Donald Trump’s economic approach at the national level is becoming increasingly evident. His 2024 campaign was heavily financed by ultra-wealthy donors. Undisclosed donations to his campaign functioned as bribes.
On November 26, Trump reached a required agreement with President Joe Biden’s White House to allow his transition staff to coordinate with the existing federal workforce before taking office on January 20.
The congressionally mandated agreement allows transition aides to work with federal agencies and access non-public information and gives a green light to government workers to talk to the transition team.
But Trump has declined to sign a separate agreement with the General Services Administration that would have given his team access to secure government offices and email accounts, in another break from precedent. The refusal means that the government cannot provide security clearances and briefings to incoming administration officials and the FBI cannot screen his rush of picks for the Cabinet and other key posts.
The GSA documents would compel Trump to disclose the sources of funding for his transition team and cap individual contributions at $5,000. By withholding this disclosure, the public has no way of knowing who is backing him financially—potentially even foreign governments. Trump has a documented history of profiting from his political power, and selling access and favores in “pay to play” schemes.
The vast sums contributed by figures like Elon Musk and other billionaires can also be viewed as such. Trump’s refusal to commit to ethical standards underscores this reality. After his first term, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) determined that Trump consistently sought to use his presidency to enrich himself. Their findings highlighted a clear pattern: individuals and organizations that spent money at Trump-owned properties often received favorable policy outcomes from his administration.
The importance of strenuous federal background screenings, and the fact that Trump’s team has not been subjecting the president-elect’s selections to such vetting, was evident when former Florida Representative Matt Gaetz withdrew as Trump’s pick for attorney general. He stepped down following continued scrutiny over a federal sex trafficking investigation that cast doubt on whether he could be confirmed by the Senate.
The continued delay on agreeing to start the formal transition process may eventually force senators to vote on Trump’s choices without the benefit of the usual background checks. That process is designed to uncover personal problems, criminal histories and other potential red flags that would raise questions about a nominee’s suitability for key jobs.
Beyond the top personnel picks that Trump already has announced, good governance activists and other experts on the transition process have warned for weeks that refusing to sign the transition documents will make it impossible for potentially hundreds of Trump national security appointees to get clearances.
That means the new administration would not be fully prepared to govern when Trump takes power on Inauguration Day on January 20. Here is a look at where things stand and what effect the delay might have:
WHAT HAS THE TRUMP TEAM REFUSED TO SIGN AND WHY?
At issue are memorandums of understanding under which the incoming administration agrees to work with the outgoing one while also submitting requests for name and background checks. The FBI then commits to flagging to the White House any adverse information uncovered during the process.
Congressionally mandated ethics disclosures and donor contribution limits are required as part of the agreements needed to begin the transition process. A reluctance to comply with those has been a factor in the Trump team’s hesitance to sign them, according to a person familiar with the process who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal discussions.
IS IT TOO LATE?
No. There is still time for the agreements to be signed. A Justice Department spokesperson said discussions were ongoing with the Trump transition team. But transition spokesman Brian Hughes said in November that the team’s “lawyers continue to constructively engage with” lawyers and officials from President Joe Biden’s outgoing administration and promised updates “once a decision is made.”
In the meantime, Trump’s team has relied on internal campaign aides, allied groups and outside law firms to support its personnel effort.
Trump for years has regarded FBI leadership with suspicion — in part because of the Russian election interference investigation that shadowed his first term, and more recently because of FBI investigations into his hoarding of classified documents and his efforts to undo the results of the 2020 election that led to his indictment last year.
WHAT EFFECT IS THIS HAVING?
During a normal transition period, the new administration uses the time before taking office to begin working to fill 4,000 government positions with political appointees, or people who are specifically tapped for their jobs by Trump’s team.
That includes everyone from the secretary of state and other heads of Cabinet departments to those selected to serve part-time on boards and commissions. Around 1,200 of those presidential appointments require Senate confirmation — which should be easier with the Senate shifting to Republican control in January.
Trump has moved at record-setting speed to announce his key picks, and Senate GOP leaders say they plan to launch confirmation hearings as soon as the new Congress convenes on January 3 — potentially allowing them to begin voting on nominees as soon as Inauguration Day.
But lawmakers also are complaining about what they see as insufficient screening of the picks they are being asked to consider. Some Senate Republicans have expressed concern about alleged wrongdoing by some Trump selections and two Democratic House members — Don Beyer of Virginia and Ted Lieu of California — introduced a proposal seeking to codify the FBI’s role in the background check process for political appointees of the president.
And, while Gaetz is no longer an issue, he is not the only Trump pick with an eyebrow-raising background. The president-elect’s nominee to be defense secretary, former Fox News personality Pete Hegseth, was accused of sexual assault in 2017 after a speaking appearance at a Republican women’s event in Monterey, California, but was not charged after a police investigation. A police report released recently contained graphic details of the sexual assault allegations.
The selection of former Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence has alarmed some U.S. intelligence analysts who consider her compromised by Russian dictator Putin. They point to her past criticism of Ukraine, parroting the toxic propaganda from Russia, and meetings with Syrian President Bashar Assad, a close ally of Russia and Iran.
WHAT EFFECT WILL THIS HAVE?
Incoming members of Trump’s administration are not getting briefings and other information from their outgoing Biden administration counterparts that can help them better prepare for their new jobs. And Trump appointees with positions involving a security clearance would not be able to begin work without a required background check.
Once the president-elect takes office, however, he could simply order that officials be given a security clearance, as he was reported to have done for son-in-law Jared Kushner during his first term.
Whether the delay thus far will have any longer-term effects is impossible to yet know. The delayed process may not matter much given that Trump has already served as president and has a much better understanding of how to run an administration than he did in 2016, when he won his first term.
But there is precedent for problems. The 9/11 Commission suggested that the disputed election of 2000 — which delayed the start of the transition between outgoing President Bill Clinton and incoming President George W. Bush until December — raised questions about national security gaps from one administration to the other that may have contributed to the U.S. being underprepared for the September 11 attacks the following year.
The “36-day delay cut in half the normal transition period,” which constituted a “loss of time that hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees” the commission’s report stated in 2004.
