For the past eight days, most reporting on the presidential election was why Donald Trump won and why Kamala Harris lost. Now, with the initial announcements of cabinet picks, speculation abounds over where the second Trump administration is headed. Of course, not until all major cabinet appointments including the Attorney General, Treasury, Defense, Secretary of Energy Director of National Intelligence and the Trump transition team begin releasing policy statements, can more definitive appraisals of the 47th president’s intent be made. The Trump website states that “Political appointments will be based on competence and loyalty.” One can doubt the competence of some of Trump’s selections. But loyalty is the more significant criterion for his choices so far. A second concern is the seeming absence of strategy and who will do the real thinking for the administration. For the moment, the answer is Trump. And despite having served four years as president, Trump is driven by instinct more than strategic rationality. Last, instead of having a cabinet of rivals to provide the best guidance, Trump prefers a cabinet of loyalists. That means groupthink aka Trump think will dominate decision-making. And that could be dangerous as no one is infallible and dissent is often vital. Trump argued that immigration was the most important factor leading to his election. He has promised to impose tariffs; cut taxes; drill baby drill to make America energy independent; end the war in Ukraine; give Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu free reign in Gaza; and possibly reduce the US role in NATO and with allies. Yet where is the overall strategy? Or will this be an administration whose modus operandi is transactional, conforming to Trump’s business experience? Will this be an administration whose modus operandi is transactional, conforming to Trump’s business experience? Thus, it makes sense that Trump made immigration his first appointee. Tom Homan as border Czar; Stephen Miller his Svengali on immigration as policy guru and Governor Kristi Noem as Secretary for Homeland Security are obvious signs of this priority and the likelihood that what the president-elect says he means about beginning major deportations of criminal aliens after he takes office. In terms of competence and loyalty, the scale is heavily tipped towards the latter. This raises several concerns regarding the intent to undertake massive deportations. At least three questions could become major obstacles to this priority. First, how do you identify, arrest, hold and ultimately deport many tens of thousands? The logistics are not easy. Second, what are the costs, who will pay for this and what will this do to the debt? Third, no doubt there will be substantial legal challenges mounted against these policies as well as the reluctance of many states to receive these deportees. None is trivial. And so far, no specific plans or planning have provided answers to these questions suggesting that this policy could prove to be nightmarish, no matter how much Americans support these policies. As of this writing, Trump appears to have chosen Florida Senator Marco Rubio as his Secretary of State; Florida Representative Mike Waltz as his National Security Advisor; and New York Representative Elise Stefanik as Ambassador to the UN. As a first observation, all three are China Hawks. Whether this means that as immigration is a top domestic priority, China will dominate foreign policy seems very possible. But thus far there is no overarching strategy to drive policy. Rubio has no real qualifications to serve as Secretary of State. Foreign policy is not his long suit and he has no experience in running a large organization. And what his responsibilities will be have not been defined. Will he have some authority? Or will Rubio simply be Trump’s mouthpiece abroad? No matter Walz’s qualifications, with one exception, appointing former military officers as National Security Advisors has never worked well. Lt Col Robert (Bud) McFarlane presided over Iran-Contra which almost sank the Reagan administration. Lt Gen Mike Flynn was a convicted felon. And except for then Lt Gen Colin Powell, much as appointing former officers as Secretary of Defense has been a bad idea, the same reasoning applies to the NSA. Stefanik is not known as a diplomat. Her appointment to the UN is a surprise. But she is a Trump loyalist. Many will argue that the new Trump team, most of whom have not been named, should be given a honeymoon. But if the remainder of appointees are chosen for loyalty and not competence, the US is in trouble. Unfortunately, Donald Trump knows exactly what he is doing. And come 2026, if this proves correct, the Democrats will be back. The writer is a senior advisor at Washington, DC’s Atlantic Council and a published author. He can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.