Recently, Donald Trump, the former U.S. president, felt his own leadership practices backfire and implode. He certainly has adopted a new approach in his current term. Previously, Trump would repeatedly high staff turnover and made alleged abrupt dismissals. Now he prioritizes loyalty over competence, fostering a wasteland of stability. This dramatic shift to new priorities leads to many questions about why he is making such big shifts and what this means for his administration.
Like at the beginning of his presidency, when Trump called on millions of federal employees to quit their jobs. He acted to systematically remove holdovers from advisory councils. This pushy approach was a harbinger of an administration that would prove as pugnacious as its first year was rocky. Under his director, the Justice Department fired dozens of career prosecutors. This included anyone who participated in investigations personally connected to Trump. Alarmingly, his first 14 months in office had the highest cabinet turnover of any president in a century.
In the first days of the Trump administration, these firings dominated the news. Among the high-profile dismissals were FBI Director James Comey and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. That’s how he branded himself for more than a decade through reality TV domination, with the one-liner catchphrase, “You’re fired!” His philosophy toward personnel decisions was unapologetic and fearless. Many staffers first heard about their firings via hostile tweets, in keeping with Trump’s enjoy style.
As he understandably re-focused on resuming the presidency this past January, Trump in some ways has shown a surprisingly timid streak, according to some. He has become much more willing to hire instead of fire. His team is packed with loyalists, a depth of commitment he lacked in spades his first go-round. This shift in strategy might be due to a number of reasons.
Political analysts say that the shift in Trump’s strategy is indicative of a broader acknowledgement on his part that the tides are turning in Congress and with the public. Bill Galston, a political scientist, noted that “Republicans in Congress are more implacable than they were a year ago.” It’s both a reflection of past Democrats’ successes and an indication that so many legislators are suddenly skittish of being associated with a president whose personal popularity has tanked.
Indeed, the Trump administration has been marked by a culture where loyalty is valued above all, even more than expertise. Analyst Tara Setmayer made this point that struck me as really insightful. She recently added, “This time, you don’t see as many firings because sycophancy has replaced expertise as the desired outcome. Trump has loaded his cabinet with individuals who prioritize loyalty above all else, often sidelining competence in favor of unwavering allegiance.
It seems like the media environment is impacting Trump’s decision-making process, too. Rick Wilson, Republican political strategist Trump doesn’t want to fire anyone. To do so, he thinks, would be to give the media the victory. This feeling feeds into the belief that these dismissals may give critics in the media more ammunition to fire with.
Aside from the personalities, Trump’s inner circle has shifted dramatically since his first term. He appointed figures such as Jim Mattis, a revered former general who later resigned as Secretary of Defense over foreign policy disagreements. This indicates that he is very interested in engaging with people outside of his immediate bubble. Meanwhile, he’s building a larger and deeper base of loyal supporters.
In contrast to the chaos of his initial term, Trump’s second term has been comparatively stable, with his team remaining almost entirely intact. Political observers are already pointing out that this stability would be smart strategic play as Trump takes his talent and circus into an extremely complicated primary technical state.
Though controversies have marred Trump’s administration since the start, Trump continues to show no fear or worry. His political skills to ensure that his most loyal supporters remain saved him from any organized dissent from within. Bill Galston nicely encapsulated this dynamic. He argued that the errors are the second most important, because higher up than mistakes are loyalty and relentless hostility.
This is how Trump is choosing to govern—fostering the highest allegiance among his most rabid supporters. It remains to be seen how this gamble will shape his administration’s impact and the public’s perception of it. The landscape of American politics is ever-changing, and Trump’s current approach reflects both an adaptation to these conditions and an unwavering commitment to loyalty among his ranks.