Litigators seeking to change the law often talk about the “perfect test case.” They want an undisputed, often extreme set of facts to help clarify or test the limits of a legal principle. Test cases allow parties to avoid fighting over facts and focus on arguing about pure legal doctrine, with the outcome having impacts that go far beyond that specific case.
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) probably doesn’t know any of this, because he has barely practiced law. But Gaetz was the perfect test case for President-elect Donald Trump to clarify and test the limits of the two issues most important to him: power and loyalty. In this sense, Gaetz’s doomed nomination for U.S. attorney general was never about his suitability for the role. As with most things Trump, it was 100% about Donald Trump.
Gaetz was the perfect test case, because no one disputed the facts. He was, without question, the least qualified nominee for attorney general in American history. He spent two unremarkable years practicing for a small civil litigation firm before launching a political career that would prove to be long on performance art but short on actual lawmaking. To serve effectively as the top law enforcement official in the country, U.S. attorneys general normally have decades of high-profile practice experience, often in criminal prosecution, and at least some experience running legal agencies, governmental or otherwise. Gaetz was so patently unqualified for the job that not even Trump’s most loyal supporters in Congress ever really claimed otherwise.
Gaetz was also uniquely unqualified for the nation’s “top cop” role, because he was one of Congress’ most notorious alleged criminals. He has been the subject of federal criminal sex trafficking investigations. Multiple witnesses have accused him of having sex with an underage girl, as has the girl herself. (Gaetz has denied the allegations.) Federal investigators say they have tied him to thousands of dollars’ worth of payments for sex, allegedly pointing to a trail of Venmo transactions and other documentary evidence (which Gaetz also disputes). Allegations of illegal drug use abound, and both the Justice Department and the House of Representatives have investigated Gaetz for criminal bribery and corruption. His own alleged braggadocio on the House floor about orgies fueled by crushed Viagra in Red Bull raised, if not criminal, then at least serious temperament questions about his suitability. (Gaetz has denied that he said such things.)
Perhaps it’s not surprising, then, that ― with apologies to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) ― no one on Capitol Hill was more unpopular or more unlikable than one Matthew L. Gaetz II.
Why would Trump nominate someone so unqualified, unsuitable and unlikable? Precisely because he is so unqualified, unsuitable and unlikable. In Gaetz, Trump had his own perfect test case to assess the loyalty of Republicans in Congress and the limits of his own power. By attempting to ram through an indisputably awful choice, Trump had the chance to see just how much he can get away with, and who is going to roll over to let him get away with it.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) passed this loyalty litmus test when he instructed the House Ethics panel to bury what is widely speculated to be a damning report about Gaetz after Gaetz resigned from Congress. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) failed the test when she claimed Gaetz was not a “serious nomination.” Thus, the first major test of Trump’s long-desired unchecked absolute power did not involve Democrats, judges or civil rights lawyers. Rather, it was aimed at members of his own party. If Trump could get Republicans, who hold majorities in the Senate and House, to fall in line with this abominably reckless pick, he would know he is virtually unstoppable.
This nomination was about loyalty in another important way: rewarding loyalty. The timing of Gaetz’s nomination was no coincidence. Trump named him just days before the House Ethics report was set to be released, a report thought to carry serious reputational and legal risks for the Florida politician. By nominating Gaetz early and giving him a plausible reason to resign from the House immediately ― a curious move given his unlikely path to confirmation ― Trump ensured the report would likely never be released. Why? As a reward to Gaetz, who has been one of Trump’s earliest, most vocal and most consistent supporters. Gaetz was the first sitting member of Congress to publicly back Trump’s election bid in 2016; he forcefully backed the effort to overturn the 2020 election; and he has unequivocally defended Trump hundreds of times on Fox News.
So what do we make of Gaetz’s withdrawal? Is it a loss for Trump at the hands of the adults in the Senate disinclined to confirm such a childish pick? Far from it. By floating Gaetz as an early trial balloon, Trump has gotten some clarity about who is with him no matter what, and who will hedge when his truly reckless impulses take over. He now has better information about whom to lean on when he wants a blank check for mass deportations and political cover for using the military against American citizens, and whom to threaten with MAGA-backed primary challenges in the 2026 midterms.
Since Gaetz was such an abysmal pick to head the Justice Department, Trump now seems positively restrained in nominating former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to the post, despite Bondi’s own history of election denial and her promises to weaponize the DOJ to seek personal retribution for Trump. And Gaetz’s early, unilateral withdrawal serves as just one more loyal favor to Trump by preventing a messy and uncertain confirmation fight in the coming weeks. Whether that favor will be rewarded with a presidential pardon, if and when prosecutors finally do come after Gaetz, remains to be seen.
Shawn Fields is a professor of law at California Western School of Law in San Diego.