Comparing the cabinet choices of the US President and UK Prime Minister – An exercise in rational judgement.

How Trump’s Cabinet picks have turned conventional wisdom on its head

When comparing the UK and USA, politics students are asked to explain why differences exist, basing their decision on either rational, cultural or structural differences that exist in each country. Picking your cabinet has long been an exercise in rational judgement and one of the main differences between the cabinet choices of the UK Prime Minister and the US President is that they are motivated by very different rational instincts.

In the UK:

The UK Prime Minister can select ministers from the Houses of Parliament, although to be more exact, it is almost always the case that they will come from the House of Commons. Given that the UK Prime Minister is elected by their party and their hold on power is often weak, they know that their successor, and therefore often their rivals for their job, will come from within the cabinet. As a result, some Prime Ministers have decided that it is best to keep their main rivals away from the cabinet where they can become starved of media attention and publicity. For example, Theresa May exiled both former Chancellor George Osborne and former Education Secretary Michael Gove to the backbenches when building her first cabinet in 2016. Alternatively, some Prime Ministers have kept their rivals in the cabinet to ensure that any dissent is silenced by the doctrine of collective responsibility. Again, Theresa May attempted this approach by making Boris Johnson her Foreign Secretary in 2016. Nonetheless, the most consistent approach by a Prime Minister is to fill the cabinet with their friends and supporters. Witness, for example, how Liz Truss promoted her friends Kwasi Kwarteng and Therese Coffey to the roles of Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister respectively. This is a sensible approach because friends and allies are more likely to give you support than to throw you under the bus when the going gets tough. It also just makes more sense to fill the cabinet with like-minded individuals because it lessens dissent and makes it more likely that the cabinet will agree with the policy decisions you take. Keir Starmer’s cabinet is a classic example of this, being filled with more centrist, pragmatic Labour MPs, than those from the left of the party.

In the USA:

The situation is somewhat different in the USA whereby members of the cabinet are unlikely to threaten the position of the President who has a direct mandate from the people and can only be removed mid term by Congress rather then by their own party. In this scenario, the rationale option for a President is to select individuals whom they believe are best suited to the job and will be able to accomplish the task they are set to. In Biden’s cabinet he selected the former head of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yelland, to be the Treasury Secretary and former four-star general Lloyd Austin as Defence Secretary. Both individuals have an intimate knowledge of the areas in which they now have control and as such are well suited to achieving success.

The UK v US – an example

The difference in UK v US cabinet appointments can be exemplified by the role of Defence secretary. The Defence Secretary has responsibility for security and defence and therefore has influence over the armed forces in both countries. It makes sense therefore to select a figure with military experience as the Defence Secretary. Lloyd Austin was therefore an obvious pick by President Biden in 2021. In the UK, Defence Secretaries have recently included names such as Gavin Williamson and Grant Shapps, two men whose experience prior to politics lies in sales, Williamson selling fire places and Shapps selling photocopiers. However, both men brought loyalty to the Prime Minister and this was more importance than their understanding of the military.

Trump’s Cabinet Picks

Trump has begun to reverse the idea that a President will choose those who have experience in a field to run his cabinet departments. Instead, Trump has reverted to the UK system of cabinet selection and appears to be picking those whom adhere to his world view and can demonstrate personal loyalty to him. Trump’s pick of Peter Hegseth as Defence Secretary is a good example to use here. Hegseth does have military experience having served in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, he is better known as a presenter on Fox News and one that regularly defends Trump. Another surprise pick has been that of Robert Kennedy Jr as Health Secretary. Kennedy ran for the Presidency as an Independent before dropping out and supporting Trump. Kennedy has promoted misinformation about vaccinations and has said that water companies should not put fluoride in drinking water despite fluoride having been proved to protect against tooth decay. So, whilst Kennedy may not appear to be the most suitable candidate to lead the Department of Health, having demonstrated loyalty and a compatibility with the Presidents world view, he meets the remit for selection to Trump’s second term cabinet.

In summary, when it comes to differences in cabinet selection, both Prime Minister and President and using their rational judgement to complete the task and don’t always select the best person but the person who is best for them. With this in mind, even the more surprising of Trump’s picks still meet this criteria of being rational because he believes that people who share his world view will be more likely to carry out his wishes.