Skip to content

Trump demands permission to appoint anyone he wants

Here's the latest weirdness from Donald Trump:

All three of the leading candidates to replace Mitch McConnell immediately replied with some version of "Yes sir!" But what does Trump even mean? Recess appointments are just a thing the president can do when the Senate is in recess. No one has to agree to it. The first recess of Trump's presidency will be next August.

Does Trump mean that the Senate should periodically declare a recess so he can make appointments? Maybe, but Democrats will just filibuster it. Does he mean there should be no more of the pro forma sessions that technically keep the Senate alive during vacations and eliminate recesses? Maybe that too, but the first recess still isn't until August. What does he plan to do until then?

He also wants Republicans to ensure that no judges are approved during the rest of the lame duck session. But how does he expect them to do that? Democrats control the Senate until January, just as they have for the past two years. They can approve anyone they want.

Does Trump actually understand how anything works? He doesn't seem to know how tariffs work. He doesn't understand NATO "dues," as he keeps calling them. And he doesn't seem to understand anything about how Congress works. I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

66 thoughts on “Trump demands permission to appoint anyone he wants

    1. MF

      I'm not sure how many he nominated, but the Senate confirmed 14. This was possible because Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominations. Thanks, Harry.

      Democrats may well try to do the same thing this election.

      At that point, we will probably see whether it is possible for the minority party to block or slow down the Senate without the filibuster, if Republicans can peel off a few Democrats like Manchin and Sinema, and if Democrats can get all of their lame duck senators to continue attending. Remember - if two Democrats vote with Republicans or if one Democrat is absent and another Democrat votes with Republicans then Republicans win the vote.

      I don't think Kyrsten Sinema has very fond feelings for the rest of her party right now. What goes around comes around.

  1. bbleh

    Does Trump actually understand how anything works?

    Mostly no. As Fran Lebowitz said, "you don't know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You really don't."

    But he DOES understand -- viscerally, instinctively -- SHOWMANSHIP.* This is VERY public braggadoccio: I am now the Leader, and you inferiors shall bend the knee! And some will -- which is the point -- and some won't -- which will be ignored -- and that will be the end of it. The actual downstream effect of the performance is ... pretty much irrelevant.

    There will be FAR more of this. He will do the same with the military, with the federal bureaucracy generally, and most especially with DoJ. He will look to do this with the general population. And I fear he will -- classic Fascist tactic -- stage some EARLY episodes of HEAVY violence intended to demonstrate his power and suppress any opposition. Look for this coming to your TVs soon!

    The worse news is, the courts will back him up, following the lead of John "the President is king, but this is just the Unitary Executive, so it's all very Constitutional" Roberts.

    Thanks again, Republicans!

    * (He also understands corrupt self-enrichment, which he will pursue shamelessly, but since half the population thinks that makes him a Savvy Businessman, it will go almost unremarked.)

    1. Yehouda

      " And I fear he will -- classic Fascist tactic -- stage some EARLY episodes of HEAVY violence intended to demonstrate his power and suppress any opposition."

      That is the main danger. He will want to repeat Tiananmen Square in the US.
      Not sure he will do it early. He may want to first establish a force loyal to him to do the suppression.

  2. drickard1967

    If I thought Trump was capable of strategic planning/thinking, I'd say he was laying groundwork for appointing everyone without Senate confirmation,

    1. Joseph Harbin

      The war on America must begin Jan 20! There's no time to waste.

      Sometimes the votes can take two years, or more. This is what they did four years ago, and we cannot let it happen again.

      Is he talking about something Republicans did? Biden was the one making appointments after the election four years ago.

      Democrats need to understand their role now. They are the OPPOSITION PARTY. There can be no talk about "bipartisanship" or "making a deal" or "working together with the administration." None. Period. Dems have little power, but what they can stop they must stop, what they cannot stop, they must delay when possible.

      1. Josef

        There won't be any deals possible because everything that comes out of a GOP controlled congress will be shit. Besides they won't compromise. The Dimwit Brigade is still in congress and they probably added to their ranks. The Democrats just need to shout how bad everything they pass is loudly and as often as they can.

  3. soapdish

    They're going to Air Bud it, as Gin & Tacos said, "... like the losing coaches point to the rule book in Air Bud, gesticulating wildly as the dog dunks on them over and over, and the crowd loves the dog with all its heart and looks at the losing team with the contempt reserved for such demonstrations of learned helplessness, while the very voters to whom Democrats most desperately want to appeal don’t know or care about rules but sure do notice that one team managed to lose a basketball game to a fucking dog."

  4. Dana Decker

    KD: "He doesn't seem to know how tariffs work."

    Okay, maybe he doesn't know how old-style tariffs work, but he's up to speed on crypto-tariffs. Andrew Yang has it all figured out, and Trump is on board! Put the impost on the blockchain and complete the transaction with Dutythereum. In virtually no time, the entire national debt will be paid off and all entitlement payments guaranteed for at least twenty years.

    1. Joseph Harbin

      It's hard to tell parody from the truth, but I listened to an investor podcast last week and they were talking about a scheme to pay off the national debt using crypto. Trump apparently is all in. The first step is getting the US gov't to start investing in crypto big-time. Whatever happens next was lost on me. I don't think they really know. Maybe it's just a giant pump and dump scheme, but it's probably crazier than that.

      FWIW, with Bitcoin at $80K, total market cap of all crypto is in the neighborhood of $3T. The national debt, $36T. It sounds harebrained, but I suppose someone is gonna get rich(er) before the whole thing comes crashing down, along with the global financial system.

      1. Josef

        If it involves Trump and anyone associated with any form of crypto currency its a scam. Anything they do won't end well for anyone but a small handful of con men. On the upside it probably won't include the Orange messiah.

      2. Joseph Harbin

        There'll be processes for Trump making appointments. Not sure even his friends in the courts can waive that. He may also have obstacles getting rid of some adminstrators.

        SEC chair Gary Gensler, for one, who Trump vowed to axe on "day one," but whose term lasts till 2026. Gensler has filed suits against crypto firms, so he's neared the top of T's shit list. Good background on the process and past Scotus rulings here:
        https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2024/09/04/can-the-president-fire-the-sec-chair-or-other-commissioners/?slreturn=20241111-10849

  5. cheweydelt

    God. Another four years of this bullshit (not from Kevin, from Trump). I was so glad to have this chaos gone and now we’re right back in it.

    1. Josef

      It'll be abject stupidity 24/7. And the inevitable support and justification of Trumps stupidity by the GOP for almost as often.

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      God. Another four years of this bullshit (not from Kevin, from Trump).

      Depressing, dispiriting. And yet if we can survive for the next 23.8 months we'll have the House back, I think. So maybe the worst of it will only have to be survived for two years.

  6. Josef

    Someone tried to explain something to him about recess appointments. This is his interpretation of it. It's more of a litmus test of his cult followers than anything else. They didn't fail to be completely subservient to him.

    1. Dr Brando

      Yeah, he asked if there was a way to get people confirmed without the Senate and was told it can only happen with a recess appointment. He doesn't care what that is or how it works, just that he wants the thing to happen. It is so dumb, and yet it is him publicly calling for the erosion of checks and balances just the same.

  7. ProgressOne

    Trump said, "We need positions filled IMMEDIATELY!"

    Translated, this means he wants no Senate oversight. He doesn't want the "advice and consent", even though the Constitution clearly says the Senate has this authority.

    Remember when conservatives claimed to be the great defenders of the CONSTITUTION. Oh well, can't be bothered with that now -- have to help Trump!

    1. Josef

      No norm is worth upholding. Before Trump was elected this time we have never had a convicted felon be elected president. Nor has one who had been impeached twice. Norms are for Democrats, not Republicans.

    2. cmayo

      When they said they were defending the Constitution, that is never what they meant. What they meant was always what Trump has been practicing, which is why they've embraced him so wholeheartedly. The words "democracy" and "constitutional" don't mean anything to them, or to their voters, except insofar as they are totems that stand in for "benefits me" and "doesn't benefit me."

  8. Elctrk

    Rest assured, however it happens, DonOld will have the most beautiful cabinet ever. People will be coming up to him, many of them grown men with tears in their eyes, "Sir...your cabinet something we've never seen before...."

    1. Josef

      Instead of reluctantly kissing his ass, this time his cabinet will be cheerfully falling to their knees to kiss his ass with a smile on their faces and a touch of Vicks VapoRub under their nose.

  9. spatrick

    He doesn't have to worry about recess appointments because the Democrats have never been so pusillanimous to use the filibuster in that way unless the nominee was a real turd. Schumer actually like to see the Senate work.

  10. bouncing_b

    He also wants Republicans to ensure that no judges are approved during the rest of the lame duck session. But how does he expect them to do that? Democrats control the Senate until January, just as they have for the past two years. They can approve anyone they want.

    Not quite. Manchin is probably not on board, and Sinema is iffy at best. It’s unclear to what degree Democrats control the senate the next two months.

  11. Altoid

    He's telling the putative majority leaders they have to guarantee him a completely free hand in who he appoints to every position and never mind what any senator might think-- the "advise and consent" days are over and no senators should be foolish enough to think they'll have any role in any appointments. Bannon, McEntee, Musk, Vance, Leonard Leo will give him the names and that's that, up and down the line. Any senator who balks will get the flying monkey squadrons after them.

    Remember, this is the guy who said "I like acting appointments." Acting, recess, don't confuse him with details. The principle is that he gets his way and the senators keep their hands off everything.

    In this post he's telling Thune, Cornyn, and Scott that he'll back whichever of them crawls most demeaningly and will most eagerly swallow not having even a pro forma role in filling Senate-approved positions. (On that basis my money probably would be on Scott because he's the one who has the least shred of innate dignity. But all three are already prostrating themselves in their own ways.)

  12. Altoid

    Oh-- of *course* trump has absolutely no idea how anything works. That isn't his role in life. His role is to want. That's all. Everybody else's role is to deliver what he wants. How to deliver is theirs to figure out. The only exceptions are manipulating the press, and setting up camera angles. On those two things he cares enough about achieving results that he's worked hard on technique.

  13. Jasper_in_Boston

    Relatedly, I've been wondering whether the Republican Senate will hold confirmation hearings for major appointments. Trump's already on record, I believe, as indicating he opposes FBI background checks for such officials. What's to stop him from winning on this issue: nothing in the constitution requires a president to abide by this custom? And if the suitability of some of Trump's choices is questionable (as they surely will be), why give the Democrats an easy opportunity to ask awkward questions of the nominees in a public forum? Can you imagine how the hearings will go for, say, Robert F. Kennedy Jr or Michael Flynn? I'd imagine it would be easier for Trump to simply order the new GOP Senate leadership to dispense with this tradition, which again, is not mandated by the constitution.

    1. Altoid

      A good question. At least some appointments will be governed by statutes that require senate confirmation, and others may be subject to the Administrative Procedures Act or other regulations. But the details of how confirmation happens probably are up to the senate rules since it's an internal process. That probably, or certainly, applies to handling everything that currently needs senate confirmation, regardless where the requirement for confirmation is specified.

      With trump-- and this can't be emphasized enough-- none of that matters worth a damn. Where senate rules are concerned, they'll be changed if the majority leader wants to keep that fig leaf. If Rs keep the House, then the laws might be amended, same motivations. But even if none of that happens, trump will be able to make his "advise and consent" and statutory appointments completely at his whim and they'll be be treated just like regular appointments no matter how truncated the process.

      In short, he'll make appointments as if they were acting appointments-- and never mind any silly existing restrictions about prior senate confirmation to any position-- and they'll have full authority as if they were regular ones that went through full senate procedures. That's my bet on what that tweet means.

    1. Altoid

      Hadn't seen that, but it's logical. Especially because:

      Roberts's invented immunity ruling lays out exactly how trump can run his administration without the remotest fear of being even investigated, let alone any minuscule chance of getting prosecuted, for anything illegal. All conversations and exchanges with his core appointees are off-limits, can't even be looked into or referred to-- it's executive privilege on steroids.

      So these appointees will be his consiglieres. And no one will need to circumlocute at all. They can talk openly about how to get around the law, bend the law, subvert the law, ignore the law, do whatever the hell they want to whoever the hell they want. IOW exactly how the Trump Org is run, exactly how your friendly local don runs things, except no one will have to worry about anyone listening in.

      John Roberts and Mitch McConnell together deserve to be known as the prime murderers of the American republic.

      1. Yehouda

        I don't think the SCOTUS has any effect on trump behaviour.

        In his mind he is already president-for-life (that is: he doesn't think at all of what will happen after he stops being president), and as such he was already effectively immune from prosecution before the decision. The only risk he did have is impeachment, and that what held in the first term.

        This term impeachment is not a risk, because there are enough Republican worms in the denate to stop it, so there is nothing to stop to do what he feels like. That is completely independent of what SCOTUS says.

  14. Aleks311

    I think Trump has a valid complaint about confirmations taking too long. I would favor a constitutional amendment specifying that all presidential appointments (including judges) must be voted on within 90 days of being submitted to the Senate. If no vote occurs then the appointee takes off office.

    1. aldoushickman

      If we're taking the trouble to amend the constitution, that's a ridiculously small and dubious amendment to want to make. And one whose only real function is to yet again increase the power of the executive at the expense of the legislative.

      1. Yehouda

        Not about the specific point, but about "small amendment": USA will be better off if it will keep doing small amendments to the constitution to improve it.
        For example: change that electors must be chosen by voters (always the case now, but there is an openinge for abuse). I think that can easily pass, and it is an improvement (albeit a small one).

        I am sure somebody will reply we want to make it national votes count without electors, but that would be much more difficult (currently impossible) to pass.

        1. aldoushickman

          "USA will be better off if it will keep doing small amendments to the constitution"

          The hurdle is so high that incomprehensibly trivial small-ball amendments will never break through to the general public. If the constitution were easy to amend, sure, we could use amendment for minor policy tweaks (that would, like I note, simply increase the power of the executive).

          1. Yehouda

            Making small amendments which are widely acceptable (like my suggesstion above) will make it easier to make other amendments too, because people will get used to the idea.

            It looks so difficult because most of the amendments were actually large changes which were not that widely acceptable, so needed large effort to convince opponents.

  15. name99

    This is probably a reference to:
    "
    The Senate has taken measures from time to time to prevent a president from making recess appointments, specifically by holding pro forma sessions. The Supreme Court affirmed that pro forma sessions are sufficient to prevent recess appointments and addressed other intricacies of the practice in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014).
    "

    Point is the Senate can delay doing anything with an appointment indefinitely. Recess appointments were a way around that, but can be sabotaged by pro-forma Senate meetings. The Trump team essentially wants an agreement that this won't happen.
    Another way to look at this is that it's an agreement that appointments will be dealt with rapidly -- either the Senate makes a decision fast, or, if it's too chicken to make a decision, it allows a recess appointment.

    You may or may not like this (I expect that, like filibusters, most readers change thei opinion of how this is outrageous vs perfectly reasonable depending on who's in power...) but there's actually logic behind this.

    Like so much of the Trump hysteria, you're not making a great case for yourselves by determinedly not bothering to understand what's going on, in the certainty that it has to be stupid. (Some of you) have learned that screaming racism at everything has no effect; most of you have realized that screaming Hitler simply made you look like idiots; perhaps it's time to move onto the third member of the triad and realize that also screaming moron is not helping your cause?

    1. Altoid

      "Point is the Senate can delay doing anything with an appointment indefinitely"

      Yes they can, and individual senators and party leaderships can have any reason or no reason for doing that. So it's been a valid complaint across administrations for a long time that senate confirmation takes too long.

      In this case, though, we're looking at a guy who'll be dealing with a senate of his own party and with a majority leader basically of his own choosing, and who has a track record of wanting to appoint some dodgy people to cabinet and national-security posts. YMMV, and I'm sure it will, but my reading is that this tweet is at least as much about getting whatever people he wants to pick into their specific slots, and without any input or push-back from senators about who they are and what they bring to those slots, as it is about speed.

      1. name99

        Maybe so, but you do not impress anyone by calling policy that you don't like moronic.

        Do you not see the pattern in every one of my complaints? I'm not interested in your or Kevin's policy preferences; I am interested in an INFORMED USEFUL debate. We lose that when people feel that the rejoinder of racism/fascism/idiotic is enough for any policy they hear about...

        Kevin's post, and the subsequent comments, were not about this policy on the merits, they were content-free attacks claiming that a strawman version of the proposal had nothing to do with the realities of Congress and the Senate. THAT is what I'm complaining about. I have zero opinion on the merits of the actual proposal.

        1. Altoid

          It could be that what is the central issue for you isn't what is the central issue for other people who choose to comment here. Unstructured reaction and discussion are kind of in the nature of unmoderated free-form discussion threads.

  16. Josef

    Speaking of appointments.
    “President Trump, when he called me up, gosh, he was rattling off 15, 20 different priorities, a clear focus. He wasn’t reading off of some sheet, it’s the top of his head. And if I challenged him to give me 50 more ideas of what to do with this agency to improve the economy, I’m confident he would have done that,” Zeldin said shortly after the announcement was made." The extreme ass kissing has already started. Trump having a clear focus???? Who believes this shit? FYI that would be Lee Zeldin.

    1. aldoushickman

      Zeldin is an odd choice for EPA admin. No experience with environmental law or policy (aside from some dredging stuff that would be outside of EPA's purview anyway), no administrative law experience, just a few years of practicing law at a relatively low and local level, and no experience running anything bigger than a failed campaign for governor.

      Early days, but this, and his pick of Stefanik for UN Ambassador (despite Stefanik having zip foreign policy experience), may confirm that Trump is picking for loyalty* and not competence.

      Which is what you'd expect from a dummy would-be autocrat, of course.
      _______
      *Or, rather, for public displays of fealty, which Trump interprets as loyalty.

      1. Altoid

        Hadn't seen this, but then I'm avoiding this kind of news for a while yet.

        It is a little curious, in terms of managing Congress, to be floating both Zeldin and Stefanik. If the GOP in fact wins the House it'll only be by two or three seats, maybe four, and these appointments, if made, will vacate two of these seats for several months. That could leave Johnson winning a speakership vote early in January but then losing his majority until the spring, or being unable to hold a one- or two-vote margin together.

        I wonder who wants trump to set off that kind of a shitshow in the House again?

  17. sodaseller

    I think what he is saying, although I acknowledge that he is less than clear, is that he is going, is that he will employ rarely used constitutional procedures to ensure that he gets anyone he wants, even someone that Senate Republicans would ordinarily think is extreme, or simply because they may have their own favored candidates. That happens in every administration, even with the same party as the President.

    Pursuant to Article II, the President has the power to appoint officials when the Senate is in recess. Those recess appointments expire at the end of the next Senate session. Obviously, this is a historical artifact of times with slower travel.

    But it still puts the Senate in charge, presuming that the Senate controls its adjournment schedule. But it doesn't. What he has threatened to do if he doesn't get his way is use the following powers from Article II, Section 3:

    Section 3

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper

    He can either manufacture or move past the requirement for the houses to be in disagreement as to the time of adjournment, and adjourn the Senate whenever he wants to and appoint a recess appointment. And manipulate the process repeatedly.

    In most Presidential-Senate relationships this would be fatal to the President's agenda just because the Senate would protect its prerogatives, even for the same party. But that's not the world we're living in now. He has essentially said that he will appoint whoever he wants to, even someone that Republicans might consider too extreme or unacceptable, and he will low past the confirmation process.

    But now all candidates for Senate Majority Leader have anticipatory obeyed. So now he will be able to get candidates in positions even if the Republicans would've at least wanted to challenge briefly through questioning or might not confirm.

    1. aldoushickman

      "I think what he is saying, although I acknowledge that he is less than clear . . ."

      God, not this shit again, where we all play the game of What Trump Probably Meant Was *This*!

      Trump: We must bigly [argle bargle] [complete nonsense]!

      Thousands of Americans who have better things to do: Well, I for one think that [this, somewhat reasonable or at least intelligible thing] might be what Trump meant [possibly because the thought that the cretinous asyntactic ramblings that Trump said are actually because he really is that stupid and ignorant is on some level too horrible to confront]

  18. Altoid

    Re the mystery of why and how trump glommed onto the obscure "recess appointments" demand: Ruth Marcus's op-ed in today's WaPo points out that this already came up during the previous term when trump was getting some resistance on appointments. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/11/trump-senate-recess-appointments-powergrab/)

    At that time-- April 2020-- he explicitly threatened to use another obscure provision that he was obviously told by someone (Eastman?) would let him get his way: If house and senate don't agree on adjournment, a president can step in and adjourn them and also set a date for congress to re-convene (Art. 2 sec. 3). This authority has never been exercised; it's a survival of the king's power to prorogue Parliament, the one the Stuarts liked to invoke in order to stifle opinions they didn't want to see expressed.

    Given this background and prior practice, the obvious issue and clear intent, as far as trump is concerned, is not merely the senate taking too long, but rather to "circumvent the Senate's role in the [constitutionally-mandated] appointment process," as Scalia characterized Obama's use of recess appointment authority in NLRB v Canning, 2014, co-signed by Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. As far as recess appointments are concerned, this is Who's the Boss, the rerun.

  19. pjcamp1905

    What on Earth makes you think the filibuster will survive the first attempt by Democrats to stop some horrorshow? The destruction of the filibuster is likely to be the only good thing to come out of Trump II.

Comments are closed.