On paper, Matthew Kroenig would be a strong candidate to serve in U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration. The 40-year-old professor of government at Georgetown University is an expert on nuclear proliferation. He has a record of public service at both the CIA and the Pentagon. And he says he supports much of the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
But there’s one hitch. During the 2016 Republican primaries, Kroenig signed a letter criticizing Trump’s candidacy and calling him unfit for the presidency.
Now, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo races to fill key positions in an understaffed institution badly neglected by his predecessor, he’s finding that some of the best-qualified people in Washington remain unacceptable to a president notorious for his thin skin.
In political circles, they’re known as the Never Trumpers, a loose-knit group of several hundred high-profile Republican Party members who denounced Trump in petitions and other public statements at a moment when it seemed his candidacy was a long shot. Two years later, they remain outcasts in their own party.
Some continue to believe Trump poses a danger to America’s “national security and well-being,” as they wrote at the time. Others regret their criticism, including politicos who had hoped to serve in a Republican administration and are now shut out.
But while the petitions offered a moment of moral clarity in a town not exactly known for it, their legacy is largely a failed one. The Never Trumpers did not slow Trump’s momentum — their criticism hardly resonated outside Washington. Instead, it ensured they would remain on the outside, looking in, powerless to curb the president’s worst impulses.
Eric Edelman, who served as a diplomat in the George W. Bush administration and also put his name to the Never Trump petitions, said it’s always a challenge to find good candidates for key government positions. For Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and other top Trump officials, having to take into account Trump’s ongoing fixation with loyalty makes it especially tricky.
“The talent pool for recruitment is [now] very shallow,” Edelman said. “[Pompeo] faces enormous staffing challenges.”
Above: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks while flanked by President Donald Trump, left, and Vice President Mike Pence during Pompeo’s ceremonial swearing-in at the State Department on May 2. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images) (Top image: Foreign Policy illustration)
The first Never Trump letter was published in March 2016 on the national security analysis website War on the Rocks, just as Trump emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination. It drew enough traffic to crash the website for several hours.
Signed by 122 Republicans from the foreign-policy community, it focused primarily on Trump’s character flaws and warned that he was unfit for the Oval Office.
“Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world,” it said. “Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States.”
The letter was drafted four months earlier by a former naval officer turned foreign-policy advisor, Bryan McGrath, but he encountered resistance among even Trump’s sharpest critics.
“I shopped it around to some people who I respect, and essentially what they said to me was, ‘Don’t worry about it. He’ll be gone after the first or second primary. He won’t lose gracefully. It’s just not worth doing,’” McGrath said.
But when Trump prevailed in the early primaries, McGrath called his friend Eliot Cohen, a conservative foreign-policy writer and former senior official in Republican administrations. Together, they rewrote the letter and shared it with fellow Republicans in the foreign-policy world. Dozens of people signed on, including young policy experts and former senior officials.
Neither McGrath nor Cohen thought Trump could win, but they were worried about the harm he was causing to the Republican Party.
“The key thing was, I think, a sense of outrage at the character of Trump. And that’s reflected in the language,” Cohen said.
When Trump became the party’s candidate for president in July 2016, an even sharper petition emerged, this one in the name of Republicans who had served at the highest levels of government.
Drafted by former State Department official John Bellinger and quoted on the front pages of newspapers across the country, it predicted that Trump would be the “most reckless President in American history.”
“None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” thelettersaid. “He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent Judiciary.”
Bellinger said he hoped the letter might reach voters who remained undecided. Like Cohen and McGrath, he now says he has no regrets about writing it.
“I think every word has turned out to be true, and worse,” he said.
At the time, Bellinger resisted including a sentence that argued Trump could not be trusted with managing the nuclear arsenal. “It would never have occurred to me that he would literally be taunting North Korea by Twitter with the size of his nuclear button.”
Top: The list of 122 Republicans from the foreign-policy community who signed the first Never Trump letter in March 2016, warning that Donald Trump was unfit for the presidency. One expert asked to be added later for a total of 123. Above: The 50 GOP signatories of an August 2016 letter featured on the New York Times’ front page warning that Trump’s election would put national security at risk. (Several names appear on both lists.)
The effect of the petitions could be seen clearly in the makeup of Trump’s staff during the chaotic campaign. With the pool of experts available to him having shrunk, he tapped obscure and in some cases unqualified people for senior positions.
Some became ensnared in the investigation into whether Trump and his aides sought help from Russia to win the election. One of them, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty last year tomaking false statements to FBI agents about contacts he had with the Russian government in 2016. Another, Carter Page, was wiretapped by federal investigators over his contacts with Russian officials.
Earlier this year, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee even implied that the Never Trump camp was to blame for any missteps by Trump campaign advisors. The Republicans argued in a report that the “national security establishment’s opposition to candidate Trump created opportunities for two less-experienced individuals with pro-Russia views to serve as campaign advisors: George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.”
Trump loyalists, of course, say the president has the right to ban his critics from the administration. But there is a long tradition in Washington of presidents setting aside intraparty political rivalries and overlooking past criticism to recruit the best people for top jobs. President Ronald Reagan chose his opponent in the primaries, George H. W. Bush, to be his vice president, and President Barack Obama chose his rival, Hillary Clinton, to be his secretary of state.
Cohen said he wrote scathing commentaries against the George W. Bush presidency before being recruited to serve in the administration.
“Most administrations know at some point how to be magnanimous,” he said.
Cohen and many of the other critics remain uninterested in working for Trump —in fact, some believe that serving in the administration might tarnish their reputation and harm their future job prospects. “You are hazarding your character” by taking a job in close proximity to the president, Cohen said. “Not just your reputation, but your character.”
But several younger Republican experts who did not want to be named said they regret signing the petitions. Another former senior Pentagon official, Mary Beth Long, publicly said she had a change of heart over signing the letters shortly after Trump’s election win.
To curry favor with the White House, some have taken to the airwaves or op-ed pages to praise Trump’s decision on the Iran nuclear deal, his cruise missile strikes on Syria, and his upcoming nuclear negotiations with North Korea.
Others feel they have been tarred unfairly.
“There were 122 people with a wide range of views on that letter, but now we’re all painted with the same brush,” said Kroenig, the Georgetown University professor.
Two sources close to the administration said several of these erstwhile Never Trumpers have been tentatively contacted by the White House for possible State Department jobs. But others are skeptical that Pompeo will be ready to advocate for them given Trump’s response in similar cases.
In April of this year, Vice President Mike Pence tapped Jon Lerner to be his national security advisor but withdrew his name after Trump expressed outrage over his appointment. Lerner, a Republican pollster who advises United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, organized attack ads against Trump during the 2016 campaign.
“Pompeo and Bolton know this is a problem,” said one Republican foreign-policy expert with close ties to the administration. “They would prefer to have the best people, but whether they’re willing to go to Trump and make the case is another question.”
Dan De Luce
Robbie Gramer is a diplomacy and national security reporter at Foreign Policy. (@robbiegramer)
Share +
TwitterFacebookGoogle +Reddit
156 Shares
Loading graphics
Welcome to a world of insight.
Make the most of FP.
Explore the benefits of your FP subscription.
Explore the benefits included in your subscription.
Stay updated on the topics you care about with email alerts. Sign up below.Stay updated on the topics you care about with email alerts. Sign up below.
Choose a few newsletters that interest you.Get more insight in your inbox.
Here are some we think you might like.
Update your newsletter preferences.
Your guide to the most important world stories of the day.
Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent. Delivered Wednesday.
One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture. Delivered Friday.
The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week. Delivered Wednesday.
Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors. Delivered Thursday.
Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy. Delivered Thursday.
A curated selection of our very best long reads. Delivered Wednesday & Sunday.
Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day. Delivered Monday-Saturday.
A monthly digest of the top articles read by FP subscribers.
Keep up with the world without stopping yours.
Keep up with the world without stopping yours.
Download the FP mobile app to read anytime, anywhere.
Download the new FP mobile app to read anytime, anywhere.
Read the magazine
Save articles (and read offline)
Customize your feed
Listen to FP podcasts
Analyze the world’s biggest events.
Analyze the world’s biggest events.
Join in-depth conversations and interact with foreign-policy experts with Join in-depth conversations and interact with foreign-policy experts with
Is the White House prepared to deal with the remarkable growth of artificial intelligence? What are the current and potential risks to Americans? If governments should create rules around th...Show moree regulation of AI, what considerations should guide the creation of those rules?
Alondra Nelson is the architect of the White House’s “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.” Since it was published in October, AI has only become more central to our lives—and Nelson has stepped down from her role as the government’s head of science and technology.
How should policymakers think through the challenges presented by AI? Join Nelson for a wide-ranging discussion with FP’s Ravi Agrawal.
The war in Ukraine has propelled the United States and Europe closer on a variety of foreign-policy issues. But do Washington and Brussels agree on how to deal with Beijing’s growing clout...Show more?
The signs are mixed. The trans-Atlantic alliance NATO has formally declared China a strategic threat, but there are also emerging gaps in how various European capitals and Washington want to engage with Beijing. What exactly are these differences, and how will they impact the world’s relations with China?
Join FP’s Ravi Agrawal for a discussion with experts on both sides of the Atlantic: Cindy Yu, an assistant editor of the Spectator and host of its podcast Chinese Whispers; and James Palmer, author of FP’s weekly China Brief newsletter. FP subscribers can send in their questions in advance.
Over the last few years, the United States has moved to limit China’s technological rise. U.S.-led sanctions have imposed unprecedented limits on Beijing’s access to advanced computing c...Show morehips. In response, China has accelerated its own efforts to develop its technological industry and reduce its dependence on external imports.
According to Dan Wang, a technology expert and visiting scholar at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center, China’s tech competitiveness is grounded in manufacturing capabilities. And sometimes China’s strategy beats America’s.
Where is this new tech war headed? How are other countries being impacted as a result? In what ways are they reassessing their relationships with the world’s largest economic superpowers? Join FP’s Ravi Agrawal in conversation with Wang for a discussion about China’s technological rise and whether U.S. actions can really stop it.
See what’s trending.
See what’s trending.
Most popular articles on FP right now.
Most popular articles on FP right now.