The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

An important report to Congress says a lot about where our democracy is headed 

This past Friday, just days after it was required to do so, the General Services Administration (GSA) posted a report to its website titled “2024 Presidential Transition Activities: Progress Report as of May 2024.” In doing so, the 2024 presidential transition has begun.  

This didn’t cause a stir, likely the result of its drop right before the weekend began. Nevertheless, this is big-ish news — it signals several under-the-radar elements about what to expect this year and about the health of the U.S. democracy. 

Peaceful transfers of power aren’t to be taken for granted and don’t just happen on Inauguration Day with a handshake and a wave goodbye. They begin months earlier with careful and cooperative planning — the type of planning that was in such disarray in 2020.  

For this reason, the new GSA report is a big deal. 

For one, it shows the Biden administration is committed to following the law. Congress mandates that the sitting administration begin planning long before the election, even if the current president is running for re-election. The White House complied with the 12-month rule back in November and is again following the law at the six-month point, too.  

As I wrote in Washington Monthly last week, Donald Trump — or at least his advisers at the White House and staff at the GSA — did the same thing four years ago. Abiding by federal law matters for any White House, but in this case it matters because it sends a clear signal that careful and cooperative planning for the potential of a change of administration is well understood and being practiced. 

We later learned that this commitment was short-lived in 2020. The GSA initially refused to ascertain the election results that time, leading to long delays in officially starting the transition. Congress addressed that problem to some extent last year with an update to the law, but the problem didn’t end after the GSA finally allowed the transition to begin. As I discovered in interviews for my new book, members of the Biden-Harris transition team faced routine obstruction from the Trump White House and some, but not all, political appointees. One person focused on the budget transition in 2020 said to me that they saw a “blinking red light that they’re not going to play ball.” 

Friday’s news from this White House and the current GSA suggests something different. One of the most significant things the GSA report explains is that they’ve just created two new groups: the White House Transition Coordinating Council (WHTCC) and the Agency Transition Directors Council (ATDC).  

This is not an unusual step, as it comports with what is required, but in the shadow of 2020 it’s significant. For one, the WHTCC has a seat reserved for a representative of the yet-to-be-announced Trump transition team. Who will Trump choose for this role? And, how will they participate in the activities of the council? The answer to those two questions are worth paying close attention to over the next several weeks. 

The GSA report also clarifies where the Trump transition team will be given office space after the Republican convention this summer. Unlike the last time, when the transition offices were at the Commerce Department, this time they will be at 1800 F Street, GSA headquarters. COVID meant almost nobody on the Biden-Harris team used the office space. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s transition team will occupy them in the run-up to this year’s election. 

Ultimately, the planning process the GSA started last week will amount to little if all candidates aren’t committed to respecting election outcomes. Trump has shown little interest in such a commitment and many in his circle have waffled when asked to commit to this basic principle of democracy. 

Nevertheless, the GSA has no other choice than to proceed as the law and tradition require. Whether or not Biden wins re-election, the stability and safety of the country depends on planning for all possible outcomes. As one person told me about 2020, failing to do this is a major national security risk: “We were unable to provide a complete picture of the current intelligence threat environment … had there been something similar to [September 11th], we wouldn’t have had the information.” 

Heath Brown is associate professor at City University of New York, John Jay College and CUNY Grad Center, and is the author of the forthcoming book, “Roadblocked: Joe Biden’s Rocky Transition to the Presidency.”