Trump Is Replacing the Homeland Security Secretary He Hated With Her Chief of Staff

This is what incompetence looks like.

Chad Wolf speaks at a White House event in October. Alex Brandon/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In April, President Donald Trump got rid of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen after finding her to be weak and ineffectual. A half-year later, Nielsenā€™s replacement is on his way out, and Trumpā€™s apparent pick to replace him is…Nielsenā€™s former chief of staff.

Trump almost certainly doesn’t want Chad Wolf, a mostly unknown former lobbyist in charge of DHS’s policy office, running the Cabinet department most responsible for carrying out his attacks on immigration. The problem is that he doesnā€™t have much of a choice. Heā€™s been so negligent about appointing people to run DHS that thereā€™s no one to his liking in the line of succession. Nine of the 11 top DHS positions are vacant. If Trump had bothered to nominate people and pushed the Senate to confirm them, he could have chosen among them for acting DHS chief. 

But the rules require him to pick someone already confirmed by the Senate, in the line of succession, or having served at least 90 days under the previous secretary. His top hardline picks don’t meet those criteria, and so he’s stuck with Wolf.

The New Yorkerā€™s Jonathan Blizter wrote of Nielsen’s rise to power:

Since its creation, in 2002, the Department of Homeland Security has had six heads: two governors, a federal judge, the top lawyer at the Department of Defense, a four-star general, and Kirstjen Nielsen, who took over in December. Compared to her predecessors, Nielsenā€™s rĆ©sumĆ© is conspicuously thin. Prior to joining the Trump Administration, she was a little-known cybersecurity consultant with no major management experience. ā€œIn a normal Administration, there isnā€™t a chance in hell she would get nominated for anything above an undersecretary job,ā€ a former national-security official, who served under George W. Bush, told me.

Wolf is another no-chance-in-hell pick in a normal administration pick. During the George W. Bush administration, he was an assistant administrator at the Transportation Security Administration before spending the next 11 years at a DC lobbying firm. He joined the Trump administration as the TSAā€™s chief of staff before eventually becoming the chief of staff for all of DHS, which oversees the TSA. 

Today, his official title is Assistant Secretary of Strategy, Plans, Analysis, and Risk and the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Strategy, Policy, and Plans. Trump has nominated him to be the permanent undersecretary, but the Senate hasnā€™t confirmed him yet.

Acting US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli, whose Twitter feed is a case study in nativist fearmongering, would have been more to Trumpā€™s liking as a DHS secretary. But heā€™s not eligible to run DHS on an acting basis without using a loophole that would invite legal challenges. The same goes for the the also acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Mark Morgan, who got his job by talking tough on immigration on Fox News. (Trump is reportedly considering nominating Morgan to replace Wolf on a permanent basis, if he can be confirmed by the Senate.)

So that leaves Trump with Wolf, who once lobbied on behalf of immigrants working in the tech industry. As Wolf emerged as a candidate to run DHS, RJ Hauman, the government relations director at the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform, told Politico, ā€œPresident Trump can choose to be on the side of his base and American workers, or throw in his lot with the swampā€ by picking Wolf. Trump is going with the swamp. But unlike with, say, corporate tax cuts, it’s not because he’s pulling fast a one on his base. In this case, it’s just sheer incompetence. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate