In business, there’s a phenomenon I’ve personally seen play out in more than one industry: competitors celebrating the departures of the opposing team as if that would solve their own underlying problem. This week, various sectors of the U.S. media and political establishment celebrated the departures from the White House as if four resignations would solve the problem they face at the polls in November.
James Braid, the chief liaison to Congress, announced his resignation. Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, had already done the same the previous week. Ed Martin, the pardon attorney, and Dave Warrington, the White House legal counsel, also confirmed their departures.
Four names in a short span of time, and those hoping for signs of collapse took note with enthusiasm. What they failed to consider is that staff turnover around midterm elections is as common in Washington as the campaign speeches that accompany it.
Trump has never built his power on a loose distribution of authority among dozens of offices; rather, he has built it on a much shorter, more personal chain of command that demands absolute loyalty. That model has drawbacks, of course, because every departure is more noticeable than in other presidencies where power is dispersed to the point of becoming almost bureaucratic. But it also has an advantage that his opponents still do not fully understand: the political core of the administration depends less on the names that come and go and more on very clear leadership, a solid electoral base, and an agenda that maintains unity, even as some pieces change.
The context in which these departures occur also adds pressure on those who fill the vacant positions. The new officials will have to assume their responsibilities amid the possibility that Democrats will regain control of Congress after the November elections, amidst congressional subpoenas, an unresolved war in the Middle East, and an open Republican primary race leading up to 2028.
That agenda is demanding by any standard, and losing two legal advisors just before facing a potential avalanche of congressional oversight is a turn of events no chief of staff would choose. That said, administrations that have survived periods of greater turbulence than this did not do so because their team remained intact; they did so because the central political leadership held firm enough that personnel changes did not alter their course.
If the Democrats are counting on a few resignations to portray the administration as a weakened entity, they may be repeating the same mistake they’ve been making for years—confusing the unease within their media circles with the true pulse of the nation.
Trump has demonstrated time and again that his influence is not measured solely in the corridors of the White House, nor in the editorial support of the mainstream press, nor in the indefinite tenure of those who accompany him at every turn. His strength lies in something far more enduring: his direct connection with a very large segment of the Republican electorate and his ability to turn every attack, every defection, and every attempt at premature burial into political fuel.
That is why the midterm elections will matter more than the fleeting excitement caused today by the departure of a few advisors. That is when we will see whether this presidency’s agenda maintains momentum, whether Republican voters continue to view Trump as a leader, and whether his policies retain the ability to shape the national debate.
Those who are popping champagne today because certain faces around the president are changing may discover—too late—that the true power of an administration does not always lie in the superficial stability of its staff, but rather in the authority it maintains over its party, its base, and the national conversation.
