James Freedman (Jim.freedman@gmail.com) is a leadership consultant working in the global health-care sector.
BRATTLEBORO-In a healthy democratic system, senior officials rise to prominence because they combine expertise, judgment, and a commitment to constitutional norms with the ability to communicate effectively.
What we are seeing with Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and Kristi Noem is something different: an apparent rush to the spotlight that often outpaces substance, judgment, and accountability. Instead of grounding their public roles in institutional responsibility, these leaders regularly prioritize media visibility - even when doing so raises legal, ethical, or factual concerns.
What should worry all Americans is not merely that these figures show up at photo ops, press briefings, and social media moments. They also do so while undermining standards and expectations associated with their offices.
That trend points to deeper deficits in character and professional discipline, and it has real consequences for governance and public trust.
* * *
Kash Patel, the FBI director under Trump, has repeatedly demonstrated behavior that prioritizes media impact over diplomatic and legal discretion.
Take the situation last November involving the arrest of alleged drug trafficker Ryan Wedding in Mexico. The operation - which involved FBI and Mexican cooperation - was meant to be kept confidential because U.S. law enforcement has no jurisdiction to operate independently on Mexican soil.
Yet Patel publicly praised the operation almost immediately on social media in a way that contradicted diplomatic promises and forced Mexican leaders into a delicate position. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly downplayed U.S. involvement, underscoring the tension Patel's online announcement introduced into bilateral relations.
This wasn't merely about a misstep in messaging. It reflects a broader pattern in which statements are released without regard to facts, diplomatic protocol, or legal boundaries - a leadership style that elevates "winning the narrative" over preserving necessary confidentiality and respecting international sovereignty.
In law enforcement and diplomacy, discretion is a core competency. When that is replaced with self-promoting pronouncements, the long-term costs accrue to institutional credibility and international cooperation.
* * *
Tulsi Gabbard's tenure as director of national intelligence has similarly raised questions about judgment and suitability for the role - not because of partisan disagreement, but because of her conduct relative to the core responsibilities of intelligence leadership.
Gabbard's presence during January's FBI raid on the Fulton County, Georgia election office to secure 2020 election ballots is just one example that drew bipartisan concern. Intelligence agencies and their leaders do not have a mandate to direct, oversee, or participate in domestic local criminal investigations - that authority lies with law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. Yet Gabbard was photographed at the scene, raising questions about why she was there and what role she believed she was playing.
The issue is not merely optics. It goes to institutional boundaries. The DNI's remit is foreign intelligence: coordinating among agencies to assess threats from abroad and to inform the president and policymakers of these threats.
Domestic elections and criminal procedures are law enforcement jurisdictions. For a DNI to insert herself into those spaces without a clear legal basis suggests either a misunderstanding of the office or a willingness to blur constitutional boundaries in service of political ends.
Rank-and-file career professionals in the intelligence community have voiced concern that such behavior undermines their mission and dilutes public confidence at a time when adversaries are actively exploiting information vulnerabilities.
* * *
Kristi Noem, as secretary of homeland security, has faced intense scrutiny over her administration's handling of federal immigration enforcement confrontations - most notably, the Jan. 24 shooting of Minneapolis resident Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents during a protest.
In the aftermath of that incident, Noem offered public statements about the events that were almost immediately contradicted by bystander video, eyewitness accounts, and official investigations.
She initially claimed that Pretti had brandished a weapon, but multiple independent sources - including The Guardian, Reuters, and BBC - noted that videos clearly showed Pretti holding a phone when he was pinned to the ground and as he was shot at close range.
The Department of Justice has now opened a civil rights investigation into the shooting, prompted in part by inconsistencies in the administration's early narrative.
The pattern here is telling: Noem took a confident, public stance on an unfolding story before the facts were fully established or verified, contributing to public confusion and distrust.
Leadership demands patience and restraint when information is incomplete - especially in matters involving the use of lethal force by government agents.
* * *
Across all three figures, we see a recurring set of deficits. Their senior national security roles are defined by legal mandates and professional norms. Ignoring those boundaries for political exposure risks eroding the institutions themselves.
Leaders who prioritize immediate messaging over careful fact gathering contribute to misinformation and polarization - undermining the very public trust their offices depend on.
Effective officials need to be judged not on their social media reach but on their ability to uphold standards, admit errors, and correct course. Reticence and reflection are strengths - not weaknesses.
Unfortunately, none of these standards seem to be used even in passing by the current administration. Such behavior is always reflective of leadership.
* * *
The rise of Gabbard, Patel, and Noem into high-profile posts reflects a broader shift in public affairs: Performance politics, where news cycles outweigh nuance and visibility overrides substance.
But governance isn't a popularity contest; it's a set of responsibilities entrusted by the Constitution and the American people. When senior officials chase headlines at the expense of judgment, the costs are not abstract. They erode diplomatic relationships, weaken institutional legitimacy, and escalate volatile situations unnecessarily.
Americans deserve leaders whose visibility is rooted in competence, not ambition; whose actions are grounded in fact, not image; and whose commitment is to the Constitution, institutions and the American people, not just to media moments.
That is what is truly lacking in the substance and character of these officials - and what must be restored for the health and sustainability of our democracy.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.