A Constantly Revolving Door
The spate and pace of resignations and firings from the Donald Trump administration has no parallels in the history of any 20th century American presidency. The five most recent and prominent departures, of course, have been Nikki Haley, the United Nations ambassador in October; Jeff Sessions, the attorney-general in November; Ryan Zinke, the secretary of the interior around midDecember; followed by James Mattis, the secretary of defense in late December; and, most recently, John Kelly, the White House chief of staff on January 2.
What explains this wave of departures from an administration that is barely in its second year? At least four reasons, some overlapping, can be suggested. A number of key officials, including those in the cabinet, felt compelled to leave because they faced charges of ethical lapses. Their exodus may have been hastened after the Democrats won the House of Representatives in November 2018. A number of incoming chairs of various pertinent committees in the House had made it clear that they had definite plans to investigate the workings of a series of departments. Faced with the prospect of Congressional grilling, a rush toward the door, no doubt, appeared rather attractive. The exit of Zinke was a prime example: he was under a cloud because of his involvement in a questionable land deal in his home state of Montana.
Apart from the problems of probity, while in office, the president simply forced out others on the basis of personal considerations. For example, Sessions was removed from office because he failed to do Trump’s bidding. It is widely known that Trump was unhappy with his principal law enforcement officer, as the latter was unwilling to curb or terminate the ongoing probe into possible Russian interference in the 2016 American presidential election that a former FBI director, Robert Mueller, is leading.
A handful of individuals have also left the administration because they have their own ambitions. The resignation of Haley is perhaps the most prominent example thereof. Despite public denials on her part, it is widely believed in Washington, DC, that she harbours presidential ambitions. Consequently, it made much sense for her to leave her official perch with ample time on hand.
Finally, some key officials ranging from General H.R. McMaster, the second national security adviser, to Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state; Gary Cohn, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; General James Mattis, the secretary of defense; and General John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, were either nudged or shoved out of office because of policy differences with Trump. These individuals had run afoul of the president because they had dared to challenge him on key policy issues—ranging from national security to trade. As a consequence of these departures, the administration is in the peculiar position of having six critical offices—from the secretary of defense to the director of the Environmental Protection Agency—with acting heads. Worse, according to The Guardian, within a span of two years, the administration has witnessed a 65 per cent turnover in senior positions.
What are the policy implications for the US, and possibly for India, that flow from these frequent changes in a range of cabinet and other departments? For the US, the effects are clear: it has led to a series of policy uncertainties as key individuals have been either forced out or felt compelled to depart. For example, with Mattis no longer at its helm, it is unclear whether the department of defense will sustain a number of key policies. In this particular context, India may well face the consequences of policy shifts. Patrick Shanahan, the new acting secretary of defense, has no regional expertise and is acutely beholden to Trump for his position. He may feel compelled to follow through on Trump’s expressed sentiments about a significant troop withdrawal from Afghanistan with important strategic repercussions for India. Under the present circumstances, India’s political leadership should remain alert to the possibility of an abrupt policy shift on a critical issue of regional security.
India’s leadership should remain alert to the possibility of an abrupt policy shift by the US on regional security