During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump promised Americans:
“I will end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Twenty-four hours.”
He declared himself the one leader strong enough to stop global conflict. A master negotiator. A peacemaker. Someone who would bring wars to a close through sheer willpower and unmatched dealmaking.1
At the same time, Kamala Harris, then the sitting Vice President, was portrayed by Trump and his allies as the very opposite: dangerous, unstable, and fundamentally unqualified. One political ad claimed:
“Kamala Harris will lead us into World War III.”2
She hadn’t made a single military decision. She wasn’t the commander-in-chief. But the warning didn’t need to be grounded in fact; it was grounded in identity and a presumed lack of competency.
Trump ran as the strongman who would stop wars. Yet after taking office, he launched airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, Operation Midnight Hammer. Despite this direct pivot away from his campaign promise, the MAGA movement has largely fallen in line. As Politico reported:3
Some original skeptics “cheered the strikes as a limited action” once Trump announced them.
Even isolationists like Steve Bannon admitted that while they opposed the move, “the broader movement would rally behind Trump.”
Influencers like Charlie Kirk went from vocal warnings to full-throated support: “Now [he] praises Trump’s decisive action.”
A Reddit post put it bluntly:
“I’m frustrated… They will have a clever justification for that too… They will fall in line again.” reddit.com
What this reveals is not just hypocrisy, but an active realignment of loyalty and logic to the leader in power—the standard shifts.
This isn’t just political inconsistency; it’s a textbook example of the Shifting Standards Model in action.
What Is the Shifting Standards Model?
First introduced by psychologists Monica Biernat, Manis, & Nelson (1991), the Shifting Standards Model (SSM) explains how:4
“Members of negatively stereotyped groups may be judged, communicated about, and treated more or less positively than members of contrasting social groups, depending on the judgment or decision at hand.”
In plain terms, the criteria move depending on who is being judged.
Trump was credited in advance for stopping wars he hadn’t yet faced.
Harris was condemned preemptively for wars she hadn’t yet waged.
The standard wasn’t fixed; it shifted based on identity.
The result? A white male leader can make bold claims, break them, and still retain loyalty.
A Black woman can do nothing and still be cast as dangerous.
This dynamic doesn’t stop at politics. It shows up in offices, hiring committees, boardrooms, and performance reviews every single day.
Jennifer Yeko LinkedIn Post: A Mirror to the Workplace Double Standard
In a powerful LinkedIn post, recruiter and career coach Jennifer Yeko laid out exactly how these shifting standards show up in real-world hiring. She wrote:
“I watched as white colleagues told me Black candidates were ‘not qualified’ to do jobs they were clearly overly qualified for. I watched as some Black candidates were hired…but subjected to extensive and long in-person interviews that other candidates weren’t put through. I watched as qualified Black hires were underpaid compared to less qualified white candidates.”5
The pattern is clear:
Black professionals must over-perform just to be seen as “qualified.”
Once hired, they face more scrutiny, longer processes, and lower pay.
Meanwhile, white professionals are often evaluated on potential rather than performance.
It’s not just unfair, it’s mathematically rigged. And like Trump’s campaign rhetoric, it rests on an illusion of objectivity.
The Trump/Harris Standard Is the Workplace Standard
In politics:
Trump promises to fix Ukraine overnight → Strong leadership.
Doesn’t deliver → Well, it’s complicated. He’s still doing his best.
Harris pledged reasoned deliberation related to military action → Dangerous. Not ready. A threat to global stability.
In the workplace:
A white man misses a deadline → He’s overwhelmed, let’s mentor him.
A Black woman misses a deadline → Is she really ready for this level of responsibility?
A white employee speaks up → Bold. Strategic thinker.
A Black employee speaks up → Aggressive. Uncooperative.
The behavior isn’t different. The standard is.
It’s Not About Who’s Qualified. It’s Competency Checking
As I explain in my book Qualified: How Competency Checking and Race Collide at Work, Black professionals are too often required to be exceptional just to be considered average. As Jennifer Yeko saw, competency checking in action means that Black folks face:
Longer interviews,
Must hit more benchmarks,
And receive less benefit of the doubt, especially in moments of uncertainty or failure.
Meanwhile, whiteness continues to carry the cultural benefit of presumed competence.
This is why Harris had to prove she wouldn’t start a war, while Trump never had to prove he could end one.
And why, as Jennifer Yeko saw firsthand, the Black candidate with the advanced degree and relevant experience is questioned while the white candidate with “leadership energy” is hired and promoted.
This entire dynamic is costing us as a country, both in terms of our economy and our safety.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/18/politics/trump-peacemaker-iran-israel-conflict-analysis
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4955539-donald-trump-kamala-harris-world-war-iii/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/21/maga-largely-falls-in-line-on-trumps-iran-strikes-00416450
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123942869000019
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jenniferyeko_i-lost-my-job-because-i-spoke-up-about-racism-activity-7341638780115742720-vPoj?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAD_EOEBcITou-Zsy_ycZZkC8WPTPGW0PkQ
Share this post