Trump’s Real Transition Team (Part 3): In the Shadows

By: Steve Barasch

In a scenario where Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election, his return to power wouldn’t just be a political comeback—it could mark the creation of a new, controversial model of governance. Central to this model would be the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a think tank that Trump could leverage to form his transition team. Combining this influence with a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Trump could skirt crucial federal laws like the Presidential Transition Act, paving the way for a shadow government deeply entangled with big business and anonymous donors.

AFPI: A Ready-Made Transition Team

The America First Policy Institute was established in 2021 by former Trump administration officials and loyalists with a singular goal: to promote and further the “America First” agenda. If Trump becomes president-elect in 2024, AFPI would serve as an ideal vehicle for a rapid transition into the White House, with its network of experienced personnel, policy briefs, and loyalists ready to take on key roles in government agencies.

But this goes beyond traditional staffing. AFPI’s influence as a think tank is not just about policy advice; it represents a coordinated effort to align every facet of the federal government with Trump’s vision. From immigration to deregulation, energy independence to conservative judiciary appointments, AFPI is poised to act as the de facto transition team that could operate in the shadows—circumventing the Presidential Transition Act’s transparency and ethics requirements.

Skirting the Presidential Transition Act: Using Loopholes

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 was designed to ensure a smooth and transparent transfer of power between administrations, with clear guidelines on funding, disclosure, and ethics. Transition teams are required to disclose information about their operations, including sources of funding, personnel choices, and policy plans, to prevent conflicts of interest or undue influence from outside forces.

The strategy of utilizing shell companies, nonprofit organizations, and external advisors during a presidential transition period can open the door for evading certain transparency and accountability measures built into the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. The Act mandates full disclosure of transition team activities and funding, specifically to ensure that the transfer of power remains free of undue influence from outside sources. However, using a nonprofit organization like AFPI (America First Policy Institute), which is funded through dark money (anonymous donations), presents a potential avenue for circumventing these regulations.

Here’s how this loophole could work:

Nonprofit Status and Legal Exemptions: AFPI, as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is not required to disclose its donors, and contributions to such organizations are often difficult to trace. This allows Trump and his team to accept large donations from anonymous individuals, corporations, or interest groups without the public knowing who these backers are. Normally, federally funded transition teams must disclose detailed information about their personnel and funding, but AFPI’s status outside the government structure means it can operate with a high level of secrecy.
Shell Companies and Dark Money: Shell companies could play a role in facilitating these donations. By funneling money through layers of entities, it becomes nearly impossible to trace the original source of funds. For example, if a company or foreign interest wanted to influence the transition process, they could donate to a shell company, which would then make a contribution to AFPI. This insulates the real donors from any legal or ethical scrutiny that might otherwise arise.
Advisors and Personnel Influence: Advisors affiliated with AFPI could effectively serve as members of Trump’s transition team, influencing policy decisions and personnel selections without being subject to the same transparency rules as federally funded advisors. This allows for significant influence from anonymous donors over critical decisions like staffing, policy priorities, and administrative structure, all without public oversight.
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest: The potential for conflicts of interest becomes significant in such an arrangement. AFPI could be influenced by its major (and hidden) donors, potentially shaping the policy direction of a future Trump administration in ways that benefit these donors. This undermines the core intent of the Presidential Transition Act, which is to ensure that the transition of power is conducted in a transparent and ethical manner, free from external manipulation.
Shielding from Scrutiny: The dark money nature of AFPI creates opacity around its donors, reducing the accountability and transparency that normally accompany transition operations. Because it’s a private entity, it could argue that it’s not subject to the same rules that apply to federally funded entities, despite playing a central role in organizing the transition. This structure makes it difficult for watchdog organizations, the press, and the public to hold the transition team accountable for any questionable activities or conflicts of interest.
Legal and Regulatory Grey Areas: While the use of nonprofits and dark money for political influence is not new, using a nonprofit organization as a transition team creates a grey area legally. The 1963 Act did not anticipate the use of external, privately funded organizations as substitutes for formal government transition teams. Thus, there’s no clear legal precedent that would prevent this from happening, and it raises questions about whether new regulations are needed to close this loophole.

The blending of privately funded nonprofit activities with the traditionally transparent and federally regulated transition process could represent a fundamental shift in how presidential transitions are conducted, with far-reaching implications for the integrity and transparency of future administrations.

AFPI’s network of undisclosed donors, which could include major corporations and special interest groups, would further muddy the waters. These donors, likely aligned with Trump’s deregulatory and pro-business agenda, could have substantial influence over the policy direction of a second Trump administration, without ever being publicly identified or held accountable. This level of opacity would undermine the principles of transparency that the Presidential Transition Act was designed to protect.

The Role of Project 2025: A Blueprint for Radical Restructuring

Compounding these concerns is Project 2025, a comprehensive agenda developed by conservative think tanks, led by the Heritage Foundation, aimed at reshaping the federal government. This blueprint calls for deep cuts to federal regulations, sweeping immigration reforms, and a restructuring of federal agencies to make them more accountable to the executive branch.

The alignment between Project 2025 and AFPI’s goals is clear. Both advocate for a stronger executive branch, reduced oversight, and deregulation. In this context, AFPI would not just be a transition team, it would be the guiding force behind a radical overhaul of American governance. This transition strategy could fundamentally alter the structure of the federal government, prioritizing loyalty and ideological alignment over experience and competence in key roles.

The Supreme Court’s 2024 Ruling: Expanding Presidential Immunity

Perhaps the most alarming development in this scenario is the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which expands protections for a sitting or former president’s “official acts.” The ruling, issued in 2024, holds that a president cannot be prosecuted for actions deemed part of their constitutional duties, and it places substantial limits on how such actions can be used as evidence in court.

This decision effectively grants the president broad immunity from legal consequences for actions taken while in office. But the implications go beyond mere immunity, they could enable Trump to push legal and ethical boundaries during the transition period and throughout his second term, with little fear of accountability. Actions that would typically invite legal scrutiny, such as using dark money-funded organizations like AFPI to shape government policy or appoint key personnel, could be framed as “official duties” and thus protected from investigation or prosecution.

This ruling could embolden Trump to further erode traditional checks and balances, knowing that any legal challenges to his decisions would likely be dismissed. For example, if Congress or watchdog groups attempted to investigate the influence of AFPI’s anonymous donors on Trump’s transition decisions, his legal team could argue that such actions fall within the scope of presidential immunity, effectively shutting down any inquiry.

The Creation of a Big Business Shadow Government

The combination of AFPI’s influence, Project 2025’s policy goals, and the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity could pave the way for a shadow government, one where anonymous donors and special interests, shielded from public view, exert enormous influence over the direction of federal policy.

Without the need to disclose its financial backers, AFPI could act as a bridge between big business and government policy, enabling corporations and wealthy individuals to steer the administration’s agenda from behind the scenes. The Supreme Court’s ruling further entrenches this shadow governance, creating a legal shield that allows Trump to bypass transparency laws and ethical standards with impunity.

The end result? A White House where policies on deregulation, energy, immigration, and more are dictated by private interests rather than public good, and where the traditional guardrails of democracy, congressional oversight, legal accountability, and public transparency are weakened or outright dismantled.

The Dangers of a Secretive Transition Process

The potential implications of this scenario are vast and concerning. By using AFPI and Project 2025 to shape a transition process in the shadows, Trump could sidestep the very laws designed to ensure democratic accountability. This would allow his administration to pursue an aggressive deregulatory agenda and reshape the federal government, all while shielding the people and interests, foreign or domestic behind these decisions from public scrutiny.

For Americans of all political stripes, Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike, this represents a fundamental threat to the principles of transparent and accountable governance. As Trump’s transition team operates in a legal and ethical gray zone, the public may never know who is truly calling the shots in the next administration, or whose interests are being served.

America First Policy Institute Will Be Ready on Day One

A Call for Vigilance

The potential combination of Trump’s use of the America First Policy Institute, the radical restructuring outlined in Project 2025, and the Supreme Court’s expanded interpretation of presidential immunity creates a dangerous scenario. A government shaped by anonymous donors and shielded from public accountability undermines the very foundation of American democracy.

As we approach the 2024 election, the public must remain vigilant. It is crucial to demand transparency, ethical accountability, and adherence to the laws designed to ensure a fair and open transition of power. Without these safeguards, the United States risks sliding into a form of governance where big business and anonymous interests rule from the shadows, with little regard for the will of the people.