In the two weeks following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, the President-elect has wasted no time announcing his picks for the major departments in his administration.
Several of Trump’s appointment selections have generated controversy. Two of the most questionable selections were Matt Gaetz for the role of U.S. Attorney General and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the role of Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Recommended Videos
READ MORE: Impact of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s possible appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services
KPRC 2′s Michael Horton spoke with Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University, to see what Texans can expect from some of Trump’s appointments.
Michael Horton: Now that a few of the next pieces have started to fall into place after Trump’s reelection, the first thing I wanted to ask you is, as an expert in the field, what do you make of the appointments that [Trump] has made so far?
Mark Jones: Well, I think what’s clear from these appointments is that he’s not going to repeat what he believes to be an error of his first term in office when he nominated a large number of the more “establishment Republicans,” who didn’t have complete loyalty to him, and therefore [they] very frequently objected or blocked or disagreed with many of his decisions and ended up resigning—many sooner rather than later.
So, you know, the first Trump presidency at the start involved him nominating large numbers of establishment Republicans who were seen at the time as bringing stability and bringing the establishment point-of-view into the White House. That didn’t work out very well, since Trump consistently clashed with many of those individuals and more than a few resigned, some quite rapidly.
So, this time around, Trump is focused on heavily Trump-loyalists, as well as people who—if not complete Trump-loyalists—are seen as people who are aware of what’s expected of them and are still willing to take the position.
Michael Horton: Has any move particularly surprised you so far?
Mark Jones: Matt Gaetz is probably the most surprising. You have somebody who’s under a serious ethics investigation in the U.S. House, he resigns in part so the House in that Ethics Committee didn’t continue with its potential actions against him. Now, he could potentially be the next chief law enforcement officer for the United States.
So, on one hand, Gaetz is a controversial pick, given his personal and political baggage. Not only does he have these alleged crimes hanging over his head, but in the House, he was seen as a combination of rabble-rouser and grifter by a large share of Republicans, including many of the most conservative Republicans, let alone the moderates like Kevin McCarthy, who loathed him.
But he has a couple of qualities that Trump will like. One is, that he has a long track record of being aggressive in support of Trump and Trump’s agenda, and he will be 100% loyal to Trump, as well as follow any instructions and essentially do what Trump wants him to do and not object the way a more independent attorney general might.
MORE FROM MARK JONES: Analysis: How Donald Trump won Texas, outperformed 2024 election projections
Michael Horton: I know we spoke last time about the filibuster and how where Republicans stood on that would play a big factor in Trump’s effectiveness in this next term. Republicans have now promised to keep the filibuster. Do you see that impeding Trump’s momentum now that they’ve made their stance clear?
Mark Jones: Yes. On the legislative side, without question. That is, other than things that can be done in the budget reconciliation, which are somewhat limited. Trump will need at least seven Democrats to support legislation for it to pass through the Senate, which is going to be a tough sell, especially if he decides to burn so much of his political capital on pushing controversial people like Matt Gates, RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard through the confirmation process.
So, if he goes through with trying to push through Gaetz in particular, but also RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, he’s going to burn a lot of his political capital with Republican senators, making it even more difficult to push through legislation, because in addition to needing seven Democrats, he’s also going to have to convince many of the more centrist Republicans to support some of the things that are perhaps more controversial.
But yeah, I think from a legislative perspective, Trump is going to face a difficult task in passing much of the legislation he would like to pass, and he likely only has a few bullets —that he has to use wisely—early on during the honeymoon period, because those are the things that he has. Whatever legislative items he prioritizes during the first few months of his presidency, when he’s still in the honeymoon period, and where there’s going to be an inclination among Democrats to not be seen as overly obstructionist on many issues, that’s his chance to pass things. Essentially, I think extending tax cuts will be one of the items he’ll prioritize, and it’s one that’s less controversial than, say, legislation that would end fluoridation in water supplies or authorize the executive branch to deport larger numbers of undocumented immigrants.
Michael Horton: Speaking of undocumented immigrants, do you have a strong opinion on Tom Homan being elected as the “Border Czar?”
Mark Jones: I mean, among the choices he made... I guess one advantage is when you name Matt Gaetz as your potential AG, and RFK Jr. is essentially Health and Human Services, perhaps other people who might be seen as more conservative generate less controversy.
Also, you know, Homan was the acting head of ICE. As we found out during the Biden administration, Border Czar isn’t a real position. So, you don’t need Senate confirmation, and we really don’t know what Homan will be doing. The person who’s really important for that position, at least from an accounting perspective is [Secretary of Homeland Security] Kristi Noem, because she’s in charge of homeland security.
Michael Horton: Do you anticipate that immigration is going to change very quickly, compared to what we’ve seen in the last four years under this new leadership?
Mark Jones: Well, some aspects will change. The Biden administration, during the course of 2024 has tightened things on the border considerably compared to the first three years of the Biden administration. But I would expect, you know, Trump to not only maintain the current restrictions, designed to limit the number of asylum seekers to cross over, but a much more robust effort to prevent most asylum seekers from coming to the United States, claiming asylum and then remaining in the United States while their case is adjudicated, and a much greater a much stronger effort to reduce the number of asylum seekers overall. But, for those who do want to seek asylum, that they remain in their country of origin or a third country. While that case is processed rather than here in the United States.
The overall goal when you are more restrictive you are with asylum requests is that you reduce the incentive for people to come at all. Many people during the Biden administration came and sought asylum, because they knew that once they crossed the border and requested asylum, they’d have at least three years while their case was being adjudicated, and potentially more if they decided simply to ignore an adverse ruling and remain, as you know, more than a million undocumented immigrants have.
I think it’s a start. The real question about when the Trump administration and immigration is a situation like this: Let’s imagine that there are 15 million undocumented immigrants. It could be as low as, you know, 11 or 12 could be as high as 15. Let’s just say that there are 15 million. There’s going to be less controversy if Trump focuses on deporting people with felony convictions and people who have a long criminal record. Those are people that—outside of some pretty hardcore progressives—those are people where there’s a pretty strong consensus that they should be deported. The next group would be people who have gone through the process and have immigration rulings saying that they are subject to deportation, but they effectively have disappeared in the ether, spending more time tracking them down to deport them. You know, those are the first group of felons and deporting criminals is probably the least controversial. That’s the easiest thing to do without creating too much in the way of outrage or opposition.
The more the Trump administration begins to go down through that 15 million, from the lowest hanging fruit of criminals to people who already have orders of removal that have been issued, to people who are simply living their lives and have American children—as you get further down, you’re going to get more resistance, and it’s going to create more controversy and create more opposition. I think, even someone like Governor Abbott, who’s been very hawkish on immigration, has been cautious when he’s talking about the issue of deportation, in the sense that he’s strongly supportive of deporting criminals and to a lesser extent, people who have orders for deportation already that have been issued.
I think you have a large share of Republicans who are opposed to any idea of the concept of mass raids, deportation camps, things along those lines—separating undocumented immigrant parents from their American children. There’s much less support for that, and I don’t think we’re going to see it at that level. I think that the Trump administration will focus first and foremost on criminals. Since there are hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who have some type of criminal record, that’s low-hanging fruit that the administration can take considerable time to track down and deport those individuals. So, I think at least from the start, that’s where the Trump administration will focus, so for some people who are law-abiding residents and have American-born children and have been here for a considerable period of time, have nothing to worry about.
MORE ON TEXAS POLITICS: Analysis: How another Trump presidency will impact politics in Texas
Michael Horton: Earlier, you mentioned criticisms with RFK Jr. being picked for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Since Houston has such a large presence in the medical space, how do you think that’s going to play out? Is it going to have a big impact in Houston specifically?
Mark Jones: So, HHS is in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, and that’s less controversial. I think where there’ll be concerns about RFK Jr is in regard to anything related to vaccines, and then also some of his views on prescription drugs and on drugs more generally. He has a long history as a vaccine skeptic but then he also has made statements in the past related to various drugs and that perhaps were not all that accurate.
Michael Horton: With those beliefs or skepticism that he has, will he be able to have considerable influence in medicine in this position?
Mark Jones: That’s where I think we have to see what he really decides to focus on. I think there will be concerns for areas where RFK Jr. holds a position which is very much counter to what science says on a topic, and I think vaccines are probably the most common one.
We’re also likely to see—not so much from RFK Jr., more from a Trump administration policy—a pushback on the more pro-transgender type policies that have been adopted during the Biden administration. That would be another area, and perhaps in more conflict of relationship with large pharmaceutical companies. Because you know, that’s one of the areas where HHS plays a big role is in negotiating drug prices for Medicare and Medicaid.
I think that’s where the big pharmaceutical companies are more nervous than anything else about RFK in that position, along with... essentially anyone in the vaccine sort of area.
Michael Horton: Last thing I really wanted to get to: Do you have a strong opinion on this “Department of Government Efficiency” that Elon [Musk] and Vivek Ramaswamy are leading?
Mark Jones: Really, it’s not a department, just like we don’t have [an official] Borders Czar. “Department” is generally the term that we use for Department of Defense, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor.
Just because the term “department” is being used, that doesn’t mean that it’s an actual cabinet department. This is just an advisory commission, and an advisory commission has no real formal power.
It has the imprimatur that the executive branch will have established it. So, in one sense, it is a federal advisory commission. It’ll have two types of recommendations: those that require the passage of legislation through Congress to enact them, and those that the executive can implement using regulate its regulatory authority.
But overall, most of their major proposals they are likely to come up with things that are going to need legislative approval, which requires going to Congress, which is going to be very difficult—if not next to impossible, outside of maybe a small number of areas where there is bipartisan consensus.
Michael Horton: Well, those were the questions I wanted to get to. Is there anything you wanted to add?
Mark Jones: [On the Department of Government Efficiency] I think the reason why we see, you know, the issue of the department being used is because it sounds better. It gives it a little more gravitas, especially since, you know, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are being named to it at the same time as all these other cabinet posts are being created.
So, it sort of makes it sound like they’re taking cabinet posts when they really aren’t. They’re just there’s going to be an advisory commission that will be created, and that advisory committee will then be able to do whatever Trump says, which is whatever Trump includes in the executive order that creates it.
Michael Horton: So, at the end of the day, it’s just an advisory role like any other.
Mark Jones: The only difference is that I might say the Grace Commission that Secretary James Baker helped create during the Reagan administration, and it was run by J. Peter Grace. That focused on some of the same issues, you know, government waste and inefficiency.
The difference is that this department will be run by the wealthiest man in the world who controls one of the most prominent social media outlets in the world right now [X/formerly Twitter]. So, the influence that Elon Musk can have will make this an advisory committee on steroids, simply because Musk will be able to publicize the recommendations of the committee at a level that we simply don’t see with most of the hundreds of advisory committees that issue recommendations all the time.