Julie Su’s Status as Acting Labor Secretary Gets Watchdog Review

The Government Accountability Office is reviewing whether Julie Su should be limited in how long she can serve as acting secretary of labor under federal vacancy rules, in response to a recent inquiry from a top Republican lawmaker.

A spokesperson for the federal government watchdog confirmed in an email to Bloomberg Law that “work is underway” on a request from Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) regarding Su’s acting service.

Foxx asked the GAO in a July 6 letter to provide its opinion on the legal authority governing Su’s service as “acting” leader of the US Department of Labor, and how long she can lead the agency in a temporary capacity.

“GAO accepts your request as work that is within the scope of its authority,” the agency wrote in a July 18 response to Foxx. “We anticipate that staff with the required skills will be available shortly to initiate an engagement.”

The investigation into Su’s acting status comes after Republicans like Foxx have questioned whether Su should be time limited in how long she can serve as acting head of the DOL without Senate confirmation.

The Biden administration has maintained that the statute establishing the DOL outlined an order of succession that would permit Su to serve as acting secretary indefinitely—because she has already been confirmed as deputy secretary. Su has been serving as the agency’s No. 2 since July 2021.

But Republicans contend that Su should be subject to the constraints for acting leaders outlined in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which governs most federal vacancies.

The issue has come to a head in recent weeks, now that Su’s nomination to lead the DOL permanently has stalled in the Senate, and the White House has seemingly taken a step back from lobbying for the nominee.

Business groups and at least one Republican lawmaker have warned the Biden administration that its move to keep Su as labor secretary without Senate confirmation could raise constitutional questions, and ultimately lead to legal challenges to actions the agency takes under her leadership.