Providing an Order of Succession Within the Office of Management and Budget

Background

Executive Order 13615, issued by President Obama in 2012, clarified the succession process within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure operational continuity. This order established an explicit hierarchy for assuming the role of Director during emergencies, like sudden vacancies due to death, resignation, or incapacitation. By crafting a clear line of succession, it enhanced operational resilience and institutional integrity at the OMB by helping to prevent management disruptions. As a result, the OMB could consistently perform its crucial role in drafting the President's budget proposal and supervising agency performance, notwithstanding leadership gaps.

The directive directly impacted regulatory frameworks by providing transparency and predictability in leadership transitions within the OMB. No rules required amending following its issuance; however, the implicit understanding that key positions were well-defined facilitated smoother transitions across the agency. Leadership continuity allowed the OMB to maintain its pace in developing and implementing federal budgetary and regulatory policies without delays typically associated with unplanned leadership changes.

Operational adjustments within the OMB included enhanced procedural rigor, as directors and deputies understood their designated roles and responsibilities even before any succession event. This foresight encouraged preparedness across ranks and ensured minimal disruption to OMB operations during vacancies. It allowed for a robust response to political crises, assuring other government branches and stakeholders that the OMB functions would proceed smoothly even amid leadership uncertainties. The order also reinforced a culture of preparedness and accountability within the OMB, improving its function as a backbone agency in government operations.

Reason for Revocation

President Biden revoked the 2012 order as president-elect in January 2025, a decision reflecting broader administrative restructuring priorities. This revocation coincided with Biden's broader efforts to bring a more modern and integrated approach to government bureaucracy. With technological advancements and evolving governance challenges, the need for a succession plan needed to better reflect contemporary and future governance structures.

Biden's administration sought to integrate digital solutions and leverage data analytics to enhance governmental accountability and performance. Centralizing control and oversight, such strategies required a revised framework that differed from the 2012 order, which was steeped in traditional hierarchy and less flexible to accommodate new strategic governance tenets. In particular, Biden's move emphasized agility over hierarchy, aligning with tech-driven solutions and cross-departmental collaboration.

The ideological shift also underlined a heavier reliance on merit-based appointments and enhanced administrative agility, restructuring how succession and temporary vacancies would be managed within federal agencies. By revoking the plan, Biden signaled an attitude of adaptive governance, one committed to addressing emerging challenges with a dynamic workforce rather than relying solely upon predefined hierarchal successions.

Furthermore, Biden's administration emphasized simplifying bureaucratic processes. By revoking succession plans that may have been deemed too cumbersome or outdated, his administration indicated a preference for streamlining governance structures to increase efficiency and responsiveness while encouraging a culture of leadership development at various administrative levels.

Winners

The revocation stood to benefit senior officials within the OMB due to new opportunities for appointments based on merit, expertise, and leadership competencies rather than predetermined hierarchical seniority. Talented and innovative individuals within the government workforce became the primary beneficiaries, as succession planning focused more on capabilities and creativity than traditional order.

Additionally, just as industry benefits from innovation and a flexible workforce, sectors associated with civic tech and GovTech are likely winners, with potential expansions in government contracts for digital solutions that support revamped succession frameworks. Companies that could provide platforms integrating workforce management, data analytics, and strategic planning, such as Palantir Technologies and Splunk, might gain considerable interest from the administration focusing on modernization.

The broader population, too, could stand to benefit from streamlined governmental operations leading to enhanced policies and services. Citizens' access to government services would potentially become more efficient with leaders bypassing time-consuming administrative succession processes and instead focusing on continuity and innovation in service delivery.

Losers

The most significant group potentially disadvantaged by the revocation may include long-tenured bureaucrats within the OMB who benefited from the predictability associated with the succession hierarchy. As succession plans shifted towards merit and adaptability, adherence to seniority without demonstrable innovation or adaptability could no longer guarantee advancement to interim leadership roles.

Further, organizations that advocated for the preservation of traditional government structures and their inherent stability expressed concerns. They viewed the shift as destabilizing and threatening to the established patterns of governance, prizing known paths of leadership succession, which mitigated the turbulence associated with personnel changes.

Federal employees who were groomed under the structure defined by the 2012 order without additional focus on innovation or technological adaptation found themselves potentially at a disadvantage. As the administration pursued modernization and adaptation to emerging challenges, staff lacking these competencies may have faced diminishing prospects under the changed directive alignment.