Gordon L. Weil
A change in the political system is happening, but we are paying
little attention to it.
Donald Trump, an agent of political change, has challenged
the belief that the U.S. can only have one president at a time. Since the
election, he has operated a parallel presidency.
A formal transition process exists in law, allowing for the
incoming president and his appointees to be subject to specific ethics rules,
to use federal office space and to receive financial support. They can become current on department
policies and actions. But the president-elect does not have to accept this
process.
While the incoming president is not bound by previous
policies, awareness of the current administration’s latest moves could enhance
the chances for a smooth transition. But Trump wants to symbolize change, and
cooperation may not suit his image. He
spurns transition and acts as if he is already in the White House.
Three reasons stand out.
First, Trump has already served as president so he can hit the ground
running, without needing a basic White House education. Second, Trump will head probably the most
personal presidency, relying less than usual on precedent and advice than on
his own instincts. Third, President Biden
is fading, creating an opening for his successor.
Biden has readily let him dominate the scene. His departing administration is cloaked in
the aura of its defeat rather than pride in its principles. His cabinet has melted away, failing to react
to Trump’s assertions. Biden failed to make his presidency the promised bridge
– a real transition.
Though Biden still uses his inherent powers to deal with
disasters, pardon people and issue executive orders setting his parting
benchmarks, Trump has taken over large pieces of foreign and domestic policy. Biden’s cabinet and actions are overshadowed,
if not downright ignored.
Few resist the need to deal with Trump’s upcoming presidency
as if he were already in office. From
Republican House members to foreign leaders, they have sought to curry his
favor and divert any possible concerns he has about them well before his
ability to take office, beginning next week.
Trump has moved decisively to transform the period between
Election Day and Inauguration Day. The
so-called lame duck government of that transition period has become almost a
rare bird. By his actions, rather than
through a formal constitutional amendment, Trump is redefining the transition
for the second time in American history.
Originally, the presidency and the new Congress began on
March 4, following the previous year’s November elections. Given slow communications and travel, the
delay was necessary to allow for vote counting and the arrival of newly elected
officials in the capital city.
The result was that a president who might be slated to leave
office and the sitting Congress could remain in power for months even if they
had suffered election defeats. That lame
duck period could allow a departing administration and Congress to push through
policies that might already have been rejected by a majority of voters.
Newly elected presidents and members of Congress waited
their turn and prepared to take office. That had to change.
Following the 1932 elections, voters clearly demanded action
by the federal government in dealing with the Great Depression. They had become impatient with the transition.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the
time to ready measures he could put in place rapidly once he took office – the
famous first 100 days.
The delay also brought the end of the long-legged lame
duck. Under a new law, Congress would
begin on January 3 and the presidential term would start on January 20, dates
now set in the Constitution.
Twenty years later, President Truman offered to provide
intelligence briefings to President-elect Dwight Eisenhower. Truman’s first move led to a formal transition
process, which has been expanded under the law.
Because it is voluntary, Trump refused its ethics
requirement or to be fully informed on current administration actions. He chose to make the break between
administrations both disruptive and preemptive. In effect, he has improperly moved the
government from Washington to Mar-a-Lago. He has led the alternate government, not the
government in waiting.
The refusal of the incoming president to participate in a
transition comes at a price, especially when it relates to foreign policy. The failure of an incoming administration to
exchange information on its foreign contacts or its attempts to blindside the
incumbent can be harmful to the conduct of delicate and complex relations.
Trump has drastically shortened the transition, which may
have been inevitable. But he has also
made a mockery of its useful aspects.
Transition should not be left to the president-elect’s choice. The
country would be better served, without limiting the incoming president’s
discretion, by making their full participation mandatory.
The U.S. really should have only one president at a time.
