President-elect Donald Trump’s recent nomination spree has sparked another round of controversy, especially following his announcement over the weekend that he plans to fire his FBI Director, Chris Wray, and replace him with Kash Patel—a staunch ally and loyalist who shares Trump’s view of the bureau as a political tool. Patel, a figure closely tied to Trump’s inner circle, would likely face an uphill battle to secure full support even within his own party. This is hardly a surprise considering that during Trump’s first term, Patel was nominated for various positions but was blocked by key figures like Attorney General Bill Barr, who reportedly said it would happen "over [his] dead body." CIA Director Gina Haspel also raised concerns, even threatening to resign if Patel was placed under her authority.
But what’s really raising alarms about Trump’s proposed appointments is the troubling possibility that he could bypass the standard confirmation process altogether, pushing through nominations with minimal congressional oversight. This move could have far-reaching implications for the future of American governance.
Shortly after his election victory, Trump began calling on congressional leaders to allow him to make what’s known as “recess appointments.” In simple terms, this would mean that if Congress is adjourned for more than ten days, Trump could appoint his nominees without needing Senate confirmation. This would be a highly unprecedented and, some might say, reckless move in the history of U.S. cabinet appointments. The implications of such a shift are hard to overstate.
What’s even more concerning is that both incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have expressed openness to the idea of recess appointments. While this may seem like an efficient way for Trump to push through his choices, it’s important to recognize the dangers it poses to the delicate balance of power in the U.S. government. If Congress were to go down this road, it would significantly weaken a crucial constitutional safeguard, one that has served as a vital check on presidential power for centuries. Furthermore, this could set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for future presidents—perhaps even Democrats—to take similar action.
The Founding Fathers had a very clear vision when they wrote the Constitution, particularly regarding the Senate’s role in providing “advice and consent” on presidential appointments. They intended for the Senate to hold hearings and scrutinize nominees carefully. During Trump’s first term, this process was followed diligently, with Senators meeting with nominees and holding public hearings to evaluate their qualifications, experience, and suitability for office. Recess appointments were not even considered at that time.
In 2017, I, along with many of my Democratic colleagues, voted to confirm a number of Trump’s cabinet nominees. While there were some figures, like Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who garnered near-unanimous support across party lines, there were others whose qualifications were more contentious. Even so, we took the time to meet with them, question their views, and examine their records. For those nominees who demonstrated the right experience and leadership qualities, I voted to confirm them. For those who didn’t, I voted against them.
Now, with Trump’s second term fast approaching, I’m prepared to take a similar approach. I’ll meet with his nominees, listen to their testimony, and evaluate their credentials. If they’re qualified and capable of serving the American people, I’ll support them. If not, I won’t hesitate to oppose them.
One nominee of particular concern is Trump’s pick for Director of National Intelligence, whose past statements have echoed Russian propaganda, a dangerous position considering the role this agency plays in safeguarding national security. Another troubling nominee is someone with anti-science and anti-vaccine views, poised to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Given the ongoing threats to public health, this could be one of the most hazardous appointments since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite these red flags, Republicans will hold a three-seat majority in the Senate come January. This means that even if every Democrat votes against these nominees, they will likely still be confirmed. The very fact that there’s serious talk about bypassing the confirmation process through recess appointments shows just how contentious these picks are—even within Trump’s own party. If these nominees are so deeply flawed that they can’t pass the Senate confirmation process, then the prospect of recess appointments raises serious questions about the integrity of the political system.
Using recess appointments to push through controversial nominees not only mocks the intended function of the Senate but also erodes the bipartisan cooperation that is crucial for passing legislation in a divided Congress. If Republicans choose to go down this path, they should be aware that this move could backfire. Democrats, if given the chance in the future, would likely follow suit, and that’s not a scenario anyone should take lightly.
Democrats are no strangers to the consequences of short-term thinking in the Senate. Back in 2013, we made the ill-fated decision to eliminate the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold for cabinet and judicial appointments. In the years that followed, we regretted that decision when Republicans gained control of the White House and Senate, and we were left with limited leverage to block Trump’s far-right judicial appointments. Republicans had no hesitation in using the new rules to their advantage, and Democrats were powerless to stop them. If Republicans proceed with the recess appointments strategy, it’s only a matter of time before the tables are turned.
It’s important to remember that history often has a way of repeating itself. After George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004, Karl Rove touted the idea of a “permanent Republican majority.” That optimism quickly crumbled, however, when Barack Obama’s landslide victory in 2008 ushered in a new era of Democratic dominance. Fast-forward to Trump’s rise to power, and Republicans quickly found themselves in control of the White House and the Senate. The cyclical nature of American politics means that today’s party in power can quickly find themselves out of favor with the electorate, and the balance of power can shift rapidly.
As such, Republicans may feel confident now, but they should be wary. Four years from now, the political landscape could look very different. If Republicans use the recess appointment route to confirm controversial nominees, they may find themselves facing the same tactics from Democrats in the not-too-distant future.
To my colleagues in the Senate—especially those across the aisle—I urge you to remember our constitutional duty. The “advice and consent” process exists for a reason. If you have the votes to confirm a nominee, then follow the standard process. Hold hearings, ask tough questions, and give nominees the scrutiny they deserve. If they meet the standards necessary to serve the American people, then confirm them. But if they fail to meet those standards, then it’s your responsibility to vote against them.
The confirmation process is not just a formality; it’s a crucial check on presidential power that ensures the individuals entrusted with key government positions are qualified and capable. By sticking to this process, we can safeguard the integrity of our government and the future of our democracy.
Login