Related News
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s incoming Cabinet may already have a place in history.
As Congress considers the president-elect’s picks, many have a record of outspoken skepticism of — and in some cases downright hostility to — the agencies they’ll oversee that distinguishes them from previous Cabinets, according to presidential transition experts. Some of them echo the Tea Party — credited with ushering in an era of congressional obstruction. In a 2014 interview on Fox Business News, now-Labor nominee Andrew Puzder stated: “Who says gridlock is bad? I can tell, the less Washington does the better.”
 | ||
| Former Texas governor Rick Perry wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy. |
Former Texas governor Rick Perry has advocated shuttering the Department of Energy he’s slated to lead. Betsy DeVos, who would head the Education Department, is a leading proponent of voucher programs that divert taxpayer funds from public schools. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has repeatedly sued the Environmental Protection Agency and, in his official biography, describes himself as a “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.” Ben Carson has criticized Housing and Urban Development rules designed to combat segregation in housing. Puzder has fought labor rules intended to protect workers.
“It really is unprecedented, not just the degree to which some of these nominees despise the mission of the agencies or departments they’re tapped to head, but the sheer number of them,” said John Hudak, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
That applies particularly to those tapped to run agencies dealing with workers and the environment. Next week's Senate hearings will feature nominees' previous comments against those agencies' missions.
Take Trump’s EPA pick, Pruitt, who has repeatedly sued the EPA over President Obama’s climate policies. A 2012 opinion piece could draw particular scrutiny for its false accusation that Obama wanted to kill the oil industry and spike gasoline prices to near $8 a gallon. Also of note: He once questioned whether the EPA had engaged in a conspiracy with environmental groups to file friendly lawsuits resulting in stricter regulations.
Puzder, a fast food chief executive, has criticized mandatory breaks for workers; and in a keynote address two years ago, he criticized an overtime rule meant to protect workers.
Previous presidents have chosen nominees hostile to the agencies they oversee. Under Ronald Reagan, conservative Bill Bennett was “someone who really wanted to kill” the Department of Education, while Anne Gorsuch at EPA and Jim Watt at Interior came in with heavy opposition from environmental and conservation interests. The vast majority of Republican administration appointees were like George W. Bush's picks of Christine Todd Whitman at EPA, Dirk Kempthorne at Interior and Mike Leavitt at Health and Human Services.
“These are people who are conservative, absolutely, but not opponents” of the agencies, said Hudak.
Team Of Disrupters
For its part, the Trump team is embracing the notion that its nominees are a "team of disrupters,” versus the “team of rivals” approach President Obama adopted in tapping Republicans to join his Cabinet.
"These highly qualified leaders are in lockstep with President-elect Trump's plan to drain the swamp and get Washington working for America again. Each one is committed to the bold change agenda that Americans voted for in November," the Trump transition team said in a statement.
The governing implications could be significant.
Most immediately there could be open warfare between new appointees and the army of civil servants who populate the agencies. Many of these workers, whom political scientists often call “the permanent government,” see their mission as sanctioned by Congress — and the funding it’s already appropriated. Trump and his nominees are also limited by Congress in curtailing the charter of many agencies, raising the prospect of a spike in litigation should agency heads attempt to overhaul or eliminate significant programs.
“I don’t know if it’s great for the country, but it’s great for lawyers,” said Stan Brand, a former general counsel to the U.S. House under Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, a Democrat.
Democrats are promising a rough ride for a number of nominees — though Republicans assure they have the votes to win approval for all of them.
Democrats have put up flares over several nominees who’ve failed to complete the official screening process by the Office of Government Ethics. Yet, according to Brand, that is secondary to the real consternation on Capitol Hill.
“The president gets to pick whoever he wants ... it’s up to him to appoint them,” he said. “What has brought this to a head is not just the extreme wealth of the nominees, but that some of them appear to be adverse to the mission of the agencies they’re going to be running,” he said. “This is partially a fight over ideology”