I commend news agency columnists who publish research-based and value-added (versus “my opinion”) op-eds on a daily or frequent basis. Submitting an occasional essay allows me time to ponder contemporary issues and explore the latest hot topic.
Since Aug. 6, Perplexity and Google have helped me examine over 30 documents to determine the best and worst U.S. presidential cabinets. Based upon academic studies and expert analysis, here are the results.
Judging presidential cabinet strengths and weaknesses
While determining cabinet strengths and weaknesses can be debatable, broad research-based consensus, historical investigation, and political science scholarship supports a generally accepted conclusion to judging the quality of a presidential cabinet. Some key components include: expertise, competence, experience, operational effectiveness, ethical standards, scandals, internal White House diversity, and the ability for cabinet members to challenge the president without repercussions.
Several other dimensions to assess cabinet performance across U.S. presidencies include: turnover rates, public opinion and approval ratings, vacancy rates, delays in appointments, effectiveness of cabinet members’ actions, and the ability to maintain stability and implement policy.
Cabinet findings synopsis
Five different and independent research studies summarized that U.S. presidential cabinets can be compared, contrasted, and evaluated based upon three factors: 1) stable, low-turnover, and well-staffed cabinets are generally seen as higher performing, 2) high-turnover and high-vacancy cabinets are associated with decreased effectiveness, and 3) appointment of experts and diverse talent correlates with improved policy outcomes and cabinet success.
Best presidential cabinets
The following presidential cabinets are widely regarded as among the best in U.S. history:
1. Abraham Lincoln’s (Rep., 1861-1865) cabinet—known as the Team of Rivals—with people like William Seward, Salmon Chase, and Edwin Stanton, challenged yet complemented Lincoln, helping with the Union’s victory and abolition of slavery.
2. George Washington’s (no political party, 1789-1797) cabinet included Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph, which Lindsay Chervinsky and other historians point to as a foundational model for effective executive leadership.
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s (Dem., 1933-1945) cabinet included Frances Perkins (first female cabinet secretary) and Henry Morgenthau Jr., who helped shape and implement the New Deal policies and guide America through World War II.
Worst presidential cabinets
Historical surveys cite the following presidential cabinets among the worst in U.S. history, predominantly due to issues of incompetence, corruption, and scandal:
1. Warren G. Harding’s (Rep., 1921-1923) cabinet is widely regarded as the worst of the worst due to the infamous Teapot Dome scandal, widespread corruption among cabinet members, and for exemplifying poor cabinet selection due to cronyism and misconduct.
2. Ulysses S. Grant’s (Rep., 1869-1877) cabinet was plagued by corruption, the Whiskey Ring scandal, the Crédit Mobilier affair, and unethical governance.
3. Donald J. Trump’s (Rep., 2017-2021 and 2025-2029) cabinets have been widely criticized for their lack of qualifications, record-setting high turnover rates, appointments based on loyalty over capability, conflicts of interest, stark public dissatisfaction, and poorly vetted appointees, but approved by Republican Senators.
Turnover of appointees is a proxy for performance and stability
Research is replete that turnover rates of presidential appointments are an indicator of presidential performance and a concrete indicator of stability. High cabinet turnover has significant negative consequences for governance and leadership effectiveness, such as loss of institutional memory, loss of expertise, lack of cohesion, and stalled initiatives.
Frequent cabinet turnover has serious consequences. It disrupts policy formation, diminishes efficiency, harms morale, undermines public trust, and weakens agency autonomy and long-term strategic capabilities.
During Trump’s first presidency, a record turnover occurred with 20 of his 24 cabinet picks either quitting or being “de-hired” by Trump. Furthermore, 92 percent of the 65 people who were on Trump’s 2017-2021 “A Team” left their appointed office.
During the first 220 days of Trump’s 2.0 administration, he’s already had turnover in 13 key positions, notably Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, Cameron Hamilton, Dr. Carla Hayden, Dr. Debra Houry, Dr. Daniel Jernigan, Dr. Peter Marks, Dr. Susan Monarez, Elon Musk, Shira Perlmutter, Dr. Vinay Prasad, Vivek Ramaswamy, Dr. Drew Snyder and Mike Waltz. Furthermore, at least 148,000 federal employees have left Trump’s 2.0 workforce.
Trump 1.0 and 2.0
From a cabinet member’s perspective, Trump’s two attempts at being president are near the bottom of 47 presidencies. Rigorous historical research would suggest this does not bode well that the 2025-2029 time period will be successful.
With all of the chaos, uncertainty, dictatorial behavior, flip-flopping, and 192 executive orders, 47 memoranda, and 79 proclamations brought to the table by Mr. Trump since Jan. 20 and controversial cabinet member actions, the proverb “hope springs eternal” has to be Americans’ guide to find optimism. A second proverb—“you reap what you sow”—is before Mr. Trump and the GOP Senators who approved the cabinet nominations.
Let’s face reality. A cabinet that ranks historically low with respect to competence, ethical standards, experience, and other competency criteria makes the U.S. vulnerable to a multitude of operational inefficiencies, policy blunders, ethical mishaps, scandals, conflicts of interest, conspiracies, and foreign intervention. Americans are in a situation where only time will tell the outcome.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.