Throughout his administration, accusations of favoritism and cronyism have pervaded, casting shadows over the integrity of decision-making processes. Allegations of showing undue preference and fostering close-knit affiliations have been persistent, contributing to an atmosphere of skepticism. The prevalence of such claims prompts scrutiny of the ethical foundations guiding the administration’s actions, raising questions about fairness, transparency, and the equitable distribution of opportunities within the corridors of power. Whether substantiated or perceived, these accusations add complexity to the public’s perception of governance.