During these troubling and turbulent times, it’s often necessary to seek escape. For me, that means burying my head in a book. Since the November election, I’ve been reading even more than usual. Here are three of my most rewarding escapes. 

The Frozen River by Ariel Lawhon. This book was a selection for one of my book clubs. I was somewhat skeptical, as it is based on a true story about a midwife in the 1700s named Martha Ballard. I’m happy to report that I loved this book and am extremely glad I read it. The book centers on Midwife Martha’s Journal, which she kept for several years, summing up births and various ailments that she addressed while traversing a frozen river in Maine. 

The Journal notates that Martha delivered more than 800 babies without losing a single mother or baby. The story also involves a murder, and a corrupt judge who threatens many town members, as well as Martha’s’ family’s land where her husband has erected a mill. This book is a wonderful example of historical fiction that depicts a vivid portrayal of life in the late 1700’s and more than holds your interest until the story ends. 

Presumed Guilty by Scott Turow. I remember reading Presumed Innocent when it first was published in 1987 and then seeing the movie with Harrison Ford in 1990. Both the book and movie almost haunted me over the years. The plot of Presumed Guilty involves a young Black male who dropped out of college and is accused of murdering his girlfriend while they were on a camping trip. Turow was inspired to author this novel after the murder of Gabby Petito in 2021 who was killed by her boyfriend. Rusty Sabich is the suspect’s lawyer in this novel, the same lawyer who was key to the plot of Presumed Innocent. And like Presumed Innocent, Presumed Guilty is a page turner that is chock-full of legal maneuvers, strategies, and surprises. I found it a spellbinding read that was difficult to put down. 

Three Days in June by Ann Tyler. I’m a huge Ann Tyler fan and devoured her short new novel the day it was released. It did not disappoint. Like most Tyler novels, it involves Baltimore, grappling with the human condition, the eccentricities of friends and families, and the foibles of aging. In this case, Gail is in her 60’s, loses her job at a private school, her daughter is about to be married, a fly in that proposed marriage surfaces, and Gail’s divorced husband appears on her doorstep with a cat, intending to move in with her until the nuptials are behind them. This novel captures the joy and heartbreak of everyday life and, as with most of Tyler’s other books, gives the reader more than a little food for thought. 

Tyler is best known for her novels Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant, The Accidental Tourist, and Breathing Lessons for which she won the Pulitzer Prize. 

These three novels dealt with several issues including healthcare, court cases, corruption, job loss, and the overall human condition. They truly provided an escape, but they also caused me to once again think about today’s world in which people in developing countries no longer have access to healthcare with the dismantling of USAID; the rising numbers of court cases; government corruption being front and center; and the thousands who are losing their jobs. I especially think about those probationary federal employees who were let go last week, many of whom recently relocated and now are jobless and will soon lose their benefits. 

The writer Nora Ephron once wrote, “Reading is escape and the opposite of escape; it’s a way to make contact with reality after a day of making things up, and it’s a way of making contact with someone else’s imagination after a day that’s all too real.” 

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.

 

 

As I watch this second Trump administration unfold, I can’t help but notice how different the optics are between men and women.

Elon Musk stands in the Oval Office with his four-year-old son on his shoulders. Then the son stands next to the Resolute Desk and tells President Trump to “hush” while his dad is talking. Can you imagine the comments that would surface if a woman had done the same thing with her young child in the Oval Office? Editorials galore would be written about her lack of professionalism. 

Vice President Vance brought his whole family to Germany for the Munich Security Conference. Photographers captured several photos of his wife and three children exiting the plane. Not sure why the whole family was on this “business trip.” 

Let’s just say Kamala Harris had won the Presidency and decided to attend the Super Bowl. It is estimated that Trump’s little jaunt cost taxpayers between $15 to $20 million, which included Secret Service protection, Air Force One travel at a cost of about $3,000 per minute, a motorcade, stadium security upgrades, local law enforcement overtime and personnel. Had Harris decided to make such a boondoggle, the uproar would have been through the rafters. Oh, and by the way, Trump left at half-time. (I decided not to add up the cost of Trump’s truncated-because-of-rain trip to the Daytona 500 on Sunday which included an Air Force One fly-over and a pace lap around the track in the presidential limo.) 

And what if Harris had tried to profit from her election? The Wall Street Journal has estimated that since Trump won this election, he and his family have made more than $80 million. This includes donations to his library, a $10 million settlement with Elon Musk’s X, and millions from “meme coin” cryptocurrency ventures. In addition, the Trump Store launched 168 new products between Election Day and Inauguration Day, some of that money eventually going directly into Trump’s pocket. Such grift is unprecedented. No other president in the history of this country has done anything close, and for whatever reason, no agency seems to be reining in this profiteering. 

During his campaign, Trump frequently stated that he wanted to be a “protector of women whether they like it or not.” (Perhaps he would have profited from DEI training.)

 When you examine the demographics of voters who voted for Trump, the dynamics are interesting. Trump frequently alluded to the fact that men needed to take back control and assert dominance over their women. So disempowered men voted for Trump so that they would feel more powerful. 

Many women who manage the budgets in their households voted for Trump because of the rising cost of groceries, even though many of these same women also voted for protecting a woman’s right to choose. 

Project 2025 specifically states its desire to roll back feminist gains and replace them with “conservative Christian family values.” Hence, the J.D. Vance “childless cat ladies” and “helping raise children is the whole purpose of the post-menopausal women” comments. (Tabulations are currently being run on how many pregnant Federal workers were fired last week during the Trump/Musk purge of Federal employees.)

During the campaign, Trump frequently said that Harris would not be able to hold her own against “world leaders.” He claimed they would make mincemeat of her. So, what do we have instead? Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Berlin telling leaders that Ukraine should not expect to reclaim its pre-war borders or become a member of NATO—essentially giving away the store before negotiations begin. And Vice President J.D. Vance scolding European leaders, telling them that they are the real concern—not China or Russia. After his remarks, Vance met with far-right Alternative for Germany Party Leader Alice Weidel. 

Trump has awarded several men accused of sexual assault with powerful posts—Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Health and Human Services RFK, Jr. And then, of course, there is his own sordid past. In short, he doesn’t seem to have a problem with men asserting control over women. Couple that with his whole gender ideology stance which makes it much more difficult to uncover inequities in politics, the labor market, and society in general. 

So, I guess we’re lucky to have such strong sophisticated talented white men at the negotiating table to end the war in Ukraine—men like Trump, Hegseth, and Vance. And we are saved from Harris, as Trump said during the campaign, “They look at her and they say we can’t believe we got so lucky. They’re going to walk all over her.” 

Yes indeed, we have master negotiators doing “the art of the deal” who are caving to Vladimir Putin’s demands, and, as Hamilton might say, President Zelensky wasn’t even “in the room where it happened.”  

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 realize it’s dangerous for me to write about football when those of you who are reading this article surely know more about the sport than I do.

In my defense, I became a football fan when I lived in Green Bay during Brett Favre’s glory days. I then followed Aaron Rodgers rise to fame and fall from grace. I’m from Michigan and followed Tom Brady’s career from the time he played at the University of Michigan until his final quarterbacking with Tampa Bay. I was thrilled with the Detroit Lions success this year. And, of course, I’m a huge Lamar Jackson fan. The quarterback I loved the most this season is the Commanders’ Rookie of the Year Jayden Daniels. I found his grace under pressure during the final minutes of so many games this season to be truly amazing. 

But what I want to write about today is how irritating I find Tom Brady and Tony Romo to be as football commentators. I know sports writers claim that Romo has an “uncanny” ability to predict plays. And I have read that it’s “early days” for Brady. In his first commentating game, he said very little. He has improved. And he was given all kinds of kudos for being the first to recognize that the Lions had 12 players on the field when they last played against the Commanders. 

But why do I find Romo and Brady so irritating? I think it’s because it is more about them than what’s going on in the field. And they both tend to flaunt their knowledge as opposed to giving true next-level insights. 

It’s the same reason President Trump drives me to distraction. Because it’s always about him. Last week at a prayer breakfast, he spoke about the tragic plane crash in DC. Within a nanosecond, he made it about the assassination attempt against him and then proceeded to talk about himself for the next 10 minutes. 

Trump was at the Super Bowl yesterday. On Truth Social, he posted that he got cheered while Taylor Swift got booed. Not that different from talking about crowd size at inaugurations, rallies, etc. 

Truly great sports commentators provide a soundtrack to the game, enhancing the experience without being consciously noticeable or calling unnecessary attention to themselves or distracting the viewer from the game itself. 

That is more difficult than you might realize. Giving the viewer insights and perspectives that widen the aperture to include aspects not yet considered, and when appropriate, adding humor to an ironic turn of events is a skill that requires honing and experience.

We live in a narcissistic society. Narcissism has seven traits: authority, self-sufficiency–belief that you achieved everything on your own–, superiority, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, vanity, and entitlement. Experts say that if you want to become less narcissistic, there are five principles to work on for self-improvement: gratitude, modesty, compassion—for yourself and others–, mindfulness and community. 

In the original myth, Narcissus is punished with a terminal fascination for his own reflection in revenge for his treatment of Echo, whom he despises for loving him. 

Freud once wrote, “Whoever loves becomes humble. Those who love have, so to speak, pawned a part of their narcissism.” 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.

 

 

 

 

In today’s complex world, assigning blame before the facts are in can result in dangerously inaccurate conclusions. Many accidents that occur have numerous levels of complexity which include human error, technology, timing, weather, communications, and endless permutations of each of these dimensions. 

Before having a handle on the facts regarding last week’s catastrophic airplane crash, President Trump blamed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. He then blamed Obama, Biden, the Democrats in general, and former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. 

Trump said, “I put safety first. Obama, Biden, and the Democrats put policy first, and they put politics at a level that nobody has seen because this was the lowest level. Their policy was horrible, and their politics were even worse.” 

Then Trump recommended that the most brilliant people with the most supreme mental superiority and fitness must be in these life-or-death positions. How do you know if you have the best people? Get rid of the diverse, the women, the disabled, the mentally challenged and stock up with capable white males. 

Here’s what Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, said: “We’ve just experienced a great tragedy, and the President of the United States has already rushed to politicize it—jumping to outrageous conclusions and undermining ongoing investigations.”

Former Secretary of State Pete Buttigieg suggested that Trump should look at some of his own actions before condemning others. Buttigieg noted that shortly after Trump took office one of his “first acts was to fire and suspend some of the key personnel who helped keep our skies safe.”  He continued, “As families grieve, Trump should be leading, not lying. We put safety first, drove down close calls, grew Air Traffic Control, and had zero-commercial airline crash fatalities out of millions of flights on our watch.”

Trump tends to lash out in fear when he isn’t in control of a situation. When Covid was rampant, at one of his press conferences he suggested harebrain cures off the top of his head. After last week’s tragedy, his answer was to get rid of diverse people and replace them with superior white males. 

So, what is the right way to communicate in a crisis situation? I have helped many clients with these issues. Here are just a few suggestions.

Focus on what you know for sure.

Communicate honestly, openly, and consistently. 

Listen to the experts and let the experts speak on complex issues. 

Whatever you do, don’t jump to conclusions before all the facts are in. and don’t pretend that you have all the answers.

Monitor and engage with public feedback.

Designate a key spokesperson (in this case, the administrator of the FAA might make sense).

Use multi-channel communication systems. 

Ensure that you have an empathetic and trustful set of communications for those primarily affected by the crisis. Identify all target audiences and develop communication plans and appropriate vehicles for each of them. Repeat and reinforce key information.

Stress that the goal will be to ensure that after the facts are in, a team will be put in place to develop protocols and processes to ensure that this tragedy never happens again. 

Conduct post-crisis evaluations and develop follow-up communication plans.

John F. Kennedy once said, “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame on the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.”  Sounds like a good idea. 

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.

 

Two song lines have been reverberating in my head all week: Bruce Springsteen’s, “Bring on your wrecking ball,” and Miley Cyrus’ “I came in like a wrecking ball.” 

A week into Trump’s second term and the U.S. is a much more dangerous place. On Day One of his second term, the self-described “Law and Order President” pardoned 1,500 of his supporters at the Capitol, pretty much cancelling the Department of Justice’s largest prosecutions in history. 

These so called “patriots” smashed windows, defecated in hallways, and brought nooses to hang Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. Three hundred of them pleaded guilty to brutally assaulting police officers.

Had they served their terms, the perpetrators would not have been allowed to purchase firearms after their release. Already, one perpetrator, Daniel Ball, has been arrested since his release on federal gun charges.

On Pro-Trump websites many people said they hoped judges would be executed and police would be “pummeled to death.” 

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio have both said they are now free to pursue revenge and they “want it.” A son who testified against his father and the family of Stuart Rhodes are afraid for their lives.

In the midst of all this, Trump put on paid leave all Federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Federal workers. That’s right, U.S. taxpayers are now paying these workers not to go to work. 

And then the Senate, thanks to Vice President’s Vance’s tie-breaking vote, confirmed Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Thank God we got rid of DEI so qualified candidates like Hegseth can serve. Now he can rid the department of “woke generals” and replace them with more people of his caliber. You know, people like Tulsi Gabbard, Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, and RFK, Jr. 

Couple that with Trump firing at least 17 inspectors general that same week. No need to worry that Hegseth might need guardrails as unlikely as he is to get drunk on his own power. (These dismissals appear to violate federal law which requires 30 days’ notice to Congress in an intent to fire a Senate-confirmed inspector general.) 

And wait, more breaking news, Trump cancelled security protection for former officials John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Dr. Fauci. I guess they deserve to die because all three of them have been critical of Trump’s knowledge and intelligence in the past.

In the midst of all this chaos, the Trump team suspended research grant reviews indefinitely at the National Institute of Health which includes vital cancer research and clinical trials—perhaps until vaccine-denier RFK Jr can take the helm. And oh, by the way, avian flu is raging and has recently surfaced in dairy cows. No need to research how to stem that tide. 

Yesterday stock futures dropped sharply because of China’s much less costly Deepseek AI announcement and egg prices have cracked $6 per dozen. Well done, American voters. 

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. 

 

 

 

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.