With the Senate set to reconvene after a month-long summer break, a fierce battle is brewing in Washington over President Donald Trump’s latest wave of nominations. The stakes are high: from the Federal Reserve Board to federal courts in Florida, Trump’s picks are poised to reshape key institutions, igniting partisan clashes and raising urgent questions about the balance of power in American government.
On August 28, 2025, Senate Democrats made an unusually public demand: postpone the confirmation hearing for Stephen Miran, Trump’s nominee to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. According to Axios, every Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee signed a letter urging Republican leadership to delay the hearing, arguing that President Trump was making an "unprecedented attempt to undermine" the central bank’s independence. Their outrage was sparked by Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook earlier that month—a move that sent shockwaves through the financial and political establishment.
"This action raises serious legal concerns and threatens the independence of the Federal Reserve, which could make mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, and everyday goods more expensive for American families," the Democrats wrote. They insisted that no further Fed nominations should proceed until Congress holds hearings on the economic and legal consequences of Trump’s actions. Cook, for her part, has refused to resign and is now contesting her removal in court, setting up a legal showdown that could redefine the executive’s power over the independent central bank.
The timing couldn’t be more fraught. Trump, reportedly furious at Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting interest rates in 2025, appears determined to install allies who will support his push for looser monetary policy. Ousting Cook would open a seat for a more compliant voice, and Miran’s nomination is seen as a key step in that direction. As Axios notes, Democrats view these moves as a direct threat to the Fed’s mandate to act in the best interest of businesses and households—not at the whim of the president.
Meanwhile, the Senate is facing a backlog of 145 pending nominations on its executive calendar, a number expected to balloon when lawmakers return on September 2. According to Fox News, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso is ready to escalate the fight. In a recent interview, Barrasso made his intentions clear: "We need to either get a lot of cooperation from the Democrats, or we're going to have to roll over them with changes of the rules that we're going to be able to do in a unilateral way, as well as President Trump making recess appointments."
Barrasso’s frustration reflects a broader Republican impatience with Democratic tactics. Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have employed every tool at their disposal to scrutinize and slow Trump’s nominees, arguing that many are "historically bad" and require "a historic level of scrutiny." Schumer, for his part, has not minced words: "Anybody nominated by President Trump is, in Schumer's words, ‘historically bad.’ Why? Because they were nominated by President Trump," Barrasso retorted, accusing Democrats of blanket opposition regardless of merit.
The so-called "nuclear option"—a unilateral change to Senate rules—now looms large. Barrasso is pushing for measures that would reduce debate time, streamline the confirmation process, and potentially allow Trump to make recess appointments. While this would speed up confirmations, it could also undermine future negotiations on critical issues, such as the looming September 30 government funding deadline. "This backlog is going to worsen this traffic jam at the Schumer toll booth. So, we are going to do something, because this cannot stand," Barrasso insisted.
Beyond the Senate, Trump’s influence is set to grow in the judiciary as well. In August 2025, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg—appointed by Barack Obama in 2014—stepped down from her post in South Florida to lead the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. As reported by The Palm Beach Post, her departure, coupled with the upcoming retirement of Judge Kenneth Marra (a George W. Bush appointee), leaves only Judge Donald Middlebrooks (appointed by Bill Clinton) on the bench at the Paul G. Rogers Federal Building in West Palm Beach.
Because Florida currently has no Democratic senators, Trump’s next judicial nominee is expected to face little resistance. Legal analysts see this as a pivotal moment. Jeffrey Swartz, a former Miami-Dade County judge, told The Palm Beach Post, "Trump isn’t looking for judicial conservatives in the traditional sense anymore. He’s looking for political conservatives who think like he does. MAGA judges. People who will owe him for a lifetime appointment."
University of Miami law professor Charlton Copeland explained that traditional guardrails for judicial nominations—like the Senate filibuster, the "blue slip" tradition, and American Bar Association vetting—have been weakened or eliminated. "Florida is one of the places where the president can move the needle," Copeland said. "In other states, Democratic senators might slow or block a nominee. That’s not going to happen here."
Trump’s approach to judicial appointments has evolved. In his first term, he relied heavily on Federalist Society recommendations, picking conservative legal thinkers who sometimes ruled against him when constitutional principles demanded it. But after several of his own appointees issued rulings he disliked, Trump publicly broke with the Federalist Society. Now, Swartz believes Trump is focused on loyalty above all else—a shift that could result in younger, less experienced, but more ideologically aligned judges. "The real conservatives don't believe in what Mr. Trump believes in, and that is basically destroying the Constitution and what is known as the unitary executive—the president who is all powerful and can do whatever they want," Swartz said.
District court judges wield enormous power, especially in politically sensitive regions like South Florida. They operate with substantial autonomy, often making decisions that shape national debates on issues ranging from immigration to presidential accountability. As Copeland put it, "District Court judges possess an awesome amount of authority which I think we don't always appreciate. These are crucially important positions."
The battles unfolding in the Senate and in the courts are more than just partisan skirmishes. They reflect deeper questions about how American institutions should function—and who gets to decide. With the Senate locked in procedural warfare, the Federal Reserve’s independence under threat, and the judiciary on the cusp of transformation, the coming weeks are set to test the resilience of the nation’s checks and balances as never before.
In Washington and beyond, all eyes are now on the Senate floor, the federal bench, and the White House, as the fight over Trump’s nominees promises to shape the direction of American governance for years to come.
