Senate moderates will discard Trump’s more unsuitable government appointments - Trump will be UNABLE to skip Senate with “recess appointments” - Democrats can stop full recess with a filibuster
- and Musk's unofficial advisory post has no power - likely clashes with Trump soon
You may have heard Trump has proposed some people for his cabinet and other top jobs in government that others say are very unsuitable. Well many will be thrown out by the Senate.
Others like Elon Musk will have unofficial advisory only positions and no real power. Robert Kennedy may well be in a similar situation. Both of those are larger than life characters that will surely not be able to follow Trump loyally whatever he asks them to do for long.
This is a copy of my post in my Quora blog:
In the UK the prime minister just picks who he wants for his cabinet. But in the US all cabinet positions have to be approved by a majority in the Senate. Official positions have to be confirmed by the Senate. And the more outlandish ones will likely fail confirmation.
Now, it is possible for the president to pick whoever he chooses without Senate approval during a government recess - when the government is on holiday. Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all did that. However this stopped during Obama’s presidency. Congress found a way to stop the president from doing this, supported by a Supreme Court case.
They way they did it is to use a “pro forma” recess. Technically the House and Senate never go into recess. Even though everyone else goes on holiday, one representative and one senator need to travel to the Capitol every 3 days during the holiday. They then open a session in the House and Senate and immediately close it and go back home again, but by doing this they keep Congress open for business and so prevent the president from doing these recess appointments.
Trump wants the new Congress to go into recess so he can appoint whoever he wants to various positions. He may be able to get the Republican leader of the Senate to call for the house to do a full recess. But the Democrats can stop this with a filibuster, which requires them to have 40 seats. They have 47 seats so they will be able to stop full recess.
So Trump won’t be able to do these recess appointments for his more outlandish picks.
This is about his picks for cabinet such as the Secretary of Defence Hegseth who many people say is inexperienced and totally unsuitable for running the Ministry of Defence.
He will likely be rejected by the Senate
.
Unsuitable Trump candidates will be stopped by the Senate
- Trump will be UNABLE to skip Senate confirmation
with “recess appointments”
- Democrats can stop full recess with a filibuster
Pete Hegesth, Fox News Host
- Trump's pick for Defence Secretary
- Nothing like enough experience to run the Ministry of Defence
Has out of date eccentric views
- wants to forbid women like these from serving alongside men in the armed forces
As for Elon Musk, he won’t have any official position confirmed by the Senate. He can’t because if he did then he’d need to put SpaceX into a blind trust under Government ethics rules because it depends on government contracts from NASA and the Ministry of Defence. There is no way that Elon Musk would let anyone else call the shots at SpaceX as is needed for a blind trust so this is not going to happen.
For this reason Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency will be only an advisory body with no real teeth. It can’t be a body with real teeth without Congress’s support which Trump is highly unlikely to ever get. Also, it can’t be a body with real teeth because if it was Elon Musk couldn’t lead it because of these government ethics issues.
EXAMPLE OF FOX NEWS HOST PETE HEGSETH AS DEFENCE SECRETARY - IF JUST FOUR REPUBLICAN SENATORS SAY HE ISN’T QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB HE WON’T GET IN
So back to the unsuitable candidates. So far Trump hasn’t announced any position for Robert Kennedy but he has made some other tentative appointments such as his choice of Fox News media personality Hegseth as Defence Secretary. He is surely going to be rejected by the Senate. With a majority of only 53 - and it takes 50 seats + the VP to confirm - it only takes 4 moderate Republicans to oppose the appointment and he is out.
It’s certainly raising lots of questions.
QUOTE STARTS
Even some Republicans in the Senate — who would vote on his nomination — had a subdued response.
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis called the choice “interesting,” and Indiana Sen. Todd Young, who served in the Marine Corps, said, “I don’t know much about his background or his vision, so I look forward to learning more
. Trump's defense choice stuns the Pentagon and raises questions about the Fox News host's experience
All the Senate seats have now been called by AP at 53 Republican, 47 Democrat.
. 2024 Election highlights: Republicans win Senate majority
So 4 objections would prevent confirmation.
More from the AP news commentary:
QUOTE STARTS
While Trump lauded Hegseth as “tough, smart and a true believer in America First,” others were quick to point to the TV personality’s lack of experience, with some suggesting he could be Pentagon chief in name only as the Trump White House runs the department.
A number of other names floated as possible defense choices had included Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the GOP chairman of the House Armed Services Committee; retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg; Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa; and Robert Wilkie, a former Pentagon official who was head of Veterans Affairs in Trump’s first term.
“There is reason for concern that this is not a person who is a serious enough policymaker, serious enough policy implementer, to do a successful job,” said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Hegseth’s lack of senior national security experience makes it more difficult to get Senate confirmation.
“I think Trump was tired of fighting with his secretaries of defense and picked one who would be loyal to him,” Cancian said.
Military officials said the choice came out of the blue. A senior military officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said Hegseth’s selection is raising concerns about whether he has the practical experience to manage a large department with an enormous budget.
. Trump's defense choice stuns the Pentagon and raises questions about the Fox News host's experience
According to AP, Hegseth has old fashioned and nowadays very eccentric views on women in combat thinking they can't serve alongside men.
QUOTE STARTS
. During an interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast, he said allowing women to serve in combat hurts that effort.
“Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat, that means casualties are worse,” Hegseth said.
And while he said diversity in the military is a strength, he said it was because minority and white men “can perform similarly” but the same isn’t true for women.
. Trump's defense choice stuns the Pentagon and raises questions about the Fox News host's experience
He says that a woman can be a pilot but can’t serve in any other role in the miltiary.
QUOTE STARTS
Hegseth has criticized the Obama administration’s 2015 decision to drop gender-based restrictions and allow women to serve in direct-combat jobs, a move that followed years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan that erased traditional notions of what it means to serve on the front lines. Since then, women have assimilated into positions that historically were all-male, including infantry and artillery units.
“Gimme a female pilot all day long. I have no issues with that,” Hegseth told Ryan in last week’s interview. His sticking point, Hegseth said, is a perception that the military has lowered standards for women in physically demanding jobs. Allowing women into combat roles, he said, “hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.”
Senators haven’t made any decisions yet but they say they will question this pick very critically.
“How is Tom Cotton going to defend this pick? Joni Ernst?” the person said, referring to two Senate Republicans with national security credentials. “Everyone else is a bull’s eye, and this one isn’t even on the target.”
Senate Democrats, who will be involved in scrutinizing Trump’s nominations, raised immediate skepticism about his pick of Hegseth.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a social media post that he is “not qualified” for the job.
“I lead the Senate military personnel panel. All three of my brothers served in uniform. I respect every one of our servicemembers,” she wrote. “Donald Trump’s pick will make us less safe and must be rejected.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), another member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a phone call that “this very surprising nominee deserves extremely close scrutiny.”
“I’m reaching no immediate conclusions,” Blumenthal said, “but I will certainly be questioning very critically what his views are on various highly significant policy issues, and what direction he would lead the Pentagon.”
WHY A PRESIDENT CAN’T DO RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO BYPASS THE SENATE ANY MORE - BECAUSE OF A DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT UNDER OBAMA AND CONGRESS’S DECISION TO DO PRO FORMA SESSIONS
To get around that former presidents relied on recess appointments - they appointed the positions when Congress was in recess.
This table shows how common that was. Table from here:R42329.pdf
Clinton did 139 of them. Bush did 171.
This shows a breakdown by year for Bush Recess Appointments Made by President George W. Bush
The process stopped under Barrack Obama who did 32.
Under Obama, Congress started doing short "pro-forma" sessions every 3 days during a recess so that it never counted as long enough for a recess appointment. The Supreme Court agreed that Obama couldn't do recess appointments during a 3 day recess. So that stopped the practice.
See: Recess appointment - Wikipedia
The way it works today is that when Congress closes they close with an agreement that they will meet briefly for a pro forma session every 3 days to prevent the president doing recess appointments.
This rule has kept in place through Trump and Biden. With his re-eleciton, Trump is asking for the majority leader of the Senate to close the session without doing these pro forma appointments.
If that happens he can appoint whoever he likes to any cabinet position. He can also do the same for justices.
They wouldn't be able to do anything illegal. The main issue is of amateur hour of people in key positions who don't know what they are doing and make mistakes. If they do illegal things then they will still be restrained by the courts.
The final sentence of Article II, Section 2 says,
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
The Democrats have 47 seats in the Senate and it only takes 40 to filibuster. By filibustering they prevent him from putting the Senate into recess.
What the government normally does is goes into a “pro-forma recess”. One Senator and one Representative need to travel to Congress every three days and briefly start a session and then stop it. Nobody else needs to attend but it counts as Congress still being open for business and not fully closed.
The only purpose of these “po forma” sessions is to make sure that the president can’t approve any new members of his cabinet or other posts that need Senate confirmation.
. With a pro-forma recess then he can't approve appointments during recess.
Trump wants the Senate to go into a full recess so that he can appoint his more controversial candidates without a Senate confirmation. The Republican leader for the Senate will likely call for a full recess. But the Democrats will filibuster, prevent it from going ahead.
And that's a powerful time to do a filibuster, everyone wants to have their break. This filibuster tactic has already been used in Trump's first term.
More details from what happened in 2017.
QUOTE STARTS
The Senate blocked President Trump from being able to make recess appointments on Thursday as lawmakers leave Washington for their August break.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), doing wrap up for the entire Senate, locked in nine “pro-forma” sessions — brief meetings that normally last roughly a minute.
The move, which requires the agreement of every senator, means the Senate will be in session every three business days throughout the August recess.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned last month that Democrats had “tools in our toolbox” to block a recess appointment.
“We’re ready to use every single one of them, any time, day or night. It’s so vital to the future of the republic,” he said.
Under Article One of the Constitution “neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.” The House is also currently holding pro-forma sessions.
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) added earlier Thursday that he expected the Senate would set up the pro-forma sessions, which require a GOP senator to briefly preside over the upper chamber.
“My understanding is that we will only recess for three days at a time. …When we were in the majority I had to come down from Delaware and preside,” he said.
The GOP-controlled Senate also held pro-forma sessions over the week-long Fourth of July recess.
And Democrats held pro-forma sessions every three days in 2012 when Obama tried to appoint National Labor Relations Board members. The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that he overstepped his constitutional authority.
. senate-blocks-trump-from-making-recess-appointments-over-break/
QUOTE STARTS
What’s unusual about this move, of course, is that both the House and the Senate are in Republican hands under a Republican President, and that Congress is continuing the practice of holding pro forma sessions. In part, this is due to the fact that Senate Democrats were united enough to prevent the Senate from agreeing to a joint resolution that would have put Congress into a formal recess. In this case, though, the move was also supported by many Senate Republicans, and appears to have been motivated by the fear that President Trump might have used the recess appointment power to remove Attorney General Jeff Sessions in an effort to try to undermine the Mueller investigation, or even set up the process of removing Mueller altogether.
. Senate Blocks Trump's Ability To Make Recess Appointments
MORE DETAILS.
“The Recess Appointments Clause was included in Article II in the apparent anticipation that government must operate year-round, but Congress would typically be away from the capital for months at a time,” they explained. Over the ensuing decades—and extending to modern times when Congress itself sits nearly year-round—the somewhat awkward wording of the Clause seemed to pose two issues that the Supreme Court decided for the first time in 2014.”
“First, does the power of recess appointments extend to vacancies that initially occurred while the Senate was not in recess? Second, may a period of Senate adjournment trigger the President’s recess appointment power even if that period of adjournment occurs during a Senate session, rather than between the adjournment of one session sine die and the convening of the next?” McGinnis and Shane asked.
In the Noel Canning decision, a unanimous Supreme Court said if an “intrasession” recess lasts 10 days or longer, a President can make recess appointments, including for vacancies that happened while the Senate was in session. The person appointed by the President would serve in office through the end of the next annual session.
...
This August, if and when the Senate decides to take an extended break, it could pass a concurring resolution with the House to do so. Democrats in the Senate then could filibuster to block the resolution, effectively ending the possibility of a recess appointment. Or the Senate could use pro-forma sessions to keep it technically in session during the break.
One possible exception under the Noel Canning decision would be a recess appointment caused by a “national catastrophe, for instance, that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response.” But Breyer added that “political opposition in the Senate would not qualify as an unusual circumstance.”
. Supreme Court decision could hinder Trump recess appointments
MORE ON WHY ELON MUSK CAN’T HAVE OFFICIAL POSITIONS ANYWAY - BECAUSE HE’D HAVE TO PUT SPACEX IN A BLIND TRUST FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO MANAGE
With Elon Musk it's not a cabinet position. He would be head of a newly invented Department of Government efficiency which would only operate initially through to July 4th, set up by the president and more advisory than anything no actual teeth. So a president can set up something like that without any need for confirmation from the Senate.
Musk wouldn't want to have a government position because he'd have to divest his SpaceX / Tesla holdings or put them in trust because of conflicts of interest.
QUOTE STARTS
Instead, it seemed more plausible that Musk would be appointed to a blue-ribbon committee where he would still have enormous access, but he would not be subject to government ethics rules, which would require him to divest or put assets in a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest between his private business interests and government role.
. Trump’s allies are already jockeying for high-powered spots in his administration | CNN Politics
So in short, the Senate can boot out the Secretary of Defence by just not letting him take office and as long as there are 5 object he's had it. There are lots of moderate Republican Senators there. They will take a lot of convincing that he is up to the job.
Elon Musk's role is informal and advisory and he'll have no real power, just reporting to the president and Trump can do that without any problems without authority of Congress and Elon Musk wouldn't want a more official job anyway because by government ethics rules he'd have to hand control of SpaceX and Tesla over to someone else who he can't consult with for the duration of the job (a blind trust). He obviously won't want that so that's impossible.
He would have to do that because in a more official post, he'd be able to make decisions that would impact on SpaceX and Tesla and which he could exploit if he continued to have direct control of SpaceX and Tesla.
QUOTE STARTS
In some cases, the same experience that qualifies an individual for a role may create potential conflicts of interest. Legislators with experience in an industry are more likely to be given committee assignments involving the regulation of that industry. However, that experience may be tied to ongoing personal financial interests that would require recusal from participating in those matters. Some legislators may use blind trusts in an attempt to ethically balance private interests with public duties.
In a blind trust, an individual places assets that could otherwise create conflicts of interest into an asset vehicle ("trust"). Control over the trust and its assets are given to an independent trustee, who may buy and sell assets without the knowledge or consent of the beneficiary ("blind"). In theory, a public official with a blind trust would be immunized from potential conflicts stemming from the assets held in trust because the legislator-beneficiary would have no knowledge of the impact of official actions on the personal financial interests.
So this means someone else would have to run Tesla and SpaceX and make all the decisions about them and Elon Musk would only know about what is going on from the news. He couldn't be involved in the design of the rockets, or in deciding which programs to go ahead with or stop or which government contracts to bid for or anything.
This is obviously impossible for Elon Musk so this type of post is out of his reach.
Trump will also have the same problem of the first term of a revolving door presidency - Elon Musk won’t be Trump’s poodle for instance
Few people will be able to stand being absolutely loyal to Trump for 4 years. The most obvious split is with Musk. There is no way Musk will submit to be Trump's poodle. As the world's wealthiest man and someone larger than life with strong and often bizarre and eccentric views on numerous things it is not remotely credible that he will remain aligned with Trump for long on much.
That is a prediction of John Ryley, former head of Sky News. Asked to comment on the BBC he said
QUOTE STARTS
I think what you should remember is that Musk is a big character. And when you have two big characters together they don't always agree. So I think this will end in tears.
And last month when Trump was interviewed by Joe Rogan the podcast host he said the biggest mistake he made of his presidency is who he appointed at the start. He said there were bad people and there were disloyal people.
He will want all the people he appoints for the next 4 weeks, 74 days, to be ultra loyal. Musk probably won't be ultraloyal He is his own boss, he is a a very wealthy guy, richest guy on the planet. He is not going to take what Trump says always to heart. And he will be a troublemaker. And I thought the comparison you made earlier with Isambel Kingdom Brunel, great Victorian innovater. He was a very difficult guy as well. And I think Musk is probably quite a difficult guy.
2:26 into US Election 2024 - US Election 2024
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Elon Musk won’t be Trump’s poodle. Trump with Patton, a Goldendoodle cross between poodle and golden retriever.
only president never to have a pet.
Photo of Patton from: Trump's First Dog $PATTON (@patton_on_sol) on X
at one point there seemed to be some potential for him to choose Patton as a pet but he never did.
Donald Trump is the only president never to have a pet. The Trump family are not known to have any pets.
. United States presidential pets - Wikipedia
However at one point there was hope he might adopt Patton a Goldendoodle - Wikipedia
So I thought it was a good graphic to use to illustrate the obvious - that Elon Musk won’t be Trump’s poodle.
When Musk finds he can't fire people and hire their favourites e.g. for the head of the NIH or CDC etc. they will likely rebel maybe resign, maybe be fired.
I don't think Musk has a clue about this, one of the disadvantages of being so wealthy if you aren't also naturally humble or take cares to counteract the effects. He surrounds himself with an echo chamber of people who tell him how great he is.
So - I don't think Trump has learnt anything from his first term from his choices this time around. It will be another revolving door administration.
The good news is the US democracy is very strong and the various departments are self-operationg and it can continue through all sorts of issues.
SEE ALSO
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.