Opinion | Insights from When a Cabinet Pick Last Faced Rejection in a Senate Vote
Here’s an analysis of why Trump's most controversial selections could still receive confirmation.
TroibNews 
If you've come down from the ledge after hearing about Donald Trump's recent Cabinet selections, I’d like to share some sobering historical examples that may shed light on why Trump appears to have a strong political foundation in nominating some of the most unqualified individuals ever proposed.
First, incoming presidents typically receive substantial deference when assembling their teams, and when beleaguered Cabinet nominees stand their ground instead of withdrawing quietly, they often endure.
The last Senate nominee to be rejected on the floor was John Tower in 1989 when he sought to become Defense Secretary. He faced allegations of alcoholism, sexual misconduct, and a difficult personality that distanced him from former Senate colleagues.
“He was a veteran senator who was arrogant, off-putting to his colleagues and despite all the deference that senators normally give to former colleagues, he got none of it,” wrote journalist Walter Shapiro.
Some of Trump's appointments, particularly Matt Gaetz's nomination for attorney general, might inspire a similar attitude among Republican senators. However, this doesn’t guarantee that Gaetz or other Cabinet candidates will meet the same fate as Tower.
It's often overlooked in discussions about the Tower incident that his nomination failed largely due to party alignment. At that time, Democrats held the majority, with 52 Democrats and one Republican — Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas — voting against Tower. Only three Democrats joined 44 Republicans in support. Had the Republicans controlled the Senate, Tower likely would have been confirmed.
Beginning in January, Republicans will hold a 53-seat majority, meaning if Trump can limit defections to three GOP votes, he can confirm his selections without issue.
This leads to the second point: Trump has continually demonstrated an ability to intimidate Republican lawmakers into aligning with him.
Consider the events in Texas last year. In the fall of 2023, the Texas House voted to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, who faced accusations from his aides of misappropriating funds, aiding a supporter entangled with the law, and abusing his office to cover up an extramarital affair. The Republican-dominated House voted 121-23 for impeachment. After Trump intervened on behalf of his ally, dubbing it “political persecution,” the Texas Senate quickly acquitted him with only two Republicans voting to convict. Trump claimed credit for preserving Paxton's position.
“.. my intervention through TRUTH SOCIAL saved Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from going down at the hands of Democrats and some Republicans, headed by PAUL RINO, Karl Rove, and others, almost all of whom came back to reason when confronted with the facts,” he posted.
Finally, the Republican majority in the next Senate is quite different from what Trump faced during his first term — largely because Trump has played a role in shaping it.
When Trump took office in 2017, the Senate was composed of 52 Republicans, sufficient to discard the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and appoint Neil Gorsuch. However, many of these GOP senators were far from being Trump loyalists; they were institutionalists hesitant to let Trump encroach on their constitutional authority.
Senators like John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Rob Portman of Ohio, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee would have strongly opposed nominees like Attorney General Matt Gaetz, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, or Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Their resistance helps explain why Trump’s initial nominees were more conventional choices, like Jim Mattis or Rex Tillerson.
Most of those senators are now gone, either unwilling or unable to counter the influence of MAGA Republicans. Trump's clout has grown to the point where a defense hawk and McCain ally like Lindsey Graham is likely to support Gabbard, who has echoed many of Vladimir Putin’s narratives and seems at times almost enamored of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Incoming GOP senators such as Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania and Bernie Moreno of Ohio owe their success, at least in part, to Trump.
In essence, the Senate landscape, which Trump has helped engineer, indicates that the bold challenge he poses — to confirm his nominees or face recess appointments — is likely to succeed. While it is possible that some of his choices may fail or withdraw due to undisclosed issues, would Senate Republicans really reject three or four appointments? Moreover, Trump and his nominees are not inclined to back down even amid rising opposition; they will press for a vote and test each senator's loyalty.
What emerges from this historical context and Trump’s appointments is striking. He is determined to implement what he envisions: selecting Cabinet members who embody the same disregard for “expertise” and “qualifications” that characterizes Trump’s perspective. His political influence has positioned him with a Senate that may be willing to forfeit its constitutional power in ways that would have once been considered unimaginable.
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
First, incoming presidents typically receive substantial deference when assembling their teams, and when beleaguered Cabinet nominees stand their ground instead of withdrawing quietly, they often endure.
The last Senate nominee to be rejected on the floor was John Tower in 1989 when he sought to become Defense Secretary. He faced allegations of alcoholism, sexual misconduct, and a difficult personality that distanced him from former Senate colleagues.
“He was a veteran senator who was arrogant, off-putting to his colleagues and despite all the deference that senators normally give to former colleagues, he got none of it,” wrote journalist Walter Shapiro.
Some of Trump's appointments, particularly Matt Gaetz's nomination for attorney general, might inspire a similar attitude among Republican senators. However, this doesn’t guarantee that Gaetz or other Cabinet candidates will meet the same fate as Tower.
It's often overlooked in discussions about the Tower incident that his nomination failed largely due to party alignment. At that time, Democrats held the majority, with 52 Democrats and one Republican — Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas — voting against Tower. Only three Democrats joined 44 Republicans in support. Had the Republicans controlled the Senate, Tower likely would have been confirmed.
Beginning in January, Republicans will hold a 53-seat majority, meaning if Trump can limit defections to three GOP votes, he can confirm his selections without issue.
This leads to the second point: Trump has continually demonstrated an ability to intimidate Republican lawmakers into aligning with him.
Consider the events in Texas last year. In the fall of 2023, the Texas House voted to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, who faced accusations from his aides of misappropriating funds, aiding a supporter entangled with the law, and abusing his office to cover up an extramarital affair. The Republican-dominated House voted 121-23 for impeachment. After Trump intervened on behalf of his ally, dubbing it “political persecution,” the Texas Senate quickly acquitted him with only two Republicans voting to convict. Trump claimed credit for preserving Paxton's position.
“.. my intervention through TRUTH SOCIAL saved Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from going down at the hands of Democrats and some Republicans, headed by PAUL RINO, Karl Rove, and others, almost all of whom came back to reason when confronted with the facts,” he posted.
Finally, the Republican majority in the next Senate is quite different from what Trump faced during his first term — largely because Trump has played a role in shaping it.
When Trump took office in 2017, the Senate was composed of 52 Republicans, sufficient to discard the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and appoint Neil Gorsuch. However, many of these GOP senators were far from being Trump loyalists; they were institutionalists hesitant to let Trump encroach on their constitutional authority.
Senators like John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Rob Portman of Ohio, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee would have strongly opposed nominees like Attorney General Matt Gaetz, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, or Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Their resistance helps explain why Trump’s initial nominees were more conventional choices, like Jim Mattis or Rex Tillerson.
Most of those senators are now gone, either unwilling or unable to counter the influence of MAGA Republicans. Trump's clout has grown to the point where a defense hawk and McCain ally like Lindsey Graham is likely to support Gabbard, who has echoed many of Vladimir Putin’s narratives and seems at times almost enamored of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Incoming GOP senators such as Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania and Bernie Moreno of Ohio owe their success, at least in part, to Trump.
In essence, the Senate landscape, which Trump has helped engineer, indicates that the bold challenge he poses — to confirm his nominees or face recess appointments — is likely to succeed. While it is possible that some of his choices may fail or withdraw due to undisclosed issues, would Senate Republicans really reject three or four appointments? Moreover, Trump and his nominees are not inclined to back down even amid rising opposition; they will press for a vote and test each senator's loyalty.
What emerges from this historical context and Trump’s appointments is striking. He is determined to implement what he envisions: selecting Cabinet members who embody the same disregard for “expertise” and “qualifications” that characterizes Trump’s perspective. His political influence has positioned him with a Senate that may be willing to forfeit its constitutional power in ways that would have once been considered unimaginable.
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
