Trump’s Planned Recess Appointments: A Dangerous Precedent

President-elect Trump’s recent actions continue a pattern, as he announced plans to replace a cabinet official with a loyalist who shares his views on using the agency for political purposes. This appointee may face challenges securing support from within their own party; past attempts to place this individual in various roles met with strong resistance from key figures like former Attorney General Bill Barr and former CIA Director Gina Haspel.

However, the most troubling aspect of Trump’s nominations is the potential circumvention of necessary congressional oversight.

Shortly after his election, Trump indicated his intention to utilize the recess appointment process, allowing him to bypass Senate confirmation if Congress adjourns for more than 10 days. This unprecedented move would pose a significant threat to established norms.

Regrettably, both incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson have expressed openness to this idea. This approach would undermine a crucial constitutional check and could lead to retaliatory recess appointments by Democrats in the future.

The Framers intended the Senate’s “advice and consent” role to apply to cabinet members, requiring confirmation. Recess appointments weren’t even considered during Trump’s first term; the Senate conducted thorough reviews of nominees.

Many Democrats voted for several of Trump’s 2017 cabinet nominees, with some, like Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, receiving bipartisan support.

I intend to follow a similar approach this time, meeting with nominees to assess their qualifications and views. I will vote to confirm qualified candidates who serve the nation’s best interests and oppose those who do not meet this standard.

Some of Trump’s choices, such as Senator Marco Rubio for Secretary of State, are experienced and capable, despite differing viewpoints. However, other nominees lack qualifications and may be actively harmful. His intelligence nominee has repeated Russian propaganda, and his Department of Health and Human Services pick may represent a serious setback for public health.

Despite these concerns, Republicans will hold a Senate majority in January; even with unanimous Democratic opposition, confirmation should be relatively straightforward. The very discussion of recess appointments suggests some nominees are so flawed that they face significant opposition from within the Republican party.

Using recess appointments undermines our constitutional role and harms bipartisan cooperation crucial for legislative success. If this argument fails, consider the likelihood of Democrats employing the same tactic when they have the opportunity.

Democrats are well-versed in this strategy. In 2013, Democrats utilized this process for appointments, a decision later regretted when Republicans gained power and used it to their advantage. What would prevent a similar response from Democrats?

Republicans, buoyed by recent election wins, might believe they have ample time before the recess appointment issue arises. History suggests otherwise. Past instances of proclaimed political dominance have been swiftly overturned. It’s been many years since a president’s party retained power and controlled the Senate, making a similar scenario for Republicans quite possible.

Therefore, I urge my Senate colleagues to uphold the constitutional duty of “advice and consent.” If a nominee has sufficient support, follow established procedures. I will support nominees who benefit the American people.

However, resorting to recess appointments will likely be regretted, perhaps sooner than anticipated.