Honestly, I do not understand how — at this point in this admin — you present this move as clearly legal in your headline and lede, even if the lede *slightly* couches it as “potentially” and hidden way down as cited to “an administration official.” nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/… 
Back to the DHS story. This is the NYT language:
Now, @steve_vladeck has described a way that this could *possibly* make sense — I think it would still be open to challenge — but even that path doesn’t match the NYT language about the president taking the actions.
Here’s the DHS-specific vacancies law: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/… / And here’s the general law, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1988: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/…
