Presidential transition…what’s happening and why.

Reining in the Permanent Bureaucrats: Trump’s Fight Against the Weaponized Transition Process

@amuse
@amuse
·
3h
·
The Presidential Transition Act (PTA) was conceived as a beacon of cooperation, a legislative lifeline cast by Congress to ensure the incoming administration would have the resources, intelligence, and institutional memory necessary to begin governance on Day One. It was a recognition that the peaceful transfer of power—the cornerstone of American democracy—was not merely a polite ceremony but an essential element of national security. In its original intent, the PTA made the outgoing administration responsible for assisting their successors, whether friend or foe, ensuring they had everything needed to hit the ground running. Yet, like so many other well-intentioned laws, it has been twisted, bastardized even, by the unelected permanent bureaucratic state into a mechanism of control rather than assistance.
Legislative Intent vs. Bureaucratic Subversion

The PTA was intended as a tool for the president-elect, empowering the incoming administration with the knowledge and logistical capabilities to steer the vast and complex ship of the federal government. It mandated that the outgoing president and their administration provide all necessary resources and cooperation. But today, thanks not to Congress but to the insidious evolution of bureaucratic regulations drafted by civil servants, the burden has shifted. It is now the incoming administration that must jump through hoops, agreeing to a plethora of rules, memorandums, and bureaucratic demands before the outgoing administration is compelled to cooperate. Hundreds of regulations have emerged, turning a straightforward process of assistance into a labyrinthine negotiation, one where unelected civil servants hold the cards.
Consider the current struggle between President Trump’s incoming team and the Biden administration’s civil service apparatus. Since September, the Biden team has been wrangling with Trump over Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) that dictate the conditions of the transition. The very idea that the outgoing administration, through its bureaucratic proxies, can dictate the terms of cooperation turns the PTA’s intent on its head. The original legislation made it clear: the outgoing administration was to assist, period. It was not designed to be an opportunity for entrenched bureaucrats to impose their will on the new president, nor to enforce compliance with the terms they set before any help is given.
The Permanent State as Gatekeepers

This situation is not new for Trump. Having experienced firsthand the malevolence of the so-called "permanent government" during his initial transition in 2016-2017, Trump is under no illusions about the loyalty or intentions of the civil service—particularly the General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). During his first term, Trump's transition team—Trump for America, Inc. (TFA)—faced betrayal when the GSA improperly handed over thousands of emails from the transition period to Special Counsel Robert Mueller without proper authorization, violating privacy and attorney-client privileges. It was a clear signal that the GSA, an agency ostensibly dedicated to facilitating the transition, had instead been co-opted to undermine it.
Reports from Congress and the Justice Department Inspector General’s Office reveal that in 2016, government bureaucrats abused their role in the transition process to spy on and subvert the Trump operation. A 2020 Senate report detailed how the GSA's agreement with the 2016 Trump team specified that transition records “would not be retained.” Despite this, GSA officials—at the urging of the FBI and the Office of the Special Counsel—nonetheless decided to preserve and disclose those records to various investigative entities, all while concealing these facts from the Trump team. The GSA even reached out to the FBI, asking if it should retain the records, directly contravening the explicit terms of the agreement. When Team Trump later discovered the unauthorized retention, the GSA refused to provide copies of these records and instead turned them over to investigators without any legal process such as a subpoena or a warrant.
Fast forward to today, and Trump’s transition team has signed only a limited MOU, expressly refusing to rely on the GSA for office space, phones, or computers. The lessons of 2017 are still fresh—why trust a system that had already proven itself willing to serve political enemies over its supposed mandate? Instead, Trump's team is bypassing the traditional channels, seeking independence from a federal system that has been weaponized against them. Private firms are handling security, and no government servers will carry their communications. This is the act of a team that understands it must protect itself from the very institutions that were supposed to support it.
Background Checks and Civil Service Meddling

The PTA envisions that the incoming president should have the ability to assemble his team without undue interference. Yet, the fight with the DOJ over MOUs for security clearances illustrates how far the bureaucratic state has strayed from this vision. The FBI, which once served as an institution above the fray of partisan politics, has shown its hand in its dealings with Trump—spying on his 2016 campaign, embedding female honeypots within his transition, and using "national security" briefings as a pretext to disqualify his appointees, like General Michael Flynn. The Justice Department Inspector General found that former FBI agent Peter Strzok even sent another FBI agent to an intelligence briefing with Trump and Flynn as part of an effort to build a Russia collusion case against them. These actions are not the behavior of a neutral party facilitating a democratic handover; they are the machinations of a bureaucracy desperate to retain control.
President Trump is rightfully wary of allowing the FBI to conduct background checks on his prospective cabinet members and senior officials. Instead, outside firms are handling these reviews, identifying any potential security risks without the overhang of politically motivated interference. The Constitution, under the unitary executive theory, grants the president plenary power over the executive branch, including the authority to grant security clearances. It is a power that derives directly from the people through the office of the presidency, not from the unelected civil servants who have appointed themselves as gatekeepers.
The Unitary Executive: Restoring Presidential Authority

This battle over the transition is, at its heart, a fight over the very nature of executive power in America. The framers of the Constitution envisioned an executive branch led by a president—one individual empowered to act decisively, unencumbered by the machinations of unelected bureaucrats. The unitary executive theory posits that all executive power resides in the president, as outlined in Article II of the Constitution. The PTA was meant to bolster this vision by ensuring that the incoming president could take control of the executive apparatus effectively, without obstruction.
However, the evolution of the PTA's implementation—driven not by elected lawmakers but by an entrenched civil service—has sought to undermine this authority. The creation of hundreds of bureaucratic requirements, the insistence on MOUs before cooperation is extended, and the conditioning of assistance on compliance with a myriad of agency-dictated rules are all antithetical to the framers' intent. These actions seek to bind the president, to limit his capacity to act independently, and to make him reliant on bureaucrats who may have their own agendas.
President Trump’s refusal to acquiesce to these demands is not merely a personal vendetta—it is a principled stand for the restoration of executive authority. The president is the head of the executive branch, not the civil servants who serve within it. The PTA was designed to help the president-elect take command, not to empower the bureaucratic apparatus to dictate the terms of his ascent.
Standing Firm Against the Permanent State

The current transition struggle exemplifies the danger of allowing the permanent bureaucratic state to accrue power unchecked. The PTA was passed by Congress to assist the incoming president because it was deemed critical to national security that the new administration be as prepared as possible. Instead, it has become yet another instrument by which the unelected wield power over the elected.
Trump’s strategy is to stand firm—to reject the idea that the GSA, FBI, or DOJ have any right to dictate the terms under which he assumes office. His limited MOU with the GSA is a testament to this approach: they will not be entrusted with phones, computers, or access to sensitive communications. The president will decide who gets security clearances, relying on his constitutional authority rather than the compromised advice of an FBI that has worked against him since 2016.
Given the history of betrayal, it would be foolish for Trump to trust government transition resources again. The 2016 transition effort cost about $14 million, including GSA and privately raised funds. Without the private donation cap, Trump's team could easily raise the necessary funds from supporters like Elon Musk, who could also oversee IT security. Biden’s agency officials are hostile, and GSA-sponsored briefings are of limited value. Instead, Trump’s team will rely on annual budget submissions for detailed information on agency operations and will arrange briefings with trusted current or former officials.
This is not just about Trump; it is about the future of the presidency itself. If the bureaucratic state can dictate the terms of a presidential transition, then it can neuter the authority of any president who dares challenge its power. The unitary executive theory must be reasserted if the presidency is to mean anything beyond being a puppet of the entrenched civil service. It is time to reign in the power of the unelected, to dismantle the regulatory overreach that has turned the PTA from a bridge into a barrier, and to restore the executive branch to its rightful head—the president of the United States.