## Notes from 20 January 2026 [[2026-01-19|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-01-21|Next note →]] # January 20, 2026 [[Kathryn Dunn Tenpas]], who directs the Initiative on Improving Interbranch Relations and Government at [[Brookings]], released another [update on Trump administration appointments](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/300-days-into-the-trump-administration-mixed-progress-in-filling-senior-leadership-posts/) - this time the 300-day mark. The systematic tracking across administrations is valuable work. Having longitudinal data on gender and racial composition of senior appointments, confirmation pace, and withdrawal rates makes patterns visible (the [[Partnership for Public Service]] also does a great job tracking nominations. But Tenpas's tracking focuses exclusively on executive branch appointments to the 15 major Cabinet departments - it does NOT include judicial nominations. That's tracked separately by multiple organizations because judicial appointments create different legacies and follow different confirmation dynamics(but [tomorrow's Brookings event](https://www.brookings.edu/events/staffing-the-government-an-analysis-of-trumps-personnel-strategy-across-his-two-terms/) will actually cover both: [Russell Wheeler](https://www.brookings.edu/people/russell-wheeler/) will discuss judicial vacancies alongside the executive branch analysis). ## The numbers After 300 days, Trump has confirmed 216 nominees to the roughly 700 Senate-confirmed positions across the 15 major departments. What stands out is the composition: 91% white nominees (highest since George W. Bush), lowest percentage of women going back four administrations, least ethnically diverse cohort in the same period. ## The Senate rule change matters This all started on September 11, 2025, when Senate Republicans changed the rules. This change allowed them to vote on groups of government appointees all at once using a simple majority, rather than debating each person individually. They have used this new method twice so far: - **September 18:** They approved 41 people. - **October 7:** They approved a record 74 people. What's interesting is how casually Republicans keep eliminating procedural guardrails that could constrain them when Democrats eventually control the Senate again. They haven't touched the legislative filibuster yet (honestly surprised it's survived this long), but they're methodically removing every friction point in the appointments process. ## What I don't know: How Brazil compares I genuinely don't know how to benchmark any of this against Brazil - not just on diversity metrics, but on basic structural questions like confirmation timelines, rejection rates, or whether anyone tracks this systematically over time. The Brazilian Senate has far less appointment authority than the U.S. Senate, and even for positions that do require confirmation (STF justices, regulatory agencies, Central Bank), comparable longitudinal data doesn't seem to exist. ### On Federal Judges Because federal judges serve lifetime appointments, their selection is tracked much more systematically than executive branch positions. Multiple organizations maintain databases: **[Ballotpedia](https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/12/02/tracker-article-iii-federal-judicial-nominations-by-president-by-days-in-office-since-2001-24/)** provides comprehensive nonpartisan tracking, **[Alliance for Justice](https://afj.org/vacancy-tracker/)** and **[Demand Justice](https://demandjustice.org/senate-vote-tracker/)** track from progressive advocacy perspectives (focusing on diversity and qualifications), while **[Heritage Foundation](https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/courts/judicial-appointments-tracker/)** tracks from a conservative viewpoint (emphasizing judicial philosophy and confirmation process). The **[American Constitution Society](https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/)** also maintains detailed confirmation data. According to these trackers, President Biden finished his term with 235 judges confirmed, while Trump had 234 in his first term. So far in Trump's second term (as of early January 2026), 24 judges have been confirmed out of 37 nominees. The difference in demographics is stark. **Demand Justice** reports that 64% of Biden's appointments were women, compared to 24% in Trump's first term. These judges will be deciding cases on major issues like abortion, immigration, and environmental rules for decades. **Merit vs. Politics** The federal system operates very differently from some state models. For instance, New York uses a "merit selection" system for its highest court—a model championed by organizations like the **[Fund for Modern Courts](https://moderncourts.org/)**. Under this system, a bipartisan committee screens candidates and provides the Governor with a shortlist of qualified names to choose from. In contrast, the federal government lacks an independent screening process, allowing Presidents to select nominees without a mandatory pre-check. This absence of structural guardrails has coincided with intense polarization: - The Trump administration discontinued the practice of pre-nomination vetting by the American Bar Association. - Between 1789 and 2016, fewer than 4% of confirmed nominees faced opposition (Heritage Foundation data). - Under Trump, opposition jumped to 78%. - Under Biden, it reached 97%. ## Institutional asymmetry worth noting Congress has built an extensive [[Parliamentary Administration]] support - the technical infrastructure that serves the legislative branch. This includes the **Library of Congress** for research, the **Government Accountability Office (GAO)** for audits and evaluations, and the **Congressional Budget Office (CBO)** for budget analysis. They even previously had the **Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)** to evaluate complex science and tech, though it was defunded in 1995. But for assessing nominees for senior executive positions? Nothing comparable exists. Meanwhile, the executive branch has the Presidential Personnel Office reporting directly to the president precisely because these nominations are so strategic. The asymmetry is striking: Congress built robust institutional capacity for budgeting, oversight, and policy analysis, but left its constitutional "advice and consent" function on appointments without comparable support. The Senate is supposed to independently evaluate nominees but lacks the machinery to do so beyond what partisan committee staff can manage. The bundling rule change makes this worse—how do you meaningfully evaluate 74 nominees simultaneously without dedicated analytical capacity? For judicial nominations, at least outside organizations (bar associations, advocacy groups) independently assess nominees.