In Defense of Confirmation Hearings

Democrats’ grandstanding and rank hypocrisy during the confirmation hearings for President Trump’s Cabinet nominees have been nothing short of a national disgrace. But even though Democrats have made a mockery of what was once considered an important constitutional function of the United States Senate, the hearings have nonetheless provided some valuable information to the American people.

There is no doubt that Senate Democrats have acted shamefully and displayed an utter lack of class and decorum over the past few weeks. First it was Tim Kaine using Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s seven-year-old daughter as a political prop. Then it was Bernie Sanders bizarrely demanding that Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., denounce a onesie with the word “unvaxxed” on it; Mark Warner shouting down Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard when she tried to answer his question; Richard Blumenthal telling FBI Director nominee Kash Patel that he “failed his first test” for agreeing with Blumenthal’s exact words; and a host of other occasions where Democrats made complete fools of themselves trying to deliver viral “gotcha” moments for their left-wing base.

Some conservatives, justifiably angry that Democrats have used the hearings to drag the nominees (and in some cases their families) through the mud, have suggested that the Senate should dispense with confirmation hearings altogether. After all, if the hearings are just political theater, what is the point of giving Democrats a stage on which to lob nasty insults and baseless personal attacks at the individuals Trump has chosen to run the various federal departments?

On the one hand, these critics have a point. The Senate must vote to confirm the president’s Cabinet nominees (as well as judges, ambassadors, and high-ranking military officers) according to the Constitution’s “advice and consent” clause. But the idea of a public confirmation hearing is a relatively new political invention, found nowhere in the Constitution.

The first public confirmation hearing for a Cabinet nominee took place in 1929, when the Senate held open proceedings for President Herbert Hoover’s choice for Attorney General, William D. Mitchell. Prior to this, most nominees didn’t even appear before the Senate, and deliberations occurred almost entirely behind closed doors.

It was not until the 1950s that public hearings for Cabinet nominees became more routine. By the late 20th century, the televised confirmation hearings we see today became a staple of American politics, complete with all the high-flying partisan rhetoric and showmanship.

But the fact that confirmation hearings have ceased to be a legitimate tool for vetting Cabinet hopefuls doesn’t make them entirely useless – even if senators have largely abandoned responsibility to provide “advice and consent” and remain above the political fray.

For starters, Americans deserve to hear directly from top public officials. Cabinet secretaries are charged with stewarding vast sums of taxpayer dollars and ensuring the smooth operation of everything from the military to the construction of roads and bridges and disaster cleanup. Regardless of whether one agrees with a nominee’s personal politics or not, the public has a right to see those individuals questioned and pressed on potential shortcomings and conflicts of interest.

Even though the question of confirmation in most cases comes down to which party controls the Senate, in some cases the conduct of nominees during confirmation hearings can influence the final vote. In 2021, for instance, Biden Office of Management and Budget nominee Neera Tanden was slammed over past tweets referring to Maine Senator Susan Collins as “the worst,” comparing Texas Senator Ted Cruz to a vampire, and dubbing Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell “Voldemort.” Amid mounting public pressure, former Democrat Senator Joe Manchin ultimately said he would oppose Tanden’s nomination, and she withdrew from the process.

As ugly as it sometimes may be, the grueling process of a public hearing, where hostile politicians dissect the lives and careers each nominee, nonetheless tests the mettle of the men and women charged with keeping the government running. Throughout his tenure, new Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be face-to-face with top officials from China and Russia. Tulsi Gabbard will have to thwart the evil intentions of terrorists and foreign adversaries trying to harm American citizens. Shouldn’t they be able to handle a few hours of grilling from Senate Democrats?

In the case of Trump’s nominees, there is also a specific case to be made that Democrats’ confirmation hearing antics backfired on them spectacularly. As liberal senators devolved into fits of anti-Trump hysteria, the nominees remained cool and collected. What was supposed to become a headache for Trump and Republicans instead became a political liability for Democrats. Everyday Americans watching at home saw in Trump’s nominees a group of patriots dedicated to serving the country and saw in Democrat senators mean-spirited partisans trying to tear them down.

Public confirmation hearings may be far removed in practice from the role the Founders envisioned for the Senate, but they are nonetheless a valuable tool for voters in judging who is really qualified to govern this nation.

Shane Harris is the Editor-in-Chief of AMAC Newsline. You can follow him on X @shaneharris513.