CNN’s “The Source with Kaitlin Collins” invited me to share some insight into the strategies being executed around the Trump White House’s cabinet nominees and the deliberations in Congress. One of my main points: the effectiveness of the Trump orbit’s “Outside/In” strategy when it came to reversing the trajectory on Pete Hegseth’s nomination as Secretary of Defense.
Putting aside, for a moment, the high volume of vocal support for/criticism against Hegseth, his nomination track presents advocacy practitioners an important case study in how—and why—closely contested debates or votes in a deeply polarized Washington can be nudged over the goal-line.
The Trump White House and Hegseth’s support network acknowledged the nomination was in trouble and sprung into action, generating an enormous amount of pressure “back home” in key states where senators were still undecided.
This “Outside/In” strategy, focused on engaging the most vocal, active and important public constituencies, creates the leverage that advocacy campaigns need to shift support among key lawmakers.
The first-mover advantage is everything. Had opponents of Hegseth mobilized in a similar manner, moving with speed and volume to create pressure on the White House and key lawmakers to vote “no”, or press for an alternative option, the outcome could have been different.
The lesson from the “Outside/In” advocacy model is straightforward: Political actors respond to political incentives. For advocates aiming to succeed in today’s polarized landscape, the critical question is equally simple: Who will deliver those political incentives to the public first—your campaign or your opposition?
Share this post