# When was the last time a President fired a member of his cabinet? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 23, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249 "2010-06-23T16:36:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/81 "2017-01-31T21:09:31Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > No, what makes someone a Cabinet member is being confirmed by the Senate to be one. A President cannot appoint someone to be a Cabinet member without Senate confirming that member to that position. Not really. They merely have to advise and consent. If the Senate were to pass a rule “Upon a vacancy in a cabinet position, the Assistant Secretary shall assume that position until filled through nomination and confirmation.” I would argue that they pre-emptively gave their advice and consent to filling the position with that person. > [@Okrahoma](#): > > 1. Has Yates been subject to such “advice and consent”? Yes through the Senate’s majority vote on the controlling law ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/82 "2017-01-31T21:24:16Z")
I can’t believe how much effort is being put into, “nuh-uh, she was not on Trump’s cabinet!” It’s reminiscent of Trump flipping out because his inauguration crowd was so small. “Nuh-uh, it was too the biggest crowd ever!” ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/83 "2017-01-31T21:26:36Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Not really. They merely have to advise and consent. If the Senate were to pass a rule “Upon a vacancy in a cabinet position, the Assistant Secretary shall assume that position until filled through nomination and confirmation.” I would argue that they pre-emptively gave their advice and consent to filling the position with that person. That would be a very stretching argument. AFAIK, the “advice and consent” has been consistently understood to mean confirmation hearings/voting, and is not discharged by passing a law once. Basically, the “advice and consent” presumes that the current Senate does the advising and consenting, not the Senate decades ago. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/84 "2017-01-31T21:27:38Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I can’t believe how much effort is being put into, “nuh-uh, she was not on Trump’s cabinet!” It’s reminiscent of Trump flipping out because his inauguration crowd was so small. “Nuh-uh, it was too the biggest crowd ever!” The only effort you see is here on this thread, and it’s because I consider it an interesting (if pretty irrelevant) point. Where else do you see this effort? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/85 "2017-01-31T21:38:58Z")
Oh, you’re providing plenty. Keep up the good work, Sisyphus. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/86 "2017-01-31T21:55:46Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Which has nothing to do with the principle that to be a Cabinet member you have to be confirmed by the Senate for the position. It’s right there in the Constitution, as I explained, point by point. Except it isn’t. The Constitution does not define the term _cabinet_ or _cabinet member_. It refers in Article II § 2 to “the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments” and again in the 25th Amendment to “principal officers of the executive departments.” One might argue that “cabinet” is simply a synonym for “principal officers of the executive departments.” But that is also incorrect, since by longstanding tradition, the Cabinet also includes the Vice President. Your definition of qualification for the Cabinet also excludes recess appointments, which the Constitution specifically exempts from Senate confirmation, and who are not considered Acting appointments at all. Let’s ignore the issue of statutory succession for the moment and focus on transitionary appointments. The governing statute is the Federal Vacancies Reform Act that I mentioned above. That act provides, in part > [@5 USC § 3345](#): > > (a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office— > … > (2) … the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; > [@5 USC § 3346](#): > > (a) Except in the case of a vacancy caused by sickness, the person serving as an acting officer as described under section 3345 may serve in the office— > (1) for no longer than 210 days beginning on the date the vacancy occurs; > \*\*(irrelevent details snipped) > [@5 USC § 3349a](#): > > (b) With respect to any vacancy that exists during the 60-day period beginning on a transitional inauguration day, the 210-day period under section 3346 or 3348 shall be deemed to begin on the later of the date occurring— > (1) 90 days after such transitional inauguration day; or > (2) 90 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs. In other words, the Congress in their wisdom has delegated to the President the power to appoint acting officers to vacant principal executive positions when making a presidential transition. The only requirements are 1. That the appointment be made from the pool of subordinates whose appointment previously required the consent of the Senate, and 2. That the appointment not last longer than 210 + 90 days from the inauguration. The Senate, by agreeing to this legislation, has implicitly granted their consent to the temporary appointment of principal officers subject to these conditions, by virtue of having previously provided their consent to the appointment of the subordinate officers who so qualify. Neither the Constitution nor any federal law makes any distinction between “principal officers of the executive departments” and “acting principal officers of the executive departments.” Neither the Constitution nor any federal law or regulation establishes the Cabinet, defines the term “cabinet member” or “cabinet officer.” It is clear that the structure and functioning of the Cabinet is entirely informal and traditional, and completely at the discretion of the President. It is also clear that, subject to the time-limit conditions outlined above, there is no legal difference between a Secretary of Foo and an Acting Secretary of Foo. To the extent that we can legitimately define “cabinet member” as “the department heads plus the Vice President, plus whomever else the President may stick in that little room,” any Acting Secretary clearly qualifies. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/87 "2017-01-31T22:15:46Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Which has nothing to do with the principle that to be a Cabinet member you have to be confirmed by the Senate for the position. It’s right there in the Constitution, as I explained, point by point. She WAS confirmed by the Senate 84-12 ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/88 "2017-01-31T23:09:59Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > She WAS confirmed by the Senate 84-12 Not to that position. The “advice and consent” is non-transferable from position to position. ---
**Author:** ![Casey1505](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dc4da7/32.png) [@Casey1505](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Casey1505)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/89 "2017-01-31T23:31:07Z")
George W. Bush had [three “acting” cabinet members at one time](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/washington/15interim.html). Seemed perfectly legal. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/90 "2017-01-31T23:49:51Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Not to that position. The “advice and consent” is non-transferable from position to position. Except that it seems it can be, and routinely is, during transitions. And that > [@](#): > > 1. That the appointment be made from the pool of subordinates whose appointment previously required the consent of the Senate, and means that they were appointed with the advise and consent of the senate. I read somewhere that it might get awkward, because so many of the senate-approved officials have left that Trump wouldn’t have many people to choose from. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/91 "2017-02-01T00:58:46Z")
Acting cabinet members have to stay in the hall and shout their advice through the open doorway during cabinet meetings. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/92 "2017-02-01T01:48:10Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Not to that position. The “advice and consent” is non-transferable from position to position. If it helps, think of it this way. The position of, say, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, is defined, legally, as an appointment which requires the consent of the Senate and one which may serve as Acting Secretary of the department according to the terms of the Vacancies Reform Act. When the Senate grants their consent to an appointment to that position, they are saying, “we approve Bob Lobb for the position of Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, whose duties may also include acting as the Secretary of State in accordance with current legislation.” They don’t explicitly say all that, but it’s implied, since the duties of statutory executive positions are largely defined by their department’s enabling legislation and other laws (including the FVRA.) So the Senate is well aware that they are voting to confirm someone who may be called upon by a President to act as the department head for some time. The Senate, understandably, does not want people acting indefinitely, since they generally want to be more rigorous about confirming top-level officials. That’s why the FVRA was passed, to make it clear that an under secretary may only exercise the power of a department head for a limited time. All of that, however, is ultimately immaterial to whether or not an acting secretary is a “cabinet member.” The only authority that defines “cabinet member” is the President. And historically, the Cabinet has included acting department heads. That was true when Washington appointed the first Cabinet and it’s true today. There is no reason to suspect that this will change anytime in the future (though given Trump’s surprise re-org of the NSC, anything is possible.) ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/93 "2017-02-01T02:02:51Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > “All Cabinet members are nominated by the President and then presented to the Senate for confirmation or rejection by a simple majority.” I know I’ll regret stepping in to point out the obvious, but the above statement does not in any way read as “Cabinet members stop being cabinet members when the Presidency changes hands.” But even if we take your definition, you’re still wrong on the facts. [because Yates served at the request of the Trump administration.](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-us-attorneys-233740) > [@](#): > > “ **Upon the request of the incoming Administration** , Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates has agreed to serve as Acting Attorney General until a successor has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, effective at noon Friday, January 20, 2017,” Hornbuckle said. (bolding mine). ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/94 "2017-02-01T04:10:42Z")
Checking in to see if still debating about what the meaning of “is” is. Still are. Checking out. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/95 "2017-02-01T04:21:33Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > I know I’ll regret stepping in to point out the obvious, but the above statement does not in any way read as “Cabinet members stop being cabinet members when the Presidency changes hands.” I didn’t say that, did I? Gates served as Sec. of Defense without having to be confirmed again. > [@](#): > > But even if we take your definition, you’re still wrong on the facts. [because Yates served at the request of the Trump administration.](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-us-attorneys-233740) > (bolding mine). I never said she didn’t, so I cannot be “wrong” on that fact. I said she was not confirmed to that position by the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/96 "2017-02-01T11:34:33Z")
Had she not been fired, and had Trump wanted to keep her for four years, would she have to be confirmed? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/97 "2017-02-01T13:43:53Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Had she not been fired, and had Trump wanted to keep her for four years, would she have to be confirmed? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Casey1505](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dc4da7/32.png) [@Casey1505](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Casey1505)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/98 "2017-02-01T14:19:47Z")
…since the intention is to remove “acting” from her title. The 300 day limit would still apply, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/99 "2017-02-01T16:01:31Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > That would be a very stretching argument. AFAIK, the “advice and consent” has been consistently understood to mean confirmation hearings/voting, and is not discharged by passing a law once. Basically, the “advice and consent” presumes that the current Senate does the advising and consenting, not the Senate decades ago. If you read carefully I said it would be a rule not a law. And Senate Rules are re-approved every session so on January 3rd this Senate would have approved that rule had it existed. ---
**Author:** ![Catamount](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/catamount/32/2840_2.png) [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249/100 "2017-02-01T18:19:38Z")
What’s the difference between “fired” and “forced to resign?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-president-fired-a-member-of-his-cabinet/544249.md?page=6)