By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This executive order establishes a new order of succession for the Attorney General’s office, outlining four U.S. Attorneys who will temporarily assume the role if the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and any designated officers are unable to perform their duties. The order explicitly excludes acting U.S. Attorneys and those ineligible under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. President Biden retains the discretion to deviate from this order as permitted by law. Finally, this order revokes Executive Order 13787 of March 31, 2017.
Read the original article here
An executive order establishing a line of succession within the Department of Justice (DOJ) is, at its core, a procedural measure designed to ensure the continued functioning of the department in the event of a leadership vacuum. This is not an uncommon practice; past administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have implemented similar orders. The purpose isn’t to dictate policy or exert partisan influence but to create a framework for operational continuity during transitions or unforeseen circumstances.
The order designates a specific sequence of individuals to temporarily assume the role of Attorney General (AG), Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or Associate Attorney General (AAG) should those positions become vacant. This typically involves appointing acting officials from within the existing structure of the DOJ. The selection process for these individuals isn’t explicitly laid out in the executive order itself, but a likely method involves choosing experienced and established attorneys from various geographical locations across the country. The geographical spread might be intended to guarantee representation and maintain operational capability regardless of any potential disruptions affecting specific regions.
The choice of specific US Attorneys to serve in this succession is not necessarily about their political affiliation, but instead likely reflects the need to ensure both experience and geographic diversity. The argument that this selection favors “blue states” overlooks the primary function of the order: maintaining operational continuity during a transition, not promoting a specific political ideology. Such an interpretation misconstrues the order’s intent.
A recurring concern is the transience of executive orders. Because they are subject to reversal by subsequent administrations, the perceived short-term impact of this particular order is limited. The order’s effectiveness depends on the time frame between its issuance and the potential for a leadership crisis within the DOJ. Any executive order, therefore, serves only as a temporary solution. The inherent short lifespan of an executive order, however, doesn’t negate its value as a safeguard during periods of transition. It offers a pre-emptive solution to a potential problem, even if that solution might be temporary.
The possibility of a swift reversal by a new administration is irrelevant to the order’s intended purpose. It doesn’t aim to influence the long-term composition of the DOJ leadership; instead, it’s designed to prevent a power vacuum in the department during a transition. This proactive measure helps ensure that critical functions continue uninterrupted, preventing potential instability within the department. The existence of the executive order, regardless of its eventual lifespan, acts as a contingency plan.
The criticism that this order is somehow a partisan maneuver or a pointless exercise ignores the historical precedent of such orders. It is standard practice for administrations to plan for leadership transitions within executive departments. The fact that this particular executive order has generated such controversy serves to highlight the highly polarized political climate in which it was issued, rather than indicating any inherent problem with the order itself. The order’s intention is to maintain the government’s functionality, a crucial aspect of stability and continuity.
The arguments that this is an unnecessary measure or that it’s purely symbolic miss the point of preparing for potential crises. It’s better to have a plan in place than to react to a crisis when it occurs. The order’s focus on continuity aligns with the essential role of the Department of Justice in upholding the rule of law. Preparing for potential leadership gaps, regardless of how unlikely, is an act of responsible governance, not partisan maneuvering.
In conclusion, the executive order providing an order of succession within the Department of Justice is not a radical or unprecedented action. It’s a common practice aimed at ensuring the continued functioning of a vital government department. While the temporary nature of executive orders is a valid point of discussion, it doesn’t diminish the value of having such a plan in place during periods of transition or unforeseen events. The focus should be on the practical implications of ensuring continuity rather than on its potential for short-term partisan impact. The goal is to maintain stability and operational capacity within the department, regardless of administrative changes.