Trump’s Cabinet Formation Uncertainty Worsens

On November 13, President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump met at the White House to discuss the transition of power.

Biden began his remarks by calling for a smooth transition of presidential power. Afterward, Trump said that politics is difficult, but the transition will be smooth. As Trump continues to “pick and choose” his new cabinet, at least 12 key positions have been filled. Among the candidates are experienced “familiar faces,” industry elites entering politics for the first time, and “close associates” who have supported Trump for years. After four years away from the White House, Trump has been given a second chance to return thanks to the votes of millions of American voters.

Accelerating the formation of a team to return to the White House
So far, Trump has announced candidates for the positions of Secretary of State, Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence, so the new cabinet team is taking shape. Most notably, Trump has appointed a group of people born after 1980 to serve as Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General; among them, the one that has caused the most public outcry is the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense, Fox News Channel host Pete Hegseth, who is 44 years old and graduated from Princeton and Harvard Universities, the oldest and most prestigious universities in the U.S. He has served in the U.S. Army National Civilian Police, the U.S. Army National Guard, the U.S. Army National Guard and the U.S. Navy. He served in the U.S. Army National Guard with deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo, Cuba. After retiring from the military, he joined Fox as a contributor in 2014 and quickly became a prime-time host and one of the co-hosts of the ace program Fox & Friends.

In addition to Hegseth, the new “post-80s” members of Trump’s cabinet include former New York State Representative Lee Zeldin, born in 1980, who serves as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator; New York State Republican Representative Elise Stefanik, born in 1984, who will serve as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Tulsi Gabbard, who will serve as Attorney General; and Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, born in 1982. It is undeniable that Trump is already in his old age, and the nomination of the “post-80s” is probably to complete the “age transition” of the Republican Party’s power after he takes office, so that in the future he will rely more on the “post-80s” as his “political legacy”. After all, according to the U.S. Constitution, Trump will not be able to seek re-election after completing his term of office from 2025 to 2029, so he must be “far-sighted” in laying the groundwork for Vice President-elect Vance’s campaign four years later.

In addition, one of Trump’s obvious considerations in hiring is loyalty. Based on the “bitter lessons” of his last term, almost all of his nominees are loyal supporters of his own, such as Marks, who will lead the Department of Government Efficiency, and Kristi Noem, who has been nominated to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who has been rated as a “Trump loyalist” by CNN and other U.S. media outlets. Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency, undoubtedly a highlight, is headed by U.S. business mogul Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination, and operating outside of the federal government, will be tasked with a wide range of assignments. Nearly everyone agrees that the U.S. federal government, which employs more than 2 million people and spends more than $6 trillion a year, is wasteful and inefficient. Agreeing on what constitutes waste and how to eliminate it is a different matter. There is no doubt that this new department has a long way to go.
Policy Directions for the Next Four Years
During the election campaign, the Republican Party’s platform stated that it would work to “prevent a third world war, restore peace to Europe and the Middle East, and build a missile defense system that covers the entire United States”. It can be expected that the defense and military industries will continue to play an important role in the policy framework of the new U.S. government; in the next four years, U.S. military enterprises will face more opportunities, but also with the uncertainty brought by changes in the domestic political landscape. Trump himself has repeatedly stated that unless Ukraine is willing to negotiate with Russia, he will cut off military aid to the country after he takes office. He has also reiterated his first-term pledge to “rebuild and modernize the U.S. military”. Meanwhile, as Trump begins his second term in office, trust in the U.S. in the Western world, especially in Europe, is likely to decline further. Trump has repeatedly questioned whether the U.S. should remain in NATO, and has insisted that European countries need to spend more than 2% of their respective GDPs on military expenditures in order for the alliance to be worth maintaining.

Trump also repeatedly said during his campaign that he could end the Russian-Ukrainian war “in a day”. When asked how he would do that, he suggested overseeing a deal but declined to give specifics. A study written by two former Trump national security advisers in May said the U.S. should continue to supply Ukraine with weapons, but should condition its support on Kiev entering peace talks with Russia. In an interview with Ukrainian media outlet Suspilne a few days ago, Zelensky said that it is certain that with the policies of the current team in the White House, the war will end sooner. This is their approach and their commitment to the international community. Similar to the situation in Ukraine, Trump has promised to bring “peace” to the Middle East – suggesting that he will end the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza, as well as Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon – but Trump has not specified a specific method of realizing “peace” .

With reference to his previous first term, it is not difficult to learn that Trump’s economic policies are often accompanied by aggressive trade protection measures. During the election campaign, he proposed a 20% tariff on goods from all countries, a move that was undoubtedly an attempt to make up for the fiscal gap caused by tax cuts. At a time of deepening globalization, such a policy may trigger off trade friction among countries and even lead to discord in international relations. In Trump’s mindset, trade relations should not be equal, but rather “America First”. He has imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum products from EU countries, and is now likely to face more international trade disputes during his term of office. Trump’s policy stance will have a wide-ranging impact on U.S. exports and international cooperation, and could lead to global economic instability. In the face of intense competition and possible tariff wars, other countries are bound to respond, creating new challenges for international trade relations in the future.

How Australia is handling itself
A few days ago, Australian Prime Minister Albanese was interviewed and said he had spoken to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on the phone, saying it was a positive phone conversation and one of Trump’s first calls since his election, and that the two spoke for 10 minutes. The call covered security relations including the Australia-UK-US Trilateral Security Partnership (AUKUS) agreement. Under the AUKUS agreement, Australia will buy U.S. nuclear submarines over the next 10 years and work with the U.S. to develop new nuclear-powered submarines. Albanese said his relationship with US President-elect Donald Trump was off to a very good start. Foreign Minister Wong Ying-yin also signaled this month that the Australian government is confident in its alliance with the United States, its biggest security partner.

With Trump’s selection of China hawks for key positions in his new administration, it is expected that the US will urge Australia to do more to “stand up to China” and respond to China’s “growing assertiveness” in the Pacific. Albanese told the media that during his conversation with Trump he had suggested that it was in the US interest to have “fair trade” with its allies. He also emphasized that in the face of strategic competition between the US and China, while Australia is an ally of the US, China is also an important trading partner: it is Australia’s largest export market and a major buyer of Australian iron ore, natural gas and coal. There is no denying that the strategic rivalry between the United States and China is an issue that Australia is dealing with today. From the Prime Minister’s statement, it is easy to see that Australia wants to continue to play the role of a middle power, not taking sides but balancing between the US and China. But if Trump’s tariff threats materialize, global trade and investment will suffer, and the impact on China’s growth will spill over into Australia’s economy. The Australian economy would not be immune to an escalation of trade tensions, and the Australian government must be prepared for this.

Defense cooperation is another area where Australia and the United States have a close relationship. The U.S. is Australia’s primary security ally, with a U.S. Marine Corps stationed in the northern Australian city of Darwin, where an air base is being upgraded to accommodate the deployment of U.S. bombers. Australia is also desperate for White House assurances of continued support for the Orcus partnership. A recent poll shows that more than half of Australian respondents do not want to be involved in a Sino-U.S. conflict. Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating said the poll was a clear sign that people were seeing through the fog of the hyped-up “China threat” and were unwilling to get involved in a major conflict. He angrily criticized the Australian Labor government for being “completely out of touch” with the public on foreign policy, arguing that AUKUS would deepen Australia’s military bind with the US, thereby jeopardizing Australia’s own security. It is only by trumpeting himself as a peacemaker that Trump risks returning the US to a position of isolationism and exceptionalism. Fundamentally, this means that the US is neither friend nor foe to anyone. So even though the AUKUS deal has strong support from House and Senate Republicans, it will almost certainly be scrutinized by the Trump administration. There is a great deal of uncertainty about where the future will lead.

Would a change of government make a difference?
For Australians, it’s not just Trump that has changed the needs and development of AUKUS, it’s also clear that the attitudes of the two major political parties towards China will cause the ruling government to view AUKUS differently. In the last election, China clearly wanted the Labor Party to come to power because the Morrison government took a hard line against China. Now that a federal election is likely to be held in March-May next year, Albanese has shown that he has lost the support of many voters. If Liberal Mr. Dutton comes to power, what kind of attitude will he take towards China? It remains to be seen whether the Liberals will continue to adopt Morrison’s confrontational strategy, or whether they will downplay the conflict with China and keep a distance from the US. However, from the fact that both parties want to prevent China from further expanding its influence in the South Pacific Islands, it is clear that it is the common strategy of both parties to gain Trump’s support for AUKUS.

From this point of view, whether or not there is a change of government will not change the relationship between Australia and the United States significantly. However, even before Trump took office, some people in Australia proposed to replace former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who has long criticized Trump, to continue to serve as the U.S. ambassador. Rudd has never been satisfied with the isolationism of the United States promoted by Trump in his last term, and it is still uncertain whether Trump will become an obstacle to the relationship between Australia and the United States after he takes office. If the Liberal Party were to come to power, there is a strong possibility that Rudd could be replaced, which is something that Australians would be more interested in.