Kirstjen Nielsen got a 21-word tweet. Linda McMahon got a 13-minute lovefest.

One day after President Donald Trump ousted his embattled Homeland Security secretary, he and his senior aides have hardly spoken a public word about Nielsen’s 16-month tenure in one of his administration’s most important posts.

Story Continued Below

Just last month, by contrast, Trump showered praise on McMahon, his departing Small Business Administration chief, honoring her with a long and warm appearance before rolling cameras at Mar-a-Lago.

“This is an outstanding woman, who has done an outstanding job,” Trump said, before prompting McMahon to name the highlight of her tenure. (“The highlight has certainly been the fact that you asked me to take on this position,” McMahon cooed.)

For a president who obsesses over the theatrics of his presidency, the sharp contrast between the sendoffs wasn’t accidental. Indeed, Trump has taken pains to control the narrative around his constant high-level staff departures, always seeking — with mixed results — to dictate exits on his own terms. Rarely does Trump allow a disgruntled senior official to jump before offering a public push first — or an after-the-fact kick.

There are rare cases of amicable partings — like those for McMahon and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley — and Trump, who has shown annoyance at reports of constant infighting within his administration, milks them for feel-good moments.

“He’s always thinking optics. Everything, whether it’s policy or a staff move, he’s always thinking about it in terms of PR,” said former White House staffer Cliff Sims, who wrote a tell-all book about the administration, earning Trump’s ire. “And one of his favorite talking points is, ‘we’re going to hire the best and the brightest, everybody wants to work for me,’ and so any implication or public perception that someone abandoned him, someone left him, I think in his mind, undercuts that premise.”

Most of the time, however, the endings are not happy. And Trump often blindsides his own aides, announcing major departures on his own timeline.

Last December, before leaving the White House for the the Army-Navy football game, Trump made a point to pause in front of reporters and announce the upcoming ouster of then-White House chief of staff John Kelly. That upended his aides’ plans for a formal rollout of news about Kelly two days later. In 2017, the president tweeted out the news that his previous chief of staff, Reince Priebus, was departing. The timing surprised even Priebus, who had submitted his resignation the day before and was not expecting to see his plans blasted out via Twitter so quickly. Trump also surprised his senior White House aides when he fired national security adviser H.R. McMaster via tweet.

In some cases, Trump and his aides have sought to rewrite history in their explanation of a top official’s departure. In December, Defense Secretary James Mattis wrote and circulated a resignation letter ahead of a visit to the White House in which he protested Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. But Trump later claimed to have “essentially” fired Mattis.

And when Trump’s Syria decision prompted the resignation in protest of Brett McGurk, his top official overseeing the coalition to fight the Islamic State, the president lashed out publicly, claiming in a tweet that McGurk, “who I do not know,” had already been planning to depart several weeks later and was simply being a “[g]randstander.”

“He jumps everyone who wants to leave so that it makes it looks like the president is the one doing the rejecting, not the other way around,” said a person close to the White House, adding, “It makes him look stronger. He wants to be the one organizing the pieces on the chess board.

“[H]e’s definitely not the type to wait around and make anyone look good, that’s for sure,” the person continued.

Indeed, 15 years after rocketing to nationwide fame with the hit series The Apprentice, Trump still likes to be known as the one doing the firing — even if the truth is often much more murky.

In one unusual case, the White House even claimed that then-Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin resigned, even though Shulkin insisted he was fired, because it gave the president more legal latitude to choose the successor for the job.

In some extreme cases, there is no ambiguity about an official’s departure. One of them was the abrupt sacking of Anthony Scaramucci, who spent a few days as White House communications director in July 2017 before being fired over a too-candid interview with a New Yorker reporter that he insisted was off the record.

“I would have preferred not to have been ejected like an Austin Powers villain,” Scaramucci said. “I didn’t think I deserved that because I worked hard on the campaign and I had raised a lot of money for the candidate.”

But he added, “I did something fireable so you never once heard me say, ‘I didn’t deserve to be fired.’ I did something fireable. I shouldn’t have had the conversation with that reporter.” Scaramucci also noted that he believes that Trump and the White House are doing a better job of managing the departures now than before.

Nielsen’s departure was not quite so black-and-white. Initial reports said she planned to resign during a Sunday meeting with the president — “I have determined that it is the right time for me to step aside,” Nielsen wrote in her resignation letter to Trump — though some in the White House said Trump asked for her resignation.

But despite months of sometimes-angry clashes with Nielsen, Trump has so far given her a relatively gentle sendoff.

“Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen will be leaving her position, and I would like to thank her for her service,” Trump said in a terse tweet Sunday night, before announcing her interim replacement at the department. The president did not have any public events on Monday, so it’s possible he will unleash his frustration later in the week.

Still, Trump’s cold treatment towards so many other departed officials has made it harder for him to attract qualified new candidates, some warn.

“I have no problem when a president wants to change a member of their Cabinet, I just want to make sure it’s done in a way that people will continue to want to come in and serve,” Shulkin told POLITICO in an interview.

“When people ask me if they should consider serving, I absolutely believe it’s essential that people want to do that,” Shulkin said. “But I also understand why people are asking me that question. People watch what happens and the way that people are treated and they ask, ‘Is this something that I want to put myself and my family through?’”

Several people who have worked for Trump complained that the president demands loyalty — and rarely returns it.

But multiple current and former White House officials insisted to POLITICO that the president tries to give people he likes smooth departures.

“People who have truly done good work or maintained a good relationship in either their department or agency and the White House, it’s handled in a gracious fashion,” said Heather Nauert, who withdraw from consideration to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in February and has maintained a good relationship with Trump. “When the president sends out a tweet about someone on their behalf and says something nice, then that’s the sign that everything’s kosher between the White House and that person.”

Haley, whom Nauert was slated to replace at the United Nations, was granted one of the most drama-free departures of any senior Trump administration official. After Haley privately told Trump of her intention to depart, they mutually agreed to announce the news in the Oval Office, where the president repeatedly praised his diplomat, while making sure to claim some credit for himself.

“She’s done a fantastic job, and we have done a fantastic job together,” Trump said.

A current White House official said the president tries to “make it look like we thought about this together and we both decided it’s time for you to go, otherwise it’s embarrassing for him, like he picked wrong or had a stupid Cabinet.”

Eliana Johnson contributed to this story.

Sam Lieberman, former chairman of the Nevada Democratic Party, has a framed picture in his office of Joe Biden. In the photo, taken sometime during Biden’s short-lived 2008 presidential campaign, Biden is standing behind Lieberman and kissing his scalp.

It’s the kind of physical touching — or violation of personal boundaries — that has gotten the former vice president in trouble with a variety of women and clouded his prospective entry into the presidential race. Yet it’s also a reminder of Biden’s long history of toiling in the early presidential state vineyards, and his easy familiarity with party activists and officials — many of whom are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Story Continued Below

“Everybody knows Joe Biden. None of this is anything new,” Lieberman said, referring to various accounts of unwanted touching. “I don’t think it’s sexual harassment. I don’t think it’s anything except for who he is and who he’s been for years.”

Interviews with more than a dozen operatives, party leaders and county chairs in the four early presidential states raised similar sentiments. Among these gatekeepers — many of whom have met Biden during his previous runs for president or in his capacity as Barack Obama’s running mate — the prevailing view is that the current controversy isn’t enough to seriously damage his candidacy should he choose to run.

“The people in the early states have known Joe Biden for a long time, have seen him time and again, and we feel a great affection for him,” said Carol Fowler, a prominent South Carolina Democrat who along with her husband, Don, led the state party and hosted countless fundraisers over the years.

Fowler dug through her phone and found a couple of pictures of Biden and her.

“And there [Biden] was giving me a big squeeze around the shoulders,” she said, referring to one of the photos.

Fowler thought back to how she felt at the time, and said, “I was being flattered that the vice president knew who I was, came up and gave me a big squeeze.”

The generational divide that surfaces in reactions to Biden’s behavior isn’t adequately captured in discussions with state and local party officials, who tend to be older and more closely tied to the establishment. Still, their overwhelming consensus view is that Biden’s behavior won’t have a material effect on his early state reception. One reason is that few view it as crossing the line into explicit sexual harassment. Another is that none thought the allegations rose to the level of those made against Donald Trump.

“He has been acting the exact same way, as far as I know, for 30 years. It’s not anything that’s new or surprising for people who’ve been around him,” said longtime Iowa Democratic strategist Jeff Link. “There’s a 20-person primary that’s forming. There are people who are gung-ho for other candidates and I think they’re going to keep trying to make this an issue and stir the pot going forward. I don’t think that’s going to take hold.”

For more than a week, Biden has been dealing with the blowback that began when Lucy Flores, a former Nevada state legislator, wrote that the former vice president had invaded her personal space during a political event, smelling her hair and kissing the back of her head. Since then, several other women have shared stories of their own unwanted interactions.

The allegations weren’t unexpected: Biden began laying the outline of his defense before Flores went public, referring to himself in March as a “tactile politician” prone to doling out hugs.

After initially responding to the controversy with a series of written statements, Biden on Wednesday pledged in a video to “be more mindful and respectful of people’s personal space” — though he stopped short of apologizing the past interactions. The two-minute, direct-to-camera video posted to Twitter currently has more than 6 million views.

Biden’s video response drew mixed reviews. While some gave him credit for taking responsibility, Flores and others questioned his sincerity since he failed to apologize for his behavior. He then joked about his affectionate, touchy style two days later during a speech to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Working to Biden’s advantage in the early states is the fact that many voters have seen him up close or even hosted him in their homes during his dozens of visits to their states over the years. During the 2018 midterm cycle, a decade after his last presidential bid, Biden visited 24 states including stumping for candidates in Nevada, South Carolina and Iowa.

Linda Nelson, former chair of the Pottawatomie County Democrats in Iowa, said she has fond thoughts of Biden, pointing to what she described as his compassionate gesture after the son-in-law of close family friends passed away.

“Joe has reached out to them, especially the bride who lost her husband. I just think it’s his way, ever since he was a young senator and had a horrific loss of daughter and wife, so anytime somebody tells him his personal stories he reaches out,” Nelson said.

She said Biden continued to check in from time to time with different members of the family to offer comfort. “He doesn’t just run into a crowd and hug everyone, I think it’s just people who tell him their stories.”

Jim Mowrer, who ran veterans outreach in Iowa during Biden’s 2008 presidential run, said Biden’s personal relationships will go a long way toward insulating him from criticism in Iowa.

“When I attempted to ask ‘what do you think about this’ without influencing them in any way, shape or form, almost universally people say it’s overblown,” Mowrer said of his conversations with other Iowa Democrats. “A lot of people who’ve been involved for awhile have met Joe Biden at one time or another, including in ‘08 when he was running. I think that makes a lot of difference because people understand who he is when they’ve met him in person.”

None of that is to say Biden gets a free pass — few of those interviewed for this story are willing to entirely dismiss the impact of the recent accounts. Nelson said she was troubled that Biden joked about the ordeal on Friday during his address to union workers.

“I found that distasteful,” said Judy Reardon, a longtime Democratic operative in New Hampshire, who described Biden’s behavior as not disqualifying, but also “not nothing.”

“If he wants to take the tack that it’s a big joke, I wouldn’t recommend that,” she said. “But that is one way to do it. But you can’t do both: one day a serious interview, then the next day making jokes about it. Then it seems like you’re insincere.”

Other early state activists cautioned that Biden’s future behavior will be under a microscope. If he moves forward with a campaign, the pressure will be on for the 76-year-old to adapt to new social norms and to diversify his staff to add more women and people of color. His team’s lagging responses and the former vice president’s subsequent apology-less video, they said, raised questions as to whether Biden and his staff were too slow to recognize the changing political environment in the #MeToo era.

The other early state danger, some said, is that he’s waiting too long to get into the race. A slew of Democrats in the historically diverse 2020 field have already barnstormed the early states, generating excitement and momentum while developing some early allegiances and even scooping up top flight staffers. Biden, by contrast, has been dealing with news cycle after brutal news cycle reminding that he’s stylistically from another era.

Kathleen Sullivan, a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, said while Biden might be able to wait longer than most because of his name ID, she’s also seen signs of an enthusiasm shift away from others who stood on the sidelines a little too long, among them former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke. O’Rourke, in her mind, would have better captured momentum with an earlier visit to the first-in-the-nation primary state.

“His first trip, it was good. But if he had come earlier it would have been a bigger thing. There was a point where there was a lot of buzz, but then he was busy doing his road trip. By the time he got here, I think that gave an opening to Mayor Buttigieg. I think [Buttigieg] pulled some people away,” Sullivan said. “While I think Joe Biden is a little different, I do think it would be good for him to get here by, say April, early May … We’ve got maybe 20 people running and there’s only so many voters to go around. There’s some really good candidates, you walk away and say: ‘Wow. That was really good.’ You do start to develop favorites, you do start ordering them in your mind.”

Democrats need to get serious about foreign policy in 2020 or risk losing to Donald Trump.

That’s the blunt warning from Chris Murphy, a second-term senator with increasing sway on the Foreign Relations Committee who just maneuvered a bipartisan condemnation of Trump’s foreign policy through Congress.

Story Continued Below

And Murphy, who’s making his case to several White House hopefuls, is increasingly worried his party is too focused on domestic policy and needs to train its fire on Trump’s haphazard national security record.

“This is not likely to be a foreign policy election. But it will be a close election in which a big national security gap between Democrats and Republicans could cost us the election,” the Connecticut Democrat said in an interview.

Democrats may ridicule the notion of Trump as statesman, but he‘s already bragging about winding down the country’s “endless wars,” improving relations with North Korea and eradicating the terrorists of the Islamic State.

“The quickest way to pierce [Trump’s] image of toughness is to show what a laughingstock America has become across the world,” Murphy added. “Talking about national security and foreign policy is a perfect mechanism to go strike at the heart of Trump’s brand, on a topic that he can’t handle.”

The president was indeed laughed at when he spoke to the United Nations. And he’s frequently spooked allies and his own generals — be it with his surprise Syria pullout and threats to blow up NATO to his repeated attacks on the European Union and withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and Paris climate agreement.

Trump’s erratic policy shifts appear to be taking a toll with the public. While Republicans still maintain an edge over Democrats when it comes to national security and foreign policy, recent polls show that the gap is narrowing to some of its smallest margins in the Trump era.

And so Murphy sees an opportunity for the party — and is pushing his half-dozen colleagues pursuing the White House to make America’s standing in the world more of a campaign issue.

He teamed up with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to pass legislation ending the U.S. presence in Yemen’s civil war, in a startling bipartisan rebuke of Trump’s foreign policy.

He’s talked extensively with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) about Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, summing up his time with the Intelligence Committee member: “More time talking to Kamala than anybody else.”

And Murphy strategizes about international politics often with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a close friend and presidential candidate who shares his dovish world view.

Some Democratic contenders are beginning to embrace Murphy’s message.

“He has done things that have made the country less safe, that have weakened our alliances, that have been violating the Constitution,” Booker said of Trump in an interview. “This is something that should be a robust part of the conversation in 2020. I think you will hear me talking a lot.”

“He’s certainly vulnerable. Foreign policy by tweet has not made the United States either safer or more prosperous in the world,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who gave a foreign policy address last November and has sought to distinguish herself by introducing legislation barring the U.S. from using nuclear weapons first. “I hope he’s called to account for that in 2020.”

Still, 2020 candidates also acknowledge that foreign policy is unlikely to dominate the campaign in the primary.

“Is it what you get asked right away when farmer prices are so high? No,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). “But I have tried my best to bring it up when I can and I will be doing much more on it.”

One reason Democrats may not be talking foreign policy as frequently is that they are more unified as a party on the issues than Republicans.

During the 2016 GOP primary campaign, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) emphasized his hawkish profile while Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) advanced a non-interventionist stance that was essentially absent from the GOP a decade ago.

Trump himself vowed to “bomb the shit out of” ISIS even as he distanced himself from George W. Bush’s foreign adventures and attacked the Iraq War.

Trump has largely followed through on his foreign policy campaign promises — at times pleasing libertarian-leaning lawmakers like Paul and infuriating hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

But since Trump has taken over the GOP, both wings of the party say the president is heading into the election in a strong position on the world stage.

Rubio cited Trump’s success in beating back ISIS and his hard-line moves reversing Barack Obama’s Cuba and Iran policies, and argued that Trump has been “tougher” than past presidents on China. “He’s got a very good story to tell,” Rubio said.

Paul dismissed Democrats’ charges of a “chaotic foreign policy,” adding, Trump “is different than a lot of Republicans on wanting to remove troops from Syria, wanting to remove troops from Afghanistan. I think it is good electorally.”

The Trump campaign said Murphy’s efforts would be fruitless, citing the president’s record on foreign policy.

“He defeated the ISIS caliphate, brought North Korea to negotiating table, placed some of the toughest sanctions on rogue nations, and has NATO on the right path,” said Erin Perrine, a spokeswoman for Trump’s re-election campaign. “Democrats can continue to try and spread their pathetic delusions but the American people see right through it.”

Still, Trump has taken heat in recent weeks from both parties, in large part due to Murphy.

Bipartisan majorities in both chambers voted to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen’s civil war, a quest Murphy began years ago with little support from his own caucus, but which gained steam after Trump’s subdued response to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Trump will have to issue the second veto of his presidency to block the measure.

Murphy declined to join the six Senate Democrats vying for the White House; instead, he’s aiming to carve out a progressive foreign policy mantle for himself that he hopes can be a model for the party in future elections. He spent the last congressional recess in the United Kingdom during the failed Brexit negotiations, where he said foreign leaders are largely ignoring the president.

“They really don’t care what Trump thinks,” Murphy said.

One of the youngest members of the Senate, the 45-year old Murphy could eventually chair the Foreign Relations panel if he stays in the Senate for the long haul.

And while he’s most interested in squeezing Republicans, he’s not averse to putting his own colleagues on the spot.

In 2018, as he forced votes on Yemen using obscure congressional rules, he said some of his vulnerable colleagues complained aloud about voting “on a civil war on the other side of the planet that nobody wanted to focus on.” To this day, Murphy said, it’s exceedingly rare for Democrats to even discuss foreign-policy and national-security issues during their weekly caucus lunches.

Democratic operatives say that the party is likely to eventually attack Trump’s foreign policy, with a focus on Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran and the Paris climate agreement. Murphy specifically cited Trump’s sudden announcement of a rapid U.S. pullout from Syria, his posture toward Saudi Arabia after the Khashoggi killing, and his reversal of new sanctions against North Korea — all of which have drawn stern responses from GOP lawmakers.

But Murphy said Democrats — including his former colleagues in the House — should do more to force votes that pit GOP lawmakers against Trump and expose the bipartisan opposition to his agenda.

“Every single one of these big foreign policy missteps is an opportunity for Democrats to trumpet. And we don’t seem to be doing that,” Murphy said. “We don’t agree with the president, but we don’t really make [Republicans] step out onto the record.”