The Cabinet, a body closely linked to the President, often reflects the chief executive’s attitudes toward leadership and governance. In Abraham Lincoln’s case, he assembled a “team of rivals” consisting of his principal opponents from the election of 1860: William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates. These men differed greatly in their states of origin, socioeconomic backgrounds, and progressiveness on the issues of slavery and war. Lincoln relied heavily on their wealth of political experience, commitment to unity and strength, and, most importantly, ability to challenge his views. The ability of the Cabinet to initially disagree, yet yield to the best decision for the people, served the country well in securing a Union military victory in the Civil War and enforcing Reconstruction. 

Notably, under the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution, the Senate is vested with the power to assess most presidentially appointed candidates to the Cabinet and vote on their confirmation. This clause provides a check on presidential power when an unqualified person is appointed as a key leader within the executive bureaucracy. However, the Senate majority typically lends the benefit of the doubt to the president in the majority of cases, as evidenced by the fact that only one Presidential appointee was rejected by vote from 1977 to 2013. 

Fast-forward to today. In the weeks after Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 Presidential Election, the Senate’s confirmation authority has re-entered the national conversation. In contrast to Lincoln, Trump has nominated candidates widely considered unqualified for various high-level positions; these appointments are primarily based on partisan loyalty or even sycophancy. 

Consider the highlight of this esteemed group, Matt Gaetz. Trump nominated Gaetz to serve as Attorney General of the Justice Department, the lead prosecutor in the country, despite lacking previous experience as a U.S. attorney or judge. Additionally, the very department that recently investigated him is the one that he has been asked to lead, in addition to the House Ethics Committee, on suspicion of illicit drug use and sexual misconduct with a minor. Therefore, it was unsurprising that right before the release of the Ethics Committee report, Gaetz resigned from Congress. With misgivings from Republican Senators, Gaetz’s confirmation hearing will face scrutiny, but the nomination itself demonstrates the provocative nature of Trump’s forward relations with Congress. 

No sooner had the nomination of Gaetz hit the headlines than Trump had tapped Robert F. Kennedy Jr., perhaps the world’s most infamous anti-vaccine advocate, to take charge of the Department of Health and Human Services. Despite RFK’s belief in vaccines causing autism and his petition to remove fluoride from drinking water, Trump thought it best to select a conspiracy theorist who advocates against some of the greatest health achievements of the last century, as reported by the CDC. 

Perhaps most dangerously, Tulsi Gabbard was nominated as Director of National Intelligence alongside Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Gabbard is best known as a Democratic turncoat, Russia and Syria sympathizer, and Trump surrogate, but not an intelligence officer, having never served in such a position. In the same vein, Hegseth built extensive experience on Fox News, with views such as supporting officers involved in war crimes cases, removing women from combat roles, and, of course, unwavering approval of Trump’s policies. With the defense budget nearing 850 billion dollars and the ranks of active duty soldiers exceeding two million, Trump’s choice of Hegseth is one better suited for a reality television show than reality.

For sanity’s sake, I’ll leave the conflicts of interest raised by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s currently inexistent, meme-inspired Government Efficiency department for another occasion. 

Certainly, Trump expected backlash, leading him to request recess appointments of his nominees via a Senate adjournment before he assumed office. Whether this occurs will be a telling indication of whether the Senate intends to maintain its Constitutional duty to check the president or plans to become a simple instrument of Trump’s wishes. Given the copious concerns many of the candidates raise, such an abdication of responsibility would be a major blow to the power of the legislature and reasonable expectations of candidate quality. Circling back to Lincoln, one can hope the Senate listens to the “better angels” of its nature. If not, expect the executive branch to be led by a unified force in service to President Trump, handpicked to serve at his pleasure, and nothing more.