By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump nominated Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, a former Fox News medical contributor and current CityMD medical director, as the next U.S. Surgeon General. Nesheiwat, praised by Trump for her advocacy of preventative medicine and accessible healthcare, will be responsible for disseminating vital health information to the American public if confirmed by the Senate. Her background includes a medical residency at the University of Arkansas and experience discussing health issues on Fox News. Following the announcement, Fox News confirmed Nesheiwat’s departure from the network.
Read the original article here
Trump’s selection of a Fox News medical contributor for the position of Surgeon General is raising significant eyebrows, and for good reason. The choice seems to prioritize television appearances and personal loyalty over demonstrable qualifications and experience, a pattern that is becoming increasingly apparent in his cabinet picks. It feels like a selection process driven more by reality television than the serious business of governing a nation.
This appointment reinforces the perception that Trump’s criteria for high-level positions are remarkably simple. Did the candidate appear on Fox News? Did they offer effusive praise of Trump himself? These seem to be the primary, if not the only, factors guiding his decisions. The emphasis on Fox News appearances, in particular, raises concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest and a disturbing lack of focus on the expertise needed to lead a crucial public health agency.
The qualifications of this particular nominee are being intensely scrutinized, and with justification. Her background, including a medical degree from a Caribbean medical school and the selling of her own brand of dietary supplements, is drawing considerable criticism. Concerns about the efficacy and safety of these supplements are being voiced, along with questions about potential conflicts of interest should she assume the position of Surgeon General. The situation evokes uncomfortable comparisons to previous controversial appointments characterized by questionable qualifications and potential ethical breaches.
The lack of thorough vetting in this and other high-profile selections highlights a concerning pattern. There’s a palpable sense that background checks and traditional standards of competence are being bypassed, leading many to worry about the potential implications for effective governance. The selection process feels less like a careful evaluation of candidates and more like the casting of a reality show, with political loyalty trumping – no pun intended – experience and expertise.
The potential consequences of these appointments extend beyond individual qualifications. The overall competence of the government itself is being questioned, with concerns raised about the ability of the administration to function effectively. The fear is that a cabinet filled with unqualified individuals, chosen primarily for their allegiance to Trump, will lead to poor decision-making and ultimately harmful consequences for the country. This perceived lack of competence extends to other cabinet appointments, all seemingly following this similar, concerning pattern.
The appointment also fuels speculation about the future of Fox News. With Trump seemingly raiding the network for cabinet members, the long-term stability of Fox News is being questioned. The perception is that Trump is essentially buying loyalty from Fox News personalities with government positions. It raises the specter of political quid pro quo, a deeply troubling prospect. The long-term impact of this approach on the integrity of both the government and the media landscape remains uncertain. The situation creates a potential feedback loop, wherein Fox News is incentivized to maintain a narrative favorable to Trump to ensure that future positions are available to their personalities.
This entire process has engendered a sense of weariness and disillusionment, with many expressing feelings of helplessness and resignation. The perception is that the government is operating in a chaotic and unpredictable manner, leading many to fear the worst. The seemingly arbitrary nature of Trump’s appointments is viewed as a symptom of a larger decline in the quality of American governance.
This appointment isn’t simply a matter of individual choices; it represents a larger, concerning trend. Concerns about conflicts of interest, lack of qualifications, and the blurring of lines between political loyalty and competency are all significant factors. The episode raises serious questions about the future of American governance and public health. The public deserves a Surgeon General who prioritizes evidence-based medicine and the well-being of the population, not personal loyalty to a single political figure. The current situation, however, leaves many feeling deeply concerned about the potential risks and the possibility of further erratic appointments in the years to come.