Home / Political Appointment

A few weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency, we can see the outlines of his personnel strategy taking shape. The transition got off to a hot start, with Trump naming all Cabinet nominees in record time, but after the first month, the pace of personnel announcements leveled off to match the speed of other recent presidents. 

By Inauguration Day, the Trump transition team publicly announced 163 appointees compared to 130 during the Barack Obama transition and 230 by Joe Biden’s team during the same timeframe. Forty-five of Trump’s announced appointments did not require Senate review. The other 118 nominees required Senate approval, a process that can take days, weeks or months.  

Nominating more than twice as many individuals for Senate-confirmed roles as for non-confirmed appointments sets the second Trump administration apart from recent presidencies. Biden, in particular, foresaw delays in the Senate confirmation process and focused on naming a large number of high-level appointees not requiring Senate confirmation. This allowed him to have trusted political appointees immediately on the job  in senior leadership positions. The evolving Trump 2024 strategy allows many more nominees to queue up for the confirmation process than in prior administrations, but these appointees cannot get started right away. All recent presidents have faced the same challenge, with many of the Trump appointees responsible for carrying out the president’s  ambitious policy agenda not yet on the job. 

The administration’s initial focus on Senate-confirmed appointees has continued into the first weeks of the administration. As of Feb. 12, 153 nominations had been submitted to the Senate and 14 had been confirmed, with those approved requiring an average of 10.4 days to proceed from nomination to final confirmation.  

Compared to prior administrations, the Trump in his second term is well ahead on submitting nominations and has nearly twice as many confirmations at the equivalent time compared to his first term and during for Biden's early days in office. Despite some hearings being rescheduled due to paperwork delays, the Senate has moved quickly on the Trump nominees so far. Hearings for all his Cabinet nominees are complete or were scheduled as of Feb. 12. Based on the current pace, the Senate appears to be on track to confirm the full Cabinet well before any of the prior three administrations. Deputy secretary nominations are also outpacing recent administration: 13 have been submitted thus far while the past four administrations required an average of four months to do the same.  

Critically, the Senate typically approves Cabinet members more quickly than the other 1,300 positions requiring confirmation, but nominations have not been made for hundreds of jobs that that require Senate approval. The average time to confirmation has increased over recent administrations’ first terms, growing from 49 days during the Reagan administration to 193 days by the end of the Biden administration.  

Confirmation times may be long, but nominees do not necessarily sit idly by in the early days of an administration. Some nominees may receive a temporary transition appointment so that they can support the administration from Day One, although the Federal Vacancies Reform Act specifies that individuals in these roles may not serve in the position for which they are nominated and usually serve in an “advisory or consultative capacity.” 

Public data is not yet available on the total number of permanent or temporary non-confirmed appointees who assumed their roles in the early weeks of the administration. Regardless, filling all 4,000 presidentially appointed positions represents a monumental task and no administration has ever done it successfully during the first year in office. The responsibility now rests with the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, which will need to work diligently and efficiently to continue building out this administration through the first hundred days and beyond.  

Incoming presidents face a significant challenge and opportunity when entering office to fill more than 4,000 appointed roles across the executive branch. 

We recently reviewed President-elect Donald Trump’s record-setting pace for senior personnel announcements, but little will be known until Inauguration Day about the progress in hiring the largest group of political appointees: the roughly 1,500 Schedule C positions such as chiefs of staff, policy advisors and other roles subordinate to Senate-confirmed leaders as well as more than 750 non-career Senior Executive Service leaders who serve in key roles directly below Senate-confirmed personnel.  

Trump’s re-election gives his incoming administration the unique benefit of learning from its experience in 2016/2017 and to use effective strategies employed by Joe Biden during his 2020/2021 presidential transition.  

Examining hiring data from Trump’s first term – as well as the hiring strategies of Biden’s team – suggests three key opportunities for the incoming Trump administration. 

Fully Resource Personnel Operation 

A fully resourced and staffed personnel operation is essential for the president elect’s transition team and for White House during an administration’s first year.  

Due in part to a surge in appropriations from Congress for Fiscal Year 2021, Biden’s personnel operation in the White House in 2020-2021 was larger and more robust than the Trump operation in 2016-2017. Trump’s 2016 transition personnel team had about 100 staff and volunteers in the days following the election. The personnel team peaked at about 30 staff after Inauguration Day. The 2020 Biden transition personnel team had around 250 staff and 200 volunteers. This dropped down to about 80 full-time employees by July of the first year. The Center for Presidential Transition strongly supports a similar surge for this fiscal year. 

The current Trump transition team and future White House personnel office would benefit from staff levels more comparable or even greater than that of the Biden team. Having capacity within the personnel operation is the first prerequisite for the successful placement of appointees across the executive branch.  

Make Early Non-Senate Confirmed Appointments a Priority 

The majority of the more than 4,000 presidential appointments do not require Senate confirmation. These positions provide opportunities to staff the executive branch with the president’s personnel from day one of the new administration.  

Biden’s personnel transition team ensured these positions would be a high priority by creating two separate working groups, one for non-Senate confirmed appointments and another for Senate confirmed positions.  

During his first term, Trump made nearly 400 fewer non-Senate confirmed appointments than Biden at the end of the first quarter of the year, and about 200 fewer non-Senate confirmed appointments than Biden by the end of the first year.  

Trump’s personnel operation would benefit from following the Biden strategy to prioritize non-Senate confirmed appointments. 

Maintain Nominations Progress in the First Year 

Presidential nomination delays are a significant factor in getting Senate confirmed roles filled. Despite growing delays in the confirmation process, nomination delays are often longer than confirmation delays for lower-level positions.  

Biden made nominations at a pace faster than his predecessors during his first 100 days. However, the Biden administration slowed down after that point, finishing the year about on par with Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  

In contrast, Trump made 150 fewer nominations than Biden in the first 100 days and122 fewer nominations during the first year. Across major agencies,1 Trump only made nominations for 65% of these positions during his first year while Biden made nominations for 80% of the jobs. 

The pace of nominations during Trump’s first term was particularly delayed below the level of Cabinet secretary. In Cabinet departments with the most layering2 of Senate-confirmed appointees— appointees who report up to other appointees—Trump took about 60 to160 days longer than Biden on average to fill positions in the lower levels (e.g., undersecretaries, general counsels, directors and assistant secretaries). This left many positions closest to agency operations vacant for much of the first year and beyond.  

Conclusion 

Each of the last six presidential administrations faced confirmation delays during their first term that were longer than those experienced by their predecessors. It is likely that the next Trump administration will experience a continuation of this trend. 

An average growth in confirmation delays (25.6%) would result in the Trump administration having delays of 240 days. The Trump administration will need to be prepared for these prolonged delays. This requires planning for vacancies and the use of acting officials and other non-Senate-confirmed appointees while waiting for nominees to be confirmed.  

The success of the new administration in carrying out its priorities will partially hinge on the president’s ability to expeditiously get his personnel in place across federal agencies. By maintaining the capacity of his personnel operation and learning from strategies of the Biden administration, Trump can have greater success in placing the talent critical to carrying out his agenda and effectively serving the public interest. 

One of the outcomes of an increasingly lengthy and challenging Senate confirmation process is that many Senate-confirmed federal leadership positions remain vacant for long periods of time. Our research has shown that many of these agency positions are persistently vacant and that 30% or more of the leadership jobs at Cabinet departments are without a confirmed appointee at any given time.  

While many practitioners and scholars have argued that persistent vacancies hurt federal agency performance, to date there has been little systematic evidence to support this claim. Vanderbilt Professor David Lewis, Georgetown Professor Mark Richardson and I sought to address this important question through two academic research articles, Do Vacancies Hurt Federal Agency Performance? and Measuring the Impact of Appointee Vacancies on U.S. Federal Agency Performance. 

We used a survey of federal executives1 to evaluate whether vacancies in top agency leadership positions led to lower evaluations of the agency’s performance of its mission. In the two articles, we examined both self-evaluations of executives about their own agency performance and external evaluations of executives in other agencies who work closely with the agency that was examined. In both cases, we found consistent evidence that long agency leadership vacancies lead to lower evaluations of agency performance.  

To understand what underpins this relationship, we examined mechanisms that may explain how vacancies in Senate confirmed leadership positions result in an agency’s diminished ability to accomplish its mission. We found that vacancies affect agencies, their workforce and external stakeholders in the following ways: 

Less Long-term Planning 

Agencies headed by Senate-confirmed appointees report less long-term planning when vacancies persist. While a president can install temporary or acting leaders to fill vacant positions, these officials cannot fully replace Senate confirmed officials. Acting officials may be skilled professionals—often they are drawn from the most experienced ranks of career officials—but our surveys suggest that they are not perceived by those around them as having the full authority of the confirmed appointee, and they do not view themselves as having the right to make decisions with a long-term impact. 

Lower Workforce Morale 

Longer vacancies are associated with lower reported workforce morale. Respondents expressed that a sense of impermanent leadership, especially if no nomination is forthcoming, can make employees wonder whether their agency is a priority.  

Reduced Support from Key Stakeholders 

Vacancies lead to less effort by other appointees, the White House and Congress to make sure agencies have what they need to accomplish their core mission. Analysis of survey results found that agencies with persistent vacancies go from mostly observing “a good bit of effort” from appointees to ensure their agency has what it needs to mostly observing “some effort.” Key stakeholders may delay or withhold support for agencies as they wait for confirmed leadership to spearhead agency action and engage in long-term planning.  

Conclusion 

The broken Senate confirmation process is making it more difficult for agencies to fulfill their core missions, adapt to emerging challenges and plan for the future. This is a disservice to the public that relies on government services and other fundamental roles of government, from national security to public health and safety. 

Urgent reform is needed to ensure that agencies have competent, capable and permanent leadership in place. Consistent leadership will best allow an administration to carry out its agenda and for an agency’s workforce to have the guidance and strategic direction it needs.  

Chris Piper is a manager at the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition.

FOOTNOTES

  1.  The online survey targeted all federal executives working in agencies headed by a Senate-confirmed appointee whose functions were not exclusively advisory. The survey included all political appointees as well as career members of the Senior Executive Service and senior Foreign Service officers serving domestically. Our academic articles use statistical regression models to observe the effects of vacancies on each outcome of interest.  ↩︎

Every new president faces the management challenge of filling out the leadership ranks of federal agencies with more than 4,000 presidential appointees. The most senior of those positions must go through an increasingly difficult and lengthy Senate confirmation process. While figuring out how many positions require Senate confirmation would seem to be straightforward, getting a precise count is actually quite difficult.  

For years, the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition® has written that new presidents generally fill more than 1,200 such positions. By contrast, Vanderbilt Professor David Lewis—one of the leading authorities on presidential appointments—has compiled a list of 1,340 Senate-confirmed positions. Why the discrepancy? Shouldn’t there be a single, straightforward number? 

In actuality, getting a single number is quite difficult. The primary reason is that there are many positions that are “on the books” and eligible to be filled with Senate-confirmed officials, but have not been filled for years. In other words, the best available count is that there are 1,340 eligible Senate-confirmed positions, but recent administrations have not filled all of these jobs and have instead appointed people to serve in slightly more than 1,200 positions.  

Furthermore, the existence of 1,340 Senate-confirmed positions on the books – more than commonly understood – underscores the need for greater transparency and reporting. The government’s “Plum Book” listing political appointees and other top officials has traditionally been produced every four years and has been characterized by numerous omissions and other incorrect information. In 2022, Congress passed the PLUM Act, requiring the Office of Personnel Management to create and annually update a website listing such positions— a positive first step. However, more should be done to ensure that Congress and agencies provide more timely transparency when new positions are created or when positions are changed.  

Determining the number  

To arrive at his detailed list of 1,340 Senate-confirmed positions at the beginning of President Joe Biden’s presidency, Lewis cross-referenced multiple sources. These included the U.S. Government Policy and Supporting Positions book (often referred to as the Plum Book), reports from the Congressional Research Service, information from Congress’ official website Congress.gov, and the Partnership for Public Service’s political appointee tracker.  Lewis’ list is the most detailed and accurate compilation available.  

The last few presidential administrations, however, have not filled all 1,340 positions. Although the numbers change by administrations, slightly more than 1,200 of these positions have actually been filled in recent years. Some positions that are “on the books” have not been filled for decades. For example, the Peace Corps Advisory Board has 15 possible Senate-confirmed positions according to CRS reports. But no one has been nominated for any of those positions since 1992. Some positions have been kept vacant for policy reasons. There has not been an ambassador to Syria for the past decade since diplomatic relations between the countries ended.  

The following sections provide additional details into why counting positions is not a precise endeavor. 

The existing sources of information are inaccurate 

The Plum Book has consistently undercounted the number of Senate-confirmed positions. In the 2020 Plum Book, Lewis found that 276 Senate-confirmed positions were missing. The Center for Presidential Transition found at least 10 agencies were omitted completely.   

This number of missing positions is likely even higher based on information provided on the PLUM website in March of 2024, where only 1,093 Senate confirmed positions were listed—far less than the 1,340 positions included in Lewis’ list. The vast majority of the positions missing from the new Plum website are from part-time boards and commissions. OPM relies on agencies’ self-reports to identify Senate confirmed positions. Therefore, when agencies are under-resourced or inactive, OPM may not receive a timely report and omit these agencies from their accounting.  

The second governmental source of information is a series of reports from the Congressional Research Service. CRS put out seven reports on the number of Senate-confirmed positions between 2003 and 2021. While CRS’ accounting of positions tends to be more accurate than the Plum Book, the reports do not include the nearly 200 ambassador positions, one of the largest classes of Senate-confirmed appointees.  

Other challenges related to counting positions 

Beyond inaccurate or incomplete reporting—and the existence of positions that have not been filled for years—there are several other reasons why a precise accounting of Senate-confirmed positions is difficult to achieve.  

Opportunities for Increased Transparency and Reform 

The vast number of Senate-confirmed positions and the growing difficulty of the Senate confirmation process result in presidents and the Senate focusing more time than ever on processing nominations. This also means that many important agency leadership positions remain vacant for lengthy periods, without adequate transparency into which positions are vacant or who performs the role in the absence of a Senate-confirmed leader. 

The difficulty in coming to a full accounting of Senate confirmed positions suggests a need for more consistent and accurate government reporting. While the new PLUM Act database will make reporting more frequent, agencies and OPM have more work to do to ensure that more timely and accurate information is provided. And while the PLUM Act requires only an annual update of the information in the database, as OPM makes continual improvements to the database, it should aim for – and Congress should support – a system that provides as close to real-time transparency as possible.  

The Senate also should consider stronger mechanisms to enforce the requirement that committees justify the creation of any new Senate-confirmed position. Additionally, the Senate could ensure that there is a public report at the end of each session of Congress on the total number of new Senate-confirmed positions created, so the new confirmation responsibilities being placed on both the presidency and the Senate can be fully understood. 

The time after a presidential election typically brings shifts in agency dynamics and personnel. Career civil servants must work to support the continuity of government while some senior career executives will be called on to serve temporarily in key leadership positions previously held by political appointees to ensure that agency priorities are met.

As acting officials, these career civil servants perform five crucial functions:

– Maintaining operations and continuing to deliver on their agency’s mission.

First and foremost, acting officials must continue leading their agencies through day-to-day operations and long-term strategic goals.

– Supporting incoming political appointees.

Senior career executives in acting roles must navigate their agency through a change of administrations while keeping operations on track and brief incoming political leaders as they prepare to assume their responsibilities.

– Preparing employees for the transition.

As career leaders who likely have been through previous presidential transitions, acting officials can share their lessons learned with other career employees and provide guidance as the agency prepares for new political leadership.

– Providing continuity between administrations.

Career civil servants have long-term experience and institutional knowledge that can benefit a new administration as appointees transition into their roles.

– Facilitating a smooth and seamless leadership transition.

The acting positions filled by senior career executives are often top leadership jobs, meaning their efforts are essential for the agency to prepare for the transition to a new administration. These career leaders share their knowledge with new appointees to help them accomplish the goals of a new administration.

Former Acting Secretary of Commerce Wynn Coggins advises that in order to successfully perform all of the required functions of an acting official, leaders should “rely on subject matter experts, work closely with the career civil servants and incoming political leadership, be adaptive, communicate effectively and often, and understand that your goal is to maintain continuity and keep the organization focused on delivering against the mission.”

As acting officials perform critical functions and provide continuity between administrations, it is important that they fully understand the issues cited by Coggins, the scope of their roles and what is needed.

The Partnership for Public Service offers our Ready to Act course for senior career executives to give them strategies to be successful and effectively transition into and out of acting leadership roles.

To ensure that Ready to Act provides acting officials with the relevant information to carry out their responsibilities, the program features faculty who have previously served in an acting capacity during prior transitions and can provide participants with real-world experience and important recommendations. For more information and to schedule a session of Ready to Act, check out our website.

During a recent hearing before the Senate Rules Committee, Jenny Mattingly, the Partnership’s vice president of government affairs, called for reform of the confirmation process to make it work better for all stakeholders – the Senate, the executive branch, individual nominees and the public.

The testimony highlighted how the process required to select, nominate and vote on presidential appointees is now longer, more complicated and more uncertain than ever before.

To make this point, Mattingly highlighted data from the Center for Presidential Transition’s® research on the Senate confirmation process: 

– The number of Senate-confirmed positions increased by more than 70% between 1960 and 2020, from 779 to 1,340. 

– It now takes the Senate nearly four times longer to confirm a nominee than it did during President Ronald Reagan’s administration.  

– The number of Senate-confirmed positions increased by more than 70% between 1960 and 2020, from 779 to 1,340. 

– It now takes the Senate nearly four times longer to confirm a nominee than it did during President Ronald Reagan’s administration.  

– The percentage of Senate votes on nominations now far exceeds votes on legislation. Procedural votes, cloture votes to end debate and direct votes on presidential nominations made up 64 percent of all recorded Senate votes during President Donald Trump’s administration, and 58 percent so far into President Joe Biden’s administration. This compares with just 15 percent during the first term of George W. Bush’s presidency and 14 percent during Barack Obama’s time in office. 

– Layer upon layer of nominees has created extended delays in confirmation of lower level nominees. During the Biden administration, Cabinet secretaries and deputy secretaries have taken about 19 days and 59 days, respectively, to be confirmed. However, those further down the leadership hierarchy (e.g., assistant secretaries and directors) have taken about 200 days on average to be confirmed. 

– Senate confirmed positions are vacant more frequently and for longer periods of time than in the past. Four Cabinet departments, for example, had 30% or more of their key positions vacant as of March of this year.

The broken process is undermining the Senate’s constitutional powers, both because it has led to executive branch efforts to sidestep Senate confirmation altogether by relying on non-confirmed officials, and because the extraordinary amount of time being spent on nominations has decreased the time spent on legislating by the Senate.

In addition, agencies suffer from gaps in leadership that hobble long-term planning and the execution of the responsibilities Congress has assigned to them, which is a disservice to constituents who rely on federal services. Moreover, the increasingly laborious experience that nominees—and their families— experience in going through the confirmation process discourages qualified individuals from wanting to accept a government position.

In order to make the confirmation process work better for all stakeholders, the Partnership’s testimony identified five priorities:  

– Reduce the number of positions subject to Senate confirmation by modeling the bipartisan law enacted in 2011.  

– Develop a model for “bundling” nominations which would allow for at least some nominees to be joined  together for a final vote on the Senate floor.  

– Improve the privileged nomination process designed to speed up consideration of some presidential appointees generally considered noncontroversial and pursue other changes to Senate processes for executive branch nominations that could win broad bipartisan support.  

– Revisit the 2012 and 2013 recommendations of the Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations.  

– Increase transparency into the appointments process while strengthening agency accountability to Congress when vacancies occur by improving the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. 

During the hearing, senators on both sides of the aisle engaged in a constructive conversation about how to make the confirmation process work more effectively while maintaining the Senate’s constitutional role to provide advice and consent on nominees. We continue to be optimistic that this is an area ripe for bipartisan reform and that the data will make the call to action clear.

Chris Piper is a manager on the Partnership’s Center for Presidential Transition team. 

Given the increasing delays presidents face in getting senior leaders confirmed by the Senate, it is important to understand how long those officials remain in their roles once confirmed. While our previous analysis highlights year three as a time of high appointee turnover during  a president’s first term, incumbent presidents entering a second term face even greater challenges. 

Incumbent administrations transitioning to a second term have historically confronted significant headwinds. The fifth year can be encumbered by political opposition in Congress, and the departure of knowledgeable officials can make it even more difficult for an administration to achieve its policy goals. Without sufficient personnel and resources dedicated to second term personnel planning, two-term administrations will miss an important opportunity to gain early momentum following reelection. 

Our analysis examines the turnover of Senate confirmed presidential appointees during the second term of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama in major departments and agencies, excluding ambassadors, U.S. marshals and attorneys. 

Turnover across terms

In year five, Bush and Obama experienced average annual turnover rates of 38% and 28% respectively, the highest in their entire presidencies. For context, Bush had 135 departures out of 353 tracked positions and Obama had 101 departures out 359 positions. For Obama, this was more than doubled the peak annual turnover in his first term (13%); for Bush, the second-term peak was nearly double the first term’s (20%). 

Years six through eight for both presidents exceeded or were comparable to their third-year turnover levels, highlighting the sustained volatility in personnel departures throughout the second term. 

Personnel turnover in the fifth year is an early management obstacle for administrations starting a second term. These findings demonstrate the urgency of second term planning if incumbent administrations are to expeditiously fill senior leadership positions as they become vacant. 

Note: Data includes Senate-confirmed positions excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. Yearly average turnover is weighted by the number of positions tracked for each president. 

Second-term turnover by department 

In every department, the Bush and Obama administrations experienced significantly higher turnover during the second term compared to the first. The highest turnover rate was at the Department of Education under Bush at 128%, meaning that there were 23 departures for 18 tracked positions during his time in office. Several other departments under Bush also experienced turnover rates that exceeded 100%, including the departments of Housing and Urban Development (109%), Justice (104%), Transportation (113%) and State (115%). These departments experienced several departures from the same position within one term. Departures at assistant secretary level at Bush’s Department of Education were frequent, as officials rarely remained for more than two years. 

While the Obama administration had relatively lower levels of turnover, all departments exceeded 50% turnover except for the Department of Labor (47%). For Obama, the Department of Transportation had a peak turnover rate of 100%, nearly 10 times the turnover compared to his first term (13%). 

Note: Data covers Senate-confirmed positions in executive CFO Act agencies, excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. The time period covered in the first term is from the beginning of the administration through April 1 of the fourth year. 

An incumbent administration must balance the difficult tasks of managing ongoing government operations while preparing prior to the election for a transition to a possible second term. The rigor and planning needed to successfully staff some of the highest-ranking positions in the executive branch is critical for a successful second term administration.

This blog post was authored by Husam AlZubaidy, an associate at the Partnership’s Center for Presidential Transition. 

This week marks the beginning of Pride month, a time in which we reflect on the history and achievements of the LGBTQ+ community and reaffirm our unwavering support for equality and inclusivity. The Partnership for Public Service and Center for Presidential Transition honor the service of countless LGBTQ+ public servants who have served across administrations.

The service of LGBTQ+ individuals in the federal government has not always been celebrated. Beginning in the late 1940s, in the midst of the Cold War, there was a “Lavendar Scare” that focused on purging the federal civil service, along with government contractors, of gays and lesbians. President Dwight Eisenhower formalized the policy in April of 1953 with Executive Order 10450 which authorized the investigation and firing of civil servants for “sexual perversion.” Due to this policy, tens of thousands of civil servants were investigated and thousands lost their careers.

The policy of targeting gay and lesbian civil servants continued for decades. It was not until 1975 that the Civil Service Commission ended the ban on gays and lesbians in the federal civil service and 1977 that the Department of State ended its ban within the Foreign Service. It took another two decades until discrimination based on sexual orientation was banned in granting access to classified information, when President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12968 in 1995.

Even as formal constraints on the service of LGBTQ+ individuals were removed over time, LGBTQ+ individuals continued to face opposition because of their identities. Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly LGBTQ+ Senate-confirmed appointee who won approval in 1993, and James Hormel, the first openly LGBTQ+ ambassador who took office through a recess appointment in 1999, faced questions about their ability to serve based on their identities alone.

Despite obstacles, openly LGBTQ+ individuals have served in appointed leadership roles in each of the last five administrations. Clinton led the way by making the first nominations of openly LGBT individuals, appointing about 140 to serve in his administration. President Barack Obama nearly doubled that number, appointing over 250 openly LGBTQ+ officials during his administration.

Milestones of LGBTQ+ Service and Leadership in the Federal Government

Biden has appointed more openly LGBTQ+ officials than any of his predecessors. As of October of 2023, Biden had appointed over 340 openly LGBTQ+ officials across the executive branch. Annise Parker, president of the LGBTQ Victory Institute, which works to advance LGBTQ+ elected and appointed government officials, described the Biden administration as “the most LGBTQ-inclusive in history…”

Our government is best when it is representative of its people and inclusive to all. Despite discrimination and bigotry, LGBTQ+ individuals have always strived to serve their government and country. Thanks to social and legal progress over time, the government benefits more than ever from the leadership of LGBTQ+ officials.

Given the long hours and tough responsibilities at Cabinet agencies, presidents can expect departures among Senate-confirmed leadership. While turnover is expected, high departure rates can pose significant challenges for day-to-day agency operations and long-term planning. 

Turnover in the modern context is more troublesome than ever before. Our research shows that Senate confirmation times have grown for each subsequent administration while nomination success rates have progressively declined. This means that, when agency leaders depart, it will take significantly longer to replace them than it did for previous presidents. As a result, many positions remain vacant for extended periods of time. 

Using our political appointee tracker and other data sources, we have examined the rates of Senate-confirmed appointee turnover during the four most recent administrations. As we look to personnel changes following the November election—whether it be a second term for the incumbent or a new administration—a retrospective on turnover helps put recent personnel challenges in context.  

We analyzed turnover among presidential nominees in major departments and agencies,1 excluding U.S. marshals and attorneys. To make an equivalent comparison with the ongoing Biden administration, we looked at each president’s first term up until April 1 of their fourth year in office.

AdministrationBushObamaTrumpBiden
Total Departures10573 94 34 
Tracked Positions353 359 385 392 
Total Turnover Rate30% 20% 24% 9% 
Note: Data covers Senate-confirmed positions in executive CFO Act agencies, excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. The time period covered is from the beginning of the administration through April 1 of the fourth year.  

The Bush administration experienced the highest total turnover at 30% during this period of time. Trump and Obama had lower and more comparable turnover rates at 24% and 20%, respectively. Biden experienced significantly less turnover than his predecessors at 9%. 

Note: Data includes Senate-confirmed positions excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. The time period from the beginning of the administration through April 1 of the fourth year.

Looking closer at these departments by president, the total turnover rates during the Bush and Obama administrations (59% and 30% respectively) were greatly impacted by Treasury Department departures. As for the Department for Veterans Affairs, Bush and Trump received the highest rates of turnover (50% and 33% respectively). The Department of Commerce—despite undergoing some of the highest rates of turnover on average—did not experience any turnover during the Biden administration through this past April. Moreover, there were no departures of Biden appointees during this period at the Environmental Protection Agency, or at the departments of Education and Energy. Similarly, the Trump administration had no turnover of its appointees at the Department of Agriculture despite turnover rates at other departments. 

The departments of Transportation and Homeland Security also highlight differences. Trump experienced roughly five times more turnover than previous administrations at DHS (53%), the second highest rate of any other department. As for Biden, the DOT experienced the second highest rate of total turnover so far during his presidency (17%), exceeding two previous administrations but trailing the Bush administration (38%). For context, DHS had an average turnover rate of 21% while DOT’s rate was 20% during the past four administrations. While Trump had more than double the average turnover at DHS, Biden remains below the DOT average. 

Note: Data covers Senate-confirmed positions in executive CFO Act agencies, excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. The time period covered is from the beginning of the administration through April 1 of the fourth year. 

For each administration, turnover peaked during year three with relatively low turnover in other years. Compared to recent presidents, Biden has maintained low turnover, rising only to 6% during his third year. Obama was the next lowest in year three turnover, but the rate was nearly double at 13%. The second year of administrations has had low turnover in general, with the highest turnover occurring during the Trump administration (6%). For all four presidents, the first year had turnover rates at or below 1%. 

Recent success during the Biden administration at limiting turnover rates is an important development in light of increasing confirmation delays. Even as turnover appears to have tempered during the current administration, there are greater ramifications for each departure as it becomes more difficult to confirm a replacement. 

The challenger candidate in the 2024 election must consider how to staff an entire administration, but even the incumbent candidate must take proactive steps to avoid trends from previous second term presidents to retain leaders in key positions in order to achieve policy goals. 

1 As defined by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–576).

This blog post was authored by Husam AlZubaidy, an associate at the Partnership’s Center for Presidential Transition.

The Senate confirmation process for executive branch nominees has become more difficult during the last 40 years.

President Joe Biden’s nominees have taken nearly three times longer to be confirmed during his first three years compared to the nominees in the George H.W. Bush administration.

Confirmation delays continued to grow under the Trump administration and have worsened further under Biden. Delays faced by Biden’s nominees in the first three years were 13% longer than Trump’s nominees.

Beyond confirmation times, presidents during the last 40 years have seen fewer and fewer of their nominees confirmed by the Senate. Through year three, Presidents Donald Trump and Biden each had approximately 150 fewer nominees confirmed compared to President Barack Obama and 250 to 300 fewer nominees confirmed compared to Presidents H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

The broken process leaves critical positions vacant for long periods of time, which is a disservice to the public in carrying out the fundamental roles of government, from national security to infrastructure to health and safety.

Using an analysis of our Political Appointee Tracker, we have been able to gain a clearer view of vacancy rates under the Biden and Trump administrations.

From our analysis of the state of vacancies in Cabinet Departments as of March 19th in the fourth year of the last two administrations, we found that:

Vacancies are widespread across Cabinet departments

As of March 19, 2024, 98 of 547 Cabinet department positions (18%) followed on our tracker were vacant in the Biden administration. At the same point in time, 157 of 526 Cabinet department positions (30%) followed on our tracker were vacant during the Trump administration. 

Some Cabinet departments have alarmingly high rates of vacancies

Four Cabinet departments had 30% or more of their positions vacant as of March 19, 2024. At the equivalent date during Trump’s fourth year, nine Cabinet departments had 30% or more of their positions vacant. For both administrations, the Department of Homeland Security had the highest vacancy rate at 35% in the Biden administration and 65% in the Trump administration. The departments of Housing and Urban Development and Justice also have consistently had high rates of vacancies, totaling more than 30% across the last two administrations.

Note: Excludes U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals

Many Cabinet positions have yet to be filled more than three years into last two administrations

As of March 19, 2024, 50 Cabinet positions (9%) had never been filled with a Senate confirmed appointee since the beginning of the Biden administration. At the same point in time, 66 Cabinet positions (13%) had never been filled with a Senate confirmed appointee since the beginning of the Trump administration. The Department of Justice has been particularly affected by this problem, with over 25% of Senate confirmed positions never having someone confirmed by the Senate through March 19 of the fourth year of the last two administrations.

Note: Excludes U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals

Nineteen Cabinet positions were not filled by either the Trump or Biden administration by March 19 of their fourth year

Across the Trump and Biden administrations, there are 19 positions in common that remained vacant during the first three years of each administration. Four of these positions are the chief financial officers at the departments of Agriculture, Homeland Security, State and Treasury. The list also includes high-level positions like the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Positions Not Filled by the Fourth Year of Each of the Last Two Administrations

PositionAgency
Chief financial officerDepartment of Agriculture
Assistant secretary for civil rightsDepartment of Agriculture
Assistant secretary for communications and outreachDepartment of Education
Assistant secretary for planning and evaluationDepartment of Health and Human Services
Chief financial officerDepartment of Homeland Security
Director, Immigration and Customs EnforcementDepartment of Homeland Security
Assistant attorney general for the tax divisionDepartment of Justice
Deputy administrator, Drug Enforcement AdministrationDepartment of Justice
Commissioner, U.S. Parole Commission (2)Department of Justice
Special counsel for immigration-related unfair employment practicesDepartment of Justice
Chairman, Foreign Claims Settlement CommissionDepartment of Justice
Chief financial officerDepartment of State
Coordinator for threat reduction programsDepartment of State
Ambassador, BahamasDepartment of State
Ambassador, CubaDepartment of State
Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and EnforcementDepartment of the Interior
Special trustee for American IndiansDepartment of the Interior
Chief financial officerDepartment of the Treasury

These findings highlight the challenges in filling certain key roles in government. Reform of the confirmation process is urgently needed, starting with a reduction in the number of appointments subject to Senate approval.

Chris Piper is a manager at the Center for Presidential Transition.