It's Not Sexism, It's Coalition Management

Trump has begun shedding members of his cabinet, and the pattern has sparked accusations of sexism. But the more revealing story isn’t who has been fired, it’s who hasn’t. The answer says less about bias and more about how Trump is managing a fragile coalition.

Lori Chavez-DeRemer

Donald Trump nominated Lori Chavez-DeRemer for Secretary of Labor with encouragement from Sean O’Brien^[1]. Her pro-union record drew support from several Democratic senators while raising skepticism among Republicans^[2]. She was ultimately confirmed by a 67–32 vote. 

Chavez-DeRemer began her tenure with an “America at Work” listening tour, though it produced little in the way of concrete policy. Early efforts focused on aligning the Department of Labor with the administration’s rollback of DEI-related programs. This included a proposal to eliminate the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)^[3] and transfer its enforcement responsibilities to the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS). While Congress did not adopt the proposal, the department still underwent a significant restructuring that reduced OFCCP staffing to roughly 80 employees ^[4]. 

Her more substantive shift came in workforce development. Chavez-DeRemer emphasized apprenticeships and skills-based training over traditional college pathways. An executive order directed the Departments of Labor, Commerce, and Education to review federal workforce programs within 90 days and develop a plan to better align resources with emerging industry needs ^[5]. It also called for the creation of 1 million new registered apprenticeships, supported by $85 million in grants announced in August 2025 ^[6]. 

Her tenure was also marked by a series of controversies. Reports surfaced alleging misuse of government resources tied to an event described internally as a swearing-in ceremony that coincided with her birthday ^[7]. Critics also questioned the substance of her “America at Work” tour, characterizing it as light on official business. Additional allegations involved inappropriate conduct by her husband, Dr. Shawn DeRemer, who was reportedly barred from a federal building following employee complaints^[8]. No charges were filed, and he denied wrongdoing. Internal reviews have also examined communications between Chavez-DeRemer, her family members, and department staff, along with separate allegations involving workplace misconduct and a possible relationship with a subordinate ^[9]. 

The administration later announced that Chavez-DeRemer would step down to pursue a role in the private sector, praising her tenure. She denied any wrongdoing, dismissed the allegations as politically motivated, and stated it was an honor to serve ^[10]. She is expected to be interviewed as part of an ongoing internal review.

Kash Patel

Kash Patel spent the time between Trump administrations building a following through his podcast, where he regularly criticized the Biden administration and reinforced MAGA-aligned narratives. He described the FBI as corrupt, dismissed investigations into Trump as politically motivated, expressed sympathy for January 6th rioters, and suggested that lawmakers should face prosecution for actions taken against the Trump administration ^[11]. He was confirmed as FBI Director by a narrow 51–49 vote, with Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski joining Democrats in opposition. 

Patel quickly moved to reshape the FBI. He ordered roughly 1,500 agents reassigned to field offices in an effort to decentralize operations ^[12] and cleared out portions of the senior civil service leadership, replacing them with political allies. He also expanded the use of polygraphs in internal leak investigations, including questions about internal criticism of his leadership. These moves contributed to increased attrition among senior agents, particularly those connected to prior Trump-related investigations ^[13]. 

Under Patel, the FBI’s public-facing priorities have shifted. Greater emphasis has been placed on immigration-related investigations^[14] and domestic threats tied to left-leaning protest activity^[15], while counterterrorism and cyber investigations have received comparatively less attention. Thousands of agents are now assigned to work alongside DHS on immigration-linked cases^[16]. 

Patel has also taken an unusually active and public role in ongoing investigations, at times creating confusion and drawing criticism. Following the killing of Charlie Kirk, Patel announced on social media that a suspect was in custody while local authorities still considered the shooter at large^[17]. He later criticized local law enforcement for delaying the release of surveillance footage^[18] and publicly referenced DNA evidence while stating his belief in the suspect’s guilt. Legal experts warned that these actions could complicate prosecution and raise due process concerns for the accused, Tyler Robinson^[19]. 

In a separate incident involving a sniper attack on an ICE facility in Dallas, Patel posted an image of shell casings marked “Anti-ICE” and characterized the attack as politically motivated. The early release of evidence and rapid attribution of motive again drew criticism for departing from standard FBI communication practices^[20]. 

Patel’s tenure has also been marked by allegations of misconduct unrelated to investigations. Reports have raised questions about his use of government resources, including travel for personal events, and the use of FBI personnel for personal security^[21]. Additional claims regarding workplace disruptions tied to his behavior have been reported but remain contested. Patel has denied wrongdoing and is pursuing legal action against at least one outlet for defamation^[22]. 

My Take: 

So far, Trump has fired three cabinet members: Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, and Lori Chavez-DeRemer. Each fell for different reasons, loyalty without restraint, performance failures, or internal dysfunction, but the pattern has led many to point to sexism as the common thread. 

There’s some truth to that. But it doesn’t explain why Kash Patel is still standing.

Patel checks all the same boxes. He has shown ideological loyalty, invited controversy, and raised serious concerns about competence and judgment. Yet he remains in place—not because he’s different, but because he serves a different function.

Patel has something the others didn’t: a base. 

You can certainly make the argument that Patel has that following because MAGA are more likely to follow men, but Patel still has a base that will back him. Booting him risks not only angering a following but also losing a cheerleader. This doesn’t make Patel bullet proof, but it does mean he needs a graceful exit so Trump doesn’t have a conspiracy peddler peddling conspiracies against him.

The conspiracy fearmongers are already turning on Trump. Candance Owens and Tucker Carlson outwardly expressed their disappointment. Keeping Patel on his side means keeping someone with some “credibility” on board to help counter the contrarians.

This same dynamic likely explains the staying power of figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. Their value isn’t administrative, it’s coalitional. 

Trump has spent the first year of his second term being unusually good about not firing people. He was able to staff his cabinet with people that asked no questions, but now the consequences of that are showing. When you hire for loyalty over skill — surprise, surprise— you don’t get skill. Their incompetence muddies not just Trump, but the Senators that confirmed them as well.

I don’t think Patel is safe, he just had a larger margin for error. At some point, Trump has to decide if he wants loyalty or effectiveness. In his first term, he was often stymied by professionals that not only knew the system, but also wanted to work within it. He thought if he had a loyal cabinet, he could push for more of his agenda, and that has worked to some extent, but it hasn't produced a streamlined smaller government republicans claim they want. What we have right now is a demoralized and understaffed federal government.

Trump has  little more than 2 years to shape the government. If he continues to employ sycophants that only work at his pleasure, the country will not be left with a functioning government, but if he selects for skill, he will have to deal with the grown ups in the room that will tell him no.