Advise and consent

Long before casting votes, the Senate begins doing its job.

Weeks before Inauguration Day, and before a single confirmation hearing, two of President-elect Trump‘s nominees for top positions are out, and a third is on the ropes.

Republican Senators vetting these nominations have yet to do much, publicly, beyond raise their eyebrows. But because the Senate holds the constitutional power to advise and consent (or not consent) to nominees, that‘s been enough to force some course changes. So that leads to a question. By playing their constitutional role—rather than abdicating it, as Trump called for them to do last month—are they resisting the president-elect or helping?

Some of the president-elect’s allies suggest they are resisting; Charlie Kirk talks about primary challenges to recalcitrant lawmakers in 2026.

There is another way to see it, though. John Cornyn of Texas, one of the Republicans up for re-election in 2026, has said a proper vetting of candidates can save the president from embarrassment!

Let’s look at the ways the list of nominees is evolving. Matt Gaetz withdrew in favor of Florida attorney general Pam Bondi as nominee for U.S. attorney general. Hillsborough County, Florida sheriff Chad Chronister—who has family connections to Trump—has withdrawn as nominee to lead the D.E.A. The Wall Street Journal reports Trump is thinking of dropping Pete Hegseth, the nominee to run the Defense Department; one possible replacement is Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida.

What seems to be happening here, so far, is that nominees the president-elect seems mainly to have known from his personal relationships or from TV are being replaced by people who have run things. Here’s what I mean.