Liberty Exposé: Cleaning House

Dominik Gryzbon

Corporate acquisition. Restaurant ownership changes. The rebuild period following the hiring of a new college football or NFL coach. Although seemingly unrelated, each example shares a common thread. New leadership rarely inherits a team or staff unchanged, and none would be expected to succeed by relying entirely on the personnel of those that came before. Some stay, some leave, and others are brought on by the new regime in order to facilitate the prevailing vision of their employers. The wheat is separated from the chaff, and hopefully for the better. The realm of governance is no different.

Occasionally, members of The Cabinet, or presidential appointees, will carry over into the next administration. Presidents may keep on the high-level cadre of their predecessor, granted these personnel tote the preferred party lines of an incoming presidency or “play a valuable role in helping a new administration hit the ground running.” Notable holdovers in recent years include Robert Gates, acting as Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush and retained by President Obama in 2009, along with the ever-infamous Henry Kissinger, who served as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under President Nixon and President Ford respectively. But such instances of Cabinet retention are outliers, as by-and-large during any presidential changing of the guard, many “political appointees step down when the appointing President leaves office.” Some level of turnover is to be expected, as no leader wishes to be undermined or have their plans fail to come to fruition just because someone can’t, or won’t, get with the program.

Yet, as in many other aspects characteristic of his tenure, President Trump has arguably taken the expectancy of political turnover to the extreme. During his first term, Trump’s administration became nearly synonymous with turnover, as between Cabinet secretaries, senior advisors, and other high-level staff, “Trump’s turnover is record-setting”, eclipsing “that of any other administration in the last 100 years.” The former star of The Apprentice brought many elements of his reality television career to the White House, not least of which being his signature catchphrase “You’re Fired”.

Maybe Trump’s second term was expected to be different, and the revolving door turnover rates were a thing of the past. After all, Trump had already navigated the difficulties of governance before, while enjoying a four-year sabbatical following his 2020 loss to President Biden. In a 2019 report, the Center for Presidential Transition acknowledged that while “one of the key challenges for a second-term administration is to prepare for significant turnover”, a second term “offers a chance for a recalibration and a new start that requires serious preparation long before Inauguration Day.” Given his extended leave of absence, it appeared Trump returned to the White House reinvigorated, presenting a clearer agenda, concrete policy points, and backed by a team chosen largely by their commitment to advancing his presidential vision.

But expectations and plans rarely actualize without any hiccups, and after only two years into his second term, Trump’s turnover rate continues to climb.

Personnel Is Policy

“Personnel is policy.”—Scott Faulkner

Originally coined by Scott Faulkner, Director of Personnel under President Reagan, the notion that “personnel is policy” illuminates how an administration’s success doesn’t only hinge on directives from the Oval Office, but depends largely on the individuals responsible for converting presidential agenda into action. The phrase has been enshrined as “conservative mantra” for decades, and ensures that the right people are appointed for the right job. Or at least you’d think so.

Personnel changes deserve just as much attention as personnel appointments. Ambitious plans require ambitious agents, and yet numerous high-level officials and Cabinet positions have already departed from the second Trump administration ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Were those who resigned unable to meet the administration’s expectations, or were they necessary casualties left in the wake of Trump as he races to steamroll an agenda whose window for completion is approaching its deadline? Perhaps both can be true, or perhaps these departures signify something else entirely.

Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was the first dismissal amongst Trump’s second Cabinet. Her department’s immigration crackdowns in Minneapolis, which resulted in the death of two Americans, followed by her blatantly false statements regarding these American’s deaths brought forth massive bipartisan criticism against Noem. Combined with controversy and congressional backlash surrounding her $220 million horseback advertisement campaign‍, Noem was soon ousted from her position by Trump. Next on the departure list was former Attorney General Pam Bondi, fired from her office earlier this last April. Bondi’s dismissal from the Department of Justice was due in part to her failure to “satisfy Trump's demands to prosecute his political rivals” and the “continued fallout over her handling of the DOJ’s files about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” High DOW numbers were apparently insufficient in securing her position in Trump’s administration. Department of Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer departed from her Cabinet position soon after, but was not directly axed by Trump, unlike Noem or Bandi. Chavez-DeRemer resigned after finding herself at the epicenter of “a string of political and personal controversies” and allegations not limited to, workplace drinking, an affair with a staffer, and misappropriation of public resources that culminated in internal investigation.

Too Much Turnover

So what do these cascades of departures, Cabinet or otherwise, actually signify? Are they emblematic of accountability within Trump’s administration, or are they symptoms of dysfunction that underscore the President’s governing framework? Trump constantly campaigned as a political disruptor, so it should come as no surprise that both his administrations have been marked by similar turbulence.

The list of departed officials arguably speaks more to the self-serving interests of Trump rather than a decisiveness in the president’s leadership. Claims of “accountability” cease to resonate when leadership is merely shifting negative outcomes or failures of policy to those on the lower end of the totem pole. Lay-blame seems to be the name of the game. Some responsibility always lies with the executor, but isn’t it the brass that sets the tone for what their underlings are meant to achieve? President Trump may be channeling his inner Pontius Pilate by distancing himself from the shortcomings of his administration with an easily replaceable scapegoat. Or he may be doing what he thinks is right. Either way, the optics are terrible.

Terrible for his own legacy, the future of the Republican Party, and the relationship between institutions of government and the Americans they are meant to serve. According to recent polling, Trump’s net approval rating is -20, while similar polling stated Trump approval rating “had fallen to a new low, highlighting sustained erosion within the millennial electorate.” Clearly the president’s popularity has taken a turn for the worse, and it’d be foolish to say that his administration’s unpopular ICE crackdowns, handling of the Epstein files, or military conflict in Iran haven’t contributed to this fact. There’s rarely a need to shoot (or fire) the messenger when they’re merely the bearer of bad news. Beyond Trump’s own page in U.S. history books, how can voters continue to back future Republican presidential tickets when the campaign promises they were sold amount to little because of constant Cabinet or appointment turnover?

The wheels of Congress already turn slowly. Sometimes it seems they don’t turn at all. Regardless of how quickly they’re disposed of, Cabinet Secretaries and other high-level appointees require Senatorial confirmation, consuming time that could be better spent passing meaningful legislation, while all at the expense of taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, public trust in government is already nearing unprecedented lows. December 2025 polling from the Pew Research Center found that only 9% of Democrats and only 26% of Republicans, or Republican-leaning independents, trust the federal government. Such rampant turnover rates can only exacerbate this public mistrust, as “public trust in government is shaped less by policy alone and more by perceptions of fairness, stability and independence of institutions.”

Conservatives are justified in demanding accountability throughout all branches of government, but that doesn’t mean they should lose sight of the fact that enacting long-lasting reform requires institutional stability. Nor can Trump, or any other potential Republican Commander-In-Chief, hope to advance the policies and agenda they were elected on, while firing the arbiters of their will whenever it is politically convenient. Every household occasionally cleans out their medicine cabinet, sweeping out expired prescriptions and outdated products. Out with the old and in with the new. But if you find yourself emptying your medicine cabinet every few months, the issue may not be the medicine alone.