Significant growth in the second year of departures

After a remarkably steady first year in office, the Biden administration has seen a significant increase in senior staff turnover. Significant growth in departures The “A-Team” moved from five individuals leaving in the first year to 21 in the second year. While the increase itself isn’t surprising — all but one administration since 1981 has experienced a surge in second-year “A-Team” departures — the magnitude of the increase is remarkable.[1] Second-year turnover on Biden’s “A-team” is the second highest (32%) behind Ronald Reagan’s 40%. Combining the first and second years, Biden’s turnover rate (40%) is the third highest behind Presidents Trump (66%) and Reagan (57%).

The year 2022 has been fraught with challenges for the Biden administration: rising inflation, ongoing struggles with COVID-19, Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, a preternaturally slow confirmation process, and fears of a “red wave” rising over the midterm elections. At the same time, the administration claimed major legislative victories on gun safety, semiconductor manufacturing (CHIPS), prescription drug costs, climate change and the historic swearing-in of Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first black woman to serve on the Supreme Court . Additionally, the Biden administration’s efforts to build a coalition in support of Ukraine have remained solid so far despite the Russian onslaught. None of Biden’s successes could have happened without the efforts of the president’s appointees. This study focuses primarily on turnover in the presidential “A-Team,” defined as the 66 senior leadership positions in the Office of the President (EOP). These individuals occupy highly influential positions and do so at the pleasure of the president. Looking at the comings and goings of these officials teaches us something about the workings of the presidency.

I’m thinking about senior staff turnover

Counting employees who have left is a complex and painstaking undertaking. For the purposes of my research, turnover refers to vacancies created through promotion, resignation, or firing. Each of these moves causes disruption and reduces efficiency because it requires White House resources (eg, hiring, vetting, training, placement). There is also an additional burden on staff members who remain but often take on additional work when employees leave. The departure of high-level employees can also have a ripple effect and lead to lower-level departures within an office. Junior members of staff may leave because they were specifically attracted by their outgoing boss, or the successor may wish to “clean house” and start with a preferred set of individuals. In short, the organizational consequences can extend far beyond a single quitter. Those who serve on the “A team” are by definition important participants in the work of the presidency, so any departure affects presidential operations.

Perhaps more importantly, members of the “A-Team” have important connections throughout government, among key constituencies, interest groups, the media, party organizations, and more. Broadly speaking, the central role of the modern White House is promotion and coordination, illustrating the importance of external professional relations. These relationships are simply priceless. Any successor will have to take time to rebuild these critical relationships — essentially reinventing the wheel and ultimately reducing the effectiveness of White House operations.

Methodology

I initially relied on one source to determine which of the many White House staff members were most influential: the Decision Makers editions of National newspaper. From 1981-2009 National newspaper published a special issue at the beginning of each new administration entitled Decision Makers. They assigned a group of reporters to identify the most powerful officials in the new administration. Once published, the volume includes official titles, brief biographies, and headshots of most of these staff members. The five releases, published over 28 years, include an average of 60 Executive Office of the President (“EOP”) employees and identify individuals working in the White House Office, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers , members of the Office of the Vice President and the Office of the US Trade Representative, among other entities. Of course, there were differences between administrations in terms of the positions chosen, but most were repetitive. Using this dataset of senior presidential staff, I then relied on a variety of web resources, personal interviews, and journalistic accounts to trace the tenure.

The National newspaper stopped publishing this special after the Obama administration, at which point I teamed up with Bloomberg journalist Madison Alder. In 2017, we collaborated to identify members of the “A-Team” in the new Trump administration. We systematically compiled each job title across the five editions, noted the frequency with which it was included, and then analyzed Trump’s appointments based on the criteria (listed above). It is also important to note that National newspaperConsecutive releases of include new positions (an average of 19), so we added 19 unique positions among Trump’s presidential staff. Such developments are not surprising, as new presidents like to put their own stamp on the institution or respond to a new crisis or problem by creating a new office or position of senior adviser.[2] I used the same approach to create a list of “Decision Makers” for the 2021 Biden administration: matching staff positions with those identified by National newspaper and identifying significant new positions.

A look at the data

Looking at cumulative turnover after 24 months in office, Biden’s adviser turnover (40%) ranks third behind Ronald Reagan’s 57% and Donald Trump’s 66%. In stark contrast, Obama’s team had a 24 percent turnover rate after his first two years in office, and President George H. W. Bush had a 25 percent turnover rate.

Analyzing turnover from a different perspective by focusing solely on the second year, Biden’s presidential adviser turnover is 32% (or 21 individuals), second only to Ronald Reagan’s 40%. Close behind President Biden was President Trump’s second-year turnover at 31%, down four percentage points from the record first-year 35%. Of the 21 contributors to turnover, 17 resigned for various reasons, three were promoted, and one resigned under pressure (Director of the Office of Science and Technology, Eric Lander). This forced resignation was perhaps the most dramatic of all since he resigned by apologizing for verbally abusing subordinates. His forced resignation was the second of its kind under Biden.[3]

A closer look at Biden’s 21 departures from the “A-Team” revealed big names like White House adviser Dana Remus; Advisor to the President and Coordinator of the COVID-19 Response, Jeff Zients; Press Secretary Jen Psaki; and National Climate Advisor, Gina McCarthy. Other critical departures include Assistant to the President and Director of Management and Administration, Anne Filipik. This role has been described as the “administrative backbone” of the White House, and despite the non-political nature of this position, strong leadership in this office is critical to the success of the administration.

While most of the departures were scattered around the White House and in key EOP offices, there was a significant exodus of senior legal professionals in the White House Counsel’s office. Although key departures began in January 2022 with the departure of Jonathan Cedarbaum, deputy adviser to the president and legal adviser to the National Security Council, the subsequent departure of White House counsel Dana Remus may have precipitated the departure of two of the three the other White House deputy advisers (Jonathan Suh and Daniel Conley). Remus’ resignation allowed the promotion of the remaining deputy White House counsel, Stuart Deleary, to White House counsel. While the news did not provide a specific reason for the White House adviser’s departure after 17 months, her role during the presidential campaign, the contentious election battle after the 2020 election and nearly a year and a half in the White House likely took its toll. .

Explaining the lift

Remember that in the first year, turnover among key Biden advisers was among the lowest, which may have really set the stage for a larger-than-normal increase in the second year. Reasons for leaving are varied (e.g., burnout, more lucrative opportunities in the private sector, needing to return to their home country, or an executive promotion, among other reasons), but departures are often the result of cumulative attrition (e.g., a tough campaign, a contested election battle, a bumpy transition and a challenging first year).

With better-than-expected midterm results in the rearview mirror, the White House’s new preoccupation will be the president’s re-election bid. No doubt that search will be front and center in the minds of the president and many senior advisers, as it has been under previous presidents.[4] Every presidential move and word will be evaluated for its impact on the re-election campaign. In addition, news in 2022 of the potential departures of three top advisers—Ron Klein (Chief of Staff), Cecilia Rouse (Chair, Council of Economic Advisers), and Brian Dease (Director, National Economic Council)—suggests that the level of turnover will rise. An increased focus on policy at the expense of policy may encourage some politically oriented employees to move on. At the same time, those who focus on political outreach (think the Office of Public Engagement and Political Strategy and Outreach) often move into the re-election campaign, where their political skills can serve the president well (eg, the 2018 exit .of Policy Director Bill Stepien and Public Relations Director Justin Clark, the 2011 departures of Senior Advisor to the President David Axelrod and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs). The bottom line is that with a cumulative staff turnover of 40%, there is a good chance that by the end of the third year over 50% of the “A-Team” will have moved on. Time will tell, and speculation is always risky, but given the experience of the six previous presidents, the White House Office of the President may want to start a search to fill some high-level vacancies.

Footnotes

1. The only exception was President Trump, whose turnover rate in the first year was extremely high (35%), and while there was a drop in the second year, it was only four points (31%). (Go back to the beginning)
2. For example, a new addition early in the Biden administration was the emergence of a “Covid-19 Response Team” to oversee vaccine implementation, federal prevention efforts and other pandemic-related tasks designed to develop a whole-of-government response. (Go back to the beginning)
3. The other resignation under pressure was Deputy Press Secretary TJ Ducklo in February 2021. (Back to top)
4. See Katherine Dunn Tenpass, Presidents as Candidates: Inside the White House for the Presidential Campaign, NY: Routledge, 2003 (paperback). (Go back to the beginning)