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.
This blog post was authored by Christian Aguirre, an intern with the Center for Presidential Transition.
A core part of an effective transition and successful handoff of presidential power is agency review, which is the process of informing a new administration about the major issues facing the federal government’s various departments. It is key to understanding the immediate concerns and decisions that will confront an incoming team.
Each transition team will set up their agency review operations differently, informed by the priorities of the candidate. They coordinate closely with the policy and personnel teams and ideally have a broad understanding of the functions of the various federal agencies and offices within the White House where they will land.
An agency review team will typically grow over the course of the transition, from a handful of staff at the outset to a much larger team that will have oversight of more than 100 federal agencies across the government. Detailed review and examination, however, will likely focus on several dozen of the most high-profile agencies. For example, the Biden transition team built large agency review teams for 38 agencies consisting of over 500 staff and volunteers, producing overview briefings and proposed budgets.
In preparing the incoming administration for Day One, representatives of a president-elect’s transition team will typically arrive at agencies in November to get up to speed on information to help make decisions on certain appointments, create briefing materials, review agency budgets and identify pressing issues and opportunities to implement the president-elect’s priorities. For example, during the 2016 transition, agency review teams were asked to prepare a two-page summary covering the budget, key agency initiatives, former administration policies that should be kept or discarded and proposals that an agency might want to pursue under a Trump administration.
The agency review process is usually completed by January—ideally well before the inauguration—so incoming agency heads have ample time to be briefed and learn about the agencies they will lead. For example, in 2020, agency review teams briefed eight high-level nominees and provided information to help prepare for Senate confirmation hearings.
Supporting the agency review process are the career officials who serve as the primary point of contact for agency review teams post-election. Federal agencies have been hard at work for over six months to prepare for the agency review process. In the spring, every agency appoints a senior executive to serve as their agency transition director, as required by law. These career executives assemble teams and prepare briefing papers about their agency’s major programs and priorities; update organization charts and lists of leadership positions; and develop other resources to share with a president-elect’s team. They also identify a workspace for each candidate team to meet with agency personnel.
The conditions of agency access post-election are outlined in an agreement between the White House and eligible candidate that is finalized, to the maximum extent practicable, by Oct. 1 of an election year. Without this agreement in place, agency review team members do not have access to critical intel about decisions and challenges facing federal agencies – including information about national security risks. On Nov. 26, 2024, the Trump transition announced they have signed this agreement, allowing for certain, authorized members of the Trump transition team to have access to agency and White House employees, facilities and information.
Listen to our “Transition Lab” podcast for more on agency review. To learn more about other parts of the presidential transition, please see the Center for Presidential Transition’s comprehensive guide on presidential transition planning here.
The peaceful transition of power between presidents is a hallmark of American democracy, ensuring the government continues to function smoothly regardless of political change. But what exactly happens after Election Day?
Here’s an overview of the key steps in the post-election presidential transition process and why it’s critical for the stability of our democracy.
1. Recognizing the election winner and providing transition services
Once there is a concession—or the General Services Administration administrator determines a “sole apparent successful candidate”— GSA continues to provide support to the president-elect and vice president-elect for up to 60 days after the inauguration. This includes providing funds to pay expenses for staff, experts, postage and transition team travel. The agency also helps members of a president-elect’s transition staff access federal agencies as part of the agency review process.
Typically, three agreements are put in place between a candidate’s team and the federal government to facilitate the transition: one to receive support services from GSA; one with the White House that sets the conditions for an incoming administration to access federal agencies after the election; and another with the Justice Department regarding security clearance requests for prospective transition team members who will need to access classified information. The agreements also require candidates to make public their ethics plan for the transition team and limit private contributions to the transition effort.
2. Conducting agency review
The agency review process enables new administrations to understand the major challenges facing federal departments. Transition review teams are responsible for gathering information on current operations, budgets and pressing issues that the new administration will need to address. This allows the president-elect’s team to understand the state of the government and begin crafting policy plans for the early days of the new administration.
The agency review process should give the incoming transition team members sufficient time to be briefed and familiarize themselves with the work of the agencies.
3. Personnel selection and vetting
To govern effectively, incoming presidents must fill approximately 4,000 political positions, with over 1,300 requiring Senate confirmation, including roles like Cabinet secretaries, agency heads, deputy and assistant secretaries and general counsels. This process involves a rigorous vetting of candidates to ensure they meet legal, ethical and security standards.
Presidential personnel experts often say “people are policy.” Personnel decisions are critical not only for shaping the president-elect’s agenda but also for ensuring the smooth operation of government from day one. Many of these positions require Senate confirmation, so thoughtful introductions and coordination with Congress are essential to avoid delays.
4. National security preparations
The incoming president’s national security team must be offered a briefing on the most sensitive and classified matters to ensure continuity in the protection of the United States. These briefings often include information on ongoing military operations, intelligence assessments, and counterterrorism strategies.
Additionally, the departing administration is required to facilitate at least one tabletop exercise designed to prepare the president-elect’s team for effectively handling a national security crisis.
Why a smooth transition matters
A well-managed presidential transition is critical to the country’s stability. It allows the incoming administration to hit the ground running, minimizing disruptions to government services, national security and the economy. When the transition is smooth, it reflects the resilience of American democracy and its institutions.
Conversely, delays or inefficiencies during the transition can lead to gaps in leadership, slow the government’s response to crises, and undermine public trust. The peaceful transfer of power between administrations is one of the most visible demonstrations of democracy in action, and ensuring it happens smoothly is vital for the well-being of the nation.
For a detailed overview of the transition process and what to expect in the coming months, we invite you to explore our transition resources.
As Election Day approaches, much attention has been paid to the difficult events that occurred during the post-election period four years ago. However, confidence that the upcoming presidential election will lead to a peaceful transfer of power has increased dramatically over the past six months.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, the public overwhelmingly sees such a transition as a key part of democracy and wants all candidates—regardless of the outcome—to support the winner.
2024 survey Do you agree that there will be a peaceful transition of power to the newly elected president?1
March
Sept
Agree
Disagree
Don’t know
Agree
Disagree
Don’t know/skipped question
Overall
49%
42%
9%
66%
32%
2%
Dem
50%
42%
9%
65%
33%
2%
Rep
48%
42%
10%
70%
28%
2%
Ind
50%
41%
10%
63%
35%
2%
According to the new September survey, 66% of the country says they agree a peaceful transfer of power will occur, up 17 points from March when 49% agreed. The survey was conducted before Republican nominee Donald Trump’s recent interview where he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer or power.
The increase in confidence can be seen across the political spectrum, although the biggest jump came among Republicans. Seven-in-ten Republicans now say they expect a peaceful transfer of power, an increase of 22 points from March. Among Democrats, there was a 15-point increase and a 13-point increase among independents.
The newest results came from questions of 1,000 U.S. adults funded by the Partnership for Public Service included in an AmeriSpeak® Omnibus survey, a probability-based panel operated by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
The reasons for such an increase are not obvious. The change in the Democratic nominee from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris may have contributed to how some voters envision the election outcome. The subject was included in the September presidential debate and some news media have covered the importance of the transition process. Preparations by Congress and security measures taken by federal agencies to prevent a repeat of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection may be a contributing factor. And legal changes to the Presidential Transition Act as a result of the 2020 turmoil may have become better understood by the public as we get closer to the election.
Despite the encouraging sign for the continuation of one of the United States’ great democratic traditions, 32% of the public does not have confidence such a transition will be peaceful—a 10-point decrease from March. This means there is still a sizable portion of the public doubtful such a transition will occur.
Transitions and democracy
Partnership surveys have shown consistently that effective and peaceful transitions are supported by the public. In the latest survey, at least 90% of the country say a peaceful transfer is important to a strong democracy, that cooperation between incoming and administrations is crucial and that federal civil servants play a key role in supportive effective transitions.
Americans see cooperation between administrations as an important part of democracy2
% who said important
How important is a peaceful transition of power to a strong democracy?
92%
How important is cooperation between an incoming president, an outgoing president and federal agencies to a strong democracy?
90%
How important are federal civil servants in supporting effective presidential transitions
90%
Furthermore, the public wants their leaders to support a peaceful transfer regardless of the outcome. More than 90% say that presidential candidates should ensure government services like Medicare and Social Security “continue without interruption” and that candidates should support the peaceful transfer of power.
How important is it for a presidential candidate to take each action after the 2024 election?3
% who said important
Ensure government services continue without interruption
92%
Support peaceful transfer of power
91%
Represent interests of people who did not vote for them
83%
Support person taking office regardless of party
81%
More than 80% say it is important for candidates to represent the interests of people who did not vote for them and that candidates should support the person taking office in January 2025 regardless of party.
The desire of the public is clear. They want cooperation between outgoing and incoming presidential administrations and understand how that plays into a healthy, strong democracy. Even though there has been an increase in confidence that such a transition will occur, about one-third of the country expresses serious doubts. Political leaders should take a cue from the public, support the important American tradition and work to make the upcoming transition effective and peaceful, regardless of how the election turns out.
Source: Partnership for Public Service surveys. The March 2024 survey included 800 U.S. adults. The Sept. 2024 survey included 1,000 U.S. adults. The question wording changed slightly to reflect the status of the presidential race at the time. Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding. ↩︎
Source: Partnership for Public Service Sept. 2024 survey of 1,000 U.S. adults ↩︎
Source: Partnership for Public Service Sept. 2024 survey of 1,000 U.S. adults. ↩︎
This post was updated on Oct. 24, 2024.
Presidential campaigns get all the attention, but transition work is also happening right now.
Although Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump started transition planning later than is ideal, both now have teams in place working on policy issues and identifying potential political appointees in the event of victory.
The president engages the president-elect
Most outgoing presidents have hosted the president-elect at the White House within a week after the election. The president and first lady welcome their successors for a tour of the White House and for private discussions in the Oval Office.
Ronald Reagan began the tradition of leaving a handwritten note in the Oval Office for the next president. The custom was cemented by George H.W. Bush, who left a courteous note for incoming President Bill Clinton in 1993.
Agency review teams collect information
The president-elect’s transition team typically provides the names of the agency review team members to the incumbent administration just days after the election. Agency review teams gather information about agency operations, flag critical issues and help inform early policy and personnel decisions. After the current administration has prepared agencies for the review process, they welcome and share information with the agency review teams.
In 2020, then President-elect Biden’s transition team sent roughly 500 agency review personnel to visit almost 40 government agencies. During the 2016 Trump transition, 328 agency review personnel visited 42 government agencies. During the 2008 Obama-Biden transition, 349 agency review personnel visited 62 government agencies.
The GSA determines the “apparent successful candidate”
The Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 updated the framework for how GSA provides and discontinues transition services based on the result of the election. Now, the shift to post-election services is connected to a concession. Pre-elect services continue for five days after the election if there is no concession. Then, post-elect services begin, flowing equitably to the remaining candidates. If there is a concession – or if GSA can determine a “sole apparent successful candidate” based on criteria outlined in the law – the post-election services then are provided only to the apparent successful candidate.
If, after five days after the election, more than one eligible candidate has not conceded, equitable post-election transition assistance will be provided to any remaining eligible candidates and all will be treated as an apparent successful candidate until GSA determines a sole apparent successful candidate.
The 2022 law also lays out discretionary factors that the GSA administrator should look to in determining a winner (e.g., certified state results) as well as, if necessary, mandatory factors (e.g., a majority of pledged electors based on state certifications of their final canvass and conclusion of related administrative/legal actions).
Due to the change in law, GSA notes that an affirmative “ascertainment” is no longer a prerequisite for gaining transition support services.
The outgoing administration debriefs the president-elect and his transition team
The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 requires the outgoing administration to provide the president-elect with a classified summary of the nation’s national security threats and major military or covert operations.
Most presidents-elect receive daily or near-daily intelligence briefings during the transition period. President George W. Bush personally briefed President-elect Barack Obama on covert programs, and during the 2016 transition, National Security Advisor Susan Rice spent more than 12 hours personally briefing her designated successor, Michael Flynn.
The law also requires outgoing administrations to host interagency emergency preparedness and response exercises. In 2017, the Obama administration and the Trump transition team simulated an emergency response scenario involving a hypothetical global pandemic that emerged in Asia and spread to the United States.
Cora Martin is a former intern on the Partnership’s Communications team. Christian Aguirre is an intern with the Center for Presidential Transition.
Every new president faces the management challenge of filling out the leadership ranks of federal agencies with more than 4,000 presidential appointees. The most senior of those positions must go through an increasingly difficult and lengthy Senate confirmation process. While figuring out how many positions require Senate confirmation would seem to be straightforward, getting a precise count is actually quite difficult.
For years, the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition® has written that new presidents generally fill more than 1,200 such positions. By contrast, Vanderbilt Professor David Lewis—one of the leading authorities on presidential appointments—has compiled a list of 1,340 Senate-confirmed positions. Why the discrepancy? Shouldn’t there be a single, straightforward number?
In actuality, getting a single number is quite difficult. The primary reason is that there are many positions that are “on the books” and eligible to be filled with Senate-confirmed officials, but have not been filled for years. In other words, the best available count is that there are 1,340 eligible Senate-confirmed positions, but recent administrations have not filled all of these jobs and have instead appointed people to serve in slightly more than 1,200 positions.
Furthermore, the existence of 1,340 Senate-confirmed positions on the books – more than commonly understood – underscores the need for greater transparency and reporting. The government’s “Plum Book” listing political appointees and other top officials has traditionally been produced every four years and has been characterized by numerous omissions and other incorrect information. In 2022, Congress passed the PLUM Act, requiring the Office of Personnel Management to create and annually update a website listing such positions— a positive first step. However, more should be done to ensure that Congress and agencies provide more timely transparency when new positions are created or when positions are changed.
Determining the number
To arrive at his detailed list of 1,340 Senate-confirmed positions at the beginning of President Joe Biden’s presidency, Lewis cross-referenced multiple sources. These included the U.S. Government Policy and Supporting Positions book (often referred to as the Plum Book), reports from the Congressional Research Service, information from Congress’ official website Congress.gov, and the Partnership for Public Service’s political appointee tracker. Lewis’ list is the most detailed and accurate compilation available.
The last few presidential administrations, however, have not filled all 1,340 positions. Although the numbers change by administrations, slightly more than 1,200 of these positions have actually been filled in recent years. Some positions that are “on the books” have not been filled for decades. For example, the Peace Corps Advisory Board has 15 possible Senate-confirmed positions according to CRS reports. But no one has been nominated for any of those positions since 1992. Some positions have been kept vacant for policy reasons. There has not been an ambassador to Syria for the past decade since diplomatic relations between the countries ended.
The following sections provide additional details into why counting positions is not a precise endeavor.
The existing sources of information are inaccurate
The Plum Book has consistently undercounted the number of Senate-confirmed positions. In the 2020 Plum Book, Lewis found that 276 Senate-confirmed positions were missing. The Center for Presidential Transition found at least 10 agencies were omitted completely.
This number of missing positions is likely even higher based on information provided on the PLUM website in March of 2024, where only 1,093 Senate confirmed positions were listed—far less than the 1,340 positions included in Lewis’ list. The vast majority of the positions missing from the new Plum website are from part-time boards and commissions. OPM relies on agencies’ self-reports to identify Senate confirmed positions. Therefore, when agencies are under-resourced or inactive, OPM may not receive a timely report and omit these agencies from their accounting.
The second governmental source of information is a series of reports from the Congressional Research Service. CRS put out seven reports on the number of Senate-confirmed positions between 2003 and 2021. While CRS’ accounting of positions tends to be more accurate than the Plum Book, the reports do not include the nearly 200 ambassador positions, one of the largest classes of Senate-confirmed appointees.
Other challenges related to counting positions
Beyond inaccurate or incomplete reporting—and the existence of positions that have not been filled for years—there are several other reasons why a precise accounting of Senate-confirmed positions is difficult to achieve.
Congress creates new Senate-confirmed positions: While the Senate added a provision in a 2011 resolution that required Senate committees to explain the justification for the creation in legislation of any new position to be appointed by the president, committees rarely comply with this requirement. Therefore, new positions are difficult to identify and might not be known more widely until a nomination is submitted. For example, Congress created a new organization in 2022 called the Great Lakes Water Authority that included a role for a Senate-confirmed co-chairperson, but no one was nominated to that position until May 2024.
Some appointees serve in multiple positions at the same time: It is not uncommon for Senate-confirmed appointees to serve in multiple roles at once. When Steven Mnuchin was confirmed to be Treasury secretary in 2017, he was also serving as governor of the International Monetary Fund along with several other positions. Such dual roles are common with ambassadorship positions, as an ambassador may serve in their role for multiple countries or organizations.
Some agencies have caps on the number of Senate-confirmed positions, but no specific assignments, which gives the agencies flexibility regarding titles and assignments: By statute, some agencies are assigned a number of Senate-confirmed positions without specific titles. For example, the Department of Defense is allowed to have 19 assistant secretaries. In early 2024, DOD established three new assistant secretary positions including the first ever assistant secretary of Defense for Science and Technology. This did not increase the number of assistant secretaries at DOD, but complicates the tracking of how positions change over time. Additionally, presidents may choose to not to use the full allocation, reducing the total number of positions they decide to fill.
Changes to positions and titles over time: For years, the U.S. has had a single ambassador to both New Zealand and Samoa such as Tom Udall, who was confirmed in late 2021. In 2023, the Biden administration announced that Samoa would get its own resident ambassador and nominated James Holtsnider in May 2024. This means that a single position that was previously held by one person would now be split into two separate positions.
Opportunities for Increased Transparency and Reform
The vast number of Senate-confirmed positions and the growing difficulty of the Senate confirmation process result in presidents and the Senate focusing more time than ever on processing nominations. This also means that many important agency leadership positions remain vacant for lengthy periods, without adequate transparency into which positions are vacant or who performs the role in the absence of a Senate-confirmed leader.
The difficulty in coming to a full accounting of Senate confirmed positions suggests a need for more consistent and accurate government reporting. While the new PLUM Act database will make reporting more frequent, agencies and OPM have more work to do to ensure that more timely and accurate information is provided. And while the PLUM Act requires only an annual update of the information in the database, as OPM makes continual improvements to the database, it should aim for – and Congress should support – a system that provides as close to real-time transparency as possible.
The Senate also should consider stronger mechanisms to enforce the requirement that committees justify the creation of any new Senate-confirmed position. Additionally, the Senate could ensure that there is a public report at the end of each session of Congress on the total number of new Senate-confirmed positions created, so the new confirmation responsibilities being placed on both the presidency and the Senate can be fully understood.
While the presidential campaign is now dominating the public’s attention, a less well known but crucial operation is unfolding behind the scenes: preparations for a new presidential administration.
In tandem with their campaign efforts, each candidate also forms a transition team. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump recently announced their transition team leads, who will begin the task of preparing to take office on Jan 20, 2025, if elected. Key tasks include identifying political appointees, liaising with federal agencies and preparing executive orders and plans for a new administration.
By law, eligible presidential candidates can receive pre-election transition support from the General Services Administration. This support includes government-funded furnished office space, supplies, computers and information technology services. The purpose of pre-election assistance is to facilitate the transition teams’ planning and preparation for office.
To initiate this process, the GSA notifies each candidate that transition resources are available. This year, GSA will formally offer this assistance, pursuant to the Presidential Transition Act, by Aug. 27. Should the candidates accept this offer, the GSA administrator will negotiate a memorandum of understanding with each transition team no later than Sept. 1 specifying the conditions for accessing the transition resources.
Conditions for receiving support
If candidates choose to accept private funding in addition to GSA resources, they must establish a legal entity separate from their campaigns that qualify under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Candidates can transfer contributions received for the general election campaign into this entity and may also solicit and accept donations directly. Individual or organizational contributions are capped at $5,000. Additionally, as a condition of accepting federal transition assistance, candidates must disclose to GSA (which discloses to the public) the source, amount and expenditure of all financial contributions supporting their transition activities. These resources are strictly for transition planning and cannot be used for campaign purposes.
What’s next?
In anticipation of an incoming team requiring post-election access to federal agencies, the administration, through GSA, will negotiate a separate memorandum of understanding between the White House and each candidate. The agreements are transmitted via the federal transition coordinator and detail the conditions for access, including meetings with federal employees and government documents. As part of this memorandum, candidates must commit to implement, enforce and make public an ethics plan for transition team members. This memorandum, to be signed no later than Oct. 1, will also reflect the terms of collaboration between the incumbent administration and the candidates. This cooperation will help facilitate an effective transfer of power from one administration to the next.
Although it may seem premature to prepare for the presidency before the election is decided, the candidates and their teams have a significant task ahead – to prepare to govern. GSA support services are just one of the many ways that the candidates and transition teams can maximize the limited time they have to prepare.
For more information on the GSA’s role in presidential transition, please visit their website. To learn more about other parts of the presidential transition, please see the Center for Presidential Transition’s comprehensive guide on presidential transition planning here.
This blog post was authored by Alex Claycomb, a fellow with the Center for Presidential Transition®
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.
The time after a presidential election typically brings shifts in agency dynamics and personnel. Career civil servants must work to support the continuity of government while some senior career executives will be called on to serve temporarily in key leadership positions previously held by political appointees to ensure that agency priorities are met.
As acting officials, these career civil servants perform five crucial functions:
– Maintaining operations and continuing to deliver on their agency’s mission.
First and foremost, acting officials must continue leading their agencies through day-to-day operations and long-term strategic goals.
– Supporting incoming political appointees.
Senior career executives in acting roles must navigate their agency through a change of administrations while keeping operations on track and brief incoming political leaders as they prepare to assume their responsibilities.
– Preparing employees for the transition.
As career leaders who likely have been through previous presidential transitions, acting officials can share their lessons learned with other career employees and provide guidance as the agency prepares for new political leadership.
– Providing continuity between administrations.
Career civil servants have long-term experience and institutional knowledge that can benefit a new administration as appointees transition into their roles.
– Facilitating a smooth and seamless leadership transition.
The acting positions filled by senior career executives are often top leadership jobs, meaning their efforts are essential for the agency to prepare for the transition to a new administration. These career leaders share their knowledge with new appointees to help them accomplish the goals of a new administration.
Former Acting Secretary of Commerce Wynn Coggins advises that in order to successfully perform all of the required functions of an acting official, leaders should “rely on subject matter experts, work closely with the career civil servants and incoming political leadership, be adaptive, communicate effectively and often, and understand that your goal is to maintain continuity and keep the organization focused on delivering against the mission.”
As acting officials perform critical functions and provide continuity between administrations, it is important that they fully understand the issues cited by Coggins, the scope of their roles and what is needed.
The Partnership for Public Service offers our Ready to Act course for senior career executives to give them strategies to be successful and effectively transition into and out of acting leadership roles.
To ensure that Ready to Act provides acting officials with the relevant information to carry out their responsibilities, the program features faculty who have previously served in an acting capacity during prior transitions and can provide participants with real-world experience and important recommendations. For more information and to schedule a session of Ready to Act, check out our website.
With well over two hundred years of tradition since the ratification of the Constitution, the common imagery of the first presidency is George Washington serenely riding on his white steed followed by a parade of white-wigged Founding Fathers.
Yet despite the iconic paintings and soaring oratory that characterize this period of American history, the actual political dynamics of the day were far from calm. Our first presidential handoffs – from Washington to John Adams, and then from Adams to Thomas Jefferson after just one tumultuous term and a bitterly fought electoral rematch—were fraught with many of the same tensions we see today, yet all involved put the country over politics and agreed to a peaceful transfer of power.
When Washington stepped down from the presidency in 1796, the concept of a leader giving up power was revolutionary. “This was the age of Napolean and monarchies, and people tended to hold onto power for as long as possible,” said presidential historian and recent Transition Lab guest Lindsay Chervinsky. “[It] really shocked people that someone could be so disciplined as to walk away from the highest seat of authority.”
Adams defeated Jefferson by just three electoral votes in an election plagued by many of the same ills we’ve seen in recent elections: foreign interference, sketchy get-out-the-vote practices and negative campaigning. As Adams took office, many wondered if the new republic could hold itself together, especially since Adams’ ability to unite the country fell far short of Washington’s.
Harsh political rhetoric, hyper-partisanship and personal rancor grew throughout Adams’ term, as both sides came to see each other not just as opponents, but as mortal enemies. This culminated in blatantly illegal attempts to change the way the next president would be elected: the election of 1800 featured proposals to create new electoral investigation committees, revise the way that states chose electors and delay the vote counts such that a new election would need to be held.
When the electoral votes were finally counted, Jefferson and Adams were tied, throwing the election to the House of Representatives. A pro-Jeffersonian mob gathered outside the Capitol building where the House voted to break the deadlock, threating violence against any Federalist that the House might attempt to elect as president.
Despite his bitterness over losing the presidency, Adams committed to a peaceful transfer of power. He met with Jefferson several times before leaving office, left him materials and asked his secretaries to write letters updating Jefferson on the status of their departments. In one of his last official acts, Adams offered Jefferson his advice and support, writing, “I see nothing to obscure your prospect of a quiet and prosperous Administration, which I heartily wish you.”
Washington’s reception by the ladies, on passing the bridge at Trenton, N.J., April, 1789. On his way to be inaugurated first president of the United States. Lithograph by N. Currier, copyrighted 1845. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.07649
Jefferson, too, embraced the moment of transition—the first in which power passed peacefully from one political party to another—as a moment for unity. For the first time, a new president used his inaugural address to heal the wounds of a divisive campaign. “Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind,” Jefferson urged. “We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists.”
As we approach another election cycle marked by the same threats and controversies that plagued our early years, we would do well to remember Jefferson’s words. The peaceful transfer of power has never been easy, but it is fundamental to our common identity as Americans and is very much worth preserving.
Featured image: General George Washington Resigning His Commission. Painting by John Trumbull
