When “I Don’t Answer Hypotheticals” Becomes a Dangerous Dodge: How Trump’s Refusal to Plan Has Reached Historic Lows
By David LaGuerre –
The phrase “I don’t answer hypotheticals” became a familiar refrain during Trump’s first administration, echoing through press briefings, congressional hearings, and crisis communications with troubling frequency. But as we witness Trump’s second term unfold in 2025, this dangerous pattern hasn’t just continued – it has reached historic lows of accountability and governance malpractice that should outrage every American who values competent leadership.
When government officials responsible for our health, safety, and national security refuse to engage with hypothetical scenarios, they’re not just dodging uncomfortable questions – they’re abandoning a fundamental responsibility of leadership and playing Russian roulette with American lives.
The Current Administration: Loyalty Over Competence, Talking Points Over Truth
Trump’s 2025 cabinet represents what experts describe as an unprecedented prioritization of personal loyalty over relevant experience. As Business Insider and Reuters reported, Trump’s cabinet choices “were described as valuing personal loyalty over relevant experience” and represent “the wealthiest administration in modern history, with over 13 billionaires chosen to take government positions.”
This isn’t just about résumés – it’s about a fundamental approach to governance that values sycophancy over substance, talking points over truth, and political theater over the serious business of protecting American lives.
The May 2025 Congressional Hearings: A Masterclass in Evasion
The most recent examples of this administration’s contempt for accountability came during May 2025 congressional hearings, where Trump’s cabinet secretaries demonstrated their mastery of deflection and their allegiance to political messaging over honest governance.
When Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, she faced pointed questions about the administration’s authority to freeze congressionally appropriated funding. According to UPI’s reporting, when Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) asked directly whether the administration had the authority to withhold funds appropriated by Congress, Noem offered only bureaucratic doublespeak.
“This administration is not just ignoring the constitutional power of the people’s elected representatives, it is also violating fundamental rights of individuals,” Underwood stated. When she demanded a simple “yes” or “no” answer about whether Noem supports due process for non-citizens, Underwood cut off Noem when she tried to provide a longer answer – a classic example of an official refusing to give straight answers to direct questions.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent demonstrated similar evasiveness during his testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services. When pressed about the nation’s debt ceiling, Bessent offered only metaphorical language, saying the “X-date” was “on the warning track” like “an outfielder running for a fly ball.” This kind of sports analogy might work for cable news, but it’s inadequate for serious congressional oversight of the nation’s finances.
The Dangerous Pattern: From 2017 to 2025
This administration’s aversion to hypothetical planning extends far beyond the pandemic response that devastated the country during Trump’s first term. The pattern has only intensified, with officials now openly dismissing the very concept of forward-thinking governance.
The First Administration’s Failures
During Trump’s first term, we saw devastating examples of what happens when leaders refuse to engage with hypothetical scenarios:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer questions about his conversations with President Trump during a June 2017 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, citing the possibility that the president might later invoke executive privilege. “I am protecting the president’s constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to review it,” Sessions declared, even though no formal executive privilege had been invoked.
When Hurricane Harvey struck Texas in 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency faced legitimate questions about toxic flood sites and environmental hazards. Instead of providing substantive answers, the EPA accused the Associated Press of “yellow journalism” – a response that prioritized political messaging over public health.
The most tragic example came with COVID-19. Dr. Anthony Fauci had warned the incoming Trump administration in January 2017 about the inevitability of a “surprise infectious disease outbreak.” Yet when the pandemic arrived, President Trump claimed, “Nobody knew there’d be a pandemic or an epidemic of this proportion. Nobody’s ever seen anything like this before.”
This wasn’t true. Intelligence agencies, health experts, and pandemic simulations had long predicted such a scenario. The administration simply chose to ignore these warnings while dismantling the very preparedness systems designed to address them.
A Military Perspective on the Critical Need for Planning
As someone who served in the military decades ago, I find this administration’s approach both infuriating and inexcusable. When we deployed, we had a plan and a backup plan, and if necessary, another contingency plan. That’s how we saved lives. That’s how we completed missions. That’s how we brought our people home.
The military doesn’t have the luxury of saying “we don’t deal with hypotheticals” when lives are on the line. Every operation, every deployment, every training exercise is built around asking “what if” and preparing for multiple scenarios. What if the weather turns? What if communications fail? What if the enemy changes tactics? What if supply lines are compromised?
This isn’t academic exercise – it’s life and death. And it works. It saves lives and should be expected from every leader entrusted with American lives, whether they’re wearing a uniform or a suit.
The Trump administration’s cavalier dismissal of hypothetical planning isn’t just poor governance; it’s playing with American lives. When officials refuse to engage with foreseeable problems, they’re gambling with the safety and security of the people they’re sworn to protect. This level of malpractice has reached historic lows that should disgust every American who expects competent leadership from their government.
The Current Cabinet: Inexperience Meets Ideology
The 2025 Trump administration represents what USA Today described as an unprecedented emphasis on loyalty over experience. Unlike his first administration, which included some traditional Republicans with relevant expertise, this cabinet appears designed primarily to reward political loyalty and advance ideological goals rather than ensure competent governance.
Consider the qualifications of key officials:
- Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Education has just one year of experience overseeing public schools
- His nominee to lead the FBI has national security experience but limited criminal justice background
- His Defense Secretary left the National Guard as a midlevel officer and most recently worked as a Fox News host
- His intelligence chief is a midlevel reserve officer with limited intelligence experience
As Donald Kettl, a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, noted: “The overall lack of policy and management experience among Trump’s appointees is unprecedented.”
When Officials Did Make Predictions – But Only to Serve Political Goals
The irony is stark. The same administration that refuses to answer hypotheticals about genuine emergencies has no problem making dire predictions when it serves their political agenda.
In 2019, President Trump declared a national emergency to fund his border wall after Congress refused his funding request. This declaration was justified by warnings of an imminent “crisis” at the southern border, complete with apocalyptic rhetoric about drug dealers, criminals, and threats to national security. The administration had no problem engaging with hypothetical future scenarios when it helped bypass congressional authority.
During his current term, Trump has continued this pattern. According to recent reporting, the administration has created new federal employee categories ostensibly to “enhance accountability,” while simultaneously issuing executive orders that seek to increase presidential control over independent regulatory agencies.
This selective approach to hypothetical planning reveals the administration’s true priorities: they’ll engage with future scenarios when it advances their political goals, but they’ll dodge accountability when asked about their responsibilities to protect American lives.
The Real-World Consequences of Refusing to Plan
The costs of this approach are becoming clear in Trump’s second term. Oversight Democrats have demanded investigations into Trump officials’ “purposeful deletion” of records, suggesting a pattern of avoiding accountability that extends beyond just refusing to answer hypotheticals.
The administration’s approach to independent agencies is particularly troubling. Trump’s February 2025 executive order on independent regulatory agencies seeks to assert unprecedented presidential control over agencies designed to operate with some independence from political pressure. This isn’t just about policy differences – it’s about dismantling the institutional safeguards that protect Americans from political interference in technical regulatory decisions.
The Legitimate Concerns About Hypotheticals – And Why They Don’t Apply Here
Critics might argue that officials have valid reasons to avoid hypothetical questions. Responses can be taken out of context, used against them politically, or create unintended commitments that limit future flexibility.
These concerns have merit in certain contexts. Strategic ambiguity can be valuable in diplomacy. Officials shouldn’t commit to specific actions without full information. And yes, political opponents will weaponize any statement they can.
But these legitimate concerns don’t justify the Trump administration’s blanket refusal to engage with serious planning questions. There’s a vast difference between maintaining strategic flexibility and refusing to prepare for foreseeable emergencies.
Public health officials should be able to discuss pandemic preparedness without revealing operational details. Military leaders can explain general readiness principles without compromising specific tactics. Emergency managers can outline response capabilities without telegraphing vulnerabilities.
The art of leadership lies in balancing transparency with security, preparing for multiple scenarios while maintaining flexibility, and building public confidence without creating unnecessary panic.
What Real Leadership Looks Like
Effective government leaders understand that hypothetical planning isn’t just politically wise – it’s morally essential. When you’re responsible for public safety, you don’t get to punt on the hard questions.
Great leaders ask “what if” constantly. They stress-test their assumptions, prepare for multiple scenarios, and build redundant systems that can handle unexpected shocks. They engage with uncomfortable possibilities because that’s how you prevent them from becoming catastrophic realities.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s basic management. Every successful business, military unit, and emergency response team operates this way. They plan for problems they hope never to face because that’s how you protect the people counting on you.
The Historic Low of Current Governance
What we’re witnessing in 2025 represents a historic low in American governance. As experts have noted, Trump’s picks for oversight roles “will jeopardize independent scrutiny of government operations.” This isn’t just about policy disagreements – it’s about the systematic dismantling of accountability mechanisms that protect American democracy.
The administration’s emphasis on loyalty over competence, combined with their refusal to engage with serious planning questions, creates a perfect storm of incompetence and ideology that puts American lives at risk. When cabinet officials are chosen primarily for their willingness to echo talking points rather than their ability to manage complex agencies, we get governance by soundbite rather than substance.
Moving Forward: Demanding Better
The Trump administration’s dangerous aversion to hypothetical planning should serve as a warning about what happens when leaders prioritize political convenience over public safety. When officials say they “don’t deal with hypotheticals,” they’re telling us they’re not doing their jobs.
We deserve leaders who take planning seriously, who engage with difficult questions, and who prepare for problems before they become crises. We deserve officials who understand that “what if” isn’t a political trap – it’s the foundation of responsible governance.
The stakes are too high, and American lives are too precious, for anything less. The next time a government official tries to dodge accountability by dismissing hypotheticals, we should remember the cost of that approach: empty hospital supplies, overwhelmed emergency systems, and Americans dying while their leaders played political games.
Our democracy depends on leaders who are willing to grapple with hard questions and prepare for difficult scenarios. The current administration’s historic low in governance malpractice shows us exactly what happens when we accept anything less.
What are your thoughts on the importance of government contingency planning? Have you seen examples of good or bad crisis preparation in your community? Share your experiences in the comments below and help spread awareness by sharing this article.
