The Illusion of Transparency: What the Trump Cabinet Meeting Really Reveals
Understanding the Emotional Appeal of Political Performance
I recently found myself in a conversation with someone who described the recent televised Trump cabinet meeting as a remarkable moment of "clarity," "transparency," and "openness." They emphasized how refreshing it was to hear government officials speak so directly and publicly, without what they saw as media distortion or bureaucratic filters. This person doesn’t identify as MAGA, but felt that for once, the public was getting real access to leadership.
That conversation stayed with me. It challenged my assumptions and pushed me to consider what need this perception of clarity and transparency is fulfilling—and why it resonates, especially with those who don't necessarily align with the far right. It's easy, especially on the left or among Democrats, to dismiss these reactions as naïve or misinformed. But to do so is to miss something essential about where public trust has gone and why a performance like this one can feel profoundly authentic to many Americans.
Many others, including political scholars and journalists, saw the meeting very differently. While it was publicly broadcast and unfiltered in form, its substance was tightly controlled. Cabinet members offered near-unanimous praise, attributing sweeping successes across the board to the President. There was little evidence of genuine deliberation or dissent. In fact, the format resembled more of a scripted political showcase than a policy session—a kind of public relations ritual designed to display strength, unity, and loyalty.
To some observers, this brings to mind political theater more common in authoritarian states: centralized credit, public affirmations of leadership, and message control. Of course, the comparison has limits. The U.S. remains a functioning democracy with political opposition, an independent judiciary, and a free press (even though recent events have seen mounting challenges to their independence and effectiveness). But even within that context, the meeting was striking for its lack of plurality and its elevation of spectacle over substance.
So why did it land so positively for some? What emotional or political needs does this narrative serve?
Simplicity and Control: In a complex and often overwhelming world, declarative language and visible leadership offer reassurance.
Distrust of Institutions: Many Americans, across the spectrum, have lost faith in traditional media, political parties, and bureaucracies. A broadcast like this, seemingly direct and unfiltered, feels like a break from scripted spin.
Validation and Belonging: For viewers who feel alienated or unheard, seeing their values and their leader affirmed publicly is powerful.
This creates a kind of "performative transparency" — not transparency in the sense of shared power or policy insight, but in the sense of emotional resonance and visibility. It's not about opening the doors to how decisions are made; it's about letting the public see a version of power that feels accessible, even if it's highly curated.
This is something the left must come to terms with. Meanwhile, many left-leaning publications are fixated on polling data—anxiously tracking Trump’s numbers, expecting or waiting for them to slip. But the continued strength of his support suggests that traditional expectations about what damages a political figure no longer hold. To simply anticipate a drop in popularity overlooks how political resonance is built in this environment.
Those critics need to understand why this style of leadership resonates, why it feels honest even when it’s orchestrated, and what that tells us about the disconnect between political institutions and the people they’re supposed to serve.
Democracy doesn’t just require truth; it requires trust. And right now, the truth isn’t what’s winning hearts and minds. Stories are. Spectacle is. If those concerned with democratic norms don’t engage with that reality—and find compelling, meaningful ways to counter or complement it—they risk becoming irrelevant to the broader conversation.
The cabinet meeting reveals a great deal—not necessarily about governance, but about the state of American political identity. Anyone hoping to understand, influence, or reform that culture needs to grapple with the emotional and symbolic terrain that shapes it.
I did not say these were representive of Corporate board meetings. I said they were representive of corporate boardrooms (where all kinds of meetings are held). Sorry for the nuance. Like you, I have plenty of experience with Corporate boards (Fortune 250 in my case) and of course they are different and, yes, there is plenty of push back in those sessions, which I’ve personally experienced. But at least the White House had a relatively open and transparent Cabinet meeting, which has not been the case very often the past four years. That was my point, and why many Americans may have found it refreshing, regardless of their political stripes.
Like it or not, the comparison is stark to the previous administration’s Cabinet meetings . . . Wait, there weren’t any, except ones led by his wife. What would be the significance of that? While many may consider the broadcast of the meeting performative - of course it was - the fact that such a 2-hour meeting was held was rather remarkable. These types of meetings are held all the time in corporate boardrooms without the transparency.