Trump’s loyalty tests cause hiring pains
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then the star of President Donald Trump’s early Cabinet, was assembling his staff and picked Sarah Isgur Flores as his top spokeswoman.
There was just one problem: She had criticized Trump, repeatedly, during the 2016 Republican primaries. Flores’ prospects for a Justice Department job stalled, and Trump’s advisers knew there was only one way Sessions would be able to hire her: If she kowtowed to Trump.
So she paid her respects to the president in the Oval Office — a cordial visit during which she told the president she was on board with his agenda and would be honored to serve him, according to several people with knowledge of the meeting.
The early 2017 episode, which has not previously been reported, underscores the extent to which Trump demands loyalty in vetting administration officials — even well-qualified Republicans like Flores seeking jobs on the personal staffs of Cabinet secretaries, who historically have had considerable leeway to do their own hiring.
Credentialed candidates have had to prove loyalty to the president, with many still being blocked for previous antiTrump statements. Hundreds of national security officials, for example, were nixed from consideration because they spoke out against Trump in the campaign. But for Trump loyalists, their fidelity to the president is often sufficient, obscuring what in a more traditional administration would be red flags.
The failed nomination of Ronny Jackson, the president’s physician, to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs was the latest example of the sometimes haphazard way Trump unilaterally elevates people with whom he has a personal rapport.
Trump’s operating principle is “ready, shoot, aim, as opposed to ready, aim, shoot,” said one White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment candidly,
A Republican strategist who works closely with the West Wing was even more blunt: “The Trump White House vetting machine is an oxymoron. There’s only one answer — Trump decides who he wants and tells people. That’s the vetting process.”
The result, as was the case with Jackson, is that many candidates who may not be considered qualified for their positions were thrust forward by the president before a thorough vetting of their professional and personal backgrounds could be completed — and without the necessary political support to help them weather challenges.
Walter Shaub, a former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics who resigned last summer in protest of Trump’s conduct, said the president’s “ethics are based on loyalty.” Shaub said he repeatedly told administration officials that they should slow down and vet candidates.
He added, “When you make the announcement before you do all of the work, you could end up embarrassing the nominee.”
Trump aides say the White House follows vetting procedures similar to those of the George W. Bush administration.
The Office of Presidential Personnel, which is run by Johnny DeStefano, employs Katja Bullock, 75, who has worked in the same office during the past three Republican administrations.
But the office has come under scrutiny since a Washington Post report revealed that it is as much a social hub as a rigorous operation, with young former campaign workers hosting happy hours, playing drinking games and smoking electronic cigarettes there.
But lawyers involved in the vetting process say Trump often announces picks before they are fully vetted — and they describe an irregular process that sometimes is not followed if a candidate has high-level approval. On the most senior nominees, anything goes.
“The president’s made it clear that ethics don’t matter and conflicts of interest don’t matter,” said Richard Painter, who was chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush. “He’s decided to ignore ethics rules and say, ‘I don’t have to.’ ”