Does the US really have just ‘one president’ during transitions?

“America has one president at a time.” In these last few days before the US election, we are frequently reminded of this mantra regarding the transition of power. The Democrats are warning that, if former President Donald Trump wins, he will not abide by the rules and protocols of presidential transitions, just like the last time he was elected in 2016.

One of the tenets of the transfer of power in the US is that the president-elect does not undermine the outgoing president by interfering in policymaking in the period before taking office. This is especially true of foreign policy. Past presidents have historically made sure that America has only had one president at a time. Bill Clinton, for example, stressed this point in 1992, when, after his election victory, he urged “America’s friends and foes alike to recognize, as I do, that America has only one president at a time.”

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama did it too, but in 2016 there was an outcry when the newly elected Trump made a few moves that were seen as violations of a tradition tested over time and enshrined in law. In particular, the Logan Act of 1799 forbids American citizens from unauthorized correspondence or negotiations with foreign governments that undermine the government’s position. This law, according to presidential historians, is to protect the powers of the president’s position under the Constitution, especially in dealing with foreign nations.

In 2016, Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman introduced the “One President at a Time Act,” to amend the Logan Act to “ensure that US foreign policy is conducted only by the sitting president” and to make the law applicable to incoming presidents. Although this resolution did not go anywhere, it is understood that the Logan Act applies to elected presidents just as it applies to American citizens. Many invoked the Logan Act when criticizing President-elect Trump on two moves he made following the election in 2016.

Trump in 2016 made a few moves that were seen as violations of a tradition tested over time and enshrined in law

Dr. Amal Mudallali

The first was his phone call in December 2016 with the president of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen — the first by a US president or president-elect since 1979. The call angered China and raised concerns about whether America was still wedded to the One China policy.

The second was his opposition to the Obama administration’s abstention on a UN Security Council resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements. President-elect Trump interfered personally and unprecedently through phone calls he made, confirmed by his press secretary, to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which reportedly he spoke about the resolution.

Trump was accused of violating one of the principles of American presidential politics. According to the Center for Presidential Transition, during the transitional period, a president-elect “traditionally engages in limited outreach to foreign leaders.” The center adds that “it is important for the president-elect and the staff to ensure the government is always speaking in one voice, particularly on matters of national security and foreign policy.”

Presidential transition experts and Democrats say that President-elect Trump in 2016 took calls from the leaders of various countries without coordinating with the State Department, which is tasked with organizing these calls and prioritizing and sequencing them to reflect the importance of the countries to America.

In 2016, many in Washington were furious when President-elect Trump spoke with Middle Eastern leaders before he spoke with the prime minister of the UK, Washington’s closest ally. Trump’s critics are worried that, this time around, he will not only do the same but he will double down on making foreign policy decisions and commitments without coordinating with the Biden administration, hence undermining it. They find evidence in Trump’s recent positions and statements.

This month, the Republican candidate told his supporters that he had spoken with Netanyahu about the situation in the Middle East. News stories reported that he told Netanyahu, when asked for advice on how to respond to Iran’s missile attack on Israel, “do what you have to do.” Slate magazine considered this, if accurate, “not only an act of diplomatic recklessness but also, quite possibly, a federal crime.” It referred to the Logan Act.

In his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump vowed to settle the Ukraine war ‘before I even become president’

Dr. Amal Mudallali

Moreover, in his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump vowed to settle the Ukraine war “before I even become president,” adding he would do it, “if I win, when I’m president-elect.” Although Trump no doubt used this emphasis to indicate the urgency of the situation in his mind, his opponents saw it as another sign that he will flout the rules.

Aaron Miller, a senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment, said Trump does not need to reach out to anybody, as everybody is instead reaching out to him, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Nonetheless, he expressed concern that Trump “will create expectations and make promises and commitments he is not empowered by law to make.” Miller sees Trump as the “president norm-breaker,” adding “it is not a question of the Logan Act or any other act, it is going to happen and there is nothing anyone except Trump can do to stop it.”

But it seems Trump is not alone in terms of breaching the rules. Jeffrey Michaels and Andrew Payne, co-authors of “One President at a Time? The President-elect and Foreign Policy in American History” argue that this tradition “may by a constitutional reality but it is also a political fiction, more honored in the breach than in the observance.”

Miller acknowledged that presidents-elect often interfere in foreign policy, but with the approval of the outgoing administration. He gave, as an example, his participation in the 1988 transition from Secretary of State George Shultz to James Baker, when “we helped orchestrate a dialogue with the (Palestine Liberation Organization) during November-December that was consistent with the US national interest and with the policies of both administrations.”

The divisions in the US over the election and Trump’s positions are extending to every aspect of presidential transitions and power. It is not realistic to expect the upcoming transition to be different if Trump wins. Washington is holding its breath and hoping we do not have a repeat of the 2021 transition.

• Dr. Amal Mudallali is a visiting research scholar at Princeton University and former Lebanese ambassador to the UN.