Traditionally promotions to leadership positions could only be selected from a small pool of men: wealthy, with good pedigree and with some kind of connections to the current top leader(s). Any top leadership positions had to be filled with people from this small pool: the aristocracy. They could be incompetent or corrupt, but that was usually not that important, as long as they had the right parents and kissed the right ass(es), they were the right person for the job.

Meritocracy is when people are selected for promotions based on something other than social standing or wealth. Merit for the job can be: getting a top score on an anonymous uniform exam, having a good track record in similar roles, having a solid plan to solve the problem at hand, … Any positive qualification that is not based on social standing or wealth. And all candidates for the job have to be weighted based on the same qualifiers.

As I understand it, the usa federal administration used to have a meritocratic system until right under the top departemental positions, who were politically appointed (appointed based on loyalty, not merit). But while those top positions were political appointees, they were usually selected from the top meritorious people, so those people were usually qualified for the job.

Trump has politized the promotions much deeper into the administrations, basically doing away with meritocracy and replacing it with a system based on personal loyalty and a willingness to break laws when asked to.

Trump and his administration might say that his appointments are based on merit, but that’s just Trump speaking, his words have no meaning.