Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump Administration’s Record-Breaking Level of Personnel Turnover

Opinion

President Trump standing outside.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from the media after the firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson before departing from the White House on March 13, 2018 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Mark Wilson

As Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi have learned, in Donald Trump’s world, loyalty to him is seldom reciprocated. They are just the latest in a string of people he has fired over the course of his two terms in office.

It is not surprising that someone who became famous for the use of the phrase “You’re fired” in his stint as a reality TV star would be quick to give the axe to anyone who displeases him. This is part of the reason his first administration set modern records for personnel turnover, and his second may break those records.


The people he lets go are not the only ones to pay the price. Trump’s readiness to throw anyone under the bus damages democracy by showing that loyalty to him and ruthlessness, efficiency in carrying out his agenda matter more to him than service to the people.

Democracy requires the kind of competency that the president does not seem to value. As Prof. Rosa Brooks explains, “A shared notion of competence is essential to democracy.” The kind of competency that democracy demands, she says, “Encompass(es) not only skill and efficacy but also judgment, humility and empathy.”

And if personnel decisions are also an indicator of the quality of a president’s judgment, Trump has failed mightily. His failure is especially telling because the president regularly boasts that he hires and appoints only “top, top people” who are “the best and most serious people.”

This boast was echoed on November 21, 2024, when the then President-elect announced Bondi’s appointment with great fanfare, lauding her experience and success in making “the streets safe for Florida Families.” In typical Trumpian fashion, he said that she “did such an incredible job” in reducing drug trafficking.

“I have known Pam for many years,” he added. “She is smart and tough, and is an AMERICA FIRST Fighter, who will do a terrific job as Attorney General!”

Nine days earlier, he described Kristi Noemhas as “very strong on Border Security….I have known Kristi for years, and have worked with her on a wide variety of projects. She will be a great part of our mission to Make America Safe Again.”

In both cases, the claim that he had known his appointees for years makes his decision to let them go less than two years after he selected them even more of an indication, as the Washington Post put it, that “he has made a mockery of… (his) pledge…” to appoint only the best people.

Looking back at his first term, the Post notes that, “One of the people Trump hired for the White House was working as a foreign agent while advising him during the election. His campaign chairman caught the Justice Department’s attention for similarly surreptitious work. And a third campaign adviser was reportedly surveilled by the FBI as part of an investigation into whether or not he was a Russian spy. The tales of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page… have…raised persistent questions about his judgment.”

In addition, the president has treated the people he terminates with cold, cavalier indifference. Recall that he fired former FBI Director James Comey while Comey was in Los Angeles at a speaking engagement. Then he took to Twitter to denounce him and congratulated himself on doing “a great service to the people in firing him. Good Instincts.”

In June 2019, Trump’s “good instincts” led him to nominate James Esper as Secretary of Defense. At Esper’s swearing-in ceremony, the president said, “There is no one more qualified to lead the Department of Defense than Mark Esper….“I am confident that he will be an outstanding Secretary of Defense. I have absolutely no doubt about it. He is outstanding in every way. And we’re honored to have you aboard.”

Seventeen months later, in November 2020, he fired Esper, tweeting, "Mark Esper has been terminated. I would like to thank him for his service." He did so even though, as NPR reported, “Esper earned the derogatory nickname ‘Yesper’ for seemingly acquiescing or remaining silent…” no matter what outrageous thing the president did.

Trump wanted to fire Esper months earlier after the Defense Secretary did not deploy regular military forces to quell riots in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. But by the time Trump got around to firing Esper, the Defense Secretary had plenty of company.

A Brookings Institution study released in January 2021 found that “turnover among the most influential positions within the executive office of the president” was higher in Trump’s first term than it had been in the first term of any other president going back to 1980. The same was true for members of President Trump’s first-term Cabinet. Fourteen people left the Cabinet. The next highest were the eight people who left the Cabinet in President George H.W. Bush’s first term.

The pace of churn has not slowed since he returned to the Oval Office. Time.com identifies seven senior officials that the president has already removed, including Bondi and Noem.

Time reminds us that the first was Mike Waltz, his National Security Advisor, whom the president fired in May 2025. “Waltz’s ouster came weeks after…a bombshell report that he had organized a group chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal to coordinate a sensitive military operation against Houthi militants in Yemen.”

Last May, Cameron Hamilton was also removed from his position as the acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, “After he broke with the Administration by testifying to members of Congress that he did not approve of dismantling the agency.”

But it turns out that as much as Trump seems ready to fire people, he does not like to do it in person. So, he typically uses intermediaries or relies on social media.

He fired Reince Priebus, his first chief of staff, by a tweet as he was waiting on the tarmac for Trump to get off Air Force One. Trump used the same medium to let Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State in his first administration, know that his services were no longer needed.

In Bondi’s case, the president broke the pattern, delivering the news as the two of them rode together in a limousine so they could attend the oral argument in the birthright citizenship case at the Supreme Court. Not only was this an awkward place to fire her, but as the Daily Beast observes, he did so “brutally,” saying only, “I think it’s time.”

Capturing the cruelty of the moment, it adds, “Even after she was fired in the limousine, she begged to stay….(and) was forced to enter the Supreme Court knowing her time was up.”

This time, he showed a graciousness toward Bondi that has often been sorely lacking in his remarks about others he fired or who left the government. According to NPR, he called her a “Great American Patriot and a loyal friend” in a Truth Social post. He praised her for doing “a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country…. (and added) We love Pam….”

Small consolation.

As Trump once admitted, "I consider firing everybody. At some point, that's what happens." America’s democracy would be better served if he spent less time considering firing people and more time finding people whom he would never have to think about firing.

Brooks rightly notes that “Democracy… is unsustainable without competence at every level. We need citizens who understand our political system and who are capable of evaluating competing arguments, and we need leaders capable of developing and carrying out wise policies.” Those who have left the administration, as well as many who remain, have not shown themselves capable of doing so, and the American people are worse off because of it.


Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.


Read More

U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche

U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building on September 30, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Trump’s Weaponization of the DOJ Threatens Democratic Governance

The dust from the November 2026 midterm elections has barely settled, yet a familiar, toxic chorus of political warfare is already drowning out the clear message from American voters.

With Democrats securing majorities in both the House and Senate, voters signaled a desire for checks, balances, and a focused effort on the pressing economic issues squeezing everyday families. Instead, President Donald Trump has chosen to meet the incoming legislative branch not with an open hand, but with a weaponized Department of Justice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) holds his first presidential campaign rally at Brooklyn College on March 02, 2019 in Brooklyn, New York.

A lobbyist who worked for both Bernie Sanders and Fortune 500 clients explains what democratic socialist wins mean for business, and how to prepare.

VIEW press/Getty Images

I Campaigned for Bernie Sanders Then Lobbied for Amazon

In 2016, my political outreach company, Firehouse Phones, worked on the presidential campaign of a democratic socialist. It was one of many campaigns my firm touched, but that one stays on my resume for a reason: it taught me more about how persuasion actually works than any client engagement before or since.

Today I run Ohio River South, a government affairs firm focused on the nation's fastest-growing region — the American South. Over the past decade we've advocated for nearly two dozen Fortune 500 companies — Amazon in my earlier lobbying years, and later growing a client roster that included Alphabet, Microsoft, General Motors, United Healthcare, and Capital One.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House
The white house with green lawn and trees
Photo by Josh on Unsplash

The Politics of Gratitude: Why Washington Punishes the Loyalty It Cannot Price

On a Sunday night in August, Senator Jon Ossoff told a campaign rally in Atlanta that President Trump would rather build his ballroom and “travel with Natalie” than do his job. He never used her last name. He did not need to. Natalie Harp, the White House aide known to colleagues as Trump’s “human printer” for trailing him with a portable printer and transcribing his social-media dictation, had become a punchline before most Americans knew who she was.

The backlash arrived within hours. White House officials accused Ossoff of insinuating an affair; Republican Rep. Brandon Gill noted that Harp survived bone cancer only because the Right to Try Act, which Trump signed in 2018, let her seek an experimental treatment outside the normal approval process, and dismissed any other reading of the moment as unfair. Weeks earlier, Harp had been at the center of a far more consequential story: in July, she was one of a handful of aides, alongside the defense secretary and two senior staffers, chosen to accompany Trump on a covert switch of aircraft as he left a security summit in Turkey after officials detected a credible Iranian threat, while most of the traveling delegation stayed behind on a decoy plane. That is the real proximity Ossoff's line was needling. Then came a detail that complicated the story further: Trump had personally given Harp and several other aides cash gifts of $45,000 apiece, which a former federal ethics official called troublesome, since money on that scale can leave a recipient feeling indebted to whoever signs the check.

Keep ReadingShow less
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less