[Public Officials, Competency Comes First] Thorough Preliminary Vetting in the U.S.... Korea's Inconsistent Standards

③ 200 Years of U.S. Confirmation Hearings, 25 Years in Korea
Thorough Preliminary Vetting and Broad Approval Scope Are Strengths
Experts: "Strengthening Vetting Alone Improves Hearing Quality"

Editor's NoteUtilizing talent in the right place is directly linked to the success or failure of national governance. The saying "personnel is everything" did not emerge without reason. The problem is that, even when there is a desire to employ talented individuals, it is difficult to do so. Even when talent is identified and entrusted with important roles, it is common for the candidates themselves to decline. This reality is not unrelated to the fact that the system established to vet public officials is actually blocking the appointment of qualified individuals. It is problematic when personal background checks take precedence over competency evaluations. With the current confirmation hearing system, which focuses on scrutinizing not only the candidate's private life but also that of their spouse and children, it is inevitably difficult to appoint talented people. This article diagnoses the recurring problems of the confirmation hearing system that arise with every new administration and explores potential solutions for improvement.

Confirmation hearings to assess the qualifications and abilities of high-ranking public officials are primarily held in presidential systems such as those of South Korea and the United States. The United States, which first adopted the presidential system, has operated its confirmation hearing system for over 200 years, since the establishment of the federal constitution in 1787. South Korea enacted its Confirmation Hearing Act in 2000, making this the 25th year of its operation. Due to the longer history of the U.S. system, there are frequent calls to adopt the American model whenever the usefulness of confirmation hearings is questioned. Experts note that the U.S. confirmation hearing system also has its drawbacks, but they point out that there are aspects worth benchmarking, such as thorough preliminary vetting and a broad scope of positions requiring approval.

Narrower Scope of Approval Than the U.S.... Korea Proceeds Without Consent

One of the biggest differences between confirmation hearings in South Korea and the United States is the scope of parliamentary approval. Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Federal Constitution stipulates that "the President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States." It is known that more than 1,200 appointed positions require Senate approval in the U.S., including not only cabinet secretaries but also deputy secretaries and assistant secretaries. In contrast, in South Korea, about 60 positions, such as cabinet ministers, are subject to confirmation hearings, and among these, only the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justices, President of the Constitutional Court, Chair of the Board of Audit and Inspection, Constitutional Court Justices, and National Election Commission members (elected by the National Assembly) require parliamentary consent for appointment.

Therefore, in the United States, without Senate approval, even the President cannot appoint most high-level executive officials. However, in South Korea, except for a few positions such as the Prime Minister, confirmation hearings in the National Assembly are largely a formality. In fact, during the administrations of Lee Myung-bak, Park Geun-hye, and Moon Jae-in, more than 60 cabinet-level officials were appointed without the adoption of a confirmation report by the National Assembly. The Yoon Suk-yeol administration also appointed dozens of officials, including former Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Moon-soo, without parliamentary consent. As the practice of "just appointing regardless of opposition" continues, skepticism about the necessity of confirmation hearings has grown, with many asking, "What's the point of holding confirmation hearings in this case?"

There is also a difference in perception regarding officials appointed by the President. In the United States, high-ranking executive officials are widely seen as partners in the President's work. As a result, it is extremely rare for the Senate to reject a nomination. The most recent case of a Senate rejection was in 1989, when John Tower was nominated for Secretary of Defense?an event that occurred 36 years ago. More recently, Pete Hegseth, nominated as Secretary of Defense in the second Trump administration, faced intense criticism over allegations of sexual misconduct and was at risk of rejection, but his nomination narrowly passed and he took office. Instead, the Senate applies stricter scrutiny to lifetime appointments, such as federal Supreme Court justices.

U.S. Vetting Involves the FBI... What About Korea?

In contrast, in South Korea, confirmation hearings are often used as a tool to attack the government and ruling party, leading to frequent attempts to force nominees to withdraw by digging into their personal histories. The opposition often considers the withdrawal of a nominee a political victory, rather than focusing on genuine vetting. Um Kyung-young, director of the Zeitgeist Institute, explained, "There should be unlimited vetting of a public official's qualifications, sense of duty, and commitment to upholding the constitution. However, in Korea, there is a tendency to focus excessively on integrity, especially on sensational aspects, rather than on capabilities." He suggested that "an appropriate balance would be about 70% competency vetting and 30% integrity vetting."

The level of preliminary vetting for candidates also differs. In the United States, once a candidate is approved by the President, not only the White House but also the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and other agencies are mobilized to thoroughly investigate the candidate and their family for reputation, morality, and legal violations. Preliminary vetting is conducted publicly in accordance with legal procedures and typically takes more than two to three months. Once this process is completed, the White House consults with committee chairs and submits the President's nomination proposal to the Senate. Because of this rigorous preliminary vetting and coordination, confirmation hearings mainly focus on assessing job-related abilities.

Lee Junhan, professor of political science and international relations at Incheon National University, said, "In the U.S., cabinet nominees write questionnaires that are over 20 pages long. The questions are so detailed that some candidates give up during the process, realizing they are not suitable." He added, "After that, the FBI, police, and IRS conduct further checks. By the time of the confirmation hearing, there is little left to uncover about the nominee's personal background." Professor Lee pointed out, "However, in Korea, if the President wants someone, there is virtually no preliminary vetting, making the process inconsistent. As a result, problems continue to emerge before and after confirmation hearings."

Strengthening Preliminary Vetting to Create 'Policy Hearings'

Of course, the U.S. confirmation hearing system is not perfect. The large number of positions requiring approval and the excessively long vetting period can be disadvantages. When partisan conflict is intense, there are many cases where nominees go 100 days?or even up to 200 days?without being confirmed after being nominated by the President. During the first Trump administration, the Secretary of Defense position was vacant for seven months. Instead, the President fills the leadership gap by appointing acting officials without Senate approval. President Trump frequently used this acting official system during his first term, leading U.S. media to criticize the administration as being "run by temporary officials."

Experts advise that it is necessary to adopt certain aspects of the U.S. system. Strengthening preliminary vetting to separate integrity checks from competency evaluations and expanding the number of positions requiring parliamentary approval are key examples. Professor Lee said, "There are suggestions to conduct personal background checks privately and policy evaluations publicly, but in today's society, where social networking services (SNS) are so developed, private vetting is no longer effective." He added, "If preliminary vetting is strengthened to filter out candidates with integrity issues in advance, confirmation hearings could focus on policy, fulfilling their intended role as policy hearings."

Director Um stated, "It is necessary to expand the scope of positions requiring parliamentary approval." He continued, "If the confirmation report is not adopted, the candidate should voluntarily withdraw or the President should rescind the appointment." He added, "However, it is also undesirable for the National Assembly to block appointments simply by refusing to adopt the confirmation report. As an alternative, detailed standards could be supplemented, such as requiring adoption of the report if more than two-thirds of public opinion supports it, as measured by opinion polls."