Kash Patel and Tulsi after Bondi? Why Trump keeps losing his A-team

When US Attorney General Pam Bondi was abruptly shown the door by President Donald Trump yesterday, it did more than end a high-profile tenure at the Justice Department. It revived a familiar question about Trump - why does he keep losing his own A-team?

Bondi’s dismissal points to a reality that has confronted dozens of Trump loyalists. No amount of loyalty is enough to guarantee survival. A longtime friend and a central figure in efforts to pursue Trump’s political opponents, Bondi still failed to satisfy Trump. Her exit, coming after that of Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem last month, has triggered fresh speculation in Washington that figures such as FBI chief Kash Patel and director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard could be next.

The pattern is strikingly familiar. During his first presidency, Trump cycled through senior officials at a historic pace, more than any other American president in modern history. After a relatively stable first year in his second term, Bondi’s firing suggests Trump's old instincts may be returning.


Also Read| Trump fires Pam Bondi as U.S. attorney general

Bondi’s fall and the return of churn
Bondi’s dismissal followed a turbulent period in which she oversaw the Justice Department during the fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files controversy and a largely unsuccessful push to use law enforcement against Trump’s opponents. Despite her loyalty and long personal association with the president, she became expendable. Her removal is a reminder that even ultra-loyalists get dumped when they fail to meet expectations. Even unwavering loyalty, a parameter dear to Trump, is not a guarantee of job security in his close orbit. Bondi had been among the most important figures in Trump’s effort to remake the federal government since he returned to office. Her exit does show Trump's dissatisfaction with her performance but also a broader willingness to reshuffle even core loyalists.

The departures of Bondi and Noem have intensified speculation about who might be next. Several reports in US media suggest that Patel and Gabbard, both seen as Trump's close ideological allies, could face similar fates. If that happens, it would reinforce the sense that Trump’s second term is drifting back toward the high-turnover model of his first.

This shift is notable because, for much of 2025, the opposite seemed true. Trump appeared to have assembled a stable inner circle. His cabinet was marked by public displays of loyalty, with officials often competing to praise him in meetings. This cohesion was widely attributed to Trump having chosen his A-team on the grounds of personal allegiance.

There were also structural reasons for the stability. Replacing senior officials requires Senate confirmation, and that process has proven difficult since Trump wants ultra-loyalists who may not find favour with the Senate. Several key nominees, including Pete Hegseth, Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., were confirmed by razor-thin margins. The political cost of firing and replacing them may have encouraged Trump to practise restraint. Yet Bondi’s removal suggests this constraint has a limit.

Trump's first term: A presidency defined by turnover
Trump’s first presidency set the benchmark for modern White House instability. His administration saw record-setting turnover, with departures far exceeding those under his predecessors. A Brookings Institution study in 2018 found that his staff turnover rate was more than triple that of Barack Obama and roughly double that of Ronald Reagan.

The churn was particularly intense early on. His first 14 months in office saw the highest cabinet-level turnover of any US president in a century.

Among those who exited were some of the most prominent figures in his administration. FBI chief James Comey was fired in 2017 amid the Russia investigation. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was dismissed after repeated disagreements on foreign policy. His relationship with Trump had deteriorated over issues such as North Korea. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, one of Trump’s earliest political backers, was forced out after recusing himself from the Russia investigation, a decision Trump publicly criticised. Secretary of Defence James Mattis resigned following clashes over Syria policy.

Also Read| US Army chief of staff Randy George fired by Hegseth

The inner circle was equally volatile. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn lasted just weeks before being forced out over misleading statements. Steve Bannon was removed after internal power struggles, while Reince Priebus was pushed out amid management concerns. John Bolton departed after policy clashes and Anthony Scaramucci famously lasted just days.

Explaining this turnover, the Brookings study concluded that Trump’s management style, emphasis on loyalty and tolerance for conflict created an environment prone to exits. It also noted that many appointees were political outsiders who struggled to adapt to government roles.

Why Trump keeps hiring and firing his own team
The recurring cycle of hiring loyalists and later discarding them has drawn sustained attention right from Trump's first presidency. One central explanation is Trump’s prioritisation of personal loyalty over institutional norms. His staffing decisions increasingly rewarded allegiance, while dissent often led to removal. Officials were frequently dismissed for contradicting or failing to align with the president’s public positions.

Yet loyalty alone does not ensure survival. Performance and personal chemistry also remain decisive, creating a paradox in which aides are expected to be both loyal and effective, but can be removed if they fall short on either count. Another factor is Trump’s management style, often compared to a corporate or reality television model. He tends to encourage internal competition among aides, a dynamic that can sharpen decision-making but also fuels conflict and instability. This competitive environment often leads to rapid rises and equally rapid exits. Policy disagreements also play a role. Several high-profile departures in the first term stemmed from clashes over foreign policy, law enforcement or governance. These disagreements were often amplified by Trump’s preference for direct control and skepticism toward institutional advice.

Bondi’s exit has revived a defining feature of Trump’s leadership. He often elevates individuals he trusts, places them in positions of significant authority, and then removes them when expectations shift or tensions emerge. If Patel or Gabbard are indeed next, it will not mark a departure from precedent but rather a return to form. This instability is not incidental but a product of Trump's leadership style that blends loyalty, performance pressure and personal control.