### Trump Eyes Constitutional Loophole for Controversial Appointments

Amid the backdrop of achieving another term in office, President-elect Donald Trump is turning to a rarely invoked constitutional provision to secure contentious Cabinet appointments. Among his picks are Fox News host Pete Hegseth as defense secretary, former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for the role of director of national intelligence, and most controversially, former GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz for attorney general. These choices have already sparked significant debate and concern within both the House and the Senate.

ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl reports that Trump's nominations are being framed as a crucial test of loyalty for the new Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. However, if this loyalty proves insufficient, Trump's team is contemplating a drastic measure to circumvent the traditional confirmation process: recess appointments.

Such a move would involve adjourning Congress or forcing an adjournment, thereby allowing Trump to make appointments without the Senate's "advise and consent." Recess appointments have historically been used by presidents, including over 100 times by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, predominantly for deputy-level positions—not Cabinet posts. This potential maneuver is being seen as part of what Karl describes as Trump's "dictator on Day 1" strategy.

The newly elected Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, has indicated that Republicans are considering all options regarding the confirmation process. Speaking to ABC News Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott, Thune expressed a preference for holding confirmation hearings, despite the likelihood of complicated battles, particularly for candidates like Gaetz.

The constitutional foundation for such a power move lies in Article II, Section 3, which allows a president to adjourn Congress if there is a disagreement between the House and Senate about the timing of adjournment. Josh Chafetz, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, noted that although the provision exists, it has never been exercised before.

Legal experts suggest that using this provision could lead to significant legal battles, potentially rising to the Supreme Court. In 2014, the Supreme Court addressed recess appointments in the case of NLRB v. Noel Canning, determining that the president could fill vacancies during recesses longer than ten days. However, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that such broad interpretations could be manipulated by future presidents to bypass Senate oversight.

Given the Supreme Court's recent broad interpretation of presidential authority, it remains uncertain how they might rule on this issue should it arise from Trump's current strategy. Critics argue that this move would represent an unprecedented expansion of executive power and could permanently alter the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

As Trump prepares to govern with a Republican-controlled White House, Senate, and House, the ultimate outcome of this high-stakes power play could redefine the limits of presidential authority.