Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Daily Caller

Now that Trump is president-elect, who could serve in his administration?

Published

7 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

Former President Donald Trump has secured the White House, now raising the question: who will serve in his administration?

Trump admitted on the Joe Rogan podcast just before the election that one of his biggest mistakes in his first term was putting the wrong people around him, a critique that has been widely shared by Trump’s own supporters.

Now, Trump has another chance to stock his administration.

Trump announced Thursday that his campaign co-chair Susie Wiles would serve as White House chief of staff, a powerful, wide-ranging position where she will help form the new administration and steer its policies.

A range of Republican establishment picks are jockeying to lead the U.S. Treasury Department, State Department, Department of Defense and others, but here are a few of the highest profile potential picks to serve in Trump’s administration.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Lifelong Democrat RFK Jr. ran for president as a Democrat and then became an Independent before finally backing the Trump campaign. Trump repeatedly touted Kennedy’s endorsement, saying that Kennedy would be kept far from energy policy because of his liberal views but would be allowed to work on health issues.

Kennedy has declared a war on junk food and speaks passionately about chronic health issues and how the American food industry and the Food and Drug Administration policies have helped create the chronic disease epidemic in the U.S.

RFK is considered a likely leader in the administration, probably in a health role. RFK has recently publicly said that “entire departments” at the FDA need to go because they are failing or even doing harm.

“They’re not protecting our kids,” he told MSNBC in a recent interview. “Why do we have Fruit Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients and you go to Canada and it’s got two or three?”

Elon Musk

Musk gave Trump a full-throated endorsement and helped propel him to victory with his posts on X and his financial backing. WHile Musk is more than busy running several successful companies, Trump publicly said he would pick Musk to improve government efficiency.

Musk gained a reputation in that department when he bought Twitter, fired much of the staff, and still kept the company running. Musk expressed surprise at just how inefficient and wasteful Twitter was when he took over.

“I will create a government efficiency commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government,” Trump said in September.

Tulsi Gabbard

Gabbard served as a Democrat in Congress but later backed Trump on the campaign trail. Gabbard is known for her foreign policy chops and military service, potentially positioning her for an ambassadorship or State Department position.

Gabbard told Fox News in September that she would be “honored” to serve in Trump’s administration. The same month, she also told a crowd at the Georgia Faith and Freedom Coalition that she could help Trump prevent WWIII and deal with the military industrial complex.

“I feel I can make the most impact in these areas of national security and foreign policy, and work to bring about the changes that President Trump talks about,” she said in her speech.

Vivek Ramaswamy

During the Republican presidential primary, billionaire and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy quickly built his popularity and reputation as an erudite speaker and younger mouthpiece for many of Trump’s ideas.

He also refrained from attacking the President-elect and called for abolishing the Department of Education. He could oversee the dismantling of that agency or be placed somewhere in the Commerce Department or elsewhere, where his business background would serve him well.

Notably, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, will now need to appoint a U.S. senator to replace Vice President-Elect J.D. Vance. Ramaswamy lives in Ohio and could make the cut.

Scott Jennings

Scott Jennings has gone viral online in recent days for his commentary on CNN where he clearly defined Trump’s victory as a coalition of working class people as the mostly liberal panelists fretted over Trump’s victory.

Several viral clips have led to preliminary calls for Jennings to serve as press secretary.

“Scott Jennings = strong candidate for White House press secretary or communications director,” Real Clear Investigations senior reporter and New York Post columnist Paul Sperry wrote on X, one of several to make the same point. “He has been excellent throughout this campaign, arguing effectively as the lone GOP voice on a hostile, biased CNN panel, while keeping his cool and class.”

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

Sen. Marco Rubio was considered on the short list for vice president. While Trump will need the support in the Senate, Rubio could be repurposed in a position that utilizes his focus on national defense.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum

Burgum was also considered a vice president contender. His wealth and business background could put him on the short list for the Small Business Administration or another economic-related role in the new Trump administration.

John Ratcliffe

Former lawmaker and congressman Ratcliffe served as director of National Intelligence and is considered a potential pick to serve as attorney general.

Business

UN’s ‘Plastics Treaty’ Sports A Junk Science Wrapper

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Craig Rucker

According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.

Just as people were beginning to breathe a sigh of relief thanks to the Trump administration’s rollback of onerous climate policies, the United Nations is set to finalize a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty by the end of the year that will impose new regulations, and, ultimately higher costs, on one of the world’s most widely used products.

Plastics – derived from petroleum – are found in everything from water bottles, tea bags, and food packaging to syringes, IV tubes, prosthetics, and underground water pipes.  In justifying the goal of its treaty to regulate “the entire life cycle of plastic – from upstream production to downstream waste,” the U.N. has put a bull’s eye on plastic waste.  “An estimated 18 to 20 percent of global plastic waste ends up in the ocean,” the UN says.

As delegates from over 170 countries prepare for the final round of negotiations in Geneva next month, debate is intensifying over the future of plastic production, regulation, and innovation. With proposals ranging from sweeping bans on single-use plastics to caps on virgin plastic output, policymakers are increasingly citing the 2020 Pew Charitable Trusts reportBreaking the Plastic Wave, as one of the primary justifications.

But many of the dire warnings made in this report, if scrutinized, ring as hollow as an empty PET soda bottle. Indeed, a closer look reveals Pew’s report is less a roadmap to progress than a glossy piece of junk science propaganda—built on false assumptions and misguided solutions.

Pew’s core claim is dire: without urgent global action, plastic entering the oceans will triple by 2040. But this alarmist forecast glosses over a fundamental fact—plastic pollution is not a global problem in equal measure. According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.

This blind spot has serious consequences. Pew’s solutions—cutting plastic production, phasing out single-use items, and implementing rigid global regulations—miss the mark entirely. Banning straws in the U.S. or taxing packaging in Europe won’t stop waste from being dumped into rivers in countries with little or no waste infrastructure. Policies targeting Western consumption don’t solve the problem—they simply shift it or, worse, stifle useful innovation.

The real tragedy isn’t plastic itself, but the mismanagement of plastic waste—and the regulatory stranglehold that blocks better solutions. In many countries, recycling is a government-run monopoly with little incentive to innovate. Meanwhile, private-sector entrepreneurs working on advanced recycling, biodegradable materials, and AI-powered sorting systems face burdensome red tape and market distortion.

Pew pays lip service to innovation but ultimately favors centralized planning and control. That’s a mistake. Time and again, it’s been technology—not top-down mandates—that has delivered environmental breakthroughs.

What the world needs is not another top-down, bureaucratic report like Pew’s, but an open dialogue among experts, entrepreneurs, and the public where new ideas can flourish. Imagine small-scale pyrolysis units that convert waste into fuel in remote villages, or decentralized recycling centers that empower informal waste collectors. These ideas are already in development—but they’re being sidelined by policymakers fixated on bans and quotas.

Worse still, efforts to demonize plastic often ignore its benefits. Plastic is lightweight, durable, and often more environmentally efficient than alternatives like glass or aluminum. The problem isn’t the material—it’s how it has been managed after its use. That’s a “systems” failure, not a material flaw.

Breaking the Plastic Wave champions a top-down, bureaucratic vision that limits choice, discourages private innovation, and rewards entrenched interests under the guise of environmentalism. Many of the groups calling for bans are also lobbying for subsidies and regulatory frameworks that benefit their own agendas—while pushing out disruptive newcomers.

With the UN expected to finalize the treaty by early 2026, nations will have to face the question of ratification.  Even if the Trump White House refuses to sign the treaty – which is likely – ordinary Americans could still feel the sting of this ill-advised scheme.  Manufacturers of life-saving plastic medical devices, for example, are part of a network of global suppliers.  Companies located in countries that ratify the treaty will have no choice but to pass the higher costs along, and Americans will not be spared.

Ultimately, the marketplace of ideas—not the offices of policy NGOs—will deliver the solutions we need. It’s time to break the wave of junk science—not ride it.

Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org).

Continue Reading

Business

‘Experts’ Warned Free Markets Would Ruin Argentina — Looks Like They Were Dead Wrong

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Melissa O’Rourke

The current state of Argentina’s economy is a far cry from what “experts” predicted when they warned that President Javier Milei’s pro-free market leadership would devastate the country.

The chainsaw-wielding libertarian rose to power on promises to slash government spending, implement free-market policies and lift strict currency controls to rescue a nation crippled by inflation, debt and entrenched poverty. Though the pundit class warned that Milei’s policies would spark an economic collapse, the results so far have been a rebuke to those warnings.

Just days before the November 2023 presidential election, 108 economists from around the world signed an open letter claiming that Milei’s “simple solutions” were “likely to cause more devastation in the real world in the short run, while severely reducing policy space in the long run.”

“His policies are poorly thought through. Far from building a consensus, he would struggle to govern,” The Economist’s editorial board wrote in a September 2023 piece describing “Javier Milei’s dangerous allure.”

Well over a year into Milei’s presidency, Argentina is showing its strongest economic performance in years. The country’s gross domestic product (GDP) jumped 7.7% in April compared to the same month in 2024, far exceeding expectations.

The GDP is expected to rise by 5.2% in 2025, compared to declines of 1.3% in 2024 and 1.9% in 2023, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Inflation, a long-standing hallmark of Argentina’s economic dysfunction, dropped to 1.5% between April and May, reaching a five-year low. Annual inflation has plunged from 160.9% in November 2023 — just before Milei took office — to 43.5% in May.

Meanwhile, poverty rates have also declined sharply, falling from 52.9% in the first half of 2024 to 38.1% in the second half of the year.

Argentina’s rental housing supply also increased by 212% between December 2023 and June 2024, after Milei repealed the country’s rent control laws, according to the Cato Institute.

“Against the background of a difficult legacy of macroeconomic imbalances, Argentina has embarked on an ambitious reform process, starting with an unprecedented upfront fiscal adjustment. Reforms have started to pay off. Inflation has receded and the economy is set for a strong recovery,” the OECD noted in its new analysis of the Argentinian economy. “Maintaining the reform momentum will be key to restore confidence, boost investment and productivity growth.”

Milei — a self-described anarcho-capitalist — has been an ardent supporter of President Donald Trump’s efforts to downsize the U.S. government, including the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) push to cut spending.

“I come from a country that bought all of those stupid ideas that went from being one of the most affluent countries in the world to one to one of the [poorest],” Milei said in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2024. “If you don’t fight for your freedom, they will drag you into misery … Don’t surrender.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X