Feeling Anxious About Trump's Nominees? Here's What To Do

In the past few weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has made a barrage of nominations for positions across the federal government, including his controversial picks for the Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, National Intelligence Agency, and most recently for the FBI, among others. Friends and colleagues have mentioned how the news alert ping of each new nomination can often leave them feeling frozen with dread or just wanting to unplug from the news altogether. I can relate. But I want to offer a better way forward that’s rooted in my values as a Christian — a way to engage that doesn’t leave me feeling trapped in anxiety or resignation. And we do that not by doomscrolling or tuning out, but by realizing we are not powerless. By exercising our agency together, we can prevent sliding further into these and other emotions and make a real impact.

First, let’s recap how this process typically works: The U.S. Constitution grants a president the power to nominate executive branch officials. This an important consequence of elections and we must recognize that a president has the prerogative to choose those who support the agenda, vision, and policies they were elected to advance — even if we disagree with that agenda. The Constitution also grants the U.S. Senate the duty to provide “Advice and Consent” on many executive branch selections, a recognition that the people who are appointed to these roles are vitally important to our collective health and future. Then, the candidates go through a vetting process, which includes an FBI background check and a constitutionally mandated Senate confirmation, including a hearing to uncover any national security, financial, or political concerns associated with a nominee. Though the Senate can reject a nominee through a majority vote, most presidents have withdrawn nominees who weren’t likely to be confirmed before the Senate voted. And while some presidents have exploited a constitutional loophole about recess appointments to temporarily install people who would not otherwise be confirmed by the Senate, the Supreme Court imposed a more stringent requirement in 2014.

Some of Trump’s recent nominations seem like they’ll easily meet these qualification standards — something we can recognize, even if we don’t agree with many of the policy goals and agendas these nominees will bring. For example, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is undoubtedly qualified to be secretary of state given his roles on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the intelligence committee, even though I have real concerns about some of his hawkish foreign policy views. And while I will likely disagree with Secretary of Treasury nominee Scott Bessent’s ideas on tariffs or deregulation, I recognize that his Wall Street experience and relationships with both political parties are both relevant for the role. And along with many other supporters of the right to unionize, I am cautiously optimistic that Trump has nominated one of the few Republican supporters of organized labor in the last Congress, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, to serve as his Secretary of Labor.

But these aren’t the nominees that leave me feeling a sense of dread. What has felt alarming about many of Trump’s other picks for his second term are their severe lack of qualifications. In some cases, Trump’s picks appear to have, at best, beliefs that run counter to the mission of the agency they would oversee — or at worst, a desire to dismantle the very agency they would be charged with leading. And what ties these most objectionable nominations together appears to be an overriding loyalty, even fealty, to Trump personally, rather than what should be an overriding loyalty to the Constitution and the country.

For example, Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth’s main qualification seems to be his passionate defenses of Trump on FOX News. Hegseth is a combat veteran, but national security experts have been alarmed at a pick who lacks senior defense expertise or the kind of practical experience needed for managing a $800 billion budget. Worse, he faces credible allegations of sexual misconduct, sexism, alcohol abuse, and financial mismanagement.

Many of Trump’s other picks raise similar alarms: Kash Patel has repeatedly railed against the FBI, the agency Trump has nominated him to lead, but secured Trump’s favor by repeating false claims about the stolen 2020 election and vowing to “come after” Trump’s enemies, including journalists. Linda McMahon, famous for running World Wrestling Entertainment and head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term, is a strange choice to lead the Education Department, a department, not incidentally, that Trump wants to eliminate entirely. Her sole education experience is serving on the Connecticut state Board of Education 15 years ago, a position she only held for about a year — but her history of supporting Trump goes back decades. And as for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., putting him in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services when he’s been one of the world most famous vaccine skeptics is a deeply irresponsible move that could carry devastating consequences for the United States’ already serious vaccine-denial problem.

And remember that loophole I mentioned? Trump has also pushed the Senate to allow him to make recess appointments — a move that would amount to a serious abdication of Senate leadership with dire consequences. 

It’s easy to read all this and feel hopeless. During my year as a White House Fellow serving in the Office of Cabinet Affairs, I witnessed firsthand the power cabinet members and other Senate-confirmed leaders wield in managing the immense functions and responsibilities of the federal government. When I think about what that power could look like in the hands of people without experience and qualifications to use that power rightly, I shudder. From the vantage point of my faith, I believe the essential role and purpose of government is to exercise justice by resisting and punishing evil and rewarding and advancing the common good (Romans 13:3-7) — and I worry many of these nominees aren’t interested in or capable of fulfilling that commitment.

But here’s the thing: We have power, too. The 100 members of the U.S. Senate are elected to represent us, and they — and we — are about to face one of the first real tests of this second Trump presidency. Will they go along with anything Trump wants to do, or will they exercise their duty to ensure that the executive branch is led by capable and qualified public servants? And will we care enough to make sure our elected leaders hear us, whether through phone calls, op-eds, or district visits?

In short, we who believe that competence, character, and integrity still matter have significant agency to pressure our senators to show courage in exercising their constitutional duty to approve nominations.

To get really practical, here’s what that looks for me:

Instead of doomscrolling constantly, I’m setting some boundaries with my news consumption and trying to prioritize spending time in prayer and silent contemplation. And when the news I read leaves me feeling outraged or tempted to disconnect in despair, I’m trying to redirect that energy into taking actions that have the power and potential to affect real change — when we join together.

One concrete action we can all take is to call the office of both of our senators using the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121.

We can urge them to take their duty seriously and exercise moral leadership by using the confirmation hearings to engage in robust questioning of all of Trump’s nominees. We can urge our senators to push back on Trump’s stated desire to go around the Senate by using recess appointments, if necessary. And, if these hearings confirm a nominee’s lack of fitness for the role, we can urge our senators to vote against them — being clear that our opposition isn’t about the ideology or policy commitments the nominees bring, but rather because of their lack of basic qualifications or serious deficiencies to lead agencies that carry immense responsibility and have a profound impact on our daily lives.

In my calls to elected officials, I’ll explain that my faith teaches me that government must serve and promote the common good of the people, in other words, to seek to realize “liberty and justice for all,” not simply for the good of those who are elected.

And when I feel myself wondering if I’m making a difference, I’ll remind myself of what it says in Psalm 82:2-4, which speaks directly to our biblically grounded responsibility to intervene against unjust leaders: “How long will you hand down unjust decisions by favoring the wicked? Give justice to the poor and the orphan; uphold the rights of the oppressed and the destitute. Rescue the poor and helpless; deliver them from the grasp of evil people.”