Since this administration’s entire form of governing seems to be “Fk You, Make Me”, what’s to keep the Pedophile-in-Chief from avoiding Pulte and Blanche go in front of any Senate confirmation hearings, and just keep them on as “acting” AG and DNI-guy until the end of his term?
Kirstjen Nielsen resigned as Trump’a DHS Secretary in April 2019. A new secretary was not confirmed until Biden took office in 2021. Her position was filled by two acting secretaries under Trump, and a third who served a few weeks until Biden’s choice was confirmed.
This website says that both Trump (first term) and Biden tried to fill vacant positions but often ran into problems with Senate approval. In fact, the website notes that two sub-Cabinet positions that require Senate approval have been vacant since 2009.
So the factual answer seems to be “until Trump stops being President, and maybe not even then.”
If that’s the case, why would any president ever submit cabinet nominations to the Senate? Just say, “Fuck you, my Cabinet is being filled by people in acting capacities and I will not submit any nominations ever.”
Because acting secretary’s have to have already been Senate-confirmed to another post, or the “first deputy” for the post being filled.
The Vacancies Reform Act covers the relevant law.
ETA: Pulte was Senate confirmed for FHFA. Blanche was the deputy AG (and thus the “first deputy” under the Vacancies Act).
You know, there’s something I’ve maybe never understood about that.
Let’s say that you’re an undersecretary at the Department of Commerce: you answer to the Commerce Secretary, you diligently do your job while following instructions from the Commerce Secretary, and maybe every so often the Commerce Secretary lets you know that he’s actually relaying a directive to you straight from the president; you get the idea.
Let’s also say that, all of a sudden, there is no Commerce Secretary: maybe the current one resigns, or dies, or whatever. Let’s also also say that the president — having nothing better to do that afternoon — then comes directly to you and says, mutatis mutandis, pretty much what the Commerce Secretary would be saying to you right then (if, again, there were one).
Would you then be as deferential to the president as you would to a Commerce Secretary?
William Ruckelshaus wasn’t deferential to Nixon, when he was Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned.
But that’s sort of my whole point: yes, upon choosing against so deferring, the guy simply wasn’t working there any longer, right? He could’ve made that choice even if there had been an intermediary between the president and him, sure as he could’ve instead (a) deferred to whoever told him to do stuff — be it the president, or an appointee — and (b) kept working there?
I don’t understand the point you’re making. A cabinet officer doesn’t want to do the President’s bidding, they either resign or gets fired. The deputy secretary (or undersecretary, I’m never sure who’s the official #2) doesn’t want to do the President’s bidding, they either resign or get fired.
Anyone who’s high enough in an administration to attract a President’s notice, and isn’t sufficiently “deferential” to the President’s wishes is not going to last, one way or another.
Given what you’re saying, I guess my point is this:
If you’re a deputy secretary or undersecretary or whatever who isn’t deferential enough to last long — “one way or another” — then the point is that, as you say, you’re not going to last: either under an appointee or when the president himself is directly telling you stuff, it makes no difference.
If you’re a deputy secretary or undersecretary or whatever who is fine with doing the job the way you’re told by someone who outranks you — be it an appointee or the president himself — then the point is that you can keep doing said job: either under an appointee, or when the president himself is directly telling you stuff.
Does that sound about right?
In my not very deep dive into looking at Cabinet secretary resignations, it’s more common for a President to bring in one of “his guys” than to elevate a second-in-command as the permanent replacement. That seems to be true regardless of party or individual ideology.
Of course, the new secretary may decide that he wants his guy to be the #2 person. The rare exception would be a “career bureaucrat” who really runs the department day-to-day and isn’t so policy driven.
I did notice the there have been a number of Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank who served both Republican and Democratic Presidents, including the recently deceased Alan Greenspan and William McChesney Martin, both of whom served more than 18 years as Fed Chairman, and Paul Volcker, Benjamin Bernacke, and Jerome Powell, whoise term ended earlier this year.
But, again, that’s sort of my point: sure, figure in a cabinet secretary who pretty much is the president’s guy — and, if I’m the undersecretary or deputy secretary or whatever, figure I’m fully aware that I’m now getting told what to do by the president’s guy, who’s been told what to do by the president.
And: figure I’m okay with that! That’s, like, my job description!
And if that secretary suddenly keels over from a heart attack or something, and the president himself tells me what to do for a while, figure I’m okay with that too! Because: why wouldn’t I be? If I’m willing to do my job as directed by the president’s guy — who, in turn, is directed by the president — then figure that I’m just as ready to do as the president directs!
It’s really not clear what your point is. Someone who works in a President’s administration probably supports that president? Well, yeah, sure, that’s obvious. Why is it worth bothering to mention?
Re thread title question, thr answer is — not legally. The limit is 210 days:
Yes, but there are other shenanigan that can then be used.
For example subsection (b) talks about how once a nomination is provided to the Senate and then rejected or withdrawn you can get an extra 210 days.
So you could have an interim for 210 days, then send and immediately withdraw a nomination and get a second 210 days. And it sounds like you can even do a second nomination/withdraw and serve for another 210 days.
And finally, the interim secretary can serve for as long as the nomination is pending in the Senate. So if the GOP is happy with the interim and the POTUS asks them to they can just sit on the nomination for as long as they want. Or, conversely, if the Senate is controlled by the opposition party and they don’t want to have to vote on the nominee they can just let them serve as acting secretary.
From a quick Google it looks like Chad Wolf served as acting head of DHS for over 400 days during Trump’s first term (but his appointment was eventually found to be unlawful for other reasons) and Julie Su served under Biden as acting Labor Secretary from March 2023 until Trump took office in January 2026.
Because if it’s so obvious that it’s almost not worth bothering to mention, then: what’s all the fuss over an acting secretary as opposed to a regular secretary?
To the extent that I’m “well, yeah, sure” going to follow the instructions I get from the president’s handpicked guy or the president himself, what changes for me — as an undersecretary or a deputy secretary or whatever — if I get those instructions from a secretary, or an acting secretary, or huh we’re fresh out of secretary at the moment so is it okay if you hear this from the president?
Senate confirmation.
Yes, as far as I can tell, that’s the difference: if you’re the acting secretary, and you tell me to do stuff, I do it — and maybe the president is standing next to you when you say to do it, and maybe he says “yeah, do that,” and I do it.
And if you get Senate confirmation, I keep doing as I’m told, but now you’re a secretary — and maybe the president is standing next to you when you say to do it, and maybe he says “yeah, do that,” and I do it.
And if you don’t get Senate confirmation, then I — keep doing as I’m told, only now I hear it from the president? Or, fuck, maybe I still hear it from you, even though you’re not an acting secretary any more, but maybe the president is standing next to you and says “yeah, do that,” and I do it?
Are you under the impression that all a cabinet secretary does is relay orders from the President? The federal government is way too large for that to be possible. That’s why we have secretaries in the first place.
The point of the Fed Chair, at least until recently, was that it was independent of the president and the political winds that were blowing. They fiddled with interest rates to keep inflation low even if that hurt. Volcker is now credited for smashing the inflation caused by the guns and butter policies of the Vietnam war. It worked, rates plummeted. But during the beginnings of his policy, the entire country was shrieking about tight money. You could also argue that the policy hurt Carter’s election chances in 1980 and also hurt Bush1’s chances in 1992 when tight money and Reagan’s spending created another recession.
Independent agencies have reasons for being independent: the country is sometimes served by not catering to political whims. The corollary to that is that high public officials are supposed to require confirmation by Congress to ensure that only truly qualified individuals, not incompetent cronies, run the government. That sounds hopelessly utopian and outmoded today, but presidents who adhere to the notion leave the country better off and those who don’t, don’t.
I feel like I was kind of going in the exact opposite direction at the end, there: that, as an undersecretary or a deputy secretary or whatever, I’m a guy who’ll do what the acting secretary tells me — because the president said he’s the acting secretary, which puts a general “yeah, do that” on every specific instruction he comes up with. Sure, if the acting secretary uses that leeway in a way the president wants him cut loose for, that’s it — but until then, I defer to him, right?
And if that acting secretary gets Senate confirmation, I keep doing what the secretary who serves at the pleasure of the president keeps telling me: until and unless the president says otherwise, every specific instruction the secretary comes up with is backed by a general “yeah, do that.”
So, like I said at the end, there: what happens if the president signs off on everything you say with the same “yeah, do that” that he puts behind what gets said by a secretary or an acting secretary? What happens if he gives you as much or as little leeway as he would a secretary or acting secretary: always ready to send you packing if he pleases, but until then — what?