America is facing a preventable national safety crisis because expertise is increasingly sidelined at the highest levels of government. In the first three months of 2026, at least 14 people have died in U.S. immigration detention centers — a surge that has drawn international criticism and underscored how life‑and‑death decisions depend on qualified leadership. When those entrusted with safeguarding the public lack the knowledge or are chosen for loyalty instead of competence, danger rarely announces itself. It arrives quietly, through misjudgments no one is prepared to correct.
That warning is urgent today. With Markwayne Mullin now leading the Department of Homeland Security amid rising scrutiny of immigration enforcement, questions about expertise are no longer abstract. Recent reporting shows a dozen detainee deaths in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody this year, highlighting systemic risks where leadership decisions have life‑and‑death consequences.
The framers of the Constitution understood this risk. They expected presidents to choose individuals of character, competence, and relevant expertise — and the Senate to reject inexperienced nominees. The Appointments Clause created a shared duty to prevent the concentration of power. When Congress confirms unqualified nominees, that safeguard collapses. The result is a government exposed to failures in the very systems designed to keep people safe — precisely the danger the framers sought to prevent.
No president governs alone. The claim that a single leader can “fix it” contradicts a system built on reliance on expert advice. Today, that premise is being tested.
Americans have watched nominees placed in roles without the qualifications those positions demand — and confirmed despite concern. Reporting shows that leaders lack the experience to direct critical agencies. Measles cases have reached their highest levels since 1991, a reminder of what happens when public health expertise is dismissed. These outcomes are not policy disagreements; they are failures of safety, produced when leadership disregards knowledge.
What emerges is not a series of isolated errors but a pattern. Cronyism — elevating loyalists over experts — erodes trust and replaces judgment with political obedience. When ideologically driven directives override expertise, systems designed to protect citizens falter. As Steve Jobs observed, “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do.” When loyalty outweighs competence, decisions degrade, and risk grows, affecting everything from disease control to disaster response.
Presidents are entitled to advisers they trust. But trust is no substitute for competence, especially where errors carry national consequences. Governing demands deep expertise across foreign policy, national security, science, education, and public health. Yet key advisory roles have too often been filled by individuals chosen for loyalty rather than experience, leaving critical gaps where judgment matters most.
Congress has enabled this pattern. It has confirmed nominees whose inexperience was evident. These were choices. Loyalty has been treated as a qualification, with nominees selected to advance agendas or disrupt institutional norms rather than provide competent leadership. Senators have feared retaliation, deferred to party loyalty, and invoked the claim that “a president deserves his team,” even when that team lacked the expertise required to protect the public. Nominations such as Mullin’s bring this failure into sharp focus — raising questions about whether loyalty is again being prioritized over relevant expertise. This is not abstract; when unqualified leaders direct policy, consequences fall on ordinary Americans.
Competence is not optional. It is the baseline of public safety — the foundation of national security, public trust, and democratic stability. No leader can master every field; that is why expertise is indispensable.
This is not theoretical. Early in my career, I was taught that incompetence is never harmless — it creates risk for everyone it touches. I am reminded of that lesson when nominees are advanced despite clear gaps in experience. Congress has confirmed individuals it knew were unprepared, then expressed frustration when they failed. Advancing nominees while recognizing deficiencies calls judgment itself into question and undermines the system designed to check power before harm occurs.
The consequences extend beyond appointments to governance. Many voters once believed that business experience would translate into effective leadership. The record proved more complicated — marked by bankruptcies, legal disputes, and unpaid vendors. These patterns raised questions about judgment. Yet rather than surrounding himself with seasoned experts to offset gaps, the president has often elevated advisers chosen for loyalty over skill. That choice concentrates power while weakening the expertise required to govern.
This approach is now being formalized. Proposals such as Schedule F and initiatives like Project 2025 would allow tens of thousands of career civil servants — scientists, cybersecurity specialists, public health experts — to be replaced with political loyalists. The consequences are clear: when experienced personnel are removed, safety inspections stall and emergency response slows. Scholars warn that such changes would degrade the government’s capacity to respond to crises. A government cannot function when expertise is treated as optional.
The warning signs are already visible. Reporting has documented instances in which national security experts were excluded from conversations with foreign leaders while political advisers with little training were present. These advisers acted as gatekeepers, limiting expert input. When loyalty displaces competence, vulnerabilities emerge — unseen by the public but unmistakable to foreign leaders and adversaries.
The same pattern appears in public communication. Americans have watched leaders make claims about climate science, military operations, and foreign affairs that contradict the assessments of career professionals and scientists. Experts have publicly pushed back against statements that misrepresent complex realities. These moments feel dismissive — as though both their judgment and the expertise of those who serve are being set aside. These are not debates over perspective; they are disagreements rooted in elevated risk when empirical understanding is replaced with political convenience.
At a human level, the risk is clear. Everyone has encountered someone who pretends to be an expert. In ordinary life, it is uncomfortable; in government, it is dangerous. Every sector of American life depends on trained professionals — surgeons, engineers, scientists — whose work prevents risks we rarely see. Government is no different. The stakes are higher.
When leaders dismiss expertise and rely on improvisation, the risks fall not on politicians but on ordinary Americans — our families and our future. A nation cannot navigate danger without expertise at the helm.
My experience reinforces this. I spent my career as a generalist — capable across many areas but aware of my limits. Effective leadership requires recognizing those limits and relying on those with deeper expertise. Healthy institutions depend on leaders who surround themselves with capable professionals. Today, Americans see the opposite: turnover, conflict with experts, and appointments that prioritize loyalty over knowledge. The result is a government that feels unsteady — less able to meet crises.
If the problem is structural, the remedy must be as well. It is not partisan; it is constitutional. Americans can demand transparency about qualifications, support independent oversight, and expect the press to scrutinize qualifications and the confirmation process. But when leaders refuse to listen, citizens must act — through voting, peaceful protest, petitions, and civic engagement that places country above party. Congress must fulfill its duty: confirm qualified nominees, reject those without relevant experience, and exercise oversight.
Competence is a constitutional requirement. It is the minimum the American people deserve.
Americans need experts. The country cannot function without trained professionals guiding national security, public health, science, and diplomacy. It cannot protect its people when expertise is dismissed, and it cannot endure if competence is treated as optional. To neglect expertise in the highest offices is to gamble with public safety. Republics do not fall from force alone, but from folly.
Competence is not a luxury. It is the minimum the American people deserve.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership, government accountability, and civic renewal. She writes about democratic resilience, institutional responsibility, and the conditions that support sustained civic engagement.
