Read on Twitter
Donald Trump is removing his Cabinet and replacing them with Acting Secretaries, attempting to eliminate the possibility of removal by the 25th Amendment.
This development is made all the more concerning by Trump’s recent firing of a watchdog who oversees the United States nuclear stockpile.
The tell: Trump avoiding a perfectly qualified and respected Deputy Secretary — already approved by the Senate — and instead picking a respected official who has *not* been Senate approved.
This is intentional avoidance of having a Senate approved Secretary of Defense.
This is intentional avoidance of having a Senate approved Secretary of Defense.
Miller *has* been unanimously Senate approved for a position under ODNI, not DoD. The distinction may not ultimately matter much, but these are constitutional questions that have never been tested. In an urgent moment, this situation would be compounded by insane legal questions.
Scholars smarter than myself have written extensively about whether acting secretaries may vote in a 25A scenario, and at least one has written that the consensus is that they could. But Trump has also pursued outlandish legal interpretations and it is safe to say he may disagree
Here, a well-versed law professor explains acting secretaries could vote in a 25A scenario. While I think the bigger concern is that Trump and his lawyers would complicate this already-messy situation with challenges, he seems to have strong evidence to support his theory. https://twitter.com/profbriankalt/status/1185178350618398721
Aside from the 25A concerns and the completely avoidable future legal headaches that would now arise if we ran into that scenario, @AWeissmann_ points out the only real explanation for this is Trump trying to seize full control of the military. https://twitter.com/aweissmann_/status/1325873734679482369
Lurking ominously beneath scholarly dismissals of concerns about acting secretaries and potential 25th Amendment removal is the regular underestimation of Trump’s willingness to disregard rules and his penchant for challenging/ignoring obvious laws based on frivolous arguments.
