The withdrawal of Matt Gaetz as Trump’s preferred nominee for the Justice Department is a wake-up call for the president-elect. Despite a strong mandate, he cannot easily escape democratic control.
Bastian Brauns reports from Washington
The abrupt withdrawal of Matt Gaetz as Donald Trump’s nominee for Attorney General and Attorney General is a major blow to the authority of the President-elect of the United States. As he prepares for his second term, one of his most important nominations has turned into a major scandal.
Actually, the transition of power phase is a moment of consolidation and strength for the president-elect. Instead, the withdrawal of his favorite Matt Gaetz reveals the cracks in Trump’s internal party coalition. And it turns out that the constitutionally guaranteed power of institutions is still effective in the USA. Despite his efforts to undermine the Constitution, the President must expect that his power will be checked and limited.
Matt Gaetz’s nomination was controversial from the start due to his personal background and the ongoing controversy surrounding drug, sex and embezzlement scandals. Donald Trump knew this and nominated him anyway. Gaetz justified his decision to withdraw his candidacy by saying that he did not want to be a “distraction” to the overall project of the coming Trump presidency. But of course this was not an act of magnanimity, but rather a reaction to political reality. The material against Gaetz from the Ethics Committee of the US Congress is so incriminating that even Trump saw no way out other than to finally drop him.
Trump and his colleagues had lobbied aggressively for Matt Gaetz – sometimes behind the scenes, sometimes with open threats. Recalcitrant senators who wanted to oppose Gaetz’s nomination should be “removed” from the Senate. Trump also planned to completely override the Senate’s say with a special rule and simply push through his nominations. A considerable number of Republicans in the Senate had signaled resistance to Gaetz. Not only his person was dissatisfied, but also Trump’s audacity in the manner of an autocrat to put together his cabinet as he saw fit.
The events surrounding Matt Gaetz are a bitter pill for Trump because the strategy behind almost all of his nominations is to test the limits of his authority. Trump wanted to install Gaetz, a loyalist who would transform the Justice Department into an instrument of his revenge against his political opponents.
There are many other characters from Trump’s chamber of horrors who could cause trouble. At the forefront is Tulsi Gabbard, whom the president wants to appoint as his new intelligence coordinator. Of all people, a person who has so far attracted attention primarily by defending dictators like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping or Bashar al-Assad. There is also Pete Hegseth, his preferred candidate as the new defense minister, and Linda McMahon, the future education minister. Both, like Matt Gaetz, are facing allegations that have to do with sexual violence.
With Matt Gaetz, Trump has now gotten a taste of the unnecessary and dangerous fights he risks with his personnel decisions. His insistence on Gaetz has proven to be a strategic mistake. Trump has already proven that he can generate broad support within the party and among the public with Marco Rubio as Secretary of State or Doug Burgum as Secretary of the Interior and Energy. His understandable demand for loyalty can be combined with competence. The latter is essential if the relevant authorities are to meet his expectations and work efficiently.
Trump chose his controversial candidates because he now has to satisfy his base, which has been incited against the Washington elites. But the fact that he cannot do without expertise is Trump’s weak point. Every normal minister jeopardizes his promise of merciless “cleaning” of the hated “system” in Washington.
But Trump’s mandate is not as limitless as he promised his own supporters. At least it still does not relieve him of the need to seek balance and compromise within the framework of constitutional control. And for the Democrats it is a first signal that resistance in the opposition can be worthwhile even in difficult times.
