MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow ignited controversy this week after taking sharp aim at former President Donald Trump’s appointment of 22-year-old Thomas Fugate to a key counterterrorism post within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Fugate, a recent college graduate with a resume that includes stints as a landscaper, grocery store clerk, and intern at the Heritage Foundation, is now leading the DHS’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3). The division is tasked with preventing terrorism on U.S. soil.

Maddow took the issue to her primetime show, calling the appointment “absurd” and questioning the national security implications of installing someone so young and untested in such a sensitive position.

“Donald Trump, in his infinite wisdom, has put this man in charge of Homeland Security roles,” Maddow said on The Rachel Maddow Show. “Feast your eyes. He’s 22 years old, one year out of college, with no evident national security experience whatsoever.”

In a moment that quickly circulated online, Maddow displayed a photo of Fugate posing at the White House and quipped, “I feel duty bound to inform you that the left eyebrow is itself registered as a lethal weapon. So underestimate him at your peril, ladies.”

The appointment, first reported by ProPublica, is part of a broader shakeup at DHS under Trump’s influence. Fugate reportedly stepped in to lead CP3 after veteran director Bill Braniff resigned in March amid administration-approved staff cuts to regional counterterrorism hubs. Braniff brought over 20 years of national security experience to the role—experience that many critics argue Fugate lacks entirely.

Congressional Backlash

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) added to the growing backlash by posting an image of Fugate to X (formerly Twitter), calling attention to the alarming mismatch between his background and the responsibilities now under his control.

“As our nation girds for possible Iranian terrorist attacks, this is the person Trump put in charge of terrorism prevention,” Murphy wrote. “22 years old. Recent work experience: landscaping/grocery clerk. Never worked a day in counterterrorism. But he’s a BIG Trump fan. So he got the job.”

Murphy’s post added fuel to a growing fire of skepticism over whether Fugate is qualified to hold any national security responsibilities, particularly at a time when threats from abroad are intensifying.

Fugate’s Rise Through Trumpworld

Fugate’s ascension has been swift. A self-described Trump superfan since his teens, he volunteered for the former president’s 2020 campaign and was later appointed as a “special assistant” within DHS. Supporters within the department say Fugate has “performed well” in his current role and defend his temporary leadership appointment at CP3 as a reward for “work ethic and success.”

A senior DHS official told The Daily Beast that Fugate has been tasked with “additional leadership responsibilities” due to his job performance.

However, critics argue that no amount of work ethic can substitute for real experience in preventing domestic terrorism—especially when the stakes are this high.

DHS Downplays the Role

In response to the backlash, a DHS spokesperson attempted to downplay CP3’s role in the department’s larger counterterrorism strategy.

“The Department of Homeland Security has a robust counterterrorism program, and the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) office plays an insignificant and ineffective role in the broader efforts,” the spokesperson said.

They went on to criticize the office’s operations under the Biden administration, accusing CP3 of having been “weaponized against political opponents” and funneling funds to progressive organizations. The Trump administration, they claimed, is attempting to reform the office to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Symbol of a Larger Shift

For Maddow and many others, Fugate’s appointment is symbolic of a broader issue: the erosion of standards in federal appointments, where political loyalty is rewarded over professional qualifications.

Maddow’s critique, layered with satire and disbelief, underscores the concern that national security roles are being filled not based on merit but based on allegiance to Trumpism.

Whether Fugate’s role continues to grow—or is curtailed amid mounting criticism—remains to be seen. For now, Rachel Maddow’s eyebrow-raising commentary has reignited debate over who gets to make the decisions that shape America’s national security policies—and why.