The period between a presidential election and the official transfer of power has long been a point of contention in American politics. While originally designed to ensure a smooth transition and allow ample time for administrative hand off, the nearly two-and-a-half-month gap between Election Day and Inauguration Day has exposed vulnerabilities that can exacerbate national divisions and hinder effective governance. Recent actions by the current administration underscore the need to revisit this timeline and assess its implications for accountability and national stability.

One of the most contentious practices in the final days of an outgoing presidency is the issuance of presidential pardons. In the last several months, President Biden has granted clemency to individuals whose cases raise questions of political favoritism. Among the most polarizing pardon is his son, Hunter Biden, amid ongoing investigations Such actions undermine the principle of justice and erode public trust in the impartiality of the legal system.

While the power to pardon is enshrined in the Constitution, its potential for abuse is a recurring concern. The absence of immediate accountability during the lame-duck period allows outgoing presidents to make controversial decisions with little to no political consequence. This dynamic highlights the need for reform that would curtail opportunities for unchecked executive actions.

Another flashpoint in the current administration’s final days is the handling of resources allocated for the border wall. Reports of materials being sold off or repurposed have sparked outrage as the border wall is essential to national security. The administration’s priorities reflect a disregard for taxpayer investment and the need for effective immigration control.

The decision to dismantle or redirect resources initially intended for the border wall raises broader questions about transparency and fiscal responsibility. With illegal immigration continuing to be a divisive issue, such moves are ideological governance at the expense of pragmatic solutions.

In foreign policy, the Biden administration’s recent actions may escalate international conflicts. Accusations of brinkmanship in dealings with rival nations have led to fears of a broader geopolitical crisis. The administration’s approach lacks the strategic foresight necessary to navigate a complex global landscape and risks drawing the United States into unnecessary conflicts.

At a time when global stability is paramount, a lack of cohesive strategy undermines confidence in American leadership. This further underscores the importance of timely leadership transitions to address pressing challenges with fresh perspectives.

Domestically, concerns over federal spending have intensified as reports emerge of generous contracts and benefits extended to at-home government workers. These expenditures are emblematic of a broader trend of fiscal irresponsibility that threatens long-term economic stability. With inflation and national debt continuing to rise, the administration’s policies have faced bipartisan scrutiny for prioritizing short-term relief over sustainable growth.

The current timeline for presidential transitions was established in an era when logistical challenges necessitated a lengthy hand off. In today’s fast-paced and digitally connected world, such an extended period is increasingly viewed as outdated. Reducing the transition period would not only curtail opportunities for controversial last-minute decisions but also align governance with the demands of modern efficiency.

By streamlining the transfer of power, the nation could benefit from a more immediate implementation of the newly elected administration’s agenda. This would minimize the risks associated with lame-duck periods and ensure greater accountability for actions taken during this critical time.

Conclusion

The events of recent months have underscored the need for structural reforms to America’s political processes. From contentious pardons and border security controversies to global tensions and domestic spending, the actions of the current administration have highlighted the vulnerabilities inherent in the existing system. As the nation awaits January 20, 2025, the case for a shorter transition period has never been stronger. For the sake of accountability, transparency, and effective governance, it is time to reconsider the traditions that no longer serve the needs of the American people.