Some of President-elect Donald Trump’s most vulnerable Cabinet picks are racing to smooth out or overwrite past statements before contentious Senate confirmation fights, a political concern not shared by the duo of influential Trump allies who have been given wide-ranging power to recommend up to $2 trillion in cuts in federal spending.
The contrast illustrates a key split defining Trump-world as it prepares to take over the federal government. The incoming president has spent the weeks since winning the election preparing to stock key administration posts with high-profile conservative media stars who have ably used that ecosystem to bolster their right-wing policy proposals.
But facing the political pressure of getting confirmed by the Senate, some of those Cabinet picks are now having to moderate. Meanwhile, others in non-Senate confirmable positions — co-chairs of the “Department of Government Efficiency” Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy — can continue mostly unbothered by any prospect that their seats at the table could get yanked away.
“The truly shaky to get 50 votes are in full bleach mode,” said one longtime Republican consultant involved in Senate campaigns. “What conservative pod and show ratings do not necessarily get is senators’ votes.”
Another Republican strategist noted that when media personalities are nominated, past comments and positions will always become hurdles.
“A lot of these guys have been loud mouthpieces and have been on record on news, and serving as talking heads,” the person said. “They are going to say a lot of things. Sometimes hyperbole, and sometimes saying things to push their own agenda or advocate for someone else. When confirmation time comes, you have to answer for that.”
On Tuesday, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s controversial pick to serve as the nation’s top intelligence official, struck a drastically different tone on Syria in the wake of the fall of the country’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Gabbard, a Democrat-turned-Republican and military veteran, has faced criticism over her past support for Assad, including making an unsanctioned trip to meet with him in 2017 that has come under renewed scrutiny.
“I stand in full support and wholeheartedly agree with the statement President Trump has made over the last few days with regards to the developments in Syria,” she told reporters Tuesday as she met with senators, many of whom are skeptical of her past controversial foreign policy views.
Trump has said the United States should avoid involvement in Syria, posting on social media, “This is not our fight. Let it play out. Do not get involved.”
Alexa Henning, a spokesperson for the transition, said that “Lt. Col. Gabbard is in lockstep with President Trump and his statements on the events in Syria over the weekend. This is why President Trump was re-elected to prevent endless wars and put America First.”
Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick for defense secretary, seems to be softening on his previous stance that women should not serve in combat roles, a position that came under scrutiny after Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, expressed skepticism about his selection. Ernst became the first female combat veteran to serve in the Senate when she took office in 2015.
On Monday, after her second meeting with him (and amid huge pressure from Trump supporters), Ernst issued a statement that Hegseth “committed” to “selecting a senior official who will uphold the roles and values of our servicemen and women.” Later that night on Fox News, Hegseth signaled to host Sean Hannity that he was backtracking on his initial position, praising female troops.
“Some of our greatest warriors, our best warriors out there are women who serve, raise their right hand to defend this country and love our nation, want to defend the flag, and they do it every single day around the globe,” he said.
It’s a contradiction from the blunt statement Hegseth made on the same network in November, when he said “we shouldn’t have women in combat roles” as he promoted his book “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of Men Who Keep Us Free.”
Ernst has not yet said whether she will support Hegseth’s nomination. But the Iowa Republican has said she looks forward to his Senate hearing, and in her statement Monday, she echoed Trump talking points attacking anonymous sources, like the current and former Fox employees who told NBC News they had concerns about Hegseth’s drinking. (The Trump transition called the allegations “completely unfounded and false.”)
“As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources,” Ernst said.
A Trump transition official said that like Trump, “Pete wants to see the U.S. military focus on being the world’s strongest fighting force — not on cultural and social issues. Bottom line: If you can meet the standards, you can serve.”
Presidential nominees adjusting some of their positions to get Senate support is nothing new. But because several of Trump’s picks had pre-existing star power, driven in part by controversial statements made in regular appearances on conservative media, this course correction may be more pronounced.
“It’s all about deal making, it always has been. That’s the politics of this process,” said a veteran Republican operative and Trump ally. “These guys are well known. Many of them are kind of celebrities within the MAGA base and their positions helped make them that, so when they do what they need to to get confirmed, it’s going to stand out.”
Yet, while Trump’s Senate-confirmable picks must work with Republican senators who might not share their worldview, others given massive power and public platforms by the president-elect have been free to push their agendas with little worry of political repercussions — even if, at times, it complicates things for Trump and his allies.
The DOGE experiment is the best example.
Musk and Ramaswamy face no external threat or political check as they push forward on their promise to recommend $2 trillion in federal spending cuts — a dynamic that has forced senators to meet with them and lobby for their preferred cuts. It has also exposed those senators to questions about some of the more controversial proposals, most notably entitlement spending cuts.
Trump said during the campaign — and echoed in recent weeks — that cuts to programs like Social Security are off the table. He has sometimes talked about scouring that program and others for “waste, fraud and abuse,” but he’s also told supporters that he wouldn’t “cut one penny” from entitlements.
“I said to people we’re not touching Social Security, other than we make it more efficient,” Trump said during an interviev Sunday with NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” “But the people are going to get what they’re getting.”
Of course, what looks like efficiency to one person or party could look different to another. And the DOGE architects have done little to tamp down chatter that those sort of cuts, which once seemed unthinkable for elected leaders, remain in play.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has also recently talked about reforms to Social Security; earlier this month, he wrote a 25-post thread on X delving into his criticism of the origins of the program.
The posts got lots of attention, including from Musk. “Interesting thread,” he replied.
Talk of cuts to those programs in the past would have spelled political suicide, but Trump offering wide-ranging authority to DOGE has helped provide cover for some budget-hawks who have long eyed entitlement reforms as part of broader-based government spending cuts.
“We have got to right the ship, and it’s going to mean cuts. It’s going to mean cuts to the 24% of the discretionary spending that we have and it’s going to mean looking long-term at the front end of programs like Social Security and Medicare” Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., told Fox News on Monday. “Not taking anyone off what they paid into so far, but there is some waste, abuse and fraud in Medicare that we can take those numbers back and add to our general coffers.”
“And on the front end on Social Security, I think there is a way, when people are living longer, they are retiring later, that on the front end, we can move that retirement age back a little bit,” Alford added.
A senior Senate Republican aide said early conversations around DOGE have not broached Social Security funding, with the early thinking around the advisory committee’s purpose centered on streamlining government output rather than seeking outright cuts to services.
“What they’re more looking at now, from what I’ve heard, is looking at ways to streamline these products and save money, rather than outright cutting anything,” this person said.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a veteran of decades of Washington’s nastiest fights, instinctively knew not to touch the third rail when, after a meeting Wednesday with Musk and Ramaswamy, reporters asked Thune if DOGE’s recommendations could include cutting entitlement programs.
The senator laughed and walked away.
