Key Takeaways:
• A top NATO diplomat says Trump runs the government like a family business
• Key aides work alone, with almost no interagency teamwork
• Secretary of State Marco Rubio has some staff but may not use them fully
• Other insiders include JD Vance, Susie Wiles, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner
• The approach may hurt U.S. foreign and domestic policy, including peace talks
Why the ‘Family Business’ Approach Is Causing Trouble
A former U.S. ambassador to NATO warns that President Trump’s team resembles a family business more than a government. He says too few staffers share ideas or handle complex issues. As a result, critical decisions fall on a small circle of insiders. This style may weaken U.S. efforts at home and abroad.
Understanding the ‘Family Business’ Method
In most administrations, departments rely on many experts. They meet, debate and suggest policy options. Then leaders approve plans and monitor results. This interagency process aims for checks and balances. It also spreads work across many staffers.
However, the current White House works differently. The ambassador notes that Trump picks a small group of trusted aides. He meets them one by one or in small gatherings. Then he makes quick decisions. This style mirrors how one might run a private enterprise.
How ‘Family Business’ Operations Affect Policy
At the State Department, top diplomats often depend on teams of analysts. They gather data, draft memos and brief senior officials. Under Trump’s ‘family business’ model, those channels shrank. The result is thin staffing and limited debate.
For example, Marco Rubio officially heads foreign policy. Yet he has few aides. Even then, he might not tap them for advice. Rubio’s office lacks the depth of past administrations. Therefore, critical input may never reach the Oval Office.
Meanwhile, other top players have minimal teams. Vice President JD Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Peace Envoy Steve Witkoff each work with very small staffs. Plus, Jared Kushner joined last October. All operate almost in isolation.
Effects on the Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks
The ambassador highlights that peace talks need many experts. Diplomats, military advisers and aid coordinators should pool knowledge. But under this model, only a few insiders shape the approach. This narrow path may limit creative solutions.
Without a full interagency process, key issues can slip through cracks. Staffers outside the circle say they have little idea what happens. Foreign diplomats find U.S. officials friendly yet uninformed. As a result, global partners grow frustrated.
Domestic Policies and the ‘Family Business’ Style
On home issues, this approach also shows risks. Important programs need policy research and stakeholder input. A lone group cannot cover all viewpoints. Thus, policies may miss impacts on local communities.
Also, quick decisions made on a whim can lead to confusion. State and local leaders may get conflicting messages. They need clear guidance on federal rules. When leaders rely on a tiny inner circle, consistency suffers.
The Inner Circle’s Role
Who makes the key calls? The former ambassador names five figures:
• JD Vance, the vice president
• Marco Rubio, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor
• Susie Wiles, Chief of Staff
• Steve Witkoff, Presidential Peace Envoy
• Jared Kushner, advisor and son-in-law
Only Rubio has a larger staff. Yet even his team seems underused. The rest face near isolation. They meet directly with Trump and leave. Little or no follow-up happens through normal channels.
Comparisons with Past Presidencies
Past presidents mixed small teams with broad staff work. For instance, George H.W. Bush led the Gulf War with seven top officials. Yet those figures had large teams under them. They used systematic processes for choosing options.
Under Biden, daily briefings drew a handful of aides too. But then those aides coordinated with many others. This structure ensured ideas flowed up and down the government. It also watched over implementation closely.
In contrast, the current White House cuts out that wider network. Hence the ‘family business’ label. Trump sits at his desk. He takes calls, meets with insiders and decides. His aides then carry out orders alone.
Why a ‘Family Business’ Hurts Democracy
First, it reduces transparency. A democracy thrives on open debate. It asks experts to weigh in. It listens to the public. Running an entire government from one desk hides many voices.
Second, it limits accountability. If only a few work on issues, they avoid review. Mistakes can slip by without checks. That raises risks for policy failure.
Third, it stifles innovation. New ideas come from diverse minds. When staffers feel shut out, they stop sharing good suggestions.
The 1789 Capital Contracts: Another Concern
Adding to criticism, the White House awarded 735 million dollars in contracts. These went to 1789 Capital, a company linked to Donald Trump Jr. Critics see a link between the ‘family business’ style and special deals.
While the contracts focus on local projects, the close ties spark questions. Observers ask if this is another sign that family connections drive decisions. Such deals may deepen the sense that insiders get unique access.
What Experts Recommend
Experts urge a return to a wider process. They suggest:
• Rebuild interagency teams with clear roles
• Encourage department staff to share research and options
• Hold regular policy meetings with diverse experts
• Track implementation through official channels
• Separate family ties from government contracts
Implementing these steps could restore balance. It could also improve policy quality. In turn, both domestic and foreign issues might see better results.
Potential Benefits of Reform
If Trump broadened decision-making, the U.S. could gain:
• More thorough review of complex issues
• Faster identification of policy flaws
• Clearer communication with allies and states
• Greater public confidence in government actions
• Reduced risk of nepotism or favoritism
A more open process does not limit presidential power. Rather, it strengthens advice and oversight. Presidents can still lead firmly. However, they would draw on more information before deciding.
Moving Forward
On one hand, the ‘family business’ approach offers direct control. The president meets insiders face to face. He hears only trusted voices. This can speed some decisions.
On the other hand, it sidelines experts and partners. It risks isolation from vital data. Over time, poor choices can pile up. The U.S. may find crises harder to resolve.
Leaders must weigh the trade-offs. They must ask if a close circle outweighs broader input. The future of U.S. policy depends on that choice.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the ‘family business’ style affect policy?
Relying on a small group cuts out expert input. It limits debate and harms both domestic and foreign policy.
Why does Secretary Rubio have fewer staff?
Under this model, key officials keep minimal teams. Critics say Rubio’s staff is too small and underused.
Who else belongs to Trump’s inner circle?
Besides Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner shape decisions.
Can this approach change?
Yes. Experts recommend rebuilding interagency teams and encouraging wider cooperation among departments.
What are the risks of family-linked contracts?
Such deals raise concerns about favoritism. They may suggest outsiders lack equal access to opportunities.