The MAGA movement’s embrace of “meritocracy,” often wielded against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, reveals a profound and damaging contradiction at the heart of its populist appeal, with serious implications for American democracy. While promising to restore merit-based success to the nation’s capital, its populist governance ironically elevates loyalty above competence, leading to chaotic outcomes and weakened institutions. This is starkly exemplified by the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by Elon Musk, and the controversial appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head Health & Human Services (HHS). In theory, DOGE aimed to cut government waste; in practice, its interventions have wreaked havoc, exemplified by HHS, where RFK Jr.’s leadership, a clear prioritization of political loyalty over medical expertise, has overseen a workforce reduction of over 20,000 employees and the slashing of over $11 billion in critical public health grants. These cuts, made without warning or valid explanation, prompting lawsuits from 23 states, showcase a lack of awareness or clear strategy, directly contradicting the administration’s stated goals of “efficiency” and “meritocracy.” Such incompetence and institutional damage, alongside critical failures like “Signalgate”, where unqualified loyalists compromised national security, and the politically motivated firing of numerous experts, degrade state capacity and public trust. This visible erosion of governmental competence, as scholars like Andrew Arato and Jean L. Cohen suggest, may ultimately create significant political vulnerabilities, and this phenomenon is reflected in historically low early-term presidential approval ratings, the lowest in over 80 years, indicating a brewing political backlash. Ultimately, this highlights how populist politics, even cloaked in the language of fairness, can actively corrode the functioning and stability of democratic governance from within.
Take Lara Trump, daughter-in-law to the President. In 2024, she was endorsed by her father-in-law to be the Co-Chair of the Republican National Convention. In one of her first speeches after getting the position, Lara Trump said this, “Here in the US, we get ahead and succeed by merit and merit alone.” While the irony was apparently lost on her, she did echo a central theme of the MAGA movement championed by Donald Trump: the idea that America must return to a true “meritocracy.” This discourse frequently targets Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, painting them as discriminatory tools of a corrupt elite to undermine competence. However, viewed through the lens of sociological theories of populism, this anti-DEI, pro-meritocracy rhetoric reveals the deeper irony and significant implications for democratic erosion detailed above.
As scholars like Susan Stokes & Dani Rodrik argue, populism often involves defining a “true people” against demonized elites and outsiders who are a threat to their way of life. The intense opposition to DEI initiatives aligns closely with features of right-wing populism. As defined by scholars like Dani Rodrik, this type of populism typically emphasizes an identity cleavage, painting foreigners or minorities as “enemies of the people,” contrasting them with a hypothetically native “true people.” Anti-DEI rhetoric fits this pattern by framing diversity efforts, which often aim to increase representation for racial, ethnic, or other minority groups, as an illegitimate attempt by liberals and elites to harm the nation’s presumed authenticity. This effectively pins minority groups and the concept of diversity itself as threats, thus mobilizing political support along the ethno-nationalist lines characteristic of right-wing populism, rather than focusing on, say, income inequality. This populist strategy portrays the “true people” (often implicitly straight, white men) as victims of these identity-based initiatives, thus diverting attention from systemic inequalities and framing “merit” in an exclusionary way. As Jon Stewart put it, “(the Trump administration) …is trying to make the default setting on competence in America a white guy.”
This populist strategy is corrosive to democracy because it thrives on division, rejects pluralism, and aims to delegitimize political opponents and established institutions, thereby eroding the foundations of mutual tolerance and shared citizenship necessary for democratic life. The irony deepens when examining the actual appointments and governance practices under the banner of this supposed meritocracy. Populist leaders, as noted by Arato & Cohen and previously highlighted, frequently prioritize personal loyalty over expertise or traditional qualifications. Furthermore, Trump and his administration have continued this degradation by firing hundreds of qualified high-ranking officials from a variety of agencies, including a top NASA climate scientist, all actions justified under the banner of efficiency, yet seemingly prioritizing political loyalty over expertise. A stark illustration of this was “Signalgate,” where top security advisors, including the Vice President and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (a former Fox News host), compromised sensitive national security information through staggering incompetence on an unsecure platform. Rather than facing consequences based on merit or lack thereof, the blunder was downplayed, and blame was deflected. Such incidents are not just “epic fuck ups,” as Pete Buttigieg put it; they exemplify how prioritizing loyalty can degrade the government’s ability to function effectively and maintain core functions like national security. This pattern of elevating loyalty over competence is also evident in the hollowing out of expertise via the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the controversial appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS, leading to damaging, unnecessary cuts that directly contradict the administration’s stated goals of “efficiency” and “meritocracy,” resulting in chaotic outcomes.
It is precisely this kind of incompetence and institutional damage resulting from populist governance styles that may ultimately create significant political vulnerabilities. The MAGA movement’s embrace of “meritocracy,” therefore, reveals a deep and damaging contradiction. The rhetoric attacking DEI serves to divide the nation along ethno-nationalist lines, defining an exclusionary “us” against “them”, as populist theory suggests. Simultaneously, governance in this manner ironically elevates loyalty above competence. This practice not only undermines the very idea of merit but also actively contributes to democratic erosion by degrading state capacity and undermining public trust. The resulting political vulnerabilities, reflected in historically low approval ratings and anticipated by scholars like Arato and Cohen, underscore a crucial lesson about how populist politics can corrode democratic governance from within.
First of all: this is a fantastic topic to investigate! In all honesty, I had taken the ironies of MAGA’s embrace of ‘meritocracy’ at face value and had not given much thought as to the underlying motivations influencing and informing MAGA’s contradictory conception of meritocracy. Rhetorical appeals to meritocracy fits so very neatly within a right-wing populist agenda. Trump has been able to use a twisted idea of meritocracy to exploit deep racial cleavages and create a community of political insiders and outsiders in a very efficient manner. Of course, I don’t want to oversell the effectiveness of this strategy: DOGE has been a nightmare and people (including those in Trump’s desired insider community) are catching on and disapproving (yay!). Right wing populism is something that has interested me for a while now and this article has deepened my understanding of it within the American context!