In Washington, D.C. (the nexus of American politics and global diplomacy), I witnessed firsthand that the peaceful transfer of presidential power is not merely a ceremonial gesture or a democratic ideal. It is the foundation of our national security, public health, and global stability.
From 2015 to 2018, I served in the White House as part of the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), bridging two administrations. Before the 2016 election, our team prepared detailed briefings for potential successors: Hillary Clinton and, as most predicted, Donald Trump. When Trump won the electoral vote, we set aside personal politics and focused on an orderly transition.
In the heated rhetoric of the election, I, like many others, drew firm red lines—principles or policies we would not compromise on, which we could not in good conscience accept, such as suggestions that threaten civil liberties or target marginalized communities. These principles set clear thresholds, defining the point at which many of us could no longer remain in the Trump administration. At the same time, we recognized that our commitment to the democratic process was crucial for maintaining essential government stability. We, along with countless dedicated career government professionals, worked tirelessly to ensure the transition did not falter.
During the Obama-to-Trump transition in 2016, our goal was to enable the incoming administration to continue important digital initiatives that serve all Americans. Unfortunately, Trump’s team ignored the norms of transition—an apparent deviation from established protocols—that jeopardized the continuity of essential government services. In the lead-up to the next transition, the incoming Trump team avoided most efforts to ensure continuity and seemed more focused on dismantling the government than on maintaining its stability. They failed to approach the transition process with the necessary seriousness and professionalism—even launching the entire transition team at the 11th hour, “[throwing the prepared materials into the trash]” without consideration and ignoring other essential plans from the Obama team. By all accounts circulating through the White House at the time, members of the incoming Trump transition team were not serious people.
In 2016, the transition reflected the diligence of the outgoing Obama administration; politics were set aside, and there was a sense of constitutional obligation as everyone focused on maintaining a seamless switch that was crucial for stability. In contrast, in 2020, the outgoing Trump administration almost obstructed every attempt to peacefully transfer power to the Biden administration. As a member of the Department of Defense review team for the Biden-Harris transition, I personally experienced canceled meetings, withheld data, and systematic refusals that risked national security and public health. This was not merely a matter of norms or inconvenience. At a critical moment, it was a gamble with American security. If these obstacles are allowed to recur, they not only jeopardize the next administration but also threaten the resilience of democracy itself.
The differences between these two transitions are shocking and deeply concerning. The outgoing Trump administration’s obstruction of the 2020 election results and efforts to cling to power are brazenly and openly anti-democratic. These actions did not begin with speeches from the Oval Office or the incitement of the Capitol attack. They were multifaceted and began long before, as he infiltrated key government agencies through partisan officials working behind closed doors with subversive manipulation, prioritizing loyalty to Trump over the integrity of the presidential transition process.
The Consequences of Obstruction
The obstacles posed by the outgoing Trump administration had serious repercussions. The first major obstacle was when the administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), Emily Murphy, refused to acknowledge Biden’s victory, blocking the transition team from accessing resources and delaying the start of essential transition work. The obstacles did not end there.
During the 2020 transition, one of our top priorities was addressing the nation’s most urgent risks: Covid-19. The outgoing administration was unwilling to cooperate on this. We encountered barriers to accessing essential COVID-19 data and information, undermining our ability to prepare effective vaccine distribution strategies and potentially costing lives. Our technical assessments of the speed of operations were thwarted by the Defense Department’s joint planning with the Department of Health and Human Services for vaccine distribution—canceled briefings, withheld information, and further delays.
One morning, we learned that acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller ordered a halt to all cooperation with the incoming administration across the Pentagon. The Pentagon suddenly ceased all collaboration with our transition team, canceled scheduled meetings without explanation. This sudden and unprecedented action by senior Pentagon officials undermined our ability to ensure that the incoming administration was fully prepared to manage the critical systems responsible for vaccine distribution. At one of the most critical moments of a global health crisis, we had to continue working without essential information and transparency.
The transition period also saw the most significant cyber competition in U.S. history—the SolarWinds attack. The outgoing administration’s lack of cooperation made it difficult to properly prepare the incoming government to assess and effectively respond to this serious cyber threat. Delays and refusals of information hindered the ability of various transition teams to assess the situation and prepare the incoming administration to respond to this threat.
Despite these challenges, the country was shielded from the worst potential outcomes because many members of the incoming Biden team had previously served in the Obama administration. Their institutional knowledge allowed them to compensate for the outgoing administration’s lack of cooperation and respond to challenges more effectively than an inexperienced team could have. Without this experience, the consequences could have been catastrophic.
Warnings for 2028
Reflecting on past transitions reveals disturbing patterns. But here’s the key point: the challenges and obstacles we encountered during the 2020 transition after Trump lost the election are not merely historical footnotes; if the same attitude toward the democratic process persists, they could pose risks for future Trump administrations.
As we look ahead to the 2028 election cycle, the possibility of another Trump administration ignoring the norms of peaceful transition again poses even greater risks. This is not a distant concern; it is an imminent threat to the stability of essential government functions and our ability to respond to crises. The Trump campaign for 2024 has already failed to take transition preparations seriously in case he wins the election, once again putting the continuity of government operations at tremendous risk. The transition of 2020-21 was not just a peaceful transfer of power, but in most cases, things could only get worse.
The delays and obstructions of 2020 have real implications. Since then, the world has not become any simpler. Global challenges such as pandemics, climate change, and international conflicts require swift and coordinated responses that only a brief and prepared administration can provide from day one.
Engineering Democracy
As a technology expert and engineering leader, I have long kept political discourse separate from my career. However, the risks of repeating the events of 2020 are too significant to ignore. The obstructed Biden-Harris transition had negative impacts on national security and teetered on the brink of disaster. This is not about partisanship; it is about preserving the mechanisms that keep our democracy secure and serve the American public.
In technology and business, we implement continuity plans to keep systems running. Throughout my career, I have focused on building robust systems that can withstand challenges and adapt to change. Our democracy is such a system—complex, interdependent, and requiring vigilant maintenance. The presidential transition is a key form of continuity planning at a national scale, with far-reaching consequences. Transition teams ensure that critical functions (national security, foreign policy, public health) continue uninterrupted when new leadership takes over. When this work is obstructed, the impacts can be profound.
We must recognize the importance of a peaceful, orderly transition and the serious dangers posed by those who act to undermine and disrupt them. Choosing leaders who respect these protocols is not about politics; it is about protecting the stability, resilience, and integrity of essential government services that serve the American public. We were fortunate. Experienced officials mitigated the worst impacts of the 2020 obstruction. Next time, we may not be so lucky.
By electing leaders committed to a peaceful transition, we protect the integrity of the most important structures upon which we all rely: our nation.
