This is NOT a good idea.
Recently, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative launched a platform allowing the public to nominate candidates for a potential future Trump administration. Branded as “Nominees for the People,” this site is part of a collaborative effort between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Trump team, aiming to create a government with representatives supposedly endorsed by the public. The initiative claims to empower Americans in selecting individuals who will lead key federal departments, a prospect that appeals to populist sentiments and taps into frustrations with elite-controlled bureaucracies.
While MAHA’s site may appear as a creative step toward government transparency, it brings concerning implications, especially for an administration like Trump’s, where loyalty, ideological alignment, and competence are essential. By opening up the selection process to public nominations, the platform risks turning critical appointments into a popularity contest, potentially undermining the administration’s ability to execute a coherent and effective agenda.
Popularity Over Principle
Allowing the public to vote or suggest nominees for presidential appointments, especially at a time when America’s political divisions are sharper than ever, runs the risk of diluting the quality and loyalty needed in these roles. When appointees are selected on the basis of public approval rather than principle, ideological alignment, or capability, the administration may inadvertently welcome individuals who lack the dedication to Trump’s broader vision or the resilience needed to withstand political and media pressure.
A presidential administration functions best when its members share a unified vision and can execute that vision with loyalty and precision. The reality is that public nominations introduce too many unknowns. Even well-intentioned individuals may lack the hardline commitment and understanding of Trump’s policy priorities, leading to a disjointed execution of critical reforms. For Trump’s 2024 administration to succeed, he must focus on candidates who are deeply loyal, committed to the conservative agenda, and ready to resist the resistance that can come with working in Washington.
The Issue with Bureaucracies
Another critical concern with the “Nominees for the People” approach is that it feeds into the very bureaucratic machine that Trump has long criticized. The federal government’s sprawl includes numerous agencies and departments, many of which conservatives argue have overstepped their bounds. Trump’s platform includes reducing government waste and targeting redundancies, but this nomination site might inadvertently reinforce bureaucratic systems that should be streamlined or, in some cases, eliminated.
Instead of trying to patch up federal agencies with new nominations, Trump’s administration should prioritize restructuring or reducing these bureaucracies, which often work at cross-purposes with conservative goals. Filling these departments with “popular” candidates risks entrenching a system that conservatives argue has often been weaponized against the very principles Trump espouses. A public nomination process may end up preserving bureaucracies that should be either tightly controlled or, in some cases, abolished entirely.
Accountability and Expertise in Leadership
It’s easy to overlook that a presidential administration demands not only ideological alignment but also technical skill and preparedness for high-stakes governance. If a person is selected based on popularity alone, the risks of inefficiency and ineffectiveness grow. The federal government’s complexity requires individuals who are not only steadfast in their beliefs but also well-versed in the nuances of federal policies, agency protocols, and the policy-making process. Without a proper vetting mechanism, a public-driven nomination process could lead to appointees who lack the expertise to handle the demands of their roles, compromising Trump’s ability to push forward a bold agenda.
In addition to expertise, accountability is key. Appointees should be responsible to the administration and the electorate, but a popularity-based process muddies the waters of this accountability, creating ambiguity in where appointees’ loyalties ultimately lie. Strong leadership requires cohesion, not a patchwork of popular picks who may or may not align with Trump’s goals.
The Risk of Bad Actors Gaming the System
One of the most concerning vulnerabilities of the “Nominees for the People” site is the ease with which bad actors could exploit the platform to nominate unqualified or intentionally disruptive candidates. The open nature of this process invites the potential for organized groups or individuals—whose intentions run counter to Trump’s vision—to manipulate the site, pushing for candidates who may harm the administration from within.
Bad actors, whether political adversaries, activists, or foreign influencers, could easily leverage this platform to nominate individuals who lack alignment with Trump’s policy priorities or, worse, have a history of undermining conservative principles. With coordinated voting or strategic nominations, these groups could attempt to fill critical roles with candidates who would work against the administration’s efforts from within, sowing discord, delaying reforms, or leaking information detrimental to the administration’s mission.
A Tool for Sabotage
An open nomination process could quickly become a backdoor for sabotage. Consider the potential for politically motivated individuals to nominate candidates known for previous conflicts with Trump’s agenda or for working closely with the very bureaucratic systems Trump has pledged to reform. These nominees may pass through the platform with public support but carry hidden agendas that would hinder effective governance and obstruct the administration’s plans. Their motivations could range from resisting regulatory changes to quietly stalling policy initiatives, allowing unelected bureaucrats to retain control.
Without rigorous oversight, the site could become a tool for undermining Trump’s administration, effectively diluting the integrity of the nomination process and burdening the administration with officials who do not share its goals.
Exposing the Process to Foreign Influence
In a time of heightened foreign influence in American politics, an unfiltered platform like this one is vulnerable to exploitation by external actors seeking to destabilize the U.S. government. Countries with vested interests in weakening America’s internal coherence or policy direction could work to nominate or boost candidates sympathetic to their own agendas. This risk extends to online activists with foreign ties who can use social media and internet campaigns to push certain nominations, giving undue influence to outside voices that do not prioritize American interests.
A Better Way Forward
If Trump is to forge an administration that embodies his priorities—one that actively works to dismantle the bureaucratic quagmire and replace inefficiency with purpose—a more strategic approach to appointments is necessary. Trump’s administration should be staffed with candidates whose qualifications, loyalty, and alignment with his conservative agenda have been carefully vetted and tested. Loyalty, expertise, and an unwavering commitment to Trump’s vision are more reliable indicators of an appointee’s success than a nod from the general public.
Involving the public in nominations may feel democratic, but when it comes to the practical demands of governing, it’s a misguided step. To create a government that serves the people, Trump should prioritize appointees who can meet the political and ideological demands of their roles without wavering. With the right team, an administration can function efficiently, enact necessary reforms, and dismantle unnecessary bureaucracies rather than reinforcing them.
Conclusion
While MAHA’s “Nominees for the People” site is intended to bring more public voices into government, it ultimately risks compromising the quality, loyalty, and coherence of a Trump administration. Trump’s priorities in 2024 would be better served by a careful, rigorous approach to appointments rather than one that turns the selection of key officials into a popularity contest. This moment in American politics demands dedication and competence, not mere popularity—qualities that are often best identified through experience, ideology, and an unwavering commitment to the administration’s vision.
