When did expertise and knowledge become dirty words in the USA? I was disheartened listening to the hearings for Trump’s cabinet picks. Clearly, Republicans put little value in candidates’ abilities, experiences, or expertise for the very complex cabinet posts at hand.

Instead, I heard questions and statements such as:

“How many pushups can you do?” 

“How many genders are there?” 

“Tell me why you love your wife.” 

Seriously? Many questions about the detailed aspects of these cabinet positions received perfunctory non-answers. Secretary of Defense cabinet nominee Pete Hegseth’s most common response to any question was, “anonymous smears” –even when names were attached to statements. Tulsi Gabbard had difficulty explaining the responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence. None of the cabinet nominees last week ruled out sanctioning illegal actions if Trump asked them to perform them. 

 Recent Pew Research studies indicate that the respect Americans have for subject-matter experts has dropped from 87 percent to 73 percent. Other research around anti-intellectualism indicates that one in three Americans harbors some resentful attitudes towards experts.

Both Trump campaigns doubled down on doubting the validity of experts on issues such as climate change, health policy, and the economy.

In general, Republicans tend to favor limiting government which, in some cases, means limiting the influence that experts in various fields have on our day-to-day lives. In essence, we are dealing with the backlash or resentment over so-called experts telling you how to live your lives. Today there’s a kind of arrogance that basically says my ignorance has just as much value as your knowledge.

In dangerous times such as these, authoritarian leaders instill fear in the populus and insist that only they are the messiahs who will save the country, and they must be obeyed. This approach also emphasizes racism and bigotry, often stressing the point that if you don’t fight back, you will lose your current place in the hierarchy. History has repeatedly shown that succumbing to such authoritarian leaders only leads to great unhappiness and upheaval in the end. 

So, how do we combat this dangerous anti-intellectual movement? Here’s what the experts say. 

Be OK with realizing you cannot know everything and become motivated and excited about ongoing growth and learning. 

Understand that it’s OK to change your mind or point-of-view when new sound information becomes available. 

Read about subjects that may not necessarily pertain to you or your work. 

Carefully evaluate arguments in your reading and analyze whether such arguments are based on truth and fact. 

Discover practical applications to theoretical ideas. 

Welcome difficult conversations with friends and family to understand various positions. 

In the meantime, here’s hoping the ridiculous conversations about windmills, sharks, and space lasers can be kept to a minimum. 

The scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, “There is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” 

Something to think about. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

 

 

 

.

On the campaign trail for Trump, Elon Musk waxed eloquently about the need to cut government spending and regulations. To do so, Trump announced that he planned to appoint Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead an outside task force called the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. 

Before the election, Musk claimed he planned to cut $2 trillion from federal government spending. Last week Musk changed his tune and said he probably would be able to cut less than $1 trillion. Why? Because it’s much more difficult to cut government spending than you might imagine. More than two-thirds of the federal budget goes to defense, Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits and interest payments on the nation’s $36 trillion debt—all areas which Trump has promised not to cut.

So where does the irony come in with Musk and cost-cutting? Let’s take a brief look at how much money Musk has received from government contracts and subsidies over the last 14 years. 

Space X has secured contracts for approximately $20 billion for crew and cargo resupply missions to the International Space Station and Starship development for lunar missions.

Tesla has received several types of government support, including a $465 million low-interest loan from the Department of Energy. He also has received significant income from environmental regulatory credits. These credits resulted in a substantial part of Tesla’s revenue, contributing more than $517 million by 2015, and an additional $10 billion since 2015. And don’t forget the Federal $7,000 tax credit that each Tesla owner received simply for buying an electric vehicle at a time when Tesla had a near monopoly on the electric vehicle market.

Solar City, which Tesla acquired, has received direct grants, tax credits and other subsidies including a $497 million direct grant from the U.S. Treasury Department. 

In short, a prime reason that Musk is the richest man in the world is because of the money he has received from the federal government. 

In the past, Musk has also had several adversarial knock-down drag outs with government regulators over the safety of his Teslas and environmental issues over his rockets. In his new role, Musk will potentially have control over government regulators who are regulating his companies. 

There is no question that Elon Musk is a brilliant entrepreneur. He has been declared an engineering and managerial genius. His IQ is estimated to be around 155, right up there with Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. His accomplishments to date are beyond impressive. But he also is driven to get to Mars as soon as possible and wants nothing to stand in his way—including regulators who care about safety and the environment—and competitors, such as Boeing and Jeff Bezos—his biggest competitors in the Space race. (Bezos and Musk both have rockets scheduled to launch this week.) 

In his new position, Musk potentially will have the ability to get rid of some regulations and put the kibosh on some of his competition in the space race. Such conflicts used to be stifled at the outset. But in this brave new world, they seem to be alive and well and living in the USA. (In addition to exerting major influence on the U.S. and outer space, Musk is now endorsing the far-right candidate for Germany, has inserted himself into British politics encouraging the most conservative option, and has cozied up to Italy’s conservative prime minister Giorgia Meloni whom he has bonded with over their mutual affection for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.)

Jeff Bezos just announced a $40 million Amazon deal for a Melania Trump documentary. James Carville, who is well versed in the documentary market, claims that you can make an A-plus documentary for $2 million. 

The concept of buying favor for personal gain, now front and center, is a distressing turn of events.

There is no question that there is government waste that can be pared down. But there’s also no question that regulations are needed to protect our environment and the safety of our citizens. There’s also no question that it is wrong to award government contracts to the entrepreneur with the deepest pockets—especially when the ultimate grifter, Donald Trump, is leading the charge. 

It’s time for government watchdogs to do their jobs. It’s also time that we put limits on the amount of money these entrepreneurs can put forth to get the go-ahead on their pet projects and line the pockets of the Commander-in-Chief. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

 

I worked in federal government consulting in DC for several years. During that time, I worked with nine different government agencies, three of which were intelligence agencies that required a top-secret full-scope poly clearance. As a partner in charge of a practice, I received notifications when practitioners in our firm and several other smaller firms that we partnered with were approved or denied clearances, or had their clearances revoked. 

The most common reasons for denial or loss of a security clearance are  illegal drug use and excessive alcohol consumption; personal conduct issues such as dishonesty, associating with criminals, sexual harassment; financial issues such as excessive debt, fraud, tax evasion; and international issues such as possessing  dual citizenship, sharing a house with a person who is connected with a foreign government, or having substantial financial interests in other countries.  

So, here’s why I’m having difficulty sleeping at night. There’s no way that several of Trump’s picks to run government agencies, serve as ambassadors or top administrators could qualify for a secret clearance—let alone a top-secret one. So how weird is it that Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence—the umbrella agency for all intelligence agencies; Kash Patel, for FBI Director; Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to run the largest government agency—Defense—; Kristi Noem for Department of Homeland Security; and Charles Kushner, for Ambassador to France, are under consideration for these extremely sensitive, high-powered posts?  (The misdeeds of RFK Jr. for Health and Human Services Secretary would require a whole separate column.) 

And then there is Donald J. Trump himself—a man who will have access to the nuclear codes—who checks three out of four boxes for most common denials of security clearances.

For many years, I witnessed the complexity, sophistication and expertise high-level officials in these agencies possessed. I saw the detail and extreme care they used when discussing tradecraft and highly sensitive matters. And I saw time after time the importance they gave in ensuring that individuals in their employ understood their commitment to telling “truth to power.”

Now let’s take a cursory look at the cast of characters who are being considered for high level posts in Trump’s second administration.

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s choice for Director of National Intelligence, would oversee 18 intelligence agencies with a total budget of $100 billion dollars. In the past, Gabbard has blamed the U.S. for the war in Ukraine, and she has met twice with Syrian’s authoritarian leader Bashar al-Assad. She has claimed that she doubts Assad used chemical weapons even though the U.S. has overwhelming evidence that he has done so. There is no way that Gabbard could get a security clearance. Add that to the fact that she has no intelligence experience.

Kash Patel, Trump’s pick for FBI Director, was formerly a government lawyer in the Justice Department and rose to some top national security positions inside the Pentagon and White House. He also helped Trump try to overturn the 2020 election. In his memoir, Patel accused the FBI and 60 specific people of being part of the “deep state.” He has made clear that he is on Trump’s retribution train to seek out and prosecute Trump’s perceived adversaries. Patel has no experience managing large groups of people. The FBI has approximately 35,000 employees. Many former FBI officials project that dozens of career FBI employees will take early retirement or resign should Patel be confirmed as FBI Director. 

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to head the Department of Defense, also has never managed large groups of people. The Department of Defense has more than a million employees and a budget of approximately $776 billion. Through poor financial mismanagement, Hegseth has run two small nonprofits into the ground. For sure he checks at least three of the four boxes for security clearance denials, including drug and alcohol abuse, sexual harassment, and financial mismanagement. In the past, he has said he wants to get rid of “woke generals,” doesn’t think women belong in combat, and mocks LGBTQ and transgender members of the military. 

Kristi Noem, Trump’s pick for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is currently governor of South Dakota. She has been accused of misusing her position to help her daughter which resulted in a settlement of $200,000. She is banned from nine tribal reservations because she accused them of running drug cartels. She used taxpayer money to send the National Guard to the Mexican border at least five times as a publicity stunt. Her office has experienced massive turnover, and the state government is involved in a massive corruption scandal involving former employees. And then there is, of course, the fact that she killed her dog. And oh, by the way, she has no law enforcement experience. 

Trump has selected Charles Kushner, a major donor to his 2024 campaign and his son-in-law’s father, as his pick for Ambassador to France—a highly coveted prize. Kushner pleaded guilty to 16 counts of tax evasion and admitted to hiring a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law. Trump pardoned Kushner after he served two years in prison. There is no way this guy could get a security clearance. And his reward for all his wrongdoings—serving in one of the most coveted ambassadorial stations in the world and living in a stunningly lavish estate. What kind of message does it sent to France when the U.S. sends a convicted felon as its representative? (You may also remember that Kushner’s son, Jared Kushner, was denied a security clearance in Trump’s first administration but Trump overruled the rejection. During Trump’s first administration, Kushner took several trips to Saudi Arabia. Six months after Trump left the White House, Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from a fund led by the Saudi crown prince.)  

I’ve never understood why it’s not a requirement for people who decide to run for senator, representative, governor, president, etc., to first be required to undergo a background check similar to the one thousands of government employees must pass to qualify for certain government positions. If we did so, it might have prevented the George Santos (R-NY) debacle and so many others. 

Who among this ragtag team do you think will tell “truth to power?”  How will America learn the truth of what’s really happening around the world? (Should you think I’m overreacting about the upcoming difficulty of knowing the true story, just this weekend, Trump blamed the Texas-born U.S. veteran terrorist who killed 14 people in New Orleans on illegal immigrant invasions. He also hosted a documentary screening at Mar-a-Lago—a film about asking Congress to overturn the 2020 election results where Peter Navarro, Michael Flynn, John Eastman, and Rudy Guiliano were present—all of whom continued to tout the stolen election lie.)  

Keep in mind that the General Miley’s and John Kelly’s of the world will be long gone in this next Trump administration. The band of sycophants who remain is frightening to say the least. And how likely is the Republican-led Senate to vote against these nominees? I’m not holding my breath. 

All in all, to say I’m disappointed in America is an understatement. The first time around, I gave us a pass. Trump’s win was a bit of an adventure into the unknown. Not this time. This time it’s on us.

Maria Grant was the principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

 

I wish all Spy readers a wondrous holiday and a new year filled with peace and joy. As the year winds down, I find myself reflecting on these past months. Here is a poem I wrote about such reflections.

Still life  

So many rooftops, tabletops, stovetops have I claimed
Rooms measured, chairs arranged for conversations fraught with nuance
Walls painted, changed from light to dark, shadow striped and glazed
Gardens tilled, planted, weeded, and refigured
Endless bouquets of flowers in tall vases
Fresh fruits and vegetables in bowls,
Arranged by color and size, cast in shadow and light
Books on shelves erudite and deep
Too much poetry?  Too little prose?
A bit of theater in repose
A glass of sherry, a spot of port
To which political topic shall we resort in a year
Filled with division, destruction, and retort
Recycled thoughts like papers shredded and reconstituted
So much pretension, wasted time
Revisions turn from reductions to deductions
A denouement or yet another variation on a theme
Decisions made may bode more danger than first seen
Photographs flash freeze upon my screen.
Still life. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

Last week, I got an email that fraud had been detected on my credit card, and a new card had been sent to me. But wait, I thought, perhaps you should have informed me before you cancelled my card and mailed me a new one to an address where I don’t currently reside. 

I called the credit card company, a chatbot responded, asking me for my card number which had been cancelled so it no longer existed, my social security number, etc. About 15 minutes later, I got to a real person. I explained that I wasn’t at the address where the card had been sent. She told me I had to receive a link, send a copy of my driver’s license and my photo and a new card would be sent overnight. I did as she requested, she then said it didn’t come through, please send again, which I did. 

The card did not arrive. I called back. Got another chatbot. At least 10 minutes later, I got to a real person. I explained that my card never arrived. She checked and said they had tried to reroute it, and then were informed that it was too late to reroute. Something must have gotten lost in the shuffle. The company would overnight another card to my current address. I’m still waiting. It should arrive soon.

The next day, we received a gift sent from Amazon with no gift card. We had no idea who sent the gift. I started my search with Amazon chat, got nowhere, and then made a phone call, which required a call back. About 20 minutes later, a person called me back. I explained the situation. He told me that there is no way they could trace who sent the package and suggested that I call every person I know and ask if they sent us a gift. I said thank you, and no, that won’t be happening. 

The following day we went to dinner with another couple at an expensive restaurant. A waiter appeared and asked if we would like a glass of wine. About 15 minutes went by, and the wine appeared. Then about 20 more minutes went by and there was no waiter in sight. We asked a member of the waitstaff—many of whom were standing around chatting with each other–if he could locate our waiter. Finally, our waiter reappeared, we ordered and waited another half hour for our dinners. Two of the orders were not right, but we said that’s okay. When the bill came, a 20 percent tip had been added and there was another line for “extra gratuity.” 

The next day I went to a large department store. I had to walk through three departments to find a salesclerk to ask a question about whether an item was available in a different size. She said she didn’t think so.

The following day I went to a store, picked something off a shelf (talked to no clerks—asked for no advice). I simply picked up an item and took it to a cashier. When I put my credit card (a different one) into the machine as the cashier looked over me, the bill appeared and asked me if I wanted to add a tip to the transaction. 

What is going on? Please know that I appreciate the service industry and try to tip generously. I give holiday gifts to service workers and treat them with respect and dignity. I understand the frustrations of income inequality. (And trust me, with this new administration, this inequality will get worse—not better. Anyone who thinks the cute kid’s clothes at Target that are made in China are going to get cheaper under Trump and his tariffs is smoking something.)

So, what has happened to impressive customer service in this country? When we were in Europe this summer, there was a marked difference in the quality of service. Service was great. There was pride in doing a job well done. Waitstaff were solicitous and helpful. 

Just read some Yelp reviews about customers’ frustrations with stores, restaurants, mistaken orders, etc. I am not alone in my frustrations with poor customer service.

Experts say there are many reasons for this dissatisfaction with customer service. They include a labor shortage of service workers, higher customer expectations, lack of competition (think about how many choices you have for internet providers on the Eastern Shore), rising use of automation which often results in increased time and having to repeat the same information to a real person, and the fact that many companies are struggling to meet demands as opposed to looking for new customers.

Experts say that companies that want to improve customer service should do a better job of understanding customer needs, seek and promote customer feedback, set customer service standards, try to exceed customer expectations, and share examples of great service.

Yes please. I’m begging you, please do. I seriously can’t take another week like this one.

P.S. As I’m writing this column, I just got a message that my credit card is out for delivery. Hallelujah! Let’s hope it comes to the right address.

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

Lord knows this has been one stressful year! The election, wars, hurricanes, wildfires, killers on the loose, and more. Movies, series, and documentaries have provided a much-needed escape from present-day reality. Here are some of my favorites this year in no particular order.

Leonardo da Vinci. This two-part PBS documentary directed by Ken Burns, his daughter, and son-in-law, makes the case that Da Vinci is the greatest painter who ever lived and convinces the audience that da Vinci was so ahead of his time that he would have done well living in today’s modern world. The four-hour series reviews da Vinci’s skills as a painter (particularly his 13-year struggle with the Mona Lisa), a botanist, an inventor, and a philosopher. It’s a fascinating documentary and well worth the time spent watching it. 

The Bear. Now in its third season, The Bear tells the story of a Chicago restaurant and deals with grief, family and colleague drama, and, of course, the stress of owning a restaurant. Most critics loved the first two seasons but not so much the third. All three seasons worked for me, although I have no idea why on the Emmy roster, The Bear is listed as a comedy—not even close. 

Slow Horses. It’s a spy series set in London about a bunch of outcast intelligence agents. It is both thrilling and, at times, hilarious. Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Jack Lowden are excellent. Season Five of the series is scheduled for late summer 2025.

The Diplomat. Just completed its second season, a career diplomat, played by Keri Russell, has been appointed ambassador to the United Kingdom and is secretly being considered as a vice-presidential candidate, amid an international crisis, a troubled marriage with a shrewd manipulative husband, played by Rufus Sewell. It’s the perfect watch for today’s political climate. 

A Gentleman from Moscow. Based on the novel by Amor Towles, this series is a period drama about a 1920s Russian aristocrat, played by Ewan McGregor, who is being kept in a hotel by the Bolsheviks. The series does justice to the absolutely splendid novel and is a true delight to watch.

Only Murders in the Building. The fourth season of Only Murders in the Building is still TV worth watching with lots of whodunit intrigue and great generational jokes among Steve Martin, Martin Short and Selena Gomez. Hollywood wants to adapt the podcast onto the silver screen and hilarity ensues with Eva Longoria and Eugene Levy acting and Molly Shannon producing. Meryl Streep is also back in town. 

The Agency. All episodes of The Agency have not yet dropped, but so far, The Agency works. Based on the French program, The Bureau, The Agency is about a spy, played by Michael Fassbender, who must adjust to life after being undercover for a long time. Richard Gere plays his boss, and the complicated plot smacks of a well-written John Le Carre spy novel. I look forward to the remaining episodes.

Ripley. I was skeptical about watching Ripley after seeing The Talented Mr. Ripley based on Patricia Highsmith’s wonderful novel which I loved. But the 2024 Ripley, shot in black and white, did indeed deliver. Andrew Scott plays Ripley and his portrayal is disturbing, intense and sharp.

Disclaimer. It’s a seven-part series that is more intriguing than enjoyable to watch but it’s on my list because I’m such a huge Cate Blanchett fan, and she does not disappoint in this story about a woman who has a secret from many years ago that is revealed by actor Kevin Kline’s character. There are clues galore, and it’s a bit of a morality tale with a surprise ending.

A Man on the Inside. This series stars Ted Danson who becomes a private investigator in a retirement community. It’s one of those cozy mysteries which seems just right for this stressful year. And it’s a special treat that one of the retirement community residents is Sally Struthers from All in the Family fame. It’s one of those wrap-yourself-in-a-blanket series that deals lightly with the human condition. I found it refreshing and surprisingly touching. 

Three more on my list that I have not yet watched but look forward to doing so are Shogun, Pachinko, and Enclave. 

Dear Readers, I would love to hear your recommendations. Please share them in the comments. It’s going to be a long and lonely winter.

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

No one has a crystal ball that can accurately predict the future. And though many of us think we have all the answers, the fact is that we just don’t. Here are some issues on my watchlist over the next four years.

The national debt rose almost $7.3 trillion in Trump’s last administration. That’s the third biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy, of any other President. George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln‘s deficits were bigger relatively speaking. Trump dealt with the pandemic. Bush had two foreign conflicts. Lincoln financed the Civil War. Biden, dealing with the aftermath of the pandemic, borrowed $4.3 trillion according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Let’s watch what happens next.

During Trump’s last administration, he appointed three conservative Supreme Court Justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. These appointments led to the overturning of Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court’s ruling that gives presidents broad immunity for official acts. Biden appointed one liberal Supreme Court Justice—Ketanji Brown Jackson. It is anticipated that during Trump’s next administration, conservative Justices Thomas and Alito will retire, enabling Trump to appoint two much younger conservative Justices—who could perhaps hold those positions for more than 30 years. Let’s watch what happens next.

Trump deported approximately 1.5 million undocumented immigrants during his four years as President. At this point in time, Biden has almost matched that number of deportations. With Trump’s new appointment of Border Czar Tom Homan, let’s watch what happens next. 

When president, Trump’s suggested cures for Covid included injecting bleach, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine into veins. With the anti-vax, anti-fluoride RFK Jr. at the helm of HHS, and Dr. Oz, of coffee-bean extract and Reiki-energy healing fame, taking control of Medicare and Medicaid, let’s watch what happens next.

The average year-over-year inflation rate under Trump was 1.9 percent (influenced by the pandemic). Under Biden, so far it is 5.2 percent. Let’s watch what happens next. 

The former Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products. The Biden administration kept most of those tariffs in place and added an additional $18 billion on Chinese goods, including semiconductors and electric vehicles, for an additional tax increase of $3.6 billion. Trump’s proposed tariff hikes are estimated to increase taxes by another $524 billion, shrink the GDP by at least 0.8 percent, and eliminate 684,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Academic and government studies indicate that the Trump-Biden tariffs raised prices, reduced output, and employment, and produced a net negative impact on the U.S. economy. Let’s watch what happens next.

From a climate change perspective, the Biden administration has cut total greenhouse gas emissions, passed a climate-smart economic stimulus package, and sought environmental justice. Trump plans to boost fossil-fuel production, has rallied against wind turbines and electric vehicles, and has threatened to claw back unspent climate funding. Let’s watch what happens next—particularly let’s keep a close eye on how such policies will affect the Eastern Shore’s environmental issues. 

In most cases, past presidents have appointed cabinet leaders, even those with controversial points of view, with deep relevant subject-matter expertise. A majority of Trump’s cabinet picks lack government experience and deep relevant expertise. Let’s watch what happens next. 

Because of the pandemic, Trump offered students the ability to defer payments on their student loans. Biden forgave more than $166 billion in student loan debt. Trump has now proposed eliminating the Department of Education which could mark the end of low-interest loans for students. Some economists predict that private lending institutions will once again resume that role. Let’s watch what happens next. 

When Trump left office, the Federal Reserve interest rate was .25 percent (once again influenced by the pandemic). When Biden leaves office, the Federal Reserve interest rate will be around 4.6 percent. Let’s see what happens next.

The astronaut Neil Armstrong once wrote, “Science has not yet mastered prophecy. We predict too much for the next year and yet far too little for the next 10.”  

Truer words have not been spoken.

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature.

 

 

 

Since 1789, America has had 46 presidents. All of them have been men. And all but one of them have been white. 

In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman to be named a vice-presidential candidate for a major party. She came under severe attack because she and her husband filed their taxes separately, and her husband refused to make his tax returns public. Since then, Republican Sarah Palin ran for vice president in 2008, and Kamala Harris was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2020.

In 1964, Margaret Chase Smith ran for the Republican nomination for president. She was the first woman whose name was placed in nomination for president at a major political party convention. In 1972, Shirley Chisholm was the first Black candidate to run for the Democratic presidential nomination and the first woman to run for her major party’s nomination. Hillary Clinton became the first woman to receive the Democratic nomination for President in 2016. And Kamala Harris was the first woman of color to receive the Democratic nomination in 2024. 

Nancy Pelosi was the first woman elected as U.S. Speaker of the House and led the House from 2007 to 2011 and again from 2019 to 2023.

Of the 115 Justices who have served on the Supreme Court, six have been women. Four of these women are currently serving. 

Among the 193 United Nations member states, at least 80 countries have had a female head of state or government. Currently, only 13 of the body’s 193 members are led by women. The Council on Foreign Relations ranked the U.S. Number 69 in its rankings of which countries have “progressed toward gender parity in political participation.” 

Researchers claim that when polled, Americans say they would vote for a woman, “just not that woman.” Currently women make up about a third of Congress and there are 12 women governors.

According to the most recent World Values Survey, 15 percent of American respondents agreed that “men make better political leaders than women do.” Political scientists claim that women candidates often have to be more qualified than men to win elections. 

Americans don’t seem to have significant problems with voting for women in lower-level positions than president—congresswoman, governors, etc. But the leadership traits Americans see as most important in a President are decisiveness and toughness—traits more difficult for women to demonstrate. On the other hand, voters tend to rank women as more trustworthy, less corrupt, more compassionate, and better on issues such as healthcare, education, and childcare.

Women who have led other countries have been judged more harshly than their male counterparts. They tend to face higher standards and enjoy shorter honeymoon periods.

Surveys have also shown that the public is not ready for an all-female ticket but obviously has no problem with an all-male ticket. 

J.D. Vance authored a book, was a lackluster hedge fund manager, and had served only two years in the Senate when Trump tapped him as his Vice President (making Bush’s VP pick Dan Quayle look like an elder statesman). 

Now let’s take a quick look at how Trump and the men he will surround himself in his next administration feel about women. 

We have heard ad nauseum the rude, crude comments Trump has made about countless women. Since the 1970’s, at least 26 women have accused Trump of sexual assault or sexual harassment. In 2023, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation against E. Jean Carroll. 

Trump’s VP-Elect J. D. Vance talks about “childless cat ladies and claims the sole purpose of post-menopausal woman is to help care for youngsters.”

Matt Gaetz, Trump’s nomination for Attorney General, has been accused of sex trafficking, using illegal drugs, and showing lewd photos of women on the House Floor. It is yet to be determined whether the findings of the House Ethics Committee’s report on Gaetz, that had been scheduled to be released last Friday, will be released.

Efficiency expert Elon Musk, the father of 12 offspring, freely offers his sperm to women in his employ. He apparently also suggested to Nicole Shanahan, RFK’s Jr. ‘s former running mate, that she could have access to his valuable sperm. 

RFK Jr., an anti-vax conspiracy theorist and heroin addict for 14 years who has claimed that a worm ate part of his brain, once was alleged to have a list on his cellphone of 43 mistresses. His promiscuity was frequently linked, in part, to his former wife’s suicide. Mary Kennedy also suffered from drug and alcohol addictions.

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nomination for Defense Secretary, said that women should not be in combat roles because men are more capable. (Currently about 220,000 combat roles are open to women in the military. Women who obtain those roles are subject to the same grueling training that men are. Reports state that these women are competent and should they no longer be eligible for combat roles, the U.S. may be forced to reinstate the draft. The Department of Defense is the largest employer in the U.S. It has more than 1.3 million active-duty employees and more than 800,000 in reserves. Its budget is almost $900 billion. Hegseth has never had a management position of any size.) Hegseth also has been accused of sexual assault. 

Boatloads of serious competent women with deep technical expertise reside in the U.S. It is distressful that the U.S. continues to pass over them for the top job. It’s also distressful that, with few exceptions, the women who Trump has tapped to work in his next administration have one quality in common—blind loyalty to Trump. Deep relevant expertise does not appear to be on the radar screen.

So, fasten your seatbelts competent women. We’re in for a bumpy ride.

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature.