Donald Trump’s Controversial Picks for National Security Positions
It has been over a week since Donald Trump’s election, and his choices for advisors and cabinet members are sparking intense debates. Security expert Iulia Joja analyzes the strategy of the Republican president and compares it to the experts Trump surrounded himself with in his first term.
Donald Trump selected his advisors based on loyalty. PHOTO: Getty Images
Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Raises Concerns
Donald Trump’s nomination of Tulsi Gabbard for the position of Director of National Intelligence has raised concerns within the intelligence community, according to Reuters.
While not the only controversial choice, Gabbard’s nomination has garnered the most severe criticism. Gabbard, a former Democratic member of Congress and a reserve officer in the U.S. military, lacks experience in the intelligence field and is seen as sympathetic to Russia and Syria by several American and European officials.
Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party in 2022, has stirred controversy due to her criticism of President Joe Biden’s support for Ukraine, leading some critics to accuse her of parroting Kremlin propaganda.
According to current and former intelligence officials and independent experts, one of the risks is that key advisors could offer the future Republican president a distorted view of global threats based on what they think will please him, potentially causing foreign allies to be hesitant to share vital information with the U.S.
European Security and European Studies expert at George Washington University and Georgetown University (USA), Iulia Joja, analyzes for “Adevărul” Trump’s strategy regarding his proposals for advisors and secretaries of state, the similarities and differences from his first term, and what to expect from his national security strategy. If Tulsi Gabbard is bad news for Ukraine, there is also good news, the expert noted.
Events Shaping US Foreign Policy
What are the main events that have occurred in this period, shaping the future of U.S. foreign policy?
Iulia Joja: We have some nomination proposals that will need to pass through the U.S. Senate. This is currently the topic of discussion if we look at the media from both sides.
Just a few minutes ago, I was watching a video of a Fox News host, the television network that supports Republicans and Trump, saying that appointing Tulsi Gabbard as the Director of U.S. Intelligence Community is almost like appointing Putin himself to lead American intelligence services.
This was a comment from Fox News regarding the nominations. It seems to be part of Trump’s strategy to create a lot of political waves and discussions.
For a week now, everyone in Washington and internationally has been talking about Trump and his appointments of advisors and decision-makers on the most important issues, including Robert Kennedy, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswami, Tulsi Gabbard, Mark Getz, and many others who are at least controversial.
Gabbard: It’s Natural for Russia to Attack Ukraine
Is the statement from Fox News about Tulsi Gabbard an exaggeration? What do we know about her?
For example, we know that she made a statement in the early weeks or months of the large-scale war, saying that it is natural for Russia to attack Ukraine because the West did not respect Russia’s national interest enough. She is perhaps the most controversial nomination, but there are several other controversial nominations, and we will have to see what passes the U.S. Senate and what doesn’t.
As a political hypothesis, Trump’s strategy is almost to test the loyalty of the Republican Party. Let’s not forget that he has not been a lifelong Republican, not a loyal Republican, and through these very controversial nominations, he is practically testing to see how much the Republican Party supports him in the Senate or how much political will the Republican Party has to resist these controversial, if not problematic, nominations.
Good News for Ukraine
How secure are these nominations?
Again, there is a lot of speculation, and these nominations are not final. Let’s not forget that in Trump’s first term, he changed his close advisors very often. There were more secretaries of state, defense secretaries, and so on. So, this should also be considered as a temporary status.
There is a name that has been discussed a lot over the past week, especially regarding our region and the war in Ukraine, namely Marco Rubio, the nomination for Secretary of State, equivalent to our Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Marco Rubio voted against this year’s supplemental package, which includes aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, so he has been labeled in Europe as anti-Ukraine. However, this is not entirely accurate. Marco Rubio, among all these nominations, may be the best news for Ukraine. Marco Rubio voted against the supplemental package because he believed that the Biden administration and President Biden did not develop a strategy to help Ukraine defeat Russia.
So, not because he opposed military aid to Ukraine, but because he opposed Biden’s lack of strategy.
Therefore, among this wave of nominations, he is perhaps the most encouraging name for Ukraine but also for the wider space and for Romania.
“In the First Part of the First Term, He Worked with Big Names”
If we were to compare with Trump’s first term, do we see anything different in the appointment of advisors and ministers?
In the first term, the individuals appointed to almost all of these positions – I’m referring to the Secretary of Defense, equivalent to the Defense Minister, the Secretary of State, equivalent to the Foreign Minister, and the National Security Advisor, equivalent to the head of the intelligence services, and so on – were changed multiple times because they clashed with Trump. They quarreled over fundamental issues, and then either resigned or were forced to resign.
In the first part of the first term, Trump worked with big names, with a lot of experience, highly respected specialists internationally for their experience and expertise, true professionals.
Most of them definitively clashed with Trump and, in the meantime, after the first term, events such as January 6 have caused even more disagreements. So, almost naturally, the appointments in the second term are people who have not clashed with him, who have less experience, who have a vision much closer to Trump’s. Many of these appointments are seen as rewards for the help Trump received in this campaign. On one hand, the similarity is that many will probably be replaced, not withstand, and on the other hand, the ultimate test is how loyal you are to Trump personally, not to the institution of the presidency.
Those with less experience, we can anticipate, may quickly make significant mistakes that disqualify them, forcing them to resign. So, this is the umbrella we are looking at right now: people who have been or are extremely loyal to him personally, people with views that align with his vision, with his policies, which are, from the perspective of many analysts, difficult to understand.
We have the appointment, for example, of Robert F. Kennedy, to the highest health position, a person who is skeptical of the COVID virus and believes in extensive conspiracy theories regarding the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, and so on.
“A More Acute Confrontation Relationship. That Doesn’t Mean War”
What other appointments do you expect?
I expect him to appoint individuals like Rubio, for example, and others who advocate for a policy of confrontation with China, primarily, but also with China’s allies, such as Iran and Russia.
What do you anticipate in terms of changes in national security strategy?
What I anticipate is that the next change will be shaped: Trump in the first term introduced the term Great Power Competition, competition between the great powers. This is practically an umbrella concept for a policy that entails a confrontation vis-à-vis China, especially, which is the number one threat to the United States according to Trump.
Then comes Iran in the Middle East and Russia, to a lesser extent.
After that, Biden came to power, who inherited this concept and nuanced it into the form of strategic competition. For example, looking at policies towards China, Biden has nuanced them, but has not changed the approach, maintaining the idea that the United States is in a strategic competition. What I anticipate is that we will have a new modification here, a new strategic vision, with Trump 2. And we are moving from an era of competition between great powers to a more acute confrontation relationship. That doesn’t mean war.
Given that the United States has been very reluctant to get involved in the conflict in Ukraine under Biden, and Trump no longer desires this war, boasting in the election campaign that he was the first president in decades not to start a war, it’s hard for me to believe that Trump will want to start a direct military conflict with any other power. On the contrary, I believe he will do everything possible to avoid this, but the competition will be much more acute in terms of trade wars, tariffs, possible sanctions, embargoes. These I believe will be the instruments that Donald Trump, as President of the United States, will choose to interact with China, Iran, possibly Russia, but also possibly with allied or partner actors like the European Union.
What do you think Republicans will do, will they accept these proposals?
There is a lot of speculation at the moment on this topic, behind closed doors, among Republicans, as well as in the public space. What I hear from Republicans is that they do not have enough political will to oppose most of these nominations. They may oppose one – Tulsi Gabbard – in particular, of the three considered most problematic in the national security space at the moment.
But they don’t seem to have the political power, that would be the term, or the necessary political will to strongly oppose. Again, it seems to be a loyalty test for Trump. How much does the Republican Party want to quarrel with Donald Trump at the beginning of his term? That is the question. That is what he is testing right now. And how much will the Republican Party accept from Donald Trump’s personal desires and preferences. Given the political trends in the Capitol, it seems that the Republican Party does not want to have a major quarrel with Trump at the beginning of his term. Which, ultimately, from a political point of view, is quite natural.