On Wednesday, the Editorial Board of The New York Post publicly opposed President-elect Donald Trump’s nominations of former Representatives Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and Matt Gaetz (Florida) for high-ranking positions in his administration. Gabbard was proposed as the incoming Director of National Intelligence, while Gaetz was tapped for the role of Attorney General. This opposition reflects the stance of News Corporation, the Post’s parent company, which is overseen by Rupert Murdoch, known for his skepticism towards Trump’s choices, including the selection of Vice President-elect JD Vance.
The Post characterized Gabbard and Gaetz as “chaos agents,” a label commonly used by mainstream media to discredit individuals advocating for transformative change in alignment with Trump’s agenda. In his campaign, Trump expressed a resolute intention to cleanse the federal bureaucracy, which he has referred to as the “deep state,” of corrupt and rogue elements. The editorial board raised significant concerns about Gabbard’s ability to provide reliable intelligence to the Trump administration, suggesting that her tendency towards isolationism could diminish awareness of existing threats. They pointed to her sympathy towards authoritarian figures, exemplified by her stances regarding Syria and Russia, as further evidence of her unsuitability for the role.
In addressing the nomination of Gaetz, the editorial did not hold back, criticizing his lack of ethics and discipline necessary for effectively restoring a prosecution system that ensures fairness. Although the Post alluded to Gaetz’s troubled history with the law and suggested it undermined the integrity of Trump’s broader agenda, they notably refrained from mentioning that he had never faced charges from the Department of Justice under President Joe Biden. The editorial board proposed that Gaetz, if genuinely dedicated to Trump’s mission, should withdraw his nomination himself to avoid scandal.
The nominations of Gabbard and Gaetz arrive amid criticism of unelected officials in the federal bureaucracy who have allegedly employed their power to push individual agendas. The “deep state” refers to a network of unaccountable and unelected administrative agencies, including those associated with national security, which have been accused of creating a so-called fourth branch of government that operates independently of the constitutional framework designed to separate powers among the three branches of government.
An illustrative example of this alleged bureaucratic overreach involved a letter signed by 51 intelligence officials, suggesting that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a product of Russian disinformation prior to the 2020 elections. The mainstream media, including Politico, amplified this narrative, despite the signatories reportedly having prior knowledge of the veracity surrounding the laptop. This incident garnered further notoriety when President Biden leveraged the narrative during a debate against Trump, effectively discrediting any claims concerning the laptop’s contents. The orchestration of this narrative has been attributed to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who allegedly facilitated the information for Biden’s use, illustrating the complex interplay of misinformation and political maneuvering during the election cycle.
Wendell Husebo, a political reporter at Breitbart News and former RNC War Room Analyst, presents an analysis of the intricacies inherent in this political moment. The editorial board’s critique encapsulates a broader context surrounding Trump’s administration as it prepares to navigate an entrenched administrative state, indicative of ongoing tensions and ideological divides between established political figures and those advocating for substantial reform. The Post’s positions demonstrate an evolving struggle over the direction of Trump’s presidency and the influence of individuals who could shape critical national policies during a time of considerable upheaval in American politics.