In Trump’s Cabinet, flattery crowds out governance

flattery crowds – A new look at Trump-era Cabinet meetings points to a recurring pattern: praise, attacks on political opponents, and credit-taking that can overwhelm the business of governing. In footage reviewed for a reported analysis, cabinet members repeatedly frame meetin

On May 27 at the White House, the Cabinet came to talk about Iran, construction projects in Washington, D.C., and the economy. The agenda was real. So was the war.

Then the meeting turned into something else—an extended moment of praise for Donald Trump that, according to footage reviewed for a reported analysis, ate most of the oxygen even when serious issues were on the list.

Donald Trump has the title and the great powers of the presidency. But power doesn’t automatically produce governance. The question that hangs over his Cabinet is whether loyalty—particularly loyalty to Trump and MAGA—has replaced the Constitution. the American people. and the nation as the top qualification for the people advising him at the highest level.

Trump’s senior team spans ideological figures. business figures. and political operators: White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are named among the extremist ideologues; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are listed as businessmen and powerbrokers; Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio appear as power-hungry shape-shifters. The central claim is blunt: their most important qualification is loyalty to Trump and MAGA rather than to governing principles. In that framing. there is no tension between serving Trump’s political personality and serving the country—because Trump is treated as the State.

The reported analysis driving the concern comes from Ashley Cai of the New York Times. Cai reviewed over a dozen hours of footage and found that. on average. at least one of every six sentences spoken by cabinet secretaries flattered the president. attacked political opponents. or gave him credit for their work. The pattern was not subtle. Some cabinet members, including Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, are described as lavishing Trump with adulation. Vance is described as attacking Democrats.

Cai wrote that one of the most striking features of Trump’s Cabinet meetings this term is the extent to which his leadership has been praised as unparalleled.

Allison Schuster, a White House spokeswoman, pushed back in an email to the Times, saying the Cabinet is using these televised meetings to highlight the exhaustive list of accomplishments they have delivered on behalf of the American people.

But the May 27 meeting transcript-style details in the reporting make the tension hard to ignore. On that Wednesday. Hegseth took the lead. comparing Trump to Abraham Lincoln and George Washington—two men described as facing monumental tasks and standing up in historic fashion and delivering for the American people.

Then other Cabinet members followed. Kelly Loeffler, the administrator of the Small Business Administration, was singled out as especially fawning. She told Trump: “Mr. President. you have made us a nation of builders again.” She added: “You’re leading us to the greatest economy that the world has ever known . . . I hear it everywhere I go: ‘Please thank the president for putting us back on track. Thank you.’ They love you.”.

The fear in the reporting isn’t simply that Cabinet meetings have become noisy. It is what happens when praise becomes the governing system itself—when the people tasked with advising power stop doing the harder work of saying “no.”

The article frames the moment as more than style. It argues that what was displayed at the White House points to an America not “the world’s greatest democracy. ” but a kakistocracy—a system administered by the worst and least qualified people. In that view. the highest levels of governance become competitions for the leader’s approval rather than a focus on governing effectively.

It also describes a reality gap that appears to be widening. The reporting says Trump increasingly lives within a solipsistic reality of his own creation. It claims he believes he is beloved—described as the most popular president in history who has earned a place on Mount Rushmore—and that in his America the country is the greatest on earth. with too much winning and an economy that is amazing.

Against that picture, the reporting places numbers and assessments it says point the other direction. Trump’s approval, the article says, has fallen to a historic low of 34% in a new Economist/YouGov poll. It claims America’s prestige and power have declined rapidly during his first year back in office. It says the economy is stagnant and getting worse for average Americans. and that the public believes the country’s best days are behind it. It adds that the Republican Party looks likely to lose the November midterms. giving Democrats some check on Trump’s power. Abroad. it says America’s prestige and respect are collapsing and that the president’s failed war against Iran has exposed the limits of American power.

The reporting then ties that reality gap to a new vulnerability inside Trump’s orbit. It says the Cabinet, staff, and right-wing propaganda machine are losing their ability to insulate him from outside truth. The question becomes what happens when reality finally collides with the one Trump has constructed.

In that scenario, the article predicts bunker mode: it says the White House would likely retreat further into fictions and fantasies as pressure rises. It portrays egomania and fabulism as coping mechanisms that would grow more extreme under stress.

But it emphasizes that the deeper danger is not flattery itself. The danger is what the Cabinet will do when the country faces a genuine crisis. Will they tell Trump “no” if an action could seriously harm the nation?. Will they risk their political careers—and potentially more than that—to oppose him in order to protect the country?.

And if Trump became unable—physically, mentally, or emotionally—to discharge his duties, the reporting raises another question: would the Cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment?

The answer offered is grim: the “mostly likely” answer to each question is “no.”

The article points to an earlier moment for evidence. During the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, it says several members of Trump’s first-term Cabinet held discussions about invoking the 25th Amendment. It also says it was not the first time those conversations took place. But given what the reporting says it knows about the Cabinet’s loyalties. it argues it is difficult to imagine a single secretary having that conversation.

It then broadens the frame to voters and structures. It says tens of millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump across three presidential elections. It calls that a damning indictment—not only of voters, but of the broader culture and society. It also argues that the outcome points to a structural problem.

Political scientist Brian Klaas is quoted in the reporting from his book “Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us.” Klaas writes: “Whatever specific interventions are adopted. a big part of the battle is acknowledging a core problem: those who shouldn’t be in power are more likely to seek it. We need to design every system to try to screen out the corruptible, power-hungry candidates.”.

The reporting connects that idea to how Trump’s Cabinet was assembled: it describes the Cabinet as the inevitable result of people selected not for competence or character, but for loyalty to a man who has made no secret of his authoritarian dreams.

The final question is left suspended over the whole piece, tied to the moments that haven’t arrived yet: when the crisis comes—and it will come—will anyone in the group place the nation before the king?

United States politics Donald Trump Cabinet flattery governance Stephen Miller Pete Hegseth Scott Bessent Howard Lutnick JD Vance Marco Rubio John Ratcliffe Kelly Loeffler Allison Schuster 25th Amendment Jan. 6 Economist/YouGov poll midterms Iran