President Donald Trump should have no doubts about whether Homeland Security adviser Stephen Miller or FBI Director Kash Patel approve of his ongoing efforts to combat crime in Memphis, Tennessee.

Patel and Miller were widely criticized on social media this week for heaping gushing praise on the president during a briefing on Monday. Experts in political science and mental health break down what the moment said about Trump — and why it’s concerning.

During the roundtable discussion, Trump spoke highly of the efforts of the Memphis Safe Task Force — a task force he established last year that utilizes federal, state and local law enforcement personnel to tackle crime in the southern city.

He was joined by other officials, including Patel, Miller, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R), Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who each delivered their fair share of praise to Trump. Hegseth, for his part, thanked Trump for his “historic leadership,” and Lee lauded Trump’s strategy “not just to make Memphis safe, not just to make Tennessee safe, but to make all of America safe again.”

But it was a clip of Miller, Trump and Patel that was posted on social media that left many people stunned.

After celebrating the Memphis task force, Miller said at one point: “What President Trump has done on border security and public safety is a national miracle that will be studied not only for generations, but for centuries to come.”

Trump, who seemed quite pleased by Miller’s praise, turned to Patel and said, “So, Kash, see if you can top that. I don’t know, that is tough, Kash.”

Patel conceded that it would be “tough,” but he gave it a shot anyway. “You know Mr. President as I look around this venue... I’m reminded again why we have the greatest warriors on God’s green Earth — the men and women serving in uniform, the men and women serving and wearing the badge and law enforcement, our police, our sheriffs around the state of Tennessee.”

“But what we didn’t have was you,” he later continued. “We didn’t have a commander in chief who backed the blue, who resourced the blue, who funded the military, who did whatever it takes to safeguard every single life.”

“So while we’re out there fighting for the dreams of our children, just know Mr. President how many millions of dreams like mine are going to be lived thanks to your brilliant leadership,” he said.

Alvin B. Tillery Jr., a professor of political science and African American studies at Northwestern University, thinks the “nature and function” of the praise displayed in the viral clip between Patel, Miller and Trump deserves attention.

“Voters should at least take this seriously and think carefully about what it signals,” he told HuffPost. “The concern isn’t about praise in isolation. Every president gets praised by allies. The issue is the nature and function of the praise.”

Tillery said that when public officials appear to be “competing to flatter the president,” it sparks several concerns. He listed the following points to consider:

“So, the deeper issue here is not style — it’s governance,” Tillery said. “This kind of dynamic can erode the guardrails that make democratic systems resilient.”

“And historically, when you see sustained patterns of this kind of behavior, it’s often a sign that the administration is operating less like a traditional democratic executive and more like a personality-centered political organization,” he continued.

Todd Belt, professor and political management program director at the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University, emphasized that the exchange was a “a bad sign for Trump’s leadership.”

“A president needs honest advisers who will give him bad news and tell him when he is wrong,” he told HuffPost. “If you don’t have honest advisers and even a devil’s advocate to criticize the various ideas the president entertains, the more likely you are to have a catastrophic decision.”

Jacob Neiheisel, associate professor of political science at the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences, said that if the way in which Trump’s advisers and members of his administration act in public is “any reflection of what goes on behind closed doors, then I think that there is certainly cause for worry.”

“I believe that we want decision-makers who are capable of dealing with different perspectives and even, at times, welcome them,” he told HuffPost. “My mind runs to the fact that part of the justification for the existence of executive privilege is that we actually want a president’s advisers to be comfortable bringing different ideas to the fore when difficult decisions have to be made.”

“Although deference aids in accountability, it seems to me that we also want a president’s advisers to feel like they are free to level a degree of dissent,” he continued.

Hallie Kritsas, a licensed mental health counselor and therapist with Thriveworks who specializes in self-esteem, workplace issues and anxiety, said the exchange reflected a “leadership style that is validation seeking and hierarchy driven.”

“This type of overt admiration in group settings can allow for a culture that things like flattery or loyalty are then prioritized over constructive criticism,” she told HuffPost.

And as it relates to Trump egging on Patel to “top” Miller’s praise, Kritsas said the moment revealed “a desire for affirmation and admiration as the other individuals’ praise becomes performative and competitive.”

“From a therapeutic or psychological standpoint, it can point to external validation playing a huge role in self-esteem regulation,” she said.

Tillery said the exchange revealed something we’ve seen consistently: “Donald Trump governs through personalism rather than institutionalism.”

“When Trump says, ‘Kash, see if you can top that,’ he’s effectively turning governance into a loyalty contest,” he said. “That’s not about policy outcomes— it’s about who can demonstrate the greatest degree of allegiance to him personally.”

The exchange reveals that Trump values “visible, performative loyalty” and that he “encourages competition among subordinates.”

“That’s a classic managerial tactic in highly centralized, personality-driven organizations,” Tillery said, adding that Trump “blurs the line between governance and spectacle.”

“Fom a political science perspective, this is what we call a shift toward a personalist executive model,” Tillery explained. “Authority flows through the individual, not the institution. And that has consequences: It can weaken bureaucratic independence, distort decision-making, and elevate loyalty over expertise.”

“Some would say that this is the style of authoritarians, and what Trump is signaling is his desire to remake American democracy in the style of an authoritarian regime,” he added.

Neiheisel emphasized that while there has been a “natural push” in past administrations to “make the president look good and to ‘sell’ the performance of the president to the American people,” the behavior displayed between Patel, Miller and Trump is unusual.

“It certainly feels like Trump’s people are falling all over themselves to praise the boss in these kinds of settings, with Trump seeming to cheer them on,” he said. “Other presidents, at least outwardly, have tried to give the appearance that they welcome dissent and an open exchange of ideas, even if they haven’t always exhibited shades of Lincoln’s famed ‘team of rivals’ approach.”

Tillery said that while presidents throughout history have expected loyalty from their teams, you typically don’t see “cabinet-level or senior officials engaging in overt, almost competitive displays of personal praise for the president in public settings.”

“That’s where this feels abnormal. It departs from the norms of institutional respect and professional distance that have historically characterized executive branch behavior,” he said. “Public interactions are usually structured around policy, governance and competence — not personal adulation.”

“The fealty of this president’s advisers would be shocking if it were any other president,” Belt said. “We know that Donald Trump loves this sort of adulation and submissiveness from those around him, and he believes the flattery — and he loves to retell the nice things people have said of him.”

Belt then referenced previous reports that members of the Trump administration, such as Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, wear shoes gifted to them by Trump.

“But now it has gotten comical, with advisers and cabinet members feeling obligated to wear the unfitting shoes that Trump has purchased for them,” he said. “They don’t even feel confident enough around him to tell him that he bought them the wrong size.”

“This gives an idea of just how cowed they are by Trump and how much they fear him,” he added.

By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.