Policy expert eviscerates Trump’s 'hairbrained scheme': 'Will benefit Dems more on the long run'

20 November 2024

President-elect Donald Trump's more controversial cabinet picks — including former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) for U.S. attorney general, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for nationalist intelligence director, and anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — would traditionally need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. And these picks may encounter resistance not only from Democrats, but also, from some Senate Republicans as well.

But Trump has threatened to use the process known as "recess appointments" if Senate Republicans don't go along with him. By forcing the U.S. Senate into recess, critics warn, Trump might try bypass the Senate in order to ram through his more controversial picks.

Matt Glassman of Washington, D.C.'s Georgetown University is highly critical of Trump's "scheme" in a thread posted on X, formerly Twitter, on November 19.

"In my view," Glassman argues in his thread, "a scheme to have POTUS and the House push the Senate out of session without the Senate affirmatively disagreeing is plainly unconstitutional. But that aside, it's also just dumb for *Republicans* to set this precedent. It will benefit Dems more on the long run."

Glassman adds, "Such an endrun around the Senate might be useful to Trump for any number of reasons, but the really useful spot for it would be when the opposition party controls the Senate and the president's party controls the House."

In 2025, Republicans will not only control the White House, but also, both branches of Congress. And Glassman stresses that for the GOP, there is "really not much to gain by doing this when you have unified government."

"If you control the Senate and the filibuster on the executive calendar is gone," Glassman explains, "all you really accomplish is shifting power toward POTUS…. The real magic of this (unconstitutional) scheme is when the Senate is controlled by the opposition. And I think it's pretty clear a Dem president is *much* more likely over the next couple of terms to face such an opposition than a GOP president."

Glassman continues, "Again, this is a hairbrained scheme that I think is plainly unconstitutional. But maybe I'm wrong! What I'm more or less sure of is that, if enacted, it's going to be much more potentially beneficial to the Dems, because it only *really* helps with an opposition Senate…. Consequently, it would be incredibly short-sighted politically for the GOP to take this up now."

From Your Site Articles