at Capitol.  June 19.1996

 

 

with Sen. JohnMc Cain

 

with Congressman Bob Barr

with General John K Singlaub

CNBC .Fox .FoxAtl .. CFR. CBS .CNN .VTV.

.WhiteHouse .NationalArchives .FedReBank

.Fed Register .Congr Record .History .CBO

.US Gov .CongRecord .C-SPAN .CFR .RedState

.VideosLibrary .NationalPriProject .Verge .Fee

.JudicialWatch .FRUS .WorldTribune .Slate

.Conspiracy .GloPolicy .Energy .CDP .Archive

.AkdartvInvestors .DeepState .ScieceDirect

.NatReview .Hill .Dailly .StateNation .WND

-RealClearPolitics .Zegnet .LawNews .NYPost

.SourceIntel .Intelnews .QZ .NewAme

.GloSec .GloIntel .GloResearch .GloPolitics

.Infowar .TownHall .Commieblaster .EXAMINER

.MediaBFCheck .FactReport .PolitiFact .IDEAL

.MediaCheck .Fact .Snopes .MediaMatters

.Diplomat .NEWSLINK .Newsweek .Salon

.OpenSecret .Sunlight .Pol Critique .

.N.W.Order .Illuminatti News.GlobalElite

.NewMax .CNS .DailyStorm .F.Policy .Whale

.Observe .Ame Progress .Fai .City .BusInsider 

.Guardian .Political Insider .Law .Media .Above

.SourWatch .Wikileaks .Federalist .Ramussen

.Online Books .BREIBART.INTERCEIPT.PRWatch

.AmFreePress .Politico .Atlantic .PBS .WSWS

.NPRadio .ForeignTrade .Brookings .WTimes

.FAS .Millenium .Investors .ZeroHedge .DailySign

.Propublica .Inter Investigate .Intelligent Media  

.Russia News .Tass Defense .Russia Militaty

.Scien&Tech .ACLU .Veteran .Gateway. DeepState

.Open Culture .Syndicate .Capital .Commodity

.DeepStateJournal .Create .Research .XinHua

.Nghiên Cứu QT .NCBiển Đông .Triết Chính Trị

.TVQG1 .TVQG .TVPG .BKVN .TVHoa Sen

.Ca Dao .HVCông Dân .HVNG .DấuHiệuThờiĐại

.BảoTàngLS.NghiênCứuLS .Nhân Quyền.Sài Gòn Báo

.Thời Đại.Văn Hiến .Sách Hiếm.Hợp Lưu  

.Sức Khỏe .Vatican .Catholic .TS KhoaHọc

.KH.TV .Đại Kỷ Nguyên .Tinh Hoa .Danh Ngôn

.Viễn Đông .Người Việt.Việt Báo.Quán Văn

.TCCS .Việt Thức .Việt List .Việt Mỹ .Xây Dựng

.Phi Dũng .Hoa Vô Ưu.ChúngTa .Eurasia.

 CaliToday .NVR .Phê Bình . TriThucVN

.Việt Luận .Nam Úc .Người Dân .Buddhism

.Tiền Phong .Xã Luận .VTV .HTV .Trí Thức

.Dân Trí .Tuổi Trẻ .Express .Tấm Gương

.Lao Động .Thanh Niên .Tiền Phong .MTG

.Echo .Sài Gòn .Luật Khoa .Văn Nghệ .SOTT

.ĐCS .Bắc Bộ Phủ .Ng.TDũng .Ba Sàm .CafeVN

.Văn Học .Điện Ảnh .VTC .Cục Lưu Trữ .SoHa

.ST/HTV .Thống Kê .Điều Ngự .VNM .Bình Dân

.Đà Lạt * Vấn Đề * Kẻ Sĩ * Lịch Sử *.Trái Chiều

.Tác Phẩm * Khào  Cứu * Dịch Thuật * Tự Điển *

KIM ÂU -CHÍNHNGHĨA -TINH HOA - STKIM ÂU

CHÍNHNGHĨA MEDIA-VIETNAMESE COMMANDOS

BIÊTKÍCH -STATENATION - LƯUTRỮ -VIDEO/TV

DICTIONAIRIES -TÁCGỈA-TÁCPHẨM - BÁOCHÍ . WORLD - KHẢOCỨU - DỊCHTHUẬT -TỰĐIỂN -THAM KHẢO - VĂNHỌC - MỤCLỤC-POPULATION - WBANK - BNG  ARCHIVES - POPMEC- POPSCIENCE - CONSTITUTION

VẤN ĐỀ - LÀMSAO - USFACT- POP - FDA EXPRESS. LAWFARE .WATCHDOG- THỜI THẾ - EIR.

 

ĐẶC BIỆT

  1. Served  In A Noble Cause

  2. Hiến Chương Liên Hiệp Quốc

  3. Văn Kiện Về Quyền Con Người

  4. Báo Cáo Tình Trạng Nhân Quyền

  5. China Reports US

  6. Liberal World Order

  7. The Heritage Constitution

  8. The Invisible Government Dan Moot

  9. The Invisible Government David Wise

  10. Montreal Protocol Hand Book

  11. Death Of A Generation

  12. Vấn Đề Tôn Gíao

  13. https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/

  14. https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/

  15. https://nhandan.vn/

  16. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/

  17. dnews.com | News of the Palouse since 1911

  18. Legislation/Immigration and Nationality Act

  19. US Citizen Through US Military Service

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Le Monde -France24. Liberation- Center for Strategic- Sputnik

https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/

Space - NASA - Space News - Nasa Flight - Children Defense

Pokemon.Game Info. Bách Việt Lĩnh Nam.US Histor. Insider

World History - Global Times - Conspiracy - Banking - Sciences

World Timeline - EpochViet - Asian Report - State Government

 

 

https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/08/19/1384992/much-azov-about-nothing-how-the-ukrainian-neo-nazis-canard-fooled-the-world

 

 

with General Micheal Ryan

THÁNG 9-2024

DEBT CLOCK . WORLMETERS . TRÍ TUỆ MỸ . SCHOLARSCIRCLE. CENSUS - SCIENTIFIC - COVERT- CBO - EPOCH  ĐKN - REALVOICE -JUSTNEWS- NEWSMAX - BREIBART - REDSTATE - PJMEDIA - EPV - REUTERS - AP - NTD - REPUBLIC  TTV - BBC - VOA - RFI - RFA - HOUSE - TỬ VI - VTV- HTV - PLUS - TTRE - VTX - SOHA -TN - CHINA - SINHUA - FOXNATION - FOXNEWS - NBC - ESPN - SPORT - ABC- LEARNING - IMEDIA -NEWSLINK - WHITEHOUSE- CONGRESS -FED REGISTER -OAN DIỄN ĐÀN - UPI - IRAN - DUTCH - FRANCE 24 - MOSCOW - INDIA - NEWSNOW- KOTAHON - NEWSPUNCH - CDC - WHO  BLOOMBERG - WORLDTRIBUNE - WND - MSNBC- REALCLEAR - PBS - SCIENCE - HUMAN EVENT - TABLET - AMAC - WSWS  PROPUBICA -INVESTOPI-CONVERSATION - BALANCE - QUORA - FIREPOWER  GLOBAL- NDTV- ALJAZEER- TASS- DAWN  NATURAL- PEOPLE- BRIGHTEON - CITY JOURNAL- EUGENIC- 21CENTURY - PULLMAN- SPUTNIK- COMPACT - DNYUZ- CNA

NIK- JAP- SCMP- CND- JAN- JTO-VOE- ASIA- BRIEF- ECNS-TUFTS- DIPLOMAT- JUSTSECU- SPENDING- FAS - GWINNETT  JAKARTA -- KYO- CHIA - HARVARD - INDIATO - LOTUS- CONSORTIUM - COUNTERPUNCH- POYNTER- BULLETIN - CHI DAILY

 

   

NHẬN ĐỊNH - QUAN ĐIỂM

 

Project 2025

PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION PROJECT

 

 

 

© 2023 by The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington, DC 20002

(202) 546-4400 | heritage.org

 

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

 

ISBN: 978-0-89195-174-2


 


Section One

 

 

 

 

  

TAKING THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT

 

A

merica’s Bicentennial, which culminated on July 4, 1976, was a spirited and unifying celebration of our country, its Founding, and its ideals. As we approach our nation’s 250th anniversary, which will take place during the

next presidency, America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolu- tionaries and those who believe in the ideals of the American revolution. The former believe that America is—and always has been—“systemically racist” and that it is not worth celebrating and must be fundamentally transformed, largely through a cen- tralized administrative state. The latter believe in America’s history and heroes, its principles and promise, and in everyday Americans and the American way of life. They believe in the Constitution and republican government. Conservatives—the Ameri- canists in this battle—must fight for the soul of America, which is very much at stake. Just two years after the death of the last surviving Constitutional Convention delegate, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln warned that the greatest threat to America would come not from without, but from within. This is evident today: Whether it be mask and vaccine mandates, school and business closures, efforts to keep Americans from driving gas cars or using gas stoves, or efforts to defund the police, indoctrinate schoolchildren, alter beloved books, abridge free speech, undermine the colorblind ideal, or deny the biological reality that there are only two sexes, the Left’s steady stream of insanity appears to be never-ending. The next Administration must stand up for American ideals, American families, and

American culture—all things in which, thankfully, most Americans still believe. Highlighting this need, former director of the Office of Management and Budget

Russ Vought writes in Chapter 2, “The modern conservative President’s task is to


Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

 

limit, control, and direct the executive branch on behalf of the American people.” At the core of this goal is the work of the White House and the central personnel agencies. Article II of the Constitution vests all federal executive power in a Pres- ident, made accountable to the citizenry through regular elections. Our Founders wrote, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Accordingly, Vought writes, “it is the President’s agenda that should matter to the departments and agencies,” not their own.

Yet the federal bureaucracy has a mind of its own. Federal employees are often ideologically aligned—not with the majority of the American people—but with one another, posing a profound problem for republican government, a government “of, by, and for” the people. As Donald Devine, Dennis Kirk, and Paul Dans write in Chapter 3, “An autonomous bureaucracy has neither independent constitu- tional status nor separate moral legitimacy.” Byzantine personnel rules provide the bureaucrats with their chief means of self-protection. What’s more, knowledge of such rules is used to thwart the President’s appointees and agenda. As Devine, Kirk, and Dans write, “Managing the immense bureaucracy of the federal government is impossible without an understanding of the key central personnel agencies and their governing laws and regulations.”

Many of these laws and regulations governing a largely underworked, over- compensated, and unaccountable federal civilian workforce are so irrational that they would be comical in a less important context. This is true whether it comes to evaluating employees’ performance or hiring new employees. Only in the federal government could an applicant in the hiring process be sent to the front of the line because of a “history of drug addiction” or “alcoholism,” or due to “morbid obesity,” “irritable bowel syndrome,” or a “psychiatric disorder.” The next Admin- istration should insist that the federal government’s hiring, evaluation, retention, and compensation practices benefit taxpayers, rather than benefiting the lowest rung of the federal workforce.

In order to carry out the President’s desires, political appointees must be given the tools, knowledge, and support to overcome the federal government’s obstructionist Human Resources departments. More fundamentally, the new Administration must fill its ranks with political appointees. Devine, Kirk, and Dans observe that “the Trump Administration appointed fewer political appointees in its first few months in office” than any other recent presidency. This left career employees in charge in many places. This can occur even after departments have been fully staffed with political appointees. Vought writes that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should establish a “reputation as the keeper of ‘commander’s intent,’” yet OMB is dominated by career employees who often try to overrule political appointees serving in the various executive depart- ments. Empowering political appointees across the Administration is crucial to a President’s success.


 

Above all, the President and those who serve under him or her must be commit- ted to the Constitution and the rule of law. This is particularly true of a conservative Administration, which knows that the President is there to uphold the Constitu- tion, not the other way around. If a conservative Administration does not respect the Constitution, no Administration will. In Chapter 1, former deputy chief of staff to the President Rick Dearborn writes that the White House Counsel “must take seriously the duty to protect the powers and privileges of the President from encroachments by Congress, the judiciary, and the administrative components of departments and agencies.” Equally important, the President must enforce the Constitution and laws as written, rather than proclaiming new “law” unilaterally. Presidents should not issue mask or vaccine mandates, arbitrarily transfer student loan debt, or issue monarchical mandates of any sort. Legislatures make the laws in a republic, not executives.

It is crucial that all three branches of the federal government respect what Mad- ison called the “double security” to our liberties: the separation of powers among the three branches, and the separation of powers between the federal government and the states. This double security has been greatly compromised over the years. Vought writes that “the modern executive branch…writes federal policy, enforces that policy, and often adjudicates whether that policy was properly drafted and enforced.” He describes this as “constitutionally dire” and “in urgent need of repair,” adding: “Nothing less than the survival of self-governance in America is at stake.” When it comes to ensuring that freedom can flourish, nothing is more import- ant than deconstructing the centralized administrative state. Political appointees who are answerable to the President and have decision-making authority in the executive branch are key to this essential task. The next Administration must not cede such authority to non-partisan “experts,” who pursue their own ends while engaging in groupthink, insulated from American voters. The following chapters detail how the next Administration can be responsive to the American people (not to entrenched “elites”); how it can take care that all the laws are “faithfully exe- cuted,” not merely those that the President desires to see executed; and how it can

achieve results and not be stymied by an unelected bureaucracy.


 


1

 

 

 

WHITE HOUSE OFFICE

Rick Dearborn

 

 

F

 
rom popular culture to academia, the American presidency has long been a prominent fixture of the national imagination—naturally so since it is the beating heart of our nation’s power and prestige. It has played, for instance,

a feature role in innumerable movies and television shows and has been prodded, analyzed, and critiqued by countless books, essays, and studies. But like nearly everything else in life, there is no substitute for firsthand experience, which this manual has compiled from the experience of presidential appointees and provides in accessible form for future use.

With respect to the presidency, it is best to begin with our Republic’s founda- tional document. The Constitution gives the “executive Power” to the President.1 It designates him as “Commander in Chief”2 and gives him the responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”3 It further prescribes that the President might seek the assistance of “the principal Officer in each of the execu- tive Departments.”4 Beginning with George Washington, every President has been supported by some form of White House office consisting of direct staff officers as well as a Cabinet comprised of department and agency heads.

Since the inaugural Administration of the late 18th century, citizens have chosen to devote both their time and their talent to defending and strengthening our nation by serving at the pleasure of the President. Their shared patriotic endeavor has proven to be a noble one, not least because the jobs in what is now known as the White House Office (WHO) are among the most demanding in all of government.

The President must rely on the men and women appointed to the WHO. There simply are not enough hours in the day to manage the affairs of state single-handedly,


so delegation is not just advisable: It is essential. The decisions that assistants and senior advisers make will directly impact the Administration, its legacy, and—most important—the fate of the country. Their agenda must therefore be the President’s agenda. Choosing who will carry out that agenda on a daily basis is not only one of the first decisions a President makes in office, but also one of the most critical. The tone and tempo of an administration are often determined on January 20.

 

CHIEF OF STAFF

As with most of the positions that will be covered in this first chapter, the Chief of Staff is also an Assistant to the President. However, the chief is truly first among equals. Of all presidential staff members, the chief is the most critical to implementa- tion of the President’s vision for the country. The chief also has a dual role as manager of the staffs of both the WHO and the Executive Office of the President (EOP).5

The Chief of Staff’s first managerial task is to establish an organizational chart for the WHO. It should be simple and contain clear lines of authority and respon- sibility to avoid conflicts. It should also identify specific points of contact for each element of the government outside of the White House. These contacts should include the White House Liaisons who are selected by the Office of Presidential Personnel (PPO).

Receiving guidance from the President, the chief endeavors to implement the President’s agenda by setting priorities for the WHO. This process begins by taking stock of the President’s campaign promises, identifying current and prospective opportunities, and then delegating policy priorities among the departments and agencies of the Cabinet and throughout the three White House policy councils:

   The National Economic Council (NEC);

   The Domestic Policy Council (DPC); and

   The National Security Council (NSC).

The President is briefed on all of his policy priorities by his Cabinet and senior staff as directed by the chief. The chief—along with senior WHO staff—maps out the issues and themes that will be covered daily and weekly. The chief then works with the policy councils, the Cabinet, and the Office of Communications and Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) to sequence and execute the rollout of policies and announcements. White House Counsel and senior advisers and senior counselors are also intimately involved.

All senior staff report to the Chief of Staff, either directly or through his two or three deputies, unless the President determines that a particular Assistant to the President reports directly to him. Most chiefs have interacted directly with Cabinet officers and a select number of direct reports. In most cases, the direct reports to the chief are his two or three deputies, the Communications Director, PPO Director, White House Counsel, and senior advisers. Occasionally, the Office of Public Liaison (OPL), the Cabinet Secretary, and Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA) also report directly to the chief. Usually, however, they report instead to a Deputy Chief of Staff.

The Chief of Staff’s main challenge is time management. His use of his deputies, meetings with senior staff, and direction provided to the WHO must all balance with the daily needs of the President. A successful chief steers the West Wing using his management of and influence with the various individuals and entities around him. It goes without saying that selecting the right person to be chief is vital.

 

DEPUTY CHIEFS OF STAFF

In recent years, Presidents typically have appointed two Deputy Chiefs of Staff: a Deputy Chief of Staff for Management and Operations and a Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. There also have been other types of deputy chiefs whose roles have included, for example, overseeing strategy, planning, and implementation. Chiefs of Staff have then occasionally appointed a principal Deputy Chief to be in charge of guiding decision-making, organizational structure, and information flow.

 

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHIEFS OF STAFF

Not all Chiefs of Staff have tapped a principal deputy. A major reason is that doing so adds another layer of command complexity. When principal deputies have been installed, their roles have varied based on the needs of particular chiefs. Most principal deputies have functioned as doorkeepers, sorting through action items, taking on those that can be handled at their own level, and passing up others that truly require the attention of the Chief of Staff or the President. Principal deputies also have assumed control of the scheduling functions, normally under the operations deputy, and have worked directly with the policy councils at the direction of the Chief of Staff. The OPL and Office of Political Affairs (OPA) also

have reported to a principal deputy.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Management and Operations. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Management and Operations oversees the President’s schedule and all logistical aspects of his movement within and outside of the White House (for example, both air travel on Air Force One and Marine One and ground transpor- tation). This deputy also interfaces directly with the Secret Service as well as the military offices tasked with keeping the President and his family safe.

In the past, this deputy has also worked with the NSC, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Intelligence Community and on advancing all foreign trips. If their roles are separated from that of the policy deputy, this deputy should have a strong grasp of international affairs and robust foreign policy credentials.


This deputy further manages all facets of the working White House: technology, grounds management, support staff, personnel administration, and communica- tions. This individual therefore needs to be meticulous and ideally should possess a great deal of command-and-control experience.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. In some Administrations, the functions of the IGA, OPA, and OPL and other advisers within the WHO have fallen under the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. For conservatives, this arrangement could help to connect the WHO’s outreach to political and external groups and be a strong conduit for state and local elected officials, state party organizations, and both grasstop and grassroots groups.

This deputy chief works directly with the Chief of Staff, Cabinet officers, and all three policy councils to support the development and implementation of the President’s agenda. This deputy chief should therefore have impressive policy cre- dentials in the realms of economic, domestic, and social affairs.

 

SENIOR ADVISERS

Presidents have surrounded themselves with senior advisers whose experi- ence and interests are not necessarily neatly defined. In recent Administrations, senior advisers have been appointed to offer broad guidance on political matters and communications issues; others have acted as “czars” for specific projects or policy areas.

The most powerful senior advisers frequently have had a long personal relation- ship with the President and often have spent a significant amount of time with him within and outside of the White House. They have been asked not only to provide guidance on a variety of policy issues, but also to offer instruction on communi- cating with the American people and the media.

In a number of Administrations, new offices—or “councils”—have been created to support senior advisers. For the most part, their functions have been duplicative or overlapping, as a result of which these offices have tended to be short-lived. Even so, senior advisers should be provided the staff and resources that their portfo- lios require. To ensure that senior advisers are effective, their portfolios must be clearly delineated and clearly communicated across the White House. This too is a responsibility of the Chief of Staff.

 

OFFICE OF WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL

The Office of White House Counsel provides legal guidance to the President and elements of the EOP on a host of issues, including presidential powers and privi- leges, ethics compliance, review of clemency applications, and judicial nominations. The selection of White House Counsel is one of the most important decisions an incoming President will make. The office is not designed to create or advance pol- icies on its own initiative—nor should it do so. Rather, it is dedicated to guiding the President and his reports on how (within the bounds of the law) to pursue and realize the President’s agenda.

While the White House Counsel does not serve as the President’s personal attor- ney in nonofficial matters, it is almost impossible to delineate exactly where an issue is strictly personal and has no bearing on the President’s official function. The White House Counsel needs to be deeply committed both to the President’s agenda and to affording the President proactive counsel and zealous representation. That individual directly advises the President as he performs the duties of the office, and this requires a relationship that is built on trust, confidentiality, and candor.

The Office of White House Counsel is also responsible for ensuring that each component of the White House adheres to all applicable legal and ethical guide- lines, which often requires ongoing training and monitoring to ensure compliance. This means ensuring that White House staff regularly consult with office attor- neys on required financial disclosures, received gifts, potential conflicts of interest, and other ethical concerns. The Office of White House Counsel is the first line of defense for the EOP. Its staff must take seriously the duty to protect the powers and privileges of the President from encroachments by Congress, the judiciary, and the administrative components of departments and agencies.

In addition to the White House Counsel, the office includes deputies, assistants, associates, and legal support staff. The assistant and associate attorneys are often specialists in particular areas of the law and offer guidance to the EOP on issues related to national security, criminal law, environmental law, and a host of admin- istrative and regulatory matters. Attorneys working in the Office of White House Counsel serve as legal advisers to the White House policy operation by reviewing executive orders, agency regulations, and other policy-related functions. Here again, subordinates should be deeply committed to the President’s agenda and see their role as helping to accomplish the agenda through problem solving and advocacy. They should not erect roadblocks out of an abundance of caution; rather, they should offer practical legal advice on how to promote the President’s agenda within the bounds of the law.

The White House Counsel’s office cannot serve as a finishing school to credential the next set of white-shoe law firm attorneys or federal judges in waiting who cabin their opinions for fear their elite credentials could be tarnished through a policy disagreement. Rather, it should function more as an activist yet ethical plaintiffs’ firm that advocates for its client—the Administration’s agenda—within the limits imposed by the Constitution and the duties of the legal profession.

The Office of White House Counsel also serves as the primary gateway for communication between the White House and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Traditionally, both the White House Counsel and the Attorney General have issued a memo requiring all contact between the two institutions to occur only between the Office of White House Counsel and the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney


General. The next Administration should reexamine this policy and determine whether it might be more efficient or more appropriate for communication to occur through additional channels. The White House Counsel also works closely with the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel to seek opinions on, for example, matters of policy development and the constitutionality of presidential power and privileges and with OLA and the DOJ Office of Legal Policy on presidential judicial nominees.

When a new President takes office, he will need to decide expeditiously how to handle any major ongoing litigation or other pending legal matters that might pres- ent a challenge to his agenda. To offer guidance, the White House Counsel must get up to speed as quickly as possible on all significant ongoing legal challenges across the executive branch that might affect the new Administration’s policy agenda and must be prepared at the outset of the Administration to present recommenda- tions to the President, including recommendations for reconsidering or reversing positions of the previous Administration in any significant litigation. This review will usually require consulting with the new political leadership at the Justice Department, including during the transition period.

No day is predictable at the White House. Therefore, to handle the pace and volatility of affairs, the Office of White House Counsel must offer measured legal guidance in a timely manner. This often means forgoing law review–style memos about esoteric legal concepts and instead quickly providing high-level yet incisive guidance. Due to evolving world events, domestic affairs, and political pressures, the office often faces legal questions for which there may not be a wealth of precedent. Attorneys in the Office of White House Counsel must therefore work collaboratively within the White House and the Department of Justice, relying on each other as a team, to ensure that proper legal guidance is delivered to the President.

The President should choose a White House Counsel who is well-versed in the Constitution, administrative and regulatory law, and the inner workings of Congress and the political process. Instead of choosing a specialist, the President should hire a counsel with extensive experience with a wide range of complex legal subjects. Moreover, while a candidate with elite credentials might seem ideal, the best one will be above all loyal to the President and the Constitution.

STAFF SECRETARY

The Office of the Staff Secretary is rarely visible to the outside world, but it performs work of tremendous importance. The office is similar to a military com- mander’s adjutant as it is responsible for fielding and managing a vast amount of information at the top of its organization. This includes information on its way into the Oval Office as well as information flowing out from the Oval Office. Because of its gatekeeping function, the position of Staff Secretary is one of extreme trust, and the individual who possesses it should be vetted to work as an “honest broker” in the President’s service.


The Office of the Staff Secretary has been described as the last substantive control point before papers reach the Oval Office. A great deal of information is headed toward the Oval Office at any moment. This includes presidential decision memos; bills passed by Congress (which may be accompanied by signing or veto statements); and briefing books, reading materials, samples of constituent mail, personal mail, and drafts of speeches. The Staff Secretary makes certain that these materials are complete, well-ordered, and up to date before they reach the Presi- dent. This necessarily means that the Staff Secretary plays a key role in determining who weighs in on policy matters and when.

As noted above, the Staff Secretary also handles information leaving the Oval Office. The President may have questions after reviewing incoming material, may wish to seek more information, or may demand revisions. The Staff Secretary is often responsible for directing these requests to the appropriate places and fol- lowing up on them to ensure that they are completed.

One of the Staff Secretary’s critical functions is managing and overseeing the clearance process for the President’s daily/nightly briefing book. This book is filled with all the reading material and leading documentation the President needs in the morning and the evening to help him make decisions. The Staff Secretary also oversees the use of the President’s signature, whether by hand or by autopen, and manages the Office of the Executive Clerk, Office of Records Management, and Office of Presidential Correspondence.

 

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

The Office of Communications, which operates under the Director of Com- munications, conveys the President’s agenda to the public through various media, including speeches and remarks, press briefings, off-the-record discussions with reporters, and social media. Depending on how a President chooses to structure his White House, the Office of Communications may include the Office of the Press Secretary (Press Office), but no matter how it is structured, the office must work closely with the Press Office as well as the President’s speechwriters and digital strategists.

Operational functions of the Office of Communications include scheduling and running press briefings, interviews, meetings, media appearances, speeches, and a range of other events. The Office of Communications must maintain robust rela- tionships with the White House Press Corps, the White House Correspondents’ Association, regional stakeholders, and key interest groups. No legal entitle- ment exists for the provision of permanent space for media on the White House campus, and the next Administration should reexamine the balance between media demands and space constraints on the White House premises.

Leadership within the Office of Communications should include a Com- munications Director (who is a direct report to the Chief of Staff ), a Deputy

Communications Director, a Deputy Director for Strategic Communications, and a Press Secretary. This leadership team must work together closely to drive the national narrative about the White House.

The best resource for the Office of Communications is the President. The Pres- ident conveys the White House’s overall message through one or two inaugural addresses, State of the Union addresses, speeches to Congress, and press confer- ences. The office must also ensure that the various White House offices disseminate a unified message to the public. The Communications Director and Press Secretary in particular should be careful to avoid contradicting the President or delivering conflicting information.

The speechwriting team is a critical component of the communications team. Speechwriting is a unique talent: The writers selected must understand policy, should have a firm grasp of history and other liberal-arts disciplines, and should be able to learn and adopt the President’s style of rhetoric and mode of delivery.

The Press Secretary is the President’s spokesperson, communicating to the American people through the media. The Press Secretary engages with the White House Press Corps formally through press briefings and informally through impromptu gaggles and meetings. Individuals who serve in this role must be quick on their feet, which means, when appropriate, deftly refuting and rebutting corre- spondents’ questions and comments.

The Communications Director must convey the President’s mission to the American people. Especially for conservatives, this means navigating the main- stream media to ensure that the President’s agenda is conveyed effectively and accurately. The Communications Director must be politically savvy and very aware of the ongoing activities of the other White House offices. The new Administration should examine the nature of the relationship between itself and the White House Correspondents Association and consider whether an alternative coordinating body might be more suitable.

 

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (OLA)

Created by President Dwight Eisenhower, the OLA has continued to serve as the liaison between the White House and Congress. The White House must work with congressional leaders to ensure presidential nominees, for roles such as Cabinet secretaries and ambassadors, are confirmed by the Senate. The White House also relies on Congress to enact reforms promised by the President on the campaign trail, whether those promises relate to health care, education, or national defense. Because Congress holds the power of the purse, White House staffers must ensure that there is enough support on the Hill to secure the necessary funding through the appropriations process to fulfill the President’s agenda.

The OLA reports directly to the Chief of Staff and in some Administrations has done so under the guidance of a Deputy Chief of Staff (usually the Deputy Chief

for Policy). Regardless of the person to whom the OLA reports, however, the office exercises a certain autonomy on behalf of the President and the Chief of Staff in directly influencing congressional leaders of both major political parties. The OLA often must function as the mediator among the parties and find common ground to facilitate the successful enactment of the President’s agenda.

As is the case with many White House offices (but especially the Office of Com- munications), the OLA must ensure that congressional leaders receive one unified message. If other actors within the White House maintain their own relationships with congressional leaders and staffers, it may appear that the President’s agenda is fractured and lacks consensus. This dynamic has caused real problems for many Presidents in the past.

Internally, OLA staffers need to be involved in policy discussions, budget reviews, and other important meetings. They must also provide advice to policy staffers regarding whether certain ideas are politically feasible. Externally, OLA staffers have to communicate continuously with congressional offices of both parties in both the House and the Senate to ensure that the President has enough support to enact his legislative priorities or sustain votes.

The OLA requires staffers who are effective communicators and can provide a dose of reality to other White House staffers when necessary. Although a policy proposal from within the White House may be a great idea, OLA staffers must ensure that it is politically feasible. OLA staffers must therefore be skilled in both politics and policy. Furthermore, the President should seek out individuals who can advance his agenda and at the same time forge pathways with members of the opposing political party on other priorities.

Most important, the OLA must function as a well-oiled machine: precisely synced. The President cannot afford to have a tennis player on—much less as the leader of—his football team.

 

OFFICE OF PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL (PPO)

The political axiom that “personnel is policy” was popularized under President Ronald Reagan during the 1981 presidential transition. One of the most important offices in the White House is the PPO, which was created under President Richard Nixon to centralize political appointments. Departments and agencies had and still have direct legal authority on hiring and firing, but the power to fill Schedule C posi- tions—the core of political jobs—is vested with the President. Therefore, the White House, not the department or agency, has the final word on political appointments. PPO’s primary responsibility is to staff the executive branch with individuals who are equipped to implement the President’s agenda. Although its focus should be identifying and recruiting leaders to fill the approximately 1,000 appointments that require Senate confirmation, PPO must also fill approximately 3,000 political jobs that require dedicated conservatives to support the Administration’s political leadership.

Frequently, many medium-tier and top-tier jobs have been filled by policy experts tasked with accomplishing much of the work of the Administration. At the same time, appointees in the entry-level jobs have brought invaluable energy and commitment to the White House and have proved to be the “farm team” for the conservative movement.

The Office of Presidential Personnel is responsible for:

   Identifying potential political personnel both actively through recruitment and passively by fielding resumes and adjudicating requests from

political actors.

   Vetting potential political personnel by conducting political background checks and reviewing any clearance and fitness assessments by departments and agencies.

   Making recommendations to the President and to other appointment authorities on behalf of the President.

   Identifying programmatic political workforce needs early and developing plans (for example, Schedule F).

   Maintaining a strong relationship with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) both for operational purposes and to effectuate the President’s direct Title 5 authorities. The President is in charge of the federal workforce and exercises control principally by working through the Director of the Office of Personnel Management.

   Training and connecting political personnel.

   Playing “bad cop” in a way that other White House offices cannot (including serving as the office that takes direct responsibility for firings and hirings).

   Serving as a personnel link between conservative organizations and the executive branch.

In most Administrations, PPO will staff more than 100 positions during a transi- tion and thousands of noncareer positions during the President’s first term. Direct authority and a strong relationship with the President are necessary attributes for any PPO Director. Historically, PPO has had direct review and control of personnel files, including security clearance dossiers.


At the highest level, PPO is tasked with long-term, strategic workforce devel- opment. The “billets” of political appointments are of immense importance in credentialing and training future leaders. In addition, whatever one’s view of the constitutionality of various civil service rules (for example, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 19986) might be, it is necessary to ensure that departments and agencies have robust cadres of political staff just below senior levels in the event of unexpected vacancies.

 

OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS (OPA)

The OPA is the primary office within the executive branch for managing the President’s political interests. Although its specific functions vary from Admin- istration to Administration, the OPA typically serves as the liaison between the President and associated political entities: national committees, federal and state campaigns, and interest groups. Within legal guidelines, the OPA engages in out- reach, conducts casework, and—if the President is up for reelection—assists with his campaign. The OPA may also monitor congressional campaigns, arrange pres- idential visits with other political campaigns, and recommend campaign staff to the Office of Presidential Personnel for service in the executive branch.

The OPA further serves as a line of communication between the White House and the President’s political party. This includes both relaying the President’s ambitions to political interests and listening to the needs of political interests. This relationship allows for the exchange of information between the White House and political actors across the country. The OPA should have one director of political affairs who reports either to the Chief of Staff or to a Deputy Chief of Staff. The OPA should also include various deputy directors, each of whom is responsible for a certain geographical region of the country.

Because nearly all White House activities are in some way inherently political, the OPA needs to be aware of all presidential actions and activities—including travel, policy decisions, speeches, nominations, and responses to matters of national security—and consider how they might affect the President’s image. The OPA must therefore have a designated staffer who communicates not only with other White House offices, but also with the Cabinet and executive branch agencies.

 

OFFICE OF CABINET AFFAIRS (OCA)

The OCA’s role has changed to some degree over the course of various Adminis- trations, but its overriding function remains the same: to ensure the coordination of policy and communication between the White House and the Cabinet. Most important, the OCA coordinates all Cabinet meetings with the President. It should also organize and administer regular meetings of the Deputy Secretaries because they also typically serve vital roles in the departments and agencies and, further, often become acting secretaries when Cabinet members resign.

There should be one Cabinet Secretary who reports to the Chief of Staff’s office, either directly or through a deputy chief, according to the chief’s preference and focus. The Cabinet Secretary maintains a direct relationship with all members of the Cabinet.

The OCA further consists of deputies and special assistants who work with each department’s principal, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and other senior staff. The OCA also connects the departments to WHO offices.

The OCA coordinates with the Chief of Staff’s office and the Office of Communi- cations to promote the President’s agenda through the Cabinet departments and agencies. The Cabinet’s communications staffers are obviously another critical component of this operation.

In prior Administrations, the OCA has played a vital role by tracking the Pres- ident’s agenda for the Chief of Staff, Deputy Chiefs, and senior advisers. It has worked with each department and agency to advance policy priorities. In the future, amplifying this function would truly benefit both the President and the conser- vative movement.

From time to time throughout an Administration, travel optics, ethics chal- lenges, and Hatch Act7 issues involving Cabinet members, deputies, and senior staffers can arise. The OCA is normally tasked with keeping the WHO informed of such developments and providing support if and when necessary.

The ideal Cabinet Secretary will have exceptional organizational skills and be a seasoned political operative or attorney. Because many Cabinet officials have been former presidential candidates, governors, ambassadors, and Members of Congress, the ideal candidate should also possess the ability to interact with and persuade accomplished individuals.

 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC LIAISON (OPL)

The OPL is critically important in building coalitions and support for the Pres- ident’s agenda across every aligned social, faith-based, minority, and economic interest group. It is a critical tool for shaping public opinion and keeping myriad supporters, as well as “frenemies” and opponents alike who are within reach, better informed.

The OPL is a notably large office. It should have one Director who reports to the Chief of Staff’s office, either directly or through a deputy, according to the chief’s preference and focus. The Director must maintain relationships not only with other WHO heads, but also with the senior staff of every Cabinet department and agency. Since a President’s agenda is always in motion, it is important for the OPL to facilitate listening sessions to receive the views of the various leaders and mem- bers of key interest groups.

The OPL should also have a sufficient number of deputies and special assistants to cover the vast number of disparate interest groups that are engaged daily. The


OPL has, by far, held more meetings in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) and within the West Wing itself than any other office within the WHO.

The OPL is the chief White House enforcer and gatekeeper among these var- ious interest groups. It has operated best whenever the Chief of Staff has given it permission to use both the proverbial “carrot” and the proverbial “stick.” To make this work, communication with the chief’s office is vital. Additionally, the OPL has had an outsized role in presidential scheduling and both official and political travel. The OPL Director should come from the President’s election campaign or Cap- itol Hill—but should not have deeply entrenched connections to a K Street entity or any other potential stakeholder. Some prior relationships can create real or perceived biases toward one group or another. The Director should be amiable, gregarious, highly organized, and willing to shoulder criticism and pushback from

interest groups and other elements of the Administration.

Unlike the Director, OPL deputies and special assistants need a deep under- standing of the capital, from K Street to Capitol Hill. They should have extensive experience in private industry, the labor sector, the conservative movement, and among the specific interest groups with which they will be asked to engage on behalf of the White House.

OPL staffers work with more external and internal parties than any other WHO staffers. In turn, they must be effective communicators and initiative-takers. They must also be able to influence, persuade, and—most important—listen to various stakeholders and ensure that they feel heard. All OPL staffers must understand from the outset that their jobs might be modified or even phased out entirely as the Administration’s priorities change.

 

OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (IGA)

The IGA connects the White House to state, county, local, and tribal govern- ments. In other words, it is the one-stop shop for disseminating an Administration’s agenda to all non–federal government entities.

The IGA should have a Director to whom one or two Deputy Directors report. The Director must ensure that the White House remains connected to all non– federal government entities. The interests and perspectives of these entities are represented in policy discussions, organized events with the West Wing, EOP senior staff, and IGA staff throughout the departments and agencies.

The IGA can be staffed in a variety of ways, but two arrangements are most common:

   Each deputy and that deputy’s staffers are responsible for a type of government.

   A group of staffers is responsible for a specific geographical region of the country.

The IGA, as suggested above, represents the interests and perspectives of non– federal government entities, but its primary job is to make sure that these entities understand an Administration’s agenda and ultimately support it.

The IGA must work with all other White House offices, especially the OPA and the OPL, and manage its staff throughout the departments and agencies. IGA staff- ers must therefore have communication skills, understand political nuance, and be willing to engage in complex policy discussions. They should also be not just generally responsive, but also proactive in seeking out the interests and perspec- tives of non–federal government entities.

 

WHITE HOUSE POLICY COUNCILS

As the federal government has ballooned in size over the past century, it has become increasingly difficult for the President alone to direct his agenda across the executive branch. Three White House policy councils have come into existence to help the President to control the bureaucracy and ensure continued alignment between agency leadership and White House priorities. Those councils—as pre- viewed above—are the NSC, NEC, and DPC. Each is headed by an Assistant to the President and performs three significant functions.

   Policy Coordination. The primary role of the policy councils is to coordinate the development of Administration policy. This frequently includes developing significant legislative priorities, coordinating policy decisions that impact multiple departments and agencies, and at times coordinating policy decisions within a single department or agency. This process must ensure that all relevant offices are included; that competing or conflicting opinions are thoroughly discussed and evaluated; and, when there is disagreement among White House senior staff or among Cabinet members, a well-structured question is presented to the President for an intermediate or final decision.

   Policy Advice. By virtue of working in the White House, the heads of the three policy councils will also function as independent policy advisers to the President. This aspect of the role will vary depending on the individual in this position and the President’s governing philosophy. Incumbents have ranged from “honest brokers,” who mostly coordinate and ensure that all opinions are fairly presented to the President, to “policy deciders,” who largely drive a given policy topic on behalf of the President.

   Policy Implementation. The policy councils also manage and mediate the implementation of previous policy decisions. Implementation of a new statute or an executive order frequently takes years and involves many distinct and more granular policy decisions along the way. It is essential to have a centralized process for evaluating and coordinating these decisions, especially if they involve more than one Cabinet department or agency with differing opinions on the best approach for securing the President’s goals.

The above functions have recently been managed by policy councils through a tiered interagency policy process. This process helps to identify differences of opinion and reach a decision without having to take every issue to the President. It can be used to address a single question or monitor a recurring issue on an ongoing basis. Typically, the process involves multiple Cabinet departments and agencies that have a pertinent role, policy interest, or disagreement. Each policy council’s process could involve the following committees:

   Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC). A PCC is led by a Special Assistant to the President from the policy council and includes political Assistant Secretary–level experts from the relevant departments, agencies, or offices. The purpose is to determine where consensus exists, clearly identify where there are differing opinions, and develop options for resolving the remaining questions. If no outstanding questions or disagreements exist, the PCC may resolve the issue and move toward implementation at the agency level.

   Deputies Committee (DC). A DC is a meeting of presidentially appointed executives chaired by the policy council’s Deputy Assistant to the President and relevant Deputy Secretaries. It evaluates the options produced by the PCC and frequently directs the PCC to add, expand, or reevaluate an option or even to reach a compromise and resolve an issue at that level.

   Principals Committee (PC). When questions are not resolved by a DC, the Director of the Policy Council will chair a PC, which is attended by the relevant Cabinet Secretaries and senior White House political staff. This is the final opportunity for the President’s most senior advisers to discuss the question, make sure that each principal’s position is carefully understood, and see whether consensus or a compromise might be reached. If not,

the Chief of Staff’s office will schedule time for the PC to meet with the President for a final decision.

Despite having seemingly clear and separate portfolios, the three policy coun- cils frequently have areas of overlap, which can result in confusion, duplication, or conflict. For example, there are the areas of immigration and border security (either NSC or DPC); health care, energy, and environment (either NEC or DPC); and trade and international economic policy (either NSC or NEC). Identifying these potentially problematic areas and assigning policy responsibilities to only one council where possible will help to speed up the policy-coordination process. While other chapters will cover specific policy goals for each department or agency, incoming policy councils will need to move rapidly to lead policy processes around cross-cutting agency topics, including countering China, enforcing immi- gration laws, reversing regulatory policies in order to promote energy production, combating the Left’s aggressive attacks on life and religious liberty, and confronting

“wokeism” throughout the federal government.

National Security Council. The NSC is intended to be an interdepartmen- tal body within the White House that can set national security policy with a whole-of-government approach. Unlike the other policy councils, the NSC was established by statute.8 Statutory members and advisers who are currently part of the NSC include the President and Vice President; the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Energy; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the Director of National Intelligence.9

The NSC staff, and particularly the National Security Adviser, should be vetted for foreign and security policy experience and insight. The National Secu- rity Adviser and NSC staff advise the President on matters of foreign policy and national security, serve as an information conduit in times of crisis, and as liaisons ensuring that written communications are properly shared among NSC members. Special attention should be given to the use of detailees to staff the NSC. In recent years, the NSC’s staff size has been rightsized from its peak of 400 in 2015 down to 100–150 professional members. The next Administration should try to

limit the number of detailees to ensure more direct presidential control.

National Economic Council. The NEC was established in 1993 by executive order and has four key functions:

   To “coordinate the economic policy-making process with respect to domestic and international economic issues.”

   To “coordinate economic policy advice to the President.”

   To “ensure that policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President’s stated goals” and “that those goals are being effectively pursued.”

   To “monitor implementation of the President’s economic policy agenda.”10

The NEC Director coordinates and implements the President’s economic policy objectives by working with Cabinet secretaries, their departments, and multiple

agencies. The Director is supported by a staff of policy experts in various fields, including infrastructure, manufacturing, research and development, agriculture, small business, financial regulation, housing, technology and innovation, and fiscal policy.

The NEC considers economic policy matters, and the DPC typically considers anything related to domestic matters with the exception of economic policy mat- ters. It also differs from the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). Whereas the NEC is in charge of policy development, the CEA acts as the White House’s internal research arm for economic analysis.

It is therefore critically important to find people with the right qualifica- tions to head both the NEC and the CEA. The CEA is almost always led by a well-known academic economist, and the NEC is regularly led by someone with expertise in directing the President’s economic policy process. Those who have served in the role have ranged from former CEOs of the nation’s largest invest- ment firms to financial-services industry managers to seasoned congressional staffers who have managed the economic policy issues for top financial and tax-writing committees.

Domestic Policy Council. The Domestic Policy Council (DPC) consists of advisers to the President on noneconomic domestic policy issues as well as inter- national issues with a significant domestic component (such as immigration). It is one of the primary policy councils serving the President along with the NSC and NEC. The Director serves as the principal DPC adviser to the President, along with members of the Cabinet, and the Deputy Director chairs the committee respon- sible for coordinating domestic policy development at the Deputy Secretary level. In this respect, both the Director and the Deputy Director have critical institu- tional functions that affect the development of domestic policy throughout the Administration.

The DPC also has policy experts (for example, Special Assistants to the Presi- dent or SAPs) who are responsible for developing and coordinating, as well as for advising the President, on specific issues. It is essential that DPC policy expertise reflect the most prominent issues that are before the Administration: issues such as the environment, health care, housing, and immigration. In addition, DPC SAPs should demonstrate a working knowledge of the rulemaking process (although they need not necessarily be experts on regulation) because a working knowledge of the rulemaking process will facilitate the DPC’s effectiveness in coordinating Administration policy.

The DPC also needs to work closely with other offices within the Executive Office of the President to promote economic opportunity and private-sector inno- vation. This includes working with the Office of Management and Budget and its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as well as the Council of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, and Office of Science and Technology Policy. To this end, the Director should chair a standing meeting with the princi- pals from each of the other EOP offices to enhance coordination from within the White House.

Several areas will be especially important as the DPC works to develop a well-defined domestic policy agenda. One is the promotion of innovation as a foundation for economic growth and opportunity. The President should establish an economic opportunity working group, chaired by the DPC Director, to coordi- nate the development of policies that promote economic opportunity. Another important area is the promotion of health care reform to bring down costs for the American people and the pressure that spending on health programs puts on the federal budget. Finally, DPC should coordinate with the NSC on a policy agenda to enhance border security.

 

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT (OVP)

In modern U.S. history, the Vice President has acted as a significant adviser to the President. Once elected, the VP helps to promote and, in many instances, put into place and execute the President’s agenda. The President may additionally determine the inclusion of OVP staff in White House meetings, including Policy Coordinating Committee, Deputies Committee, and Principals Committee dis- cussions as has been done in various recent Administrations.

Recent Presidents have decided to give Vice Presidents space in the West Wing. The VP’s proximity to the President—as well as to the Chief of Staff and additional senior advisers—makes his or her role a powerful one within the West Wing.

Presidents typically tap VPs to lead various Administration efforts. These efforts have included serving on the NSC Principals Committee, heading the National Space Council, addressing immigration and border issues, leading the response to health care crises, and supervising workforce programs. VPs traditionally also spearhead projects of personal interest that have been authorized by the President. The VP is also charged with breaking tie votes in the Senate and in recent years has served abroad as a brand ambassador for the White House and more broadly the United States, announcing Administration priorities and coordinating with heads of state and other top foreign government officials. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, could be a President’s emissary to the Senate.

 

OFFICE OF THE FIRST LADY/FIRST GENTLEMAN

The First Lady or First Gentleman plays an interesting role in the formation, implementation, and execution of policy in concert with the President. Active and interested first spouses often champion a select number of signature issues, whether they be thorny social issues or deeper policy issues. One advantage of the first spouse’s taking on hot-button social issues is that any political backlash will be less severe than it would be for the President.


The first spouse normally appoints a chief of staff who has enough assistants to support the spouse’s activities in the East Wing of the White House. This group works exclusively with the first spouse and senior members of the White House along with EOP personnel to implement and execute the first spouse’s priorities, which reflect the first spouse’s passions and interests and are often identified as important in discussions with the President. Executed well, they can be strategi- cally useful in accelerating the Administration’s agenda. Past East Wing initiatives have focused on such issues as combating bullying, fighting drug abuse, promoting literacy, and encouraging physical education for young adults and children.

The first spouse is afforded significant resources. His or her staff also works with the President’s policy team, members of the Cabinet, and other EOP staff.

 

 

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Edwin Meese III, Donald Devine, Ambassador Andrew Bremberg, and Jonathan Bronitsky deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.


ENDNOTES

1.                U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 1, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 14, 2023).

2.                U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2.

3.                U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 3.

4.                 U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2.

5.                See Chapter 2, “Executive Office of the President,” infra.

6.                H.R. 4328, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105- 277, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Division C, Title I, § 151, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ277/

PLAW-105publ277.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023).

7.                 S. 1871, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, Public Law No. 76-252, 76th Congress, August 2, 1939, https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/53/STATUTE-53-Pg1147.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023).

8.                S. 758, National Security Act of 1947, Public Law No. 80-253, 80th Congress, July 26, 1947, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/61/STATUTE-61-Pg495.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). “The National Security Council was established by the National Security Act of 1947 (PL 235 – 61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 402), amended by the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Later in 1949, as part of the Reorganization Plan, the Council was placed in the Executive Office of the President.” The White House, “National Security Council,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ (accessed February 15, 2023).

9.                See Chapter 2, “Executive Office of the President,” infra.

10.          President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 12835, “Establishment of the National Economic Council,” January 25, 1993, in Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 16 (January 27, 1993), pp. 6189–6190, https://www.govinfo.

gov/content/pkg/FR-1993-01-27/pdf/FR-1993-01-27.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023).


2

 

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES

Russ Vought

 

 

I

 
n its opening words, Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”1 That enormous power is not vested in departments or agencies, in staff or administrative bodies, in nongovernmental organizations or other equities and interests close to the government. The President must set and enforce a plan for the executive branch. Sadly, however, a President today assumes office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences

of a radical, supposedly “woke” faction of the country.

The modern conservative President’s task is to limit, control, and direct the executive branch on behalf of the American people. This challenge is created and exacerbated by factors like Congress’s decades-long tendency to delegate its lawmaking power to agency bureaucracies, the pervasive notion of expert “inde- pendence” that protects so-called expert authorities from scrutiny, the presumed inability to hold career civil servants accountable for their performance, and the increasing reality that many agencies are not only too big and powerful, but also increasingly weaponized against the public and a President who is elected by the people and empowered by the Constitution to govern.

In Federalist No. 47, James Madison warned that “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”2 Regrettably, that wise and cautionary note describes to a significant degree the modern executive branch, which—whether controlled


by the bureaucracy or by the President—writes federal policy, enforces that policy, and often adjudicates whether that policy was properly drafted and enforced. The overall situation is constitutionally dire, unsustainably expensive, and in urgent need of repair. Nothing less than the survival of self-governance in America is at stake.

The great challenge confronting a conservative President is the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch to return power— including power currently held by the executive branch—to the American people. Success in meeting that challenge will require a rare combination of boldness and self-denial: boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will and self-denial to use the bureaucratic machine to send power away from Washington and back to America’s families, faith communities, local governments, and states.

Fortunately, a President who is willing to lead will find in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) the levers necessary to reverse this trend and impose a sound direction for the nation on the federal bureaucracy. The effectiveness of those EOP levers depends on the fundamental premise that it is the President’s agenda that should matter to the departments and agencies that operate under his constitutional authority and that, as a general matter, it is the President’s chosen advisers who have the best sense of the President’s aims and intentions, both with respect to the policies he intends to enact and with respect to the interests that must be secured to govern successfully on behalf of the American people. This chapter focuses on key features of and recommendations for several of the EOP’s important components.

 

U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB)

OMB assists the President in the execution of his policy agenda across the gov- ernment by employing many statutory and executive procedural levers to bring the bureaucracy in line with all budgetary, regulatory, and management decisions. Properly understood, it is a President’s air-traffic control system with the abil- ity and charge to ensure that all policy initiatives are flying in sync and with the authority to let planes take off and, at times, ground planes that are flying off course. OMB’s key roles include:

   Developing and enforcing the President’s budget and executing the appropriations laws that fund the government;

   Managing agency and personnel performance, procurement policy, financial management, and information technology;

   Developing the President’s regulatory agenda, reviewing new regulatory actions, reviewing federal information collections, and setting and enforcing federal information policy; and


   Coordinating and clearing agency communications with Congress, including testimonies and views on draft legislation.

OMB cannot perform its role on behalf of the President effectively if it is not inti- mately involved in all aspects of the White House policy process and lacks knowledge of what the agencies are doing. Internally to the EOP, ensuring that the policy-for- mulation procedures developed by the White House to serve the President include OMB is one of any OMB Director’s major responsibilities. A common meme of those who intend to evade OMB review is to argue that where “resources” are not being discussed, OMB’s participation is optional. This ignores both OMB’s role in all down- stream execution and the reality that it has the only statutory tools in the White House that are powerful enough to override implementing agencies’ bureaucracies. The Director must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approxima- tion of the President’s mind as it pertains to the policy agenda while always being ready with actual options to effect that agenda within existing legal authorities and resources. This role cannot be performed adequately if the Director acts instead as the ambassador of the institutional interests of OMB and the wider bureaucracy to the White House. Once its reputation as the keeper of “commander’s intent” is established, then and only then does OMB have the ability to shape the most

efficient way to pursue an objective.

Externally, the Director must ensure that OMB has sufficient visibility into the deep caverns of agency decision-making. One indispensable statutory tool to that end is to ensure that policy officials—the Program Associate Directors (PADs) managing the vast Resource Management Offices (RMOs)—personally sign what are known as the apportionments. In 1870, Congress passed the Anti-Deficiency Act3 to prevent the common agency practice of spending down all appropriated funding, creating artificial funding shortfalls that Congress would have to fill. The law mandated that all funding be allotted or “apportioned” in installments. This process, whereby agencies come to OMB for allotments of appropriated funding, is essential to the effective financial stewardship of taxpayer dollars. OMB can then direct on behalf of a President the amount, duration, and purpose of any appor- tioned funding to ensure against waste, fraud, and abuse and ensure consistency with the President’s agenda and applicable laws.

The vast majority of these apportionments were signed by career officials—the Deputy Associate Directors (DADs)—until the Trump Administration placed this responsibility in the hands of the PADs and thereby opened wide vistas of oversight that had escaped the attention of policy officials. The Biden Administration sub- sequently reversed this decision. No Director should be chosen who is unwilling to restore apportionment decision-making to the PADs’ personal review, who is not aggressive in wielding the tool on behalf of the President’s agenda, or who is unable to defend the power against attacks from Congress.


It should be noted that each of OMB’s primary functions, along with other executive and statutory roles, is carried out with the help of many essential OMB support offices. The two most important offices for moving OMB at the will of a Director are the Budget Review Division (BRD) and the Office of General Counsel (OGC). The Director should have a direct and effective relationship with the head of the BRD (considered the top career official within OMB) and transmit most instructions through that office because the rest of the agency is institution- ally inclined toward its direction and responds accordingly. The BRD inevitably will translate the directions from policy officials to the career staff, and at every stage, it is obviously vital that the Director ensure that this translation is an accurate one.

In addition, many key considerations involved in enacting a President’s agenda hinge on existing legal authorities. The Director must ensure the appointment of a General Counsel who is respected yet creative and fearless in his or her abil- ity to challenge legal precedents that serve to protect the status quo. This is vital within OMB not only with respect to the adequate development of policy options for the President’s review, but also with respect to agencies that attempt to protect their own institutional interests and foreclose certain avenues based on the mere assertion (and not proof) that the law disallows it or that, conversely, attempt to disregard the clear statutory commands of Congress.

In general, the Director should empower a strong Deputy Director with author- ity over the Deputy for Management, the PADs, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to work diligently to break down barriers within OMB and not allow turf disputes or a lack of visibility to undermine the agency’s prin- cipal budget, management, and regulatory functions. OMB should work toward a “One OMB” position on behalf of the President and represent that view during the various policymaking processes.

Budget. The United States today faces an untenable fiscal situation and owes

$31 trillion on a debt that is steadily increasing. The OMB Director should present a fiscal goal to the President early in the budget development process to address the federal government’s fiscal irresponsibility. This goal would help to align the months-long process of developing the actual proposals for inclusion in the budget. Though some mistakenly regard it as a mere paper-pushing exercise, the Pres- ident’s budget is in fact a powerful mechanism for setting and enforcing public policy at federal agencies. The budget team includes six Resource Management Offices that, together with the BRD and other components, help the Director of OMB to develop and execute detailed agency spending plans that bear on every major aspect of policy formation and execution at federal agencies. Through initial priority-setting and ongoing supervision of agency spending, OMB’s budget team plays a key role in executing policy across the executive branch, including at many

agencies wrongly regarded as “independent.”


The RMOs, each of which is led by a political appointee known as the PAD and a career DAD, are separated into six functional units:

   National Security.

   Natural Resources, Energy, and Science.

   Health.

   Education, Income Maintenance, and Labor.

   Transportation, Justice, and Homeland Security.

   Treasury, Commerce, and Housing.

Because the RMOs are institutionally ingrained in nearly all policymaking and implementation across the executive branch, they play a critical role in helping the Director to implement the President’s public policy agenda. However, because each RMO is responsible for formulating and supervising such a wide range of policy details, many granular but critical policy decisions are effectively left to the career professionals who serve across Administrations.

To enhance the OMB Director’s ability to help the President drive policy at the agencies, the existing six RMOs should be divided into smaller subject-matter areas, allowing for more PADs, and each of these PADs should have a Deputy PAD. This expanded pool of RMOs with additional political leadership would enable more comprehensive direction and oversight of policy development and implementation. Regardless of whether Congress adopts the President’s full set of budget rec- ommendations, the President should reintroduce the concept of administrative pay-as-you-go, or administrative PAYGO. This simple procedural requirement imposes budget neutrality on the discretionary choices of federal agencies, of which there are many in nearly all areas of policymaking. This simple step forces the executive branch to control what it can control. The principle may occasionally yield to other overarching requirements, such as a presidential regulatory budget, but in nearly all cases, administrative PAYGO plays a unique and indispensable

role in enforcing fiscal responsibility at federal departments and agencies.

The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal disci- pline on the federal government. Anything short of that would constitute abject failure. Management. The Management Office of OMB (the “M-Side” as it is often called) is responsible for carrying out several important agency oversight functions, many of which are statutory. The Management team includes the following offices

led by presidentially appointed Senate-confirmed individuals:


   The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP).

   The Office of Performance and Personnel Management (OPPM).

   The Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM).

   The Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer (OFCIO).

   The Made in America Office (MIAO), which was added by the Biden Administration and is not a Senate-confirmed slot.

Each of these offices has responsibilities and authorities that a President can use to help drive p