Senate confirms Howard Lutnick as commerce secretary

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CBS News/AP

February 18, 2025 / 7:57 PM EST


The Senate confirmed wealthy financier Howard Lutnick as commerce secretary Tuesday, putting in place a staunch supporter of President Trump's hardline trade policies. At the Commerce Department, Lutnick, who was CEO at the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald, will oversee 50,000 employees who do everything from collecting economic statistics to running the census to issuing weather reports.

But he's likely to spend a lot of time — along with Jamieson Greer, Mr. Trump's nominee to be the top U.S. trade negotiator — managing the president's aggressive plans to impose import taxes on U.S. trading partners, including allies and adversaries alike. The Senate vote to confirm Lutnick was 51-45.

Mr. Trump views the tariffs as a versatile economic tool. They can raise money to finance his tax cuts elsewhere, protect U.S. industries and pressure other countries into making concessions on such issues as their own trade barriers, immigration and drug trafficking. Mainstream economists mostly view tariffs as counterproductive: They are paid by import companies in the United States, which try to pass along the higher costs to consumers and can thereby add to inflationary pressures throughout the economy.

At his confirmation hearing last month, Lutnick dismissed as "nonsense'' the idea that tariffs contribute to inflation. He expressed support for deploying across-the-board tariffs "country by country'' to strong-arm other countries into lowering barriers to American exports.

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-confirms-howard-lutnick-commerce-secretary/

[WhiteTara]

1. Great. Just great.

[Wiz Imp]

3. Wrong!

The Vote was 51-45 with 0 Democrats voting YES and 0 Republicans voting NO. 2 Democrats & 2 Republicans were not present for the vote.

Lutnick was the 5th nominee so far to get 0 Democratic votes.

[JohnSJ]

4. Thank-you. I made a wrong assumption by just looking at the numbers and not the details. I will self-delete, but I

wanted to thank-you for pointing out my mistake.

Thanks.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. I was about to reply to you but here is the roll call!!! ALL (Ds/Is) voted "no" with 2 (D)s & 2 (R)s who didn't vote

Roll Call - https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00057.htm#position

YEAs ---51

Banks (R-IN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Boozman (R-AR)
Britt (R-AL)
Budd (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Curtis (R-UT)
Daines (R-MT)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagerty (R-TN)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Husted (R-OH)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Johnson (R-WI)
Justice (R-WV)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Marshall (R-KS)
McConnell (R-KY)
McCormick (R-PA)
Moody (R-FL)
Moreno (R-OH)
Mullin (R-OK)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Ricketts (R-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Rounds (R-SD)
Schmitt (R-MO)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sheehy (R-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)

NAYs ---45

Alsobrooks (D-MD)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt Rochester (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Fetterman (D-PA)
Gallego (D-AZ)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kelly (D-AZ)
Kim (D-NJ)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lujan (D-NM)
Markey (D-MA)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Padilla (D-CA)
Reed (D-RI)
Rosen (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schiff (D-CA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Slotkin (D-MI)
Smith (D-MN)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warnock (D-GA)
Warren (D-MA)
Welch (D-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 4

Booker (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Peters (D-MI)
Sullivan (R-AK)

[JohnSJ]

6. Thanks. Does that mean if the 2 Democrats were there and the 2 republicans weren't, the nomination would have been

rejected?

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Nope

The GOP already had a "majority" of 51 votes that would have been needed.

If all of the Ds/Is voted, it would have been 51 - 47 (we only have 47 Ds + Is).

If the 2 non-voting Rs had voted "no" along with the 2 non-voting Ds voting "no", it would have been - 51 - 49, and he still would have been confirmed.

[JohnSJ]

8. Then we are so screwed. Thanks again.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Yeah, when we lost the Senate

(and it was already close before 2024 with us only having a 51 - 49 majority) we knew that was it.

However we at least had 4 years after we won it back with the 2020 election, after 6 years of being in the minority, thanks to GA. And we were able to leverage what we could during that brief period.

[Probatim]

11. I love this line - "They (tariffs) can raise money to finance his tax cuts elsewhere"

Forgetting it's the consumer who ultimately pays for these.

[Evolve Dammit]

12. another billionaire to regulate and profit from, the peons. That would be us. low to middle income, etc.