If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Gaetz will be the most controversial Attorney General since Robert F. Kennedy
In true Trumpian style, President-elect Donald Trump has turned the political landscape on its head yet again. His nomination of Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz as the next Attorney General has sparked a frenzy in Washington and beyond, leaving pundits and politicians reeling. The choice of Gaetz—a figure whose name alone is often enough to set the Beltway abuzz—has already made it clear that Trump’s second term will not be about “business as usual.”
If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and that’s a very big “if,” Gaetz will be the most controversial Attorney General since—well, take your pick: Robert F. Kennedy, John Mitchell, Richard Kleindienst, Janet Reno, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder. Each of these names brings their own controversies: Kennedy for nepotism, Mitchell and Kleindienst for Watergate, Reno for her role in the Clinton Administration’s handling of Waco, Elian Gonzalez, and the Lewinsky affair, Lynch for her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton prior to the 2016 election, and Holder for the infamous “Fast and Furious” gun-running debacle. Gaetz’s nomination certainly puts him in storied company, each figure remembered for their own firestorms and political fallout.
But getting through the political minefield of a contentious nomination process is no small feat. One long-time Florida political consultant predicted that “Gaetz is going to be burned at the stake in the middle of the Senate floor.” But that remains to be seen. After all, House leadership might be willing to make concessions to their Senate partners to have Gaetz out of their hair.
Gaetz, known for his unapologetically brash demeanor, embodies both the lightning rod and the battering ram of conservative causes. In the past he cultivated a “frat boy” image—something his critics gleefully remind audiences—but to reduce him to that alone is to ignore his deeper convictions and the backbone of his politics. This is the man who refused to take donations from special interests, knowing full well it would leave him on a lonely island amid the Washington sharks. His loyalty, it seems, lies not with the powerful, but with an eye toward knocking down walls of the inside-the-beltway Washington establishment, which, by its very nature, requires kicking over a few sandcastles on the House floor.
Undoubtedly, many people say they dislike him, but in truth what they dislike is how he’s been portrayed in the media. Some of that is Gaetz’s own fault, certainly, but some of it just comes with the territory of being an outspoken conservative who refuses to compromise.
Cue David French at The New York Times, clutching his rhetorical pearls and sounding the alarm. In his latest (paywalled) column, French lamented the choice as “a dreadful one,” pointing to Gaetz’s lack of legal credentials and his past controversies—from disputes over his bawdy sense of humor to much-ballyhooed allegations of impropriety that, as Gaetz promised, ultimately evaporated into nothingness. French paints Gaetz as the most unqualified Attorney General nominee in history, a man propelled to power by loyalty rather than merit. One might wonder, however, where all this disdain was when Robert F. Kennedy was nominated for Attorney General with little more legal experience than that of a middling Congressional staff attorney—his path paved entirely by familial connection.
The allegations against Gaetz are a favorite talking point for mainstream outlets, who make sure to remind audiences of the salacious details without mentioning the final outcome: a Department of Justice investigation that ended with no charges. Mind you, they seized Gaetz’s personal cell phone and other items, and still came up dry. Certainly, Gaetz was involved in some nefarious activities, but the lack of substantial evidence is precisely why this story was played out in headlines rather than in court. Allegations make for juicy news, and the Washington establishment had plenty to gain from Gaetz being tried in the court of public opinion. He’s a political maverick, and that’s often enough to draw knives in a city built on backscratching and favors.
Still, it’s not just media narratives Gaetz is up against. The man has never been accused of playing nice, especially when it comes to dealing with his own party. He spearheaded the revolt that ousted Kevin McCarthy from the Speaker’s chair, refusing to settle for a House leadership unwilling to break free from what he saw as the gridlock of old-school Republican complacency. Gaetz took the fire that followed with a smile, proving he wasn’t interested in the cocktail circuit camaraderie of Capitol Hill.
That said, criticisms of Gaetz’s qualifications aren’t entirely unfounded. It is a fact that his legal background is minimal, and one could argue that he’s stepping into the shoes of giants without having done much walking himself. But Trump didn’t pick Gaetz for his legal resume—he picked him because Gaetz has proven he can throw punches where others pull them, and because, for better or worse, Gaetz is willing to do what Gaetz says. He is a man who sticks to his guns, regardless of whether that makes him a darling of the press or the focus of their ire.
Trump’s pick is a bold gamble, a move that underscores his commitment to reshape Washington in his image—raw, unfiltered, and at times, outright chaotic. For Senate Republicans, they will face enormous pressure from the media and from some GOP circles to oppose Gaetz, and it is their right to do so. After all, the Constitution grants U.S. Senators the right to provide advice and consent regarding the president’s nominees.
The headlines will continue, the debates will rage on, but one thing is for sure: Matt Gaetz, for all his flaws and all his fight, is the kind of figure who forces Republicans in control of the Senate to make a choice between the comfy predictability of business-as-usual or embrace the new direction of Trump’s incoming administration that promises to shake things up.