Trump’s national security picks test the merit standard
Plus: Dems put SNAP center stage and two House progressives introduce bill to ban big money from national elections.
👋🏾 Hi, hey, hello! First things first: President Donald Trump withdrew the nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) this afternoon to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, citing concerns about preserving Republicans’ narrow House majority.
Stefanik will remain in Congress, where she was the highest-ranking House Republican until her nomination, putting to rest worries that triggering a special election—even in her reliably Republican district—could risk the GOP’s razor-thin majority.
In other House news, the House overturned two Biden-era energy efficiency rules—one for refrigerators and the other for walk-in coolers—and passed a bill requiring universities to report more information about foreign gifts and contracts.
Behind the scenes, Hill Republicans ramped up talks on a compromise budget framework for President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda.
GOP leaders hope to pass it within two weeks before members head home for the Easter recess.
The Senate confirmed several Trump nominees, including deputy secretaries at Treasury and State, the deputy director of the White House budget office, the heads of the FDA and NIH, the president’s science advisor, an assistant attorney general, and the new Navy Secretary.
Senators also voted to overturn Biden-era rules that expanded tax reporting to digital assets and banned excessive overdraft fees.
And in my weekly COURIER column, I explored whether a Democratic Tea Party-style movement could emerge from the wreckage of the 2024 election and the resistance to Trump 2.0.
Keep reading for what else is worth knowing from the Hill this week—straight from my notebook to your inbox. Got a tip? Email, DM, or Signal me—no national security clearance required.
○ ● ●
Dems blast Trump’s picks for top security posts amid anti-DEI push
The recent Signal security breach, where sensitive military plans were inadvertently shared with a journalist on the messaging app Signal, has intensified scrutiny over the qualifications of key national security officials.
Allow me to explain: Democrats argue that his incident exemplifies the risks of appointing individuals like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, whom they view as unqualified.
This criticism comes amid the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives under the banner of promoting merit-based appointments.
What they are saying: Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and founding chair of the Financial Services subcommittee on diversity and inclusion, said the Signal scandal vindicates her longstanding opposition to Trump’s cabinet picks.
“But that’s why we’re going to stand steadfast,” she said. “We’re going to continue to fight for diversity, equity, and inclusion because that means giving opportunities to the most qualified people.”
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), a member of the House panel that funds the Pentagon and DHS, called the Trump administration’s war on DEI a smokescreen for deeper ideological goals.
“All of these attacks on uplifting diversity are part of this white nationalistic movement that is central to the MAGA movement,” she said. “It is part and parcel of their strategy to keep the American people focused on things other than their incompetence and the fact that they are raiding the federal coffers on behalf of their billionaires.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) took aim at Trump’s hollow meritocracy.
“We were promised that Donald Trump was going to hire the very best. It’s all phony. The attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion? Phony,” he told reporters this week. “As Democrats, we actually believe in merit that should be based on what you know, not who you know.”
How we got here: President Donald Trump issued a sweeping executive order to eliminate federal DEI programs after retaking office. His administration argued they were “radical” and wasteful and pledged to return to a system based solely on merit.
The directive led to the immediate shuttering of DEI offices and the removal of identity-based criteria from hiring and promotion processes. But the fallout was swift.
The Air Force initially removed educational content about the Tuskegee Airmen from its curriculum as part of its compliance with the executive order—only to partially reverse course amid bipartisan backlash. Critics said the decision erased vital history of Black military contributions and desegregation.
Hegseth dismissed General CQ Brown, the first Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in what Democrats described as a purge of leaders who had publicly supported inclusive leadership and equitable recruitment.
In the know: Hegseth’s military record includes deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. He earned two Bronze Stars and later led veterans’ advocacy groups.
But Democrats argue that his experience in large-scale defense strategy and interagency coordination is minimal—especially when compared to predecessors like James Mattis or Lloyd Austin, both four-star generals who commanded global operations and held senior leadership roles inside the Pentagon.
Gabbard, a former congresswoman from Hawaii, served in the National Guard and deployed with a medical unit.
While she sat on the House Armed Services Committee, she has no prior experience working in or managing intelligence agencies—unlike previous Directors of National Intelligence, such as James Clapper, who spent decades in the intelligence community.
Not so fast: Trump has defended his unorthodox cabinet picks as necessary disruptors of Washington’s entrenched bureaucracy. He argues the federal government needs leaders unbound by establishment thinking.
But Democrats counter that shaking up the status quo shouldn’t mean sidelining basic qualifications—especially in roles where lives are on the line.
State of play: Prominent Democrats—including Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—have called on Hegseth to resign, saying that as the official who circulated the sensitive strike details, he bears direct responsibility for the breach.
While another official mistakenly added a journalist to the Signal thread, Democrats say Hegseth’s conduct underscores a deeper failure of judgment and professionalism.
The White House has rejected calls for accountability, expressing full confidence in the Trump national security team and accusing the press of sensationalizing the breach.
● ○ ●
House Dems escalate fight over GOP’s proposed SNAP cuts
House Democrats shifted their focus to a new line of attack in the GOP’s budget framework: a proposed $230 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) intended to help offset the cost of extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts.
Allow me to explain: Democrats say the Republican plan—passed by the House late last month—isn’t just about budget math. It’s about values.
At two events this week, the Black Caucus and the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee spotlighted the impact these cuts would have on families who rely on SNAP to feed themselves and their children.
The CBC press conference framed the cuts as part of a broader assault on Black women and families, while the Steering and Policy Committee’s shadow hearing featured emotional testimony from SNAP recipients and community advocates.
The pivot to SNAP comes after weeks of hammering Republicans over $880 billion in proposed Medicaid cuts—a messaging blitz that culminated in a nationwide day of action. Now, SNAP is front and center.
What they are saying: Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture subcommittee on nutrition, told Once Upon a Hill she’s especially concerned about Republican efforts to impose stricter work requirements on SNAP recipients.
“The research just doesn’t support that it works,” she said. “The amount of reporting requirements that are around those literally outweigh the benefits.”
Critics argue work requirements don’t meaningfully increase employment while creating bureaucratic barriers that disproportionately harm vulnerable communities.
They rarely lead to stable jobs—many recipients simply lose benefits.
The cost of enforcing work rules can exceed any savings.
Black, brown, and low-income households are hit hardest due to systemic barriers to work.
Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio), another member of the House Agriculture Committee and CBC, recently took part in the “SNAP challenge” to live for one week on the average benefit: $6 per person per day.
It was eye-opening. It was humbling,” Brown told reporters. “On a SNAP budget of $42, you’ve got to make really tough choices—chicken or beef, milk or eggs, oranges or apples. That’s what people are dealing with every day.”
In a follow-up interview, Brown said she took on the challenge to better understand the expectations the government places on people trying to survive on minimal support.
A closer look: Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently sparked controversy by suggesting that SNAP benefits could be restricted from being used on junk food.
“Secretary Rollins is not looking for real solutions to this problem,” Hayes said. “It is yet another attempt to demonize people and devalue their humanity.”
The big picture: With the farm bill still unresolved—and SNAP accounting for the largest share of its funding—Democrats are using the GOP’s proposed budget cuts to sharpen their broader case that Republicans are out of step with everyday Americans, particularly those who rely on safety net programs. For the CBC, the SNAP fight is also about economic justice and racial equity.
Want to reach the people shaping policy and politics? Once Upon a Hill puts your message in front of the Capitol’s most plugged-in audience—where influence meets insight. Let’s talk about how a sponsorship can align with your goals. Email michael@onceuponahill.com to learn more.
● ● ○
Lee, Khanna take aim at super PACs
Reps. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) and Ro Khanna’(D-Calif.) introduced the Abolish Super PACs Act this week, a bill that would cap contributions to all PACs at the same individual limits applied to traditional political action committees. In effect, the bill would ban the massive donations that define super PACs.
Allow me to explain: The legislation aims to undercut the growing dominance of billionaire-backed super PACs in congressional and presidential elections—especially in competitive districts where outside money often outpaces candidate fundraising.
What they’re saying: “The people most vulnerable to this kind of spending are almost always working class people, Black and brown people,” Lee told OUAH. “The higher the level you want to run for, the more money you’re expected to raise—just from your phone.”
Khanna was even more blunt: “We fought a revolution in America so people would have a say—not to be passive bystanders watching billionaires fund ads and determine outcomes.”
In the know: Super PACs—officially “independent expenditure-only committees”—can raise and spend unlimited money to support or attack candidates, as long as they don’t coordinate with campaigns. They surged after Citizens United and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a pair of 2010 court decisions that struck down restrictions on outside spending.
A closer look: Elon Musk bankrolled the Trump campaign in 2024 through America PAC, which funneled over $260 million into canvassing and voter outreach. The effort drew legal scrutiny for allegedly offering financial rewards in exchange for petition signatures and referrals.
Not so fast: Democrats have also benefited from super PACs and megadonors. In 2022, George Soros contributed $128.5 million, and Michael Bloomberg poured in $115 million to help elect Biden in 2020. Kamala Harris attracted support from 76 billionaires during her campaign.
Looking ahead: A Maine law with similar limits is now under legal challenge from conservative groups claiming it infringes on political speech. Supporters hope the case could tee up a Supreme Court review of super PAC rules.
For more on Lee and Khanna’s bill, how we got here, and the political stakes on both sides of the aisle, read my full breakdown at Once Upon a Hill.