-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
Less than a day after the tragic collision between American Airlines Flight 5342 and a US Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River, which resulted in the deaths of 67 people, President Donald Trump quickly assigned blame. Without any concrete evidence, he pointed to diversity programs, arguing they had led to a class of unqualified federal workers.
This immediate and unfounded accusation highlighted Trump’s tendency to rely on instinct rather than facts when making sweeping claims.
At the same time that Trump was making these remarks from the White House briefing room, three of his most controversial nominees were facing scrutiny on Capitol Hill.
Questions arose about their lack of traditional qualifications to lead the FBI, coordinate the nation’s intelligence agencies, and oversee its public health system. The contradiction was striking: while Trump dismissed federal workers as unqualified, he pushed forward nominees whose credentials raised serious concerns about their ability to perform in their respective roles.
This paradox defines Trump’s approach in his second term. He claims a broad mandate to deconstruct the federal bureaucracy, vowing to reduce the workforce with sweeping, often insulting generalizations.
Yet, the standards he applies to career professionals do not seem to extend to his own appointees. Every air traffic controller is required to pass an aptitude test, but Trump’s accusations suggested that diversity initiatives were leading to underqualified personnel, despite no evidence supporting this claim.
The issue is further complicated by staffing shortages within the federal workforce. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), prior to Trump’s presidency, reported an insufficient number of air traffic controllers.
In May 2024, there were around 11,500 controllers, significantly below the 14,600 recommended by staffing plans. This shortage predated Trump’s administration, contradicting his assertion that diversity initiatives had led to a decline in qualified personnel. If anything, the lack of adequate staffing was a more pressing concern for aviation safety.
At the time of the crash, an air traffic controller was reportedly working two tower positions, an issue raised by an air traffic control source. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) refused to speculate on whether this played a role in the incident.
When asked about Trump’s claim that diversity programs were responsible, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy stated that the investigation would consider all factors, including human error, mechanical failure, and environmental conditions. Homendy, notably, had been nominated to her position by Trump in 2018, highlighting another inconsistency in his argument.
Despite lacking concrete evidence, Trump insisted that his instincts led him to blame diversity programs. In an exchange with New York Times reporter David Sanger, Trump defended his stance by citing “common sense.” Sanger challenged him, pointing out that there was no established link between diversity initiatives and the accident.
Trump, however, dismissed the need for verification, insisting that brilliant individuals were needed for such roles and that common sense alone was enough to determine the cause of the crash.
Trump’s insistence on blaming diversity programs aligns with his broader agenda. Early in his second term, he issued executive orders ending diversity programs at the FAA. This decision may explain why he was so quick to attribute the crash to these programs, as it allowed him to justify his actions retroactively.
He also cited a year-old online report discussing FAA efforts to hire people with disabilities, though he appeared unaware that the same hiring standards had been in place during his first administration.
FAA reports indicate that only 2% of its employees had the disabilities Trump referred to. Moreover, air traffic controllers constitute a distinct category within the FAA, facing stringent physical, drug, and aptitude testing requirements.
His implication that these standards had been compromised lacked factual support. The FAA, despite Trump’s opposition to diversity programs, still struggles to reflect the demographic makeup of the broader workforce. Women make up only 24% of FAA employees, compared to 48% in the general civilian workforce. Meanwhile, White men, who comprise 36% of the federal workforce, account for 55% of FAA employees. These figures suggest that diversity efforts were aimed at addressing imbalances rather than reducing qualification standards.
While Trump appeared to question the competence of air traffic controllers, he later reassured Americans that flying remained safe.
However, he also claimed that eliminating diversity programs would improve hiring standards. Vice President JD Vance, standing alongside Trump during his remarks, pointed to a lawsuit filed against the FAA by White air traffic controller applicants. They alleged discrimination due to biographical questions included in the screening process, reinforcing the administration’s opposition to diversity-based hiring considerations.
Trump’s broader stance on the federal workforce extends beyond the FAA. His criticisms of diversity align with his wider push to reduce the size of the government. He has proposed legally dubious incentives for federal employees to leave their positions by offering pay without requiring them to work until September. This strategy, though loosely defined, signals his intent to dramatically reshape the federal workforce.
On Wednesday, Trump accused federal employees who work remotely of not actually performing their duties. His remarks failed to acknowledge that air traffic controllers, along with over half of the federal workforce, already worked fully on-site before his second inauguration. His narrative suggests an effort to undermine trust in government institutions rather than address genuine efficiency concerns.
Ironically, as Trump scrutinized air traffic controllers’ qualifications, senators questioned the credentials of his top nominees. Kash Patel, his pick to lead the FBI, drew attention for his lack of traditional experience.
Patel appeals to Trump because he has vowed to shake up the agency, though he pledged not to engage in retaliatory investigations. His previous statements about maintaining an “enemies list” and targeting Trump’s opponents raised concerns about his suitability for the role.
Another nominee, Tulsi Gabbard, faced skepticism over her selection to oversee the intelligence community. A former Democratic congresswoman, she expressed support for pardoning Edward Snowden, the former contractor who exposed classified surveillance programs.
Despite never having formally worked in intelligence, Gabbard assured senators that she would not oppose the controversial NSA domestic wiretapping program Snowden revealed. Her nomination underscored Trump’s desire to overhaul the intelligence apparatus, which he has long claimed was biased against him.
CNN’s Washington bureau chief David Chalian highlighted Trump’s belief that the intelligence community worked against him since 2016. This perspective appears to drive his desire to appoint figures like Gabbard, who are willing to disrupt existing structures.
Republican senators, if they chose to oppose Trump’s picks, could block these appointments. However, Gabbard faced greater skepticism from Republican lawmakers than Patel, particularly for her unwillingness to state whether she considered Snowden a traitor.
Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continued to face scrutiny in his confirmation hearings to become Secretary of Health and Human Services. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, a physician, pressed Kennedy on his vaccine skepticism, a stance that has made him a controversial figure in public health circles.
His nomination signals Trump’s willingness to appoint individuals whose views align with his own, even if they contradict established scientific consensus.
Trump’s approach to governance remains marked by contradictions. He criticizes federal employees as unqualified while promoting nominees with questionable credentials. He blames diversity programs for aviation failures without evidence while ignoring long-standing workforce shortages. His instinct-driven decision-making continues to shape his administration, with far-reaching implications for the federal government and beyond.
