PEOTUS So Far.... the Sun Keeps Coming Up.

Visitors to this blog over the past year will know that I was no great fan of any of the presidential candidates put forward in 2016. Indeed, I was among the many Americans who was left shaking their heads at a system that produced a couple of duds. At the end of the day, I reluctantly cast my lot with Clinton because I had a clearer sense of what kind of dud she'd actually be. As for Trump, my risk averse side was leery of electing an unpredictable dud.

 In the days and weeks since November 8th's political earthquake, I have paid very close attention to nearly everything Trump and his staff have said, parsing every letter for signs of what is to come. Below are my two bits about Trump's transition, his major cabinet picks, and the early signs of what lies ahead.

 I'm still worried,.... quite worried actually. Yet, perhaps because my expectations are so low or that in my desperate search for silver-linings I am cherry picking, I see signs that the sun will continue to come up every morning.

 Everyone Needs to Relax

I am shocked at the degree to which this election has transformed parts of the media, the pundit class, and academia into a group of discombobulated fear-mongers. To listen to some pundits tell it, Trump's election by the ill-educated, dim-wit class has made Armageddon a virtual certainty over the next four years. Indeed, every Trump Tweet, cabinet pick, or comment made by his advisors moves us closer to something equivalent to the sky falling.

• Trump takes a call from the Taiwanese President?... That must mean we're going to war with China.
• Trump nominates Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State?.... That just affirms that Trump and Putin have colluded to steal the election.
• Trump nominates Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General? ....That must mean the roundup and deportation of 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. by a Gestapo-like deportation force and drop them on the other side of that shiny fence Trump's promised to build.
• Trump proposes Oklahoma's Attorney General to head the EPA?.... That means no more Paris Climate Accord, rolling back Obama's coal regulations, and the acceleration of climate change. Scientists are evidently in such a panic that they've been scheming about how to prevent Trump from deleting years of climate data.
• There's also Trump's disdain for the press, his complaints about flag-burning, his "attacks" on the intelligence community, and his wide-ranging conflicts of interest, all of which point to a flouting of the U.S. Constitution.

Everyone needs to take a sedative.

There is plenty that makes me anxious about Trump, not the least of which is his unpredictability. Indeed, there are many ways in which the transition has become an extension of the chaotic, unpredictable manner in which Trump ran his campaign. In others, including some of his cabinet nominations, Trump has become relatively conventional.

If we are going to understand Trump, we would all do well to stop looking at him through the lens of a traditional politician. To do so is to continue to underestimate, misjudge, and be out-manoeuvred by him. Trump has been entirely unconventional and it's foolish to continue hoping he will eventually conform to some mold of what everyone has come to think U.S. presidents ought to be.

It has been written that Donald Trump is America's first independent presidential candidate. He might not be the kind of independent president anyone envisioned when they thought about a third-party break-through in U.S. politics, but here we are.

On the One Hand,.... 

On one hand, I have been encouraged by the signals of moderation sent by Trump in the days after his election, notably in his extensive 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl. There he began to walk-back a number of his more controversial positions on things like Obama Care (saying that popular components like coverage for pre-existing conditions and coverage for children living at home would remain in place) and the border wall (perhaps only a fence in some places). Moreover, Trump signaled that he was going to initially focus deportation efforts on the 2-3 million undocumented aliens who had committed crimes (I still don't know if there are that many).

I think too that more and more people are coming to accept that the pragmatic, trans-actional business-man in Donald Trump may dominate his actions as president. That same trans-actional quality to Trump may generate a lot of unwelcome policy inconsistency. Yet, it's also important to reiterate that there's a big difference between taking Donald Trump literally and interpreting his bombast in a more figurative sense. Indeed, those who are most fearful of a Trump Administration seem to read him in a literal sense, while those who are currently extending him some rope tend to take him more figuratively.

Remember, this is an unconventional candidate with an unconventional approach to governance we are all unfamiliar with. That break with convention has continued through the transition. Trump has continued barnstorming around the country as President-elect, holding campaign-style rallies as though the campaign hadn't ended. It is both unprecedented and creating a hyper-focus on the transition that is eclipsing President Obama's last days in office in a manner we've never seen in past transitions.

Moreover, never before have we seen a president-elect intervene so directly in economic policy before being sworn into office-- even FDR waited until he was sworn in. Last week's intervention by Trump into Carrier's decision to close its Indianapolis air conditioner plant and move the jobs to Mexico was unprecedented, and unprecedentedly effective. Presidents, to say nothing of presidents-elect, rarely intervene so directly into firm-level decisions.

On the Other Hand...

Start with the Carrier intervention. While it might have been a public relations coup for Trump to have so overtly intervened, particularly after video of Carrier breaking the bad news to its employees went viral during the campaign, how Trump's intervention will manifest itself in national policy-making is worrisome. I think there are serious concerns over the impact such individual interventions could ultimately have on the Office of the President itself-- namely the evisceration of every other public office with a stake in such policy-making and the apparent concentration of decision-making authority on nearly everything in the White House.

A U.S. president's political constituency encompasses the entire nation, not just a narrow group of employees in Indiana. It's not that I wish for those Carrier jobs to head to  Mexico, but dealing with that problem-- or the thousands of other firms who confront such issues-- should be dealt with by presidents on a macro-, national basis, not via a bottomless pit of short-sighted one-offs. Hence, I worry that the Carrier episode represents some very short-sighted thinking about national policy that is unlikely to "Make America Great Again." Every other firm in America has taken note of the Carrier intervention and scheming about how they can get a similarly beneficial deal from Trump.

It's the kind of destructive favouritism in policy-making that short-circuits market signals and send other countries into steep decline-- see, Putin's Russia or Chavez's Venezuela.

I remain gloomy about the implications of closed markets and the roll-back of trade liberalization world-wide. The Trans Pacific Partnership is toast, as is the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The NAFTA seems done, and the Doha Round of the WTO might as well raise the white flag of surrender over the organization's Geneva headquarters.

The Cabinet

Trump has now made most of his major cabinet picks. I have a few specific comments on each of them below, but a couple of general thoughts come to mind. Trump has, thus far, been inconsistent in terms of his willingness to involve himself in the details of governance. On the one hand, he has already been involved in things like the Carrier deal, criticizing Boeing for cost overruns on the new Air Force One, and threatening firms with import taxes for shipping jobs overseas. At the same time, he has reportedly been studiously avoiding the Presidential Daily Briefing given to presidents by the CIA. The outstanding question for me about ALL of Trump's cabinet nominees is how personally involved will Trump actually be in the portfolios he is assigning them? Will Trump be a micro-manager, as the Carrier deal suggests, or will he be comfortable letting his cabinet picks manage?

One other general observation is with respect to the critique that Trump is surrounding himself with business tycoons and military people. I share some reservations about this, but also accept Trump's argument that doing things the old-fashioned way-- populating the highest levels of government with former politicians, career civil servants and Ivy League-trained lawyers-- hasn't necessarily served the country well either.  Let's give it a go. Moreover, I was worried that many of the experienced policy wonks within the GOP had permanently abandoned Trump leaving him with a thin bench of people to choose from. With a few big exceptions, a number of people have returned to the fold.

A final note here about the U.S. Congress. Many, including myself, believe the U.S. Congress will act as a significant check on anything a Trump Administration tries to do. In the short run, some Republicans on the Hill undoubtedly owe their re-election to the momentum of Donald Trump's own victory and will have to extend some rope to the new President. There will be easy wins for both ends of Pennsylvania Ave on Obama Care (although less on what to "replace" it with) and tax reform. But after that, the collision course between Trump and the House GOP over the budget seems certain, especially entitlement programs.

Priebus

Selecting Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff is probably one of Trump's smartest picks. As Chief of Staff, Priebus will essentially be a kind of gate-keeper for nearly everything that flows into and out of the Oval Office-- at least until he's not. Much depends on how hands-on Trump becomes as President and also for how long Priebus remains a trusted confidant. There is a distinguished list of presidential Chiefs of Staff who found themselves on the outside looking in at some point. That said, Priebus built up considerable confidence from Trump during the tumultuous GOP primary campaign and was one of the few in the GOP establishment that openly defended Trump and his ascendancy through the process. Being Chief of Staff is a clear reward for the hard work Priebus put in as RNC chair, and for the underappreciated "ground game" the RNC put in place in many battle ground states after the GOP's 2012 electoral loss. Many observers wondered whether Trump's own campaign staff was too small and not well organized enough to win the presidency. The RNC's work over the past four years was pivotal in making the difference. How the press missed this during the campaign remains a mystery to me.

Perhaps the most important function Priebus will serve in the Trump White House is as bridge between the President and the rank-and-file GOP, especially in the House. Key there is Priebus's personal, long-standing friendship with fellow Cheese-Head (Wisconsin native) Paul Ryan. Many in the GOP establishment are in a state of shock over Trump's victory similar to that of many Democrats. Lots of Republicans, including Speaker Ryan, distanced themselves from Trump during the campaign. Now many of those same Republicans owe some of their electoral success to Trump. Priebus will be vital in trying to re-build a lot of burnt bridges between the White House and Capitol Hill. If the GOP wants to put forward any semblance of unity and get some things done, Priebus will need to be successful.

Trump

Ivanka has yet to be assigned a formal role, and because of nepotism laws, may never be. But she is clearly the most influential of the Trump children, frequently assuming the role of humanizing her father-- something he needs a lot of at times. Indeed, Ivanka's role in her father's administration is so important that some are describing her as possibly the most powerful "First Lady" to ever be in the White House. As the linked story notes, having someone other than the President's spouse take on the role of First Lady is not without precedent, but it's been a while. 

Kushner

By all accounts, Trump's son-in-law is among the President-elect's most trusted and influential advisors. Indeed, he appears to have been instrumental in periodically shaking up the Trump Campaign and had a heavy hand in purging New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as Chair of the Transition Team after election day--- Christie's role years ago in prosecuting Kushner's father and the lack of progress on transition planning itself.

Kushner and Ivanka are moving to DC to be close to the action, but as with Ivanka, a formal role in a Trump Administration will be tough to swing. That said, it looks as if they'll be just down the street and I imagine we'll see both spending a fair bit of time lurking about the West Wing.

Flynn

Next to Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn is probably the one person in Trump's inner circle that gives a broad spectrum of people the greatest cause for concern-- partly also because he's also an unknown entity. Flynn has been a key advisor to Trump on a whole range of national security issues. Trump has gone from "watching the shows" for his information about foreign affairs, to taking advice from Flynn. As President-Elect, Trump hasn't been especially inclined to take the Intelligence Community's daily briefings, instead leaving that task to Flynn. Flynn causes liberals and conservatives a lot of heartburn; liberals because of Flynn's views on fighting terrorism, on Islam itself, and the need for enhanced capabilities for the Intelligence Community (Flynn headed the Defense Intelligence Agency, 2012-2014) . Conservatives are uncertain about him because he's actually a registered Democrat and his views on national security are a confused mix of neoconservativism and traditional realism. 

Most importantly here, his appointment as National Security Advisor means Flynn will not be subject to Senate confirmation. Therefore, we may never get a sense of Flynn or the philosophical orientation toward national security he is giving to President Trump.

Pompeo

Mike Pompeo as the Director of Central Intelligence will give a lot of people heartburn since he doesn't have a deep well of experience on intelligence to draw upon. Indeed, Pompeo will enter the job from his perch as Chair of the House Energy Committee. Like Trump, Pompeo has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Nuclear Deal and, like Michael Flynn, a proponent of the expansion of surveilance capacities throughout the Intelligence Community (see The Atlantic brief on him). In addition to Pompeo's views on these issues, I think the most important question about him going forward is how close to Trump he'll actually be. Thus far, Trump has not been taking many of the Presidential Daily Briefings on intelligence (typically given by the DCI). Instead, the DCI has been giving those briefings to Vice-President Elect Pence. Moreover, Trump has been signalling a skepticism with the entire Intelligence Community over evidence that Russia may have tried to affect the outcome of the election. Hence, will Pompeo be an influential voice in building trust between Trump and the IC, or merely preside over its marginalization?

Sessions

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions was one of Donald Trump's earliest and staunchest supporters, so I am not at all surprised he is being nominated for a prominent role. I'm just a little surprised it's this one. Indeed, I expected Attorney General to go to Rudy Giuliani. That said, Jeff Sessions will be the head of the Department of Justice, nation's chief law enforcement officer, lawyer, and counsel to the President. Critics will undoubtedly be concerned about Sessions' and his interpretation and enforcement of a whole range of civil liberties protections, and his possible influence over the enforcement of immigration law. It's hard to downplay Sessions' potential impact on nearly everything the Trump Administration rolls out.

Mnuchin

The anti-Wall Street crowd won't be all that happy with this pick since Steve Mnuchin is yet another in a long line of ex-Goldman Sachs executives to serve as Treasury Secretary. Critics seem to think having people with knowledge of Wall Street finance somehow disqualifies them from heading Treasury; that somehow they'll do their former chums lots of favors. I understand that concern, but the tension between private sector actors and those who regulate them (regulatory capture) is everywhere and a perpetual challenge, no matter who occupies the regulatory positions.

Moreover, I'd point to both Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner as former Secretaries that spent most of their careers working in finance but didn't do Wall Street all that many favors. Paulson, himself a Goldman alum, presided over (some would say pushed) the demise of both Bear Stearns (2007) and Lehman Brothers (2008). Geithner was chair of the New York Federal Reserve for many years-- a job many think makes you too cozy with Wall Street-- and yet proposed a lot of tough measures Wall Street didn't necessarily like. There may be many other reasons to oppose Mnuchin. Being a Wall Street banker isn't one of them.

One of Mnuchin's biggest challenges once in office will be stick-handling the politics of "currency manipulation." It's Treasury's job to determine whether foreign countries are actually "manipulating" their currencies, but Treasury has little input into how fluctuating currency values change those politics. Let me explain. During the campaign, Trump regularly alleged the Chinese were manipulating their currency giving Chinese exporters to the United States a significant cost advantage over American competitors. This is an old story, but in the past several years Treasury has been loathe label China a currency manipulator. Mnuchin's task is even harder now because of the appreciation of the U.S. Dollar, some of which is the result of anticipation around Trump's plans to engage in infrastructure and defense spending. Moreover, as some of you will have noticed, the Federal Reserve raised the Fed Funds Rate to 0.75% last week, further incentivizing capital inflows into the U.S. bidding up the value of the U.S. Dollar.  Mnuchin has little control over those things, all of which are of U.S. origin, but will face a lot of political pressure to label China a manipulator. Good luck with that.

"Mad Dog"

James "Mad Dog" Mattis at Defense? What can you say about this one? I just like the sound of "Mad Dog" for a guy running the military. However, in all seriousness, one of the concerns about Trump surrounding himself with so many military people in civilian posts is that there's a bit too much influence here (Mattis, Flynn at NSC, and Kelly at DHS). I'm not entirely sure I share that concern. After all, it was the civilian leadership (people with little military experience) that sent us into Iraq, ignored Afghanistan for too long, and dithered on Syria. I also see the military people Trump is surrounding himself with (with perhaps the exception of Flynn) as relatively conventional. What is clear, however, is that Trump has a lot of respect and fondness for military people (he's said so), and seems to trust their judgement, discipline, and decisiveness. As importantly, all three of the ex-military people around Trump were vocal critics of Obama while still wearing the uniform.

Assuming Trump can get Paul Ryan's House Republicans to appropriate the funds, "Mad Dog" will preside over what is expected to be a major infusion of cash to the military. Trump will undoubtedly be looking to end the so-called "sequestration" of defense funding that was part of the 2011 budget deal. It's hard to say how that will go down with the House GOP if entitlement reforms or other budget measures are not also considered.

Tillerson

In many minds, Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil is the worst possible nominee to be Secretary of State. I don't quite follow this logic, especially given Trump's penchant for doing things differently. Tillerson may indeed be familiar with a lot of odious characters around the world, including Russia's Vladimir Putin. Let's just be frank here; the oil and gas business takes people to a lot of lousy places, sometimes forces firms to deal with leaders of dubious character, and frequently gets firms in trouble when they do. Moreover, firms like ExxonMobil are mostly competing with state-run oil companies, some of which are poorly run, corrupt arms of the state itself. As the CEO of the world's largest private multinational, Rex Tillerson undoubtedly knows a lot of unsavoury people, many of whom are not friends of the United States.

In my view, this makes him far more qualified than Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani to understand and engage some of those same people as America's chief diplomat. Moreover, I'm not sure I understand the critique of Tillerson as someone that's too close to Putin? Putin is a tough customer with a lot of blood on his hands (MH17, Ukraine, Crimea, Syria). I'm ready for a different approach and am happy to give Tillerson a shot at doing what the last several Secretaries of State (Republican and Democrat) have failed to do-- generate a Russian "reset" that actually works. 

Kelly

Retired Marine General John Kelly's nomination to be Secretary of Homeland Security should make Canadians and Mexicans stand up and take notice. Kelly will arguably be more important to Canadians and Mexicans than Mr. Trump. Why? The Department of Homeland Security is the behemoth federal bureaucracy cobbled together in 2002 to, among many other things, defend America from terrorist attacks. DHS has more than 240,000 employees and has, since its inception, been semi-dysfunctional. Indeed, DHS regularly scores at the bottom of job satisfaction surveys among federal employees. Most importantly for Canadians and Mexicans, DHS is the one U.S. federal agency citizens of both countries have the most contact with. DHS is responsible for almost everything that enters the U.S. by air, land, or sea. Any time Canadians or Mexicans try to enter the United States, or get their products into the U.S. market, it's DHS employees they encounter. The ability to get across the U.S. border easily is an existential economic issue for both countries, yet DHS is hardly a paragon of openness and liberalism. Indeed, DHS is a policy agency whose mandate is inherently defensive.

So what? Who cares? If Donald Trump follows through on some of his campaign promises with respect to immigration and trade, it will be DHS that implements all of them. Even if he pulls back from his promise to build a wall on the Mexican border or to deport millions of undocumented people, the chilling effect on both borders could be profound. Sure, the Mexican border is different from the Canadian border. However, anyone that's crossed the Canadian border in the last decade cannot have failed to note its "hardening" as a choke point for people and goods. Indeed, relative to what it looked like 20 years ago, the Canada-U.S. border shares more in common with the more militarized U.S.-Mexican border than ever. Furthermore, a sprawling, dysfunctional DHS bureaucracy made up mostly of cops-- and soon to be headed by an ex-Marine-- isn't going to nimbly differentiate between the Canadian and Mexican borders in the application of its policies.

Ross

Wilbur Ross will fit very nicely into President Trump's plans for the Department of Commerce and that agency's role in shifting U.S. trade policy. It's Commerce, and the International Trade Administration specifically, that defends U.S. industry against allegations of unfair trade practices by foreigners. Wilbur Ross will fit in nicely. He has made a personal fortune as an investor that leverages the purchase of struggling businesses, notably old school businesses like steel, coal, and textile firms-- all of which have been on the ropes in the United States as a result of foreign competition. While Ross has obviously made a fortune working with distressed business whose distress is the result of globalization (in other words, he's made a few dollars off of globalization), it would be hard to find someone whose skepticism toward open markets and foreign competition for American business is more pronounced. Ross is exactly what Trump's populist economic policy ordered.

Pruitt

Trump's nomination of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency is the equivalent of introducing a skunk to a party. Pruitt's infamy comes from being one of a group of State's Attorneys General that spend a good chunk of the last few years suing the Environmental Protection Agency over its imposition of new greenhouse gas regulations. Pruitt and Rick Perry at Energy (below) are clear signs of the Trump Administration's skepticism about climate change generally and a sign that many Obama Administration regulations on greenhouse gas emissions are in danger of being scrapped. However, before you begin building your bunker to prepare for the climate apocalypse, Mr. Pruitt can expect a number of States' Attorneys General, notably California, to sue him over those roll-backs.

That said, the combination of Pruitt and Perry suggest the Trump Administration will make good on its promise to withdraw from last year's Paris Agreement on climate change. Given what happened when the Bush Administration signaled its unwillingness to meet America's Kyoto Protocol commitments, there's a very good chance many other countries will choose not to implement Paris. Bush's policy moves on Kyoto were a convenient excuse for Ottawa to do nothing on its own Kyoto commitments, the argument being that Canada could ill-afford to be at a competitive disadvantage with its largest trading partner. Will Justin Trudeau ultimately do likewise and abandon some of his stated intentions to implement Canada's Paris commitments?

Perry

Rick Perry as Energy Secretary is another skunk at the party. Indeed, the nomination of Perry is undoubtedly a signal that Energy may be in trouble. Rick Perry probably gets less respect than he deserves for being a decent Texas Governor. One of his better quips on the presidential campaign trail came during the GOP primaries last spring in observing that if Donald Trump builds a 30' foot high wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, the 35' ladder business will really take off. Unfortunately for Perry, and now the Department of Energy, his most infamous claim to fame came during a 2012 GOP primary debate when he couldn't remember the three executive branch departments he would have cut as president. "...Commerce, Education and..... oops" The "oops" department was Energy. There's already been a dust-up between the Trump transition team and climate scientists at Energy. However, I doubt Perry's main role at Energy is to see the demise of the department since that would require an act of Congress-- Congress actually creates executive branch agencies through law.

Honorable Mentions

Conway

Kellyanne Conway is the first woman to be the campaign manager of a major party presidential candidate and, obviously now, the first to steer a candidate to victory. She was far and away Donald Trump's best public advocate. In all of her media appearances, Conway displayed a discipline, class, and temperment that outclassed all of Trump's other advocates combined. She joined the campaign in August in the midst of considerable chaos and deserves plenty of credit for both righting the ship and steering it to victory. It seems less and less likely Conway will actually join the Trump Administration. But she doesn't have to. Her skills as a pollster and campaign manager have cemented her reputation among a small group of elite campaign managers (David Axelrod, James Carville, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove). Conway can do what she wants. But don't expect her to ever be very far away from Trump.

Bannon

Steve Bannon remains an enigma to most people outside of Trump's inner circle. Much has been written about Bannon's media empire (founder of Breitbart) and its ties to the so-called "alt-right" in the United States, but Americans have actually heard very little from Bannon himself. As the CEO of the Trump campaign, Bannon clearly exercised some influence on Trump, but exactly where Bannon's handiwork manifest itself is unclear to me. Was it simply in crafting a kind of anti-establishment message? Was his expertise in sowing doubts (conspiracies) about everything from Clinton's health to the veracity of the entire media establishment? Bannon's formal role in the White House, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor, is not subject to Senate confirmation. Because of that, and because Bannon studiously avoids the public spotlight, we will often be left puzzling over the degree of influence he's actually having.

Recall that for many years everyone assumed Vice President Dick Cheney was having an outsized influence in the Bush White House. Turns out there were far more divisions there than anyone knew at the time. Cheney was influential, but he wasn't pulling the strings.

Vice President-Elect Mike Pence deserves mention here. Like Reince Priebus, Pence could end up being an important bridge to Capitol Hill and establishment Republicans. Pence will also be very important in terms of Trump's legislative agenda since he is one of the only people here with actual legislative experience on Capitol Hill. Pence's views (and policies as Indiana Governor) on social issues like LGBTQ rights and abortion make a lot of liberals nauseous, but Pence may also play an important role in curbing some of Trump's impulsiveness. That I am even saying that may add to the fear. Nevertheless, Pence is a serious politician not given to the kind of impulsiveness we've seen out of his boss. Look to Pence to be the Trump Administration's sober second thought.

Branstad

Terry Branstad is a fascinating choice for Ambassador to China for several reasons. More than just a typical patronage appointment for his support of Trump in Iowa, Gov. Branstad may be an unusually effective go-between in Sino-U.S. relations. Indeed, Branstad evidently has a close personal relationship with current Chinese Premeier Xi Jinping developed while Xi was on an official delegation to Iowa in the 1980s. Trump will need the help after a campaign featuring plenty of nationalist economic rhetoric directed at China and Trump's orchestration of a phone call with Taiwanese President, Tsai Ing-wen.

Carson

DeVos

Thus far, Ben Carson (Housing and Urban Development), Elaine Chao (Transportation), and Betsy DeVos (Education) are notable in my mind because they represent the only women and visible minorities in Trump's cabinet. After November 8, I would have bet that Ben Carson might be tapped for Health and Human Services. I am a little surprised the Carson agreed to take on HUD-- a complicated, but not especially sexy department-- given that he was the first GOP presidential contender to endorse Trump. Betsy DeVos is widely seen as a grenade into the Department of Education because of her support for the expansion of school choice through vouchers and and end to things like Common Core. The Department of Education might be a popular pinata for Republicans to beat, but the fact is that federal influence over education policy is relatively limited. Trump's vow to turn more of it over to the states is empty. The states already control most of those levers. Elaine Chao is a long-time and capable public servant who served as Secretary of Labor (2001-2009) under George W. Bush. One notable aspect of her nomination to serve again is her connection to Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (spouse) and another bridge between Trumpism and establishment Republicans on the Hill.

Chao