Final answer:
The policy allowing White House staff to avoid congressional approval helps ensure swift staffing and candid advice for the president, but it may also lead to misaligned priorities and minimal oversight. The president can closely manage key foreign policy staff, yet the sheer size of the EOP makes complete oversight challenging.
Step-by-step explanation:
Unlike heads of executive departments, White House staff members are not required to receive congressional approval. This policy has its advantages such as enabling swift staffing changes and granting the president the ability to obtain candid advice from advisors without the constraints of public scrutiny. However, there are disadvantages, including the potential for the staff to have different priorities than the president or for staff members to act on behalf of various interest groups. Staffers in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) including the White House Office (WHO) are able to make decisions without as much oversight, which may lead to competition with the president's authority. The president, however, maintains the power to demand the resignation or removal of cabinet officers and high-ranking appointees.
This arrangement means the president can work closely with key foreign policy advisors such as the national security advisor. Still, the large size and complexity of the White House staff make it nearly impossible for the president to oversee all actions, which could lead to challenges in aligning the staff's actions with presidential goals. As the bureaucracy of the EOP has grown, so has the influence of these unelected officials, sometimes rivaling the president's own power.