U.S. President Donald Trump desperately wanted to fire Lt.-Col. Alexander Vindman — the Ukraine expert on the National Security Council — last Wednesday, immediately after his Senate acquittal. But some of his aides cautioned him that doing so would only detract from his “celebration” venting in the White House East Room on Thursday afternoon.
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a $1-million dollar donor to Trump’s inaugural, was also sacked on Friday. Evidently, telling the truth before House committee members and poking a gaping hole in the president’s “no quid pro quo” defence was an intolerable firing offence.
But it was Vindman, a decorated Iraq war hero, who had obviously got under the president’s skin with his biting congressional testimony about how inappropriate Trump’s July 25 telephone call with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was. Even though Vindman, sensing that a storm was brewing, requested to be reassigned at the end of February, there was just no way that Trump was going to countenance Vindman going quietly. And to pour salt in the wound, the president also ordered the dismissal of his brother, Yevgeny, who worked as an ethics lawyer at the NSC, on the same day.
Now, it certainly is the U.S. president’s prerogative to fire anyone he wants on his personal staff. It’s not illegal and he doesn’t need a legitimate reason to do so. But there’s little doubt that deep-sixing Vindman was incredibly personal to Donald Trump.
In two tweets last week, President Trump made his feelings about Vindman perfectly clear. “(He) was very insubordinate, reported contents of my ‘perfect’ calls incorrectly” and “was given a horrendous report by his superior, the man he reported to …,” he wrote. As Trump then explained: “In other words, ‘OUT.’”
Notwithstanding the fact that Vindman had outstanding job performance reviews, he failed the test of blind loyalty that Trump demands. Trump just doesn’t tolerate anyone who challenges him or speaks ill of his character. Take a look at what is happening to Utah Senator Mitt Romney for his defiance.
No doubt, other current State Department and Pentagon officials who testified before Congress and who criticized President Trump’s actions are waiting for the next shoe to drop. They are well aware that their heads could be on the chopping block — as the imperial or monarchical president’s vindictive and petty ways know no bounds.
Recently, former Trump NSC senior adviser, Fernando Cutz, was quick to point out after the so-called Friday night massacre: “Every career official will tell you it’s not just chilling but frightening.” Indeed, staff in every U.S. government department will now think twice before uttering any word that could be misconstrued as criticizing Trump. The “Deep State” will almost certainly become the “Deep Freeze” in terms of the working environment.
Cutz went on to add ominously: “You’re seeing things happen in an unprecedented way that even Nixon didn’t do. …The broader message to career officials is that you can’t speak up. Even if you see something illegal, something unethical, you can’t speak up. That’s the message the president wants to send.”
What, then, will these latest firings mean for prospective whistle-blowers inside the government? Will they be eager to come forward now? Hardly. And that’s a shame because those who opt to blow the whistle on government corruption, malfeasance or misconduct are a key cog in a long-standing mechanism of holding administrations to account. Now what?
Moreover, the hard reality is that every White House, regardless of party stripe, has to rely heavily on the governmental bureaucracy for both the formulation and implementation of policy ideas and initiatives. It is government officials, public sector employees, who have the expertise, experience and information, who craft the various menus of policy options and who understand intimately how the machinery of policy-making actually works. No modern government can work effectively without their buy-in.
But in the wake of the Vindman and Sondland dismissals, career government officials will be constantly looking over their shoulders and wondering if their policy advice will enrage Trump. More worrisome would be the poisonous infiltration of a bureaucratic culture that couches its policy recommendations only in terms that would be perceived as pleasing to the president (or what he wants to hear). That, however, would be a recipe for U.S. policy chaos and miscalculation.
Simply put, any sitting U.S. president is best served by an officialdom that is willing to “speak truth to power.” That is, to be willing and encouraged to “tell it as it is” and to say “No” to the president’s worst instincts and whims. Unfortunately, that’s the last thing that the Trump presidency wants to hear.
Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.
