Trump’s New ‘Canceled’ Cabinet Understands the Censorship Era that Silenced America – Poised to Embrace a ‘Government of Defiance’

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen recently articulated what many felt following Donald Trump’s re-election: a sense of relief rather than triumph.

“I hope the past decade feels like a bad dream,” he shared with podcast host Joe Rogan. “I can’t believe we accepted such repression… as well as the waves of anger and cancellation campaigns.”

A significant portion of this was either orchestrated or supported by our government.

One could say various things about Trump’s cabinet appointments. At times, they seem to represent Government by Discontent.

Yet they undeniably symbolize Government by the Canceled: a group acutely aware of the administrative state’s capacity to coerce the public via alliances with Big Tech or by wielding the powers of regulation, audit, or investigation. Many individuals have faced this reality firsthand.

Censored & Harassed

Tulsi Gabbard, named as Trump’s choice to lead the intelligence community, reports that she was briefly placed on a government watch list for her critiques of Kamala Harris.

The Biden White House, alongside the surgeon general, pressured social media platforms to silence Stanford epidemiologist Jay Bhattacharya’s efforts to warn the public that the COVID lockdowns constituted the largest policy error in American history; Trump subsequently appointed Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health.

Moreover, Elon Musk, selected to head a newly established Department of Government Efficiency, knowingly overpaid for Twitter to facilitate a platform for Americans’ free speech.

Upon taking over, Musk immediately released the Twitter Files, which exposed a coordinated effort by the Biden administration to suppress the speech of dissenting Americans. In retaliation, the Biden administration targeted Musk’s businesses with unprecedented levels of regulatory scrutiny.

One admirable trait of Americans: We detest government bullying. Not even our Anglosphere allies exhibit this characteristic. However, over the last ten years, for anyone deviating from progressive orthodoxy, life in America has tightened dramatically.

Our posts faced censorship on social media — or were labeled “misinformation” by “fact-checkers” — as my posts were, for challenging Biden administration policies regarding boys competing in girls’ sports. Many were banned from Twitter for opposing gender ideology or questioning the safety of COVID vaccines.

Andreessen noted to Rogan that he personally knew of 30 tech founders classed as “politically exposed persons” for developing cryptocurrency or AI businesses without the administration’s approval or for opposing leftist dogmas, ultimately resulting in their debanking.

David Horowitz, a conservative critic of radical Islam, lost access to credit cards; Mastercard even restricted Horowitz’s donors from donating to his nonprofit using their cards. Melania and Barron Trump were reportedly told they couldn’t open bank accounts, as shared in the first lady’s recent memoir.

A concerning facet of the last decade is how many Americans began to quietly accept all this.

Two distinctly different Americas emerged: one for those with approved views, and another for the rest.

It has always been the left that determined which views received approval and which faced condemnation. Advocating for a border wall was deemed xenophobic until, unexpectedly, Kamala Harris endorsed it.

To declare that the overwhelming majority of teenage girls who suddenly identified as “transgender” were instead victims of a vast social contagion was once forbidden, until leftist outlets began to acknowledge this reality.

“My body, my choice” was a cherished axiom, unless it referred to COVID vaccinations. Denouncing the 2016 election as “stolen” was permissible; however, asserting that the 2020 election was rigged branded you an enemy of democracy.

Merely uttering a Mandarin Chinese word resembling the N-word was sufficient grounds for suspension from a university teaching post. Yet, when calls for the demise of Jewish or Israeli classmates went unaddressed, blocking their access to libraries or significant areas of campus, or defacing university property — this was tolerated as free speech, rightful protest, or “kids being kids.” Some of us observed this descent into madness with dismay; we recognized it as fundamentally wrong.

Yet, a nation founded on freedom appeared to have lost its fighting spirit.

To illustrate from my own experience: WorldCat, the leading international bibliography organization, categorized my book “Irreversible Damage” (my investigative report on the risks of pediatric gender transition) with tags like “transphobia” and “transphobic.”

My book does not promote transphobia or bigotry. However, due to radical activists who reject any critique of their aggressive medicalization tactics directed at children, libraries globally will ensure adult readers remain unaware of the book’s availability.

I am still on a GLAAD blacklist due to my “thoughtcrime,” even as states, courts, and medical professionals reassess pediatric gender medicine.

Those of us who have been subject to cancel culture worry about what might ensue when AI becomes a mechanism of coercion — interacting directly with our banks, employers, or the admissions offices of our children’s prospective schools; when it becomes unnecessary for people to manipulate the system on behalf of the government, as leftist ideologies become intertwined with technology that we cannot scrutinize or comprehend.

Rogues, Not ‘Loyalists’

In February 2024, my husband queried Google’s AI: Who had “negatively impacted society more, Abigail Shrier or Mao?”

Mao Zedong was accountable for the deaths of tens of millions. The AI’s response was: “It is difficult to assign a definitive judgement on who harmed society more, Abigail Shrier or Mao Zedong. Both have been accused of significantly damaging society.”

We chuckled, but couldn’t shake the concern over what might transpire when AI interfaced directly with the bank assessing our creditworthiness for a future home loan.

Trump’s critics assert, with bitter remarks, that he is merely appointing “Trump loyalists.” However, no honest evaluator could categorize Gabbard (previously a Democrat), COVID skeptic Bhattacharya (who has no previous affiliations with Trump), or Marco Rubio (who criticized Trump) as “Trump loyalists.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. aspired to challenge Trump in the upcoming general election until just a few months back; he certainly isn’t a Trump crony either. Regardless of what you may think about Kennedy and his unconventional views, or Gabbard’s apparent opposition to US military support for Ukraine, both have exhibited a remarkable willingness to challenge their political factions.

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan recently expressed to Free Press editor-in-chief Bari Weiss that if Trump’s advisers were “shrewder or more self-controlled,” they would select appointees whose names would evoke thoughts of “impressive individuals.” The Secretary of Defense, Noonan argued, should embody the wisdom of George C. Marshall, representing someone “substantial and serious,” fit to manage the “highly bureaucratized bureaucracy that is the Department of Defense”; a “serious diplomat” — not a “culture warrior” and Fox News host like Trump’s nominee, Pete Hegseth, a twice-decorated Bronze Star veteran with service experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo.

Bound by the Left

Noonan’s sentiment will resonate particularly with those who have not voiced public opposition to the left’s various beliefs. If you’re fine with adhering to the left’s permissible limits — celebrating Joe Biden’s competency long after the truth of his decline became evident; being charmed by Kamala Harris’s stylized joie de vivre; embracing the mantra “trans women are women” or at least not contradicting it; and stating nothing but that the COVID vaccine is “safe and effective” — then you likely see little risk of debanking.

But for those of us who have openly challenged the left’s dogmas, particularly in public forums, it’s increasingly hard to ignore the Trump Cabinet’s inability to align with the perspectives of established bureaucrats.

Asking “Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?” may make sense in a reality where parents are grappling with indoctrination in schools that teach their children to detest America, Jews, and themselves.

Or where opposing your daughter’s “gender transition” could trigger involvement from Child Protective Services.

Or where families of disabled veterans receive less government support than illegal immigrants.

Or where refusing to take a novel vaccine might limit your access to the theater or jeopardize your job.

In fact, the American military seems to confront a more immediate issue than just the absence of a George C. Marshall figure — it relates to the fact that our airmen have been parading while waving the Pride flag, and our sailors have been “educated” to declare their gender pronouns and adopt “inclusive language.”

Recruitment is alarmingly low across all military branches. Among several contributing factors: American families, who have entrusted generations of children to defend this nation, are hesitant to send them into a military tainted by leftist ideology that criticizes and devalues them, and that removed 8,000 service members for their vaccination status.

Those of us who recall the previous administration’s attempt to establish a “Department of Misinformation” might reasonably dismiss concerns over the bureaucratic experience of Trump’s appointees.

A New Approach

Many of Trump’s appointees are youthful. Some may lack government experience. Some might act in unpredictable — perhaps unacceptably odd — ways. Others may struggle, fail, and eventually be replaced.

The distinction lies in our knowledge of it.

The media will ensure transparency. This group has yet to adapt to the inside-the-Beltway, under-the-table dynamics.

At the administrative pinnacle, Trump has appointed individuals who acutely recognize the government’s propensity to intimidate its citizens. That alone could awaken many Americans from their previous complacency regarding the erosion of our rights and the injustices we’ve been nudged to accept.

Many of our most pressing challenges do not necessarily demand decades of government experience but rather a robust resolve to address them.

Abigail Shrier is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of “Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren’t Growing Up” and “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.” From City Journal.