We seem to have come to a reckoning point in American history where explanations we have relied upon for years should be re-examined. From various analyses of voting data, many are surprised that it’s white people who made the difference on Trump’s numbers. We need to better understand the issues that make a difference to voters of all races and ethnicities, and how to present them better going forward, even from thin minority positions in both Houses. There is a mid-term election in two years.
President-elect Trump has announced most of his Cabinet and executive appointments at this time. Only this past week did his team sign on to the FBI background checks on those nominees, which may mean that the Senate will examine nominees without some of those important reports in front of them when they start in late January. In the meantime, investigative reporters have done their version of background checks. A number of the nominees have checkered histories, with source materials coming from both public records and workplace confirmation of inexcusable behavior (Gaetz, Hegseth in particular).
At least one nominee (Gabbard) has been branded a Russian asset and will have difficulty with Senate approval for the position of Director of National Intelligence. A large number of former security and intelligence officers sent a letter to the Senate, urging a closed-door confirmation hearing so that the matter could be deeply examined, since this position is responsible for the preparation of the president’s daily briefing (PDF) on issues and events of concern around the world – important, even given reports that Trump in his first term rarely read them.
From Axios on December 6, 2024: "Several of Ms. Gabbard's past actions call into question her ability to deliver unbiased intelligence briefings to the President, Congress, and to the entire national security apparatus," the letter stated. They went on to illustrate:
“Her most infamous controversy is a 2017 trip to Syria, when she met Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. She subsequently declared that Assad — the Russia-and Iran-backed leader accused of using chemical weapons against his own civilians — was "not the enemy."
No one disputes the principle that the president should have his own nominees in his cabinet but, as some of the other choices indicate, not at the expense of national security or public health. Each nominee should be examined carefully on their qualifications to lead the department they have been nominated for. And each senator who votes should put the needs of the country before their fear of President-elect Trump.
On the Supreme Court side, there is not any good news. Most likely, Justices Thomas and Alito will be encouraged to step down and make way for two more conservative appointments to the court. The case just argued in front of them -- In United States v. Skrmetti – asks the court to consider whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth is discriminatory under the Constitution. From Scientific American:
“The Tennessee law, which mirrors similar recent bans in 24 other states, prevents transgender youth from receiving treatments proven to relieve the symptoms of gender dysphoria (psychological distress that results from an incongruence between someone’s sex assigned at birth and their gender identity). These treatments include puberty-blocking drugs and hormone therapies—medications also used by nontransgender adolescents and children to treat a variety of conditions. Their use to treat gender dysphoria is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and other important medical institutions.”
Twenty-four other states already have such a law on their books, and in hearing the case the court seemed to not want to disturb those state laws.
To be sure, there are other Constitutional questions that the Supreme Court will take up in its next session. Another will be cases rolling up from the lower courts on the forcible treatment of immigrants. The list could go on indefinitely here, but the onus is on us all to pay attention, to add your voice where appropriate and, above all, to not give up – and to not forget that on many policy questions, the announced intentions of the new administration are likely to seriously hurt the very voters who provided the electoral margin now in effect. These are conditions in which confidence in governance is more important than it has been in any of our lives.
Originally Published in ASA News & Notes December 9, 2024
Annie Searle
Searle is an Associate Teaching Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington. She is founder and principal of ASA Risk Consultants, a Seattle-based advisory firm. She spent 10 years at Washington Mutual Bank, most of them as a senior executive. Annie is a member of the CISA 10 Regional Infrastructure Security Group. She was an inaugural inductee in 2011 into the Hall of Fame for the International Network of Women in Homeland Security and Emergency Management. She writes a column monthly for ASA News & Notes and is the author of several books or book chapters. She is also a member of the emeritus board of directors for the Seattle Public Library Foundation.