--- title: On Trump's Cabinet Picks, McConnell Issues a Warning description: As Trump's base claims he can appoint his cabinet through recess appointments, McConnell defends the Senate's role, suggests it's the only option canonical: https://time.com/7177280/donald-trump-cabinet-mitch-mcconnell/ author: Philip Elliott article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2024-11-18T21:28:38.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-10-19T07:48:36.688Z article:section: Politics og:title: On Trump's Cabinet Picks, McConnell Issues a Warning og:description: As Trump's base claims he can appoint his cabinet through recess appointments, McConnell defends the Senate's role, suggests it's the only option og:url: https://time.com/7177280/donald-trump-cabinet-mitch-mcconnell/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt47b8c040eb23d776/698a9c48b21a9cb6d5511285/GettyImages-2173582295.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1024 og:image:height: 576 og:image:alt: House Plans Vote On Government Funding Bill og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: On Trump's Cabinet Picks, McConnell Issues a Warning twitter:description: As Trump's base claims he can appoint his cabinet through recess appointments, McConnell defends the Senate's role, suggests it's the only option twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt47b8c040eb23d776/698a9c48b21a9cb6d5511285/GettyImages-2173582295.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Once Again, Donald Trump Misreads the Senate > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME D.C. Brief: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition D.C. Brief is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington. D.C. Brief goes beyond the Washington headlines to explain the politics, personalities and power dynamics shaping what happens next. Senior correspondent Philip Elliott brings sharp context to the issues driving the capital, connecting the decisions made in Washington to the institutions, industries and people they affect. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=2868b1c2-5c8c-44d8-ba18-f631e553f492&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Twice a week | time.com/newsletters, September 2026 | | Written by | Philip Elliott, Senior Correspondent | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership The policy influence ecosystem. A policy-focused audience spanning government, public affairs, advocacy, law, research, political media, and the institutions that make, interpret and respond to public policy. ### TIME D.C. Brief: key statements * D.C. Brief is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * D.C. Brief is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=2868b1c2-5c8c-44d8-ba18-f631e553f492&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/subscribe?i=2868b1c2-5c8c-44d8-ba18-f631e553f492&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is TIME's politics newsletter? D.C. Brief is TIME's Washington newsletter, written by senior correspondent Philip Elliott. It explains the politics, personalities and power dynamics behind the headlines, twice a week. #### Where can I get analysis of Washington politics by email? D.C. Brief is TIME's free Washington politics newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. It is written by a TIME senior correspondent who covers the capital full time. #### Who writes TIME's D.C. Brief? Philip Elliott, a senior correspondent at TIME, writes D.C. Brief. #### Is D.C. Brief free? Yes. D.C. Brief is free at time.com/newsletters. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=2868b1c2-5c8c-44d8-ba18-f631e553f492&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1) ## Video: Donald Trump's Most Controversial New Cabinet and Staff Announcements [Watch (HLS stream): Donald Trump's Most Controversial New Cabinet and Staff Announcements](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/rdpvrY3O.m3u8) (25:00)  _Published 2024-11-15. TIME Correspondents Brian Bennett and Philip Elliot break down Trump's most controversial new appointments to his administration._  by [Philip Elliott](https://time.com/author/philip-elliott/)  ## Philip Elliott Senior Correspondent Nov 18, 2024 9:28 PM UTC TIME Correspondents Brian Bennett and Philip Elliot break down Trump's most controversial new appointments to his administration.  by [Philip Elliott](https://time.com/author/philip-elliott/)  ## Philip Elliott Senior Correspondent Nov 18, 2024 9:28 PM UTC _This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up_ [_here_](https://cloud.newsletters.time.com/signup?nln=dc-brief&source=dc%5Fonsite) _to get stories like this sent to your inbox._ Inside Donald Trump’s hermetically sealed bubble of supporters, it’s become something of a given that the former and future President can simply [bypass](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/14/trump-recess-appointments-gaetz-rfk/) Congress and magically [fill](https://www.npr.org/2024/11/16/g-s1-34493/how-far-can-trump-go-to-get-his-nominees-confirmed) his [Cabinet](https://time.com/7175034/donald-trump-administration-new-members/) with the loyalists of his choosing. That might have been the case if Trump didn’t want [Matt Gaetz](https://time.com/7176545/matt-gaetz-attorney-general-trump/) and [Pete Hegseth](https://time.com/7176003/who-is-pete-hegseth-fox-news-trump-defense/) as Attorney General and Secretary of Defense, or [Tulsi Gabbard](https://time.com/7176696/gabbard-russia-connection-trump-intelligence/) overseeing the nation’s spy agencies—not to mention [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.](https://time.com/7177027/rfk-jr-hhs-secretary-trump-public-health/) getting anywhere near the CDC. These are picks almost tailor-made to ensure the Constitution’s [Advice and Consent](https://time.com/5382104/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-confirmation-hearing-history/) clause remains on sturdy ground. Even those who most need Trump to think they are worthy allies are setting the ground for a slow slide back to reality: “None of this is gonna’ be easy,” incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune said last week of Trump’s nominees, underscoring just how much of a slam-dunk this Cabinet is not. But if you want to really understand the posture key leaders are taking on Trump’s norm-busting nominees, [listen](https://punchbowl.news/article/senate/whats-next-for-mitch-mcconnell/) carefully to what outgoing Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is [telling](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4993465-mcconnell-mccarthy-gaetz-cabinet/) allies in open session and, [perhaps](https://www.mediaite.com/politics/rino-traitor-maga-flips-out-over-now-deleted-tweet-claiming-mcconnell-told-trump-team-there-will-be-no-recess-appointments/), in private [counsel](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14094959/MAGA-world-outraged-Mitch-McConnell-secret-plot-derail-Trump.html). “Institutions worth preserving have to be defended. And this is the work which, by necessity, has occupied my focus during my time in Washington,” McConnell [told](https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000193-242d-d0f9-aff7-f5ff95820000) a conservative think tank gala in his honor last week. “It’s been quite evident to me that a credible check on majority rule was worth preserving even when it didn’t serve my party’s immediate political interests. Because wild swings in policy with every transfer of power don’t serve the nation’s interest. For consequential legislation to endure, it should have to earn the support of a broad coalition.” McConnell was speaking broadly at an American Enterprise Institute event about the Senate’s baked-in slow pace and its capacity to cool passions. But when asked point-blank, the outgoing Leader minced no words: “Each of these nominees needs to come before the Senate and go through the process and be vetted.” To someone unversed in McConnell-ese, that answer might not have meant much, but it was a doozy for anyone who knows the way in which the Kentucky Republican wields his influence. By Sunday night, perhaps egged on by a since-deleted message on the platform formerly known as Twitter, the MAGAverse was going [ballistic](https://www.mediaite.com/politics/rino-traitor-maga-flips-out-over-now-deleted-tweet-claiming-mcconnell-told-trump-team-there-will-be-no-recess-appointments/) at the suggestion that the Upper Chamber was not on-board with giving Trump a blank check on his own Cabinet. If Trump can’t get the support he needs from a Republican-controlled Senate to confirm his polarizing picks, that leaves only the prospect of recess appointments to ram them through. It’s an idea that’s led to some out-of-the-box fantasizing. (The House, too, would have to [recess](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mike-johnson-leaves-door-open-recess-appointments-trump-cabinet-rcna180540), although the roadmap to Speaker Mike Johnson managing to engineer a Senate recess has too many pitfalls to take seriously.) Privately, Republicans are dubious that availing himself of widespread or even unilateral recess appointments is the best way for Trump to assemble his second-term team or to sustain any credibility for the Senate. But they also are bracing for an incoming White House unmoored with norms or traditions, with an eye toward [vengeance](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/30/trump-doj-revenge-political-enemies-00178218), and a leader who sees any second-guessing as disloyalty meriting meted justice. Yet at least on his Cabinet nominees, no one should expect Thune to abdicate his safeguarding role. After all, he’s long sat at McConnell’s side to study the particulars of the Senate history and tradition. That’s why so many insiders see McConnell’s comments—those confirmed and those dubiously reported and then deleted from social media—as a cover for others to quietly defect. Like House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, McConnell expects to formally slide back into a rank-and-file position in his party but [retain](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/3231926/mcconnell-pelosi-retirement-leadership/) outsized influence on big questions of strategy, identity, and ambition—even as party colleagues may [grumble](https://time.com/7173550/how-kamala-harris-lost/) about leaders who won’t actually give up power. The Trump-McConnell animus is never going to evaporate and provides a useful foil for Thune to try to stay in Trump’s good graces as long as possible. When asked last week about the possible use of recess appointments, Thune was careful in his word choice and seemed plenty happy to let McConnell play the heavy. “It’s an option,” he said of leaving the Senate on a break long enough for Trump to install his picks to serve roughly two years. But he was realistic about the math in his chat with Fox News. “You have to have all Republicans vote to recess, as well. So the same Republicans … that might have a problem voting for somebody under regular order probably also has a problem voting to put the Senate into recess.” Put plainly: that is really, really unlikely to happen. Someone like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is not going to be ready to tank a Gaetz nomination by recorded vote but then send herself home for at least 10 days to give Trump a Supreme Court-guided window of a recessed legislature. All of this is steeped in the experiences of the longest-serving party chief in Senate [history](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/03/mitch-mcconnell-senate-longest-serving-leader-00076161), McConnell. He has hardly been circumspect about his skepticism toward Trump—or any President, really—relying on the procedural loophole to stack the deck while lawmakers are away, regardless of if the fuse-lighting tweet might have been made in haste or error. Take, for instance, Trump’s 2018 demands that McConnell eliminate the procedural hurdle of 60 votes to move forward on most legislation. McConnell simply [ignored](https://time.com/4763816/mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-filibuster/) the demand, drawing more ire from Trump without any real cost to his power in the Senate. And when Joe Biden tried for the same result in 2022, McConnell once again simply [pretended](https://time.com/6138838/democrats-filibuster-voting-mcconnell/) the request didn’t land in the Capitol. It’s expected to [remain](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-promise-protect-senate-filibuster-even-hinders-trumps-agen-rcna179893) the same when Thune takes over in the next Congress. Most Republican lawmakers seemed to agree with that posture, one that served McConnell and his legacy well even if it left Trump and Biden alike frustrated. Therein lies the power of Senate inertia. Unlike Trump, the Senate doesn’t [swerve](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/01/trump-wisconsin-swerves-subjects/). It tends to hold steady, which is why—at least in an historical framework—Trump’s visions of unilateral appointments to the Cabinet don’t really hold up to scrutiny. Going against Trump is risky, but the bigger trouble may come from trying to recalibrate the Senate to accommodate potential Cabinet picks who thus far have drawn a mix of confusion, bemusement, and horror from the halls of the U.S. Capitol. _Make sense of what matters in Washington._ [_Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter_](https://cloud.newsletters.time.com/signup?nln=dc-brief&source=dc%5Fonsite)_._ ## Transcript Hey, I'm Brian Bennett. I cover the White House for Time. Hi, I'm Phil Elliott. I'm a columnist and correspondent for T here in Washington as well. And Brian and I are just down the hall from each other here, but we're going to talk about what we've been discussing each other's doorways all week since Phil, we've had a lot of nominations from Donald Trump. You wrote this week about Matt Gates and what that means. What are your thoughts right now? Why is that such an important topic right now? I have never seen a cabinet pig so roundly criticized and condemned and even preemptively rejected by the members of the President Alec's own Party. Matt Gates is a firebrand. He has made himself no friends in the House. I mean, he toppled a House Speaker of Kevin McCarthy without so much as a plan, let alone an alternative for him. He is universally hated in the House. The Senate has very little use for him, but he's a hero in the MAGA movement. Problem is, he has a little bit of a history here. The department that he's been picked to oversee the Justice Department has investigated him on perhaps potential child sex trafficking. There have been allegations of revenge porn, drug use. I mean, this is a it's like spring break coming to the Capitol. Can someone be nominated to take over department by, Department of Justice that they were being investigated with recently? How does that work? You know, we've never been here before, and I think we're going to be having a lot of these conversations in the next four years with Donald Trump back in the White House. I mean, it's just never crossed anyone's mind that can you it's like putting an arsonist in charge of a fire department. But this is what we're going to be doing here for a while. Matt Gates has vowed that he will exact revenge. Steve Bannon, the president's perhaps biggest outside advisor, has said the hunted have become the hunters, and that there really is just this pervasive sense that this is just the first of many steps that Trump is going to put in place to exact revenge on his enemies, foes, even his critics. And, you know, the Attorney General is a really powerful position here in government, and it can touch every single American's life in a huge way. I mean, the FBI is part of the Justice Department. The Supreme cases at the Supreme Court are argued on behalf of the administration by the solicitor general who is part of the Justice Department. Alcohol, firearm, tobacco. I mean, all of this, DA all of this falls under the Justice Department. It's a huge machine, and we're not really sure I'm not sure how seriously to take the president's nomination of Matt Gates. He says he's serious. The people around him say he's serious. But also quietly in the last couple of days, he's also nominated some pretty serious, level headed, even handed people as the sub cabinet. So even Democrats I know in the Justice Department, breathe a sigh of relief when they heard some of these names that, okay, these are the people who'd actually be running day to day. And if history is any guide, they'll be the people working as an acting attorney general or acting deputy attorney general while we sort through the Matt Gates confirmation hearing or if someone else is nominated in his place, I mean, what are you hearing, Brian? I mean, it sounds like this kind of tracks. What do you think? Yeah, what do you think he's trying to do with Matt Gates nomination in general? And what Trump loves to get attention. He loves to look like he's breaking things in Washington. What do you think is his big picture objective by putting Gatt Gates forward as a nominee? So two things can be true at once, and I think both of these truth, varying degrees are accurate. One is, he just wants to upend everything, that this is Ham saying, the way we've done this in the past has not worked. We're not going to go back to doing it again. And you know anyone who doesn't like this, if you don't fall in line, I'll know you're disloyal and your next couple of years going to be really miserable. The other theory, and it's been interesting everyone from Ann Coulter to Chuck Todd have pointed this out that maybe this is a false flag, and this is a way to soften the ground for, okay, it won't be Matt Gates, but whoever comes after it has to be better than Matt Gates, this is a way for him to do a false flag softening the ground. So when his real nominee comes forward, it's going to be curious. The problem here is Matt Gates has resigned from Congress, at least for the hundred and 18th Congress. The idea there it would spare him a very, if the early detail leaks are accurate, a very messy report from the Ethics Committee, the thinking is, if you're no longer a member of the House, the Ethics Committee can't come and get you. Well, that might not be the case given how much of the Ethics Committee report has already leaked and how much the senators are asking for the full copy of it. So yeah, Matt Gates might have left the House, maybe for good, maybe just the end of the hundred and 18th. Um, with really no protection under him. But to say that this has been one of the things that has consumed Washington would really be an understatement. Brian to pivot stuff you're reporting, there's a similar panic happening in the intelligence community, isn't there? With Talsey Gabbard taking over? Yeah, that's exactly right. So when Telsey Gabbard was named as the nominee for the office of the director of National Intelligence, a number of intelligence officials that I talked to were really alarmed. They were concerned about her track record of of parroting Russian propaganda, taking stances against standard and bipartisan US foreign policy positions, you know, she put out a video two years ago where she described bioabs in Ukraine as being in danger of releasing pathogens if the war continued, and that should be a reason for a ceasefire, which was, like, a direct parroting of things that the Russian government had been putting out. And that drew concerns among people who watched this really closely about her judgment and that if she was in charge of you know, 16 other intelligence agencies, which the ODNI is in charge of that she could be in a position to censor intelligence reports or, you know, defund or de emphasize investigations into Russia or other places. I mean, I spoke to someone who said that at the CIA, for example, after she was named, a number of people have gone and are looking for new jobs, are thinking about they have to get their resumes cleared, and they're going to the HR department to try to get their resumes cleared so that they could go out and look for other things. In case Jolse Gabbert and other people that Trump nominates in the intelligence community decide that they want to come in and really start putting political pressure on intelligence conclusions, which intelligence analysts are trained to try to speak truth to power, to say unpopular things to the president. You know, challenge the received wisdom of what the president is hearing and put forward facts. So yeah, Tols the nomination of Telsey Gabbert really sent a chill within the intelligence community, and we'll have to see, you know, how that plays out. I think she will also have a hard time during confirmation hearings. We'll have to see what the senators say about it, particularly Republican senators. I do think, you know, this, like you mentioned, uh, both the Matt Gates and Tolsey Gabbert seem to be a kind of litmus test by Trump to test the loyalty of the Republican senators and to see how far they will let him go in putting forward these really controversial nominations. What do you think about that? Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, it's also worth remembering. I mean, this is a relatively new position that came out of the post 911 reforms. I mean, this is not just some administrator of some backwater. The Director of National Intelligence is the chief spy adviser to the president of the United States. It's a huge position with great oversight, great authority, which really he was put into position because there was a feeling that the intelligence community wasn't sharing in the lead up to 911 enough information that they had. And this is a person who's supposed to come in and make sure that the intelligence community is all working together and identifying what the most important threats are and sharing the right information so the country can be prepared for these threats. You know, like you said, that position has a tremendous amount of power and influence. Yeah, I mean, it's also for those unfamiliar with Talsey Gabbert's record, she also briefly ran for president, I mean, as a Democrat. So, I mean, there's a whole lot of head scratching about this one. I just don't know if this gets through, which brings us maybe to our third, maybe potential first cut but not final cut of the cabinet with Pete Hagseth, the Fox News host, who's been nominated to be the Defense Secretary, overseeing a huge piece of the federal government, national security cornerstone here, yet I mean, he is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's one thing to run a sound stage in Manhattan for Fox and Friends weekend. It's another to run a huge bureaucracy at the Defense Department. I mean, what are you hearing from your folks on this, Brian? Yeah, I mean, it's really fascinating thing to watch former President elect Trump nominate a Fox news anchor to run, you know, the biggest and most influential part of his cabinet. I it's laudable that Hegath has on the ground combat experience as an infantryman. He has been vocally critical of women in combat. He said women should not be in combat, which has been a major push by the Pentagon, going back to the Obama administration. And He feels like the culture wars have bled too far into how the military chooses its leadership. And so he would come in with a big project to try to reverse that. But I think another big thing is that he just hasn't had the senior leadership experience that you need to run a massive federal agency that reaches around the entire globe. And so that's going to be a really interesting nomination process as well. I also am love to talk about RFK junior for HHS. So the Health and Human Services, which again, it's a massive bureaucracy that touches American lives, whether it's through the Centers for Disease Control, medical investments, you know, drug approvals. Head Start. You just go Head Start program. The Head Start pre K program is an GHS part of it because it funds public health for the young and the most vulnerable, poor kids. I mean, it is This is just one of those. This, I think is the most sure fire nonstarter among Senate Republicans just because he's an anti vaccine guy who he spouted a ton of things that just fall way outside the mainstream of contemporary science and with a potential pandemic brewing out west with bird flu, I mean, is this the guy we really want to put in charge? I mean, this is a guy who's anti vaccine. The only reason you and I are back at the office anymore is because, to his credit, President Trump did Operation War Speed. President Biden got it into the CVSs around the country. And they were able to get back to some semblance of normalcy because of vaccines. RFK has said, vaccines are garbage that maybe they cause autism. I mean, he's trying to get fluoride out of the water. I mean, there's just this whole I mean, even his comments on that have not been um they're not isolated. His comments about HIV and AIDS being the byproduct of sexual party drugs. I mean, it's just like this is all just outside of the realm of acceptable or even debatable science. And presumably President Trump understood. President elect Trump. I mean, we're going to have President President Trump is going to be one of these weird constructs that we're going to have to go through for a while as protocol goes. But he has to have known this was going to get back. Last, maybe was that the point? Was it just to kind of throw salt in the wound of everyone, especially Democrats who are staring down a bunch of these nominations that some of them they'll go along with. Some of them they absolutely will not. But you can imagine some Democrats going along with Marco Rubio's nomination to run the State Department. No one's going to really object to Doug Burgum running interior. I mean, these are some of these Doug Collins running the VA. None of these are I mean, no one loves them, but they're also not as objectionable as, say, you know, RFK junior who I mean, through the entire campaign, he was nothing but a buffet of sideshow subplots. I mean, it's just a question now of does this tank his nomination or is all the chatter about this nomination going to overshadow, say, Donald Trump himself. And, Brian, you've covered the man now for a while. You know, he does not take kindly to others creeping into a spotlight. No, he doesn't. So he's both drawn to celebrity. And doesn't want anyone to overshadow him. So, you know, I think he was drawn to RFK Junior's celebrity and what he did to get a lot of attention over the last year when he was running for president. And, you know, I think he wanted also to appeal to the aspect of his party that the fringe aspect that's been critical of vaccines. But there's a lot of things about RFK junior that are not aligned with the Republican Party or even things that Trump has gone with. I mean, he has talked about wanting to, you know, strip out chemicals and foods. Well, that's going to require additional regulation. And that cuts against the larger project that Trump pitched to voters, which was that he would strip away regulations. There's going to be a lot of tensions that would play out if RFK junior actually gets confirmed and gets to hold the reins for the Health and Human Services Department. Um, another person I want to talk to is in the immigration space, Tom Hom, who ran immigration and customs enforcement. And but so he was the head of the American Deportation program under the Trump and Trump's first term. And he has been nominated or he's been named by Trump to be a border Czar, which is like, you know, it's a job that doesn't have, at this point, an agency or funding. Um what do you think is at work there? And why do you think Trump wanted to reach for someone like Tom Homan for that job? I mean, the symbolism here is as strong as his biography. I mean, no one can credibly question whether Tom Homan can get the job done. I mean, is he was the architect of the first Trump term border policy, and it was I accomplished what Trump wanted to see done. Whether there was good policy is a totally different matter, but he gave Trump what he wanted. Um, in elevating him from acting ICE immigration, customs enforcement to this borders R role, it expands his power, but also leaves him in largely an unchecked place. I mean what committee summons him before Congress to testify. I mean, the way it's been described to me it's going to be in charge of not just the border, but also the planes coming into the country, the boats and ships coming into the country, maybe railroads, I mean, just so much of I mean, food inspection at the border. There's just so much that this could touch. It's totally sweeping without really any oversight. And I just have to take a moment and appreciate everyone who is freaking out about when President Obama named Cars. Suddenly, they're all forgetting that czars are bad, and they're fine with Tom Homan's a good czar. Like, give him his own little his Dacha and let him have his little fiefdom in government, and he can boss the cabinet around whoever he wants. I just don't know that this is an actual workable situation anymore than I think the office of the Doge, the new government efficiency office that on Musk and D Yeah. Elon Mosque Elon Musk Rama Swami who are doing this blue ribbon commission outside of government, it turns out, where you're going to be working 80 hours a week but not being paid and not government employees. I mean, this is that extra government, just one step removed that just really makes all of this seem so oddly familiar to the first term when the people actually in Trump's ear were not the people who even had government email addresses. They were not on government payroll, but yet were, you know, pulling the strings from either their couches on Fox News or their count houses on Capitol Hill or their wallets, frankly, around the country. I mean, what Brian, are you having deja vu on this or am I alone on this? I am having deja vu. I think it's really interesting that Elon Musk and Vigor Basami will be nominally in charge of cutting government spending, but it seems like they won't have any actual government job or official government role, which leaves him on the outside at this, you know, vaguely titled Department of Government Efficiency, basically making recommendations into the Trump administration on what needs to be cut, but without any of the teeth or tools to actually implement any of that. For Elon Musk, he has companies to run. So kind of I can understand why he wouldn't necessarily want to take a government job. But this is it's hard to see what kind of impact it's going to have. People often have titles, but without power and without people to employ and without a budget to control, that limits your influence. Yeah. I mean, we've also we've been through I mean, Al Gore did reinventing government, and that was actually done on the inside when he was vice president. But we've also seen these outside commissions and expert panels come through with you know, Simpson Bowles came through with a really, you know, aggressive plan to curb government spending through the Obama years. And those two very well intentioned, thoughtful, sober men they basically were sold, Thank you for your paper. We're going to put it on the shelf, and nothing ever happened to it because cutting government spending is fundamentally not a popular option here in Washington. Everyone wants to cut spending until it hits their district or their state. And, I mean, heading into the midterms that are already going to be difficult, um, for Republicans. Historically, the party in control of the White House on a first term, although this isn't technically a first term, it'll feel like a first term for a lot of voters. Typically, they get shacked. I mean, Barack Obama lost 63 seats in his first at bat. This is not going to be an easy fight for Republicans. And Republicans, do they go along with the Trump endorsed, you know, empowered government spending cuts when it means, you know, maybe ship maybe that sealan doesn't get staffed. Maybe that port doesn't Re up. Maybe that airfield doesn't get repaved. I mean, these are it's all fun and games to cut spending until you actually wind up with, you know, a bridge collapsing or, you know, that exit just doesn't work anymore. I mean, this does take a lot of money to run this country, and it's not like there's I mean, yes, we all know the stories of the $10,000 toilet, but a lot of the times, just the day to day interactions with government, could be made so much better with targeted money, not less. But we're going to have to see how this all plays out. What do you think the Senate is going to do? Do you think any of the Republican senators will be willing to stand up to Trump on these nominations? I think in private several will. I think we saw a lot of that coming through already. John Thune coming right off his win as the new Senate majority leader designate. He was saying that, you know, some of these are just going to have a really difficult time getting across the finish line. Perennial, deeply concerned senators of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. They may end up throwing up some roadblocks. And who knows? I mean, there could be some John Cornyn, who's about as conservative as they come, has been skeptical of some of these nominees. I mean, you're going to have some deference given. I mean, for instance, Elise Stefanik, you and I both know her as a member of the House, and before that, staff in the Bush administration. She's not the most obvious choice to be the UN ambassador. But I think a lot of lawmakers, including some Democrats are going to give some deference because, you know, elections have consequences, and the president should have the team as long as they're not, you know, an extreme outlier to form a government and see, you know, you know, test it out, see, see what actually happens. And finally, I mean, Brian, you and I have had a number of Okay, are you at your computer or am I, especially on Friday afternoons during the Trump administration, who's taking this firing by tweet of a cabinet? I mean, who I mean, just asking, I mean, who might be the first nominee to be thrown under the bus, and then who might be the first confirmed member of the cabinet or senior administration official to get thrown under the bus? I mean, you and I both we've both written at length. There loyalty is a one way street with this president. He demands it from the people around him, but he is incapable of showing it to anyone anyone, really, even his family has moments of, um on being on shaky ground with him. What are your thoughts on this, Brian? I think I've seen it. I think that tells us I think you're right. I think if you follow the pattern of how Trump nominates people, when he employs people, how long he keeps them, that this slate of names that we've seen so far is probably not going to be the exact slate of names that takes the actual cabinet positions come January 20 when Donald Trump is inaugurated. I think you're right. I think some people will be cut loose thrown under the bus, and some people will just be flatly rejected by senators who won't cast a vote. And then, even when people start working for Trump, if they aren't carrying out what he wants to get carried out, will be fired by Tweet. Also, keep in mind, I mean, even if they're doing the job exactly the way they think he wants Trump always surrounds himself with people who are going to start fights behind the scenes and needle each other because Trump just empowers people to create that dysfunction internally. He loves it. It's like a reality show for him. But as a result, so much time is spent caring for the gossip mill, the water cooler churn, and actually not running government, which is actually kind of bad if you're a conservative who wants to see Trump succeed with his, you know, given four years, given another four years with four years under his belt, actually understanding for the first time the powers he had, managing water cooler grievance is not good for the conservative movement or the Maga movement, but it might be the best the Democrats can hope for, at least for the next two years. It does give us a lot to write about. It's an embarrassment of blessings. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/7177280/donald-trump-cabinet-mitch-mcconnell/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/7177280/donald-trump-cabinet-mitch-mcconnell/"},"headline":"Once Again, Donald Trump Misreads the Senate","datePublished":"2024-11-18T21:28:38.000Z","dateModified":"2026-10-19T07:48:36.688Z","description":"Trump's Cabinet picks must \"come before the Senate,\" says McConnell.","url":"https://time.com/7177280/donald-trump-cabinet-mitch-mcconnell/","keywords":["The D.C. Brief"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt47b8c040eb23d776/698a9c48b21a9cb6d5511285/GettyImages-2173582295.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Philip Elliott","jobTitle":"Senior Correspondent","url":"https://time.com/author/philip-elliott/"}],"articleSection":"Politics","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt47b8c040eb23d776/698a9c48b21a9cb6d5511285/GettyImages-2173582295.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"House Plans Vote On Government Funding Bill","caption":"House Plans Vote On Government Funding Bill","creditText":"Kent Nishimura—Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/politics/","name":"Politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/the-dc-brief/","name":"The D.C. Brief"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/7177280/donald-trump-cabinet-mitch-mcconnell/","name":"Once Again, Donald Trump Misreads the Senate"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Donald Trump's Most Controversial New Cabinet and Staff Announcements","description":"TIME Correspondents Brian Bennett and Philip Elliot break down Trump's most controversial new appointments to his administration.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/rdpvrY3O/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2024-11-15T22:28:22.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/rdpvrY3O.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/7177280/donald-trump-cabinet-mitch-mcconnell/","duration":"PT25M","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/7177280/donald-trump-cabinet-mitch-mcconnell/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```