When President-elect Donald Trump clinched another four years in the White House, his initial moves were nothing short of bold. Among the first things he demanded was the power to make "recess appointments," a tactic that immediately raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. This move didn't come out of nowhere, though—it’s clear now why Trump sought this power so early in his second term.
One of the most striking aspects of Trump's Cabinet picks, such as Fox News host Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, was the shockwave they sent through Washington. But nothing turned more heads than his nomination of former GOP Representative Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. This choice didn’t just catch the attention of Democrats or the public; it prompted gasps of disbelief from House Republicans huddling behind closed doors. The public reaction was equally perplexing, with some GOP senators expressing bewilderment.
According to ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Trump isn't backing down. He plans to move full steam ahead, positioning these controversial nominations as a critical test of loyalty for the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. If that loyalty falters, Trump is reportedly considering a “nuclear option” to bypass the traditional confirmation process entirely—namely, forcing Congress into recess to avoid the “advise and consent” process in the Senate. This move, which would bypass a major constitutional check, would allow Trump to install his picks without the Senate's confirmation, a power originally granted to the Senate by the U.S. Constitution. This maneuver lines up with Trump’s broader strategy of increasing executive power, something Karl has dubbed his "dictator on Day 1" approach.
Harry Litman, a former U.S. Attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, argues that this kind of move would be “unprecedented.” Legal experts consulted by ABC News were also unable to recall any instance in which the Senate and House adjourned solely to allow a president to make controversial appointments. This raises the stakes: what happens when a president pushes to break the norms?
Newly elected Senate Majority Leader John Thune, set to take charge of the Senate in January, spoke on the issue, suggesting that Republicans would “explore all options.” When asked about moving forward with recess appointments, Thune said he hoped to hold confirmation hearings, even though these could become messy, especially for nominees like Gaetz. Republican Senator Kevin Cramer also weighed in, telling ABC’s Rachel Scott that Gaetz would likely face a tough confirmation battle if the vote were to happen today. The idea of forcing Congress into recess for unilateral appointments adds another layer of intrigue. But what happens if the House and Senate can't agree on a recess?
Here’s where things get even more interesting. Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides a provision allowing a president to adjourn Congress in cases of disagreement. The language reads, in part: “On extraordinary Occasions ... in Case of Disagreement ... with respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.” This power has never been used in modern times, and some experts—like Josh Chafetz, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University—find the prospect of a president using it to bypass Congress entirely unsettling.
If Trump were to go down this path, it would almost certainly provoke legal challenges, potentially landing the issue in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2014, the Court ruled on the scope of recess appointments after President Obama used a short break in congressional business to install officials on the National Labor Relations Board. In the landmark case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Court granted the president power to make appointments during recesses of 10 days or more. However, Justice Anton Scalia’s concurring opinion criticized the decision, arguing that the recess-appointment power should be used sparingly and only for limited purposes, warning it could turn into a "weapon" for future presidents.
The conservative justices on the Court—Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas—agreed with Scalia’s concerns, signaling that any new tactic, like Trump’s proposed recess appointments, could face significant opposition. But Chafetz points out that the current Supreme Court is particularly receptive to expanding executive power. The Court’s recent decisions on immunity and executive authority show that it has been more willing to back the president. Given this trend, Chafetz suggests that Trump might find a more favorable reception if his recess appointment strategy were challenged.
Recess appointments aren’t entirely new territory. Past presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have used them to fill administration positions—more than 100 times between them. However, recess appointments have generally been restricted to lower-level positions, such as deputy roles, rather than top Cabinet spots. Notably, both the Trump and Biden administrations avoided using recess appointments during their terms, even though Trump considered the idea in his first term as frustration mounted with Senate Democrats blocking some of his nominations.
This time around, however, Trump finds himself in a different political situation. The GOP holds a trifecta—control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives—creating a unique dynamic. But even within his own party, Trump faces resistance. “That’s his own party revolting and balking,” Litman notes, highlighting that even with control over all branches of government, Trump’s push for recess appointments is not without challenges. If Trump succeeds in bypassing Congress, it would be a massive consolidation of executive power, something that would only amplify concerns about the balance of power in Washington.
Chafetz describes the strategy as a “dominance play” on Trump’s part. By forcing the Senate to adjourn so that he can install his picks without the confirmation process, Trump would essentially be making a bold statement about his power within the Republican Party. It’s not just about getting his nominees approved—it’s about showing that he can control the Senate’s actions and force them to bow to his will. “He wants to show that he can make the Senate abase itself,” Chafetz said, adding that Trump seeks a dramatic display of fealty from the entire Republican conference. For Trump, it’s about power, authority, and dominance—both in the political arena and within his own party.
This ongoing saga raises fundamental questions about the scope of presidential power and how far one leader can push the boundaries of the Constitution in pursuit of political goals. What’s clear is that Trump’s fight for unchecked executive power is far from over, and it’s likely that this issue will continue to shape his presidency as he attempts to steer the nation through another turbulent term.
As the debate unfolds, expect even more legal battles and political drama to come. One thing is certain: this is one of the most fascinating and consequential power plays in recent political history. The road ahead will be anything but predictable, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether Trump’s recess appointment strategy becomes a defining moment in his second term remains to be seen, but it’s sure to keep Washington on edge for years to come.
Login