Bush-Obama Transition

Peter Baker at NYT:

The world was a volatile place when President George W. Bush was leaving office. So on the way out the door, he and his national security team left a little advice for their successors:

India is a friend. Pakistan is not. Don’t trust North Korea or Iran, but talking is still better than not. Watch out for Russia; it covets the territory of its neighbor Ukraine. Beware becoming ensnared by intractable land wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. And oh yes, nation-building is definitely harder than it looks.

Fourteen years ago, Mr. Bush’s team recorded its counsel for the incoming administration of President Barack Obama in 40 classified memos by the National Security Council, part of what has widely been hailed by both sides as a model transition between presidents of different parties. For the first time, those memos have now been declassified, offering a window into how the world appeared to a departing administration after eight years marked by war, terrorism and upheaval.

Thirty of the memos are reproduced in “Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama,” a new book edited by Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush’s last national security adviser, along with three members of his staff, and set to be published by the Brookings Institution on Wednesday. The memos add up to a tour d’horizon of the international challenges that awaited Mr. Obama and his team in January 2009 with U.S. troops still in combat in two wars and various other threats to American security looming.

...

The memo on Russia concludes that Mr. Bush’s “strategy of personal diplomacy met with early success” but acknowledged that ties had soured, especially after Russia’s invasion of the former Soviet republic of Georgia in 2008. The memo presciently warned about Russia’s future ambitions.

“Russia attempts to challenge the territorial integrity of Ukraine, particularly in Crimea, which is 59 percent ethnically Russian and is home to the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet, must be prevented,” the memo warned five years before Russian forces would seize Crimea and 13 years before they would invade the rest of the country. The memo added that “Russia will exploit Europe’s dependence on Russian energy” and use political means “to drive wedges between the United States and Europe.”

Continuity of Government and Presidential Succession

 John C. Fortier and Norman Ornstein at AEI:

• The Continuity of Government Commission makes recommendations to ensure the continuity of the presidency after a catastrophic event.
• The core recommendation is that Congress amend the Presidential Succession Act to remove congressional leaders from the presidential line of succession, providing instead for succession solely by members of the president’s cabinet.
• This change would address constitutional problems inherent in the current framework and provide clarity and stability amid a crisis.
• Other recommendations deal with presidential incapacity and continuity issues arising during the period between a presidential election and Inauguration Day.

...

There are serious policy and constitutional objections to having congressional leaders in the line of succession. The Constitution allows Congress to specify which “Officer” shall be in the line of succession, a term that many commentators believe refers to executive and judicial officers, not congressional ones. More broadly, structural considerations make it difficult for legislative leaders to assume a position in the executive branch. 

Congressional leaders cannot easily step in for an incapacitated president, and they may have conflicts of interest in an impeachment and removal scenario. Congressional leaders may be members of a different political party than the president. A political zealot might seek to change the party in the executive branch with a single attack. A freak accident might lead to a sudden change in party; the death of President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush could have led to President Thomas “Tip” O’Neill. The death of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore might have led to President Newt Gingrich. The situation becomes more tenuous if the vice presidency has been vacant for a time

Lincoln 1864

In her statement Thursday night, Liz Cheney mentioned that, before 2020, presidents had always been willing to accept electoral defeat.  She cited the example of Lincoln.

 Abraham Lincoln, Memorandum on Probable Failure of Re-Election1, August 23, 1864

1 A summer of costly military stalemate and widespread disaffection among War Democrats and conservative Republicans with the administration's policies toward slavery persuaded Lincoln that he would probably be defeated in the 1864 presidential election. Perhaps to bear witness to his determination to save the Union even if defeated, he wrote out this memorandum, indicating his fear that General McClellan, if elected, would be forced by members of his party to seek an armistice with the Confederacy. Such an armistice could be tantamount to recognition of Confederate independence. Lincoln's memorandum, which he asked the members of his cabinet to sign as witnesses without reading, amounts to a pledge to work in concert with McClellan before the latter's inauguration.

Executive Mansion

Washington, Aug 23, 1864.

This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards.

A. Lincoln

[Endorsed on Reverse:]

• William H Seward
• W. P. Fessenden
• Edwin M Stanton
• Gideon Welles
• Edwd. Bates
• M Blair
• J. P. Usher

August 23. 1864.2

2 The date is in Lincoln's hand.

Defense Secretaries Speak Out

 Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, Mark Esper, Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, Leon Panetta, William Perry and Donald Rumsfeld are the 10 living former U.S. secretaries of defense.

As former secretaries of defense, we hold a common view of the solemn obligations of the U.S. armed forces and the Defense Department. Each of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not swear it to an individual or a party.

American elections and the peaceful transfers of power that result are hallmarks of our democracy. With one singular and tragic exception that cost the lives of more Americans than all of our other wars combined, the United States has had an unbroken record of such transitions since 1789, including in times of partisan strife, war, epidemics and economic depression. This year should be no exception.

Our elections have occurred. Recounts and audits have been conducted. Appropriate challenges have been addressed by the courts. Governors have certified the results. And the electoral college has voted. The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived.

As senior Defense Department leaders have noted, “there’s no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.” Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.

Transitions, which all of us have experienced, are a crucial part of the successful transfer of power. They often occur at times of international uncertainty about U.S. national security policy and posture. They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation.

Given these factors, particularly at a time when U.S. forces are engaged in active operations around the world, it is all the more imperative that the transition at the Defense Department be carried out fully, cooperatively and transparently. Acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller and his subordinates — political appointees, officers and civil servants — are each bound by oath, law and precedent to facilitate the entry into office of the incoming administration, and to do so wholeheartedly. They must also refrain from any political actions that undermine the results of the election or hinder the success of the new team.

We call upon them, in the strongest terms, to do as so many generations of Americans have done before them. This final action is in keeping with the highest traditions and professionalism of the U.S. armed forces, and the history of democratic transition in our great country.

Transition

 From the Center for Presidential Transition:

The time between the election and the inauguration is about 75 days. During this two and a half months, the transition team must handle the influx of campaign staff, integrate them into the daily operations and prepare to take over the functions of government. Key activities in this phase include:

• Staffing the White House and agencies.
• Deploying agency review teams to visit agencies.
• Building out the president-elect’s policy and management agendas and schedule.
• •Identifying the key talent necessary to execute the new president’s priorities.

POST-INAUGURATION “HANDOVER” PHASE

Following the inauguration and transfer of power to the next president, a new administration has a narrow window of approximately 200 days in which to achieve quick wins and build the momentum necessary to propel significant policy initiatives forward. The focus in this phase tends to be on identifying and vetting the right staff and appointees based on the president’s top priorities—a formidable task given that the new administration will fill roughly 4,000 political appointments, including more than 1,200 that require Senate confirmation. The administration also will have to officially close down the transition operation and preserve important records for historical value and to aid future transition teams. 

Transitions

John Dickerson at The Atlantic:

In his new memoir, Barack Obama reveals that there was a terrorist threat on his Inauguration Day. As he addressed the nation, he was prepared to interrupt himself to read evacuation instructions for the millions gathered on the National Mall. Obama had been in the job just seconds, and he was experiencing his first stomach drop—the possibility of a mass-casualty event.

...

Transitions are hard for newly elected presidents, even under normal circumstances. “Almost all of them have foreign-policy ideas they come with,” former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told me when I interviewed her for my book on the presidency. “On day one, ‘I will,’ and on day one, they don’t, because it’s so complicated. They’re almost all frustrated because the world doesn’t accord with the world that they thought they were going to be able to shape. And you really can’t see that from the outside. Then you get in there and the stuff starts flowing.”

In addition to the surprises and tonnage of incoming challenges, simply starting the job is a gargantuan undertaking. It may help to imagine a presidential transition as a private-sector company going through a merger. With only two months of preparation, the new CEO must take over a $2 trillion enterprise with 4 million employees and hire 4,000 managers, 1,500 of whom have to be vetted by a hostile board of directors. Then, on his first day in the corner office, the new top man must be ready to face the most difficult challenges of running the business while simultaneously launching a brand refresh and implementing an entirely new strategic plan. Oh, and he’ll have to do all of his prep work through Zoom, during a pandemic spike that he’s supposed to manage between meetings about how to revive a crumpled economy. “Every day matters in a transition, and every day that is lost is more important than the previous day,” David Marchick, the director of the Center for Presidential Transition, told me. “You can’t make it up.”

The Slowest Transition

Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Sharon Franiere report at The New York Times:

“There’s no question this is the slowest transition in decades,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former State Department official who served under presidents of both parties and has been involved in transitions since 1988. “It is a very, very big mistake. The world continues — it doesn’t respect transitions.”
...
Mr. Trump’s personnel problems are rooted in a dysfunctional transition effort that left him without a pool of nominees-in-waiting who had been screened for security and financial problems and were ready to be named on Day 1. In the weeks since, the problem has been compounded by roadblocks of his own making: a loyalty test that in some cases has eliminated qualified candidates, a five-year lobbying ban that has discouraged some of the most sought-after potential appointees, and a general sense of upheaval at the White House that has repelled many others.
...

While Mr. Trump has won confirmation of 18 members of his cabinet, he has not nominated anyone for more than 500 other vital posts and has fallen behind his predecessors in filling the important second- and third-tier positions that carry out most of the government’s crucial daily functions. As of Sunday, he had sent to the Senate 36 nominations for critical positions, just over half of the 70 sent by President Barack Obama, who was also criticized for early delays, at the same point in 2009, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Presidential Transition at the Partnership for Public Service.

In the vast majority of cases, Mr. Trump’s administration has not even begun the lengthy screening process — which can take several weeks to as long as two months — that nominees must complete before their confirmations can be considered by the Senate.

According to data obtained by The New York Times, the Office of Government Ethics, the independent agency that conducts financial reviews of every presidential nominee, had received only 63 disclosure reports for prospective Trump administration nominees as of March 5, less than a third of the 228 that Mr. Obama’s team had submitted by that date in 2009.

A Not-So-Popular Transition

Jeffrey M. Jones reports at Gallup:

Americans are evenly divided in their assessment of the way Donald Trump is handling his presidential transition, with 48% approving and 48% disapproving. By contrast, 65% or more approved of the way the past three presidents-elect were handling their transitions at similar points in time, including 75% for Barack Obama in December 2008.

Net approval:

Clinton....+52%
Bush........+39%
Obama.....+58%
Trump..........0

A Problem with "Designated Survivor"

Designated Survivor, a new series that premieres tonight on ABC, is about a low-ranking cabinet officer who becomes president after a terror attack wipes out most of the government.

Federal law (3 U.S. Code § 19) provides that the speaker of the House and the president pro tem of the Senate follow the vice president in the line of succession.  If there are vacancies in both jobs, it goes to Cabinet officers in this order:  Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.

But there is a big problem with the series premise. From the law:

An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.

In other words, as soon as the House or Senate can reassemble and choose a speaker or president pro tem, that person takes over from the cabinet member serving as acting president.  The Congressional Research Service explains:

The House elects a new Speaker, who, upon meeting the requirements, i.e., resigning as a House Member and as Speaker, then “bumps” the cabinet secretary, and assumes the office of Acting President. The President Pro Tempore serving as Acting President could be similarly bumped by a newly-elected Speaker. Both persons would be out of a job under this scenario: the President Pro Tempore, by virtue of having resigned as Member and officer of Congress in order to become Acting President and the senior cabinet secretary, by virtue of the fact that, under the act, “The taking the oath of office
... [by a cabinet secretary] shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President.”

In the show's scenario, most of the members of the House and Senate die in the terror attack, presumably meaning that there would not be enough to elect a speaker or president pro tem.  In such circumstances, the law allows for expedited special elections to the House. As a practical matter, though, it might take months to repopulate and organize the House.  In the Senate, on the other hand, the 17th Amendment gives states the choice of  gubernatorial appointment or special election.  Thirty-six states take the first route, allowing the governor to fill the vacancy until the next regularly-scheduled, statewide general election.  Fourteen states require a special election, but nine of them allow for a short-term appointment until the election takes place.  So it would probably be possible to reconstitute the Senate in a matter of weeks, at which time it would choose a president pro tem, who would then take over.

Maybe the series will explain this complication away, or perhaps just simply ignore it.

Presidential Transitions

A new report from the Partnership for Public Service urges a new approach to presidential transitions:

The preparation to govern must not wait until the two-and-a-half-month period between the election and the inauguration; it should begin during the height of the presidential campaign season though the outcome of the political contest will still be unresolved. This requires a strong commitment and leadership from presidential candidates, a commitment of federal resources to help the candidates do the planning and the selection of respected transition leaders with past experience in government.