Transit with a twist: how Biden and Trump are sharing power during the transition period.
In the United States, the transition process typically begins immediately after the election results are announced. The U.S. General Services Administration notifies the "apparent" winner by November 9 about the allocation of funds, office space, and other resources for the transfer of power. In the previous election cycle, this process was prolonged due to Donald Trump's refusal to concede defeat. However, this year, Mr. Biden's administration promptly expressed its readiness to transfer power peacefully.
On November 13, Joe Biden met with Trump at the White House to discuss the details of the transition process, and on the night of Wednesday, November 27, Kyiv time, the current and former American leaders signed a memorandum on the transfer of power. "After completing the selection process for his new cabinet, President-elect Trump enters the next phase of his administration's transition by signing a memorandum of understanding with the White House. This allows our prospective cabinet nominees to begin very important preparations, including deploying operational teams in each agency, and to complete an orderly transfer of power," CNN quotes Susan Wiles, whom Donald Trump nominated for the position of White House Chief of Staff.
It is worth noting that Trump's transition team previously announced a decision to save taxpayer money and work on donations. The statement emphasizes that all donors will be disclosed to the public. Additionally, the transition team plans not to accept donations from abroad and will not use government property, technology, or other federal assets.
Recall that Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election on November 5, receiving 312 electoral votes with the necessary 270. His opponent, Democrat Kamala Harris, garnered 226 votes. The Electoral College from the states is set to vote for candidates on December 17. The official results of the voting will be certified on January 6, 2025, by the new Congress. Donald Trump's inauguration is scheduled for January 20, 2025.
Meanwhile, 78-year-old Donald Trump has already announced dozens of appointments and nominations, including for 25 cabinet-level positions. However, not all of these individuals are likely to ultimately secure high-ranking positions. Several nominations have already sparked heated debates in Congress. The most intense discussions have centered around Republican Matt Gaetz, nominated for the position of Attorney General (who is also the head of the Justice Department).
Some Republican senators privately began to question the appropriateness of such an appointment due to an ongoing investigation in Congress regarding the politician's alleged connection with a minor. This investigation was halted after Matt Gaetz announced he would be stepping down from his seat in the House of Representatives. At that time, the Republican still hoped to secure the position of Attorney General. But then he realized that he could not count on the support of the upper chamber. The AP agency, citing outgoing Republican Senator Mike Braun, reported that between four to six of his colleagues opposed Matt Gaetz's confirmation. Considering that the Democrats would vote against it, and Republicans hold 53 seats in the new Senate out of 100, it was clear that the nomination was unlikely to pass. Ultimately, Gaetz declined the offer from the beleaguered U.S. president.
This move sent a clear message that Republican senators are not inclined to cater to all the whims of the old-new master of the Oval Office. However, it seems that the issues surrounding Mr. Gaetz will not be the end of the Trump team's problems. The fact is that his transition administration has yet to sign the necessary agreements that would allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to begin vetting the chosen president's personnel decisions.
The Hill reports that advisers to the leading Republican propose transferring the FBI's responsibility for conducting such vetting to private detectives. This initiative is causing, to put it mildly, dissatisfaction among both Democrats and Republicans, who argue that FBI agents have access to information that private investigators cannot legally obtain.
In this context, the staffing horizons for former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, nominated for the position of Director of National Intelligence, appear quite murky. Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth recently stated on CNN that Ms. Gabbard risks not passing the vetting due to her controversial contacts (for example, with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad) and accusations of sympathizing with Putin's Russia.
Additionally, the nominations of Robert Kennedy Jr. and Pete Hegseth are contentious for senators. Trump wants to see the former as Secretary of Health and Human Services and the latter as the head of the Pentagon. Robert Kennedy raises concerns due to his anti-vaccine statements, while Pete Hegseth is under scrutiny due to his involvement in a sexual scandal. The situation is not smooth with the new nomination for Attorney General either. Pam Bondi, former Attorney General of Florida, was chosen by Donald Trump for this position just hours after Matt Gaetz stepped out of the race. Justice Department officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that they view Ms. Bondi as a more preferable choice. At the same time, they see her as too active and a long-time supporter of Donald Trump, who has defended him in various legal proceedings. The Justice Department fears that Ms. Bondi might seek revenge on the president's enemies for past legal actions. Moreover, she has a controversial track record, NBC reports. According to the channel, it includes, for example, "using her position to promote and bolster Trump's electoral lies after his defeat in 2020." Senators also note that Ms. Bondi was registered as a lobbyist for various foreign and corporate clients, including the government of Qatar.
In general, due to the apparent and veiled uncertainty regarding the staffing fate of several candidates, the transition administration has begun to consider ways to confirm these nominations regardless of the circumstances. An unnamed source from The Hill, who discussed this issue with Donald Trump, believes that it is possible to forcibly extend the parliamentary recess and postpone the meeting of the new Congress, while during this time, nominations could be confirmed without the involvement of lawmakers. According to him, this option, provided for in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, is being seriously considered within the circle of the president-elect of the United States.
If we browse through the pages of American political history, we can see that former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Jr. frequently utilized this right, making 139 and 171 appointments, respectively. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has previously affirmed the president's authority to make appointments during recess only if they last for at least ten days. However, Congress can completely block such appointments through formal sessions—brief meetings intended to break up the recess. This interpretation has allowed Congress to prevent any appointments during recess, significantly limiting the president's ability to bypass the Senate confirmation process, experts claim. Moreover, such presidential appointments are temporary: their term expires at the end of the next session of Congress, which lasts one year. Thus, no matter how much Trump tries to find loopholes, it is evident that he will have to seek points of contact with the lawmakers of the future administration.
Meanwhile, while representatives of the future U.S. administration are embroiled in staffing issues, the outgoing occupants of high offices are "tying up loose ends," including geopolitical ones. For instance, at dawn on November 27, Kyiv time, the New York Post reported that Joe Biden called on Congress to allocate an additional $24 billion to bolster military support for Ukraine. According to the report, the White House's Office of Management and Budget proposed including this financial assistance in a package of upcoming decisions to avoid halting funding by the next presidential administration. Some Republicans have already expressed disagreement with this move by the outgoing head of the White House. "Congress should not give Biden a free gift for further sabotaging President Trump's peace negotiations. Any demands from Biden for funding should be rejected," wrote Senator Mike Lee from Utah on social media X.
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that under Biden, official Kyiv will receive everything necessary for the next year. "We intend to do everything possible for Ukraine to either continue fighting in 2025 or negotiate from a position of strength," Mr. Blinken stated recently at a briefing in Italy after the G7 meeting.
According to the head of American diplomacy, the White House intends to deliver "every dollar" from previously approved Congressional funds to Ukraine by January 20, when the elected president Donald Trump takes office. In the Pentagon, which is certainly encouraging, it was later clarified that shipments of arms to our country are planned to be made weekly.
It is also important that Trump has officially settled on a candidate for the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine. He will be Kit Kellogg, a U.S. Army general.
Previously, Kellogg was the Chief of Staff of the National Security Council at the White House during Trump's presidency from 2017 to 2021 and an advisor on national security to then-Vice President Mike Pence.
Kellogg has established himself as one of Trump's loyal supporters: he defended Trump's call with Zelensky in 2019, privately urged Pence to reject the certification of votes in the 2020 presidential election, and when the former vice president publicly distanced himself from Trump, he condemned his actions.
In January 2023, Kit Kellogg visited the liberated Izium in the Kharkiv region with a delegation of American military personnel. Kit Kellogg proposed a plan to Trump for ending the war in Ukraine, suggesting freezing the lines of demarcation and compelling Kyiv and Moscow to sit down for negotiations. However, in the event of the Kremlin's refusal to negotiate (and currently, Putin's administration states that they are not ready to engage in talks), Kellogg clearly articulated the need for a substantial increase in aid to Ukraine. Thus, it is