We look with aghast wonder at the collection of nobodies Trump is designating for many of his agency and first cabinet posts. Clearly, as most commentators have observed, Trump's criteria in his designation of this clump of mediocrity is personal loyalty to him rather than any demonstrated competence at the intended tasks to be undertaken.
There are those that believe Trump is putting forward names he knows will not be approved, expecting that the Congress will deny the appointments and then go into recess shortly after Trump is inaugurated with certain offices left un-filled. While the Congress is in recess, the federal statutes permit the president to make recess appointments of whomever he wishes, without triggering Congressional approval, with the appointed individual entitled to serve in office for almost a year. Some analysts contend that Trump intends to foist off some individuals who he knows would not receive Senate approval by the use of this device.
Witness, for example, the designation of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, a man widely considered to be a drunk and convicted at least once of sexual misconduct. In other times, either circumstance would be totally disqualifying for any major federal appointment. Today, the combination is apparently viewed as irrelevant as potential naysayers from the Senate's Republican caucus are being threatened with primary opposition if they do not abandon their objections and toe the line with a vote to approve the nomination.
This is setting up an unusual lose-lose circumstance for any member of the Senate with misgivings about Trump's appointees. They get the plainly flawed nominee if they do not oppose Trump's first-named individual, but they earn the risk of a primary challenge if they oppose the nominee, and they may get a worse appointee put into place via a recess appointment if they go on break with the issue up in the air.
In an unusual circumstance not previously experienced, Trump has designated several individuals to head up agencies which they have publicly maintained ought to be significantly restricted if not eliminated. Trump's announcement of Linda McMahon, an opponent of federal intervention in the areas of primary and secondary education, as his choice for Secretary of Education, is a prime example, as is the announcement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal opponent of federal assistance to states upon the happening of natural disasters, as his choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for disaster relief.
In times past, the president-to-be has remained largely silent during the time from election in November to inauguration in mid-January. The staff efforts in selecting individuals to fill all slots available to the new president are largely conducted in private, with the Senate's committee review of the president-elect's lists being conducted behind closed doors. Formal announcement of many of not most of the chosen individuals is reserved until after the president is sworn in and is on the job, or at least until after the proposed candidate for appointment has received tacit approval from the Senate committee responsible for review.
The presidents-to-be also usually remain silent on the specifics of any changes they intend to make after their inauguration. An exception to this might exist if the out-going president attempts to impose regulations or law changes that would impair the in-coming president in some way.
None of this seems to apply to Trump, who has been vocal from early on about all the steps he intends to take as soon as he is sworn into office. He has, however, changed in a material way how he claims he intends to approach at least some of these steps now.
Early on, he claimed that he would take the steps and control the processes himself, personally, from the White House. For example, early on Trump announced that he intended to pardon a goodly number if not all of the individuals convicted of the violence and acts of destruction brought about in the January 6 capital insurrection. Now, however, when asked about his intentions, he disclaims any preconceived intention on his part get involved in specific agency administration, stating instead that the agency
heads will take up these issues in regular channels on a case-by-case basis. The duplicity apparent in this change in the explanation should be obvious. Trump is appointing the officials who will be in charge of administering the offices and has repeatedly made it perfectly clear of what he expects with respect to their review.
All this brings to mind the alleged practice of the Mafia kingpins passing orders to their underlings by stating aloud that "somebody" ought to take a specific action in the instance. The notion is that by stating the desire in this indirect manner, the kingpin cannot be personally held criminally responsible for any specific action taken by the underling.
Although Trump is now stating that he has no intention of involving himself in these matters personally but will simply allow the processes to play out within the separate agencies involved, he has already made it perfectly clear what he expects in this area from the individuals he is or will be appointing to the agencies involved.
Hang on to your seats, everybody, we are heading into completely uncharted waters with no way of knowing who, what, where or when Trump intends to act next.