Summaries from Appointments Analyses Including 100 Days Projections

See descriptions below for details of comparisons.

Last Updated: 4/25/2017 @ 1:30 AM EST
Describing Pace of PAS Nominations
Tracking 970 PAS Positions
Describing Pace of Stand Up
Tracking 221 Critical Leadership PAS Positions
To assess the pace of appointments in the Trump administration, WHTP models the past performance of the previous three administrations. This modeling builds a projection of what the Trump administration’s efforts should look like. Then, WHTP’s pace tracker compares the Trump appointments against that projection. To assess the pace of Stand Up, WHTP identifies the parallel critical leadership positions in the three previous administrations and builds a comparison with the pace of Stand Up for the current administration. Note also, that since some PAS positions have “fixed terms” (e.g., Director FBI) some appointments will already have an incumbent in office when a new president comes in.
As a new addition, WHTP now projects nominations and confirmations out to the 100 days, including special comparisons with President Reagan’s performance.

PaceNominations 04-25-17
Standup Chart 04-25-17

President Trump’s appointments lag previous administrations by six and half weeks. On track for worst performance in four decades over the 100 days on nominations, confirmations, pace of White House processing, length of Senate deliberations, and critical leadership stand up.
Pace of Nominations & Confirmations
Tracking 970 PAS positions
Pace of Stand Up
Tracking 221 Critical PAS positions
Nominations: -64.3%
Confirmations: -48.2%
Stand Up: -58.3%


President Trump Nominations and Senate Confirmations Remain Mired, Lag Predecessors by six and a half weeks.
Little chance they can make up difference to avoid worst performance in 40 years over the first 100 days.


On Critical Leadership, President Trump Lags
Well Behind the Average Effort
The figure above summarizes both expectations based on predecessors’ performances (in green), the performance of the Trump administration (in red), projections out to the 100 days (now less than two weeks away), and the performance of the Reagan administration (a particular comparison popular with the Trump team). The current administration continues to slip farther behind the last five previous administrations.
While the weighted average from the previous three administrations (solid green line) continued its steep climb last week (now 132 nominations over the 970 positions), the Trump Administration continues mired in the 40’s — 47 nominated for those same 970 PAS positions. Hence, its early performance (solid red line) has slogged along while the typical administration has begun to take off about a month ago, making progressively more nominations each week. Over the next 5 days, the Trump White House would have to triple its performance of the past 3 months to come close to the average 100 days performance.
The continued slow performance of the Senate presents the same slightly confusing picture from a month ago. By this time, the typical Senate has more nominees sitting waiting for a final vote than the Trump administration has nominated altogether. The Republican Senate has confirmed a little more than half the president’s nominees (leaving a backlog of 25 of 47 nominations – the dashed red line) which has now dropped below expectations (dashed green line) based on previous administration’s pending nominations (a backlog of 84 of 132 nominations).
At this point since the inauguration, the average administration would have filled about 23% of those critical leadership positions in the government (green bar in figure above) necessary to lead the government. And though President Trump and the Senate majority have far fewer positions to stand up than previous administrations, they still have only completed around 10% of the total necessary to stand up the government (red bar in figure).

The Trump administrations now has 37 nominated to these time sensitive positions. But that number falls considerably below the expectation (74) based on previous administrations, while the Senate majority has confirmed a bit more than half of the Trump administration’s nominees (21) while in the typical experience, previous Senates would have confirmed more than double that number or three-quarters of the administration’s nominees (50 of 74).
The current pace of nominations and confirmations guarantees the Trump administration will post the worst stand up of government in the past forty years.

Nominations: -64.3%
Confirmations: -48.2%
Stand Up: -58.3%

Headline: President Trump’s White House Vetting continues to lag previous administrationsProcessPace 04-25-17

Vetting Pace

White House vetting measures the time from announcing a nomination to filing the credentials for that nomination with the Senate. This pace measures the administrative capacity of the White House. The vetting of nominees by the Executive Branch in the current administration follows the patterns of previous administrations but takes some a week to two weeks longer than the average schedule. Both the average and the current administrations peaked in vetting times right around the inauguration. But the Trump White House  now takes 7 days longer than average to complete the review process before sending a nominee to the Senate. The Senate also is taking around 12 days longer than average to complete its own review and make a decision. Together the two institutions involved in appointments now take about three weeks longer to examine a nominee among the critical leadership positions than past administrations. Both patterns have persisted for nearly a month. Both White House and Senate would have to introduce significant efficiencies in the next 5 days to match the normal performance of the last three decades.

Special Commentary

On the “Full Stand UP,” President Obama Clearly Outpaced President Trump’s Current Performance

The previous president with the most similar demands for nominations and similar legal requirements, President Obama, did far better in securing critical leadership than has President Trump so far. On the most critical leadership positions and by this time, President Obama had filled 61 of the 221 used to compare the two administrations. Of those 61, 15 came from positions in which an incumbent was filling out a fixed term appointment (like the current FBI Director). President Trump still has filled just the 42 critical leadership positions he had a week ago, but 25 (or more than half) were already in place on inauguration day, serving out a fixed term (e.g., FBI Director Comey). To sample some of the positions that, by now, President Obama and the Senate had filled which currently remain completely empty:
Deputy Defense Secretary
Defense UnderSecretary for Intelligence
Deputy Attorney General
Assistant AG for the National Security Division
Deputy Secretary of State
Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Chair, Council of Economic Advisors
Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission
By this time in the hundred days, the Obama administration had remaining in the Senate for confirmation more than the total number of Trump nominees (43 versus 31). Obama also had secured twice as many critical confirmations. By now, Obama had confirmed considerably (39) more than the total that Trump has nominated (31). Between the two administrations and on these critical leadership positions, President Trump is farther along on 10 positions, while President Obama’s record would have him farther along on 64 (or more than 6 times). The two are at the same stage in another 20 positions common to both administrations.
Last Updated: 4/25/2017 @ 1:30 AM EST

For questions or commentary, contact: Terry Sullivan, WHTP, at or 919-593-2124

Appointments Pace Trackers – Description

The White House Transition Project documents the pace at which a new administration fills out the American executive branch through its appointments power. WHTP tracks the pace of appointments in four ways.

PAS Positions. First, we track 970 presidential appointments requiring Senate confirmation (known as “PAS” positions). These appointments include top administration positions in all the cabinet agencies (e.g., the Deputy Secretary for Commerce), the top positions in the independent regulatory agencies (e.g., member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve), and the top positions in the myriad of government boards and commissions (e.g., member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board). WHTP tracks the most important ambassadorships (e.g., Israel, UK, NATO, Russia, China) but we do not track all ambassadors, US Marshals, or most federal attorneys, though all these also require Senate confirmation. Also, note, the largest group of PAS positions are uniformed military officers. We don’t track them either.

Pace of Institutional Vetting. Second, WHTP follows the vetting processes both in the Executive and the Senate, detailing how long each takes to move a nomination along. In the Executive, we track from the White House announcement of an “intent to nominate” and then compare that to when the Executive forwards the nominee’s packet to the Senate. This period typically involves the ethics and security screening processes. WHTP uses the same distinctions common to the study of appointments: the administration may make an “announcement to nominate” but that is not the nomination. People become nominees when the administration forwards their credentials to the Senate. Once at the Senate, are nominees, we measure the time from receiving the nominee’s credentials to either a nominee’s current status (where no decision has occurred yet) or to a Senate decision.

Standing UP the Critical Leadership. Third, WHTP identifies and tracks positions critical to national policy-making leadership. Based on recommendations from the National Commission to Reform the Federal Appointments Process, WHTP has identified 221 “time sensitive,” leadership positions. These positions include all the leadership in government agencies (i.e., Secretary, Deputy Secretary), especially national security (e.g., Director FBI, Assistant Treasury Secretary for Terrorist Financing), economic management (e.g., Deputy US Trade Representative), critical management positions (e.g., General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs), or key to the management agenda (e.g., Deputy Director of OMB). Successfully filling out this second group of positions, we argue, “stands up” the American executive.

In these three analyses, we take the same approach. We compile data from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations to build a model. The model generates a set of expectations about “average” performance on nominations, minus withdrawals, confirmations, those already in place, and the stand up — the critical leadership positions. The model weights slightly more the performance of the Obama administration because the conditions in the most recent administration (numbers of appointments, the requirements of new administrative units, new laws, etc) more closely resemble those for President Trump. Then we compare what to expect from our model with the performance of the current administration. These comparisons generate “pace” measures that tells us whether the current administration exceeds or lags behind expectations based on the previous administrations.

The Full Stand UP Comparison. Fourth, WHTP considers a special comparison between President Trump’s performance and that of his immediate predecessor, President Obama. For these two presidents, WHTP uses the same 221 positions, excluding some 15 positions that President Obama had to fill that disappeared before President Trump came to office. And this comparison will include not just the president’s nominations but also those critical positions already filled by someone in an unexpired, fixed term appointment. As an example, on inauguration day 2009, President Obama already had a Director FBI then serving the middle of a 10 year fixed term appointment. Equally so, President Trump arrived with and today still has a Director FBI (Director Comey). We call this special detailed comparison, the “Full Stand UP” comparison.