7 Urgent Reasons Why Senators Must Cease Exploiting the ‘Hold’ Procedure

What is a “hold” in the Senate? This is not a question that many casual observers of American politics would typically ask. However, Tommy Tuberville, the senator from Alabama, has brought attention to it with his blanket hold on all crucial military promotions that require confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Tuberville’s action, now in its seventh month, has left numerous military leaders, including top officials, in a state of uncertainty, causing significant harm to the nation’s armed forces.

As Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro told CNN, Tuberville is “playing Russian roulette with the lives of our service members by preventing them from having experienced combat leaders in leadership positions during times of peace and conflict.” The Army, Navy, and Air Force secretaries wrote a joint op-ed in The Washington Post earlier this month, condemning Tuberville’s actions.

The Senate-hold procedure does not have a specific rule backing it; instead, it is a custom that originated from a legislative body that values consensus and requires unanimous consent for most of its business. In this context, a hold occurs when a senator writes a letter to the Senate leaders stating their intention to block unanimous consent for a vote on a nominee. Without unanimous consent, another senator must file a cloture petition, which requires a separate vote to proceed with the nomination. While confirmations now only require a simple majority of votes, the process is time-consuming. The cloture petition must be held over for two legislative days, followed by parliamentary maneuvers, a cloture vote, and hours of debate. Given the sheer number of military promotions (potentially 650), each requiring individual actions without unanimous consent, and limited Senate-floor time, this is not feasible. Promotions at the officer level or above necessitate Senate confirmation, and this has never been controversial. However, the previously routine process of confirming military promotions with unanimous consent has been disrupted.

Tuberville, a former college football coach who has never served in the military, is using this tactic to pressure the Pentagon into ending a policy that allows active service members in states where abortions are banned to travel to another state for the procedure. Service members pay for the abortion itself but not the travel expenses. Tuberville seems oblivious to the damage this is causing to the military and national security and has faced criticism even from members of his own party, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

While in theory, McConnell or Senate Republicans could put a stop to Tuberville’s tactic whenever he is not on the Senate floor by requesting unanimous consent, in reality, there would likely be objections from other senators. During Senate sessions, each party always has at least one member present on the floor to prevent the opposition from pushing through their agenda. Therefore, if the Democrats try to act on these promotions, the Republican senator present at the time can deny unanimous consent. The unspoken truth is that holds only work because every single senator wants them to work. Senators continue to deny unanimous consent not only to defend their absent colleague’s prerogatives but also to preserve their own ability to use holds in the future. Every senator shares responsibility because they all want the opportunity to exert leverage over a president or executive branch official. Even senators from the president’s own party often feel ignored or sidelined when seeking attention or action. Placing a hold on the confirmation of an individual the president strongly wants in office guarantees that the matter receives attention. Typically, these holds are brief and focused on individuals.

While holds have been a part of Senate procedure for a long time, their use for punitive or ideological purposes is a more recent development. For instance, during the Obama administration, Republican Senator Tom Cotton put a hold on Barack Obama’s nominee for ambassador to the Bahamas, Cassandra Butts, for a staggering 27 months, until Butts passed away from cancer. The hold was unrelated to Butts’s qualifications or character and was purely retaliatory. Tuberville is not the only senator currently employing blanket holds for partisan or ideological reasons. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has a blanket hold on over 60 ambassadors and other key State Department officials, while Senator J. D. Vance of Ohio has done the same for Justice Department nominees, including the head of the Office on Violence Against Women and several US attorney nominees, in response to DOJ actions against Donald Trump.

Holds were once an accepted and occasionally beneficial practice that helped maintain a balance of power between the Senate and the presidency. Senators rarely abused the process by implementing blanket holds or sustaining them for excessive periods. The main abuses in the past occurred when individual senators attempted to keep their holds secret to avoid criticism. However, this practice was severely curtailed a few years ago. Unfortunately, the norms that previously restrained the use of holds have been eroded.

So, what can be done? Two simple rule changes could break the impasse. Firstly, the Senate, by a majority, could require an up-or-down floor vote on a confirmation within 30 days after the nominee has been reported out by the relevant committee. Alternatively, the Senate could create its own version of the House’s discharge petition by rule. If a majority of senators sign such a petition, it would trigger a floor vote under a privileged resolution.

Furthermore, the Senate should take additional steps to facilitate the confirmation of judges and executive officials. It should allow for multiple confirmations to occur en bloc and move away from individual votes that consume precious floor time. Additionally, the number of positions requiring Senate confirmation should be significantly reduced. The old Senate has been replaced by a tribalized Senate with numerous rigid and extreme members who are willing to disrupt governance and national security without considering the consequences. Implementing better rules is the only way to prevent these abuses.