Trump’s Secret Weapon: A Never-Used Constitutional Power That Can End Democrat Obstruction

by Amuse

It is a rare occasion when an American president must invoke one of the more obscure, yet potent, powers embedded in Article II of the Constitution. However, given the current political reality—Democrat senators threatening to obstruct Trump’s cabinet nominees unless he bows to their demands on USAID reforms—it is imperative to consider a bold constitutional maneuver: the use of the presidential adjournment power to facilitate recess appointments.

Senator Brian Schatz has vowed to block Senate votes on Trump’s cabinet nominees in retaliation for Trump’s plan to close the U.S. Agency for International Development and integrate it into the State Department. Under Senate rules, a single senator can halt confirmations indefinitely by employing procedural tactics. The initial seven-day hold allows a senator to place a delay on any nominee, and this can be extended indefinitely, forcing the Senate to expend valuable floor time to break the hold. Even if cloture is invoked to end debate, Senate rules require up to 30 hours of debate per nominee, further slowing the process. By stacking holds across multiple nominees, a single senator can paralyze the confirmation process, consuming weeks or months of valuable Senate time.

Historically, this tactic has been weaponized by both parties. Ted Cruz, from 2021 to 2022, blocked dozens of State Department nominees over Nord Stream 2 sanctions, delaying them for nearly a year. In 2022, Tom Cotton held up U.S. attorney nominations for seven months to protest Biden’s handling of judicial picks. More recently, from 2023 to 2024, Tommy Tuberville blocked over 400 military promotions for almost a year, forcing individual votes on nominees and crippling military readiness. Given the certainty of these obstructionist tactics, Trump must take decisive action to ensure that his nominees are confirmed swiftly.

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides a rarely discussed but nonetheless formidable authority:

“[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.”

This clause was designed to resolve deadlocks between the House and Senate on adjournment timing. While it has never been exercised in American history, its existence is not merely theoretical—it is an explicit power granted to the executive, providing the President with a means to force a congressional recess.

To successfully adjourn Congress and enable recess appointments, Trump would first need to leverage cooperation from either the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader. Speaker Mike Johnson or Senate Majority Leader John Thune could request an adjournment of ten days. If the other chamber refuses to agree, a dispute emerges, creating the precise condition under which Trump could invoke his constitutional power to resolve the impasse.

Once Congress is officially adjourned, Trump could immediately fill his cabinet vacancies through recess appointments. These appointments would allow his nominees to serve until the end of the next Senate session—bypassing Senate obstruction entirely.

While no previous president has formally adjourned Congress, recess appointments have been widely used. Notably, President Obama attempted to circumvent Senate opposition by appointing officials to the National Labor Relations Board, claiming the Senate was in recess. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014) that Obama’s maneuver was unconstitutional because the Senate had maintained pro forma sessions. However, the critical distinction in Trump’s case is that he would be using a direct constitutional authority to adjourn Congress, eliminating any ambiguity about whether the Senate was truly in recess.

Even if Democrats were to challenge Trump’s use of adjournment in court, such litigation could take years to resolve. By the time any judicial ruling was issued, his appointees would have already served significant tenures—just as Obama’s did.

This moment calls to mind Andrew Jackson’s famous rebuke of the Supreme Court, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Like Jackson, Trump could forge ahead with executive action knowing that by the time the courts weigh in, the practical effects of his maneuver will have already reshaped governance. The Founders anticipated conflict between the branches, and this power was explicitly designed to provide an executive check on a deadlocked Congress.

Would such a move ignite controversy? Certainly. But it would also put Senate obstructionists on the defensive. By exercising this power, Trump would force his opponents to explain why they believe constitutional prerogatives should not apply when wielded by a Republican president. It would also demonstrate executive resolve in the face of congressional gridlock—aligning with Trump’s America First, results-driven leadership.

Read more