As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, his transition team has raised eyebrows with what one ally described as a “hostile takeover” of the federal government. Operating from his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump’s team has largely ignored the traditional protocols and rules designed to ensure a smooth handover of power, prompting concerns about transparency, security, and the future of governance.
Breaking Norms: A Private Transition
Unlike previous presidents-elect, Trump has bypassed cooperation with the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency responsible for facilitating the transition. He has not submitted the required pledges to adhere to ethics rules, nor has his team entered federal offices or engaged with federal employees. Without these agreements, Trump’s transition team forfeits access to critical national security briefings, formal operations briefings, and even $7 million in federal funding for the inauguration.
Trump’s team has also avoided FBI background checks for appointees, relying instead on private campaign lawyers. This unconventional approach has left some nominees, such as Fox News host Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense and former congressman Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, under scrutiny for lacking proper vetting. Critics warn this could leave appointees vulnerable to conflicts of interest and security risks.
Distrust of Federal Institutions
At the core of Trump’s unconventional transition is a deep distrust of federal agencies. He blames these institutions for obstructing his first term and leaking sensitive information, which led to criminal investigations. His second-term agenda includes slashing federal spending, replacing civil servants with political loyalists, and relocating entire departments outside Washington, D.C.
“Trump is attempting to convert the government into an instrument of his private agenda,” said Max Stier, president of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service. This departure from traditional governance norms has led some to liken his approach to the 19th-century spoils system.
Cabinet Controversies and Security Concerns
Trump’s choices for top roles in his administration reflect his combative stance against federal agencies. Alongside Hegseth and Gaetz, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is his pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security, and former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has been nominated as Director of National Intelligence. Both Gabbard and Gaetz have faced significant scrutiny: Gabbard for alleged ties to Russian propaganda and Gaetz for a now-closed federal investigation into sex trafficking.
The absence of proper vetting has alarmed lawmakers. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) criticized the transition’s reliance on private contractors for background checks, calling it “a dangerous and reckless thing to do.” Trump has also floated the idea of using executive orders to grant blanket security clearances on his first day in office, bypassing customary checks.
Foreign Policy Concerns
Trump has handled calls with foreign leaders independently, excluding State Department officials and interpreters. This practice raises alarms about the absence of official records, particularly in sensitive conversations, such as his recent call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Critics warn that this lack of transparency risks miscommunication and undermines U.S. credibility on the global stage.
Rewriting the Rules of Governance
Trump’s transition strategy signals a broader effort to consolidate executive power. He has reportedly pressed Senate Republicans to allow recess appointments, bypassing confirmation hearings for controversial nominees. Additionally, Trump’s remarks to House Republicans about potentially seeking a third term, though delivered jokingly, have sparked debate about his ambitions to reshape constitutional norms.
Looking Ahead
As Trump’s transition continues, questions loom about the long-term implications of his approach. While his supporters view his unconventional tactics as a fulfillment of his promise to “drain the swamp,” critics warn they could erode transparency, weaken institutional checks and balances, and compromise national security.
With the clock ticking toward his inauguration, the stakes are high. Whether Trump’s methods redefine presidential transitions or leave lasting damage to governance norms remains to be seen.
