sheer volume of unconventional appointments and the modern media landscape’s amplification of their controversies. If appointees like Betsy DeVos, whose limited experience in public education drew widespread criticism when she was tapped as secretary of Education during Trump’s first term, symbolized this shift, the appointment of wrestling mogul Linda McMahon is next-level.

The evolution of these choices provoke sharp debates about the role of qualifications in leadership. Are fresh perspectives and alignment with the president’s vision sufficient, or does a lack of technical expertise risk undermining the effectiveness of federal agencies? The answer depends largely on one’s political perspective, but the pattern itself is intentional and unmistakable.

This shift also reflects a broader trend in the politicization of expertise. In past eras, technical knowledge and policy experience were seen as essential for most Cabinet roles. For example, John F. Kennedy’s appointment of Robert McNamara as secretary of Defense was widely praised for bringing a technocratic approach to military policy, even if his tenure was later criticized for its role in escalating the Vietnam War. In contrast, Trump’s choices seem to reject the idea that expertise is a prerequisite, signaling a populist belief that “outsiders” can break through bureaucratic stagnation and bring real change.

This approach is risky. The federal government is an enormous and complex entity, requiring nuanced understanding to navigate effectively. Appointing individuals who lack familiarity with these intricacies risks inefficiency, mismanagement or outright failure. Supporters see these risks as worthwhile trade-offs if it means dismantling entrenched systems they view as ineffective or corrupt. Trump’s choices, then, are not just about personnel but about the very nature of governance and accountability.

The media’s role in amplifying the drama surrounding Trump’s appointments cannot be overlooked. In an age of hyper-focused 24/7 news cycles and social media, every decision is scrutinized in real time, often with sensationalist framing. This creates a feedback loop: Trump makes a controversial pick, critics and media outlets amplify the outrage, and Trump’s supporters rally around him, framing the backlash as proof that he’s disrupting the status quo. This dynamic has amplified the perception of his appointments as shocking, even when historical comparisons might suggest otherwise.

Ultimately, whether Trump’s Cabinet and related appointments are the “most shocking ever” depends on one’s perspective. To his critics, these choices represent a dangerous departure from the norms and expertise that have historically guided American governance. To his supporters, they are a bold rejection of a failing system and a necessary step toward draining the swamp. Historical comparisons to figures like Jackson and Roosevelt show that unconventional appointments are not unprecedented, but Trump’s unique blend of loyalty-driven choices, media-savvy appointees, and polarization have created a distinctive atmosphere.

In the end, Trump’s appointments are emblematic of his presidency: unpredictable, polarizing and steeped in his outsider ethos. Whether they are shocking or simply reflective of the times, they force Americans to grapple with fundamental questions about leadership, governance and the balance between disruption and tradition.

History will judge whether these appointments were bold innovations or reckless gambles, but their impact on the political landscape is undeniable.

Aron Solomon, JD, is the chief strategy officer for Amplify. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world.