vox--2020-11-23--Michèle Flournoy is expected to become the first woman secretary of defense. She’s ready.

Not pictured in the famous photo of Obama administration officials watching the raid to kill Osama bin Laden , but standing just out of frame , was Michèle Flournoy .
The Pentagon ’ s policy chief and third-highest civilian at the time , Flournoy played a pivotal but behind-the-scenes role to greenlight the operation .
Yet her name is unknown to most outside the Washington foreign policy community .
Flournoy may soon step out of obscurity and into the proverbial picture .
That ’ s because President-elect Biden is expected to nominate her to be his secretary of defense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first woman ever to lead the Pentagon .
It ’ s been a long time coming .
A 2011 profile of Flournoy predicted she would one day sit atop the Defense Department .
Three years later , she was the frontrunner to be President Obama ’ s fourth defense secretary but took herself out of the running due to family considerations at the time .
And in 2016 , the worst-kept secret in Washington was that Hillary Clinton would pick Flournoy to helm the agency once she was elected president .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Biden joked that June after Flournoy introduced him at an event hosted by the Center for a New American Security ( CNAS ) , the think tank she founded .
The crowd cheered and laughed .
“ I ’ m writing a recommendation for her , you know , ” Biden added .
Many would .
Flournoy studied at Harvard and Oxford , worked at the Pentagon in the Clinton administration , served in various high-profile roles in Washington ’ s most prestigious think tanks and consulting firms , built her own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s Defense Department .
Few in the Democratic Party have had such an upward trajectory in Washington ’ s cutthroat national security world .
Fewer still earned near-universal respect while climbing the ladder — to the point that President Donald Trump ’ s first defense secretary , Jim Mattis , asked her to be his No .
2 , an offer she turned down .
“ There are one of three kinds of people who typically serve as secretary of defense , ” retired Marine Gen. John Allen , who led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me .
“ The first knows about the Pentagon ’ s enterprise but may not be knowledgeable about policy or security .
The second is steeped in policy and security but not familiar with the enormity of the enterprise .
And the third may not have a background in either but is connected politically .
“ Michèle may be the first one I ’ ve ever known that ’ s all three , ” Allen , who is now president of the Brookings Institution , said .
But while Flournoy would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — helping him keep his promise to appoint a diverse Cabinet — she might not be a perfect fit for a Biden presidency .
Critics view her as more comfortable with the use of force than Biden is , pointing to how they differed greatly over escalating the war in Afghanistan during the Obama years .
And though she ’ s well known to Biden , she ’ s not part of his cadre of loyalists or longtime staffers .
That has led some to worry that Flournoy would struggle to gain influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though she has a longstanding relationship with top aides like Tony Blinken .
In addition , her seat on the board of the defense contracting giant Booz Allen Hamilton , combined with her unwillingness to dramatically slash the defense budget , could rankle progressives .
Even so , no one else is seriously under consideration for the top Pentagon post , showing Biden ’ s clear confidence in her .
“ This is one of those wonderful moments when a female is the right person for the job , ” Sarah Sewall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who served with her in the Obama administration , told me .
“ It ’ s a remarkable confluence of capability and gender coming together.
” After years serving just outside the spotlight , then , Flournoy is very likely to be front and center soon .
“ I don ’ t think she ’ d have any problem adjusting to that spotlight , ” Chuck Hagel , Obama ’ s defense chief from 2013 to 2015 , told me .
Why Biden is likely to pick Michèle Flournoy When a president chooses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considerations are usually : 1 ) can this person run the world ’ s largest organization ?
and 2 ) do they mostly agree with me on national security policy ?
For Biden , the answer to both those questions when it comes to Flournoy , based on most people I spoke to , is an unequivocal yes .
Flournoy led the Pentagon ’ s policy office from 2009 to 2012 , an important job where she and her staff developed how the military should handle the wars in the Middle East , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of terrorism , and much more .
Those who worked in that office told me she gained the trust of the two defense secretaries during that time — Republican Robert Gates and Democrat Leon Panetta — as well as the respect of her subordinates .
“ She cultivates this level of incredible loyalty because people love working for her , ” said one former Pentagon official who , like others , didn ’ t want to be identified for this story while the Biden transition is still considering people for jobs .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice on.
” “ Michèle doesn ’ t have to get angry or raise her voice or give you a super hard time when she thinks you ’ ve done something bad .
She raises her eyebrow at you and just gives you a look , and you know you fucked up.
” Her leadership style , this person continued , is more subdued than the stereotypical hard-charging , yelling boss : “ Michèle doesn ’ t have to get angry or raise her voice or give you a super hard time when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad .
She raises her eyebrow at you and just gives you a look , and you know you fucked up.
” James Miller , her deputy before he took over the office after she left , said “ people who have worked for her say she ’ s among the best , or the best , bosses they ’ ve ever had .
Her support , mentorship , all of that have meant a lot.
” Indeed , those who know Flournoy say she takes mentorship extremely seriously .
That stems from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation of national security professionals is prepared , and her professional goal of wanting the most talented team to work with .
Her efforts have paid off , as many of her former colleagues and protégés — a lot of them women — are in the Biden transition office tasked with appointing officials to the Pentagon .
But it wasn ’ t just the civilian side of the Pentagon that liked Flournoy .
The military side — the Joint Staff , which often tussles over control of strategy and plans inside the department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Pentagon ’ s policy office “ was probably the most influential ” ever with Flournoy at the helm , the former staffer said .
“ Nothing went from the Joint Staff to the secretary without a policy team check .
Very few games were being played while she was there.
” Hagel , who became the secretary after Flournoy ’ s departure , said she had clearly left a major mark on the building .
“ That staff was in good shape , ” he told me , “ and that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and her expertise.
” That expertise , honed partly at think tanks like CNAS and the Center for Strategic and International Studies , has made her one of the Democratic Party ’ s leading lights on defense and foreign policy .
Her views are relatively centrist and traditional , sounding a lot like Biden when she makes the case for the United States as a global force for good .
“ It is all but impossible for America to adopt an inward-looking strategy that embraces isolationist tendencies , ” she wrote in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Again .
“ The United States ’ relationship to the rest of the world necessitates a strategy that maintains a degree of basic order in the international system.
” She riffed on that same theme five years later , just after stepping down as the defense undersecretary for policy .
“ I am one who believes that the United States , as the sole superpower in the world , still has an indispensable leadership role to play , ” she told a Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ) audience in Washington .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ country that can lead the way we can , that can convene the way we can , that can put together international coalitions to solve shared problems the way we can.
” That stance has its pros and cons , said Van Jackson , who worked for Flournoy both at the Pentagon and at CNAS .
“ Her worldview is classic liberal internationalist ...
It means alliances , multilateralism , and deterrence , ” he told me .
“ The left hates her for basically all these same reasons , which add up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating some of our security problems in the world.
” Still , he hastened to add , “ She prides herself on being a not particularly partisan or ideological technocrat .
She ’ s the ultimate restoration of competence.
” Such competence will be needed to deter China , which she — like Biden — views as America ’ s greatest direct challenge .
“ The United States and China could all too easily stumble into conflict , ” she wrote in a June Foreign Affairs article .
“ The more confident China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capabilities and the more they doubt the capabilities and resolve of the United States , the greater the chance of miscalculation — a breakdown in deterrence that could bring direct conflict between two nuclear powers.
” She ’ s argued that avoiding such a dire scenario requires making “ big bets , ” as she calls them , on advanced technologies like unmanned weapons boosted by artificial intelligence .
Developing that arsenal is well underway , but Flournoy has said more could be done to get it all online and working .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but where is that substantial commitment of multiyear funding ?
That ’ s , I think , something we need to work towards , ” she told Defense News in September .
Flournoy has also said the Pentagon could and should do more to quell what Biden thinks is the top long-term challenge to the US and the world : climate change .
“ The Department of Defense has a critical role to play in this effort .
It also has a strong interest in doing so , ” she wrote in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Her recommendations for how the military could help curb climate change include the Pentagon more quickly developing greener fuels for fighter jets and replacing older vehicles with hybrid ones .
Flournoy ’ s pedigree and years of experience , added to her general alignment with Biden ’ s worldview , make her selection a no-brainer for many .
A piece of advice she has given people is “ Choose the boss , not the job , ” and in this case , Flournoy would be happy with both .
But being the consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is one thing .
Doing the job with few stumbles is another — and that ’ s not guaranteed .
Flournoy ’ s tenure in a Biden administration could have its rocky moments Back in 2010 , then-Vice President Biden furiously disagreed with Richard Holbrooke , the Obama administration ’ s special envoy for Afghanistan , that the US had an obligation to stay in the war .
“ Fuck that , ” Biden replied , according to a book on Holbrooke ’ s life and career by George Packer .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kissinger got away with it.
” Prior to that encounter , Flournoy had been part of an Afghanistan strategy review team alongside Holbrooke that recommended sending 4,000 more US troops into the country to train Afghan forces .
But when the Obama administration later in 2009 sent in 30,000 more service members to the country as part of the “ surge ” — much more than she and others had proposed — Flournoy became one of the war plan ’ s supporters .
“ Our overall assessment is that we are heading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she told the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2010 .
While she acknowledged there would be setbacks , Flournoy asserted “ we are making progress , sometimes slow , but we believe steady.
” This episode , among others , has led many — including those who know her well — to suggest Flournoy is more comfortable with military options than Biden .
“ Her instincts are more traditional military thinking .
Biden ’ s instincts are not , ” a longtime associate of Flournoy ’ s told me .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the policy debate , which I think is good.
” That could potentially cause some discord between Biden and Flournoy , especially in a heated debate over whether to use force during a crisis .
“ If she thinks something is right , and it ’ s the unpopular opinion within the administration , she would push to get it done and convince other people , ” her former Pentagon colleague told me .
But another former DOD official insisted that “ once the president makes a decision , she ’ ll champion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of contention is the defense budget .
Flournoy has long worried about what happens to the military when Pentagon funds get slashed .
“ Historically , we ’ ve managed drawdowns very , very badly .
We tend to balance our budget on the backs of the force .
You cut force structure , you cut readiness , you cut modernization , which is sort of your seed corn for the future .
And typically , we end up with a hollow force .
Not always , but that ’ s kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devices , ” she told the 2013 CFR audience .
Comments like these have led critics — mainly from the left — to fear that she won ’ t entertain reducing the defense budget as she aims for the Pentagon to make those “ big bets.
” Progressives disagree with her stance on “ military superiority as a standard for force structure and ... on China policy , ” said Jackson , now at the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand .
“ The left sees her as the endless war advocate.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flournoy has repeatedly made clear in articles that she believes the Defense Department can ’ t just spend more and more money .
If it ’ s going to investment in something new , something old must go away .
If she holds to that stance as the defense secretary , though , she ’ ll likely find stiff resistance from certain military branches or even some members of Congress to getting rid of legacy weapons and other items .
And , it should be noted , Biden for now says he doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cuts .
Finally , Flournoy has spoken and written often about the need to improve diversity in the Pentagon ’ s ranks , both civilian and military .
In September , she co-wrote a CNN op-ed with Diversity in National Security Network co-founder Camille Stewart on the subject .
“ Nowhere will a qualified team of advisers with a diversity of lived experience and expertise be more important at every level than in the national security realm , ” they argued .
“ As commander in chief , a President Biden would recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
... From the board room to the Situation Room , bringing more diverse views to the table is proven to enhance the quality of decision-making and organizational performance.
” Stewart told me she believes in Flournoy ’ s commitment to this cause , but has some doubts that those working under her — who would have to make the needed changes to improve diversity — will actually follow through .
“ I have confidence that she will make it a priority , ” Stewart told me .
“ I do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to execute that.
” If Flournoy doesn ’ t make progress on that front , she could receive public pushback from Stewart and others who want her to prioritize diversifying the Pentagon ’ s workforce — just like she promised .
The challenges most expect Flournoy to face , though , likely won ’ t sully her work as Pentagon chief .
Even with the bright lights on her , they expect Flournoy to succeed .
“ I can ’ t think of anybody in recent times who ’ s more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” her former Pentagon colleague said .

Not pictured in the famous photo of Obama administration officials watching the raid to kill Osama bin Laden, but standing just out of frame, was Michèle Flournoy. The Pentagon’s policy chief and third-highest civilian at the time, Flournoy played a pivotal but behind-the-scenes role to greenlight the operation. Yet her name is unknown to most outside the Washington foreign policy community.
Flournoy may soon step out of obscurity and into the proverbial picture. That’s because President-elect Biden is expected to nominate her to be his secretary of defense. If confirmed, the 59-year-old would become the first woman ever to lead the Pentagon.
It’s been a long time coming. A 2011 profile of Flournoy predicted she would one day sit atop the Defense Department. Three years later, she was the frontrunner to be President Obama’s fourth defense secretary but took herself out of the running due to family considerations at the time. And in 2016, the worst-kept secret in Washington was that Hillary Clinton would pick Flournoy to helm the agency once she was elected president.
“Well, Madam Secretary,” then-Vice President Biden joked that June after Flournoy introduced him at an event hosted by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the think tank she founded. The crowd cheered and laughed. “I’m writing a recommendation for her, you know,” Biden added.
Many would. Flournoy studied at Harvard and Oxford, worked at the Pentagon in the Clinton administration, served in various high-profile roles in Washington’s most prestigious think tanks and consulting firms, built her own prominent research organization, and starred in Obama’s Defense Department.
Few in the Democratic Party have had such an upward trajectory in Washington’s cutthroat national security world. Fewer still earned near-universal respect while climbing the ladder — to the point that President Donald Trump’s first defense secretary, Jim Mattis, asked her to be his No. 2, an offer she turned down.
“There are one of three kinds of people who typically serve as secretary of defense,” retired Marine Gen. John Allen, who led US and international troops in Afghanistan, told me. “The first knows about the Pentagon’s enterprise but may not be knowledgeable about policy or security. The second is steeped in policy and security but not familiar with the enormity of the enterprise. And the third may not have a background in either but is connected politically.
“Michèle may be the first one I’ve ever known that’s all three,” Allen, who is now president of the Brookings Institution, said.
But while Flournoy would be a qualified, historic pick for Biden — helping him keep his promise to appoint a diverse Cabinet — she might not be a perfect fit for a Biden presidency.
Critics view her as more comfortable with the use of force than Biden is, pointing to how they differed greatly over escalating the war in Afghanistan during the Obama years. And though she’s well known to Biden, she’s not part of his cadre of loyalists or longtime staffers. That has led some to worry that Flournoy would struggle to gain influence within Biden’s team, even though she has a longstanding relationship with top aides like Tony Blinken.
In addition, her seat on the board of the defense contracting giant Booz Allen Hamilton, combined with her unwillingness to dramatically slash the defense budget, could rankle progressives.
Even so, no one else is seriously under consideration for the top Pentagon post, showing Biden’s clear confidence in her. “This is one of those wonderful moments when a female is the right person for the job,” Sarah Sewall, a longtime friend of Flournoy’s who served with her in the Obama administration, told me. “It’s a remarkable confluence of capability and gender coming together.”
After years serving just outside the spotlight, then, Flournoy is very likely to be front and center soon. “I don’t think she’d have any problem adjusting to that spotlight,” Chuck Hagel, Obama’s defense chief from 2013 to 2015, told me.
Why Biden is likely to pick Michèle Flournoy
When a president chooses a defense secretary, the top two considerations are usually: 1) can this person run the world’s largest organization? and 2) do they mostly agree with me on national security policy?
For Biden, the answer to both those questions when it comes to Flournoy, based on most people I spoke to, is an unequivocal yes.
Flournoy led the Pentagon’s policy office from 2009 to 2012, an important job where she and her staff developed how the military should handle the wars in the Middle East, a rising China, the global threat of terrorism, and much more.
Those who worked in that office told me she gained the trust of the two defense secretaries during that time — Republican Robert Gates and Democrat Leon Panetta — as well as the respect of her subordinates.
“She cultivates this level of incredible loyalty because people love working for her,” said one former Pentagon official who, like others, didn’t want to be identified for this story while the Biden transition is still considering people for jobs. “She listens to them and takes their advice on.”
“Michèle doesn’t have to get angry or raise her voice or give you a super hard time when she thinks you’ve done something bad. She raises her eyebrow at you and just gives you a look, and you know you fucked up.”
Her leadership style, this person continued, is more subdued than the stereotypical hard-charging, yelling boss: “Michèle doesn’t have to get angry or raise her voice or give you a super hard time when she thinks you’ve done something bad. She raises her eyebrow at you and just gives you a look, and you know you fucked up.”
James Miller, her deputy before he took over the office after she left, said “people who have worked for her say she’s among the best, or the best, bosses they’ve ever had. Her support, mentorship, all of that have meant a lot.”
Indeed, those who know Flournoy say she takes mentorship extremely seriously. That stems from her personal goal of ensuring the next generation of national security professionals is prepared, and her professional goal of wanting the most talented team to work with. Her efforts have paid off, as many of her former colleagues and protégés — a lot of them women — are in the Biden transition office tasked with appointing officials to the Pentagon.
But it wasn’t just the civilian side of the Pentagon that liked Flournoy. The military side — the Joint Staff, which often tussles over control of strategy and plans inside the department — appreciated her work, too.
The Pentagon’s policy office “was probably the most influential” ever with Flournoy at the helm, the former staffer said. “Nothing went from the Joint Staff to the secretary without a policy team check. Very few games were being played while she was there.”
Hagel, who became the secretary after Flournoy’s departure, said she had clearly left a major mark on the building. “That staff was in good shape,” he told me, “and that was much due to Michèle’s leadership and her expertise.”
That expertise, honed partly at think tanks like CNAS and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has made her one of the Democratic Party’s leading lights on defense and foreign policy. Her views are relatively centrist and traditional, sounding a lot like Biden when she makes the case for the United States as a global force for good.
“It is all but impossible for America to adopt an inward-looking strategy that embraces isolationist tendencies,” she wrote in a co-authored 2008 article titled Making America Grand Again. “The United States’ relationship to the rest of the world necessitates a strategy that maintains a degree of basic order in the international system.”
She riffed on that same theme five years later, just after stepping down as the defense undersecretary for policy.
“I am one who believes that the United States, as the sole superpower in the world, still has an indispensable leadership role to play,” she told a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) audience in Washington. “There’s really no other country that can lead the way we can, that can convene the way we can, that can put together international coalitions to solve shared problems the way we can.”
That stance has its pros and cons, said Van Jackson, who worked for Flournoy both at the Pentagon and at CNAS.
“Her worldview is classic liberal internationalist ... It means alliances, multilateralism, and deterrence,” he told me. “The left hates her for basically all these same reasons, which add up to justifying huge defense budgets and risk creating some of our security problems in the world.” Still, he hastened to add, “She prides herself on being a not particularly partisan or ideological technocrat. She’s the ultimate restoration of competence.”
Such competence will be needed to deter China, which she — like Biden — views as America’s greatest direct challenge.
“The United States and China could all too easily stumble into conflict,” she wrote in a June Foreign Affairs article. “The more confident China’s leaders are in their own capabilities and the more they doubt the capabilities and resolve of the United States, the greater the chance of miscalculation — a breakdown in deterrence that could bring direct conflict between two nuclear powers.”
She’s argued that avoiding such a dire scenario requires making “big bets,” as she calls them, on advanced technologies like unmanned weapons boosted by artificial intelligence. Developing that arsenal is well underway, but Flournoy has said more could be done to get it all online and working. “We’re talking the talk, but where is that substantial commitment of multiyear funding? That’s, I think, something we need to work towards,” she told Defense News in September.
Flournoy has also said the Pentagon could and should do more to quell what Biden thinks is the top long-term challenge to the US and the world: climate change.
“The Department of Defense has a critical role to play in this effort. It also has a strong interest in doing so,” she wrote in an October CNN op-ed. She continued:
Climate change doesn’t just imperil coastal military bases with storm surges or delay exercises when heat waves and fires make it impossible to train. Climate change is already causing the armed forces to plan for new contingencies: from being prepared to undertake more frequent disaster relief missions to anticipating instability and conflict created by resource scarcity and population migrations.
Her recommendations for how the military could help curb climate change include the Pentagon more quickly developing greener fuels for fighter jets and replacing older vehicles with hybrid ones.
Flournoy’s pedigree and years of experience, added to her general alignment with Biden’s worldview, make her selection a no-brainer for many. A piece of advice she has given people is “Choose the boss, not the job,” and in this case, Flournoy would be happy with both.
But being the consensus pick, one that even conservatives like, is one thing. Doing the job with few stumbles is another — and that’s not guaranteed.
Flournoy’s tenure in a Biden administration could have its rocky moments
Back in 2010, then-Vice President Biden furiously disagreed with Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special envoy for Afghanistan, that the US had an obligation to stay in the war.
“Fuck that,” Biden replied, according to a book on Holbrooke’s life and career by George Packer. “We did it in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger got away with it.”
Prior to that encounter, Flournoy had been part of an Afghanistan strategy review team alongside Holbrooke that recommended sending 4,000 more US troops into the country to train Afghan forces. But when the Obama administration later in 2009 sent in 30,000 more service members to the country as part of the “surge” — much more than she and others had proposed — Flournoy became one of the war plan’s supporters.
“Our overall assessment is that we are heading in the right direction in Afghanistan,” she told the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2010. While she acknowledged there would be setbacks, Flournoy asserted “we are making progress, sometimes slow, but we believe steady.”
This episode, among others, has led many — including those who know her well — to suggest Flournoy is more comfortable with military options than Biden. “Her instincts are more traditional military thinking. Biden’s instincts are not,” a longtime associate of Flournoy’s told me. “She’ll bring something different to the policy debate, which I think is good.”
That could potentially cause some discord between Biden and Flournoy, especially in a heated debate over whether to use force during a crisis. “If she thinks something is right, and it’s the unpopular opinion within the administration, she would push to get it done and convince other people,” her former Pentagon colleague told me. But another former DOD official insisted that “once the president makes a decision, she’ll champion it” publicly.
Another potential point of contention is the defense budget. Flournoy has long worried about what happens to the military when Pentagon funds get slashed.
“Historically, we’ve managed drawdowns very, very badly. We tend to balance our budget on the backs of the force. You cut force structure, you cut readiness, you cut modernization, which is sort of your seed corn for the future. And typically, we end up with a hollow force. Not always, but that’s kind of the tendency if left to our own devices,” she told the 2013 CFR audience.
Comments like these have led critics — mainly from the left — to fear that she won’t entertain reducing the defense budget as she aims for the Pentagon to make those “big bets.” Progressives disagree with her stance on “military superiority as a standard for force structure and ... on China policy,” said Jackson, now at the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. “The left sees her as the endless war advocate.”
Her supporters, though, say Flournoy has repeatedly made clear in articles that she believes the Defense Department can’t just spend more and more money. If it’s going to investment in something new, something old must go away. If she holds to that stance as the defense secretary, though, she’ll likely find stiff resistance from certain military branches or even some members of Congress to getting rid of legacy weapons and other items.
And, it should be noted, Biden for now says he doesn’t anticipate any major defense spending cuts.
Finally, Flournoy has spoken and written often about the need to improve diversity in the Pentagon’s ranks, both civilian and military. In September, she co-wrote a CNN op-ed with Diversity in National Security Network co-founder Camille Stewart on the subject.
“Nowhere will a qualified team of advisers with a diversity of lived experience and expertise be more important at every level than in the national security realm,” they argued. “As commander in chief, a President Biden would recognize racism as the national security issue it is. ... From the board room to the Situation Room, bringing more diverse views to the table is proven to enhance the quality of decision-making and organizational performance.”
Stewart told me she believes in Flournoy’s commitment to this cause, but has some doubts that those working under her — who would have to make the needed changes to improve diversity — will actually follow through. “I have confidence that she will make it a priority,” Stewart told me. “I do not necessarily have confidence in the people who will have to execute that.”
If Flournoy doesn’t make progress on that front, she could receive public pushback from Stewart and others who want her to prioritize diversifying the Pentagon’s workforce — just like she promised.
The challenges most expect Flournoy to face, though, likely won’t sully her work as Pentagon chief. Even with the bright lights on her, they expect Flournoy to succeed.
“I can’t think of anybody in recent times who’s more prepared to be secretary of defense,” her former Pentagon colleague said.


vox--2020-11-23--There’s never been a better year to deep-fry a turkey

Thanksgiving is going to look very different in America this year .
For one thing , political dinner conversations may be tenser than usual .
But more importantly : Holiday travel is risky , and planning an appropriately distanced and safe Thanksgiving meal requires stressful mental gymnastics .
For those who aren ’ t canceling the gathering entirely , safety is a major concern .
As Zeeshan Aleem recently reported for Vox , two in five Americans say they are likely to attend a large holiday gathering this holiday season .
As a result , families and friends are adjusting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But smaller , socially distanced gatherings might create a certain staleness at your celebration .
After all , at the heart of Thanksgiving — when you ignore the brutal colonial part — is togetherness .
Americans who try to split the difference between celebrating and staying safe will refrain from hugging , eat at comically large tables or outside in colder temperatures in some parts of the country , and even wear masks during the meal .
These are necessary precautions , but a strained way to host a celebration .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent an uninspired pandemic Thanksgiving : Try partaking in the ritual of deep-frying a turkey , an exhilarating outdoor spectacle that feels strikingly , almost aggressively American .
Amid all this madness , we might as well turn Thanksgiving into an extreme sport .
If you deep-fry your turkey this year , you can brag about your skills to your distant relatives , your coworkers , or your Instagram followers .
What better way to enjoy a complicated holiday about American gratitude than by stunting on your neighbors ?
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simplicity : Take a turkey , and , using a pulley system , submerge it in bubbling oil as your loved ones look on admiringly .
Your family could possibly even drop by , wrap up a plate , and dip out to their respective homes .
Watching football inside with your cousins feels unwise this year , but standing 6 feet apart to watch a sizzling-hot meal be prepared ?
It ’ s basically 2020 genius .
If you want something a little more pedestrian and a little less performative this season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s new lineup of deep-fried turkey sandwiches , but intuition tells me that a DIY project is the more satisfying endeavor .
According to a 2015 Vogue article , Cajun chef Justin Wilson was the first person to report seeing a turkey deep-fried — way back in the 1930s .
It was a popular Creole country dish that didn ’ t take off in the rest of America until the 1980s and ’ 90s ( Martha Stewart had a 1996 recipe ) .
Although one in four Americans is cutting back on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be wary of frying , now is the time to make the jump .
As Luke Winkie previously reported for Vox , turkey farmers this year are uncertain about what the holiday season will bring businesswise , so they ’ re trying to get creative with smaller birds and different presentations .
Why not match them by getting creative with your own preparation ?
To deep-fry a turkey , you can buy a turkey-frying kit — available everywhere from Home Depot to Dick ’ s Sporting Goods — with all the essentials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small child , plus a lifting hook to dunk your bird into and pull it out of the vat .
A cooking thermometer would also be helpful , to know when the oil is hot enough ( Epicurious recommends starting to fry when the oil reaches 375 degrees ) .
You ’ ll also need a propane burner and a full propane tank .
Christine Byrne , a food journalist and recipe developer , has been deep-frying turkeys at Thanksgiving for about six years .
She used to smoke or roast her turkeys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s much quicker — it only takes her 30 to 40 minutes ( online consensus says it typically takes three to four minutes per pound of turkey ) .
“ We have a whole pulley system rigged up on our bottom deck , ” she told me .
“ We actually put the fryer oil on the deck outside , and hook the pulley up so that we can lower the turkey really slowly into the hot oil , which helps because you can ’ t drop it too fast .
Otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it might overflow or explode.
” Not all turkey insiders are fans of the method , however .
The director of consumer affairs for the National Turkey Federation ( yes , apparently that ’ s a thing ) once described deep-frying turkey as “ staring into a loaded double-barrel shotgun .
One barrel is a cardiologist ’ s nightmare , the other ... is a microbiologist ’ s worst dream come true.
” Apparently , the Federation was worried about the risk of undercooking the meat , but according to the USDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an internal temperature of 165 degrees or more , it should be all good , even if it is slightly pink .
Still , all I hear is a fantastic endorsement .
We all deserve to eat something gluttonous this year !
If it ’ s prepared correctly , microbiology shouldn ’ t come into play at all .
But safety is a concern because of Covid-19 , because of our easily clogged arteries , and because of , well , the giant vat of hot oil being tended by amateurs .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and foremost — and this is not to scare you — there should be a fire extinguisher present .
Better safe than sorry : more cooking-related fires happen on Thanksgiving than any other day of the year and result in $ 15 million in damages annually .
YouTube is littered with terrifying videos of turkey-frying gone wrong , and these instances are preventable .
Scott F. Pilgreen , Alabama ’ s state fire marshal , spoke with me about how to stay safe when deep-frying a turkey .
He recommends that would-be fryers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a high flashpoint ( the temperature at which the oil will begin to burn ) .
Most resources online suggest peanut oil .
Byrne recommends making sure your turkey is dry before frying it , to prevent dangerous splattering .
( The internet concurs . )
“ The turkey ideally will be room temperature when you start frying it because that helps prevent too fast of a temperature change .
If the turkey is refrigerator cold and your oil is 350 degrees , that ’ s a big difference , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your turkey is a key part of a safe experience .
“ The last thing you want to do is put a frozen turkey into that boiling oil , ” he said .
And oil maintenance is key : “ Make sure you don ’ t overfill the fryer .
Make sure there ’ s enough distance between where you ’ re frying and the building that you ’ re adjacent to , whether it be your home , your apartment , or your camper.
” He also pleads with people to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unattended .
“ That ’ s probably one of the worst things that one can do , once you have the frying going on , is leaving it unattended .
It ’ d be no different than leaving something on your stovetop in your house , ” he said .
Onlookers should stay far apart and have one to two people lower the turkey into the oil , which works to limit potential virus spread , too .
“ Don ’ t disrespect what ’ s going on , because it can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fried turkeys are good .
If you ’ ve never had one , they ’ re excellent , but let ’ s just be safe in doing it.
” Last year , my boyfriend ’ s family deep-fried a turkey .
We ran outside , nervous with excitement , ready to see the show .
It was a nail-biter of an experience ; we were prepared for the worst with a fire extinguisher in tow , but there were no accidents and the turkey was perfect — crisp on the outside , tender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that much better by the experience of watching it get plunged into a giant vat of boiling oil .
The drama of it all was deliciously satisfying : There in front of me was a pot of oil , loved ones , and a now deep-fried turkey , all captured on video in the cold November air .
Sure , I fled as soon as the bird hit oil ( I ’ m a baby ) , but it was the best Thanksgiving I can remember having in a long time .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control , something warm to look forward to and look back on .
The pandemic may have stolen a lot of fun from us , but a memorable Thanksgiving is something we might be able to pull off with a little elbow grease and a giant hunk of fried meat — and isn ’ t that just the most American thing ?
After the year we ’ ve all had , a deep-fried turkey — a reason to gather safely outdoors and be thankful — is better than anything we could possibly wish @ @

Thanksgiving is going to look very different in America this year. For one thing, political dinner conversations may be tenser than usual. But more importantly: Holiday travel is risky, and planning an appropriately distanced and safe Thanksgiving meal requires stressful mental gymnastics. For those who aren’t canceling the gathering entirely, safety is a major concern. As Zeeshan Aleem recently reported for Vox, two in five Americans say they are likely to attend a large holiday gathering this holiday season.
As a result, families and friends are adjusting their festivities to meet pandemic limitations. But smaller, socially distanced gatherings might create a certain staleness at your celebration. After all, at the heart of Thanksgiving — when you ignore the brutal colonial part — is togetherness. Americans who try to split the difference between celebrating and staying safe will refrain from hugging, eat at comically large tables or outside in colder temperatures in some parts of the country, and even wear masks during the meal. These are necessary precautions, but a strained way to host a celebration.
I’d like to suggest a method to prevent an uninspired pandemic Thanksgiving: Try partaking in the ritual of deep-frying a turkey, an exhilarating outdoor spectacle that feels strikingly, almost aggressively American. Amid all this madness, we might as well turn Thanksgiving into an extreme sport.
If you deep-fry your turkey this year, you can brag about your skills to your distant relatives, your coworkers, or your Instagram followers. What better way to enjoy a complicated holiday about American gratitude than by stunting on your neighbors? It’s a recipe that’s beautiful in its simplicity: Take a turkey, and, using a pulley system, submerge it in bubbling oil as your loved ones look on admiringly. Your family could possibly even drop by, wrap up a plate, and dip out to their respective homes. Watching football inside with your cousins feels unwise this year, but standing 6 feet apart to watch a sizzling-hot meal be prepared? It’s basically 2020 genius. If you want something a little more pedestrian and a little less performative this season, you could go for Arby’s new lineup of deep-fried turkey sandwiches, but intuition tells me that a DIY project is the more satisfying endeavor.
According to a 2015 Vogue article, Cajun chef Justin Wilson was the first person to report seeing a turkey deep-fried — way back in the 1930s. It was a popular Creole country dish that didn’t take off in the rest of America until the 1980s and ’90s (Martha Stewart had a 1996 recipe). Although one in four Americans is cutting back on their meat intake, and more health-conscious consumers might be wary of frying, now is the time to make the jump. As Luke Winkie previously reported for Vox, turkey farmers this year are uncertain about what the holiday season will bring business-wise, so they’re trying to get creative with smaller birds and different presentations. Why not match them by getting creative with your own preparation?
Into the oil
To deep-fry a turkey, you can buy a turkey-frying kit — available everywhere from Home Depot to Dick’s Sporting Goods — with all the essentials: a pot the size of a small child, plus a lifting hook to dunk your bird into and pull it out of the vat. A cooking thermometer would also be helpful, to know when the oil is hot enough (Epicurious recommends starting to fry when the oil reaches 375 degrees). You’ll also need a propane burner and a full propane tank.
Christine Byrne, a food journalist and recipe developer, has been deep-frying turkeys at Thanksgiving for about six years. She used to smoke or roast her turkeys but moved toward frying because it’s much quicker — it only takes her 30 to 40 minutes (online consensus says it typically takes three to four minutes per pound of turkey). “We have a whole pulley system rigged up on our bottom deck,” she told me. “We actually put the fryer oil on the deck outside, and hook the pulley up so that we can lower the turkey really slowly into the hot oil, which helps because you can’t drop it too fast. Otherwise the temperature will change too quickly, and it might overflow or explode.”
Not all turkey insiders are fans of the method, however. The director of consumer affairs for the National Turkey Federation (yes, apparently that’s a thing) once described deep-frying a turkey as “staring into a loaded double-barrel shotgun. One barrel is a cardiologist’s nightmare, the other ... is a microbiologist’s worst dream come true.” Apparently, the federation was worried about the risk of undercooking the meat, but according to the US Department of Agriculture, as long as a turkey has an internal temperature of 165 degrees or more, it should be all good, even if it is slightly pink. Still, all I hear is a fantastic endorsement. We all deserve to eat something gluttonous this year! If it’s prepared correctly, microbiology shouldn’t come into play at all.
But safety is a concern because of Covid-19, because of our easily clogged arteries, and because of, well, the giant vat of hot oil being tended by amateurs. So preparation and awareness are key. First and foremost — and this is not to scare you — there should be a fire extinguisher present. Better safe than sorry: More cooking-related fires happen on Thanksgiving than any other day of the year and result in $15 million in damages annually. YouTube is littered with terrifying videos of turkey-frying gone wrong, and these instances are preventable.
Scott F. Pilgreen, Alabama’s state fire marshal, spoke with me about how to stay safe when deep-frying a turkey. He recommends that would-be fryers invest in the proper oil — something with a high flashpoint (the temperature at which the oil will begin to burn). Most resources online suggest peanut oil.
Byrne recommends making sure your turkey is dry before frying it, to prevent dangerous splattering. (The internet concurs.) “The turkey ideally will be room temperature when you start frying it because that helps prevent too fast of a temperature change. If the turkey is refrigerator cold and your oil is 350 degrees, that’s a big difference,” she said.
Pilgreen agrees that completely thawing your turkey is a key part of a safe experience. “The last thing you want to do is put a frozen turkey into that boiling oil,” he said. And oil maintenance is key: “Make sure you don’t overfill the fryer. Make sure there’s enough distance between where you’re frying and the building that you’re adjacent to, whether it be your home, your apartment, or your camper.” He also pleads with people to watch the fryer carefully and never leave it unattended. “That’s probably one of the worst things that one can do, once you have the frying going on, is leaving it unattended. It’d be no different than leaving something on your stovetop in your house,” he said. Onlookers should stay far apart and have one to two people lower the turkey into the oil, which works to limit potential virus spread, too.
“Don’t disrespect what’s going on, because it can be dangerous,” Pilgreen warns. “Fried turkeys are good. If you’ve never had one, they’re excellent, but let’s just be safe in doing it.”
Last year, my boyfriend’s family deep-fried a turkey. We ran outside, nervous with excitement, ready to see the show. It was a nail-biter of an experience; we were prepared for the worst with a fire extinguisher in tow, but there were no accidents and the turkey was perfect — crisp on the outside, tender on the inside, and made that much better by the experience of watching it get plunged into a giant vat of boiling oil. The drama of it all was deliciously satisfying: There in front of me was a pot of oil, loved ones, and a now deep-fried turkey, all captured on video in the cold November air. Sure, I fled as soon as the bird hit oil (I’m a baby), but it was the best Thanksgiving I can remember having in a long time.
This ritual gives us something that we can control, something warm to look forward to and look back on. The pandemic may have stolen a lot of fun from us, but a memorable Thanksgiving is something we might be able to pull off with a little elbow grease and a giant hunk of fried meat — and isn’t that just the most American thing? After the year we’ve all had, a deep-fried turkey — a reason to gather safely outdoors and be thankful — is better than anything we could possibly wish for.


vox--2020-11-23--Tony Blinken, one of Biden’s most trusted aides, will be his secretary of state

President-elect Joe Biden is expected to pick Antony Blinken , his longtime foreign policy aide , to be his secretary of state , making Blinken one of the most important figures in the incoming administration .
It ’ s no surprise that Biden is planning to tap Blinken to lead the nation ’ s premier foreign affairs agency , news that was first reported by Bloomberg News and confirmed by other outlets .
The 58-year-old has served Biden since 2002 , rising to become the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Biden chaired it .
Blinken then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while he was vice president , moving on to the State Department in President Obama ’ s second term to become the agency ’ s No .
2 .
While some assumed Biden would pick Blinken to be his national security adviser , it appears the incoming president prefers his trusted staffer represent the administration and the country abroad .
Biden and Blinken have a strong mind-meld , except on one key issue The choice of Blinken , a onetime New Republic writer , will likely anger some on both the left and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him for having praised President Donald Trump ’ s bombing of Syria in retaliation for its use of chemical weapons on civilians , or his having advocated for the US to arm Ukraine against Russia ’ s invasion .
Conservatives , meanwhile , won ’ t like that he was a fierce advocate for the Iran nuclear deal .
But Biden was always going to entrust Blinken with a substantive foreign policy position in his administration , regardless of what critics said .
“ He has the judgment , the raw substantive knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders to do any job his country could ever ask of him , ” Biden told Politico of Blinken in 2013 .
During the 2020 campaign , Blinken was Biden ’ s chief surrogate and spokesperson on foreign policy .
He gave interview after interview after interview to explain how Biden would handle global affairs as president .
“ Joe Biden would reassert American leadership , leading with our diplomacy .
We ’ d actually show up again , day in , day out , ” he told CBS News ’ s Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The new president would prepare for a world of “ rising powers , new actors super-empowered by technology and information , who we have to bring along if we ’ re going to make progress.
” But Blinken and Biden differ on one crucial aspect : humanitarian intervention .
Blinken , who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors , has repeatedly made clear that he believes the US should step in militarily to save innocent people from harm .
“ We failed to prevent a horrific loss of life .
We failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria and , of course , externally as refugees , ” he told CBS News in May 2019 .
“ And it ’ s something that I will take with me for the rest of my days .
It ’ s something that I feel very strongly .
So , you know , what happened , unfortunately , since then is that a horrific situation was made arguably even worse.
” Biden , meanwhile , has shied away from humanitarian intervention in more recent years .
For example , he opposed the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oust Muammar Qaddafi in 2011 .
“ It didn ’ t go to core interests , ” a senior White House official told Foreign Policy the following year .
“ It wasn ’ t something [ Biden ] thought was necessary to do.
” Blinken opposed the Libya decision , too , but it ’ s clear he still has a liberal interventionist streak .
That could put the men at odds should they face a similar situation during the next four years .
But more often than not , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve usually been : on the same page .

President-elect Joe Biden is expected to pick Antony Blinken, his longtime foreign policy aide, to be his secretary of state, making Blinken one of the most important figures in the incoming administration.
It’s no surprise that Biden is planning to tap Blinken to lead the nation’s premier foreign affairs agency, news that was first reported by Bloomberg News and confirmed by other outlets. The 58-year-old has served Biden since 2002, rising to become the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Biden chaired it. Blinken then became Biden’s national security adviser while he was vice president, moving on to the State Department in President Obama’s second term to become the agency’s No. 2.
While some assumed Biden would pick Blinken to be his national security adviser, it appears the incoming president prefers his trusted staffer represent the administration and the country abroad.
Biden and Blinken have a strong mind-meld, except on one key issue
The choice of Blinken, a onetime New Republic writer, will likely anger some on both the left and the right. Progressives might not like him for having praised President Donald Trump’s bombing of Syria in retaliation for its use of chemical weapons on civilians, or his having advocated for the US to arm Ukraine against Russia’s invasion. Conservatives, meanwhile, won’t like that he was a fierce advocate for the Iran nuclear deal.
But Biden was always going to entrust Blinken with a substantive foreign policy position in his administration, regardless of what critics said. “He has the judgment, the raw substantive knowledge, and the ability to interface with leaders to do any job his country could ever ask of him,” Biden told Politico of Blinken in 2013.
During the 2020 campaign, Blinken was Biden’s chief surrogate and spokesperson on foreign policy. He gave interview after interview after interview to explain how Biden would handle global affairs as president.
“Joe Biden would reassert American leadership, leading with our diplomacy. We’d actually show up again, day in, day out,” he told CBS News’s Michael Morell on his podcast in September. The new president would prepare for a world of “rising powers, new actors super-empowered by technology and information, who we have to bring along if we’re going to make progress.”
But Blinken and Biden differ on one crucial aspect: humanitarian intervention. Blinken, who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors, has repeatedly made clear that he believes the US should step in militarily to save innocent people from harm.
“We failed to prevent a horrific loss of life. We failed to prevent massive displacement of people internally in Syria and, of course, externally as refugees,” he told CBS News in May 2019. “And it’s something that I will take with me for the rest of my days. It’s something that I feel very strongly. So, you know, what happened, unfortunately, since then is that a horrific situation was made arguably even worse.”
Biden, meanwhile, has shied away from humanitarian intervention in more recent years. For example, he opposed the Obama administration’s foray into Libya to oust Muammar Qaddafi in 2011. “It didn’t go to core interests,” a senior White House official told Foreign Policy the following year. “It wasn’t something [Biden] thought was necessary to do.” Blinken was more willing to use force in Libya, and it’s clear he still has a liberal interventionist streak.
That could put the men at odds should they face a similar situation during the next four years. But more often than not, it’s likely Biden and Blinken will be where they’ve usually been: on the same page.


vox--2020-11-23--The presidential transition begins as the GSA formally recognizes Biden’s victory

On Monday , General Services Administration ( GSA ) chief Emily Murphy sent a letter to President-elect Joe Biden , officially authorizing the start of the presidential transition .
Murphy issued the letter of “ ascertainment ” after weeks of delay , and amid increasing pressure from Democrats , and bipartisan pushback from national security and public health experts to start the process .
Some Republican politicians had also begun to speak out , too .
The ascertainment will provide funding for the Biden-Harris transition , and most critically , give Biden ’ s team the opportunity to meet with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the new administration to take over in January .
“ As the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration , I have the ability under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 , as amended , to make certain post-election resources and services available to assist in the event of a presidential transition , ” Murphy wrote in her letter to vice-president elect Biden .
“ I take this role seriously and , because of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results , am transmitting this letter today to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
Those “ recent developments ” most likely refer to Trump ’ s failed attempts in court to challenge the election , and battleground states , including Michigan and Georgia , officially certifying the votes for Biden ’ s win .
In the past , most GSA administrators have made their judgments based on media projections , after which the losing candidate typically concedes .
But Murphy had held off from doing so , despite Biden being declared the winner by all major US media outlets and Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
The GSA recognizing Biden ’ s victory , and the formal start if the transition process will likely quell some of the concern about Trump ’ s refusal to accept the election results .
With Republicans backing away from their defense of the president , and the Trump ’ s legal avenues quickly closing , the reality Trump has tried to keep at bay for weeks is finally catching up to him .
Biden will be president on January 20 — and now , at least , he can begin to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in the transition is normally perfunctory .
This year — as with so much else related to the transition — has not been normal .
Following most presidential elections — with the exception of the contested 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore — GSA administrators have quickly ascertained the incoming president after news outlets called the race and the losing candidate conceded .
Murphy ’ s refusal to do so had ramped up pressure from Capitol Hill , including from House Democrats who wanted Murphy to brief them on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s legal loses mounted , some prominent Republicans also broke ranks with the president , and congratulated the incoming administration and called for the transition to begin .
Murphy , in her letter Monday , defended her decision-making , saying the looked to “ precedent from prior elections involving legal challenges and incomplete counts .
GSA does not dictate the outcome of legal disputes and recounts , nor does it determine whether such proceedings are reasonable and justified.
” Again , the one modern example of the GSA delaying a presidential transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recount .
Murphy also denied that the White House pressured her to withhold the ascertainment .
“ I have dedicated much of my adult life to public service , and I have always strived to do what is right .
Please know that I came to my decision independently , based on the law and available facts .
I was never directly or indirectly pressured by any Executive Branch official—including those who work at the White House or GSA—with regard to the substance or timing of my decision , ” Murphy wrote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not receive any direction to delay my determination.
” But President Donald Trump undermined that a bit , saying in a tweet shortly after the GSA acted that “ in the best interest of our Country , I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols , and have told my team to do the same.
” Though Trump said his case “ STRONGLY continues ” , this is one of the most direct acknowledgments from the president so far that his tenure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it isn ’ t exactly a concession .
Biden ’ s transition team , meanwhile , has tried to forge ahead without the cooperation of the Trump administration .
Biden has begun naming key members of his Cabinet , and has held meetings with state leaders on how to better coordinate the federal and state Covid-19 response .
He also received a national security briefing from former officials — though that ’ s not quite the same thing as a threat briefing from US intelligence agencies .
With the GSA ascertainment , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic coordination will begin in earnest .
In a statement , Yohannes Abraham , the executive director of the Biden-Harris transition , called the GSA ’ s ascertainment “ a needed step to begin tackling the challenges facing our nation , including getting the pandemic under control and our economy back on track.
” “ This final decision is a definitive administrative action to formally begin the transition process with federal agencies , ” the statement continued .
“ In the days ahead , transition officials will begin meeting with federal officials to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full accounting of our national security interests , and gain complete understanding of the Trump administration ’ s efforts to hollow out government agencies .
”

The presidential transition has officially begun.
On Monday, General Services Administration (GSA) chief Emily Murphy sent a letter to President-elect Joe Biden, officially authorizing the start of the presidential transition. Murphy issued the letter of “ascertainment” after weeks of delay and amid increasing pressure from Democrats, and bipartisan pushback from national security and public health experts to start the process. Some Republican politicians had also begun to speak out, too.
The ascertainment will provide funding for the Biden-Harris transition, and most critically, give Biden’s team the opportunity to meet with their counterparts across federal agencies to prepare for the new administration to take over in January.
“As the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration, I have the ability under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended, to make certain post-election resources and services available to assist in the event of a presidential transition,” Murphy wrote in her letter to President-elect Biden.
“I take this role seriously and, because of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, am transmitting this letter today to make those resources and services available to you,” she said.
Those “recent developments” most likely refer to President Donald Trump’s failed attempts in court to challenge the election, and battleground states including Michigan and Georgia officially certifying the votes for Biden’s win. In the past, most GSA administrators have made their judgments based on media projections, after which the losing candidate typically concedes. But Murphy had held off on doing so, despite Biden being declared the winner by all major US media outlets and Trump’s legal challenges largely going nowhere in court.
The GSA recognizing Biden’s victory, and the formal start of the transition process will likely quell some of the concern about Trump’s refusal to accept the election results. With Republicans backing away from their defense of the president, and Trump’s legal avenues quickly closing, the reality Trump has tried to keep at bay for weeks is finally catching up to him. Biden will be president on January 20 — and now, at least, he can begin to properly prepare.
The GSA’s role in the transition is normally perfunctory. But this transition has not been normal.
Following most presidential elections — with the exception of the contested 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore — GSA administrators have quickly ascertained the incoming president after news outlets called the race and the losing candidate conceded.
Murphy’s refusal to do so had ramped up pressure from Capitol Hill, including from House Democrats who wanted Murphy to brief them on the transition holdup. And as Trump’s legal losses mounted, some prominent Republicans also broke ranks with the president, congratulated the incoming administration, and called for the transition to begin.
Murphy, in her letter Monday, defended her decision-making, saying she looked to “precedent from prior elections involving legal challenges and incomplete counts. GSA does not dictate the outcome of legal disputes and recounts, nor does it determine whether such proceedings are reasonable and justified.” Again, the one recent example of the GSA delaying a presidential transition was in 2000 because of the Florida recount.
Murphy also denied that the White House pressured her to withhold the ascertainment. “I have dedicated much of my adult life to public service, and I have always strived to do what is right. Please know that I came to my decision independently, based on the law and available facts. I was never directly or indirectly pressured by any Executive Branch official—including those who work at the White House or GSA—with regard to the substance or timing of my decision,” Murphy wrote. “To be clear, I did not receive any direction to delay my determination.”
But Trump undermined that a bit, saying in a tweet shortly after the GSA acted that “in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.”
...fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 23, 2020
Though Trump said his case “STRONGLY continues,” this is one of the most direct acknowledgments from the president so far that his tenure in office is ending — even if it isn’t exactly a concession.
Biden’s transition team, meanwhile, has tried to forge ahead without the cooperation of the Trump administration. Biden has begun naming key members of his Cabinet, and has held meetings with state leaders on how to better coordinate the federal and state Covid-19 response. He also received a national security briefing from former officials — though that’s not quite the same thing as a threat briefing from US intelligence agencies. With the GSA ascertainment, the expectation is that both national security and pandemic coordination will begin in earnest.
In a statement, Yohannes Abraham, the executive director of the Biden-Harris transition, called the GSA’s ascertainment “a needed step to begin tackling the challenges facing our nation, including getting the pandemic under control and our economy back on track.”
“This final decision is a definitive administrative action to formally begin the transition process with federal agencies,” the statement continued. “In the days ahead, transition officials will begin meeting with federal officials to discuss the pandemic response, have a full accounting of our national security interests, and gain complete understanding of the Trump administration’s efforts to hollow out government agencies.”


vox--2020-11-23--Where Trump’s attempt to overturn Biden’s win stands

President Donald Trump is still pressing onward with his effort to try to overturn the election results in states Joe Biden clearly won — but he ’ s had little success so far , deadlines are arriving , and patience among some Republicans is wearing thin .
The most significant development Monday was that the Michigan Board of State Canvassers officially certified Biden as the winner in the state .
This shouldn ’ t have been in question — Biden won there by more than 150,000 votes — but there was some question about whether the two Republican members on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome .
In the end , one of them voted to do so , while the other abstained .
So after Georgia ’ s certification Friday , Michigan marks the second swing state Biden won where Trump ’ s efforts to use baseless fraud claims to stop certification ended up failing .
Pennsylvania also has a Monday deadline for counties to certify their vote results — after which the Democratic secretary of the commonwealth , Kathy Boockvar , can certify the state ’ s overall results .
So Republicans have made a flurry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get some judge , any judge , to declare that Pennsylvania can ’ t certify its results just yet .
And over the weekend , a few more Republican US senators got fed up with Trump ’ s post-election behavior .
Sens .
Pat Toomey ( R-PA ) and Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) joined a handful of their GOP colleagues in condemning Trump ’ s effort to get state legislatures to overturn the will of their voters , which could be significant in the unlikely event that disputes over this election make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall it looks quite likely that Biden will indeed take office as scheduled on January 20 , but Trump ’ s effort to obstruct this is very real , he has convinced many of his supporters that the election was fraudulently stolen from him , and it ’ s far from clear how this would have played out in a truly close race .
Though Michigan was the least close of the swing states Biden won — he leads by more than 150,000 votes , a 2.8 percentage point margin — Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-election mischief there because of the way the state certifies its votes .
In Michigan , the job of certifying the results is given to a four-member bipartisan board of canvassers .
Each county has its own four-person board , and there ’ s a statewide board as well .
Last week , there were partisan shenanigans at the county level as the two Republican canvassers in Wayne County ( Michigan ’ s largest county , containing Detroit ) initially refused to certify the vote totals .
Their stated reason for doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of balance ” ( there were more votes cast than voters ’ names confirmed as participating ) .
But the size of these discrepancies was quite small ( generally only a few votes in each precinct ) , suggesting clerical error rather than a massive conspiracy to rig the state for Biden .
Plus , similar discrepancies were present in past elections , like this year ’ s primary .
So after a few hours of intense backlash , the Wayne County Republican canvassers backed down and certified the vote — though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they later claimed they were pressured into certifying .
Then , on Monday , the state-level board met for its own deliberations .
One Republican on the state board , Norm Shinkle , stated before the meeting that he doesn ’ t think the results should be certified , echoing the Trump campaign ’ s baseless claims of large-scale fraud , so there was some question about the outcome .
( Shinkle ’ s wife was a witness in one of the Trump campaign ’ s lawsuits alleging improper election practices in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the board , Aaron Van Langevelde , a lawyer for Michigan state House Republicans , voted to certify the results .
He explained at the meeting that he believes that , legally , the board has a “ duty ” to certify the results as presented to them — that it ’ s not optional .
And he quoted John Adams ’ s famous line that “ we are a government of laws , not men.
” ( Shinkle ended up abstaining . )
Last week also brought the unusual spectacle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan ’ s state House and state Senate to meet him at the White House .
The obvious implication here is that Trump would like the legislators to make a dubiously legal attempt to give him , rather than Biden , the electoral votes in Michigan .
Under current law , it doesn ’ t seem that Michigan legislators even can do this — the governor is in charge of certifying the electors , and Whitmer surely wouldn ’ t certify electors awarded by the state legislature to Trump in defiance of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the US Supreme Court would have to decide to throw out vast swaths of federal and state election law to enhance the legislature ’ s authority , and even then , Congress might have the final say on resolving any disputes .
In any case , the legislators said after the meeting that they “ will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan ’ s electors.
” Trump and his allies are trying to delay the finalization of results in other states as well Pennsylvania state law sets this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadline for counties to certify their election results .
After that , the secretary of the commonwealth — Kathy Boockvar , a Democrat — can certify the state results .
The highest-profile lawsuit brought by the Trump campaign so far — an attempt to block Pennsylvania from certifying its results because counties had different policies relating to whether rejected mail ballots could be fixed — went down in flames Saturday .
Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the suit in a scathing opinion , as my colleague Ian Millhiser wrote .
( This was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court to argue for the campaign . )
Naturally , the Trump campaign is appealing the decision , though they ’ ve already had to revise their appeal to fix apparent errors , as Brad Heath of Reuters writes .
And there is more legal mischief afoot in Pennsylvania .
A Republican member of Congress from the state , Mike Kelly , filed a federal lawsuit Saturday that seeks to throw out all mail ballots cast in this election .
Kelly argues that Pennsylvania ’ s new mail-in voting law — passed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was unconstitutional and “ illegally implemented.
” Experts agree the suit is groundless , as Jeremy Roebuck of the Philadelphia Inquirer writes ; it ’ s most likely a long-shot attempt to get a judge to delay the certification process .
( Kelly filed a state lawsuit Monday as well . )
On Friday , Georgia became the first swing state won by Biden to certify its results — but things aren ’ t totally done there yet either .
Though the state already conducted a hand audit of all vote totals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest a machine recount as well ( which would be paid for by the state ) , and did so this weekend .
That recount is expected to be conducted quickly , and it will not change the result ; Biden won by more than 12,000 votes , and all those votes have already been double-checked by hand .
In Wisconsin , meanwhile , a partial recount requested by the Trump campaign in two heavily Democratic counties — Milwaukee and Dane — is underway .
Trump ’ s observers are making many objections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process , and it ’ s fallen a bit behind schedule in Milwaukee , Molly Beck of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports .
The state ’ s certification deadline is December 1 .
Meanwhile , there was tumult among Trump ’ s legal team as the campaign attempted to distance itself from the bizarre claims of one of its allies , lawyer Sidney Powell .
“ Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own .
She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team .
She is also not a lawyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Giuliani said in a statement Sunday — which came as a surprise , since she stood up at the podium with Giuliani and Trump ’ s legal team at their press conference just three days earlier .
Even before the election , Powell was frequently in the news this year , as she tried to get the case against Michael Flynn — Trump ’ s former national security adviser , who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI as part of the Mueller investigation — thrown out .
Though she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team then , the president clearly approved of what Powell was doing , and Powell admitted under questioning from a judge that she had discussed Flynn ’ s case with Trump .
Once Giuliani took over Trump ’ s legal effort to overturn the election results , Powell seemed to have been officially brought into the tent .
When Trump ’ s legal team held a press conference last Thursday , Powell was there at the podium with them .
And her claims stood out as particularly bizarre — she asserted that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Trump , in part because there was “ communist money ” involved and that the company had ties to the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez .
Other Trump campaign lawyers , including Giuliani , have also been spreading conspiracy theories and making false claims about voting problems — though even in this genre , Powell ’ s claims stood out for their outlandishness .
The real problem may have been that Powell began to make baseless claims that could be problematic for Republicans ’ efforts to win the two runoff Senate elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an interview with NewsMax on Saturday that Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp ( R ) made a corrupt deal with Dominion , and that Rep. Doug Collins ( R-GA ) and not Sen. Kelly Loeffler should have been the rightful winner in one of the Georgia Senate races .
Obviously this is a problem for Republicans hoping to turn out their voters to support Loeffler in the January runoff .
So the next day , Giuliani released the statement distancing Trump ’ s legal team from Powell .
( Powell herself released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s press release ” but that she will continue to try to prove fraud in court . )
More Republican senators are getting fed up with Trump With a handful of exceptions , top Republicans have generally given Trump a lot of leeway to pursue post-election legal challenges and have avoided saying the outcome is settled .
But gradually , more are concluding that this has gone on too long , and they ’ re starting to say so .
After Judge Brann ’ s decision to throw out the Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued a statement saying Brann is “ a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist , ” and that his ruling means Trump has “ exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.
” Toomey added some sharp criticism that Trump was trying “ to thwart the will of Michigan voters and select an illegitimate slate of electoral college electors , ” and he congratulated “ President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory.
” Then Sen. Murkowski @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump has had the opportunity to litigate his claims , and the courts have thus far found them without merit .
A pressure campaign on state legislators to influence the electoral outcome is not only unprecedented but inconsistent with our democratic process.
” She added , “ It is time to begin the full and formal transition process.
” Trump ’ s attempt to pressure the Republican leaders of Michigan ’ s state legislature into trying to overturn the result there seems to have particularly repulsed key Republican senators — Sens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney ( UT ) , and Ben Sasse ( NE ) have also criticized this effort .
This is probably only significant as rhetorical pressure .
But Congress does have a role in approving the election results : On January 6 , 2021 , a joint session of Congress will count the electoral votes .
This is usually purely ceremonial with the outcome not genuinely up in the air .
But in the unlikely event that Trump proves successful at getting several state legislatures to try to overturn the will of their voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that scenario , it could prove important that there ’ s a faction of Republican senators who are repelled by Trump ’ s tactics and recognize Biden as the winner .

President Donald Trump is still pressing onward with his effort to try to overturn the election results in states Joe Biden clearly won — but he’s had little success so far, deadlines are arriving, and patience among some Republicans is wearing thin.
The most significant development Monday was that the Michigan Board of State Canvassers officially certified Biden as the winner in the state. This shouldn’t have been in question — Biden won there by more than 150,000 votes — but there was some question about whether the two Republican members on the four-member board would indeed certify the outcome.
In the end, one of them voted to do so, while the other abstained. So after Georgia’s certification Friday, Michigan marks the second swing state Biden won where Trump’s efforts to use baseless fraud claims to stop certification ended up failing.
Pennsylvania also has a Monday deadline for counties to certify their vote results — after which the Democratic secretary of the commonwealth, Kathy Boockvar, can certify the state’s overall results. So Republicans have made a flurry of long-shot legal filings, trying to get some judge, any judge, to declare that Pennsylvania can’t certify its results just yet.
And over the weekend, a few more Republican US senators got fed up with Trump’s post-election behavior. Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joined a handful of their GOP colleagues in condemning Trump’s effort to get state legislatures to overturn the will of their voters, which could be significant in the unlikely event that disputes over this election make it to Congress in January.
So overall it looks quite likely that Biden will indeed take office as scheduled on January 20, but Trump’s effort to obstruct this is very real, he has convinced many of his supporters that the election was fraudulently stolen from him, and it’s far from clear how this would have played out in a truly close race.
Michigan certified its votes for Biden
Though Michigan was the least close of the swing states Biden won — he leads by more than 150,000 votes, a 2.8 percentage point margin — Trump and his allies stoked a great deal of post-election mischief there because of the way the state certifies its votes.
In Michigan, the job of certifying the results is given to a four-member bipartisan board of canvassers. Each county has its own four-person board, and there’s a statewide board as well.
Last week, there were partisan shenanigans at the county level as the two Republican canvassers in Wayne County (Michigan’s largest county, containing Detroit) initially refused to certify the vote totals. Their stated reason for doing so was that too many precincts were “out of balance” (there were more votes cast than voters’ names confirmed as participating).
But the size of these discrepancies was quite small (generally only a few votes in each precinct), suggesting clerical error rather than a massive conspiracy to rig the state for Biden. Plus, similar discrepancies were present in past elections, like this year’s primary. So after a few hours of intense backlash, the Wayne County Republican canvassers backed down and certified the vote — though after President Trump reached out to them, they later claimed they were pressured into certifying.
Then, on Monday, the state-level board met for its own deliberations. One Republican on the state board, Norm Shinkle, stated before the meeting that he doesn’t think the results should be certified, echoing the Trump campaign’s baseless claims of large-scale fraud, so there was some question about the outcome. (Shinkle’s wife was a witness in one of the Trump campaign’s lawsuits alleging improper election practices in Detroit.)
But the other Republican on the board, Aaron Van Langevelde, a lawyer for Michigan state House Republicans, voted to certify the results. He explained at the meeting that he believes that, legally, the board has a “duty” to certify the results as presented to them — that it’s not optional. And he quoted John Adams’s famous line that “we are a government of laws, not men.” (Shinkle ended up abstaining.)
Last week also brought the unusual spectacle of President Trump inviting the Republican leaders of Michigan’s state House and state Senate to meet him at the White House. The obvious implication here is that Trump would like the legislators to make a dubiously legal attempt to give him, rather than Biden, the electoral votes in Michigan.
Under current law, it doesn’t seem that Michigan legislators even can do this — the governor is in charge of certifying the electors, and Whitmer surely wouldn’t certify electors awarded by the state legislature to Trump in defiance of the vote totals. For this to fly, the US Supreme Court would have to decide to throw out vast swaths of federal and state election law to enhance the legislature’s authority, and even then, Congress might have the final say on resolving any disputes.
In any case, the legislators said after the meeting that they “will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan’s electors.”
Trump and his allies are trying to delay the finalization of results in other states as well
Pennsylvania state law sets this Monday (November 23) as the deadline for counties to certify their election results. After that, the secretary of the commonwealth — Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat — can certify the state results.
The highest-profile lawsuit brought by the Trump campaign so far — an attempt to block Pennsylvania from certifying its results because counties had different policies relating to whether rejected mail ballots could be fixed — went down in flames Saturday. Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the suit in a scathing opinion, as my colleague Ian Millhiser wrote. (This was the suit where Rudy Giuliani personally appeared in court to argue for the campaign.)
Naturally, the Trump campaign is appealing the decision, though they’ve already had to revise their appeal to fix apparent errors, as Brad Heath of Reuters writes. And there is more legal mischief afoot in Pennsylvania. A Republican member of Congress from the state, Mike Kelly, filed a federal lawsuit Saturday that seeks to throw out all mail ballots cast in this election. Kelly argues that Pennsylvania’s new mail-in voting law — passed in 2019 by a Republican-controlled state legislature — was unconstitutional and “illegally implemented.” Experts agree the suit is groundless, as Jeremy Roebuck of the Philadelphia Inquirer writes; it’s most likely a long-shot attempt to get a judge to delay the certification process. (Kelly filed a state lawsuit Monday as well.)
On Friday, Georgia became the first swing state won by Biden to certify its results — but things aren’t totally done there yet either. Though the state already conducted a hand audit of all vote totals, the Trump campaign had the right to suggest a machine recount as well (which would be paid for by the state), and did so this weekend. That recount is expected to be conducted quickly, and it will not change the result; Biden won by more than 12,000 votes, and all those votes have already been double-checked by hand.
In Wisconsin, meanwhile, a partial recount requested by the Trump campaign in two heavily Democratic counties — Milwaukee and Dane — is underway. Trump’s observers are making many objections to the count that have slowed down the process, and it’s fallen a bit behind schedule in Milwaukee, Molly Beck of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. The state’s certification deadline is December 1.
Trump distanced himself from lawyer Sidney Powell
Meanwhile, there was tumult among Trump’s legal team as the campaign attempted to distance itself from the bizarre claims of one of its allies, lawyer Sidney Powell. “Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity,” Giuliani said in a statement Sunday — which came as a surprise, since she stood up at the podium with Giuliani and Trump’s legal team at their press conference just three days earlier.
Even before the election, Powell was frequently in the news this year, as she tried to get the case against Michael Flynn — Trump’s former national security adviser, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI as part of the Mueller investigation — thrown out. Though she was not officially part of Trump’s team then, the president clearly approved of what Powell was doing, and Powell admitted under questioning from a judge that she had discussed Flynn’s case with Trump.
Once Giuliani took over Trump’s legal effort to overturn the election results, Powell seemed to have been officially brought into the tent. When Trump’s legal team held a press conference last Thursday, Powell was there at the podium with them. And her claims stood out as particularly bizarre — she asserted that the voting systems company Dominion rigged the vote against Trump, in part because there was “communist money” involved and that the company had ties to the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez.
Other Trump campaign lawyers, including Giuliani, have also been spreading conspiracy theories and making false claims about voting problems — though even in this genre, Powell’s claims stood out for their outlandishness.
The real problem may have been that Powell began to make baseless claims that could be problematic for Republicans’ efforts to win the two runoff Senate elections in Georgia. Specifically, Powell claimed in an interview with NewsMax on Saturday that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) made a corrupt deal with Dominion, and that Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) and not Sen. Kelly Loeffler should have been the rightful winner in one of the Georgia Senate races. Obviously this is a problem for Republicans hoping to turn out their voters to support Loeffler in the January runoff.
So the next day, Giuliani released the statement distancing Trump’s legal team from Powell. (Powell herself released a statement saying “I understand today’s press release” but that she will continue to try to prove fraud in court.)
More Republican senators are getting fed up with Trump
With a handful of exceptions, top Republicans have generally given Trump a lot of leeway to pursue post-election legal challenges and have avoided saying the outcome is settled. But gradually, more are concluding that this has gone on too long, and they’re starting to say so.
After Judge Brann’s decision to throw out the Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania lawsuit, Sen. Toomey issued a statement saying Brann is “a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist,” and that his ruling means Trump has “exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.” Toomey added some sharp criticism that Trump was trying “to thwart the will of Michigan voters and select an illegitimate slate of electoral college electors,” and he congratulated “President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory.”
Then Sen. Murkowski said in a statement Sunday that “President Trump has had the opportunity to litigate his claims, and the courts have thus far found them without merit. A pressure campaign on state legislators to influence the electoral outcome is not only unprecedented but inconsistent with our democratic process.” She added, “It is time to begin the full and formal transition process.”
Trump’s attempt to pressure the Republican leaders of Michigan’s state legislature into trying to overturn the result there seems to have particularly repulsed key Republican senators — Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Mitt Romney (UT), and Ben Sasse (NE) have also criticized this effort.
This is probably only significant as rhetorical pressure. But Congress does have a role in approving the election results: On January 6, 2021, a joint session of Congress will count the electoral votes. This is usually purely ceremonial with the outcome not genuinely up in the air. But in the unlikely event that Trump proves successful at getting several state legislatures to try to overturn the will of their voters, Congress can settle disputes. In that scenario, it could prove important that there’s a faction of Republican senators who are repelled by Trump’s tactics and recognize Biden as the winner.