Home / Uncategorized

A well-resourced presidential transition enables an incoming administration to prepare for the complex task of governing, appoint key personnel and address immediate national and global challenges from day one. But how much does this crucial endeavor cost and where does this funding come from? 

The Price of a Transition  

Presidential transitions are expensive undertakings and costs easily run into the tens of millions of dollars. The incoming team must quickly prepare by securing office space, setting up technology, training staff and appointing about 4,000 political appointees, including Cabinet and senior White House officials. These expenses are met by private fundraising sources and federal appropriations.  

Public Funding for Transitions 

Recognizing the need for an effective transfer of power, Congress passed the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, creating a framework to provide federal support and resources to eligible candidates and their teams as they prepare for office. The General Services Administration received $10.4 million for its pre-election activities in its fiscal 2024 appropriation aimed at supporting over 100 members of each eligible candidate’s pre-election team at the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

For fiscal 2025, GSA requested $11.2 million to assist the president-elect after the 2024 election, with $7.2 million set aside for supporting the incoming administration. This support provides the president-elect’s team with funding for compensation of transition staff, costs associated with travel, communications services and printing and postage costs. 

Private Funding for Transitions 

Since 2012, presidential transition teams have relied on a combination of public and private funding to support their pre- and post-election preparations. In that year, Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s transition team became the first to utilize pre-election funding available under the 2010 update of the transition law while also spending $1.4 million in private donations to cover additional costs. 

In 2016, President Donald Trump’s transition team also used public funding and $4.6 million from private contributions to help facilitate its transition efforts. Similarly, in 2020, President Joe Biden’s transition team also accepted the public funding available in addition to supplementing it with privately raised funds. The Biden team spent $24.3 million of the privately raised money to ensure a smooth transition of power. 

As of this blog’s publication, President-elect Trump’s 2024 transition team has not yet signed the GSA’s Memorandum of Understanding. Signing the MOU is a prerequisite for accessing public funding and comes with requirements such as publicly disclosing privately raised funds and adhering to a $5,000 limit on individual private donations. 

To learn more about the presidential transition process and how presidents-elect prepare to take office, visit the Center for Presidential Transition website. 

This blog post was authored by Christian Aguirre, an intern with the Center for Presidential Transition. 

One of the most important roles of a presidential transition team is to identify and fill agency leadership positions, with over 1,300 requiring Senate confirmation. Getting a leadership team in place as quickly as possible is essential for a new administration to govern effectively from day one. 

While it is preferable that positions be filled permanently by Senate-confirmed individuals, presidents often must rely on acting officials while identifying capable nominees and waiting for the Senate to act. This is particularly true at the beginning of a new administration as transition teams and later White House personnel teams process thousands of candidates, work to get nominees through the pre-nomination vetting and ethics process, and assist those nominees through the confirmation process. 

This blog focuses on the core questions regarding the Federal Vacancies Reform Act  and the president’s use of acting officials, particularly at the beginning of a new administration.  

Who may serve as an acting official under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act?  

When a vacancy arises for a Senate-confirmed position, presidents may designate three categories of individuals to serve as an acting official: 

Who commonly serves as acting officials at the beginning of an administration? 

At the beginning of their term, presidents can rely on the following categories of officials to serve in an acting capacity: 

How long can acting officials serve? 

The vacancies law places time constraints on presidents to appoint acting officials to Senate-confirmed positions. Generally, those constraints are as follows: 

How does the vacancies law interact with agency specific statutes? 

Some positions have statutory succession provisions. In these instances, administrations have maintained that presidents may either use the vacancies law or the statutory provision to fill the vacancy. Congressional overseers and courts, though, may take a different view.  

Following the agency-specific statue has some possible advantages over following the vacancies law. For example, there is an open legal question about whether the time limits imposed by the law still apply when the agency-specific statute is followed, therefore making it unclear how long an acting official can serve. In fact, it is possible to interpret agency-specific statutes as allowing the acting official to serve indefinitely. Also, agency-specific statutes do not limit the acting official’s ability to also be the nominee for a position. 

Conclusion 

Recent presidents have had to rely on acting officials across key leadership positions for much of their first years in office. While President-elect Donald Trump continues to announce nominations for top positions in the government, career civil servants and non-Senate confirmed personnel are likely to serve in acting roles as the new administration gets underway.  

For more information about the vacancies law, trends in vacancies and the use of acting officials across administrations, check out the Center for Presidential Transition’s Federal Vacancies Guide.  

With the election behind us, the focus now shifts to assembling the next administration. For those aspiring to serve in a presidentially appointed position, this is the time to prepare and stand out in a crowded field.  

The following blog shares valuable advice gleaned from seasoned transition professionals throughout our Transition Lab podcast series. These five tips highlight common mistakes to avoid and steps you can take to position yourself for success in the competitive appointment process. 

During our Transition Lab podcasts, a number of transition veterans detailed some of the least productive approaches for prospective job candidates. The following is a list of five lessons derived from these conversations. If you stick to them, you can reduce the possibility that your resume ends up in the recycling bin! 

Avoid overwhelming the transition team 

Prospective appointees sometimes think the best way to get a job is to have all their friends call the transition team or the White House personnel office with words of support. Don’t do it! 

During a transition and in the early days of an administration, there can be anywhere from 150,000 to 300,000 applications for presidentially appointed positions. Unnecessarily adding to that workload will not make you any friends. 

Liza Wright, who directed the Office of Presidential Personnel  under President George W. Bush, said, “To have all of these people start berating the office with phone calls and things like that…is not a good approach.” Jonathan McBride, who ran PPO under President Barack Obama, added, “If somebody can speak to the substance of what you can do or your acumen…that’s great. Twenty people saying that they like you does not help. And it becomes a judgment question after a while. If you approach this [job search] this way, when you’re acting on behalf of the president of the United States, are you going to show similar poor judgment?” 

 If you have not already done so, you should secure letters of recommendation and start reviewing the necessary clearance and disclosure forms.  

Stay out of the press 

There is always a temptation for job seekers to audition in the media. This is a mistake.  

Speaking with reporters Nancy Cook and Andrew Restuccia about their transition coverage, former Transition Lab host David Marchick pointed out that “the lesson here for someone who wants to get a nomination is not to be in one of these stories because you might have a better chance of getting the job if you’re not in the story.” 

Don’t be presumptuous 

For every job in an administration, there are dozens if not hundreds of qualified applicants. Even if you have served before, there is no guarantee you will get the job you want. Ironically, accepting that reality might increase your chances of getting a job. 

According to Michael Froman, who led the Obama 2008-2009 transition personnel effort, “People who came in and said, ‘I am the greatest expert in this area…where do I fill out my employment forms,’ usually did not get hired.” Froman said. “The more successful approach was to make clear that that you were low maintenance,…that there were a variety of positions that you could envisage yourself doing, that you were not insistent on necessarily being the top person in any agency, but you were willing to play whatever role the president-elect felt was appropriate for you.” 

Don’t show up unprepared 

While you should not assume you will get a specific job, you should have a sense of what types of jobs you are interested in. 

“I always tell people to do your homework,” Wright said. “It’s so helpful if someone has gone to this kind of taking the steps to really research what positions in the government they’re interested in, what they believe they’re qualified for.” 

Doing this legwork will show you are committed and thoughtful, and that might just win you some friends. Coming unprepared, however, might cost your resume a second look. 

Don’t wait until your nomination hearing to be honest – disclose all information from the start 

Potential nominees should be straight-forward with the transition team. Clay Johnson, who led George W. Bush’s personnel operation during the transition and also served as  director of the Office of Presidential Personnel, told candidates, “I’m expecting total honesty from you…and if it turns out you have problems or conflicts, and you aren’t able to serve, you have to know that we’re going to drop you like a hundred-pound weight.” 

Part of this process involves familiarizing yourself with financial and ethics forms and preparing those materials so you are ready if the next administration would like you to serve.

For more resources and information about the presidential appointment process, please visit our Ready to Serve website here.  

Note: This blog was originally published on Oct. 15, 2020 and has been updated for clarity and relevance by Nicole Lopez, a communications manager on the Partnership’s Communications team.

The post was originally authored by Alex Tippett and Carter Hirschhorn.

The process takes almost three times as long as it did during the Reagan administration 

As President Donald Trump plans to enter the White House for the second time, a major responsibility will be to fill the more than 1,300 political appointee positions that require Senate confirmation. As with all recent presidents, Trump will face a problem that has been growing over time—the Senate confirmation process has become more cumbersome because the Senate’s responsibility to “advise and consent” takes far longer now than it did in previous years.

The official confirmation process takes almost three times as long now as it did during President Ronald Reagan’s administration. Throughout President Joe Biden’s administration confirmations have taken an average of about 192 days from the time they were officially submitted to the Senate until they were confirmed (as of Nov. 11, 2024). By contrast, during Reagan’s administration, the average confirmation took 69 days. These numbers include all civilian Senate-confirmed positions except for judges, marshals and U.S. attorneys.

Many factors contribute to the length of time that nominations remain pending in the Senate. The Senate must focus on a wide range of issues and processes beyond nominations. Additionally, any senator can place a “hold” on a nominee to attempt to extract concessions on matters unrelated to the nominee’s qualifications. And the Senate has increased the use of filibusters to delay nominations over time.

The lengthy Senate confirmation process has resulted in delays in filling many critical management and policy-focused positions, and some key jobs have remained vacant for years. Such vacancies make it difficult for agencies to undertake long-term planning and harm the public reliant on their services.

The Senate can move quickly on nominations when it so choses. In fact, nominees for Cabinet secretary positions are often confirmed quickly, especially at the start of a new administration. Since 1981, Cabinet secretaries have been confirmed in an average of 25 days, compared with 112 days for all other positions.

In fact, movement on Cabinet secretaries often occurs even before a new president takes office. Of Biden’s first 15 nominations for Cabinet positions, four had Senate hearings prior to Biden’s inauguration and six were confirmed within a month after he took office. For Trump’s first term, 12 nominees for Cabinet positions had hearings prior to Inauguration Day and nine were confirmed within a month of him taking office.  

Presidents have the most success filling Senate-confirmed positions during their first year in office 

Presidents have incentives to fill positions quickly after taking office. Not only are these jobs important for effective governing, but the Senate confirmation process is faster in an administration’s first year than in nearly any other year of a president’s term. For the past seven presidents, the confirmation process for nominations submitted during the first year averaged 87 days, 26 days faster than any other year, except for the last year in office when a president is finishing their second term. This is in part because presidents often have a honeymoon period soon after their inauguration and because many early nominations involve highly ranked positions that receive priority. 

Conclusion 

Presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation face a process that is longer, harder, more public and more complex than their predecessors faced 40 years ago. While our nation relies on talented individuals to assume leadership roles in government, the difficulty of navigating the Senate confirmation process makes the prospect of a presidential appointment daunting. Many service-minded people even forego a presidential appointment because the lengthy process takes a heavy toll on their professional and personal lives. 

Congress should consider reforms to improve the confirmation process such as decreasing the number of positions requiring Senate approval and improving the Senate’s privileged calendar process. Additionally, incoming presidential administrations should move quickly to vet and submit their nominations—starting right after Election Day.  

The federal government will operate most effectively—and be most accountable to the public—when the best and the brightest are motivated to serve their country. Senators should work across party lines to confirm qualified appointees and consider reforms to make the process run smoothly. And every administration will benefit from starting early and moving with speed to staff the government. 

Today marks a momentous and somber date—9/11. We can never forget the unprecedented attack on our country 23 years ago. We thank the many public servants, at all levels, who played critical roles that day and afterward.  

One of the lessons of 9/11 was the need for a new administration to have its national security team in place as quickly as possible after the inauguration. When the contested 2000 election paused George W. Bush’s transition, for example, it delayed the appointment and subsequent confirmation of key national security officials, an important factor in our country being unprepared for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.  

In a recent op-ed for The Washington Post, Max Stier, the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, emphasized the urgent need for Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump to immediately begin comprehensive transition planning that should include identifying members of their national security teams. He warned that failing to do so quickly, especially in light of the slow Senate confirmation process, could endanger our nation’s safety and stability. 

For more on how a prolonged confirmation process can undermine national security, read our December 2020 blog post on the bipartisan 9/11 Commission’s findings below. 

This piece was originally published on December 16, 2020.

By Alex Tippett

A transition to a new presidential administration is a unique moment of vulnerability for our country. As President-elect Joe Biden selects his full national security team and the Senate prepares to consider presidential appointments, the experiences of previous transitions serve as cautionary tale for why slow nominations and lengthy confirmation processes can leave the nation vulnerable.  

The most prominent example of how a prolonged confirmation process can undermine national security is the terrorist attacks of the Sept. 11, 2001, which occurred about eight months into President George W. Bush’s first year in office. At that time, many national security positions were vacant due in part to the shortened transition period after the contested 2000 election and the challenges associated with getting officials into Senate-confirmed positions.

At the time of the attacks, only 57% of the 123 top Senate-confirmed positions were filled at the Pentagon, Department of Justice and Department of State combined excluding ambassadors, U.S. marshals and attorneys. Of those officials who were in place, slightly less than half (45%) had been confirmed within the previous two months.  

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which reviewed the causes of the attacks and its consequences, focused on the impact of the slow confirmation process. The commission suggested that delays could undermine the country’s safety, arguing that because “a catastrophic attack could occur with little or no notice, we should minimize as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments.”

While Congress implemented a number of the commission’s recommendations, the nomination process continues to be a liability and underlines the importance of moving swiftly to confirm qualified nominees.

Confirming the Bush National Security Team

Most of Bush’s leadership at the Department of Defense took months to get into place. While Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was confirmed on Jan. 20, 2001 and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, was confirmed in late February and no other member of the DOD’s leadership team was confirmed until May. 

It was during this period that the Bush administration faced its first major national security test. On April 1, 2001, a Navy surveillance plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet over the South China Sea. The Chinese pilot was killed in the collision and the American crew was taken into captivity. Over the next 11 days, a tense standoff ensued. While the crisis was eventually brought to a peaceful close, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were the only Senate-confirmed members of Bush’s DOD team, with the third and fourth ranking appointees confirmed on May 1, 2001—a full month after the incident began.

By the time of the 9/11 attacks, the Senate had confirmed a total of 33 DOD officials. Two-thirds of those officials had been on the job for less than two months. According to the 2000 Plum Book, there were 45 positions at DOD requiring Senate confirmation, leaving 12 important jobs empty on 9/11.

In an interview with the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, Stephen Hadley, Bush’s deputy national security advisor, suggested the slow pace of nominations undermined the administration’s ability to develop a response to the threat posed by the al-Qaeda terrorist group responsible for 9/11. “When people say, ‘Well, you had nine months to get an alternative strategy on al-Qaeda,’ no, you didn’t. Once people got up and got in their jobs you had about four months.”

Empty seats and a slow nomination process also hurt other parts of the Bush administration. Michael Chertoff, who served as head of the Department of Justice’s criminal division on 9/11, recalled, “We were shorthanded in terms of senior people….we essentially had to do double and triple-duty to pick up some of the responsibilities that would have been taken by others who were confirmed.”

Following a bitter five-week struggle, John Ashcroft was confirmed as attorney general on Feb. 1, 2001. His deputy, Larry Thompson, was confirmed on May 10, along with Assistant Attorney for Legislative Affairs Daniel Bryant.

Excluding U.S. marshals and attorneys, DOJ had 34 Senate-confirmedpositions in 2000. But Just 41% of those jobs were filled on 9/11. Half of those 14 officials—including then FBI Director Robert Mueller–were on the job less than two months before the attacks.

Bush’s State Department, supported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, moved faster than other committees in the early days of the administration, but then slowed its pace. Before June, the State Department filled 20 of 44 Senate-confirmed positions, excluding ambassadorships. On 9/11, just 24, or 55%, of the 44 positions at the State Department were filled.

Conclusion

In light of these delays, the 9/11 commission recommended that, “A president-elect should submit the nominations of the entire new national security team, through the level of undersecretary of Cabinet departments, not later than January 20. The Senate, in return, should adopt special rules requiring hearings and votes to confirm or reject national security nominees within 30 days of their submission.”

Both the Senate and the Biden team should work to meet this standard.  And while the Senate should carefully scrutinize every nominee, it also should recognize that unnecessary delays could undermine the ability of the new administration to respond to the threats we currently face and those that are unexpected.

To learn more about the presidential transition process, explore our 2024 Presidential Transition Guide. It features detailed outlines of best practices, historical materials from past transitions, and recommendations for a successful presidential transition to a new or second-term administration. 

However, the public overwhelmingly wants candidates to support the winner, regardless of party.

The peaceful transfer of power had been a hallmark of American democracy since our country was founded. In 2021, the United States ultimately transitioned to a new president, although the difficult events that year challenged the confidence many people had in that important tradition.  

According to our recent survey, about half the country—49%—expects a peaceful transition to a new president following the November election. By contrast, 42% do not expect a peaceful transfer of power—a 17 point increase from late 2022 when only 25% did not expect an orderly change in administrations. 

These deeply troubling results should serve as a call to action for political candidates and government leaders regardless of the election’s outcome. The increase in doubt over the past year means the need for leadership to highlight the importance of a peaceful outcome is growing quickly. The public almost universally agrees that candidates should support the winner and make sure the entire public’s concerns are considered. Leaders should follow the public’s cue and take the necessary steps to prepare for a smooth transition while also promoting a peaceful response to the election outcome, regardless of the winning party. 

Fortunately, both leading presidential campaigns are thinking ahead for how a potential transition would work. The campaigns for both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have announced their transition team leads in recent days and the General Services Administration, as required by law, will make available services such as furnished office space, supplies, computers and information technology services if they choose to accept them. 

The latest survey by the Partnership was conducted in spring 2024—several months prior to the announcement by President Joe Biden that he would not be running for reelection. 

The current level of doubt is almost identical across the political spectrum. Half of Democrats and independents said there would be a peaceful transfer, as did 48% of Republicans. This was not the case in 2022 when more Republicans (32%) did not expect a peaceful transfer than independents (24%) and Democrats (20%).  

The public wants their leaders to support a peaceful transfer 

While much of the public expresses concern about the election’s aftermath, the public backs presidential candidates supporting a peaceful transfer and a smooth transition with minimal interruption to important government services.  

When asked about their preferred actions by presidential candidates post-election, 94% say it is important for each candidate to ensure government services such as Medicare and Social Security “continue without interruption” and 92% say it is important to support a “peaceful transfer of power.” Almost as many people, 90%, say it is important for a presidential candidate to represent interests of people who did not vote for them and 86% say candidates should support the person taking office, regardless of political party.  

The contrast between what the public expects to happen and what they believe should happen is dramatic. While only about half of the country expects a peaceful transfer of power, the vast majority want candidates to support the winner, regardless of party, and continue the American tradition of respecting election outcomes set out by our country’s founders.  

Political and government leaders should consider these interests and expectations as we approach the contentious November election and its aftermath. While the public may be sharply divided regarding who they want to win, they are united in their desire for candidates to act in the interests of the entire country once the election is done.  

As we celebrate Asian and Pacific Heritage Month, it’s crucial to recognize the significant contributions made by Asian American and Pacific Islander Americans to our federal government. While there has been a notable rise in the representation of Asian American and Pacific Islander Americans in federal government roles in recent years, there remains room for further progress and development.  

Many Cabinet agencies have yet to see Asian American and Pacific Islander Americans in high-level roles. Important leaderships positions, such as president, have never been filled by Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. This month, it is important to celebrate the contributions and historic firsts throughout history, knowing there is more progress to be made. 

In recognition of May as Asian and Pacific American Heritage Month, here is a list of prominent Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who have served in the federal government. 

Daniel Kahikina Akaka – Senator from Hawaii

Akaka was elected to the House of Representatives in 1976 where he served seven consecutive terms. Akaka became the first U.S. senator of Native Hawaiian ancestry when he was appointed to the Senate in1990. During his long career in public service, he was an advocate for veterans and Native Hawaiian rights. Prior to his time in Congress, Akaka was a high school teacher and vice principal. From 1969 to 1971, he was the chief program planner for the Hawaii Department of Education.

Elaine Chao – Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Transportation

President George W. Bush appointed Chao to be secretary of Labor in 2001, making her the first Asian American woman and first Taiwanese American in U.S. history to be appointed to a Cabinet position. President Donald Trump later appointed Chao to be secretary of Transportation in 2017. Prior to holding those positions, Chao had been a successful businesswoman, the director of the Peace Corps and served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Tammy Duckworth – Senator from Illinois

Tammy Duckworth was elected to the Senate in 2016 following two terms representing Illinois in the House. of Representatives. Duckworth also served in the Army during the Iraq War and is a Purple Heart recipient. Prior to taking office, she was appointed to assistant secretary of Veterans Affairs by President Barack Obama in 2009.

Mervyn Dymally – Representative from California

Dymally served six terms in the House of Representatives, beginning in1981. His father was from Trinidad and his mother from India, making him the first person of mixed African and Indian descent to serve in Congress. Throughout his time in the House, he was an advocate for human rights and economic development worldwide. Following his retirement from public service, he worked as a foreign affairs consultant for Caribbean, African and Asian interests and was a professor at the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science.

Hiram Fong – Senator from Hawaii

In 1959, Fong was the first person of Chinese descent elected to Congress and the first Asian Pacific American elected to the Senate, where he served for nearly two decades. In 1964, he was the first Chinese American candidate for the presidency, and he is the only Republican to serve as the senator from Hawaii.

Kamala Harris – Vice President

Harris became the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history when she was elected vice president in 2020. Harris – whose mother was born in India – also became the first Asian American and African American vice president. Harris was the attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017 and a senator from California beginning in 2017.

Mazie Hirono – Senator from Hawaii

Hirono has been a senator from Hawaii since 2013. She was the first Asian American woman elected to the Senate and the first elected female senator from Hawaii. She was elected to the House in 2006. Hirono was born in Japan and was the only person of Asian ancestry serving in the Senate from 2013 until 2017.

Daniel Inouye – Senator from Hawaii

Inouye became the first Japanese American to serve in the House of Representatives in 1959 and the first Japanese American to serve in the Senate in 1962. He did not lose an election in 58 years. Prior to holding office, Inouye served in the Army during World War II and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart with Cluster.

Pramila Jayapal – Representative from Washington

Representing the state of Washington since 2017, Jayapal is the first Indian American to serve in the House. of Representatives. Her work throughout her career has focused on immigration, income inequality and global public health. She is currently a member of the House Judiciary Committee, the House Education and Workforce Committee and is the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Gary Locke – United States Secretary of Commerce

Locke was appointed as secretary of Commerce from 2009 to 2011 during the Obama administration. Prior to holding this position, he was elected as the governor of Washington State in 1997. He was the first Chinese American governor in U.S. history and was the first Asian American governor in the continental U.S. During his time as governor and secretary of Commerce, he focused on education, employment, trade, health care and human rights. He later served as the 10th ambassador to China from 2011 to 2014.

Chris Lu – Deputy Secretary of Labor

Lu was confirmed as deputy secretary of Labor under President Barack Obama in 2014, making him the second Asian American to hold such a position in a Cabinet department. From 2009 to 2013, Lu was assistant to the president and the White House cabinet secretary. He also co-chaired the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Lu is currently the representative to the U.N. for management and reform.

Spark Matsunaga – Senator from Hawaii

Matsunaga was a Japanese American congressman and senator for Hawaii. Throughout his time in Congress, he advocated for the bill that led to the creation of the U.S. Institute for Peace, legislation that created the position for the United States Poet Laureate and a measure to address the discrimination faced by Japanese Americans during the World War II interment. He was a member of the House Rules Committee. Prior to his career in public service, Matsunaga was a member of the Hawaii National Guard and a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army during WWII.

Norman Mineta – Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Transportation

Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 2000 to be secretary of Commerce, Mineta was the first Asian American and Pacific Islander to be appointed to a Cabinet position. He was later appointed in 2001 by George W. Bush to be secretary of Transportation and went on to serve in this position for the longest amount of time in the department’s history.

Patsy Mink – Representative from Hawaii

Mink began her career in the Hawaii State Senate before later winning her 1964 campaign for the newly created second position for Hawaii in the House of Representatives. This made her the first Asian-American woman to serve in Congress and the first woman of color elected to the House. of Representatives. Throughout her time in Congress, Mink focused on gender and racial equality, affordable childcare and Title IX.

Pat Saiki – Administrator of the Small Business Administration

President George H. W. Bush appointed Pat Saiki to be administrator of the Small Business Administration in 1991. In 1986, Saiki was the first Republican elected to represent Hawaii in the House since it gained statehood.

Eric Shinseki – Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Eric Shinseki was President Barack Obama’s choice for secretary of Veterans Affairs in 2009, making him the first Asian American to serve in that position. Previously, Shinseki had a long career in the military, where he served as the 34th Army chief of staff and was the first Asian American four-star general. He served two tours during the Vietnam War for which he was awarded three Bronze Star Medals for valor and two Purple Hearts.

This blog post was authored by Meredith Boldman, a communications intern at the Partnership for Public Service

Given the incredible complexity of managing the federal government, new presidents have found outside think tanks and other organizations to be helpful partners as sources of expertise, personnel and broad perspectives.

The short-lived and hectic sprint of a campaign leaves little time for presidential candidates to master the details of the job. However, nongovernmental organizations hold reserves of institutional knowledge and can fill in gaps to help a new administration prepare for office.

Since 2008, the Center for Presidential Transition has been one of these groups. As a nonpartisan entity pursuing better government and stronger democracy, we provide resources to all presidential candidates preparing for a first or second term. We do not advise candidates on the substance of policies, only on best practices to enact them and create an effective, well-run administration.

Since standing up in 2008, the Center has supported  the leading presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle with resources such as the Presidential Transition Guide, Agency Transition Guide, and Ready to Govern content to prepare for their potential administrations. Other groups, including the University of Virginia’s Miller Center and the White House Transition Project, also provide nonpartisan analysis and resources. Nonpartisan organizations resist the partisanship that frames so much conversation about government and offer clear-eyed best practices for the most effective operation of the executive branch. 

Other groups help with the “what” of governing in addition to the “how.” Many of these organizations have a perspective, and any administration will gravitate to ones that align with their political goals. Previous presidents recruited personnel and policy from these groups to great effect.

For example, the Heritage Foundation produced its first “Mandate for Leadership” in 1981 and the Reagan administration implemented nearly two-thirds of its 2,000 policy recommendations, with Reagan crediting Heritage as a “vital force” in his presidency’s successes. Heritage released the ninth edition of its “Mandate for Leadership” in 2023.

Later, the Obama administration took into account the work of two newer think tanks, the Center for a New American Security and the Center for American Progress, both of which were founded by alumni of previous Democratic administrations. They adopted ideas and recruited personnel from these organizations: the Wall Street Journal called CNAS a “top farm team” for his administration and CAP was cited as “Obama’s idea factory.”

This election cycle, a few new groups are promoting both policies and transition planning. Recent headlines have made much of their existence, but these are not the first groups to prepare policy for a prospective administration.

Voters choose which specific path they wish the government to take, but the task of enacting campaign promises deserves significant and thoughtful preparation by candidates – both by an incumbent seeking re-election and by the challenger. No matter who wins the election, the public interest requires thoughtful advance planning on policy, personnel and management issues, and that all parties follow law and tradition to ensure a smooth and peaceful transfer of power.

Featured image: CBS’ Margaret Brennan and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during the Center for Presidential Transition 2024 kickoff event.

This piece was originally published on the Partnership for Public Service’s blog, We the Partnership, on September 9, 2021.

By Carter Hirschhorn and Dan Hyman

Saturday marks the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, a tragedy that changed our country and the world. In 2004, a bipartisan commission investigating the attacks issued the “9/11 Commission Report,” which made 41 recommendations to prevent future terrorist attacks and strengthen our national security. One of the report’s most notable findings was that a delayed presidential transition in 2000 “hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing, and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees.”

Importantly, this finding revealed our country’s flawed political appointment process and showed how slow Senate confirmations can imperil our national security. The commission’s report recommended several improvements to this process to ensure both our country’s safety – particularly during and in the immediate aftermath of a presidential transition – and continuity within government.

Appointment delays in 2001

The commission found that George W. Bush lacked key deputy Cabinet and subcabinet officials until the spring and summer of 2001, noting that “the new administration—like others before it—did not have its team on the job until at least six months after it took office,” or less than two months before 9/11. On the day of the attacks, only 57% of the top 123 Senate-confirmed positions were filled at the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the State Department combined, excluding ambassadors, U.S. marshals and attorneys. 

New legislation since 2001

In the aftermath of 9/11, new laws addressed several recommendations highlighted in the “9/11 Commission Report.” The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 expedited security clearances for key national security positions, recommended that administrations submit nominations for national security positions by Inauguration Day and encouraged the full Senate to vote on these positions within 30 days of nomination.

The Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010 provided additional pre-election services to presidential candidates and the incumbent administration, enabling them to better prepare for a transfer of power or a second term, and to more quickly nominate key officials. The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 also reduced the overall number of Senate-confirmed positions by 163 in an attempt to free up more time for the Senate to confirm higher-level, policy-making roles.

Key areas for improvement in 2021

Despite these advances, the Senate confirmation process takes longer than ever; and vacancies in key Senate-confirmed positions continue to increase.  For example, the Partnership’s latest report, Unconfirmed: Why reducing the number of Senate-confirmed positions can make government more effective, revealed that the number of positions requiring Senate confirmation has grown more than 50% from 1960. Partly for this reason, several positions critical to our safety and national security remain unfilled more than seven months after President Biden’s inauguration. These positions include the assistant secretary for homeland defense and global security at the Defense Department, the assistant secretary for intelligence and research at the State Department, and the assistant attorney general for the national security division at the Justice Department.[1]

The fateful morning of Sept. 11 and the subsequent 9/11 Commission Report revealed our need for a more efficient Senate confirmation process. Accelerating this process and reducing the number of Senate-confirmed positions would strengthen our government’s ability to protect the nation and serve the public. To build a better government and a stronger democracy, we must efficiently fill vital leadership roles throughout the federal workforce. That can only happen if we continue to improve the way presidential appointments are made.

[1] As of Wednesday, September 8 the Senate had confirmed Biden nominees for 27% of the top 139 positions at the Pentagon, Justice and State departments combined – excluding ambassadors, U.S. marshals and attorneys.

By Emma Jones and Christina Condreay

For most people, the only way to find out who is serving in the top decision-making positions in government is to reference a document called the Plum Book. Unfortunately, this document has significant procedural and factual problems and could be greatly improved.

The Plum Book remains the best source of valuable information about our senior government leaders, including names, position titles, salary information and term expiration dates. It contains information on more than 4,000 political appointees – about 1,200 of whom are subject to Senate confirmation – along with thousands of other jobs filled by senior career officials in the federal civil service.

However, the Plum Book is only published every four years. This means that information about some positions is outdated before it is even made available to the public. Even more problematic, the most recent version of the Plum Book contains numerous errors and shortcomings. Here are three of the biggest mistakes in the latest Plum Book published on Dec. 1, 2020:

1. Some agencies are omitted without explanation.

The following agencies appear in the 2016 Plum Book, but not in the 2020 edition. These organizations remain active and are funded. Combined, they have about a dozen presidentially appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation and between 60 and 100 positions not requiring Senate confirmation.

2. The Plum Book is missing positions.

Other agencies appear in the 2020 Plum Book, but are missing key positions. Agencies with incomplete position totals include the National Endowment for the Arts, the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and the United States Postal Service. Scholars at Vanderbilt University have identified additional positions that were missing from both the 2016 and 2020 Plum Books. In total, hundreds of positions are not included in the 2020 Plum Book.

3. The appendix does not match the rest of the document.

The 2020 Plum Book contains appointment information for 170 agencies, while Appendix 1 provides summary counts for 158 distinct organizations. The 12 agencies excluded from the appendix include four legislative branch agencies and the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation. Additionally, the last six agencies listed alphabetically in the Plum Book are also missing from the appendix in addition to part of the White House that employs 82 people.

The 2020 Plum Book also only counts filled positions in the Senior Executive Service, a change from previous editions. This means that roughly 1,100 vacant positions out of about 8,000 of the government’s senior executives are not counted in the agency position totals listed in the appendix.

Since the Plum Book is only updated every four years, these mistakes could remain uncorrected until 2024. The Plum Book also does not include supporting methodological information or documentation of any changes made from previous editions or explanations for omissions. But this is not the first time it has been filled with errors.

Fortunately, there are several fundamental improvements that would make the Plum Book more useful. First, the information should be updated as close to real-time as possible. Second, errors should be fixed as soon as they are caught. Third, while the Plum Book is available online as a PDF and through a few other options, it should be available in a more downloadable and machine-readable format. Fourth, providing data based on the self-identified demographic information of individuals holding positions listed in the Plum Book would help shed light on how well the government is doing in attracting and retaining a diverse workforce. Proposed legislation called the PLUM Act would accomplish all these objectives.

These improvements would bring increased transparency and accountability to the federal government by helping ensure the American people know who is serving in top decision-making positions. In addition, the PLUM Act would provide timely information on Senate-confirmed positions and whether they are vacant or filled by an acting official, providing transparency and reinforcing accountability under the Vacancies Act. On June 29, 2021, the PLUM Act was reported out of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Congress should pass the PLUM Act to modernize the Plum Book and prevent major mistakes from occurring in future editions of a critically important government document.