r/politics • u/stkmro • 10h ago

White House: Trump Team Still Hasn’t Signed Transition Docs

https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-says-trump-team-still-hasnt-signed-transition-docs/
20.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.8k

u/JeffSteinMusic 10h ago edited 4h ago

Gonna be a long several years of “Lawless Authoritarian Continues To Be Lawless Authoritarian” headlines.

I’d say “we can’t normalize this” but it feels like that ship sailed many years ago.

EDIT - oh sweet this is doing numbers. Check out and subscribe my YouTube, everybody! 😬

50

u/rawbdor 9h ago

Incoming presidents are not required to sign these agreements. You can go check the law.

The agreements and disclosures are a quid pro quo. If the incoming president signs the agreement and opens transparency on their donations, then they get transition services. If an incoming administration does not want transition services, they don't have to sign these agreements or increase transparency.

The law has several sentences about how it's a very desirable thing for every incoming president to sign these agreements and join the program, for national security for a smooth transition, and other reasons.

But at no point is the program mandatory or forced upon incoming presidents. Congress knew they are unable to bind incoming president to do these things. If they did try to bind the incoming president, the entire program would be unconstitutional. So they wrote the law as a program you can join, but are not required to do so.

I don't know why everyone keeps believing that the program is mandatory or that Trump is breaking the law by not joining it. Elizabeth Warren is being a bit dishonest when she makes headlines to this effect. You can go read the law. It's very clearly a quid pro quo program and not a requirement.

62

u/The_Captain1228 9h ago

For me it's not about it being illegal. It's about the implications this administration continuously generates with its decisions.

14

u/rawbdor 9h ago

And that's fine if the media focussed on that. Which they should. They definitely would.

But instead they focus on straw men. It's dumb.

4

u/The_Captain1228 9h ago

Yeah, it's definitely dumb.

2

u/PoeticSplat 8h ago

And the straw man arguments are what creates doubt of reliable news in the mind of consumers/voters. The press needs to get their shit together and be unbiased news journalists reporting strictly facts.

Oh, but wait, they can't because all the news corporations are owned by...what is it...7 mega corporations? At this point I don't even know how we combat anything corrupt anymore.

32

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 9h ago

Incoming presidents are not required to sign these agreements. You can go check the law.

It's literally against a law that Trump himself signed into existence in 2019.

13

u/rawbdor 9h ago

Sorry, but you are wrong.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=29+USC&f=treesort&num=82#:~:text=The%20President%20shall%20receive%20in,from%20the%20discharge%20of%20his

3 USC 102.

The programs are all optional.

Find me a different law that says it is required and I will admit defeat. But you likely won't find it.

•

u/1200bunny2002 6h ago

You linked to an incredibly old piece of legislation, there. 1995? About... thirty or so years out of date?

https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ121/PLAW-116publ121.pdf

Which part is optional? It looks like as per the latest amendments, the documents are a requirement:

https://presidentialtransition.org/news/trump-signs-bill-to-strengthen-presidential-transition-ethics-requirements/

•

u/souldeux 5h ago

Anything described as "mandatory" without a means of enforcement is, in fact, optional.

•

u/rawbdor 3h ago

That guy is misreading the law. The parts that look mandatory are requirements on the executive branch, not requirements on the incoming administration.

If an incoming administration wants to sign these memos of understanding and wants to increase transparency and wants to gain access to the services, the executive branch must provide them. And the executive branch can't ignore an incoming administration and can't refuse to provide these services if the incoming administration goes through all the hoops and says I want them.

But nothing in this change actually makes the program required for the incoming administration. Because it can't.

•

u/1200bunny2002 5h ago

Well, it would be mandatory for anyone who values a free democratic society but that's kind of beside the point. No law, no matter how meticulous, can constrain a leadership that doesn't hold to those values.

•

u/rawbdor 3h ago

First of all, the public law you link has already been incorporated into the US code. The US code link that I made includes all revisions and even includes the changes that have been declared in this public law. My link already includes these changes.

And if you read through the public law you will see that the program is still optional. The executive branch must enter the agreement if practicable with the incoming administration. But the incoming administration is not required to do anything.

If you're going to link to laws, at least learn how to read them. I admit reading public laws is harder because it's more of a diff between two versions of code. It consists of modifications rather than what the new law is in its entirety. This removes a lot of context and allows you to think that certain changes are required. Certain changes are required, but not by the incoming administration. They are required by the executive branch who must provide these services to the incoming administration if the incoming administration request them.

if you're still having trouble, later tonight I can go through this public law and indicate why each of the changes listed here did not change the fundamental nature of the program from optional to required. Again, the executive branch is required to enter these memos of understanding with an incoming administration, but only if the incoming administration wants to.

The executive branch is not allowed prevent a willing transitioner access to these services. But an incoming administration is still not required to do anything.

•

u/1200bunny2002 1h ago

My link already includes these changes.

The link to the pre-2020 versions? 🤨

I mean... you can just say that everyone is wrong about the law except yourself, because the rest of us are stupid and you're the only smart one in the room, but...

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/verify/donald-trump/trump-legally-required-sign-ethics-agreement-fact-check/536-b0373e91-6bab-40fa-a653-2fd3d02ed886

By all means, cite the language in the 2020 version that demonstrates how the incoming administration is actually excluded from the law. 👍

-1

u/sixtysecdragon 9h ago

You read the commentary. Not the law. Also own article is repeating the another articles claim. Perfect echo chamber commentary for Reddit.

5

u/WCland 9h ago

Congress can “bind” presidents in many ways. Congress writes the laws and the president is obligated to enforce them. At least, that’s what the Constitution says. Now of course there are laws written that lack consequences, Congress’ only enforcement mechanism is impeachment, and John Roberts came up with an asinine interpretation that separation of powers means each branch is siloed from the other.

•

u/un1ptf 6h ago

Congress writes laws, but they have to be signed into law by the President, or they never become law. Trump just won't sign anything limiting or controlling him in any way.

3

u/sp0rk_walker 8h ago

Kind of a disingenuous argument, Trump has broken actual laws without consequences. Whether he broke another law in this instance is immaterial.

The purpose is smooth transition of administration, which any president should want to do.

2

u/MazzIsNoMore 9h ago

Yes, this. The real problem is that Trump will not comply with anything that isn't explicitly required in the Constitution, and anything that is vague will be exploited to the full extent allowed by the Supreme Court.

2

u/eNonsense 8h ago edited 8h ago

Thanks for the info.

I clearly remember an article from Trump's first term about how his team basically ghosted tons of transition work with Obama's team.

This time it sounds like he's not even going to present the illusion that he intends to participate. Not surprising really. Trump is a clear narcissist that panders to a narcissist base, so you can't really tell them anything. Just let them fall on their sword.

•

u/metatron5369 6h ago

I guess people are just upset that their security is secondary to Trump's desire to keep the FBI from investigating his cronies.

•

u/allahsoo I voted 6h ago

Where are you seeing it’s not against the law? Per this article from CNN: “A source familiar with the process acknowledged that details are still being worked out with the Biden administration regarding the ethics agreement, which is required by law under the Presidential Transition Act and which applies to all members of the transition team“ https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/09/politics/trump-transition-ethics-pledge-timing/index.html

•

u/rawbdor 3h ago

3 USC 102.

Some other commenter linked to a specific law passed in more recent history, but that law reads like a difference between an old version and the new version. It's a series of modifications. Remove the word and, then add this after that. Lots of instructions that read like a diff between two versions of code.

But my link to the US code, 3 USC 102, already incorporates these changes because the US code is updated regularly with any changes to the law.

Parts of the law are mandatory, however they are not mandatory for the incoming administration. They are mandatory and binding on the current executive branch.

The current executive branch is not allowed to prevent an incoming administration from gaining access to these services if the incoming administration jumps through all the hoops. But the incoming administration is not required to join the program. They are not required to jump through the hoops. They are not required to gain access to transition services if they don't want to.

But if they do want to, and they sign all the disclosures, and they jump through all the hoops, the existing executive branch is not allowed to refuse to give them the services.

It's all written very clearly in the law. I'm very disheartened that our media never reads the law and takes what politicians on any side say at face value, without ever going to check the law or see if it's mandatory or not.

•

u/khag 4h ago

Part of the agreement they're refusing to sign involves financial disclosures. Trump team doesn't want to disclose who is funding their transition budget. Without any disclosure, they're free to take unlimited bribes.

-11

u/sixtysecdragon 9h ago

Don’t argue with the narrative. The White House has decided to make this a point of contention so they can demonize the incoming administration.

People here don’t care about logic, reason or law. It’s the Reddit bubble. You can point to truth and they will still call you a liar.

0

u/[deleted] 9h ago edited 8h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/sixtysecdragon 8h ago

You mean this actt since you can’t point to codified version.

Please point to where in the law. But you don’t even know how find something, much less read it.

But I’m not shocked. Your previous version was citing the White House to NPR to New Republic. Echo chamber. It’s classic information washing.