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

Background

Executive Order 13370 was enacted to ensure that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had a clear and direct chain of succession in place. This order addressed potential leadership vacuums by specifying which officials within the OMB would temporarily assume the role of Director if both the Director and Deputy Director were incapacitated. This measure provided stability and continuity, especially crucial for an agency responsible for coordinating the formulation and execution of government-wide budgetary, management, and regulatory policies. The order avoided possible disruptions in critical government functions that could arise due to unforeseen leadership absences.

Beyond operational continuity, the order also established a hierarchy for decision-making authority in the absence of the top leadership at OMB. With its specified sequence of officials ready to assume control, it ensured that there was minimal delay in decision-making processes. This was particularly significant in times of economic or security crises, where timely decisions are paramount. The order thus functioned as an assurance mechanism for both the executive branch and external stakeholders, including other branches of government and international partners.

Additionally, by implementing a clear succession order, Executive Order 13370 eliminated ambiguities that could have led to internal disputes or power struggles within the OMB. It provided legal clarity and a predetermined procedure, which helped to prevent conflict over leadership roles. This, in turn, reinforced public confidence in the government's capacity to maintain order and efficiency, even during unexpected leadership transitions. It was instrumental for the smooth functioning of OMB—a pivotal arm in the execution of the President’s policy agenda.

Reason for Revocation

President Barack Obama's decision to revoke the executive order must be understood within the broader context of his administration’s approach to governance and administrative efficiency. The revocation was part of a broader review and modernization of federal operational directives to ensure they were aligned with contemporary governance challenges and priorities. Obama's administration may have viewed the order of succession established by EO 13370 as redundant or outdated, given potential structural changes and personnel reorganizations within the OMB.

The Obama administration prioritized transparency and modernization in federal operations. Revoking Bush's order could have been aimed at streamlining processes within the OMB, ensuring that succession plans were more flexible and adaptable to current needs rather than being fixed by a previous administration's policies. This might have involved integrating new leadership structures or roles that were not covered under the existing order.

Furthermore, revocation could also reflect a shift towards centralizing authority or flexibility at the President's discretion. By removing a rigid succession order, Obama could ensure that the designation of an acting Director would reflect immediate situational requirements and personnel capabilities rather than adhere to an established list. Such a change would allow for adaptive leadership decisions tailored to the unique circumstances of each vacancy scenario.

Ultimately, the revocation fits Obama's broader ideological shift towards a more dynamic and responsive executive branch. It represents an effort to move away from static orders inherited from previous administrations, favoring agile and contemporary approaches that align with evolving administrative and policy landscapes.

Winners

The revocation of the order likely benefited the executive branch and the President himself by increasing flexibility in designating acting leadership within the OMB. By removing the predetermined succession order, the President gained more control over who could be designated as the acting Director, allowing for decision-making based on current performance, expertise, and alignment with presidential priorities. This increased Presidential discretion in staffing critical roles enhances strategic appointments based on contemporaneous needs and objectives.

Historically understaffed roles or newly created positions within the OMB could also have been beneficiaries, as the revocation allowed for the elevation of officers not previously listed in the rigid hierarchy. This would enable the integration of officials with significant institutional knowledge or specialized skill sets who might not have fit into the succession plan outlined in the prior directive, thereby strengthening OMB leadership effectiveness.

The revocation also favored potential reformers or modernizers within the federal government. Those advocating for adaptability and responsiveness may view the removal of rigid succession structures as an opportunity to support more fluid organizational designs that foster innovation. Such changes could allow for improved integration of technological advancements and reform initiatives unseen during the initial enactment of EO 13370.

Losers

On the potential losing end are those who valued the stability and predictability offered by the formal succession plan. The clear chain of command provided by the original order might have assured OMB personnel and stakeholders of an unbiased and systematic approach to temporary leadership appointments. Without it, there could be perceptions of increased politicization in appointing acting leaders.

Additionally, the revocation could cause uncertainty or confusion within the ranks of those mid-level managers who were part of the previously established line of succession. Assumptions regarding career progression and leadership opportunities could be disrupted, leading to concerns over job security or morale among officials who believed they were next in line for acting leadership roles.

Government transparency advocates and critics of enhanced executive discretion might also see the revocation as a step backward. The original executive order was a concrete plan embedded in the legal framework, ensuring clarity and accountability. Removing such a structure might raise fears of unpredictability in leadership transitions, potentially undermining public trust in consistent and non-partisan government operations.