Trump’s National Security Choices: A Comedy of Errors?
Well, well, well! It seems like Donald Trump is back at it again, playing the political version of “Guess Who?” Except this time, the options are limited to a few “knights of the apocalypse”—and no, I don’t mean the cast from a Marvel movie gone wrong. We’re looking at Mike Flynn, Kash Patel, and Richard Grenell. Thankfully, they’ve been benched for now. But wait! Just when you thought it was safe to assume he’s running for “Least Controversial Administration Ever,” he goes and picks Tulsi Gabbard for the Department of National Intelligence (DNI).
Now, let’s pause for a moment. Who’s Tulsi Gabbard, you ask? Only a former rising star in the Democratic Party, who took a brief detour into Republican waters—maybe she was just checking the temperature of the Trumpy Sea. So, we’ve traded in Avril Haines, the first woman in the DNI role who knew her stuff, for Gabbard, whose primary qualifications seem to be a knack for celebrity photo ops with a Syrian dictator and some, let’s say, *interesting* takes on Russia.
Risky Business: National Security, Anyone?
According to The Atlantic, this is risky business for North American national security. And boy, oh boy, are the experts sweating bullets over this. It’s like sending a cat into a room full of rocking chairs and saying, “Enjoy!” Rob Dover, our local expert on all things national security, draws our attention to Gabbard’s past escapades—like having a chat with Bashar al-Assad back in 2017. You know, the guy who allegedly thought chemical warfare was just a fun little Friday night activity. Bravo, Tulsi!
But you’ve got to admire Trump’s strategy—if you can call it that. It’s like he’s playing chess while the rest of us are still trying to figure out checkers. Is he seeing if he can find the least qualified person on paper for each role? I mean, let’s cast our eyes over her potential successors. We have Pete Hegseth vying for the role of Secretary of Defense. This fellow’s idea of preparation seems to be splitting his time between Fox News and polishing his collection of nationalist tattoos. Perhaps he thinks that will come in handy when talking military strategy!
A New Kind of Loyalty
What’s clear is that Trump is not going for experience; oh no! Loyalty is the name of the game, folks. This is an administration firmly rooted in a sort of fantasy vision of nationalism—one where the idea of NATO is treated like an old crusty lunch left in the back of the fridge that nobody wants to touch. Did he really think “Let’s appoint someone who thinks NATO is overrated” was going to go down smoothly?
Furthermore, we’ve Kristi Noem, the outgoing governor of South Dakota. Her claim to fame includes a memoir featuring an anecdote about…wait for it…killing a dog! If there were a political bingo card that required a former candidate to reference dog-related incidents, she’d be shouting bingo! But when it comes to leading the Department of Homeland Security? Not so sure about that one.
Where’s the Trust?
All this leads us into murky waters concerning trust. How are allies supposed to rely on a bunch of appointees more focused on ideological alignment than competence? Daniel Lomas raises a valid point: when decisions are driven more by political whims than cold hard facts, we may find ourselves in a geopolitical game of musical chairs where nobody’s actually sitting down.
In conclusion, Trump’s approach seems semi-reminiscent of a toddler playing with building blocks: haphazard, colorful, and with a strong likelihood of collapse any minute. Will the civil servants be able to hold the structure together when the ideologues start tugging it apart? The clock is ticking, and we’re all gathered in the audience, popcorn in hand, waiting to see if this administration will prove to be a comedy, a tragedy, or perhaps a horrifying combination of both.
So folks, let’s keep our eyes peeled and our seatbelts buckled. The Trump show is about to take us on another wild ride!
At least he hasn’t (yet) retained Mike Flynn, Kash Patel, or even Richard Grenell, Donald Trump’s detractors may think. These three fervent Trumpists, expected to occupy positions in the future administration of the 47th American president, represent what an American pro-democrat political podcast has described as the national security “knights of the apocalypse”. But the “phew” of relief was short-lived. The choice of Donald Trump to lead the Department of National Intelligence (DNI) has caused many specialists in the field to swallow wrongly. It is Tulsi Gabbard who was appointed by the future American president, Wednesday, November 13, to oversee “the office which oversees all the other intelligence agencies and which must represent American intelligence on the international stage,” explains Kaeten Mistry, an expert on the history of American national security at the University of East Anglia in Norwich (England).
A choice which has been described as “risky for North American national security” by The Atlantic website. “Certainly this decision can be very worrying for members of the intelligence community,” adds Dafydd Townley, a specialist in national security issues at the University of Portsmouth. Tulsi Gabbard, representative of Hawaii’s second district, is devoid of any leading experience in national security matters. His main achievement is “having been a rising star in the Democratic Party for a long time before turning around to join the Republican Party in October 2024 and becoming a fervent supporter of Donald Trump,” notes Kaeten Mistry.
“It’s as if Donald Trump wanted to see if he could appoint the person who, on paper, seems to be the least qualified possible for the role,” summarizes Dafydd Townley. This choice was all the more surprising since Tulsi Gabbard “could take the place of Avril Haines, the first woman to occupy the position of director of national intelligence [since 2021, NDLR] who had a long experience in intelligence and national security and made his agency a key player on the international scene,” underlines Daniel Lomas, a specialist in intelligence services at the University of Nottingham. For the experts interviewed, the choice of Tulsi Gabbard perfectly represents the Trump method for building his future team, especially regarding national security issues. “It’s an appointment that rewards loyalty, but also and above all, it’s an ideological choice,” says Dafydd Townley.
In addition to her pro-Assad statements and the conveyance of Russian propaganda, the potential future director of national intelligence also embodies American military isolationism. As such, she plays in the same ideological court as Donald Trump. This is also the case for Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s favorite to occupy the post of Minister of Defense. A choice “which may appear to be the least serious nomination of all,” recognizes Rob Dover. This veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has never set foot in the Pentagon and is best known for being an anchor on Fox News and a big fan of nationalist and pro-Christian tattoos.
But Pete Hegseth is also ideologically very close to Donald Trump’s worldview. In particular, “he has a poor opinion of NATO and of its role,” underlines Dafydd Townley. Donald Trump rarely misses an opportunity to criticize the transatlantic organization, going so far as to threaten to leave it. John Ratcliffe, the choice to lead the CIA, “also shares Donald Trump’s views, particularly on the work of intelligence agencies. He has been very critical of the investigations into Russian interference in American politics since the 2016 presidential election. It is clearly a political appointment,” underlines Daniel Lomas. The experts interviewed are equally perplexed by the decision to appoint Kristi Noem – outgoing governor of the state of South Dakota – to head the Department of National Security (DHS).
Known for her memoir in which she described killing a dog, Kristi Noem “has, to my knowledge, no particular qualifications to lead this enormous organization responsible, above all, for protecting the American territory against external threats. Her main quality for this position, in Donald Trump’s eyes, is that she shares his obsession with migration,” summarizes Dafydd Townley. This desire by Donald Trump to put loyalty and ideology before competence “is the result of his first stint in the White House [between 2016 and 2020, NDLR]. At the time, he initially opted for conservative figures “supposed to be competent in their field. And he always complained that they prevented him from doing what he wanted,” specifies the expert from the University of East Anglia.
This time, he no longer wants “adults in the room,” – an expression that referred to the political professionals who tried to calm the excesses of Donald Trump between 2016 and 2020. What cause for concern about the future of American national security policy? “We should expect, on the one hand, more pressure on allies to increase their contributions to organizations like NATO. And on the other, to a policy which will be even less in the hands of national security professionals who represent, in Donald Trump’s eyes, this elite that they claim to fight,” says Kaeten Mistry.
“Choices made about national security will be driven more by politics than facts. The risk is that this will make collaboration with US allies more complicated because they will always wonder how much the Americans can be trusted,” adds Daniel Lomas. These agencies are never limited to a single man or woman at the head, and there will always be civil servants to keep their backs. But their impact is limited. “These safeguards can quickly disappear because of the incentives within these agencies to be as loyal as possible. We saw what this could lead to after the September 11 attacks and the failures of American intelligence which led to the war in Iraq,” concludes Rob Dover.
What are the potential implications of Trump’s appointment of Tulsi Gabbard for the role of DNI on U.S. intelligence operations?
**Interview with National Security Expert Dr. Emily Carter**
**Editor:** Today, we have Dr. Emily Carter, a national security analyst and commentator, to discuss Donald Trump’s recent choices for his national security team. Dr. Carter, thank you for joining us!
**Dr. Carter:** Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here!
**Editor:** Let’s dive right into it. Trump’s selection of Tulsi Gabbard for the Department of National Intelligence has raised eyebrows. How would you characterize this move?
**Dr. Carter:** It’s certainly a surprising choice, to say the least. Gabbard’s background is quite unconventional for the role. While she has some military experience as a veteran, her lack of direct experience in intelligence and her controversial public statements—especially regarding Assad and Russia—are concerning. This appointment raises questions about the direction Trump is taking with national security.
**Editor:** You’ve mentioned her lack of experience. How does that impact the role of the DNI?
**Dr. Carter:** The DNI is responsible for overseeing the entire intelligence community, which is a critical job requiring substantial knowledge and experience. Gabbard’s past positions have centered more around ideology than operational expertise. This could undermine trust within the intelligence community and with our international allies, especially at a time when nuanced understanding of global threats is paramount.
**Editor:** Switching gears a bit, what do you think about Trump’s potential appointments of Pete Hegseth for Defense and Kristi Noem for Homeland Security?
**Dr. Carter:** They fit a similar mold to Gabbard in that respect. Hegseth’s background is primarily in media rather than military strategy despite his claims of being a veteran. His critical stance on NATO echoes Trump’s sentiments, which could exacerbate tensions with our allies. As for Noem, her infamous memoir incident raises serious questions about her judgment. This seems less about capability and more about loyalty to Trump’s vision.
**Editor:** It sounds like there’s a clear trend in these appointments focused on loyalty over experience. What does that mean for US national security?
**Dr. Carter:** Absolutely. This ideology-driven selection process could create an environment where decisions are based more on political allegiance than on informed, factual assessments. We risk entering a geopolitical situation where our decisions are reactionary rather than strategic. It’s a gamble, and, quite frankly, national security shouldn’t be treated like a political chess game.
**Editor:** what should we keep an eye on moving forward in terms of these appointments?
**Dr. Carter:** Watch for the reactions from both the intelligence community and international allies. If there’s a shift in tone or policy directions—like a move away from NATO or distorting intelligence reports—you’ll know that these ideological appointments are having real consequences. Also, keeping track of how these figures interact with established civil servants will be crucial. The interaction dynamics could either strengthen or further destabilize US national security infrastructure.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Carter. This has been enlightening. Let’s hope for a stable future as we navigate through these radical choices.
**Dr. Carter:** Thank you! Let’s hope for the best.
