Trump’s Personnel Purges: Why Mass Layoffs at the National Nuclear Security Administration Are Alarming

IA “FACT” already wrote, that after taking office, President Trump began mass purges of his apparatus under the pretext of fighting bureaucracy and reducing state budget expenditures. This process covered the military, intelligence and other strategic agencies. Among other things, the 47th President of the United States announced his intention cut down billions of dollars from the US defense budget, which exceeds $800 billion annually.

Elon Musk and the newly created Department of Government Efficiency were involved in the implementation of this plan. The favorite of the newly elected owner of the Oval Office was tasked with finding and eliminating inefficient spending in the Ministry of Defense. The Pentagon is already preparing lists of possible cuts. Critics warn that such actions could weaken the country’s defense capabilities.

The CIA became the first major national security agency that offered voluntary layoffs with compensation to all of its employees. CIA Director John Ratcliffe emphasized the need to reorganize the agency based on such national security priorities as fighting drug cartels and countering China. However, experts warn that mass layoffs can weaken the intelligence capabilities of the “world policeman” at a critical moment.

Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE quickly started reduction of funding in NASA, the Ministry of Education and the United States Agency for International Development USAID. These actions are aimed at eliminating, according to the administration, “fraud and waste” in the government. At the same time, critics argue that such cuts could have negative consequences for scientific research, education and international relations of the United States.

Why the NNSA is critical to US security and what the consequences of personnel changes at this agency could be

The inspectors of the State Department, Ministry of Defense and Transport were followed by specialists of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is responsible for the American nuclear arsenal.  CNN informs, which laid off more than 300 people, although the Department of Energy said fewer than 50 employees were affected, mostly administrative workers. Some of those dismissed were later reinstated.

Among those initially eliminated were specialists who oversee nuclear weapons contractors and specialists who set technical requirements. Sources said that the dismissals occurred due to a lack of understanding of the importance of their activities.

Congress has become concerned that even within the Department of Defense, not everyone is aware that the NNSA is responsible for nuclear arms control. Political appointees justify the cuts by citing the allegedly unsatisfactory performance of employees, which has caused outrage at the agency.

In addition to managing the nuclear arsenal, the NNSA also ensures the security of nuclear materials in the United States and abroad, including by installing sensors to monitor risks, as was the case in Ukraine. Sources called such dismissals a serious threat to national security.

Ensuring the reliability and efficiency of the country’s nuclear arsenal, National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) is the cornerstone of US national security. The agency manages nuclear warheads, prevents the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and responds to nuclear incidents. The institution maintains and modernizes the nuclear arsenal without actual tests, using scientific research and simulations. Cooperating with international partners, they are designed to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists or enemy states.

Obviously, staff reshuffles and political intrigue at NNSA can have serious consequences for the management of the US nuclear arsenal. Mass layoffs and political appointments can bring to the loss of valuable specialists with unique knowledge and experience. Without these professionals, the agency could lose the critical institutional memory needed to safely manage nuclear materials.

Thus, in February, the DOGE initiative led by Musk raised concerns about the possible access of unqualified individuals to classified NNSA information. Experts warn, that DOGE’s aggressive methods could jeopardize the safe handling of nuclear materials, international security guarantees, and nuclear nonproliferation negotiations.

In addition, frequent management changes disrupt strategic planning. Each new administration may have its own vision for the development of the nuclear arsenal, leading to inconsistency and the risk of leaving the country without a clear nuclear security strategy.

Instability and politicization in the agency discourage young professionals. As a result, the NNSA may face a shortage of qualified personnel, which will make it difficult to maintain and modernize the nuclear arsenal in the future.

The danger of politicization of personnel decisions in strategic industries

It is all the more unfortunate that the staffing arbitrariness on the part of the Trump administration is taking place against the background of global tensions. This is another case when political appointees make decisions without a deep understanding of the specifics of the work of a certain department. Many believe that this is part of a wider trend where qualified professionals are being replaced by loyal but less competent people.

Politicization of personnel appointments in such important industries as nuclear energy and defense can have serious consequences for national security. It is obvious that appointing inexperienced but politically loyal people to key positions can lead to errors in decision-making and loss of trust in institutions. Yes, in 2019, US Secretary of Energy Rick Perry submitted resigned due to an investigation into his influence on the Ukrainian energy company Naftogaz.

It is obvious that political loyalty becomes the main criterion for appointments in both developed democracies and autocracies. We will remind you about several specific appointments of the newly elected US president. Trump started form his administration, guided by the principle of personal devotion, immediately after winning the 2024 elections.

He appointed Peter Hegseth, known for his support of Trump on Fox News, as Secretary of Defense. This appointment became one of the most controversial in the history of the Pentagon. It has sparked controversy because of his political views and lack of experience in leading large military structures and proper management experience in general, and because of previous allegations of misconduct.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio pond secretary of state after changing his stance to a more isolationist one in line with Trump’s policies. Rubio is an influential and at the same time controversial figure in American politics. On the one hand, he is known for his harsh criticism of authoritarian regimes, especially in China, Iran and Cuba. He argued for strengthening sanctions against these countries and limiting their influence in the world. But after being appointed secretary of state, Rubio made outrageous statements about the Russian-Ukrainian war. He said, in particular, that the war “set Ukraine back 100 years” and emphasized the need for negotiations where “both sides must concede something.” This caused concern in Ukraine and among its allies, as such statements could mean concessions of Ukraine to the aggressor.

It is worth noting that during the Trump presidency, the share of political appointments in the US diplomatic service grew up to almost 45%, which negatively affected the effectiveness of foreign policy. Some ambassadors appointed for political loyalty failed to cope with difficult situations, which worsened foreign policy relations.

Appointment of retired general Keith Kellogg as special representative for Ukraine and Russia is an example of politicization such positions. Although Kellogg has military experience, his appointment has sparked debate about the implications for US foreign policy, supporting the general view that political appointments affect the effectiveness of the diplomatic service.

It is obvious that political loyalty is a key criterion for appointment to high positions in the Russian Federation as well. Putin appoints to government positions, to the leadership of state corporations and regional administrations people who show personal loyalty and support his political course.

After an attempted coup in 2016, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan carried out a sweeping purge of state structures, replacing thousands of officials, soldiers and judges with loyalists to his Justice and Development Party. This was done to strengthen his power and eliminate potential opponents.

In turn, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party appoint pro-government figures to key positions. Independent voices in the courts and in the media are often replaced by pro-government ones. This approach raises concerns about the state of democracy and the rule of law in the country.
Fortunately, in response to these threats, democracies are putting in place mechanisms to protect strategic agencies from excessive political influence. Yes, in NATO countries exist rules for personnel management, which ensure transparency of personnel policy and protection of the rights of servicemen, which increases trust between commanders and subordinates.

Congress’s reaction to the politicization of personnel appointments in US strategic agencies demonstrates that even in complex bureaucratic systems there are mechanisms that can restrain radical changes. However, increasing political polarization can turn such appointments into common practice, where loyalty outweighs competence.

… How can the instability of the personnel policy of the presidential administration guarantee the safety of the superpower’s nuclear arsenal? Can chaotic personnel decisions replace a balanced strategic vision? If the credibility of the US as a leader in nuclear security is undermined, who will take responsibility for the consequences? In the era of global challenges, when every decision can have irreversible consequences, the bet should be made on professionalism, not on political calculations.

Tetyana Viktorova