Fact Check Me: You’re Fired
— And It Was Never About Merit
It looks like Trump is dusting off his favourite catchphrase again.
“You’re fired.”
He’s always liked that one. It plays well. Sounds decisive. Strong. Like something a leader would say.
But if you’re constantly firing people… what does that say about your hiring?
Most managers see firing someone as a failure — not just of the employee, but of themselves. A bad read. A rushed decision. A missed signal. Accountability doesn’t stop at the bottom — it starts at the top.
Not here.
With Trump, accountability is something to be avoided, redirected, reassigned.
He doesn’t build teams based on merit, experience, or competence. He builds them based on loyalty — or at least what he *perceives* as loyalty. He surrounds himself with people who agree, who flatter, who fall in line.
And loyal they are.
Right up until the moment they’re not.
Because with Trump, loyalty only flows one way.
You’re expected to have his back — publicly, aggressively, without hesitation.
But you have to know, somewhere deep down, that he will never have yours.
And when things go wrong — and they always do — someone has to take the fall.
It’s never the leadership.
Never the lack of understanding.
Never the inability to deal with nuance, complexity, or consequences.
It’s the staff.
Again.
And again.
And again.
---
And now people are arguing about *who* he’s firing.
That it’s women.
That it reflects some imbalance of power.
Maybe.
But that’s not the point.
The point is this:
I don’t want to see women anywhere near that administration.
Not because I have a problem with women in power — quite the opposite.
It’s because being part of that system isn’t progress.
It’s regression.
---
Representation only matters when it represents something worth moving toward.
Putting women into positions inside a system that undermines accountability, dismisses expertise, and rewards loyalty over competence isn’t a win for feminism.
It’s a step backward.
Because now those failures don’t just belong to the system — they get attached to the idea of women in leadership.
And that’s dangerous.
---
Real progress isn’t about who gets a seat at the table.
It’s about what that table stands for.
If the table is built on ego, deflection, and blame-shifting, then adding diversity doesn’t fix it.
It just spreads the damage around.
---
Let’s be honest about what the firing actually is.
It’s not performance management.
It’s narrative control.
When something fails — a policy, a decision, a crisis response — firing someone creates the illusion of action. It changes the conversation. It gives the public a villain that isn’t him.
“Look,” it says, “we found the problem.”
But the problem keeps coming back.
Because the system hasn’t changed.
Because the leadership hasn’t changed.
Because the hiring criteria hasn’t changed.
---
So the cycle continues.
Hire someone for loyalty.
Ignore competence.
Watch things unravel.
Fire them publicly.
Repeat.
And every time, we’re supposed to believe this one was the exception.
This one was the mistake.
This one was the problem.
---
But patterns tell the truth people try to avoid.
If every hire becomes a failure,
the failure isn’t the hires.
It’s the person doing the hiring.
---
Firing people might change the channel for a moment.
It might cool things off.
It might satisfy the crowd.
But it doesn’t fix anything.
Because the next person stepping into that role isn’t being chosen to solve the problem.
They’re being chosen to protect the same one.
And we already know how that ends.
“You’re fired.”
Again.