As the dust settles on an incredibly tumultuous election cycle, the grand declarations and promises of President-elect Donald Trump loom large over the American political landscape. Among the most audacious of these is his oft-stated commitment to “drain the swamp” — a phrase that has resonated deeply with a populace that has grown weary of political corruption and manipulation.
Yet, as Trump prepares to take office again, the unfolding reality suggests a scenario that is substantially different from his populist pledges, akin to a lion proclaiming a truce in the jungle for the benefit of the prey.
First, there are Trump’s personal issues, which raise inherent contradictions and questions regarding his suitability to be a harbinger of positive change. His history, marked by elite social standing and business practices that have often skirted ethical boundaries, hardly aligns with the image of a reformist crusader against corruption. For example, Trump had to pay $25 million to settle a fraud case regarding his “university” — which was merely a seminar that purported to teach unsuspecting aspirants how to become rich (like Trump) via real estate.
That case was in addition to the more than $2 million that Trump was forced to pay to eight charitable organizations after his foundation illegally used funds for political purposes. Ultimately, Trump was compelled to close the foundation. Further, he is severely restricted in terms of starting any new nonprofit organization in New York.
Second, there are Trump’s policy choices. For example, he and his fellow Republicans staunchly oppose entities like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — institutions that are designed to shield the very “little guy” from bankers (who are well known swamp creatures).
Most troubling, however, are Trump’s personnel and operational decisions surrounding his return to power. Presidential transitions, which are a critical period in the democratic process, are guided by established protocols that safeguard national security and ensure continuity of governance. Among these are the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the White House and the General Services Administration, which include stipulations for FBI background checks of appointees — particularly those in sensitive national security roles.
This process almost always goes smoothly. However, during the Clinton-to-Bush period, some members of the outgoing former administration were less than helpful in bringing the incoming latter up to speed after the heated 2000 election was finally decided. (There are reports that some impish Clinton officials removed the letter “W” from several White House keyboards.) However, even during that fractious and tension-laden handover, the fundamental processes were honored.
What’s the big deal? Well, the 9/11 Commission found that a lack of communication and cooperation is one of the factors that led to the intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks. As a result, George W. Bush ordered his administration to be as helpful as it could to the newly elected Barack Obama. For his part, Donald Trump refused even to meet with Joe Biden following the 2020 election — something that had never happened in our history.
In any case, the new Trump team has refused to sign the MOUs. Further, while they have acknowledged this fact, they have offered no substantive explanation as to why. Not surprisingly, their refusal has not gone unnoticed. To be charitable, given Trump’s record, it is not unreasonable to assume that his team’s reasons for trying to bypass background checks are less than honorable. Crucially, this refusal is not just an administrative issue; it is a potential prelude to governance that flouts established safeguards against corruption and incompetence.
I would say that there should be a law requiring new administrations to sign these documents by a certain date. However, as we all know, Donald Trump has zero respect for the rule of law. And, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court has given him “carte blanche” to do virtually whatever he wants, as long as it is in his “official capacity” as president. (Presumably, skirting normal order requiring background checks would fall under the penumbra of “official capacity”.)
The metaphor of the “swamp” denotes political and bureaucratic corruption. Very few people doubt that such corruption exists, though there certainly is no general agreement as to the extent to which it does. Regarding Trump, how can one claim to drain the swamp while simultaneously embodying the very characteristics of the quagmire?
The paradox is stark, and the implications are profound. The actions (and inactions) of the Trump administration in these early post-election days not only don’t suggest a “draining;” they suggest a deepening of the swamp — a reinforcement of the very structures and practices that he has so vociferously criticized. All of this underscores the necessity for civic vigilance and a robust press to be guardians of the public interest in times, like these, when the mechanisms of governance are faltering.
As we stand at the cusp of this new administration, the promise to “drain the swamp” remains unfulfilled, suspended between disingenuous populist rhetoric and the reality of entrenched interests. It is incumbent upon us, the electorate, to remain watchful and to hold our leaders accountable, not just for their words but also for their actions.
In the end, the health of our democracy may well depend on our collective refusal to let the swamp thicken under the watch of those who promised its excavation.
