Former Obama White House Counsel explains what could happen to Trump’s Cabinet nominations

In 1988 President-elect George H.W. Bush nominated former U.S. Sen. John Tower of Texas as Defense secretary. A lot of people were aghast that Bush selected Tower.

Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.

Bush didn’t just pull his name out of a hat. Besides being a fellow Texan, Tower was a World War II veteran, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and led the Tower Commission that investigated the Iran-Contra affair. In other words, he had a sterling professional background; however, he also had a reputation for, well, being crooked and salacious.

Nevertheless, in its role to “advise and consent” on Cabinet nominations by the president, the Senate held hearings on Tower, which were appointment TV (then on C-SPAN) for every congressional office. Questions about Tower’s alleged unscrupulous finances were overshadowed by stories of his drinking and philandering. He was also not well-liked by former colleagues in the Senate.

Despite it all, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to approve Tower, but he was subsequently rejected by the full Senate. At the time, it was shocking that the Senate would reject a presidential appointment. Bush ended up nominating Dick Cheney, and the rest, they say, is history.

What at the time seemed so scandalous now seems like child’s play. In what appears to be haphazard and unthoughtful selections, Trump has announced shockingly inappropriate picks for attorney general (Matt Gaetz) — who withdrew Thursday — Defense secretary (Pete Hegseth), Health and Human Services secretary (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.), and director of national intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard). Due to allegations against them and their history, these nominees make Tower look like a Boy Scout.

What is the presidential nomination process like?

Up until now, the Senate confirmation process for presidential nominees was a serious, meticulous, and at times politically charged endeavor that was usually managed, from the presidential side, by the White House Counsel’s Office. The White House counsel and other key players are responsible for vetting nominees and then preparing them to go before the Senate for confirmation.

“The process is a collaborative effort involving thorough vetting, preparation for Senate hearings, and extensive coordination between the White House and legislative bodies to navigate potential political roadblocks,” explained Neil Eggleston, White House counsel during former President Barack Obama’s second term.

The White House Counsel’s Office plays a critical role in ensuring nominees are fully vetted before their names are submitted for Senate approval. “The worst thing that would happen is if there was some skeleton that you had not discovered,” Eggleston noted. “It was worse for the Counsel's Office if we had just screwed up. It was sort of worse for the candidate if they just hadn't told us about it and therefore hadn't told the president.”

The vetting process usually includes interviews with candidates, FBI background investigations, and close collaboration with relevant agencies. “The goal is to identify any red flags that could derail the nomination,” Eggelston recalled. “This preparation was key to avoiding surprises during Senate hearings, where even minor oversights could become significant political liabilities.”

Once the president announces a nomination, the White House assembles a team to guide the nominee through the confirmation process. This team, Eggleston said, typically includes representatives from the White House Counsel’s Office, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the press office, and the nominee’s respective agency. “Denis McDonough [then White House chief of staff] liked to put teams together. So he would put together a team of White House counsel, legislative affairs, and then somebody out of the press office that would be responsible for working with the person to get through the process.”

Nominees also meet with key senators to build rapport and address concerns. Eggleston noted that these meetings, often arranged by legislative affairs teams, are vital for gauging senators’ positions on the nomination. Staff members on both sides frequently engage in backchannel communications to assess potential issues and identify areas where additional preparation is needed.

How can presidential nominations be stopped?

While the process has a standard structure, political dynamics often complicate confirmations. Eggleston shared insights from his experience with contentious nominations, including current U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s ill-fated nomination to the Supreme Court.

“It was very frustrating. Our recommendation of Judge Garland was partially because of how uncontroversial he was. He was pretty middle of the road, and I thought the only way not to give him a hearing was to say, which ultimately Senator McConnell did, ‘Doesn’t matter who it is, it’s an election year, and we’re just not going to consider anybody.’”

Eggleston recalled how the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Garland’s nomination without a hearing, a stark example of how political considerations can override procedural norms. This episode underscores how the Senate can wield its power to deny even the most qualified candidates a fair review, leaving positions unfilled or forcing the administration to consider alternative paths.

The norms of the confirmation process have been increasingly tested in recent years. Eggleston noted the shift under the Trump administration, where vetting and preparation appeared less rigorous for some nominees. He referenced controversial figures like Kennedy and Hegseth and the broader implications of prioritizing loyalty over qualifications.

“President Trump made it very clear to the American people that this administration would be very different,” Eggelston pointed out. “I did think that we would have a lot of people nominated who you thought to yourself, ‘What experience does that person have to do that job?’”

This shift highlights the evolving nature of Senate confirmations, where partisan politics and unconventional nominees have altered the traditional playbook.

The Senate’s role as a gatekeeper allows it to block nominations outright, as seen with Garland, or to pressure the White House into withdrawing candidates. Eggleston added that recess appointments can be a potential workaround when the Senate refuses to act: “Trump’s talked about pressuring the Senate into going into recess so he can make recess appointments … they can serve for potentially two years without confirmation. That’ll be interesting to see how the Senate responds,” Eggelston said.

Such maneuvers underscore the tension between the executive and legislative branches, especially during periods of divided government.

After speaking with Eggelston and seeing how Trump’s basically taken a wrecking ball to what has normally been a very conscientious process, it made me want to rewatch the Tower hearings for a bit of nostalgia — and normalcy.