The cost of loyalty: How Trump's inner circle is undermining America

Editor's note: Thomas O. Falk, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a London-based political analyst and commentator. He holds a Master of Arts in international relations from the University of Birmingham and specializes in U.S. affairs. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

A nation's strength is not measured by its rhetoric but can be predicted by the competence of those who guide its course. History teaches us that great powers do not collapse overnight; they erode from within, through decadence, complacency and the elevation of political loyalty over professional expertise. In Washington, that erosion is now playing out in real time.

It was the kind of headline that made one pause: High-ranking Trump officials mistakenly added Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, to a Signal group discussing a planned military strike on the Houthis. Team MAGA has deflected quickly, but this was not an isolated blunder or a mere bureaucratic mishap. It was the inevitable result of an administration that has placed loyalty above merit. And make no mistake – this will not be the last blunder of its kind.

Instead, we are witnessing the systematic corrosion of competent governance, one ill-suited appointment at a time.

In any administration, those making consequential policy, on military strategy, intelligence and diplomacy should be among the best in their fields. This isn't an idealistic expectation but a prerequisite for a functioning state. The current administration, however, has abandoned that standard in favor of a governing class selected not for their expertise but for their unyielding loyalty to Trump.

During Trump's first term, there were still adults in the room, respected career professionals, highly decorated generals and subject matter experts who, to some extent, kept chaos in check. But these were not sycophants; they served the Constitution and the American people, not the president, much to Trump's frustration. This time, the adults are gone, replaced by loyalists whose chief qualification is their unwavering defense of Trump.

Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News personality whose limited military experience is quickly overshadowed by his media career, now leads the Department of Defense – an 850 billion operation. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose defining political characteristic is his embrace of vaccine conspiracy theories, oversees the nation's health policy.

Tulsi Gabbard and Pam Bondi were not elevated for their depth of intelligence or legal acumen but for their unwavering alignment with Trump's worldview. Meanwhile, figures like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, known more for inflammatory rhetoric than national security credentials, have been entrusted with leading the FBI. 

This is not a coincidence; it is a pattern.

When national security decisions are filtered through the lens of ideological purity, blind spots emerge. Competent dissent is treated as disloyalty. Critical thinking is replaced by group thinking. Those entrusted with the nation's most sensitive matters become less concerned with sound policy and more preoccupied with favoring the man who appointed them.

That is how mistakes happen. That is how a nonpartisan journalist ends up in a chat discussing military operations.

The consequences of appointing the wrong people are neither theoretical nor distant; they manifest in real-time crises. Military operations require deliberation, intelligence assessments, diplomatic engagement and strategic oversight. When those discussions include individuals unqualified for the task, the risk of miscalculation skyrockets. The nature of war is such that a single poor decision, a misjudgment, an overreach, can plunge the United States into unintended escalation with adversaries and allies alike.

That risk is further compounded by the administration's hostility toward career professionals. The foreign service, intelligence community and military leadership, institutions designed to provide continuity and expertise, are treated as adversaries, dismissed as the so-called "deep state." The result? A talent exodus. Those who have spent careers understanding threats, forging alliances and managing crises are sidelined, replaced by political loyalists who lack the necessary depth.

The Signal breach was not just embarrassing; it was dangerous. It exposed the extent to which people are handling security protocols out of their depth. But more than that, it revealed a structural defect within the administration: the erosion of professional standards, the absence of rigorous vetting, and the replacement of competence with unquestioning allegiance.

But this decay will not stay contained within Washington. For decades, allies have relied on the United States as a predictable and steady power. When key national security roles are filled arbitrarily, it sends a chilling message: America is no longer led by its best and brightest. The perception of dysfunction is itself a national security risk. Allies recalibrate their commitments when they see instability. Europe is already Exhibit A. And the fact that Hegseth called European "pathetic" in the group chat will certainly not improve things.

A much-needed course correction seems highly unlikely, not because the risks are unclear but because most of the electorate still embraced disruption over stability. Trump's appeal was built on overturning the existing order, and the last election reaffirmed that this is precisely what many Americans wanted. The world should not expect them to reverse course anytime soon.

The price will be steep. This is not measured in lost elections or embarrassing leaks but in real-world consequences: Their decisions put lives at risk, embolden adversaries and weaken the country's standing in the world. With competence taking a backseat to loyalty for at least another four years, America's decline is no longer a matter of if; we are right in the midst of it.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)