Last month, the now former Congressman, Matt Gaetz, was nominated for Attorney General by President-elect Donald Trump, but ultimately withdrew himself from consideration following allegations of alleged misconduct. Peter Finn notes four ways to think about this failed nomination and what it may say about how the second Trump administration may govern.

• This article is part of ‘The 2024 Elections’ series curated by Peter Finn (Kingston University). The series has explored the 2024 US elections at the state and national level. If you are interested in contributing to the series, contact Peter Finn (p.finn@kingston.ac.uk).

On Thursday November 21, Matt Gaetz, the now former Florida Congressman, removed himself for consideration for the position of Attorney General of the US, after he was nominated for the role by President-elect Donald Trump eight days earlier. The decision occurred after media focus on allegations of misconduct by Gaetz, with his unpopularity among fellow Republicans also forming part of the narrative against him. There are four different ways we can think about the ultimately failed nomination of Gaetz:

It’s unimportant in the grand scheme of events

Rather than a single factor, there are multiple reasons for the failure of the Gaetz nomination. There have been, for example, allegations of sexual misconduct against Gaetz dating back to 2020, all of which he denies; Gaetz made himself unpopular with some Republicans by, first, playing a crucial role in ensuring Kevin McCarthy needed 15 votes to be elected as House Speaker in January 2023 and, second, playing a role in McCarthy’s downfall from the speakership in the fall of the same year. Concerns were also raised about his lack of experience. Together these factors could mean that beyond a certain naïvety from those involved in the transition (see also below for a more critical take on this), the failure of Gaetz’s nomination is part of the rough and tumble of politics and one should not read much into it.

Illustrative of a lack of planning

Those in Trump’s orbit have had almost four years (or two if one takes his formal campaign launch in November 2022) to plan for this moment. Yet, in the case of Gaetz, and arguably a similar situation in the case of Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth (who also denies allegations of sexual misconduct and that he has a drinking problem), standard vetting appears not to have occurred. And if vetting has occurred, then there appears to have been a failure to think through the impact of the information it would have produced. As such, the failure of Gaetz’s nomination could be read as part of a broader failure by his team to plan for a second Trump term.

Reflective of the first Trump presidency, and a harbinger of things to come

The first Trump administration was characterised by a revolving door, with cabinet and White House positions subject to quick turnover. The Chief of Staff position is reflective of this. As seen in Table 1 below, Trump cycled through almost as many chiefs of staff (four) in a single term as president as Obama did in two (five), and twice as many as Biden has over his four years in office (two). Looking further back, George W. Bush had half the number (two) that Trump did across both terms of his administration: meaning the Chief of Staff in the first Trump administration was, on average, in office a quarter as long as in the previous Republican administration.

Table 1 – Presidents’ Chiefs of Staff for presidents since 2001

Sources: Ballotpedia; BBC; CNN; National Archives; Newsweek; Politico; Politico; Sky News; The Guardian; Vox; Wall Street Journal; Washington Speakers Bureau; White House Archives

Changes within the first Trump administration occurred when the president fell out with people, or when there were significant policy differences, and others because of a combination of the two. Trump’s particular style saw some fired over Twitter, with others subject to a continual barrage of insults while still in office before eventually being shown the door. The botched nomination of Gaetz feels somewhat reminiscent of the atmosphere that led to this revolving door during the first Trump administration.

“Matt Gaetz” (CC BY-SA 2.0) by Gage Skidmore

Absent a successful attempt by Trump to circumvent the two-term constitutional limit (surely a low possibility, but given the events of January 6 2021 sadly one that cannot be completely discounted), this will be Trump’s second and final term as president. As such, he likely has just over a year between his inauguration in January 2025 and attention turning towards the midterms in early 2026. Given he will want to deliver on significant portions of the agenda that delivered him the first Republican victory in the popular vote for the presidency since 2004, as well as Republican House of Representatives and Senate majorities, one imagines that he will be impatient when his agenda collides with reality and, inevitably, gets stuck in the policy, legal, and political weeds and the countdown to him becoming a lame duck president ticks away.

In short, the weight of evidence suggests there will be a similar number of changes in the second Trump administration as there was in the first, and that the failure of the Gaetz nomination is more likely than not to be a harbinger of things to come rather than an aberration.

Clues for Democrats about how to respond to Trump’s second term

As I noted in a previous piece, the behaviour of the Democratic Party leading up to the 2026 midterms will, at least partly, be shaped by the choices Trump and his Republican Party make about how to govern. If the second Trump administration is as haphazard and scattershot in narrative, and often policy, terms as the first, Democrats may find themselves needing to operate reactively: constantly countering false narratives and pushing back against right hand turns in policy. If, however, the second Trump administration adopts a more traditional government strategy, perhaps choosing the implementation of policy choices over media noise, then the Democratic Party will need to develop a mastery of procedure and rules to counter the Trump administration.

The botched nomination of Gaetz (especially in the light of similar issues in the case of Hegseth), suggests Democrats should probably plan for chaos and unpredictability, while pitching themselves as a viable alternative. If, as seems probable given the slim Republican majority and the propensity for the party in the White House to lose seats in midterms, Democrats take the House of Representatives in 2026, they will then be able to try and use that as a springboard to the presidency in 2028.

• Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-eCM