This resolution makes it in order for a senator to move to proceed to en bloc consideration in Executive Session of a specified list of nominations on the Executive Calendar. The text does not itself confirm nominees; it only authorizes the procedural motion to consider the listed nominations collectively.
Why this matters: grouping nominations en bloc can compress floor time, reduce the number of separate debates and roll calls, and change how leverage and holds play out in the confirmation process. The listed nominees cover a broad set of executive-branch posts—from U.S. Attorneys and inspectors general to ambassadors and senior defense officials—so the procedural move has concrete operational consequences across multiple agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution states that it shall be in order to move to the en bloc consideration, in Executive Session, of a defined list of nominations on the Executive Calendar. It does not alter confirmation thresholds or remove committee responsibilities; it only authorizes a particular motion on the floor.
Who It Affects
Senate floor managers and leadership, individual senators seeking to object or extract concessions, the listed nominees, and the agencies tied to those positions (Justice, Defense, State, Treasury, EPA, HUD, VA, and others). The White House benefits from a streamlined path if the motion succeeds.
Why It Matters
En bloc consideration is a routine Senate tool, but using it for a long, mixed list of high-level positions changes the dynamics of oversight and bargaining: it can speed placements and minimize individual scrutiny, or it can be blocked and force separate fights.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution is a procedural authorization: it tells the Senate that a motion to take up a grouped set of nominations in Executive Session will be in order. In Senate practice that means a senator can move to consider the listed nominations together rather than calling up each nomination separately.
The resolution itself does not confirm nominees, change statutory confirmation rules, or alter committee jurisdiction; it only creates a privileged motion on the floor.
Because the motion is for en bloc consideration, debate and votes can be handled collectively. That typically means a single period of debate can cover many nominees and a single voice or roll-call vote can be used for the group, subject to any senator’s right to demand separate consideration under the Senate’s standing orders or by majority vote.
The resolution specifies a fixed list of nominations by calendar number and nominee name; any nominee not on that list is not covered by this resolution.Practically, successful use of this resolution would let majority leadership manage floor time more tightly: they could move to consider and, if they have the votes, dispose of multiple nominations in a single sequence. If the motion fails or a senator objects, the Senate returns to standard procedures for individual consideration.
The resolution therefore changes the procedural pathway available to the floor but leaves substantive confirmation rules intact.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The text enumerates 97 individual nominations by calendar number and name (items numbered 1 through 97 in the resolution).
The list spans a wide range of positions: U.S. Attorneys (many with 4‑year terms), ambassadors, senior Defense Department officials, inspectors general, agency heads, and members of independent boards and commissions.
The resolution does not confirm anyone; it only makes it in order to move to en bloc consideration in Executive Session—adoption of the motion and final confirmation remain separate actions.
One notable technical detail: Michael Selig appears on two calendar entries (nominated both as Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and as a Commissioner), showing the list includes multiple, related entries for the same individual.
Sen. John Thune submitted the resolution on December 4, 2025; the text fixes the specific nominees eligible for the en bloc motion rather than creating a general rule.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Authorizes a motion to proceed to en bloc consideration in Executive Session
This provision is the operative clause: it states that it shall be in order to move to the en bloc consideration of the listed nominations on the Executive Calendar. In practice that grants the floor a privileged motion to take up the grouped nominations during Executive Session; it does not by itself effect any confirmations or modify statutory confirmation procedures.
Fixed list of nominees and calendar numbers
The resolution attaches a numbered list naming each nomination by calendar number and nominee. Because the list is explicit, only those nominations named are eligible under the motion the resolution authorizes. The entries include specified term lengths for certain positions (for example, multiple U.S. Attorneys listed for four‑year terms and board members with multi‑year terms), and some entries are reappointments or related paired nominations.
Grouping changes floor handling but not confirmation rules
The en bloc posture typically combines debate and voting into a single sequence, which reduces the number of individual calls and potentially the number of roll-call votes. However, the Senate’s standing rules and any senator’s procedural rights (such as objecting or asking for separate consideration) remain available. The resolution therefore affects how the floor can proceed without altering committee referrals or the statutory confirmation vote requirements.
Authorization is permissive, not mandatory
The resolution makes the motion in order but does not require the Senate to adopt it; a successful en bloc move still depends on the votes and objections that arise during floor consideration. The resolution also does not bind future floor managers: subsequent leadership could pursue different groupings or consider nominees individually if the en bloc motion is not offered or is rejected.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Presidential nominees named on the list: they gain a potential, streamlined path to floor consideration that can shorten the time from committee reporting to final Senate action if leadership secures the necessary support.
- Senate majority leadership and floor managers: the tool reduces the number of individual items to call up and helps compress floor schedule, allowing leadership to move a large slate with less floor time.
- Federal agencies with vacancies (Justice, Defense, State, Treasury, EPA, HUD, VA, etc.): faster collective consideration can help fill leadership and operational gaps more quickly if confirmations follow.
- The White House: a grouped process makes it easier to shepherd an administration’s slate of nominees through the Senate when the majority is aligned.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual senators (especially in the minority): grouping reduces leverage to press detailed questions or negotiate changes tied to a single nominee, potentially limiting oversight tools.
- Stakeholders seeking public scrutiny: en bloc consideration can compress or reduce public, individual debate on nominees, which may limit the visibility of vetting issues for specific positions.
- Senate committees and staff: condensed floor handling may shift the burden to committee records and pre‑floor processes to capture needed vetting and documentation.
- Interest groups and affected constituencies: grouped votes make it harder to build targeted pressure around a single nominee without risking the fate of unrelated nominees in the same block.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is efficiency versus deliberation: the resolution offers a tool to speed placement of many nominees at once, which helps fill vacancies and manage floor time, but it does so by compressing individual scrutiny and reducing the leverage senators use to extract information or concessions—two legitimate objectives that pull in opposite directions.
The resolution creates a narrow procedural pathway but leaves open important implementation questions. En bloc consideration can be used in different ways: leadership might seek a single up‑or‑down vote for the entire block, or the Senate might adopt the en bloc posture and still allow senators to demand separate consideration for particular nominees.
The resolution’s language—making the motion “in order”—does not guarantee the motion will be adopted; it only prevents the motion itself from being ruled out of order.
That permissive character produces trade-offs. Grouping mixed nominations (career officials, political appointees, U.S. Attorneys, ambassadors, and inspectors general) treats very different confirmation predicates the same way procedurally.
That risks bundling controversial picks with noncontroversial ones, changing negotiation dynamics and possibly incentivizing logrolling. It also raises transparency and oversight concerns: expedited floor handling reduces public debate time, while committees retain their investigative and hearing roles but may be forced to rely on record submissions rather than extended floor questioning.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.