Why Trump potentially sidestepping normal political appointee screening is raising concerns

As former President Trump’s transition team is considering sidestepping the normal background checks of its political appointees, observers, experts and lawmakers are warning of the consequences the plan could have on national security and who has access to government secrets. 

Trump’s team is floating a proposal to avoid the standard process of having the FBI screen potential appointees during the transition period, The New York Times reported this week, opting instead—if it pursues the suggestion—to contract a private firm to conduct the investigations. Trump, should he win the election, would then unilaterally appoint those individuals to their designated posts upon taking office. 

Experts acknowledge the president has the authority to remove the FBI from the equation and contracted screening already occurs at some levels of government for employees requiring security clearances. The actual adjudication of whether to award a clearance, however, is defined in statute as a governmental function and typically carried out at the agency level or, for presidential aides and staffers, the White House Office of Security. Trump superseding that process raised red flags. 

“What matters is who is making the determination,” said Lindy Kyzer, director of content at ClearanceJobs.com. “If the president decided to, he could circumvent the entire White House personnel office and appoint his own office or agency—or himself—to make the adjudicative decision.” 

A memo Trump aides are circulating with the proposal, as reported by the Times, does not detail which appointees would fall under the new process. Steve Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, told the newspaper the former president has concerns with the Justice Department’s objectivity and would use “the full power of the presidency” to build out his administration. 

Each new administration has to fill about 4,000 political roles throughout government, about 1,200 of which require Senate confirmation. The non-Senate confirmed positions can be installed much more quickly, provided those who require one have at least a provisional security clearance in hand. President Biden swore in 1,100 appointees on his first day in office; Trump did so for 500 when his first term began. 

While the standard process for screening political appointees is outlined through a series of executive orders and interagency agreements rather than codified in law, experts warned the norms exist for good reason. 

“The prospect of President Trump’s team bypassing the FBI in the security clearance process for appointees is deeply concerning,” said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a good government group that runs the Center for Presidential Transition. “The fundamental job of our government is to keep the public safe, and a president sidestepping law enforcement in the vetting of key appointees could place our country at serious risk.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, speculated that Trump’s aides are making the proposal because they would not otherwise be eligible to receive security clearances. 

“Passing an FBI security clearance to be entrusted with our country’s most guarded secrets requires unquestionable loyalty to the United States, a test Trump and his cronies, who are the poster children of plutocratic globalization and ‘elite capture,’ know they could never pass,” Raskin said. 

The concerns span beyond just security clearance processing. Political appointees requiring Senate confirmation also must disclose their personal financial interests and enter in ethics agreements before they receive lawmaker consideration. 

“If Trump is willing to put national security at risk by skipping the careful adjudication of security clearances for his appointees, there's no reason to believe he and his allies in the Senate would adhere to [that] traditional practice,” said Walter Shaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics. 

Without disclosed ethics agreements, Shaub added, nefarious actors could seek to pressure or entice the appointees. Trump’s transition team has yet to agree to terms to officially work with the Biden administration on transition activities, including an ethics agreement for those staff. 

“If he skipped over both the security clearance process and the ethics process, the Senate could find itself voting on nominations of individuals with unknown, dangerous ties to hostile foreign powers and unresolved conflicts of interest,” Shaub said. “National security would be jeopardized by both failures.”

Sean Michael Newhouse contributed to this report.