Dem
47
GOP
53
This is exceedingly inside baseball, although it's also not a great omen when it comes to the incoming presidential administration. Since 2010, consistent with updates to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, presidents-elect have signed a set of memorandums that allow them to begin preparations for taking over the government. First is a group of agreements with the White House and various executive agencies that allow for new appointees to get FBI background checks and to begin learning the ropes of their new jobs. Second is an agreement with the General Services Administration (GSA) that provides $7.2 million in funds, office space, computers and networking, and other such support. In exchange for this, a campaign submits itself to GSA oversight (including, for example, cybersecurity precautions) and also agrees to limit donor contributions to the transition to no more than $5,000 per person.
Since his election several weeks ago, Donald Trump has been signalling that he might not sign any of the documents, despite the fact that there is actually a legally mandated deadline of October 1. Yesterday, he and his team semi-relented, and they signed a partial transition agreement (which you can read here, if you wish). That is apparently the end of what Team Trump is willing to do, and so the transition will move forward on this basis.
Because Trump only signed a partial transition agreement, but none of the sub-agreements with specific agencies, and no agreement with the GSA, it means that there will be several things missing from the process. First, no automatic FBI background checks. Though having been warned that this puts the nation at risk, and may make it harder to confirm some appointees, Trump and his team say they don't find the background checks to be necessary. Second, any sensitive data that the incoming administration receives in the next 6 weeks or so will be protected by Trump's cybersecurity team, and not by the federal government. Readers can decide for themselves how they feel about that, perhaps while recalling "but her e-mails" from 2016. Third, and finally, the sky's the limit for how much money "supporters" donate to Trump and his transition team. There may also be no limits as to exactly WHO is donating. Incoming Chief of Staff Susie Wiles framed all of this as an effort to save taxpayers money, and said that Trump would be "very transparent" about whatever donations are received. Again, readers can decide for themselves if they believe... any of that.
Unfortunately, the Biden White House was over a barrel here. From a political standpoint, if the President had made an issue of this, it would have been framed as sour grapes, even though that's not correct. From a legal standpoint, even if Biden wanted to do something, what could he do? Run to court? Ask Congress to pass additional, enforcing legislation? These paths seem unlikely to produce useful results, particularly on an expedited timeline. Heck, does anyone even know where Clarence Thomas and his RV are right now? And from a practical standpoint, it would not be great to, say, hand the keys to the Department of Defense over to the incoming secretary (whether Pete Hegseth or someone else) on January 20 and declare, "Well, good luck with it!" For the good of the country, these people have to be given some sort of orientation, even if their leader is choosing to do so under a partial and very possibly corrupt cloak of non-oversight. (Z)