Presidents are responsible for about 4,000 political appointments, about 1,200 of which require Senate confirmation. This blog includes a comparison of how Biden’s pace of appointments and confirmations compares with the previous three presidents.
This table provides the number of nominations submitted to and confirmed by the Senate for positions in the executive, legislative and judicial branches on key dates early in an administration. Nominations for concurrent positions, like the ambassador to the General Assembly of the United Nations and the representative of the United States in the United Nations Security Council are counted as a single nomination.
This post is part of the Partnership’s Ready to Serve series. Ready to Serve is a centralized resource for people who aspire to serve in a presidential administration as a political appointee.
I could never have imagined that a daughter of immigrants who “accidentally” picked a career working on state issues and campaigns would ever end up in the White House as a presidential appointee.
Through hard work, luck and a decade in state-based advocacy and political campaigns in California, I was able to make the leap to Washington, D.C. People who have experience at the grassroots may be surprised to learn how well-prepared they are for working at the national level – and especially serving as presidential appointees.
Here are a few reasons why people with experience outside the nation’s capital are well-suited for a presidential appointment.
You have experience seeing how government impacts communities
Having a background on state and local issues provides a good perspective on how the government touches lives and communities every day. Your background can help shape policy because you understand the opportunities and challenges communities face. For example, if you currently work in health care, you have first-hand knowledge of the issues associated with the coronavirus pandemic. Your perspective and relationships can be helpful in shaping policy.
Living in Washington, D.C., can mean you are far away from what is happening at the state or local level. That is why federal agencies have regional offices throughout the country to connect staff with the communities they serve. These outreach efforts would benefit from your on-the-ground experience.
Local governments are the “incubators for innovation”
Former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez called state and local governments the “incubators for innovations” because a wealth of good policy ideas originate there. Policies like paid family leave were approved by localities and states, and demonstrated that such reforms are possible and have been beneficial.
People who have worked on state and local issues can bring together policy expertise and coalitions on a wide range of subject areas. Shaping federal policies dealing the economic recovery, for example, can benefit from ideas that have worked at the local level. My previous experience helped me facilitate engagement between the federal and state governments.
You know how to get things done
In any large organization, effective people are the ones who know how to get things done by managing and navigating systems. A person with success on a local campaign or in state government understands this well. Working in the federal government has a similar dynamic. For example, to implement an executive order or host a conference, you need to interact with numerous departments and understand many different processes. The ability to navigate a complex environment is something a person with political campaign experience understands.
Becoming an appointee is not an easy process. But even though you may not realize it, people with experience and knowledge earned at the state and local levels provide an important perspective and great value to the federal government.
Alissa Ko is director of strategic giving and community engagement at Health Net. She served as a senior advisor at the White House during the Obama administration, leading outreach to states attorneys general, state legislators and the Asian American and Pacific Islander community.
By Jaqlyn Alderete and Christina Condreay
Nominees seeking confirmation by the Senate to fill a presidentially-appointed position face a long and complex process. Each must contend with detailed vetting, background investigations, public scrutiny and challenging questions from the Senate. While the overwhelming majority of nominations are successful, withdrawals have occurred for every recent administration.
Of the more than 9,500 nominations Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump submitted, 77% were eventually confirmed. Another 19% were “returned” by the Senate, meaning they never received a vote before a Senate recess or by the end of the calendar year. Some of those returned nominations were resubmitted and confirmed at a later date. Finally, 4% were withdrawn by the president. For the last three presidents, that totaled 335 nominations for an average of about 17 a year.
While these withdrawals make up a small percentage of presidential nominations, they often receive significant media attention and consume time and resources for the White House, which must find another candidate, and the Senate, which must take up more of its limited time to consider someone new. More than two-thirds of those withdrawn happen soon after they are submitted to the Senate and prior to receiving a committee hearing.
When are nominations withdrawn?
In recent years, a handful of nominations have been announced, but never sent to the Senate.For example, Bush announced Linda Chavez as his nominee for secretary of Labor and Obama announced Judd Gregg for secretary of Commerce, but neither individual was officially submitted for consideration. However, instances like these are uncommon.
An analysis by the Center for Presidential Transition® of the 335 withdrawn nominations submitted by Bush, Obama and Trump found most are abandoned early in the Senate confirmation process.
The analysis found that of the withdrawn nominations:
69% were dropped before any Senate committee held a hearing.
10% were vacated after a committee hearing, but before being placed on the executive calendar for full Senate consideration.
20% were placed on the executive calendar, but withdrawn before being considered by the full Senate.
Only three of these nominations made it to the Senate floor for formal consideration, but were withdrawn before receiving a vote after motions to invoke cloture failed.
None of the 335 nominations received a full Senate vote.
Why are nominations withdrawn?
To understand the reasons nominations were withdrawn, the Center analyzed a subset of 193 withdrawals for positions within 24 key agencies. Of those:
25% of the withdrawals involved issues in a nominee’s past. Both the administration and Senate committees vet nominees on aspects of their history such as their taxes, employment, conflicts of interest, public statements, social media accounts and publications. In addition, the committees consider a nominee’s position on key issues and evaluate how the individual will work with the Senate.
18% were withdrawn due to direct or indirect Senate opposition often due to an administration policy.
15% were withdrawn due to changes within an administration, such as an agency reorganization or a position title change, which are reasons unrelated to the specific nominee.
12% were withdrawn due to administrative errors. These situations include a nomination submitted with a specific position title when a general title was needed, or with an incorrect length of service indicated on the paperwork.
11% were withdrawn due to personal reasons. In some cases, the nominee cited delays and the length of the confirmations process as primary reasons. The Center identified 39 nominations that sat without any Senate action for more than a year before they were withdrawn. These delays can be caused by a senator placing a hold for reasons that may or may not be related to the nomination itself or the Senate majority leader’s decision not to bring a nomination up for a floor vote.
19% of the withdrawals studied had no public information on the causes available.
The president’s Cabinet usually gets confirmed with little opposition, but it is inevitable that nominees run into problems as a result of the Senate’s advice and consent role.
By Paul Hitlinand Christina Condreay
March 10th marked President Joe Biden’s first 50 days in the White House. One of the main tasks for any new president is to fill approximately 1,250 positions in the federal government that require Senate confirmation. Biden has submitted more nominations than his recent predecessors at a comparable time, but the Senate has confirmed fewer of those nominees.
Through his 50 days in office, Biden officially nominated 57 people for Senate confirmed positions. That is more than each of the previous three presidents. Obama nominated almost as many with 55. However, the Senate has only confirmed 17 of Biden’s picks. Each of the three previous presidents had more nominees confirmed, although President Donald Trump had only one more with 18.
There are multiple reasons behind the Senate’s slower pace. The Jan. 5 runoff election in Georgia, which decided party control of the Senate, was certainly a contributing factor. So was the second impeachment trial of Trump, the prolonged negotiation over how power would be shared in an evenly divided Senate, and a variety of other political factors. Regardless, the Senate has an obligation to act quickly to ensure that our government has qualified and accountable leadership in place, especially during times of crisis.
For current information on the status of Biden’s nominations and Senate actions, visit the Biden Political Appointee Tracker which is maintained by The Washington Post and the Partnership for Public Service.
By Jaqlyn Alderete
Ethics requirements are now essential for transition teams planning for a new administration and for appointees once a president takes office. These plans ensure that staff members do not personally benefit from their roles or promote agendas that create a conflict of interest.
The 2020 Presidential Transition Enhancement Act codifies the practice of previous transition teams implementing ethics plans that include provisions relating to classified information, lobbying, foreign agents and conflicts of interest. And once taking office, recent presidents have issued executive orders with ethics rules that govern executive branch appointee interactions with the public, provide for transparency and ensure coherence with laws regarding lobbying. If an individual is appointed to a position in a department, they must also abide by ethics rules issued by their own ethics division.
President Joe Biden’s transition team and his administration both issued ethics requirements and made them publicly available. While each plan centers on ensuring high ethical standards, there are differences which reflect the distinctions between serving on a transition team and serving in public office.
The Biden transition ethics plan called on staff members not to misuse their positions for personal benefit. It also emphasized safeguarding classified information and protecting the reputations of Biden, his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, and other top transition officials. The administration’s ethics pledge emphasizes restoring and maintaining public trust in government by focusing on preventing or resolving conflicts of interest.
Some of the differences in Biden’s two ethics requirements include:
The transition ethics plan had a lobbying restriction of one year while the administration’s pledge has a two-year prohibition. Both the administration’s and the transition’s ethics rules include provisions barring individuals from engaging in matters they worked on as lobbyists or as foreign agents, but for different periods of time.
The transition ethics plan included provisions regarding disclosure of nonpublic information while the administration pledge has no such provision. Transition team members were required to obtain authorization before seeking access to nonpublic information and pledge to not use such information for personal gain.
The transition ethics plan restricted team members from promoting their work in marketing materials during and for 12 months after their service.The administration’s ethics pledge does not include the same requirement. However, it states that appointees should not use their positions for personal gain and advises them to avoid using or appearing to use their government position for private benefit.
The transition plan restricts team members, their spouses and minor children from buying or selling individual stocks unless they get approval from the general counsel. Officials in presidentially-appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation are required to follow rules issued by the Office of Government Ethics regarding divestiture of investments and other financial interests.
The transition plan stated that team members could not make any representations on behalf of Biden or then-Senator Kamala Harris, their designees, or transition team officials without authorization.The administration ethics pledge does not mention this matter.
The goal of ethics agreements for a transition team and an administration is to ensure accountability and integrity among those serving in these institutions. Individuals serving on presidential transitions and in government must understand and follow all ethics rules to ensure their work is transparent and in the public interest.
Editorial credit: Andrea Izzotti / Shutterstock.com
By Paul Hitlin
The withdrawal of Neera Tanden’s nomination to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget has left President Joe Biden with a challenge faced by the previous five presidents – an unsuccessful Cabinet-level nomination early in their tenure.
Biden becomes the sixth president in a row who has notched at least one unsuccessful Cabinet-level nomination by the end of their first two months in office. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Donald Trump each had one, while President Barack Obama had three.
The large majority of early Cabinet nominations are confirmed. The three presidents preceding Biden – George W. Bush, Obama and Trump – announced 59 nominations combined for Cabinet-level positions within two months of taking office. Of those, 54 were approved by the Senate and five were unsuccessful.
As with Tanden, most unsuccessful nominees are withdrawn prior to a Senate vote when it becomes apparent there is not enough support for confirmation. Administrations typically anticipate a candidate cannot win in the Senate and withdraw the nomination before a failed vote takes place. In fact, only one Cabinet nominee has been rejected in a Senate floor vote in the last 60 years – George H. W. Bush’s nominee for secretary of Defense, John Tower, in 1989.
In some instances, presidents have withdrawn nominations before the paperwork is officially submitted to the Senate. Of the five early Cabinet nominees named by George W. Bush, Obama and Trump who did not get confirmed, three were never actually received by the Senate.
As in the case of Tanden, failed nominations represent a temporary setback for the administration, unleash political jockeying among those promoting replacement candidates, and leave a department or agency without a Senate-confirmed leader. In this case, the Biden administration will have to proceed with its preparation of a new budget and be delayed in crafting a new management agenda without the head of OMB in place.
While this process creates complications for a president, it is one envisioned by the framers when they gave the Senate its advise and consent role on presidential nominations. Like other presidents, Biden will choose a new nominee, reach accommodation with the Senate and seek to make up for lost time.
By Drew Flanagan
Slightly more than one month into his administration, just over half of President Biden’s 15 Cabinet secretary nominees have been confirmed. At a comparable time, the previous four presidents had 84% of their Cabinet picks confirmed. In fact, President George W. Bush had his entire Cabinet in place and President Bill Clinton had all but one position filled.
The pace of confirming Cabinet secretaries historically influences the staffing of other leadership positions such as deputy secretaries and undersecretaries. Recent presidents have rarely nominated anyone to fill sub-Cabinet positions until the agency head has been confirmed. Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump collectively announced 274 sub-Cabinet nominations by the end of their first 100 days in office. Of these, only 18 or just 7% were sent to the Senate before the confirmation of their agency head.
This practice reflects deference toward the Cabinet secretaries and provides them with an opportunity to participate in the selection of officials who would work with them.
However, the current slow pace of confirmations has forced the Biden administration to operate differently. The White House has already submitted 22 sub-Cabinet positions to the Senate, 19 of which were sent before the Cabinet secretaries were confirmed (86%). Biden’s decision to take a fresh approach is likely the result of his transition team anticipating Cabinet confirmations taking longer than usual.
It is worth noting that Senate action in 2021 has been hindered by various highly unique events, including the Senate run-off election in Georgia, impeachment proceedings and negotiations over the Senate power-sharing agreement. Even so, the negative impacts of these delays remain significant, extending far beyond sub-Cabinet nominations. Without confirmed Cabinet secretaries, important decisions get postponed and government employees face uncertainty – problems that are magnified now as the country deals with the pandemic, an economic crisis and many other domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Overall, the Biden administration is ahead of the pace of nominations set by previous presidents. Biden has submitted 55 nominations to the Senate, 15% more than any of the previous five presidents at a comparable moment. Despite the high pace of personnel announcements, the Senate has confirmed just 11 of the 55 submitted nominees, including eight of 15 Cabinet secretaries.
Filling key administration jobs has taken on added significance due to the vulnerabilities posed by the crises facing our country. The sooner Biden’s Cabinet secretaries and other nominees are confirmed, the sooner they can get to work.
By Drew Flanagan, Carlos Galina and Paul Hitlin
As President Joe Biden continues to staff his administration, he has named acting officials to fill some of the 1,200 positions that require Senate confirmation – a power granted by Congress to presidents ever since George Washington’s first term. These temporary, acting officials play a vital role in maintaining continuity and providing leadership during times of change.
The rules governing the use of acting officials are found in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which spells out who is eligible to be selected and how long they can serve. In most instances, the law places a 210-day limit on how long someone can execute the functions of a position, although the limit is extended to 300 days for vacancies during a president’s first year.
While acting officials are always significant, their roles may be magnified now due to the Senate’s slower than normal pace of confirming Biden’s nominees. For a detailed list of the nominees and their status, see the Biden Political Appointee Tracker which is updated daily by the Partnership for Public Service and The Washington Post.
The following is a list of acting officials named by the Biden administration for top positions at the 15 Cabinet agencies. The administration has not named acting officials for every position. The information was compiled from agency websites and public news reports.
By Christine Mica
This post is part of the Partnership’s Ready to Serve series. Ready to Serve is a centralized resource for people who aspire to serve in a presidential administration as a political appointee.
Serving at the pleasure of the president is a huge responsibility. You are there to represent the administration and to support and defend the Constitution. As a new government employee, you will never forget the feeling of taking the oath of office for the first time. Not only is it humbling, but it should remain at the forefront of your conscience when making all future decisions.
Strict rules apply to all federal employees and can be tough to navigate. The following nine tips will help you avoid any ethics problems.
1. Be sure to fill out your ethics paperwork completely and correctly the first time. If updates or corrections are needed, do them immediately.
2. Be sure you know about the Hatch Act and all pertinent executive orders, like those banning outside income and gifts, and those outlining when you need to recuse yourself from certain matters.
3. When in doubt about actions you in intend to take, ask your agency ethics office. The ethics officials are there to provide answers to your questions.
4. Submit a truthful timesheet. Taxpayers do not pay for a late arrival to work due to traffic or if you decide to meet friends for a two-hour lunch.
5. Be mindful of accepting travel invitations, especially those that have you speaking in your hometown or in a location seen as a resort.
6. Use your work phone and computer for business only. When you have forgotten a birthday gift or need to make dinner reservations, make sure to use your personal phone and computer.
7. When the office of general counsel asks questions and encourages caution, do not take it personally. General counsels are your agency’s lawyers and exist to ensure laws and policies are carried out properly. When the general counsel is happy, your job is much easier. Knowing your work does not present any legal risk to the agency or the White House is crucial. Plus, the office of general counsel can help provide advice and solutions to keep your agenda on track.
8. Do not try to go around the office of general counsel. They always find out! The consequences of hiding pertinent information can be worse than being up-front and direct.
9. Prioritize requests from the office of inspector general. Inspectors general are responsible for ensuring agency policy is followed, that financial resources are used correctly and that no one is breaking the law. Requests for information from an inspector general should become a priority. The Partnership for Public Service and Grant Thornton Public Sector published a report, “Walking the Line: Inspectors General Balancing Independence and Impact” that can guide appointees on how to work appropriately with this office.
There are many ethics rules, so there is a lot to learn. You are responsible for following all ethics policies. No excuses are allowed. Remember, mishaps are not only personal liabilities to your professional career, but are also embarrassing for your office, your agency and for the president.
Christine Mica is a former educator and university administrator who worked as a chief of staff in the Office of Postsecondary Education at the Department of Education from 2014 to 2016. Mica currently serves as the chief operating officer at the National District Attorneys Association.
This blog was updated on February 4, 2021.
Fifteen days into President Joe Biden’s administration, the Senate has confirmed just five of his 15 statutory Cabinet secretary nominees. At a comparable time, the Senate had confirmed 90% of the Cabinet secretaries for Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama combined.
By Paul Hitlin
Choosing 15 officials to fill their Cabinet is among the most important decisions new presidents make. The Senate plays a crucial role in considering and confirming those nominees. This year, the Senate is taking longer than it has for most other new administrations. At this time of multiple concurrent global and national crises, having a well-qualified Cabinet has taken on a new sense of urgency.
Fifteen days into Joe Biden’s presidency, the Senate has confirmed only five of 15 Cabinet secretary nominees. At a comparable time, President Bill Clinton had 13 nominees confirmed, President George W. Bush had 14 and President Barack Obama had 11. The official Cabinet consisted of 14 positions until 2002 when the Department of Homeland Security was established, and the Cabinet expanded to 15. Each president has the option to expand their Cabinet with additional members, but those positions are not part of the Cabinet as established by legislation. The Senate has confirmed one of Biden’s expanded cabinet of 23 officials – Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines.
The delays are not due to the lack of speed of Biden’s announcements. The official beginning of Biden’s transition was hampered by the delay in ascertainment – the formal decision made by the General Services Administration which triggers the government’s official preparation for a handover of power. However, Biden still announced nominations quickly. He publicly named 12 of his Cabinet choices by the end of 2020 and all 15 by Jan. 7, 2021 – about two weeks prior to his inauguration. In fact, Biden announced more nominations for Senate-confirmed positions during the time between his election and inauguration than any other president-elect.
The Senate delays began even before Biden was sworn in. The Senate can hold hearings for nominees prior to the president taking office to speed up the confirmation process. All of Clinton’s Cabinet secretary nominees had a preliminary hearing prior to Inauguration Day. The same was true for all but one of Bush’s nominees and 11 of Obama’s 14. By contrast, only five hearings were held for Biden’s picks prior to his inauguration, all of which took place the day before Biden was sworn in as president.
The confirmations of President Donald Trump’s initial Cabinet nominees took longer. Only four of his choices were confirmed within two weeks of his inauguration. However, Trump’s experience represents the exception rather than the rule. Trump’s transition team changed leadership immediately following his 2016 election, which slowed the vetting of candidates. Additionally, Trump announced nominees for secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture just days before his inauguration. Trump’s first choice for Labor secretary withdrew and other nominees did not have their paperwork completed or faced various controversies.
The reasons behind the Senate’s sluggish pace in considering Biden nominees are unclear. The Jan. 5 runoff election in Georgia, which decided party control of the Senate, is certainly a contributing factor. So is the impending impeachment trial and the prolonged negotiation over how power would be shared in an evenly divided Senate. The delayed ascertainment and refusal of the Trump to acknowledge the election results were additional factors that served as disincentives for the Senate to move forward with Biden’s nominees.
Regardless, the Senate has an obligation to act quickly to ensure that our government has qualified and accountable leadership in place, especially during times of crisis.
Now that a power-sharing agreement has been reached and committee leadership is becoming clear, the Senate has an opportunity to accelerate its consideration of Biden’s nominations. Precedents set by previous transitions suggest the Senate can – and should – move faster to fill critical vacancies so that government can serve the public effectively.
