How Trump’s reliance on ‘acting’ officials holding multiple jobs tests the Constitution

How Trump’s Reliance on ‘Acting’ Officials Holding Multiple Jobs Tests the Constitution

How Trump s reliance on acting – This story was featured in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To receive it directly in your inbox, sign up for free here.

The Rise of Acting Officials

President Donald Trump’s strategy of appointing temporary officials to manage critical government roles has sparked concerns about constitutional integrity. The practice, which has become increasingly common under his administration, raises questions about whether the balance of power outlined in the Constitution is being eroded. One recent example involves Bill Pulte, a housing official, who was tapped to serve as the acting director of national intelligence—a role typically reserved for someone with deep expertise in security matters. This move reflects a broader pattern of using ‘acting’ positions to bypass the Senate confirmation process and consolidate authority within a trusted inner circle.

Democrats have voiced apprehension about Trump’s approach, suggesting they might allow a pivotal foreign surveillance law to expire as a form of protest. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are struggling to keep pace with the rapid reshuffling of leadership. This situation echoes past controversies, such as the replacement of CDC and FDA leaders, who were also removed from their posts without permanent successors. The lack of continuity in key roles has left agencies vulnerable to mismanagement, with the surgeon general position remaining unfilled during Trump’s second term.

Testing the Legal Framework

Trump’s tactics are not new, but their frequency and overt nature have intensified scrutiny. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, designed to ensure smooth transitions in government roles, has been used as a tool to test its limits. The law originally aimed to prevent presidents from indefinitely holding positions without Senate approval, a provision that was critical during Bill Clinton’s presidency. By leveraging ‘acting’ officials, Trump appears to be challenging the law’s intent, granting close aides broad responsibilities across multiple agencies.

One such figure is Bill Pulte, whose appointment as acting director of national intelligence is unusual. While he has experience in housing policy, his qualifications for intelligence oversight are questionable. The law that governs the director of national intelligence (DNI) position mandates that nominees possess extensive national security expertise. Pulte, however, has not yet received a security clearance, despite being placed in charge of the intelligence community. This discrepancy highlights how Trump is stretching the boundaries of legal requirements to advance his agenda.

“It’s a layer cake of mismanagement,” said Max Stier, CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization focused on government efficiency. “A civil service that has already been cowed by efforts to cut positions and root out what Trump believes is a deep state set against him is also dealing with leaders who have no background in the agencies they are leading.”

Stier’s critique underscores a growing concern: the use of acting officials without proper preparation can lead to inefficiency, waste, and poor decision-making. The trend of assigning individuals to roles far outside their expertise is not limited to Pulte. In Trump’s first term, Secretary of State Marco Rubio served as acting archivist, while the Social Security administrator took on the invented title of CEO of the IRS. These examples illustrate a pattern of conflating unrelated responsibilities to create a network of loyal aides with expansive influence.

The Constitution Under Pressure

The practice of appointing acting officials to hold permanent power challenges the constitutional framework. The Senate confirmation process, a cornerstone of checks and balances, is often bypassed through temporary appointments. While every president has used this mechanism, Trump’s approach is more aggressive and transparent. During his first term, he emphasized the flexibility of avoiding confirmations, framing it as a way to streamline governance. However, critics argue that this undermines the system’s design, which requires lawmakers to vet key leaders before they assume responsibility.

Trump’s ability to push nominees through the Senate is waning as his party prepares for the November elections. With low approval ratings, the administration is facing pressure to maintain its political capital. This has led to a reliance on acting positions as a stopgap measure, allowing Trump to retain control while permanent appointments are delayed. The DNI role, for instance, is governed by a law requiring nominees to have national security expertise. Yet, Pulte’s lack of experience in this area has raised eyebrows among experts and opponents alike.

Despite these concerns, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 provides a legal pathway for temporary leadership. The act stipulates that if a vacancy occurs, the principal deputy director of national intelligence should serve as acting DNI. In Pulte’s case, Aaron Lukas, a seasoned CIA officer, remains the principal deputy, but Trump’s choice of Pulte signals a shift in how these roles are managed. The law was meant to ensure stability, but Trump is using it to create a system where temporary officials can operate with the authority of permanent ones.

Implications for Governance

Trump’s strategy has broader implications for the functioning of the federal government. By assigning multiple responsibilities to a single individual, he risks creating a web of overlapping duties that can confuse agency priorities. This has led to a situation where officials are expected to handle tasks outside their expertise, potentially leading to errors and inefficiencies. The situation also highlights the administration’s tendency to prioritize political loyalty over qualifications, a practice that has become a hallmark of its governance.

While the legal framework allows for temporary appointments, the scale of Trump’s use of this power has tested its limits. The act was initially intended to prevent unnecessary delays in leadership transitions, but it now seems to be a tool for maintaining control. As the administration continues to fill roles with acting officials, the question remains: how long can this system sustain itself without compromising the effectiveness of government operations?

In a June 4 Oval Office statement, Trump clarified Pulte’s role, emphasizing that the appointment was temporary: “It’s an acting position, it’s not a permanent,” he said. The president also hinted at Pulte’s potential role in investigating election irregularities, stating that the intelligence community would uncover “things about the rigged elections” under his leadership. This blending of intelligence oversight with political objectives further complicates the legal and constitutional boundaries of the role.

As the administration continues to test the limits of its authority, the reliance on acting officials raises important questions about accountability and governance. While this approach allows for swift decision-making, it also risks deepening the divide between the executive branch and the legislative branch, undermining the collaborative spirit the Constitution was designed to foster. The long-term consequences of this strategy could shape how future administrations navigate the balance of power in Washington.