On January 20, 2025, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, ushering in a new era of leadership with a cabinet marked by a blend of loyal allies, seasoned political figures, and bold outsider picks. Here, we—the former leaders of Princeton College Republicans—offer our thoughts on five of President Trump’s cabinet picks: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ’03, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Confirmation Status: Confirmed 99-0
Republican Opposition: None
Santhosh:
Marco Rubio is one of the most qualified individuals who could serve as Secretary of State, and his unanimous confirmation vote is a testament to that. It’s hard to disagree with Rubio, but one issue I do disagree with him on is his view on Asia’s two leading powers—China and India. Rubio is a notorious China hawk, and he has faced sanctions from Beijing because of his outspokenness. Rubio is also preposterously pro-India.
Rubio would be wise to reconsider his approach to China. China is not a rising superpower as it was just three years ago, but a regional power experiencing record-high deflation and a looming economic collapse. In attempting to counter China, the United States has emboldened nations that will likely be future rivals, in particular India. To those who believe India will remain a U.S. ally in the future, I’d like to remind you that India was a founding member of BRICS, remains closely aligned with Russia, and has maintained an antagonistic stance towards the U.S. and other Western countries regarding mass migration. India often refuses to take back its migrants and has arguably wielded mass migration as a political tool to propagate pro-India viewpoints within the United States and other Anglosphere countries.
Furthermore, India—a supposedly secular country—is extremely hostile to non-Hindus. Twelve states in India have criminalized religious conversion, which de facto targets Christians. Mob violence and lynchings of Christians, atheists, and other religious minorities are a regular occurrence. China has its own problems with religious freedom, but its treatment of religious minorities isn’t quite as bad as India’s. Despite this, Marco Rubio has maintained a pro-India, anti-China foreign policy view. Rubio must acknowledge that Asia’s dynamics have evolved, U.S. foreign policy needs to adapt, and that fostering closer, more cooperative relations with China would benefit both the United States and China.
William:
Marco Rubio is an excellent choice for Secretary of State, as is evidenced by his unanimous vote in the Senate. However, some concerns remain. His hawkish approach to China is unwarranted. China’s economic malaise is sticky, with deflation, high youth unemployment, a housing market implosion, and ineffective fiscal policy from the Politburo Standing Committee all taking shape to weaken China.
However, I am impressed by Rubio’s steadfast support of Israel and hawkish nature on Iran. His recognition that Israel is America’s closest ally in the region and his blaming Iran for regional instability and chaos are correct. While I understand Santhosh’s concern with President Trump’s closeness with India, I am not as wary of this partnership. India’s high GDP growth rates, growing military power, and democratic norms make it a good match for a deeper U.S. partnership. India provides a necessary counterweight to China and has proven loyal to U.S. demands and interests in Chinese competition.
In short, Rubio is arguably the most qualified candidate to lead the State Department. His background will, in my eyes, prove very valuable to his decision-making for the next four years.
Confirmation Status: Confirmed 68-29
Republican Opposition: None
Santhosh:
Based on Scott Bessent’s resume and his successful career as an investor and hedge fund manager, I believe he is eminently qualified to serve as Treasury Secretary. Bessent’s view on the centrality of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency is also noteworthy, given many in the Republican Party—including the Vice President—want the U.S. dollar to cease being the global reserve currency. If Vice President JD Vance’s view were implemented, the United States would decline the way the United Kingdom has and turn into a poverty-stricken country that masquerades as a developed nation and has to rely on its historical legacy to maintain relevance. No American should want that.
The UK’s decline over the past century serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers of abandoning global economic influence. The U.S. dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency underpins the strength of the American economy and its geopolitical standing. Bessent’s experience and understanding of global markets and financial systems position him to help navigate the complexities of maintaining America’s economic dominance. As the influence of the New Right and its asinine economic views expands, Bessent’s expertise and Reaganomics-aligned ideology will be invaluable in pushing back against the New Right and ensuring that U.S. economic policy continues to support the global dominance of the dollar, preventing the U.S. from facing the same decline experienced by the UK.
William:
Scott Bessent’s wealth of experience in global investment management at Key Square, policy proposals around tax cuts, energy production, deficit reduction, dollar dominance, and, of course, southerness, make him a great pick to lead the Treasury Department. Not to mention, Bessent will be the highest-ranking LGBTQ official in American history.
Bessent’s plan to “restart the American growth engine, reduce inflationary pressures, and address the debt burden from four years of reckless spending” is much needed. Reckless fiscal spending by the Biden administration, in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act and other proposals, swelled the budget deficit and ramped up inflation. We are still feeling the effects of this as inflation has proved to be sticky, and many Americans, especially those of lower income, feel their savings squeezed by higher prices. The Federal Reserve has kept its commitment to the dual mandate through higher-for-longer interest rates. It is time for the fiscal side of the equation to get the deficit and spending under control.
Bessent’s “3-3-3 plan” is also much needed for economic success. Reducing the budget deficit to 3% of GDP from 6.4% by 2028, boosting GDP growth to 3% through deregulation and tax cuts, and increasing U.S. energy production by 3 million barrels of oil per day would remedy several issues from the Biden administration. Discretionary spending cuts, returning more Medicaid powers to the states, extending provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, allowing for further drilling on previously outlawed properties, and more of Bessent’s proposals are economically beneficial.
While I am largely supportive of most of Bessent’s policies, there are some areas where we would disagree. The large-scale tariffs that President Trump has proposed are bad for the economy. They raise prices for American consumers, hurt free trade and America’s position with its close allies, and are not an effective revenue tool for the federal government. The tariffs of the early 1900s, especially those of William McKinley, whom Trump has praised, are a figment of the past and would no longer be an effective tool for the world’s most integrated and powerful economy. Additionally, mandatory spending, including Social Security and Medicare payments, comprises nearly 2/3rds of all government spending and is only expected to increase in the coming years. Substantive cuts or reform to this spending, whether that be raising the age that benefits take begin or cutting the benefits themselves, will be needed before insolvency. Bessent has so far not clearly acknowledged these risks.
Overall, Bessent is the right choice to lead the Treasury Department. I am confident in his ability to enact sensible fiscal policy that stabilizes prices, induces growth, and helps all Americans.
Confirmation Status: Confirmed 51-50
Republican Opposition: Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Santhosh:
Pete Hegseth may not take much pride in his Harvard Law degree, but he’s certainly proud of his Princeton degree—a sentiment that hasn’t gone unnoticed among far-left Princetonians. Although we at the Tory are also proud that our former Publisher has been elevated to such a high position, I have some reservations about Hegseth’s nomination.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had a point when he said that “the restoration of ‘warrior culture’ will not come from trading one set of culture warriors for another.” As McConnell predicted, following his confirmation, Hegseth has prioritized the culture war instead of America’s rivals and our military’s readiness. Hegseth has also never led or managed an organization larger than 1000 people. I’m all for picking an outsider to shake up the Pentagon, but that person should at least have some managerial experience and not have to learn on the job.
That said, Hegseth’s policy proposals, including ending the War in Ukraine and cutting the defense budget by 8%, are a welcome departure from the status quo. Hegseth’s track record may not inspire confidence, but his willingness to challenge the American foreign policy establishment could offer the Pentagon a chance at real reform—if he can navigate the bureaucracy effectively. Only time will tell if Hegseth is the reformer we need or another casualty of the culture wars.
William:
Pete Hegseth’s inexperience in managing large organizations, issues with sexual assault and harassment claims, and sometimes openly misogynistic views are concerning. Additionally, his response to questioning during his Senate testimony regarding these subjects sometimes seemed aloof.
However, to focus on the actual policy he may enact in power, there may be a silver lining. Hegseth’s opposition to political correctness in the military, a keen desire to cut wasteful military spending, and overall patriotic fervor may provide much-needed anecdotes to a military that seemed at times weak and incapable, as evidenced by the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal under former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Additionally, Hegseth’s views on China align well with the rest of the Trump administration, who rightly see China as a credible and worrisome threat to U.S. global power. Hegseth is also a fervent supporter of Israel and has consistently stated the importance of supporting America’s closest Middle Eastern ally. My hope is that this desire for strategic international engagement remains. An isolationist American military is a bad American military.
So far, his visits abroad, coordination with other military and foreign leaders, and continued support for all of those who have meritocratically achieved their positions in the military prove that the worst fears about his outsider nature may be unfounded.
Though my concerns with Hegseth are clear, “a Pentagon laser-focused on lethality, meritocracy, warfighting, accountability, and readiness” doesn’t sound bad to me.
Confirmation Status: 52-48
Republican Opposition: Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Santhosh:
The idea of “Making America Healthy Again” resonates deeply with many Americans who have seen the detrimental effects of poor lifestyle choices, processed foods, and overreliance on medications instead of preventive measures. With rising rates of chronic diseases and a healthcare system that often focuses on treatment over prevention, the push for a more holistic, health-conscious approach to American well-being is a welcome agenda. That said, I have serious concerns about RFK Jr.’s conspiratorial views on vaccines.
Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have thoroughly debunked and will continue to debunk the alleged connection between vaccines and autism, the cornerstone of RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine claims. Despite this overwhelming body of evidence, he continues to espouse views that ignore the existing evidence and suggests that he will continue to reject any evidence that doesn’t align with his beliefs. This level of obstinacy, especially when it comes to something as vital to public health as vaccines, undermines his credibility.
However, RFK Jr. did recently make commitments to Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to “ensure public access to information and to base vaccine recommendations on data-driven, evidence-based, and medically sound research.” If he is serious about these commitments, then I am willing to support RFK Jr., especially given that Kennedy otherwise has well-informed policy positions, including on agriculture and corruption within the FDA. Unfortunately, it’s hard to take RFK Jr’s word seriously when he flip-flopped on abortion to become HHS Secretary and offered no plausible explanation to explain his shift.
RFK Jr.’s presence on President Trump’s cabinet could also help counter the influence of neoconservative warmongers within the Republican Party and shift the GOP’s positions on environmental issues to become more supportive of conservation, sustainability, and clean air. RFK Jr. has the potential to “Make America Healthy Again” by standing up to Big Agriculture and Big Pharma, and for all of our sakes, I hope he does.
William:
Opposition to and the propagation of disinformation around vaccines that have saved millions of lives (including COVID-19 vaccines, polio vaccines, measles vaccines, and more) is wrong. The touting of conspiracy theories around fluoride in water, wireless technology, the Department of Health and Human Services, and more is wrong. RFK Jr.’s family’s opposition to his nomination and his once-fervent position as an ideological Democrat (as is evidenced by his claims that the 2004 election was stolen from John Kerry) are red flags.
While the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, and the general health of the American public need extreme attention and thoughtful policy change, I believe one cannot do this at the expense of some of the most important medical progressions in human history.
Confirmation Status: Confirmed 52-48
Republican Opposition: Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Santhosh:
Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for DNI reignited the debate over Edward Snowden, national security, and civil liberties. Snowden, a former NSA contractor, became a polarizing figure after exposing the government’s mass surveillance programs in 2013. His disclosures, which included data collection on millions of Americans without warrants, sparked debate over privacy versus security. Supporters see Snowden as a whistleblower, while critics, including Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO), view him as a traitor who endangered national security. Warner and Bennet do have a point—a majority of the information Snowden leaked that was published was related to U.S. spying of foreign adversaries, including Islamic terrorist organizations actively plotting future 9/11s. Furthermore, Snowden’s decision to trust journalists—aka people who want to sell newspapers and benefit from publishing sensational and controversial stories—to judge what information should be published was ill-advised.
My position is that Edward Snowden both engaged in traitorous actions by leaking U.S. spy secrets and deserves some praise for exposing unlawful, unethical privacy violations of Americans. Gabbard’s stance on Snowden is similarly nuanced; she has repeatedly acknowledged that Snowden simultaneously broke the law and exposed unconstitutional privacy violations—violations that forced Congress to pass the USA Freedom Act, a law that modified the Patriot Act and restricted the unchecked power of our intelligence agencies over the citizenry. Furthermore, Gabbard has committed to taking steps to prevent future Edward Snowden-style leaks, to establish additional pathways for lawful whistleblowers to step forward, and to not recommend a pardon for Edward Snowden.
Gabbard is also one of the only politicians who has consistently stood up to the military-industrial complex and criticized the foreign policy establishment’s unrelenting support for regime change wars that accomplish nothing other than regional destabilization and mass migration. Her presence in the Trump administration is, like RFK Jr.’s, direly needed to ensure that neoconservative warmongers don’t exercise undue influence within the Republican Party. Many Republican elites, despite a shift away from neoconservatism amongst the Republican base, remain extremely hawkish on Russia, China, Iran, or all three. Gabbard’s voice of reason has consistently advocated for diplomacy and against war with all three rivals, and she has shown no signs of flip-flopping on her anti-forever-war beliefs.
Lastly, the support Gabbard has received from former Senator Richard Burr (R-NC)—who was the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and no friend of President Trump, yet nevertheless went out of his way to support Gabbard—leads me to believe that she is well-qualified to be DNI.
William:
Intelligence agencies are an element of American security that should not be taken lightly. The appointment of Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic Congresswoman and Presidential candidate, may be a flippant decision at the expense of American security.
Edward Snowden, now a Russian citizen, is a traitor. The work done by the National Security Agency and the broader American intelligence community to prevent terrorist attacks in the wake of 9/11 should be celebrated, not lambasted. A whistleblower who has Americans’ best interests should go through democratic, secure avenues to solve their issues—whether that be finding a sympathetic member of Congress or reporting to a superior that you trust. Additionally, rather than collecting a specific set of information and being willing, like any good, “patriotic” whistleblower, to take the punishment, Snowden dropped loads of information on the doorstep of foreign newspapers and boarded a plane to China. A troubled man who cozied up to our adversaries and recklessly released sensitive intelligence information should not be praised by the new intelligence chief.
Additionally, Gabbard has demonstrated her sympathy for brutal dictators, including Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Her 2017 meeting with Assad came just two years before President Trump condemned the horrific gas attacks that Assad used to kill thousands of his own people. Even after these barbaric attacks by Assad, Gabbard refused to claim that he was a “war criminal” and that she remained “skeptical” that chemical weapons were actually used despite overwhelming evidence. Her blaming of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on Western powers, specifically the United States, is wrong and only strengthens the standing of our enemies and their unacceptable behavior. Not to mention, she, when asked while a candidate for the 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination, refused to acknowledge that she would trust her own intelligence community if she was elected.
The Director of National Intelligence position is not a position to take lightly. I am fearful that putting someone with a history of defending our biggest adversaries, not trusting our own intelligence community, and staking her trust with a traitor is too big of a risk for national security.
Image credits: ABC
Copyright © 2025 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.