Thursday, October 1, 2026
President Trump has removed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The reasons appear less administrative than political: mounting outrage after federal immigration agents killed innocent people in Minneapolis, and a $200 million advertising campaign at Mount Rushmore amid a sputtering economy. Both had begun to cost Trump and the Republican Party support.
Presidents have always dismissed cabinet officials for political reasons. But moments like these raise a more basic question: what standards should we use to judge the performance of the people who hold public office?
Voting matters. Laws are essential. But a democracy also depends on the day-to-day choices leaders make: how they answer criticism, whether they follow the same rules as everyone else, and whether they comply with court orders, cooperate with lawful investigations and accept verified election results. When leaders don’t make these their priorities, they’re not doing the job Americans hired them to do.
There are minimum qualifications for such jobs. They define the difference between holding office and doing its work. They apply to presidents, governors, mayors, attorneys general, agency heads and legislators alike — anyone entrusted with public authority.
These jobs call for leaders who can:
Distinguish between political disagreement and disloyalty to the country. Elected officials are expected to face criticism without suggesting that their opponents are acting in bad faith or undermining the nation itself.
Treat oversight as a safeguard rather than as sabotage. Legislative inquiries and independent investigations are not attacks; they are part of the system of checks and balances designed to ensure that public authority is exercised lawfully.
Welcome independent courts, inspectors general and auditors rather than fear them. These bodies are tasked with reviewing executive action. Their scrutiny has long been among the distinguishing and most admired features of the American experiment: no one is above the law.
n Accept that journalists play a necessary (and constitutionally protected) role. Critical reporting may be inconvenient, embarrassing or even incriminating, but it provides the public with information needed to evaluate official conduct.
n Do not claim in advance that an election loss would be illegitimate. In most cases, election losses are defeats to be acknowledged, not scandals to be alleged before any evidence is presented.
n Publicly correct false statements. Courageous leaders clarify errors, acknowledge inaccuracies and take responsibility for their mistakes.
Do not demand personal loyalty from those tasked with enforcing the law. Leaders should demand competence, objectivity and adherence to the highest professional standards. Blind loyalty to an individual is the earmark of an undemocratic system.
Respect — and adhere to — the independence of agencies charged with regulation or investigation. Regulatory and investigative bodies exist to apply statutory authority without political interference. In other words, they help ensure that government functions responsibly, ethically, legally and fairly.
Operate within lawful limits on executive authority. Officeholders are expected to comply with statutory and constitutional boundaries on their power. They may not ignore, circumvent or defy those boundaries without legal consequence.
Do not use the machinery of government to punish critics. Public institutions are not instruments for settling personal or political scores. Law enforcement agencies, regulatory bodies, tax authorities and licensing boards must not be used to target opponents.
Leaders make these choices in public — in how they respond to court rulings, to investigations and to verified election results. Disagreement is part of the job, as are scrutiny, limits on authority and compliance with lawful rulings. Treating those requirements as obstacles to be worked around, rather than obligations to be met, is not.
This checklist is one way to tell whether leaders are doing the work they were hired to do. Moments like these offer the public a chance to assess whether they are meeting their jobs’ fundamental requirements. That kind of assessment must be part of the routine maintenance of a democracy.
Michael Blitz is professor emeritus of interdisciplinary studies at the City University of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
