NYT Reveals Unprecedented Flattery Culture in Trump Cabinet
A comprehensive New York Times analysis of over a dozen hours of Trump cabinet meeting footage has documented an extraordinary culture of deference and flattery, with senior officials consistently framing President Donald Trump as the only person capable of saving America. The investigation, published Monday, found that at least one of every six sentences spoken by cabinet members either flattered the president, gave him credit, or criticized his political opponents.
A Shift from First to Second Term
The analysis, conducted by Times reporter Ashley Cai, reviewed every televised cabinet appearance across both of Trump’s presidencies — 22 meetings from June 2017 to May 2020 and 10 meetings from February 2025 to March 2026. The findings reveal a dramatic shift from Trump’s first term, when some top aides occasionally pushed back against the president’s impulses.
“Compared with his first term, when some of his top aides pushed back against the president’s impulses, Mr. Trump has emphasized the importance of loyalty this time around,” the Times reported. Administration officials have complimented the president far more in cabinet meetings than in his first term.
Marathon cabinet meetings lasting one to three hours have become a hallmark of Trump’s second presidency. The August 2025 meeting set a record at 3 hours and 17 minutes. Trump himself has described the gatherings as “boring as hell” in an interview with New York Magazine, according to The Washington Times, though he insisted he listens to every word.
The Most Prolific Flatterers
Secretary of State Marco Rubio emerged as both the most frequent speaker and the most prolific flatterer. Rubio repeatedly declared that Trump is the “only leader in the world” capable of ending conflicts, making similar statements about the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Gaza conflict, the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute, and the Sudan civil war.
“There’s only one leader in the world that’s capable of bringing the two sides to a table, and that’s our president, the president of the United States, President Trump,” Rubio said during one meeting.
Vice President JD Vance took a different approach, focusing his remarks on attacking Democrats. On average, one of every six sentences spoken by Vance was an insult directed at political opponents. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Trump he had “saved this country by making it the best place in the world to do business again,” while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declared that “Donald Trump is the only president who understands” — a sentiment he repeated five times.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed three times that Trump would have prevented conflicts from occurring, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright asserted that the United States would have lost the artificial intelligence race without Trump’s leadership. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin repeatedly stated that Trump was “willing to take a bullet for this country.”
Talking Points Traceable to Trump
A notable finding of the Times analysis is that many of the talking points used by cabinet members originate from Trump’s own statements on Truth Social. Trump has repeatedly claimed that Russia’s war in Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Gaza “would not have happened” if he had been president — claims that Hegseth and Rubio have echoed in cabinet meetings.
Kelly Loeffler, the Small Business Administration administrator, said in a January meeting that Trump had “ended at least eight wars,” while Bessent claimed that Trump’s tariffs were bringing in “tens of trillions of investments.” The Times noted that both claims are misleading.
White House Response
Allison Schuster, a White House spokeswoman, defended the cabinet meetings, saying in an email that Trump’s cabinet used them to “highlight the exhaustive list of accomplishments they have delivered on behalf of the American people.”
Flattery Does Not Guarantee Job Security
Despite the pervasive culture of praise, flattery alone has not been enough to keep cabinet members in their positions. Four of Trump’s cabinet officials have been fired or resigned in 2026, and the president may be considering removing more. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was forced out on March 5 amid allegations of grifting and an affair. Attorney General Pam Bondi was fired on April 2 for botching the Epstein files investigation. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned on April 20 amid a misconduct probe.
Salon’s analysis characterized these departures as signs of a “teetering administration” with approval ratings in the “low to mid-30s amid rising inflation” and the ongoing Iran war.
Constitutional Implications
The culture of deference documented by the Times has broader implications for democratic governance. The cabinet has historically served as a body of advisers providing the president with expert counsel, but the Times notes that this traditional advisory role has been supplemented — or replaced — by a “new mandate: flattery.”
Constitutional scholars have raised concerns about whether the founding document has a blind spot on executive power. NPR reported in January that Trump has “presided over a sweeping expansion of executive power while eroding democratic norms,” and the American Bar Association published a March 2026 report titled “When the Guardrails Fail: Trump’s Assault on Checks and Balances.”
What to Watch For
As Trump’s second term continues, questions remain about whether the culture of deference will persist or shift with declining approval ratings. The disconnect between the public performance of cabinet meetings — where officials compete to praise the president — and Trump’s own private characterization of them as “boring as hell” highlights the performative nature of the gatherings. With more cabinet departures potentially on the horizon, the dynamic between loyalty, flattery, and job security in the Trump administration remains an unfolding story.