Trump's Team Signs Transition Documents, But Refuses Some Key Agreements

     Months after expected under federal law, and months after his former opponent Kamala Harris, Trump and his team have finally signed transition documents. Transitions are essential to the secure transfer of highly sensitive information and important organizations to the next administration. White House spokesperson Saloni Sharma says "A smooth transition is critical to the safety and security of the American people who are counting on their leaders to be responsible and prepared". This is a positive sign of cooperation between the Biden and Trump administrations, however, there may still be some hiccups to come in the transition process.

Despite signing the agreement as expected before his first term in 2016, this time around, Trump's team has refused to sign two important parts of the transition documents. They have declined to sign the agreement with the General Services Administration, which would provide over 7 million in federal funding as well as office space and cybersecurity support. This particular agreement also includes an ethics pledge. Trump's Team also refused to sign an agreement that would allow the FBI to conduct background checks and review security clearances of transition staff.

Trump's refusal to sign the G.S.A. could have serious implications in terms of funding and national security. Trump's team refused federal funding in favor of privately raising transition money. Although they pledged to refuse foreign donations and disclose all donors, this would allow the Trump team to raise as much money as they want for the transition. Trump also refused secure office space for meetings, and secure communication lines. Susie Wiles, Trump's pick for Chief of Staff, says this is to allow "cabinet nominees to begin critical preparations, including the deployment of landing teams to every department and agency, and complete the orderly transition of power. However, this could obviously pose a national security risk.

Trump's team also refused to sign an ethics pledge, instead opting to write their own. Despite following most of the guidelines, Trump's ethics agreement does not contain any of the typical provisions surrounding how he will combat his own conflicts of interest. Trump has been criticized for having conflicted interests with his many international corporations, and his refusal to include a pledge to avoid them could signal an undermining of his integrity as president.

Finally, Trump's team refused to sign an agreement with the Department of Justice that would allow the FBI to review security clearances of members of Trump's "landing teams", people who integrate with government agencies before and during the transition to the next administration. Trump's team is also bypassing background checks for cabinet picks, instead opting to use private organizations. This all points to Trump's lack of trust in federal organizations like the FBI, and unfortunately could hold up the transition process, as the Biden administration cannot legally share highly sensitive information with members of Trump's team who have not been cleared.

Despite the refusal to sign multiple key parts of the transition documents, it is a good sign that some agreements are in place. The Biden administration certainly had to settle for a compromise as Trump continued holding out, but now that communications are open, things can proceed more smoothly. It is certainly a good sign considering the, let's just say "difficulties" of the last transition.

Sources: 

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-transition-biden-administration-agreement-funding-fbi-rcna181985

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-transition-biden-administration-agreement-funding-fbi-rcna181985

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/27/politics/trump-transition-ethics-pledge/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/26/trump-transition-agreement-ethics-pledge-security-clearances/

 

Elon Musk Joins Trump's Inner Circle

 An unexpected relationship blossomed between former president Donald Trump and tech-mogul Elon Musk last year. As Trump geared up for his presidential campaign, the world’s richest man hopped on board, bringing his wealth and influence and a unique perspective to Trump’s political operation. With Musk’s immense social media following of 200 million on X and his $200 million investment in Trump’s campaign, he became an invaluable ally, offering Trump a powerful new edge in his race for a second term. 

Musk also leveraged his American super PAC to rally support in key swing states, helping Trump secure a crucial advantage in his campaign. As a successful businessman, Musk helped Trump frame his campaign as one focused on efficiency and innovation. He drew from his experience running companies like Tesla and SpaceX to become a key advisor post-election. 

Since the day they decided to team up, Trump and Musk have become nearly inseparable. Musk has joined Trump at nearly every meeting at Mar-a-lago and even a U.F.C. fight together. Trump’s grandchild Kai even posted online that Musk was, “achieving uncle status.” What started as a professional partnership has evolved into a personal bond, with the two spending significant time together, discussing everything from business to politics. Their closeness even had Vice Presidential opponent Tim Walz joking that Musk was Trump’s running mate rather than J.D. Vance.

Trump is known for keeping his allies close, with many of his advisors being long-term friends or loyal confidants who have stood by him through thick and thin. However, he made an interesting exception with Elon Musk. This is due to several reasons, him being the world’s richest man, media influence, and interestingly his ability to say “You’re fired!” (a phrase Trump is deeply fond of) to 80% of X’s staff. Such bold, decisive moves were quick to capture Trump’s attention, and Musk’s unorthodox approach to leadership made him a natural fit in Trump’s inner circle.

As their bond strengthened, Trump recognized Musk’s unique ability to drive change–not just in business, but also in government. It was no surprise that Trump appointed him to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). While DOGE is not a formal federal executive department (as that would require Congressional approval), it is designed to serve as an advisory group to help streamline federal operations and reduce inefficiency. Musk, whose expertise lies in business innovation rather than politics, was given this role based on his track record of transforming companies like Tesla and SpaceX into highly efficient and profitable enterprises. 

This powerful alignment of business and politics will be closely watched. The richest man in the world, standing hand-in-hand with the President of the United States, creates an unprecedented dynamic in American politics. As Elon Musk continues to cement his role in Trump’s campaign and political vision, their partnership is poised to redefine the landscape of American leadership. Will Musk be able to maintain his position as Trump’s right-hand man? Only time will tell. 

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/us/politics/elon-musk-trump.html

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/how-elon-musk-rebranded-trump

https://www.vox.com/money/387348/elon-musk-trump-president-billionaire-oligarchy

https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-uses-x-push-his-preferred-political-picks-trump-isnt-always-swayed-2024-11-26/

What's to Become of President-Elect Donald Trump's 34 Felony Counts?

 Donald Trump is set to become the 47th President of the United States, but his legal troubles are far from over. Facing 34 felony counts in New York, a pivotal decision looms. New York Judge Juan Merchan finds himself at a crossroads, navigating what he has described as “uncharted waters” in the legal system. After postponing Trump’s hush-money case sentencing multiple times, Justice Merchan has now decided to delay the sentencing indefinitely. Merchan must now decide whether to wait out Trump’s four-year presidential term before resuming the case or dismiss it altogether. 

Trump’s legal team is aggressively pushing for the latter option, emphasizing their determination to “fight to the death.” They plan to submit their arguments to Judge Merchan on December 2nd, urging him to drop the case. At the heart of their defense is a broad interpretation of a 1963 law that emphasizes the need for a smooth presidential transition and suggests that prosecuting Trump during his term would distract him from his duties. They also point to a longstanding Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot face federal criminal prosecution, arguing that this policy should extend to Trump’s state-level charges as well.  

The defense further argues that certain witness testimonies and pieces of evidence in the case violate the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, as some of the actions in question occurred while Trump was in office. This raises complex issues about the balance of power between the branches of government, with the Judicial Branch potentially shielding the Executive from legal consequences in unprecedented ways. 

On the other hand, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is working to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. He has emphasized the importance of respecting the constitutional role of the 12-person New York jury, which convicted Trump for his involvement in the hush-money deal to cover up an alleged affair with a porn star. Bragg insists that the jury’s decision must be honored, stressing that the judicial process should be allowed to proceed without interference from political considerations. While the prosecution acknowledges the immunity Trump has been awarded, it argues that this immunity does not mandate the dismissal of, “a post-trial criminal proceeding that was initiated at a time when the defendant was not immune from criminal prosecution and that is based on unofficial conduct.” 

Despite the efforts of both sides, the ultimate decision rests with Justice Merchan: whether to uphold the integrity of the legal system or allow political considerations to influence the outcome. This country was founded on the principle of holding all individuals, regardless of their status, accountable for their actions. How Merchan rules will have significant implications, not only for Trump’s future but for the broader balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch.

With the Supreme Court having already granted the former presidents immunity from certain criminal prosecutions, the power of the presidency is becoming increasingly imbalanced in ways that challenge the principles of democracy. As presidents continue to receive legal protections, the question arises: How far is too far? If this immunity extends too broadly, it risks eroding the checks and balances that are vital to a functioning democracy. The implications of this case could reshape the limits of presidential power for years to come. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/nyregion/trump-sentencing-postponed.html

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5008714-trumps-hush-money-sentencing-limbo/

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/22/g-s1-35393/donald-trump-sentencing-hush-money-case

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/19/trump-hush-money-case-new-york-00190417

GOP Senators vs. Trump’s Cabinet Nominations

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who disagrees with some of President Trump’s Cabinet nominations

    By now, it’s widely known that Rep. Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration for Attorney General on November 21, 2024 due to allegations of sexual misconduct. If he hadn’t, there most certainly would have been chaos within the Senate, and that’s because one of the main jobs of a US Senator is that they have the power to approve or reject a president's cabinet nominees.

    But even with Gaetz out of the picture, Trump still has a few other controversial cabinet nominations, including Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense (who has sexual assault allegations against him and limited governmental experience) and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence (who faced criticism for meeting with Syrian President and foreign adversary, as well as her comments about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine). These nominations are causing some Republican senators to think twice before voting to confirm Trump’s picks.

    

     

Hegseth, left and Gabbard, right

    Several GOP senators have expressed their hesitations towards these nominations; for example, Sen. Kevin Cramer called the sexual assault allegation against Hegseth “pretty concerning”. Congress requires a simple majority from the Senate to approve Cabinet nominations, meaning in order to prevent one of Trump’s picks, all Democratic senators need to oppose the nominee and 4 Republicans would as well. It’s important to note, though, only one time has a nominee been rejected by a Senate vote; this occurred in 1989, when George H.W. Bush nominated John Tower for Secretary of Defense (an excessive drinker and had sexual harassment allegations similar to Hegseth). 

    Now, there are reasons for Republican senators on the fence to go along with Trump’s nominees, like simply not wanting to be singled out. And for incumbents running again in 2026 especially, they may want to avoid defying Trump. But a handful are considering their own morals and skepticism about these nominees’ personal past and ability to perform their duties, and are willing to maintain their right to have a say, despite Trump suggesting recess appointments (bypassing Senate votes to elect a nominee).

    So who are the Republican senators who may vote against some of Trump’s nominations? There’s Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who was so surprised to hear of Hegseth’s nomination that she said, quote, “Wow”. She has disagreed with Trump on a number of issues, being a moderate Republican. There’s also Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a ticket-splitter, who has also defied Trump before, having voted against some of his nominations in the past. She was alarmed by some of the president’s recent nominations as well. Finally, Republican Sen.-elect John Curtis of Utah has often been critical of Trump’s decisions. He’s strongly against recess appointments, believing the Senate should have the final say in confirming or rejecting the president’s cabinet nominees.

    While some Republicans might vote "no" for these controversial Trump nominees, the ones up for re-election in two years might choose against this. Senators with decently independent voting records, like Murkowski or Collins, are less afraid of punishment from Trump in a primary, even though there are swirlings of primary battles with Republican senators who rebel against Trump’s picks. Most everybody else, though, will likely attempt to remain in good standing with Trump if they want to win re-election, so we shall see how votes for the confirmations of these controversial cabinet nominees come in in early January.

Sources:

• https://www.semafor.com/article/11/21/2024/republicans-cabinet-conundrum-rebellious-senators-could-face-trump-backed-challenges 

• https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-20/the-gop-senators-who-might-cause-the-most-trouble-for-trumps-cabinet-nominees 

• https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/24/politics/hegseth-trump-confirmation-battles-tulsi-gabbard-rfk/index.html 

• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-senators-react-to-matt-gaetz-withdrawing-from-attorney-general-nomination 

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/11/24/will-tulsi-gabbard-get-confirmed-as-trumps-intel-director-some-gop-senators-skeptical-of-her-record-on-russia-and-syria/

What is the Presidential Immunity Ruling and what does this mean for Trump’s second term?

 The Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Ruling is primarily tied to the infamous constitutional idea of a separation of powers. The ruling evolved over time through judicial interpretation (there was not a specific court case that determined this ruling, per se). However, specific cases did circumscribe this ruling. 

The Supreme Court Case Nixon v. Fitzgerald of 1982 ultimately granted presidents with immunity when it came to civil damages that were taken when said president was in office. This was meant to allow the president the means to take action as they see fit without fears of constant litigation (lawsuits). However, the 1997 case Clinton v. Jones restricted presidential immunity, asserting that the immunity ruling does not expand past actions taken outside of official duties. This case unanimously ruled the acceptance of presidential litigation for actions unrelated to official presidential responsibilities. 

However, recently, Trump seems to be asserting pushback against these parameters.  “Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties”. Though this idea was soon refuted, there is some truth in the matter. When it comes down to it, Trump’s immunity could allow him the power and will to take more extreme actions with such protection. “The Supreme Court ruled in July that former presidents largely cannot be prosecuted based on their official acts in office, though they can still face charges for acts that were outside the scope of their official duties”.

The past few years, Trump has undergone several investigations regarding the accusation of illegally retaining classified documents after leaving office, conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, actions which in part may have led to the January 6th attack on the Capitol, business fraud, and so on.  This essentially means that whatever allegations these investigations came to, so long as they were within official presidential business, Trump is protected from. Ultimately, this complicates other prosecutions Trump is currently facing, as presidential immunity may slow down prosecution processes. 

Ultimately, the Presidential Immunity Ruling will give Trump power and protection as he enters his second presidential term, as well as set back ongoing investigations as parameters of the ruling are still being solidified. 

Sources: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/12/what-supreme-courts-immunity-ruling-means-for-trumps-second-term/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-courts-presidential-immunity-ruling-undermines-democracy

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/politics/trump-grasps-unprecedented-power-supreme-court-immunity/index.html

How Trump's second term is evoking fear in the LGBTQ+ community

 

Since Donald Trump’s victory in the election, the LGBTQ+ community has spoken out about their fears, especially regarding the future of the trans community. There have been clues provided in President Trump’s Project 2025 policy that outline clues as to how the trans community may be impacted by his presidency. 

In short, Trump’s Project 2025 outlines the removal of policies that protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination, especially that of discrimination against gender identity and one’s sexual orientation. 

For starters, Project 2025 advocates for limited Supreme Court protection when it comes to sexual orientation and transgender discrimination in the workplace. For instance the plan suggests the reversal of the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2020 of Bostock v. Clayton County, which specifically expanded LGBTQ+ protections in the workplace. The reversal of this case would ultimately allow discrimination, such as the hiring, firing, and employment of people based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. 

The policy plan of Project 2025 also asserts a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, as long as ending federal funds for gender affirming healthcare, both for minors and adults. This agenda claims that such treatments are harmful, and that the effects of gender affirming care are full of malice. Ultimately, there appears to be a plan of efforts to restrict overall national healthcare for transgender individuals. The plan seems to be the blockage of “gender affirming medical care for transgender people in federal healthcare programs, such as medicare”. These policies overall reverse the Biden administration’s  policies that advocated for inclusive service and overarching ideas of universal healthcare and healthcare equality. 

 Beyond Project 2025, Trump opposed the proposed Equality act, which “would provide consistent and explicit anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ+ people across key areas of life, including employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federal funded programs, and jury service”. Currently, the US protects the natural right of anti-discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and disability, though there is no explicit protection against discrimination of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

The Equality Act was supported by a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, and has been endorsed by over 650 organizations. There have been a total of over 60 businesses, 530 major companies, 650 organizations, 15.9 million people, and the collection of $7.8 trillion, all emphasizing the broad support for this bill. Where is it now? This act was “ reintroduced in the 118th Congress on June 21, 2023, in the House of Representatives”, though it is currently facing a lack of progress. However, this process is lengthy, and most recently, the bill has been “Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Financial Services, House Administration, and Oversight and Accountability, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned”. From here, the bill still must pass majority votes in the House, Senate, be approved by the President (or if vetoed, overruled by a ⅔ override), in order to finally become a law. 

In summary, Trump’s second presidential term raises concerns for the LGBTQ+, and especially the transgender community, as we see policies begin to show the reversal of anti-discrimination laws, and overall equality and advocacy of healthcare and human rights.

Sources: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/us/trump-cabinet-picks-voter-reactions.html

https://www.project2025.org/

https://www.hrc.org/resources/equality

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house

bill/15#:~:text=This%20bill%20prohibits%20discrimination%20based,funded%20programs%2%20and%20other%20settings.

Matt Gaetz Withdraws as Trump's Attorney General Candidate and Recess Appointments

Since November 13th when Trump selected Matt Gaetz (Florida House Representative and Loyal Trump Supporter) to be Attorney General, he has met fierce criticism from his fellow senators and was not confirmed. He has been accused of attending Sex Parties, taking illegal drugs, and having sex with a minor, and these aren't new allegations. The U.S. House Ethics Committee, one of the many committees in the House which focuses on keeping the House uncorrupt and its representatives in check, started an investigation into Matt Gaetz all the way back in 2021. Only now they were ready to release it, but to their dismay Gaetz withdrew from the House when he was nominated, meaning they could no longer release it. 

However, this report still threatened Gaetz as rumors spread of what the report contained, causing what Gaetz and Trump have called a "distraction" from Trump's election win. Even after the report was blocked from being released to the public by House Republicans, Matt Gaetz chose to resign today. We can assume they were afraid of this report coming back to haunt them in the future.

This whole process of nomination has illustrated our government's checks and balances well. We have been given proof that even though the Republican Party has won the Trifecta (Majority in both houses of congress and Presidency), congress is not willing to let Trump get away with anything. Trump's original strategy and still something he may try to get his nominees through without confirmation of congress is something called Recess Appointments. These recess appointment allow the president to nominate and confirm while the congress is not in session, a power used in the past when congress wasn't in session all year round. Some people confuse these to be temporary, however they last until congress next adjourns or the next midterm election two years from now. This means that if the Senate agreed to recess, Trump could appoint whoever he wants for the next two years. 

Luckily, Congress seems to be pushing back against this abuse of power, wanting to reserve the power of confirmation to themselves and it seems this scheme will not work.

Interestingly enough this isn't something only Trump has tried to pull but also something done by many past presidents (See graph below). Eventually during Obama's presidency this constant abuse of power lead to the supreme court decision requiring that the Congress had to be out of session for 10 days in a row in order for recess appointment to be made, which is why in recent years Recess Appointments have not been made.

In the future, we can only hope that the system of checks and balances can continue to work and prevent Donald Trump from doing something the entire country will regret. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-senate-recess-appointment-controversial-cabinet-picks/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/us/politics/matt-gaetz-house-ethics-report.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-matt-gaetz-resign-congress-202724793.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKoAkLa3a8_-y-MgJAQNEcf2EoVk8YIsM5MpWx4GUtNarcIAy6BMn0ZRmbTaesQCqg3v92YASS7-llGalB5VX4IcWxfnlXsn_Q9lLMWtNORrLFAfdEVfluaPB8mFg97aLG2G759XfnBvvrMVDgjtziYe6b1P3hIN684Yf6kQavOy

https://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5843366/recess-appointments-supreme-court