Donald Trump has stirred controversy yet again by bypassing long-established FBI background checks for some of his Cabinet nominees, opting instead to use private firms to conduct vetting. This move has raised eyebrows and alarmed many, as traditional FBI screenings have been the norm since the Eisenhower administration, particularly for positions with national security clearance. Trump's transition team argues this new approach is necessary to expedite the Cabinet selection process and avoid possible delays they believe could hinder the immediate enactment of his agenda.
Sources close to Trump assert the FBI's background checking system is overly slow and cumbersome, potentially allowing damaging information about nominees to surface—information they fear rivals could weaponize for political advantage. Critics, including national security experts and members of Congress from both parties, worry this shift away from standard vetting could enable the selection of individuals with questionable backgrounds or ties to foreign governments.
Two of Trump’s most controversial nominees raise significant concerns: Matt Gaetz for Attorney General and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence. Gaetz has been under investigation for alleged sex trafficking, even as the Justice Department declined to bring charges against him. He resigned from Congress just as the House Ethics Committee was set to finalize its investigation, effectively quashing the inquiry. Meanwhile, Gabbard’s past meetings with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her seemingly pro-Putin stance during the Russia-Ukraine conflict have made her suitability for overseeing U.S. intelligence operations dubious.
Among other surprising picks, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services—a position which, according to experts, he might struggle to fulfill due to his controversial history, particularly his vocal anti-vaccine stance. News surfaced recently indicating the Trump administration might doubt Kennedy’s ability to pass the rigorous FBI security clearance process, which, though not strictly mandatory for nominees, typically assesses candidates for their fitness to handle sensitive information.
Legal experts have expressed strong disapproval of Trump’s decision to skip traditional FBI background checks, noting serious repercussions for national security. Former George W. Bush administration ethics lawyer Richard Painter likened this decision to dangerous shortcuts taken during the Bush administration, recalling the controversial nomination of Bernie Kerik for Homeland Security, who later resigned after allegations of misconduct emerged.
Trump's allies have indicated they see FBI checks as unnecessary hurdles, citing their belief the agency is part of what Trump has dubbed the "Deep State"—a notion he has perpetuated since his presidency began. Notably, Trump's administration displayed similar tendencies during his first term when he was accused of sidelining traditional vetting processes for his appointees, most infamously for Jared Kushner.
This disregard for procedural norms is troubling to many observers. Dan Meyer, a national security attorney, remarked on Trump’s apparent intent to dismantle established standards. He believes this aversion to protocol conveys not just skepticism of formalities, but also amplifies the perception of corruption and foreign influence—difficult perceptions for any administration aiming to gain the public's trust.
Meanwhile, Gaetz continues to make headlines. Just hours before his nomination, he took to social media to decry the FBI, calling for aggressive action against the agency, which he described as having been weaponized against the American populace. This puts him squarely at odds with the very organization he is expected to oversee as attorney general, should his nomination go through.
Gabbard has faced her own share of criticism. Democracy advocates and political analysts have called attention to her affinity for controversial foreign leaders, prompting some Congress members to label her “likely” to be sympathetic toward foreign adversaries. U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz voiced her belief Gabbard could be considered a Russian asset, underscoring the gravity of trusting national intelligence management to someone with such associations.
This scenario brings to light serious ethical and security concerns about Trump's choices and the decisions of his team to ignore well-established checks on candidate backgrounds. It also raises pressing questions about the extent to which individual backgrounds are assessed now and what it means for the integrity of positions once considered central to U.S. governance and national security.
Some experts warn skipping these checks could leave gaps through which unsavory candidates could slip, perpetuating not just individual risks but broader systemic vulnerabilities. The situation continues to evolve as scrutiny on these nominees intensifies—particularly since the window for confirmation votes is narrowing as Trump prepares to take office.
The traditional safeguards, which many see as foundational to the United States' democratic processes, appear to be under threat as Trump and his team forge their own paths through the political minefield. Whether these new practices will yield stability or contribute to governmental instability remains to be seen. Observers await clarity on how this transition will affect the integrity of U.S. governance and the trust placed in its officials.
