Gaetz is out. Will Trump's other Cabinet picks be confirmed?

Welcome to 538's politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

tia.yang (Tia Yang, senior editor): It's been a couple of weeks since the election, and the political world is gearing up for a second Trump term, with all the potential uncertainty and controversy that we know come along with it. President-elect Donald Trump has been steadily rolling out Cabinet picks — at record pace, no less. He's chosen several nominees so far who have more traditional backgrounds, like Sen. Marco Rubio as secretary of state, House GOP Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik as U.N. ambassador, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to lead the Interior Department and former Rep. Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

But some of his other picks have raised eyebrows — and concerns among the senators who would have to confirm them. Just today, scandal-plagued former Rep. Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration for the attorney general post, citing his desire to avoid a "needlessly protracted Washington scuffle" over his nomination. We chatted today about what that withdrawal means, whether any of Trump's other nominees could be in trouble in the Senate, and what these confirmation battles tell us about the new Congress and Trump's relationship with it.

To start off, what do you make of Trump's nominations so far? What do they tell us about how he's approaching his second term?

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, senior elections analyst): His nominations seem to suggest a desire to 1) choose loyalists who'll do his bidding, 2) pick some controversial outsiders as part of his efforts to bend Washington to his will and shake things up and 3) test Republican senators' commitment to his program by forcing them to digest some tough picks that they wouldn't like to confirm.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, senior editor and senior elections analyst): They tell us that Trump is going to govern exactly how he campaigned: without regard for norms or the way things are usually done. Gaetz for attorney general, anti-vaccine activist and former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of health and human services, Fox News host Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense — these are not picks that a normal Republican administration would make.

geoffrey.skelley: Of course, Trump is largely the new normal for the GOP. But that's a larger conversation beyond administration appointees!

nrakich: We were also reminded that Trump loves a TV star! Three of his appointees to major positions — Hegseth, former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon (his pick for secretary of education) and physician Mehmet Oz (his pick to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) — are television personalities with no experience in elected office. (McMahon does have some government experience, leading the Small Business Administration during part of Trump's first term.) A fourth, secretary of transportation nominee Sean Duffy, is a former reality TV star turned congressman.

tia.yang: Yeah, these picks mostly have in common that Trump likes them and thinks they'll be loyal to him, as opposed to having the usual qualifications for their posts or any ideological consistency. But that's nothing new for him. And as Geoffrey alluded to, in a not particularly surprising move, these picks also present a loyalty test of sorts, especially as Trump has amped up the pressure on the new GOP majority (and its new leadership) to quickly confirm his nominees.

geoffrey.skelley: LOL, yeah, if you were truly surprised by any of this, you've been asleep for eight years.

tia.yang: Let's dig into some of those controversial nominees. Are any likely to suffer the same fate as Gaetz and fail to make it through the Senate confirmation process?

nrakich: Yeah, it's a really fascinating question. Republicans will have at least 52 seats in the next Senate, and probably 53, if Republican Dave McCormick wins the still-unresolved Pennsylvania Senate race, as most analysts expect. That's a decent-sized majority by modern standards, and most of those Republicans are loyal to Trump and likely to rubber-stamp all his picks.

But with some of these picks, Trump is also reallllly testing the boundaries of what some of the more establishment senators will go along with. We already saw that with Gaetz, who likely decided to withdraw because he saw the writing on the wall (there were reportedly at least a dozen Republican senators opposed to his nomination).

Of Trump's remaining nominees, I think Kennedy and Hegseth are also likely to be voted down or withdrawn. Those senators who aren't turned off by Kennedy's fringe, inaccurate views on vaccines will be turned off by his past support for abortion rights. And Hegseth has a scandal of his own — a woman accused him of sexually assaulting her in 2017.

geoffrey.skelley: Agreed that Gaetz was in the toughest spot. However, even after his example, I do think people may be too quick to assume that other contenders like Kennedy and Hegseth will fail or withdraw. For instance, Vice President-elect JD Vance was on the Hill today making the rounds in support of Hegseth.

tia.yang: Now that Gaetz is out of the picture, the attention will likely shift to Hegseth, Kennedy and others, and we'll get a better sense of what level of opposition is out there. Hegseth in particular could face opposition from "defense hawk" types, who may see Hegseth's inexperience, character and more extreme views as an issue when it comes to upholding national defense. A notable one is Sen. Joni Ernst — who was reportedly on the short list for the job herself.

And Kennedy is a complicated figure because Republicans have a slew of reasons they might oppose him. Beyond his stances on vaccines and abortion, and his storied history of conspiracy theories and scandal, he also holds discordant and controversial stances on food, drug and health regulations, including some that align him more closely with Democrats. In fact, reports say former President Barack Obama considered Kennedy to lead the EPA back in 2008 — but may have deemed him too controversial due to his arrest for heroin possession decades prior, and because he'd face conservative opposition for being too liberal! Oh, how the tables have turned.

geoffrey.skelley: With any of these controversial picks, much will depend on the Senate math. Assuming 53 Republicans, support from 50 of them plus Vance as a tiebreaker would be sufficient to confirm. So the question is, are there four Republican senators who will actually break with Trump? I do think it's going to be very hard for some Republicans to actually vote against Trump's nominees. There's the threat of primary challenges, including for a purple-state senator like Thom Tillis of North Carolina (already viewed as a squish by some on the right).

Either way, I expect almost all of Trump's nominees to get confirmed. Public snorting and private grumbling ≠ votes against nominees on the floor.

Of course, it is fair to wonder: With Gaetz gone, does that leave more room to oppose some of the other particularly controversial picks, like former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Kennedy?

tia.yang: Gaetz's withdrawal definitely could change the Senate calculus. Even earlier today, it didn't seem like a given. Trump and Vance were still lobbying hard for him as late as yesterday, and like you said, Geoffrey, the same is true for some of these other nominees. I think that's not just because of Trump's insistence on getting what he wants, but because even if he loses those battles, it could tire out the opposition to his nominees more broadly.

There's a history in the Senate of giving presidents and nominees the chance to withdraw if it becomes clear they don't have the support needed for confirmation. Regardless of whether that level of opposition materializes for nominees beyond Gaetz, Trump could keep pressing to force senators to choose sides. There's probably only so many times GOP senators can oppose his picks before raising his ire. They might have expended that quota on Gaetz had he stayed in.

nrakich: Yeah, ironically, I think the more of these outlandish nominees Trump picks, the better the odds are that his merely eyebrow-raising ones get confirmed. Gabbard, Oz, McMahon, etc. may not have the usual experience for the roles they've been nominated for, but they lack the salacious, stranger-than-fiction baggage of Gaetz, Kennedy and Hegseth. So Republican senators will feel more pressure to approve them so that Trump's entire Cabinet doesn't go down in a spectacular, Hindenburg-esque ball of flames.

geoffrey.skelley: To live in a world where being a favorite of Russian state media doesn't count as heavy baggage for someone nominated for director of national intelligence (Gabbard). But here we are.

nrakich: But that's the degree to which picks like Gaetz move the Overton window of outrageousness, right?

geoffrey.skelley: Yep, absolutely true. Trump is in something of a win-win in terms of the intraparty politics of selecting these controversial nominees. "Well, if that one gets shot down, they'll probably confirm my other picks because they took out this guy they disliked. Or I'll get the people I want because the senators will give in." Gaetz's withdrawal takes him out of the picture, but it still affects comparative perceptions of the other nominees.

tia.yang: Nathaniel, you said you think Kennedy and Hegseth are also likely to fail or be withdrawn. Geoffrey, do you disagree? You seem more skeptical that Senate Republicans will shoot down many, or any, of these nominees.

geoffrey.skelley: Well, it's true that any failures among these picks are more likely to end in withdrawals than actual defeat on the Senate floor. The last time the Senate actually voted down a nominee was in 1989, when the Democratic-controlled chamber rejected John Tower, a former senator from Texas, for secretary of defense. Tower's alcohol use and accusations of sexual misconduct hurt his bid, as did his contentious relationship with his former Senate colleagues (some of this bears a rough resemblance to Gaetz's situation prior to his exit).

Since then, though, 13 other nominees have now withdrawn rather than face a vote in committee or on the Senate floor.

nrakich: And I think that could be the undoing of some of these nominees, Geoffrey. If the Senate had to go on the record about each of these nominees, maybe Republicans — fearful of a Trump-backed primary challenger — would indeed all fall in line. But it probably will never get to that point. Instead, it'll just be incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune in a room with Trump telling him, "We don't have the votes, you have to withdraw him."

geoffrey.skelley: But see, I'm not sure Thune saying that is going to get Trump to back off. He runs the show for the GOP now, and this isn't 2017. The party is much Trumpier now, and if Thune wants to keep his job, he's gonna have to satisfy Numero Uno.

tia.yang: Yeah, this is straight into the deep end for the newly minted GOP leader. While Thune has of course committed himself to helping advance Trump's agenda, he doesn't have the rosiest relationship with the president-elect and was likely not Trumpworld's preferred candidate for this role. (The Trump loyalist contender seemed to be Sen. Rick Scott.)

Actually, the reaction to Thune's ascendance among Trump's supporters reminded me of the dynamic between MAGA Republicans and now-deposed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and even current Speaker Mike Johnson, who is much more cut from the hard-right cloth than establishment figures like McCarthy or Thune. Of course, the Senate is not the House — I'm not suggesting Trump-aligned GOP senators will launch a coup against Thune or have the inclination to do so, but he's certainly already facing a huge amount of pressure from Trump and his allies. Navigating the confirmation process is just the first challenge.

nrakich: Fair — it will be interesting to see if Trump tries to forge ahead with votes on some of these nominees, even in the face of opposition, and kind of dare Republicans to go on the record against his picks.

It could backfire and make him look weak if they do. But it could also be a big victory for him if they capitulate.

geoffrey.skelley: In 2017, six Republican senators out of 52 voted against at least one Trump nominee. But no more than three voted against a given nominee at once. Three of those senators are gone: John McCain (deceased), Ben Sasse and Cory Gardner. The other three are still there: Collins, Murkowski and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Seems as if finding four no votes to stop some of these picks is really going to take some arduous math.

nrakich: I dunno, it's fairly easy for me to come up with at least four Republicans who aren't afraid to buck Trump.

Collins and Murkowski, the two most moderate members of the GOP caucus, are the obvious ones. But Sen. Todd Young of Indiana is also anti-Trump — he's just gotten a fraction of the attention for it. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana voted to impeach Trump, and he's the incoming chair of the committee that will consider Kennedy's nomination (although Cassidy actually sounds open-minded to him).

Finally, Sen. Mitch McConnell is an institutionalist through and through, and he's not going to run for reelection. What does he have to gain by voting for some of these nominees?

tia.yang: I think a potentially lame-duck McConnell could be a wild card. His private, sometimes-public dislike for Trump is well known, and Trump's recess appointments demands (which we'll discuss further later) particularly raised his hackles. Now that he's stepped down as Republican leader and seems very likely to retire in two years, the pressure is off. If he breaks with Trump on a given nominee, it could give other establishment-minded senators cover to do the same — though it's true that the universe of senators who would be willing to do so in the face of electoral pressure is small. The most likely suspects are those who are planning to retire.

Speaking of, the 2026 election cycle starts now! Twenty GOP-held seats will be up for reelection in two years, and those senators will have to weigh how bucking Trump affects their prospects in primary or general elections.

geoffrey.skelley: We're going to find out who is really running for reelection in 2026, I guess. Collins will need to buck Trump some to shore herself up in purplish Maine, but Cassidy — who seems to be running for reelection in his reliably red state — may not want Trump opposing him even more aggressively than after he voted to impeach. Young isn't up again until 2028, so he has more room to maneuver. But I'm dubious that someone like Tillis, even though he hails from a competitive state, will actually end up offering much opposition. He's bucked Trump before, only to shift positions in the face of MAGA backlash.

I will grant you McConnell, although the degree of his opposition remains to be seen — I mean, this was the guy who basically said Trump was responsible for Jan. 6 and then didn't vote for his conviction in the ensuing Senate impeachment trial.

nrakich: I'm with you on Tillis, Geoffrey — I think his deepest, darkest fear about the 2026 election is a Trump-backed primary challenger, not that he'll lose the general election. (To be clear, he very well might lose the general election — but I don't think voting for or against Trump's Cabinet picks two years earlier is going to make or break that.)

I'll also throw out Sen.-elect John Curtis, the mild-mannered Republican from Utah. Might he be the new Mitt Romney in more ways than one?

tia.yang: I was going to say the same. In addition to his relatively moderate voting record in the House, Curtis, like Romney, is Mormon — and there's a strong history of Trump skepticism among Mormon voters and prominent Mormon GOP lawmakers, like Romney and former Sen. Jeff Flake.

Needless to say, how this all shakes out could tell us a lot about Trump's standing with congressional Republicans in the coming term. And there's another somewhat unprecedented factor hanging over all their heads — Trump's calls for recess appointments, in which the president can unilaterally appoint nominees without Senate approval if the Senate recesses for at least 10 days (a time period established by a 2014 Supreme Court ruling).

It's a pretty weedy and somewhat arcane loophole, but Trump called for Senate Republicans to agree to it even before he made any of these appointments. How has that threat been playing out?

nrakich: I don't think it's very likely to succeed. Multiple Republican senators — including Tillis and McConnell, not just Collins and Murkowski — have already publicly come out against the idea of recess appointments. And yes, the idea of a recess appointment is to circumvent the Senate, but the Senate still has to give its implicit consent by adjourning and not holding what are called "pro forma" sessions — basically, sessions of Congress where they just gavel in and gavel out.

Now, Trumpworld is reportedly considering using a little-known clause in the Constitution to have Trump adjourn Congress himself so that he can make these recess appointments. But even conservative legal scholars have called that a "cockamamie scheme."

We know that Trump isn't afraid to break norms, so maybe he would try such a maneuver, as extreme an escalation of executive power as it would be. But even in the best-case scenario for him, it would get tied up in court.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, basically it would require Johnson and the House GOP to go along. The House would pass a resolution calling for the Senate and House to both adjourn. If the Senate didn't agree to that resolution, Trump could attempt to adjourn both chambers under an obscure part of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, whereby the president may adjourn Congress "in Case of Disagreement" between the two chambers.

tia.yang: It’s clear 50 GOP senators aren’t on board with Trump’s initial demand. Many of them won’t vote in favor of recessing to literally abdicate the chamber’s constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.

And in the case of a forcible adjournment, it's unclear procedurally how the House forcing a disagreement would work — not to mention requiring maneuvering and cooperation from the very narrow GOP majority. That would be unprecedented, and the issue would almost certainly go to the Supreme Court, as Nathaniel mentioned.

nrakich: Yeah, I totally get the argument that most Republican senators are in Trump's thrall and will probably vote to give him whatever they want. But I have a hard time seeing many of them being OK with recess appointments. It really would neuter the power of the Senate, and these guys presumably got elected to the Senate because they wanted to exercise power!

tia.yang: To that point, I'd add that the fact that we are even talking about this is, honestly, bonkers. Even if it's only to signal their compliance with Trump, the fact that many GOP senators are publicly entertaining or calling for recess appointments shows just how effective Trump is at using public rhetoric to apply pressures to fellow Republicans in really unprecedented ways. The threat of a messy intraparty squabble — just when they’ve secured a federal government trifecta — is a pretty effective lever.

Recess appointments aren't something most Americans have heard about. That power existed in the first place to allow presidents to fill critical gaps at times that lawmakers couldn't get to D.C. fast enough by horse — not so they could bypass the Senate on wide swaths of controversial nominees. But Trump made the demand as if it was par for the course, and now it's in the public discourse.