The notion of President-elect Trump testing his constitutional powers through recess appointments has sparked serious discussion among Republicans. Some are concerned that such moves could push the boundaries of his authority, particularly by attempting to forcibly adjourn Congress and bypass Senate approval.
Sources close to Trump have indicated that the idea of forcibly adjourning Congress, even if the Senate doesn’t agree, has been seriously considered among his team. While some conservative figures publicly support the feasibility of this approach, others in the legal community express skepticism.
When former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) withdrew from consideration for Attorney General, many Republicans viewed it as a sign that not all GOP members would back Trump’s controversial moves.
Republican unease grows over the implications of Trump forcibly adjourning Congress
Despite Gaetz’s withdrawal, the potential for Trump to pursue his plan of adjourning Congress by invoking his executive powers remains under consideration. Other contentious appointments, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services Secretary and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, are also still in play.
The proposed plan would involve the House agreeing to recess, and if the Senate doesn’t act, Trump could invoke Article II, Section 3, which allows the president to adjourn Congress in the case of a disagreement over the time of adjournment.
The idea of Trump exercising this power has caused unease among some Republican lawmakers. They are concerned not only about sparking a constitutional crisis but also about setting a dangerous precedent.
One House Republican expressed concerns that such a move could backfire in the future, especially if Democrats regain control. “People do not like this idea. This is a bad strategy to go down,” the representative said. Several Republican senators have also spoken out against the plan, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the separation of powers.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, reiterated the importance of maintaining a system of coequal branches of government. “One branch can’t commandeer the other two,” Cornyn explained.
The underlying motivation for pushing the plan may be to pressure Senate Republicans into supporting Trump’s nominees. However, Trump’s allies have not dismissed the possibility of attempting to adjourn Congress, even after Gaetz’s withdrawal.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who would need to support the plan for it to move forward, has not ruled out backing the recess appointment strategy. Johnson has expressed hope that the Senate will confirm Trump’s nominees swiftly, but he has refrained from commenting on whether the move is constitutionally valid.
The slim majority in the House could present a challenge to any attempt to pass such a measure, even if Johnson supports it. Many experts argue that Trump does not have the constitutional authority to force a recess without Senate action.
Ed Whelan, the Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has pointed out that the Senate has full control over its schedule and that simply refusing to adjourn would not constitute a “disagreement.”
Andy Craig, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, has described the proposal as both unconstitutional and norm-defying, warning that any attempt to force a recess would likely lead to a constitutional crisis.
However, a new paper from the Center for Renewing America, which includes several Trump allies, suggests that the president could declare a recess without Senate or House agreement. The paper argues that the Constitution grants the president broad authority in this matter.
Jeffrey Clark, a key figure in Trump’s 2020 election efforts, was one of the authors of the paper. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, also supports the constitutional validity of the move, stating, “It’s absolutely constitutional.”
When asked about critics who say the plan is unconstitutional, Harris dismissed their concerns, stating that such legal debates are common among lawyers.
One anonymous House Republican, familiar with the constitutional issue, acknowledged the uncertainty of the situation, noting that the idea remains untested. While uncertain about whether Trump will attempt it, the lawmaker did not rule out the possibility if conditions change dramatically.
