The political machine loves a scapegoat. When a White House stumbles or a policy pivots into a brick wall, the "bad advisor" narrative is the first weapon drawn from the sheath. Senator Thom Tillis recently took to the airwaves to point fingers at specific Cabinet secretaries, claiming they are feeding the former President toxic guidance. It’s a classic Washington play. It’s also entirely wrong.
The idea that a President—especially one with a personality as dominant as Donald Trump—is a passive vessel being filled with "bad advice" by sneaky bureaucrats is a fantasy. It ignores the fundamental physics of power. Cabinet members don't "lead" a President; they reflect him. If you don't like the output, stop blaming the hardware and start looking at the operating system.
The Puppet Master Fallacy
Tillis and his cohorts want you to believe in the "Puppet Master Fallacy." This is the comforting lie that the man in the Oval Office is always right, but his subordinates are failing him. It’s a shield used by partisans to protect the principal while venting frustration at the policy.
In reality, a Cabinet secretary serves at the pleasure of the President. They are extensions of his will. When Tillis identifies "bad advice," what he is actually seeing is a disagreement over political strategy. By framing it as "bad advice," he is trying to shift the blame for unpopular or controversial decisions away from the top of the ticket.
I have watched organizations from Fortune 500 boardrooms to high-level political campaigns burn down because they bought into this myth. They fired the "advisor" only to find that the same "bad" decisions kept happening. Why? Because the boss wanted those decisions. The advisor was just the one brave—or sycophantic—enough to say them out loud.
The Efficiency of Friction
Washington views Cabinet infighting as a bug. It is actually a feature.
The media portrays a "divided Cabinet" as a sign of weakness. They want a "seamless" (to use a word I despise) transition of ideas from the brain to the briefing book. That is the quickest path to disaster. Groupthink is the silent killer of administrations.
When Tillis complains about secretaries giving "bad advice," he is usually complaining about secretaries who are not in alignment with his specific legislative agenda. He wants a rubber stamp. But a healthy executive branch requires friction.
- The Echo Chamber Effect: If every secretary agreed with the President (or with Senator Tillis), the administration would fly off a cliff within six months.
- The Devil’s Advocate: The most valuable person in any room is the one who tells the most powerful person why they are wrong.
- Political Diversification: Different secretaries represent different wings of the party and different sectors of the economy. Their "bad advice" is often just the voice of a constituency the President needs to hear, even if he hates the message.
Stop Asking if Advice is Bad and Start Asking if it is Useful
People ask: "How can Trump pick better advisors?"
That is the wrong question. It assumes there is a "correct" set of advice waiting to be discovered like a buried treasure. There isn't. There is only trade-off management.
Every piece of advice carries a cost.
- If a Secretary of State advises restraint, the cost is perceived weakness.
- If they advise aggression, the cost is potential war or economic instability.
Tillis isn't identifying "bad" advice; he's identifying advice with a cost he isn't willing to pay. That’s a political calculation, not a critique of the advisor’s competence.
The Institutionalist Trap
Tillis often leans on the idea of "institutional knowledge." This is the belief that secretaries who have been in the "system" for decades are inherently better. This is the "Institutionalist Trap."
In many cases, the "outsider" giving the "bad advice" is the only one actually trying to fulfill the mandate the voters provided. The "good advice" from the institutionalists is often just a plea to maintain the status quo.
When an advisor tells a President to bypass a traditional department or ignore a long-standing norm, the beltway screams. They call it "dangerous." But often, that "bad advice" is exactly what is required to break a decade-long stalemate.
The Reality of Executive Selection
The Cabinet is not a meritocracy. It is a coalition.
You don't pick a Secretary of Labor because they are the world's leading expert on labor statistics. You pick them because they represent a union block you need or a donor class you must appease.
When Tillis attacks these figures, he is attacking the coalition. He is signaling to the donor class or the base that their representative in the Cabinet is failing. It’s a bank shot. He’s not trying to fix the advice; he’s trying to shift the power balance within the party.
The Scapegoat Protocol
Let’s be honest about what is happening here. The "bad advice" narrative is the first step in the "Scapegoat Protocol."
When a policy fails—whether it’s on the border, the economy, or foreign intervention—the principal needs a head to roll. By naming names early, Tillis is providing the President with a pre-written list of people to fire when things go south.
It’s a coward’s way of governing.
If a Secretary is truly incompetent, they shouldn't be criticized in a Sunday morning interview; they should be removed. If they remain in their post, it’s because the President finds their "bad advice" useful, or at the very least, consistent with his own instincts.
Why You Should Ignore the Finger-Pointing
The next time you hear a politician talk about who is giving "bad advice" to a leader, look at what they are trying to sell you.
- They are selling you the idea that the leader is infallible.
- They are selling you the idea that the "wrong" people are in the room.
- They are selling you a distraction from the actual results of the policy.
The quality of advice is subjective. The results are objective.
If the economy is stagnant, if the borders are porous, or if the streets are unsafe, it doesn't matter if the advice was "good" or "bad" in the moment. The responsibility sits at the desk with the nameplate.
Stop blaming the whispers in the ear. Start looking at the hand that signs the order.
Tillis wants a Cabinet that functions like a choir. History proves that the best Cabinets function like a brawl. The moment everyone starts giving the "right" advice is the moment the administration starts its descent into irrelevance.
Fire the sycophants. Keep the "bad" advisors. They are the only ones keeping the lights on.
