I grew up in Pleasant Grove, and I think many politically involved people in the area may be familiar with PG’s reputation as the “no” city. There was a focus on not allowing anything to happen if it wasn’t fixing the roads (or so it often felt). Certainly, I have been disappointed before by actions I wanted to see taken that were ultimately voted “no” to. Living in Provo as a student attending Brigham Young University, and now for several years in Orem, I have had more opportunities to see the effects of different local governments playing out. It’s been great to be able to see some proposals get approved, while others get said “no” to. I don’t agree with a blanket refusal of all proposals as a method to try to get a specific action taken. I don’t agree with the inverse either: insisting on saying “yes” to everything to show support for a certain group or person is also a flawed method.

But today, I am seeing those behaviors on a much larger scale. It is a growing problem in the federal government. We are increasingly seeing pressure to support a party name rather than keep in mind how all issues are, at their core, bipartisan and filled with nuance. Very few of us are as polarized as the media may make it seem, and it is inaccurate to represent us as though we want every choice to follow specific party lines.

During this congressional session, I hope our representatives remember their crucial role in the appointment and confirmation process of executive nominees. So far, Trump’s Cabinet appears to be picked based on how individuals will push to forward his own agenda, rather than their actual qualifications in different fields. On top of that, there has been considerable pressure to “rubber stamp” candidates without regard to the historical process of confirmation and the needs of our incredibly varied American people. But in the face of such pressure, to make rushed decisions and pick sides would be overlooking the needs of American constituents.

There are a number of President Trump’s nominations that I find concerning. Some have already been approved, but among those still up for discussion, I am very worried about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of Health and Human Services and Kash Patel as director of the FBI. Patel has never been a part of the FBI and has limited federal law enforcement experience compared to past directors, making his expertise and qualifications for heading it dubious. Additionally, he has a history as a conspiracy theorist, going so far as to name a list of people he believes to be involved in the “deep state” in his 2023 book, “Government Gangsters.” Kennedy is vocal about his distrust of vaccines and has a history of backing long-debunked falsehoods about them. In recent years, we have already seen outbreaks of diseases that had not been present in the American populace in decades (for example, the measles outbreak in 2019); that is what speaking out against vaccines achieves. A man with a history of not only denying but decrying medical science is not a qualified choice to oversee it. Both of these nominees are people I believe will add to issues of fearmongering and divisiveness rather than work toward building a cohesive — and great — country.

Trump is lining his Cabinet with loyalists over those who are most qualified. Now is the time for our representatives to look beyond party lines and hold strong against political pressure. They must stand up and say, “No.”

Mary Sperry is a BYU grad and works now as a professional artist and dog groomer.