Photo credit: www.govexec.com

Trump’s Transition Team Proposal Raises National Security Concerns

As the former President Trump considers options for a possible return to the White House, his transition team is reportedly entertaining a controversial approach that could undermine standard background checks for political appointments. Many experts, lawmakers, and observers have voiced concerns over the implications this plan could have for national security and access to sensitive government information.

The team is contemplating a shift away from the traditional FBI vetting process for potential appointees during the transition phase, as reported by The New York Times. Instead, they may seek a private firm to conduct these investigations. If Trump secures victory in the upcoming election, he would have the authority to appoint individuals directly to their positions without the standard checks in place.

While it is true that the president has the power to bypass FBI screening, and some levels of government already utilize contracted screenings for certain security clearance requirements, the adjudication process is defined by law as a governmental duty typically managed at the agency level, or by the White House Office of Security for presidential aides. The prospect of Trump altering this process has raised significant alarms.

“What matters is who is making the determination,” stated Lindy Kyzer, a director at ClearanceJobs.com. “The president could, if he chose, completely bypass the White House personnel office and appoint his own agency—or himself—to handle the adjudication.”

A memo circulating among Trump’s advisors does not clarify which appointees would be affected by this new vetting method. Steve Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, expressed that the former president has reservations regarding the Justice Department’s impartiality and intends to exercise “the full power of the presidency” to shape his administration.

In the context of a new administration taking office, approximately 4,000 political positions must be filled, with around 1,200 requiring Senate confirmation. Non-Senate-confirmed roles can be filled more expeditiously, assuming candidates possess provisional security clearances. For comparison, President Biden appointed 1,100 individuals on his first day, while Trump appointed 500 in his initial term.

Although the procedures for screening political appointments are derived from a series of executive orders rather than enshrined in law, experts argue that these norms are vital for maintaining national security.

“The idea of President Trump’s team circumventing the FBI in the vetting process for appointees is alarmingly precarious,” remarked Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service. “The core duty of our government is public safety, and a president’s avoidance of law enforcement in vetting critical appointments could expose our nation to substantial risks.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the leading Democrat on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, has suggested that this proposal may stem from the belief that Trump’s aides would find it difficult to pass an FBI security clearance due to the loyalty it necessitates. He characterized Trump and his associates as emblematic of plutocratic globalization, suggesting their potential unfitness for high-security roles.

Beyond security screenings, political appointees requiring Senate confirmation are also expected to disclose their financial interests and enter into ethics agreements before consideration by lawmakers.

“If Trump is willing to jeopardize national security by bypassing the rigorous security clearance process, there’s little reason to expect he and his Senate allies would adhere to established ethical practices,” stated Walter Shaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics. He emphasized that without ethics agreements, there is a risk that appointees could be vulnerable to influence by malicious actors.

“If the security and ethics processes are disregarded, the Senate may find itself voting on nominations from individuals linked to potentially dangerous foreign entities and unresolved ethical dilemmas,” Shaub warned, highlighting the dual threats to national security posed by this approach.

Sean Michael Newhouse contributed to this report.

Source
www.govexec.com