President Trump, accompanied by chief of staff Susie Wiles, arrives at the White House.
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
There was a celebratory mood in the Oval Office for the November swearing-in of the new ambassador to India, Sergio Gor. One of President Trump’s top lieutenants, Gor had been in charge of selecting staff to serve in Trump’s second-term White House. Now he was getting a promotion.
Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News personality-turned-U.S. attorney, offered praise for Gor’s loyalty, then turned to Trump.
“There is in this room, a group of people who love you, who believe in you, and who are so proud to be in this Oval Office,” she said.
That lovefest reflects a real change from Trump’s first term, with its rival power centers and steady flow of staff shakeups and firings by tweet. One year into this second Trump presidency, high level staff and Cabinet turnover is significantly lower than it was during the same period in 2017. That’s according to a new analysis from Brookings Institution visiting fellow Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, shared exclusively with NPR.
In 2017, Trump oversaw turnover in two Cabinet positions and 35% of senior staff posts. This time around, there’s been no turnover at the Cabinet level, and senior staff turnover is at 29%. To keep consistency across administrations, for the Cabinet Tenpas only counts officials in the presidential line of succession.
“For the other six presidents before President Trump, the average [high level staff] turnover in that first year is typically around 10%, so he’s much higher than the average, but I will say it is less than his first term by a good margin,” Tenpas said in an interview with NPR.
Tenpas also documents the nature of the departures. In the first term, there were a lot of people unceremoniously shown the door by a president whose TV tagline was “you’re fired.” This time, it has mostly been promotions, such as Gor becoming an ambassador.
“There are far fewer resignations under pressure in this first year, 2025, than there were in 2017,” said Tenpas.
In 2017, high-profile aides including chief of staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, White House press secretary Sean Spicer, communications director Michael Dubke and the famously 11-day-serving White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci all exited, often with an announcement by tweet.
The people leaving their jobs this time around aren’t household names, says Tenpas, further dialing down the personnel drama.
“You know, I would call these positions influential, but they just weren’t public figures, they weren’t press secretaries. They weren’t chiefs of staff,” she said.
People who served in the first Trump administration say this time is different, with Trump learning from his first presidency that he prefers loyalists. He has surrounded himself with aides who more closely align with him personally and with his political agenda.
Gone are the big names he brought on because people suggested he should. Now, loyalty is the coin of the realm.
“I do think that … if you look at what is the core of the stability, it was the emphasis that they put on loyalty in hiring, and that has then subsequently paved the way for less infighting and less drama and a lower rate than in 2017,” said Tenpas.
A large share of the departures so far this term were on the National Security Council staff, including national security adviser Mike Waltz, who became U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He had been responsible for what was known as Signal-gate, the first major scandal of the term, when he inadvertently added a journalist to a group chat where secret plans for airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen were discussed. But he wasn’t fired. He was promoted to a position requiring Senate confirmation.
When Waltz left as national security adviser, he was replaced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who added another job to an already long list of assignments from Trump. It was supposed to be temporary, but it’s been more than eight months.
The high-level NSC staff departures Tenpas tracked reflect a much larger shedding of staff assigned to the National Security Council.
A White House official not authorized to speak on the record tells NPR there has been a significant reduction in NSC staffing over the past year to create a more top-down foreign policy process.
The official called it a rightsizing — a strategic choice rather than White House intrigue.
This Brookings data does not capture firings and upheaval among career officials in other areas of the Trump administration, such as at the State Department, Justice Department or the Defense Department, all of which have seen significant turnover.