No one asked for it, but the Washington Post has given us a list of Trump’s cabinet and cabinet-level nominees and decided which ones it approves of and which ones it thinks are garbage.
If you thought it would trash them all, you were wrong. But don't get excited. WaPo’s commentary on Trump’s cabinet confirmations is a masterclass in thinly veiled disdain wrapped in the perception of fairness. In a transparent effort to appear fair and balanced, the leftist paper only voiced objections to four nominees (two cabinet secretaries and two cabinet-level officials) while signaling begrudging approval for the rest.
Its reasoning? Trump won the election, so he deserves the chance to build his team — unless, of course, a nominee is glaringly unqualified in WaPo's eyes. But let’s not kid ourselves: these lukewarm endorsements reek of resignation, not genuine support. The Post knows these confirmations are largely a foregone conclusion, so instead of taking a principled stand against all of the nominees it dislikes, it's playing along, objecting to just enough to maintain the appearance of impartiality and putting its thumb on the scale of the most controversial picks.
Even more laughable is its promise to update its evaluations if disqualifying information emerges during the hearings. Translation: “We’ll find something to change our opinion on as many as we can.”
Recommended: Democrat Senator Blames Trump for California Wildfires
The first cabinet secretary the Washington Post deemed unacceptable was Pete Hegseth, the nominee for Secretary of Defense. “The former Fox News anchor lacks the temperament and moral fiber required to lead the Pentagon,” the WaPo editorial board claims. “He persuaded Trump to pardon accused war criminals and has a well-documented history of womanizing and heavy drinking, though he says he’ll give up the bottle if he gets one of the most sensitive and powerful jobs in the world.”
The next, of course, is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “With bird flu on the rise, now is not the time to put an anti-vax conspiracy theorist in charge of public health.”
Can I get an eyeroll?
It would be easier to give credence to WaPo's issues if it didn’t have such trouble hiding its disdain for the Trump nominees it deemed acceptable. For example, it said of Housing and Urban Development Secretary nominee Scott Turner, “The former motivational speaker has never run a big organization, but that is not disqualifying,” and it first described Transportation Secretary nominee Sean Duffy as a “former reality TV star,” before noting that he was also a congressman and adding dismissively, “He’ll still need to study.”
That’s cute after four years of Pete Buttigieg as transportation secretary.
The two cabinet-level officials the Washington Post deemed unacceptable are OMB Director nominee Russell Vought and DNI Director nominee Tulsi Gabbard but had nothing to say about the nominees they considered acceptable.
The entire approach is laughable, revealing less about thoughtful deliberation and more about a calculated attempt to play both sides — conceding Trump’s inevitable confirmations while posturing as the voice of reason to apply pressure on the more controversial picks. It’s the same play that Sen. John Fetterman is making in order to appear fair.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member