Rash: Senate should keep its check on cabinet nominees

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

To the relief of the country, let alone the candidates, the election is over. But with the Trump campaign pivoting to the Trump administration, the most profound presidential action — governing — now begins, starting with the appointment of cabinet and administration officials.

President-elect Donald Trump’s first call was wise, naming Susie Wiles, his de facto campaign manager, as his chief of staff. Wiles will make history as the first woman to hold the job, and already achieved another notable landmark by becoming the only manager to complete an entire campaign with Trump. This suggests that not only is she savvy in understanding the electorate but the man elected to lead the country as well.

Just as notable are those on the “no” list: Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo will not be part of his new administration, Trump posted on his social media platform. Haley served as U.N. ambassador and Pompeo had stints as CIA director and secretary of state under Trump. They were two of the more consistent, competent cabinet members during Trump’s term from 2017-2021. But Haley ran against Trump in the GOP primaries, drawing enough traditional Republicans that the voting cohort began to be referred to as “Haley Republicans.” Meanwhile, Pompeo publicly mulled a run but opted out.

Whether their political ambitions precluded Pompeo and Haley from serving during a second term is unclear. But from campaign rhetoric to initial appointments, including naming congressional defenders Elise Stefanik to U.N. ambassador and Lee Zeldin to EPA administrator or immigration hard-liner Stephen Miller to deputy chief of policy, this much seems certain: Loyalty to Trump is the key attribute for cabinet consideration.

Every president, of course, wants and deserves loyal appointees. But the country is served best when an administration is open to outside individuals, or at least influence. Most famously with Abraham Lincoln’s so-called “team of rivals,” which included three former political opponents in his cabinet. Other presidents of both parties have greatly benefited from intraparty and even interparty competitors being brought into the fold in order to offer at least a shade of gray to the White House.

The executive branch isn’t the only federal entity that should look beyond loyalty to competency. The Senate, despite decisively swinging back into Republican control, must do its due diligence, too.

“The confirmation of nominees is one of the most important responsibilities we have, and it’s a big part of our system of checks and balances,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who bucked the tough electoral environment for the Democrats to significantly outperform the presidential ticket in Minnesota and win her fourth term. Presidents of both parties, she said, have had nominees lose support after their first confirmation hearings and eventually withdraw.

Loyalty is important, acknowledged Klobuchar. But, she cautioned, “if that’s the only criteria then that’s a problem.” Minnesota’s senior senator said she sizes up cabinet candidates “in a normal fashion, which is to say: Is this someone who’s qualified to do their work, and are they going to live up to the expectations of running that department?”

If that answer is affirmative, Klobuchar said she “tries to find a way to ‘yes,’” as she did with Trump appointees like Pompeo for CIA chief, Elaine Chao for transportation secretary, and others. This doesn’t mean she agrees “with every single thing they said,” Klobuchar explained. “But are they going to be able to perform the duties of that agency as we know it?”

The Senate as we knew it doesn’t always, or even often, work this way anymore. And indeed, Trump has already called for a compliant Congress by demanding that those seeking to be the next Senate majority leader allow him to make some recess appointments that would bypass the confirmation process.

Consistently yielding to such a degree would circumvent senators’ crucial role in maintaining coequal branches of government and potentially create crises of governance on multiple fronts that do a disservice to the administration and America itself.

At the same time, senators would be best served by taking Klobuchar’s approach of principled consideration, not reflexive rejection or acceptance, of nominees or other legislation that may advance American interests regardless of which party the people or the policy comes from. Such moderation can actually create clout, the kind Klobuchar has earned in her Senate career. She should use it effectively in the coming weeks to concurrently hold her fellow senators accountable to their key constitutional duty. Because politics isn’t just about Election Day, but governance every day thereafter.