Fix the Senate confirmation process, don't steamroll it

President-elect Donald Trump’s demand that the Senate go into recess to allow his top appointees to take office without a confirmation vote would be a complete abdication of the chamber’s constitutional advice and consent responsibility, increasing the odds that unvetted and unqualified individuals will occupy critical government jobs.

Although the Senate has an obligation to evaluate independently and vote on presidential appointees to protect the public interest, Trump has a valid concern about getting his nominees confirmed in a timely manner.

The confirmation system is clearly broken, with the Senate routinely taking far too long to review and vote on presidential appointees — a problem that has grown worse over time and left important jobs vacant for lengthy periods in areas ranging from national security to public health and safety.

The number of political appointees subject to Senate confirmation — more than 1,300 — has grown by more than 70 percent since 1960, while the average time to confirm nominees has nearly quadrupled since the Reagan administration, from about 49 days then to 191 for President Joe Biden as of Aug. 2, according to an analysis by my organization, the Partnership for Public Service.

In addition to discouraging qualified nominees from government service, the system does not work for the Senate itself. Incredibly, the percentage of Senate votes on nominations now exceeds its votes on legislation. Votes on personnel matters — such as procedural votes, cloture votes to end debate and direct votes on nominations — made up a resounding 64 percent of all Senate recorded votes during Trump’s first term and made up 59 percent during Biden's presidency as of August.

In addition, many jobs sit vacant for years because the president and the Senate simply don’t have time to fill all these positions, with my organization identifying over 80 positions that were vacant more than 50 percent of the time between 2009 and 2023.

This broken process creates incentives for administrations to bypass the Senate and to name non-confirmed officials to serve on a temporary basis. In addition, it has prompted other presidents to resort to recess appointments, but generally only after they formally nominated individuals who then got bogged down in the Senate.

The recess appointments demanded by Trump clearly would not serve the country’s best interests. They would permit appointees to bypass critical FBI background checks, as well as the initial Office of Government Ethics’ strict review of conflicts of interest. It would deprive the Senate of its ability to determine whether nominees are committed to the public good rather than private interests and whether they can effectively run large and complex organizations that are vital to American interests.

Rather than abdicate these responsibilities, the Senate should take steps to restore the healthy balance established by our Founders for the president to nominate and the Senate to provide advice and consent.

First, senators should reduce the number of positions subject to confirmation. This would enhance, not undermine, the Senate’s advice and consent function by allowing the chamber to focus on the most critical high-level positions that warrant scrutiny due to their responsibilities and authorities. It would also allow a president to more easily appoint individuals to other positions.

Second, they shoulld institute Senate procedural reforms so that, for example, a single senator cannot singlehandedly stall the confirmation process. New ideas are needed. For example, the Senate majority leader should make the process more manageable by allowing bundles of nominees to go to the floor for a single vote instead of each one needing time for individual votes. The Senate could also streamline nominee paperwork in the way that a bipartisan congressional working group recommended over a decade ago.

Third, the Senate should reform the rule on returned nominations. Under a rule dating back to 1868, the Senate returns pending nominations to the president at the end of a session or when the Senate recesses for a period of more than 30 days, unless all 100 senators agree to waive the rule. Renomination triggers a restart of the process, slowing nominees, even those who already had been approved by the committees of jurisdiction, to move to final Senate vote. The Senate should limit the rule’s application to the end of the two-year congressional session or by raising the number of senators required to block waiver of the rule.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that the Senate confirmation process would act as a safeguard against the appointment of “unfit” officials and serve as a check against the abuse of power and those seeking to pursue private interests over the public good. These words are as true today as they were in the 1700s.

Fixing the current system will best serve the public interest — running roughshod over it will not.

Max Stier is president and CEO of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, an organization focused on building a better government and a stronger democracy.