Vice President Kamala Harris is laying the groundwork for a possible presidency by assembling a transition team and evaluating potential Cabinet appointees. With the 2024 election looming, her approach reflects both a bridge to the Biden administration and her signature political identity. This careful planning could define the future structure of the executive branch.
Harris’s preparations have gained urgency since President Biden stepped back from the race in late July. Within weeks, she secured the nomination, chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate, and consolidated her campaign operations. The focus has now shifted to what comes next: effective governance.
Central to this transition effort is Yohannes Abraham, a seasoned advisor with prior experience in both the Obama and Biden administrations. Tasked with overseeing the intricacies of filling key positions, Abraham’s past role in Biden’s transition provides Harris with valuable institutional knowledge regarding personnel logistics and the vetting process.
However, Harris’s selection criteria extend beyond simple qualifications. She is prioritizing loyalty and readiness for confirmation, with historical significance also coming into play. Among those considered for senior roles are prominent Democratic figures such as former Attorney General Eric Holder, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Harris’s inner circle also includes long-time allies, some with familial ties, like Tony West, who blend personal loyalty with professional experience.
“You won’t see a bunch of new people you’ve never heard of,” said one Harris advisor, indicating a strategy that favors familiar faces over newcomers to the political arena.
One notable pledge Harris has made is to appoint at least one Republican to her Cabinet—a move intended to showcase her commitment to bipartisanship. “It would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my Cabinet who was a Republican,” she stated during a recent interview, evoking a strategy reminiscent of former President Obama’s era of cross-party collaboration. This promise has sparked varied reactions, with critics voicing skepticism about her intentions.
The underlying question remains: How different would a Harris administration be from Biden’s? Harris has expressed support for many of Biden’s initiatives, particularly the Inflation Reduction Act. Yet, she is keen to establish her unique governing style and the loyalty of her team, constructed over her years in California politics and as a U.S. Senator.
Sources indicate that Harris’s planning is strategic, particularly with the likelihood of a Republican-controlled Senate come January. Given the possibility of contentious confirmation hearings, the vetting process for nominees emphasizes candidates with bipartisan appeal. Names like Sen. Chris Coons and Raimondo, known for their moderate stances, are seen as suitable options in this context.
The implications of these appointments go beyond mere personnel choices; they can significantly affect congressional cooperation. A Cabinet filled with partisan figures could stymie Harris’s initiatives from the start. Conversely, a team that mirrors the Obama-Biden administration may undermine her message of new leadership sought in the campaign.
In terms of diversity, Harris’s selections may also advance gender and racial representation. Allies have mentioned the potential appointment of the first woman as Secretary of Defense and the first Black White House Chief of Staff. The network of former Harris staffers spread across Washington could provide a ready pool of talent, given their established trust and alignment with her vision.
Key names under consideration include former Chief of Staff Ron Klain and strategist Jen O’Malley Dillon, who would bring essential skills to Harris’s administration, whether in policy expertise or communication strategies.
Harris’s choice of Tim Walz as her running mate reflects a similar strategy aimed at expanding voter appeal. Walz’s background and moderate stance are intended to resonate with battleground state voters, a calculation that is likely to extend to her Cabinet selections—prioritizing competence, loyalty, and electability over ideological rigidity.
In discussing her vision, Harris has sought to convey consistency, particularly regarding climate policy. Addressing critics skeptical of her stance on energy issues, she asserted, “The most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed.”
However, some express doubt about this continuity. Critics warn that her reliance on Democratic veterans may dilute her claim to being a transformative leader in a changing America. Moreover, many argue that her Cabinet planning seems premature given polls that favor Donald Trump in crucial swing states.
Yet, Harris is clearly taking the matter of preparation seriously. Insiders reveal that the lists of potential candidates are being actively vetted, with political strategists assessing confirmation probabilities. Names floated now may become targets during confirmation hearings as early as January 2025.
The stakes involved for those under consideration are substantial. Cabinet positions control vast departments, meaning the choices Harris makes will have far-reaching impacts on governance. The balance she strikes between technocrats, political operators, or long-time associates will be pivotal in determining how her administration is viewed across the nation.
As one Harris insider pointedly noted, “This isn’t about doling out favors. It’s about survival in a hostile Senate, sending a message to Wall Street and the base, and making sure she gets things done fast if she wins.”
This methodical approach is certainly fraught with political peril. Critics, like commentator Chuck Callesto, emphasize concerns about whether a Harris administration filled with Obama-era insiders represents real change or merely continues existing power structures under a different banner.
Harris faces a crucial test in November. Yet, the decisions made now in preparation for a potential presidency could cast long shadows over domestic and foreign policies for years to come.
"*" indicates required fields
