The United States has long been a global leader, its influence bolstered by carefully selected representatives who bring expertise, diplomacy, and a firm grasp of their respective fields to the table. However, recent nominations by President-elect Donald Trump suggest a stark departure from this tradition. The pattern emerging from these appointments reveals a disturbing prioritisation of personal loyalty over professional competence—a move that risks not only domestic governance but also America’s standing on the world stage.
Take, for example, the nomination of Matt Whitaker as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. Whitaker, a former Acting Attorney General, has no discernible experience in international diplomacy, military affairs, or the complex inner workings of the NATO alliance. His tenure in public office is marked by his brief oversight of the Mueller investigation, where his alignment with Trump’s views on that contentious topic arguably cemented his status as a loyalist. Now, he has been entrusted with representing the United States in one of the most critical and historically fraught international organisations.
Whitaker’s appointment is emblematic of a broader trend. Other recent nominations similarly seem less about qualifications and more about allegiance to Trump’s ideology and leadership style. While administrations often bring in allies to advance their agendas, this new wave of appointees lacks even the veneer of suitability for their roles. It signals a deliberate reshaping of key institutions—not to make them more effective, but to ensure their alignment with Trump’s worldview.
This loyalty-over-competence approach has serious implications. In NATO, a role like Whitaker’s requires diplomatic finesse, deep knowledge of global security dynamics, and the ability to navigate the sometimes-tense relationships among member states. NATO is at a critical juncture, with increasing geopolitical tensions and debates over member nations’ contributions to collective defence. Appointing someone without the requisite background risks alienating allies who are already wary of the United States’ commitment to the alliance. It also undermines the credibility of American leadership in multilateral settings.
Beyond NATO, these appointments raise broader concerns about governance. When key roles are filled by individuals whose primary qualification is personal loyalty, it stifles independent thought and erodes the checks and balances that are essential to a functioning democracy. These appointees are unlikely to challenge their boss’s perspective, even when doing so might serve the national interest. This creates an echo chamber where decisions are made not on the basis of expertise, but on how well they align with the leader’s preferences.
This strategy, while politically expedient, comes at a high cost. It risks eroding public trust in institutions that are supposed to serve the people rather than a single individual. It also sends a troubling message to the rest of the world: that the United States is less interested in leadership grounded in experience and merit, and more focused on consolidating power around a singular figure.
America’s strength has always been rooted in its ability to balance competing interests, embrace diverse perspectives, and cultivate a governance structure that prioritises competence. If the recent trend of appointments persists, the country risks losing not only its internal stability but also its global influence. Allies will become sceptical, adversaries emboldened, and the institutions that underpin democracy weakened.
Now more than ever, the United States needs leaders who bring expertise, integrity, and independence to the roles they are entrusted with. Loyalty is not inherently a bad thing, but when it becomes the sole criterion for appointment, it undermines the very fabric of governance. America can ill afford to prioritise allegiance over ability—not at home, and certainly not on the world stage.
