The possibility of President-elect Donald Trump using recess appointments to bypass Senate confirmation and fill his Cabinet has sparked heated debate. Recess appointments, a tool enshrined in the Constitution, allow a president to temporarily fill positions when the Senate is not in session. While this strategy has been used by presidents of both parties, its potential use by Trump in today’s polarized political climate raises compelling arguments on both sides.

The Case for Recess Appointments

1. Breaking the Gridlock
   Trump’s supporters argue that recess appointments could be a lifeline for a president trying to implement his agenda against a wall of opposition. With the Senate confirmation process increasingly bogged down by partisanship and procedural delays, critical posts might remain vacant for months, hamstringing the executive branch. As Brian Darling pointed out in The Hill, “This massive number of empty jobs… will make it virtually impossible for the Trump administration to conduct any business for months.” Recess appointments would ensure that the federal government remains functional and responsive to the needs of the American people.
2. Restoring Executive Authority
   Recess appointments are a constitutional mechanism designed to keep the government running when the Senate is unavailable. The Founders never intended for the Senate to use “pro-forma” sessions—where they technically convene but don’t actually conduct business—as a way to block the president from making appointments. Trump’s use of recess appointments could be seen as a bold move to reclaim the balance of power between the branches, an assertion that the executive branch will not be held hostage by partisan gamesmanship.
3. A Strategy for Political Capital
   Strategically, recess appointments could allow Trump to preserve political capital for more critical battles with Congress. As Darling argues, this approach could focus Congress on legislating while giving Trump the Cabinet he needs to hit the ground running. Given the slim one-year window before the next election cycle ramps up, Trump’s administration might have only a short period to achieve significant legislative victories.

The Case Against Recess Appointments

1. Unconstitutional Overreach?
   Critics argue that recess appointments in this context could breach constitutional boundaries. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the Noel Canning decision, described the recess power as an “anachronism” that undermines the Senate’s constitutional role of advice and consent. Trump forcing a recess, especially in partnership with a GOP-controlled House, could spark a constitutional crisis and alienate moderate voters who value checks and balances.
2. Separation of Powers at Risk
   The Framers were wary of tyranny, deliberately dividing power among the branches of government. Allowing Trump to bypass the Senate entirely would consolidate too much power in the executive branch. As Andrew C. McCarthy noted in National Review, “The president cannot hire anyone he wants.” This safeguard ensures qualified, trustworthy individuals fill key government roles. Undermining it risks not just bad appointments but an erosion of the Senate’s constitutional authority.
3. A Dangerous Precedent
   Republicans supporting Trump’s recess appointments must consider the long-term implications. If Trump uses this power, future presidents—Democrats included—will almost certainly follow suit. This could lead to an era of unchecked presidential authority, where the Senate’s role in confirming appointments becomes a relic of the past. Would conservatives accept a future president Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom wielding the same power? Probably not.
4. Litigation and Legislative Fallout
   Attempting recess appointments in this way would likely invite immediate legal challenges, creating more uncertainty than stability. Moreover, it risks alienating Republican senators whose support Trump will need for his broader legislative agenda. As the New York Post editorial board warned, “It’d build huge ill-will among senators… and more broadly among moderate and traditional conservative Americans.”

A Thorny but Important Debate

The question of Trump using recess appointments is a test of priorities and principles. On the one hand, it offers a way to overcome obstruction and ensure that the federal government runs efficiently. On the other, it threatens to undermine constitutional safeguards designed to prevent overreach and tyranny.

Trump’s allies should consider whether short-term gains justify the long-term risks. The precedent set by recess appointments might serve his administration now, but it could also empower future presidents to expand executive authority in ways conservatives would find intolerable.

The debate ultimately comes down to whether the ends justify the means—and whether a nation that treasures its Constitution can afford to bend its principles for political expediency. For now, as Speaker Mike Johnson said, “We’ll evaluate that at the appropriate time.” The right decision will require wisdom, patience, and a commitment to the values that have guided this republic for over two centuries.