Israel Joins the Arab Club, With U.S. Sponsorship

(This article first appeared in Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/israel-joins-arab-club-us-sponsorship-opinion-1628991)

By: Simone Ledeene, senior fellow and Victoria Coates

Last week, a laconic statement from the Department of Defense marked a tectonic shift in Middle East security cooperation, as the United States formally designated that Israel would now be part of the U.S Central Command (CENTCOM). President Donald Trump announced the proposed change on January 15, 2021, and while the escalation of violence in Gaza this spring seemed to put the designation in some jeopardy, it went into effect on September 1, 2021. The initiative to move Israel into CENTCOM is a direct result of the Trump administration-led Abraham Accords normalization agreements between the United States, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, signed one year ago today on the South Lawn of the White House.

CENTCOM got its name because the Middle East is literally located in the middle of everything. Israel is the most central point in that centrally located region, sharing as it does a maritime boundary with a European country (Cyprus) and a border with an African country (Egypt), as well as boasting Asian neighbors such as Jordan. In the wake of the Abraham Accords and the resultant burgeoning economic and cultural ties among the signatories, the timing is now ideal to develop a similar regional security relationship. This relationship would expand cooperation and improve Israel Defense Forces (IDF) integration with U.S. and partner forces throughout the region. It would also help CENTCOM promote a more holistic and inclusive regional security framework. There would be opportunities to conduct joint military exercises that include the IDF, which would indirectly provide Israel the occasion to communicate with countries that have yet to sign normalization agreements. Additionally, Israel would now be able to assign IDF liaison officers to CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa—and, hopefully in the future, to subordinate headquarters across the region.

As events in the Middle East crashed into the American consciousness due to the Iran and Afghanistan crises in 1979, President Jimmy Carter established the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (JTF) as a response mechanism for rapidly unfolding events. In 1983, under President Reagan, that JTF became CENTCOM. Its area of operation runs from the Pakistani border with India to Egypt’s border with Libya. U.S. military regional combatant commands, including CENTCOM, are responsible for the deployment, support and operational employment of U.S. forces in their areas of responsibility, as well as for developing military relationships with allies and partners in their respective regions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Donald Trump, Bahrain Foreign Minister Abdullatif al-Zayani, and UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan pose from the Truman Balcony at the White House after they participated in the signing of the Abraham Accords where the countries of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates recognize Israel, in Washington, DC, September 15, 2020.

In the course of the 1983 reorganization, Israel, Syria and Lebanon remained part of the European Command (EUCOM), which was established after World War II. At the time, placing Israel under EUCOM made some sense. Israel had existed for just 35 years and had formal diplomatic relations—chilly ones, at that—with only one Arab country: Egypt. All the others refused to recognize or maintain formal ties with the Jewish state. Memories of oil embargoes and the 1970s-era Arab boycott were still fresh, and it seemed only prudent to consider “diplomatic sensitivities” by making CENTCOM the U.S. military’s interface with the Arab world. EUCOM provided assistance to the IDF and conducted joint exercises and contingency operations with the IDF and America’s NATO allies.

In 2004, however, President George W. Bush moved Syria and Lebanon to CENTCOM, and Israel alone among the countries of the region remained in EUCOM. This encouraged the unfortunate perception that Israel is somehow separate, or different, from the rest of the Middle East. Major threats to Israel were, and are, within CENTCOM’s boundaries—specifically, those from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Israel’s airspace is also under CENTCOM’s area of operations, including assets involved in detection, suppression and prevention of missile threats in the broader Middle East. The situation has become increasingly awkward, as the European Union is now significantly more anti-Israel than the Arab world; during the 2014 escalation of violence in Gaza, for example, EU complaints about Israel and advocacy for the Palestinians complicated an already-thorny situation. Given that Israel now has full relations with four Arab countries and is developing additional relationships in the region, the Trump administration concluded it was no longer necessary to maintain the fiction that Israel is somehow in Europe. It therefore initiated the process that came to fulfillment on September 1, 2021.

The consequences of President Joe Biden‘s recent chaotic and catastrophic surrender in Afghanistan, which is also part of CENTCOM’s area of operations, may take a generation to fully comprehend. But even in this bleak context, the restructuring of CENTCOM to incorporate Israel stands out as a beacon of hope that, thanks to the Abraham Accords, American national security interests in the Middle East may yet be salvaged—and, if properly supported and encouraged, even strengthened in the future.

Victoria Coates is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and a former deputy national security advisor for the Middle East and North Africa on the National Security Council staff.

Simone Ledeen is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Policy and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.

Democrats are abandoning US allies: Is Egypt next?

(This article first appeared in The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/571115-democrats-are-abandoning-us-allies-is-egypt-next?rl=1)

By: Simone Ledeen, Senior Fellow

The Biden administration and leftist congressional allies have perpetuated a tired charade of prioritizing human rights over other security-focused considerations with regard to relations with several key partners, including Egypt. One of the loudest Democratic voices in opposition to continued security assistance for Egypt is Sen. Christopher Murphy (Conn.), who questions a number of established partnerships supporting U.S. objectives across the Middle East.

In the past weeks, much has been revealed by our appalling abandonment of U.S. citizens and allies in Afghanistan. If promoting human rights was a primary consideration, the Biden administration would not support the Taliban — a designated terrorist organization under the United Nations and U.S. Treasury Department — which, this past week, blamed the U.S. for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

With this new reality, it is worth circling back to the administration’s dangerous approach to the U.S.-Egypt relationship, where some hard questions must be asked of Democrats advocating a halt to critical security assistance.

Egypt faces multiple security challenges and requires urgent assistance in order to continue providing leadership on regional security matters. The nation and its president, Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, are critical bulwarks against the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical islamist groups. It is clear that if security assistance is not provided by the United States, Egypt will seek it elsewhere, likely with Russia or other strategic rivals.

The House passed a 2022 foreign aid bill that proposes withholding $150 million from Egypt — a larger amount than in previous years — and that does not include the standard national security waiver for a portion of that withheld assistance. Due to long-standing fiscal problems, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Cairo is financially strapped and now risks losing U.S. financial assistance, which constitutes a big chunk of its annual military budget. Meanwhile, as its budget is expected to remain in a deficit through 2025, pressure is building in Egypt for more austerity measures. With citizens under 30 representing more than half the total population, the trajectory is unsustainable.

Our interests are harmed without Egypt as a key partner. Egypt has fought a Sinai insurgency, which at times, has spilled over into other parts of the country. The ISIS affiliate in Egypt has claimed responsibility for most attacks and the country has been under a state of emergency since April 2018, when two ISIS-claimed suicide bombings at churches in Alexandria and Tanta killed at least 45 people.

Next to the Sinai Peninsula, Sisi helped to broker peace — at least for now — in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. Although Egypt has historically played an important role in Israeli-Palestinian relations, many were caught off-guard by this development. It is a fragile peace, but this Egyptian-negotiated ceasefire highlights the critical regional leadership Cairo can and should provide.

Egypt faces a strategic challenge on its western border from the multi-year civil war in Libya and significant related security threats. Cairo is concerned that Turkish-sponsored Syrian mercenaries, combined with Erdogan’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, could create an Islamic-oriented government in Tripoli. While a ceasefire was signed in 2020, Libya remains volatile and insecure.

Building on U.S. strategic security relations with Egypt, Central Command is currently engaged in a massive regional military exercise called Bright Star. In its statement on the exercise, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo states that the U.S.-Egypt security partnership plays “a leading role in regional security and efforts to combat the spread of extremism.” To illustrate the size and scope of this exercise, other countries participating include: the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Kuwait, the UAE, Tunisia, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania as well as Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Greece and Pakistan. This exercise is in addition to the counterterrorism training that took place earlier in the year.

Cairo’s security is also challenged from the south, as the Nile River flows through Sudan and into Ethiopia. Egypt depends on the Nile River to meet 95 percent of its water needs. Ethiopia, which also relies on the Nile for water, built and filled the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam despite objections from both Egypt and Sudan. Both countries say that once filled, this dam will increase water instability; a particularly serious problem for Egypt as its major cities are growing exponentially. Searching for sustainable solutions to this emerging water crisis, Egypt has requested assistance from U.N. and African Union friends and allies to reach a rapprochement with Ethiopia and hopefully avoid a military confrontation.

Egypt is facing massive security challenges — both internally and externally. The United States needs Egypt to continue as a key regional leader in maintaining peace and stability, which are both in our long-term interest. Congressional Democrats must abandon their anti-Egypt rhetoric and focus on providing necessary security assistance in order to ensure U.S. national security interests are aggressively protected.

Cairo has taken a leadership role in addressing a number of important regional security challenges and should be encouraged and supported, not punished.

Simone Ledeen is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Policy. She previously served as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy. Twitter: @SimoneLedeen

British foreign policy in America’s absence

LETTERS@THETIMES.CO.UK

Friday September 03 2021, 12.01am, The Times

Sir, Further to Nathalie Loiseau’s Thunderer (“Britain and the EU must forge strong foreign policy bond”, Sep 2), it is France that determines the EU’s foreign policy. There cannot now be a call for a new and strong EU-UK partnership on foreign, security and defence policy when we cannot trust France as a friend.

In spite of our bilateral defence treaty and our support for France’s efforts to defeat terrorism in the Sahel, France was a poisonous influence throughout the Brexit negotiations. It exploited the Irish border and fisheries issues and sought in every way to undermine the City of London. France has also allowed the Channel migrant scandal to be a running sore for 20 years. It seeks access to our technology for its own advantage and has blocked our continued involvement in projects in which we had massively invested.

In this small, dangerous world, there should of course be close co-operation in all policy areas with our continental neighbours. But it is paramount for all who seek to protect our freedom, prosperity and way of life to revitalise the transatlantic alliance (Iain Martin, “The end of Pax Americana leaves us all in the cold”, Comment, Sep 2) in a reliable and meaningful way. Trust is at the heart of all friendships.

Geoffrey Van Orden, a distinguished fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, is a former leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament.

Exclusive: Erik Prince Blames Afghanistan Debacle on ‘Cosplay National Security Apparatus’ that Believes ‘Their Own BS’

(The article first appeared in the Tennessee Star: https://tennesseestar.com/2021/08/15/exclusive-erik-prince-blames-afghanistan-debacle-on-cosplay-national-security-apparatus-that-believes-their-own-bs/)

By: Neil W. McCabe, Media Fellow

The Founder of the Blackwater private security firm and the author of a comprehensive plan to save Afghanistan by shifting the country’s security to private contractors and away from the American military told The Star News Network on Sunday he warned U.S. diplomats the government of President Ashraf Ghani would fall before Labor Day.

“I told a number of ambassadors in the region there; they should expect a collapse of Kabul by Labor Day, and I said that back in April, based on when the U.S. air pressure, when the Air Force really stopped bombing, when that threat largely disappears, then the Taliban would be able to group and mass as they have done, and then they start blowing up cities,” said Erik Prince, the Navy SEAL veteran and national security entrepreneur.

“It’s a very predictable outcome that all these smart people in the military didn’t pass that kind of information off the chain of command so that the president even last month makes as dumb a statement as he does,” Prince said.

“We have a cosplay national security apparatus that sits and talks to itself into believing their own B.S., and sadly, the Taliban are feeding into us at the end of the bayonet right now,” he said. The term “cosplay” is defined by dictionary.com as “the art or practice of wearing costumes to portray characters from fiction, especially manga, animation, and science fiction.”

“This is not rocket science, but it’s a failure of imagination,” he said.

“It’s a failure to look at history to see what’s worked by our conventional military leadership and utter an abysmal failure,” he said. “The Afghan army has lasted a couple of weeks. The government built by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan lasted four years after the Russians pulled their forces out, four years not two weeks.”

Prince said once Taliban forces started rolling up provincial capitals, they could not be stopped by the Afghanistan government.

“The continued Taliban victories have certainly given them a very key element in the military success, and that’s momentum,” he said. “It certainly caused a lot of paralysis. When that momentum causes fear amongst the defending population and a few links in their chain suddenly disappear, they lack the resiliency, and so it all goes apart quickly.”

Kabul falling as it did will have a long-term negative impact on America’s reputation, he said.

“It will have second and third-order effects because everyone that thinks that they’re an ally of the United States is going to look at us today,” he said. “The United States walked out of there, like a bad one-night stand, and: ‘They just left us hanging.’”

In 2017, Prince presented a comprehensive plan to senior military and diplomatic leaders in Washington, which would have private military contractor personnel take over the Pentagon’s advise and assist mission with Afghanistan’s security forces.

The plan was rejected in favor of a mini-surge of 8,400 additional troops to Afghanistan proposed by National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Harold R. “H.R.” McMaster and backed by Vice President Michael R. Pence approved by President Donald J. Trump in August 2017.

According to Politico, McMaster rehearsed his presentation with Pence while blocking Prince from meeting Trump to make his pitch.

The purpose of the McMaster plan was to create a permissive environment for U.S. forces to leave the country in the hands of Afghanistan’s security forces as Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters continued to resist the U.S.-backed regime.

Despite the machinations of McMaster, Prince said he was able to get his plan to Trump and others, but he could not overcome the national security bureaucracy’s inertia.

“What I recommended in very clear written terms to President Trump, to H.R. McMaster, to Mattis, to the CIA, was a specific plan to give a, call it a skeletal structure support, to the Afghan forces to give them some resiliency they could depend on at a very cheap price compared to the cost of all the U.S. active-duty presence and very, very expensive logistics,” he said.

The three elements of the Prince Plan: Mentors, Air Power and Logistics

Prince said the first part of his plan was to break the cycle of constantly changing U.S. military partners assigned to work with Afghanistan’s military units with teams of military veteran contractor personnel attached to each Afghanistan battalion for three to four years.

The Hillsdale College graduate said he based his plan on the lessons learned from the successful long-term mentorship of U.S. special operations personnel provided to Afghanistan’s commandos.

“The only part of the Afghan army that’s demonstrated a willingness and ability to fight is the Afghan commandos because they were trained by the U.S. special operations counterparts, and that worked,” he said.

“All I was doing in taking the mentor model to the Afghan army is replicating what’s worked with the Afghan commandos, that being attaching, would have been 36 men mentor teams so that they had enough so that whenever that Afghan battalion was deployed somewhere, there would be enough,” Prince said.

“These mentors would make sure the key enablers were provided leadership, intelligence, communications, medical, and logistics expertise,” he said.

Because of the constant nine-month rotation of U.S. military units and personnel, he said there is no follow-up over time and no time for proper bonding between the mentors and their charges.

In effect, he said that each rotation had become its own new war with new people and new tactics.

“We’ve had 33 rotations at least,” said the former SEAL officer, who left the service upon the 1995 passing of his father Edgar D. Prince, an engineer and industrialist, whose businesses included die-cast machines and auto parts.

“I would have contracted guys that would have gone and stayed in the same area for three and four years,” he said. “They go in for 90 days, come home for 30. Back in for 60, home for 30.”

The goal is to create tactical stability, said the author of “Civilian Warriors: The Inside Story of Blackwater and the Unsung Heroes of the War on Terror” about his groundbreaking creation of the private security industry.

“Always rotating to the same unit in the same terrain, so they get to know the area, Prince said. “They know who’s good, who’s bad, but the Afghan unit members see them, trust them, brothers in arms,” and that would have, I say with 100 percent assurance, the mentors, in place, attached, living with, training with, and fighting alongside that entire Afghan conventional army, would have greatly enhanced their willingness to fight, especially when the second part is provided and that being air power.”

Prince: Airpower means tactical support, medical support to fighters on the ground

“I would have provided 90 aircraft. I used to have 50 of my own aircraft in Afghanistan doing support for the U.S. forces,” said the native of Holland, Michigan. “Doing food, and fuel, and movement, and medevac, surveillance, et cetera, providing those aircraft that show up reliably with no excuse.”

Prince said as a private company with a no-fail contract; he could have provided air support for the entire country.

“We would have provided close air support on 30-minute notice from anywhere, from the bases we would have staged, to anywhere in the country, so from a maximum of 30 minutes lag time between someone calling for help, having aircraft with the ordinance, overhead and ready to go,” he said.

Prince said he would train each of the private contractor military mentors as joint terminal attack controllers, or JTAC, technicians capable of talking to aircrews with targeting information and other data from the ground.

One of the reasons the regular Afghanistan soldier was under-motivated to fight was the lack of battlefield casualty care, he said.

“To one year, three years, 10 years ago, you were seven times as likely to die if you’re an Afghan that got wounded,” Prince said.

“Afghan soldiers just lost confidence in the whole system because their supply wasn’t coming, their pay wouldn’t show up, they wouldn’t have food, and worst of all, they wouldn’t get the ammunition,” he said.

A tragic example of this was the Taliban’s June 16 ambush and massacre of 24 Afghanistan commandos and five local police officers in Farah Province. No aircraft were sent to help, rescue, resupply or medevac the men as the insurgents pinned them down.

“They were slaughtered after running out of ammunition,” he said. “They begged and pleaded, calling for help, calling Kabul news media, T.V. stations, begging for someone to help them, and no one came. That’s how you destroy the morale of an army, and that’s why it collapsed so quickly. This is really basic stuff.”

Prince Plan would have professionalized military logistics in Afghanistan

“The third part of the deal is combat logistics support,” he said.

He said that part of that would be using modern bookkeeping to find the ghost soldiers and take them off the books.

“You heard rumblings about the massive theft of pay, with the ghost soldiers, like a 100,000-plus, completely named, listed on the employment rolls, but not really people showing there, because the senior officers were skimming the pay, all the way up to Ghani,” he said.

“The third part of this is a combat logistics element to keep the food, fuel, parts, ammunition flowing reliably, and as low a corruption loss as possible, certainly different than what’s been done over the last 20 years,” he said.

“The great error of the U.S. is thinking that they were going to empower Afghans and dropping these many resources into a 90 percent illiterate country with endemic corruption,” he said.

Prince said American bureaucrats failed to set up left and right flanks to corral the corruption; then, the American officials gave up on corruption altogether.

“I guess the laziness caused people to say: ‘Oh yeah, they can handle the whole thing. Just turn it over to them, give them the checkbook,’” he said. “The reality would have said: No, we’re going to be very, very limited, defined things, and we can reevaluate that, and we can do this on a cheap, small footprint approach and not the very big, expensive, DOD approach that we had the last 20 years.”

Prince Plan based on the East India Company model

Prince said he modeled his plan on England’s East India Company’s success and its stewardship of India. It developed its commercial interests in India with a concession from the crown.

“Everything I laid out in this plan is based on 250 years of successful security operations by the East India Company in the South Asian continent, building local units with a few expats attached, like a 5 percent expat ratio,” he said.

Most Americans only know the East India Company as the company which owned the ship full of tea attacked by the Sons of Liberty in the 1773 Boston Tea Party. Yet, despite this chapter of the American Revolution, many colonial leaders supported a proposal to the British Parliament to give the American colonies the same independence inside the British imperial system the East India Company enjoyed.

In fact, the American flag is a direct lift from the flag of the East India Company.

Prince Plan would have fostered the development of natural resources

Prince said the linchpin of his plan was the development of Afghanistan’s natural resources made possible because of his plan’s security.

According to a 2011 U.S. Geological Survey report, Afghanistan’s natural resources include gold and strategic metals, such as copper, chromium, lead, zinc, and cobalt.

The Navy SEAL veteran said there is also oil.

“All the fuel, diesel fuel that the U.S. burned in Afghanistan, largely came from Greece on a big DLA, Defense Logistics Agency contract,” he said.

“It came down the Suez by boat, through the Red Sea, all the way around to Karachi, and then it got on a truck and trucked all the way up into Afghanistan with a massive tolling regime in place,” he said.

“There’s definitely an investigation that should be done there, as to all the people that got paid for moving that fuel. That’s why the fully-loaded costs per gallon of fuel for U.S. forces in Afghanistan were $250 per gallon,” he said.

“The disgusting thing is the Russians actually drilled oil fields in the north of Afghanistan,” he said.

“They explored, they drilled, they proved, and then they properly cemented the wells when they left,” Prince said. “All those wells are still sitting there and the U.S. military, or a private operator, could have drilled it, put it in production, slapped a $100 million refinery there and provided all the hydrocarbons needed for the entire country, including the U.S. military, for a tiny fraction. That thing would have paid for itself in probably four months, 20 years ago, and would have provided significant employment and other secondary electrical applications.”

The businessman said he knew a local Afghani who tried to reboot the old Russian wells.

“An Afghan friend of mine was the local partner, and he was exasperated because he could never get the right people to engage on it,” he said. “Ghani and Karzai were so damn corrupt that the other subsequent licensing was always held up because it was always asking for a greater bribe.”

Afghanistan’s oil resources are not widely known. Still, its copper deposits are both well-known and readily exploited—and the mining jobs would have pulled Taliban fighters off the battlefield, he said.

“Another example is Mes Aynak that is basically a mountain of copper; it’s about 50 kilometers south of Kabul,” he said.

“They have been mining copper there for more than a thousand years, and you could have put that in production and employed 10,000 Taliban because the Taliban was paying around $10 a day,” he said.

“You could have paid them $12 a day, given them picks and shovels, mined copper profitably, and sucked an entire infantry division’s worth of Taliban manpower away from them.”

– – –

Neil W. McCabe is a Media Fellow at the Washington D.C. based Gold Institute for International Strategy, a foriegn policy and national security think-tank. He is a Washington-based national political reporter for The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. In addition to the Star Newspaper, he has covered the White House, Capitol Hill and national politics for One America News, Breitbart, Human Events and Townhall. Before coming to Washington, he was a staff reporter for Boston’s Catholic paper, The Pilot, and the editor of two Boston-area community papers, The Somerville News and The Alewife. McCabe is a public affairs NCO in the Army Reserve and he deployed for 15 months to Iraq as a combat historian.
Photo “Erik Prince” by Miller Center CC2.0

Presidential Succession Law: Ticking Time Bomb?The perils of placing two members of Congress before the Cabinet.

(This article forst appeared in the American Spectator: https://spectator.org/presidential-succession-law-ticking-time-bomb/)

By: John C. Wohlstetter, Senior Fellow


My series on the 25th Amendment — Part I, historical antecedents; Part II, 25th Amendment genesis; Part III, 25th Amendment implementation today; and Part IV, possible first-ever use of the 25th Amendment’s involuntary presidential disability provision — focused almost exclusively on the Constitutional issues, dipping down into legislative enactment (in legal shorthand parlance, “statutory”) issues only when necessary.

As noted in my series, presidential succession, as enacted as part of the landmark 1947 National Security Act, created the potential for serious conflict at a time when stability is most needed; the updated presidential succession statute is set forth below. Placing the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate immediately after the vice president and before any member of the president’s Cabinet — in Constitutional parlance, “heads of the executive departments” — risks having an administration being turned over to the opposition party, in stark contravention of voter preference expressed in the polling booth.

The law provides:

  1. Only the Speaker and president pro tem can ascend to the Office of the Presidency for the full remainder of a presidential term.
  2. If the elected president is temporarily unable to discharge the “powers and duties” of the presidency, the Speaker or president pro tem serve merely as acting president — they assume the “powers and duties” of the presidency, but do not hold the office — until the president is able to resume serving as president.
  3. Members of the Cabinet cannot hold the Office (or title) of President — they can only serve as acting president.
  4. The Speaker and president pro tem must irrevocably resign from Congress to become president or acting president. A new Speaker can supplant a president pro tem who is acting president, but cannot replace a president pro tem who also holds the Office of President.
  5. Members of the president’s Cabinet stand in line of succession in the order that the departments were created.
  6. There is no line of succession to the vice presidency.
  7. Under Art. II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, to be eligible to hold the Office of the Presidency, a person must be: (a) a natural-born citizen; (b) at least 35 years old; (c) been at least 14 years a resident of the U.S.
  8. No one who fails to meet these requirements — whether Speaker or president pro tem or Cabinet member — can qualify to hold the Office of the President; nor can they serve as acting president.

A “Perfect Storm” in the Making

It is now more than a century since World War I ended. Yet unexploded, corroding munitions are still being discovered; periodically one explodes, adding to the Great War’s death toll.

The hidden danger created in 1947 by putting members of the legislature in the line of presidential succession is best illustrated by a dissenting opinion filed in the primary Supreme Court Japanese internment case, Korematsu v. United States (1944). Therein the Court held that the military, per a presidential executive order, could detain en masse 112,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry, based upon fear that they posed a threat of espionage and sabotage — without any supporting evidence offered in the courts as empirical justification. Despite conceding that the vast majority of them were loyal, patriotic citizens, the Court upheld the blanket detention.

Justice Robert H. Jackson, preternaturally wise in several monumental Supreme Court cases, wrote in his dissent to FDR’s wartime executive order:

[O]nce a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle.…The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. All who observe the work of courts are familiar with what Judge Cardozo described as ‘the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic’.…There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court’s opinion in this case. (Emphasis added.)

The 1947 presidential succession law creates just such a “loaded weapon” — given the stakes involved in a presidential succession, more accurately in this context, a ticking time-bomb: the prospect of sudden transfer of power to a president of the opposition party.

This prospect first reared its head after Washington’s two terms, when political parties arose; these became ascendant by the 1820s. The Second Congress passed the original 1792 succession law that put the president pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House second and third, respectively, in the line of succession, behind the vice president. The issue resurfaced in 1886, when the Congress was taken out of the line of succession, to be replaced by members of the president’s Cabinet. It resurfaced again in 1947, when President Truman put the Speaker and president pro tem back in line behind the vice president — albeit in reverse order vis-à-vis 1792. It resurfaced a third time (see Part II of my series) in the 1965 debates preceding legislative passage of the 25th Amendment.

Given the widely noted diminished condition of our current president, the ticking statutory time-bomb put in place in 1947 may well, at long last, explode, with a political megaton-force not seen since the first shots fired at Fort Sumter, 160 years ago. It would place at risk the very stability of the republic.

1885-1886: Fixing 1792’s Mistake

The 1881 assassination of president James Garfield revived interest in changing the 1792 law. The Republican Party was deeply split into two factions over the issue of civil service reform. The Stalwarts, which included Garfield’s assassin, Charles Guiteau, supported continuance of federal civil service patronage; Garfield’s faction, the Half-Breeds, supported civil service reform. Upon shooting Garfield, his assassin exclaimed: “I did it and I will go to jail for it. I am a Slalwart, and Arthur will be president.” Two letters were found in Guiteau’s pockets: one addressed to the White House, which stated: “The president’s tragic death was a sad necessity, but it will again unite the Republican party and save the republic. . . . I had no ill-will toward the president. . . . His death was a political necessity.” The other was addressed to vice president Chester Arthur, and included Guiteau’s recommendations for Cabinet appointees.

On Nov. 25, 1885, Grover Cleveland’s vice president Thomas Hendricks died. The office was vacant until Benjamin Harrison was inaugurated March 4, 1889. The 1792 law precluded Cleveland’s choosing a new vice president. The resourceful Cleveland did the next best thing: his first message to the incoming 49th Congress, in December 1885, called for passage of a Senate bill passed in 1885 that had died in the House. In 1886, he secured passage of a law rectifying the 1792 mistake. The line of succession ran through the then-seven Cabinet officers, beginning with the secretary of state, and then treasury, war (renamed Defense in 1949), attorney general, postmaster general (abolished 1971), secretary of the Navy (folded into Defense in 1949) and secretary of the Interior. In event of a double vacancy, the top-ranked eligible secretary was to serve as acting president until either: (a) the president’s or vice president’s disability ended; or (b) a special election was called, and a new president and vice president were elected; or (c) upon the end of the presidential term, on the next Inauguration Day.

The debate was informed by the near-miss attempt to remove president Andrew Johnson in 1868. After the House voted articles of impeachment, the Senate came within a single vote of convicting Johnson. Leading the Radical Republicans at the Senate trial was the president pro tem, Sen. Benjamin Wade of Ohio. With Johnson having succeeded the fallen Abraham Lincoln as president, the vice-presidency was vacant. Per the 1792 law the president pro tem stood in line ahead of the Speaker. It did not go unnoticed that Sen. Wade was hardly a disinterested juror — nor, that one Democratic senator from Johnson’s home state of Tennessee was the president’s son-in-law. The argument that party control might change was also aired in the deliberations, to no effect.

1945-2021: Relapse to Modified 1792

When Franklin Roosevelt died suddenly, less than 100 days into his fourth term, Harry Truman resolved to revise the 1886 law, by placing the Speaker and then the president pro tem back in the line of presidential succession. His stated reasons were: (a) all those in the line of succession should have been chosen democratically by the voters; (b) House members serve two-year terms, versus six years for senators, and hence they are more continually responsive to voter preferences; (c) though elected in a single Congressional district, the Speaker is the only officer, other than president and vice president (albeit, from a different branch of government), who represents voters nationwide, via election as Speaker by a majority of votes in the House.

Truman rejected the argument that voters in quadrennial presidential election years choose to be governed not simply by a president and vice president, but also by an administration for the next four years. The off-year biennial elections amount to only a mid-term grade on the administration’s performance. Truman would not be swayed, however, and he prevailed. Efforts to modify the antiquated 1947 law in 1965 foundered, mainly due to members in both Houses who preferred that there be no 25th Amendment. Rather, they wanted Congress to exercise plenary power to legislate matters pertaining to presidential and vice-presidential succession.

President Who????

To see the emerging danger, consider some of the Speakers and presidents pro tem that have served, since ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967. Checking the list of House Speakers reveals a group all regarded by the opposing party as intensely partisan and/or not a serious prospective president: Democrats John McCormack (MA), Carl Albert (OK), Tip O’Neill (MA), Jim Wright (TX), Tom Foley (WA), and Nancy Pelosi; Republicans Newt Gingrich (GA), Denny Hastert (IL), John Boehner (OH), Paul Ryan (WI), and Mitch McConnell (KY).

A list of presidents pro tem shows some (though fewer, given the tradition — now greatly eroded — of Senate collegiality) either regarded as partisan, under qualified, or far too elderly to carry the workload of the presidency. Most notably were the cases of Sens. Strom Thurmond, pro tem at age 100, and Robert Byrd, pro tem at age 92. Unlike the office of Speaker (Art. I, sec. 2), the prime duty of presidents pro tem is to issue rulings on parliamentary procedure. Their presiding duties are largely ceremonial. The most important presiding task — breaking Senate tie votes — is given only to the vice president, as president of the Senate (Art. I, sec. 3).

Next: A Replay of 1886?

What would work best is to once again remove Congress from the succession line. But the stars do not seem aligned for this to happen. The current line of Cabinet succession runs to 15 of its 16 members, as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is foreign-born, and hence, ineligible.

Proposals since 1886 have included limiting the Cabinet succession line to a few department heads likely to possess national security experience — with State and Defense the first two in line, typically followed by Treasury (currently between State and Defense in the line). The problem with this is that there have been secretaries of other departments more knowledgeable than those ahead of them. The classic example of James Schlesinger comes to mind. Before being chosen as America’s first energy secretary by Jimmy Carter, he had been chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission under Richard Nixon, and secretary of defense under Gerald Ford. As head of the 13th executive department created, he stood way down the line of succession. The sole secretary ahead of him, with comparable credentials, was defense secretary Harold Brown. Further, while secretaries of state are generally regarded as qualified, treasury secretaries include people with no national security credentials to speak of. Salient examples at Treasury — generally chosen for financial or economic expertise — include Paul O’Neill under George W. Bush and Timothy Geithner under Barack Obama. Conversely, Bill Clinton, with no national security background, chose Democrat Lloyd Bentsen, who had deep national security experience.

A Cabinet Succession Reboot?

There is a better way, albeit given the current state of relations in Congress, it won’t happen soon. Specifically:

  1. Each president should begin serving — whether at the start of a four-year term, or during a presidential term curtailed by permanent presidential disability (death, illness, resignation, or removal) — with the default list ordered by time of departmental creation. (This allows all presidents to start with the same default list.)
  2. At any time, the president may re-order the line of succession, per best judgment as to how they should be ranked in terms of fitness to become president. (This judgment would of course factor in lots of issue expertise besides national security, as well as executive ability and character.)
  3. The president’s list then would be submitted to both Houses of Congress. Congress has 10 calendar days (to vote on the list up or down, exactly as sent, e., without alteration. (This ensures that there can be neither “legislative day” shenanigans, nor shuffling of the Cabinet succession deck.)
  4. Unless both Houses, by a two-thirds supermajority, vote to reject the list, the president’s choice prevails. (This means a clearly bipartisan vote will be required to reject the list, barring a lopsided House or Senate.)

A final fix, which also can be done by statute, is to provide a succession line and procedure in event the entire Cabinet is killed. One historical near-antecedent transpired Feb. 28, 1844. Under sail of the USS Princeton, the Navy’s first propeller-driven warship, plying the Potomac River, the Navy was demonstrating for President Tyler, leaders of the Congress, and diplomatic invitees the world’s largest Naval gun. Dubbed the “Peacemaker,” its final act that day was to explode, as onlookers crowded around the monster. Seven were killed, including the secretaries of state and the Navy; eleven were wounded, including the Speaker of the House. How best to address the prospect of such a catastrophe today is an open-ended question; but it is worth noting that this gap persists.

Bottom Line

The state of near open civil war that prevails today precludes bipartisan cooperation — especially given one-party control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives. It will take electoral outcomes that alter the balance of power, in order to make possible considering change. Placing certain matters under legislative control was part of the rationale during the debates of 1965, by not locking in too much per the text of the Amendment. Preserving maximum flexibility by allowing Congress to play a role seemed the way to go to a majority in Congress.

What makes today’s partisanship so dangerous and obstructive is that the divide is not simply over policy. It is over the very structure of government and the balance between governmental power and individual rights — with rising claims of selective group rights for currently favored constituencies.

Changes in 1967 reflected overwhelming consensus as to the need for something to be done. Such consensus has been shattered. Making fundamental structural changes via razor-thin temporary margins bids fair to gravely wound, if not fatally undermine, the stability of the republic.

But should the republic somehow survive the current grave crises, Congress can play a constructive role in altering presidential succession by statute, and thereby reduce incentives to seek partisan advantage.

John Wohlstetter, a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy is author of Sleepwalking with the Bomb (Discovery Institute Press, 2d. ed. 2014).

25th Amendment: First Ever Involuntary Departure?Part IV: The Emerging Constitutional Succession Crisis — will Kamala make her move?

(This article first appeared in the American Spectator: https://spectator.org/25th-amendment-first-ever-involuntary-departure/)

By: John C. Wohlstetter, Senior Fellow

Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.
— William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act I, scene 2

The earlier installments in my series on the 25th Amendment were: Part I, historical antecedents; Part II, 25th Amendment genesis; and Part III, 25th Amendment implementation since 1967. Part IV covers possible first-ever use of the 25th Amendment’s involuntary presidential disability provision.

The Crisis of 2021: Systemic Crisis, Hyper-Partisan Division

We face an emerging — extremely grave — constitutional crisis with the new administration. The America that saw ratification of the 25th Amendment to prepare for instances of presidential succession and disability, and navigated its way through the acute crises of 1973-1974, was despite large partisan divisions sufficiently united to survive serial crises intact. There is ample reason to believe we will not be so lucky this time if an instance of presidential disability emerges.

The common thread running through all post-25th Amendment events has been the avoidance of deep systemic crises. The broad bipartisan consensus underlying the passage and ratification of the 25th laid a firm foundation for future orderly transitions. Such a consensus created lopsided votes in Congress, and permitted speedy action in a legislature where such is the rare exception; conversely, significant opposition precludes it.

The path taken with the 25th Amendment stands as an exemplar of orderly process and widespread acceptance. On January 28, 1965, a mere eight days after being sworn in for his full presidential term, Johnson sent a special message to Congress requesting prompt action. In July 1965, the final version was sent to the states for ratification. The three-fourths benchmark — 38 states out of 50 — needed to satisfy Article V’s requirement for amendments reported out of Congress was reached February 10, 1967. Thus, it took 25 months to reach ratification from initial proposal in Congress.

Sen. Birch Bayh told his fellow senators during the debate on the 25th Amendment: “I have more faith in the Congress acting in an emergency in the white heat of publicity, with the American people looking on. The last thing Congress would dare to do would be to become involved in a purely political move.”

Which brings us to five scenarios of what could occur if President Joe Biden becomes too disabled to act as president. The first three are based on a historical antecedent, though several end differently. The fourth is a fictive case as presented in a realistic political thriller that raises the manifold problems that will likely attend a case of involuntary disability per the 25th Amendment’s Section 4. The final scenario departs sharply from historical antecedents of vice-presidential conduct. To be clear, all five are possible permutations, but none are intended as predictions. The scenarios are intended to paint a picture of what might come to pass, and to aid conceptually in looking at different types of disability crises.

What scenarios appear to fall within the range of reasonable possibility? We begin with an assessment of the president’s first six and a half months.

Current Status: Palace Intrigues

High-level machinations are inherently hard to judge from outside. Much of what appears in the press are orchestrated leaks — at times, competitive leaks by rival factions. But according to a recent interview (2:30) with Rep. Dr. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), the former presidential physician to Presidents Obama and Trump, Biden exhibits physical frailty and mental cognitive decline, and clearly appears not able to meet the immense daily demands of the Oval Office. Jackson wants Biden to take the same 30-question cognitive test that hostile reporters badgered Trump into taking; Trump aced it with a perfect score. Does anyone truly believe Biden could match this? The president is seen far less frequently in public than any president in living memory, and rarely takes spontaneous questions. He held a June 16 one-on-one summit with Vladimir Putin, to mixed reviews, and travels less than previous presidents. Put simply, after running the country’s first ever mostly basement campaign in modern times, he now runs the country’s first ever mostly basement presidency in modern times.

There is, however, one large difference between Biden’s health status and pre-20th century crises. Medical intervention then was often more likely to do harm than good. Recall that the father of our country was serially bled to death in 1799 by physicians trying — via four such bleedings, draining a total of 32 fluid oz. (two pints) in two days — to cure the bacterial infection he contracted working hours in the open field during a steady, soaking rain.

Scenario One — Antecedent: Dwight Eisenhower 1956

Weeks after his landslide reelection, Ike had a small stroke that left him temporarily mute. This came shortly after two major international crises had ended. First came the Hungarian Revolution, brutally suppressed by the Soviet tanks and artillery. In the midst of that came the Suez Crisis. It started when Britain, France, and Israel seized the canal to prevent Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser from closing it to international shipping; it ended when Ike ordered the three allies to withdraw, warning them that he would not back them up against a Soviet threat to use nuclear weapons to settle matters. Two days into this last health event of his presidency, Ike told his inner circle: “If I cannot attend to my duties, I am simply going to give up this job. Now, that is all there is to it.” Vice President Nixon was warned he might become president within 24 hours, but Ike quickly recovered.

SCENARIO ONE: Biden’s physical and/or mental condition diminishes to the point where he himself realizes that much as he wishes to remain president, he can no longer deceive himself. He steps aside voluntarily, and Vice President Kamala Harris ascends to the Oval Office.

Scenario Two — Antecedent: James Garfield 1881

The first protracted presidential crisis came with the shooting of James Garfield by a deranged office-seeker on July 2, 1881. He suffered a flesh wound in one arm and a serious wound in his back. Surgeons were initially optimistic that the president would survive. But the bullet had caused internal hemorrhaging, which in turn caused fatal blood poisoning. This proved untreatable with late-19th century medicine. Garfield lingered for 80 days, dying September 19, having carried out only one minor official act. Chester Arthur, who had never held office higher than New York City port commissioner, became president.

SCENARIO TWO: Biden is taken too ill to be able to discharge his obligations. But his illness may prove treatable with modern medicine. For several months he performs almost no presidential tasks — even fewer than likely he is doing now. He recovers and resumes his current level.

Scenario Three — Antecedent: Woodrow Wilson 1919-1921

On October 2, 1919, Wilson suffered a disabling stroke that left him partially paralyzed, unable for months to do anything of consequence, and after that only did minimal work. The country was effectively run by the first lady, his White House personal secretary, and his personal physician. Cabinet meetings were for months conducted by the secretary of state. Wilson’s two foreign policy goals, ratification of the Versailles Treaty and joining the nascent League of Nations, were kaput. In all, Wilson was gravely disabled for the final 17 months of his term.

SCENARIO THREE: Biden suffers a massive stroke, and is unable to discharge any required task at a meaningful level. Nor is there any chance he can meaningfully recover. But instead of using Section 3 of the 25th Amendment for a declaration of voluntary disability, or resigning outright, Biden hangs on. First Lady Jill Biden, and certain staffers judged loyal by Jill and those she trusts, take over. We may be confident that Kamala will not be part of this group.

Scenario Four — Antecedent: Forcible Removal

In 1968, the great political-thriller novelist Fletcher Knebel published Night at Camp David. In it, the president goes insane and a struggle ensues behind the scenes. The president invites the freshman senator he wants to replace his vice president on his second-term ticket to spend a weekend night at Camp David. The senator observes the president behaving in what lay observers generally consider classic paranoia: a persecution complex (everyone is out to get me) coupled with delusions of grandeur (a new world union of nations, with me as its chosen ruler). The senator compares notes with several inside players he knows, and gets moderately positive responses, tempered by skepticism.

Yet doctors apply an even more skeptical and nuanced calculus. The young senator fails to convince enough major players — senior members of Congress, and the Cabinet; plus the sitting vice president, an associate Supreme Court justice, and the president’s personal physician. He finds his own sanity questioned instead. The president learns that the cabal is meeting in a Georgetown townhouse, and interrupts deliberations by surprise. He puts on a bravura performance, confessing to flashes of temper, but denies that they collectively equate to insanity.

The game appears over. But at the last moment, before going on television to denounce the cabal, the president learns that his pre-existing heart murmur has become heart tremors. He resigns, and the caretaker sitting vice president becomes president for the final months. The young senator takes himself out of the running for the nomination. The fall election looms with no incumbent on the presidential ballot.

SCENARIO FOUR: President Biden’s mental decline steepens, to the point where it is at least debatable whether he understands what his administration is doing. Those surrounding him are divided. The Biden family wants to stay in power, in part to protect members from facing various felony charges. Top advisers see the ship sinking, as the administration drifts. They decide to press the president’s family to persuade Biden to resign. They try, but the president refuses. The vice president and a simple majority of the Cabinet declare that the president is unable to discharge the “powers and duties” of his office. The House and Senate convene; each musters the two-thirds supermajority required for a finding of involuntary disability, so as to permanently disqualify the president. In a first ever use of the “challenge” provisions of Section 4, the president is removed. Vice President Harris ascends to the Oval Office.

Scenario Five: Successor Coup

There is no historical antecedent. As earlier installments in my 25th Amendment series recount, no vice president has even attempted any kind of palace coup. All have taken great pains not to even look like a usurper. Indeed, that history of vice-presidential reluctance no doubt factored into myriad optimistic predictions by senior players involved in adoption of the 25th Amendment. With near unanimity they assumed that all parties and persons involved would in a grave succession crisis act with restraint and probity.

But Kamala Harris exudes ambition. Her performance to date gets a sharply negative rating from voters — two recent polls show her as the most disliked vice president in modern history. This is despite her status as an identity politics trifecta: African-American/Asian parents, plus female. The president, for his part, is slipping badly with independent voters, a group essential to his re-election. Serial flip-flops on pandemic masking have badly hurt the administration’s credibility. Recently, several top female Democratic strategists who formerly held senior positions in the Clinton and Obama administrations got together to brainstorm how Harris might improve her dismal standing with the media.

In a June 8 interview (6:29) with NBC anchor Lester Holt, Harris acknowledged the violence and peril migrants from Central America endure; Harris’ immigration policy goal is to find the “root causes” of migrant flow. Pressed by Holt as to why she had not visited the border, Harris answered: “We’ve been to the border.” When Holt responded that she, personally, had not been to the border, a laughing Harris deflected Holt’s direct, factual question by saying, “And I haven’t been to Europe, either.” Her tendency towards giving condescending, flippant answers to serious questions she dislikes contributes to her negative poll numbers.

SCENARIO FIVE: The first family and presidential advisers stick together as the president’s mental decline accelerates. They aim to accomplish what Woodrow Wilson’s triumvirate did: manage the situation to the end of this term, while not running for re-election. Vice President Harris, seeing her rotten poll numbers, decides that the only way she can become president is to take over mid-term, allowing her to run as an incumbent. She and her key staffers leak copiously to friendly Beltway and social media outlets as to the president’s steepening mental decline. The press, fearing that the Democrats will lose both houses in a mid-term landslide, forces action by boosting public awareness, and thus public sentiment shifts in favor of replacing Biden with Harris. Democratic leaders quietly tell the Biden family that if they do not leave voluntarily, the family will face multiple state prosecutions — which are not covered by presidential pardons. The family persuades a greatly weakened Biden to resign. Democrats run in 2022 without being saddled with Biden’s failures; Harris gets a year-long media honeymoon, running with the vice president of her choice, who is given the same love fest.

Then and Now: Two Vastly Different Americas

Knebel’s scenario in Night at Camp David appears to have been based in part on public remarks Ike made at a May 25, 1964 conference on presidential disability attended by senior members of Congress and leading lights in the legal community. Ike was upbeat as to how the problem might be dealt with:

There is a quarrel about this, that the president being a little bit wacky, thinks he can take back the job but that the vice-president and, let us say, the majority of the Cabinet thinks that he is not capable under the circumstances — and I think the chance is remote that this would occur — regardless of the method determined by the Congress by which this question would be resolved, it is no longer an emergency.

But in a March 3, 1964 letter to Sen. Bayh, chief senatorial sponsor of the 25th Amendment, the former president had said this:

I should ask that the chance that such a dispute might occur for the simple reason that we must assume that in these serious affairs the individuals concerned would be men of good will, concerned with the welfare of the Nation as a whole.…

Do we now have such people on both sides of today’s debates, who can be trusted to act by putting the nation first? We have a Speaker of the House who stacks the January 6 Committee to ensure a partisan result; she is backed by a mainstream media brigade that presents what was a riot as if it were an orchestrated insurrection.

In 1973, then-Sen. Joseph Biden said of Ford’s selection: “The one thing I want to impress on the American people is that we do not think of this is business as usual, that the man we are going to confirm as the vice president of the United States may very well be the next president within the next three years.”

When James Madison became ill for several months in 1813, the prospect that his vice president, 69-year-old Elbridge Gerry, might become president if Madison died alarmed a French minister. He expressed concern that it “would be a veritable national calamity” if Gerry, whom he called “a respectable old man, but weak and worn out,” became president. He said, “All good Americans pray for the recovery of Mr. Madison.”

So, today, do millions of Americans pray for Mr. Biden — despite his being the one who is elderly and manifestly in some measure infirm. A diminished Biden, for many, is far preferable to a healthy, but woefully inadequate Kamala Harris. Such is the dismal state of our republic.

Bottom Line

No outsider can truly know in detail the medical condition and prognosis of the president. He cannot be forced to undergo any medical examination, let alone any course of medical treatment. The press has pointedly, with very rare exceptions, avoided asking about the president’s condition. The vast majority of observers are thus limited to the equivalent of searching inside a pitch-dark warehouse with a flashlight emitting a low-wattage flickering beam.

Proponents of the 25th Amendment answered skeptics by stating that the stability of the republic required its adoption. They conceded that civic virtue was required for presidential succession to work. Going all the way back to the Framers of 1787, leaders have understood this. Hence Benjamin Franklin’s famous quip when asked what the Grand Convention had produced by spending the Philadelphia summer behind closed doors: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Will we keep it? We should remember our 16th president’s words from 1862:

We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of Earth.

John Wohlstetter, a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy is author of Sleepwalking with the Bomb (Discovery Institute Press, 2d. ed. 2014).

25th Amendment Implementation, 1973-2021Part III: The Modern Precedents, which Biden watchers, admirers and non-admirers alike, do need to keep in mind.

(This article first appeared in the American Spectator: https://spectator.org/25th-amendment-implementation-1973-2021/)

By: John Wohlstetter

In Part I, I covered the historical precedents (1789-1960) up to JFK’s tragically short presidency; Part II covered the years 1961-67, featuring the reaction to 1963’s assassination horror, which led to the 1967 ratification of the 25th Amendment. Part III carries the story through Trump. It begins with the serial vice-presidential and presidential vacancy crises of 1973-74. The years following saw several assassination attempts (two in 1975 and one in 1981) and multiple instances since of temporary presidential disability, with at first a reluctance to invoke the 25th Amendment formally, and later a better practice of using the 25th to cover temporary instances of disability.

The Succession Crises of 1973-74

What President Nixon’s press secretary called a “third-rate burglary” was carried out by seven Republican campaign operatives at an office building in the Watergate Complex on June 17, 1972. By the spring of 1973, it had mushroomed into a first-rate campaign finance scandal. The ensuing Senate Watergate Committee hearings had by June of Watergate Summer exposed a second-rate coverup leading to the president’s 1974 resignation. The prelude to that had been the 1973 travails of Vice President Spiro Agnew, who in June 1973 had become a target of a corruption investigation that was to lead to his resignation on October 10. Agnew pleaded nolo contendere to a single count of tax fraud, thus avoiding indictment on charges of conspiracy, extortion, and bribery arising out of public contracts awarded during Agnew’s tenures as county executive and governor.

October 1973 proved fateful not only for Agnew but also for Nixon, who on October 20 made the mistake that doomed his presidency by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox. When both Attorney General Elliot Richardson, who had negotiated Agnew’s plea deal, and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused the president’s direct order to fire Cox, Nixon fired both, thus perpetuating what the press nicknamed the “Saturday Night Massacre.” The public outcry forced Nixon to appoint a successor, Texas lawyer Leon Jaworski, who was tactically more skillful than Cox, a law professor. Now Nixon faced not an academic but a savvy trial lawyer, a bad trade.

October 1973 also saw two tectonic events overseas that could have proved highly destabilizing had the 25th Amendment not been in place: the Yom Kippur War and, in its midst, the Arab oil embargo. The former led to a nuclear alert for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis; the latter triggered the skyrocketing oil prices that caused significant recessions in 1973 and 1979 and transferred trillions to sheikdoms, with billions invested to finance transnational terrorism. Nixon’s decision to nominate Gerald Ford minority leader of the House was widely praised on both sides of the aisle. Ford’s nomination was confirmed in 57 days.

The second succession crisis came in 1974, as the impeachment proceedings headed to a climax — Impeachment Summer. The final week of July was to prove the president’s Waterloo. On July 24 in U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a president’s claim of executive privilege must yield to a subpoena of evidence pertaining to a specific criminal case; William Rehnquist, then an associate justice, recused himself, having provided legal advice to attorney general John Mitchell, a Watergate target.

On July 30, the House Judiciary Committee had sent three articles of impeachment to the House:

  • Obstruction of justice
  • Abuse of presidential power
  • Defiance of a lawful subpoena for taped White House conversations pertinent to the Watergate coverup

Public disclosure of a taped conversation in which Nixon had ordered the FBI director to curtail the bureau’s investigation of certain Watergate matters led a delegation of senior GOP leaders to visit the president. They told him that the full House would surely impeach him and that enough Republican senators would cross the aisle and vote to convict in the ensuing Senate trial. On August 8, the president addressed the nation; on August 9, he resigned, and Ford was sworn in. To succeed him as vice president, Ford nominated former New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller on August 20; on December 9, the House-Senate voted 90-7 (93 percent) to confirm, and on December 19, the House voted in favor, 287-128 (69 percent). On September 8, Ford pardoned Nixon, who otherwise would have been indicted; the decision angered millions and was a significant factor in Ford’s losing the 1976 presidential election to Jimmy Carter. Rockefeller’s path from nomination to confirmation took 121 days, more than twice that for Ford.

Near Misses (1975, 1981, and 1998-99)

In 1975, two would-be assassins tried to shoot President Ford. One, Sara Jane Moore, fired her .30 caliber handgun at a 40-foot range, narrowly missing the president; her second attempt was deflected before she could fire by an alert bystander. Incredibly, Moore had been arrested the day before for illegal handgun possession but was immediately released. The other, Lynette (“Squeaky”) Fromme, a member of the Charles Manson “family” albeit not implicated in any of the cult’s murders, tried to shoot Ford with a .45 caliber handgun at point-blank range and pulled the trigger but the chamber was empty; she was grabbed by a Secret Service agent, convicted of attempted assassination, and sentenced to life, but paroled in 2009. (Bonus — NOT making this up: As a child, Fromme was part of a dance group that appeared on The Lawrence Welk Show and . . . at the White House)

Ronald Reagan had an even closer call, having actually been shot. The whole story is told in Del Quentin Wilber’s 2011 book, Rawhide Down: The Near Assassination of Ronald Reagan. (“Rawhide” was Reagan’s secret service code name.) On March 30, John Hinckley, who had become obsessed with assassination after watching the Robert De Niro film Taxi Driver, which featured actress Jodie Foster, on whom he had a crush, decided that he could impress her by assassinating the president. Hinckley stood in a crowd that afternoon and rapidly fired six shots from his .22 revolver as Reagan exited the Washington Hilton Hotel rear entrance after giving a speech to union supporters. One bullet ricocheted off the presidential limousine, another gravely wounded Press Secretary James Brady, and one bullet each struck Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and D.C. police officer Thomas Delahanty. Hinckley won acquittal by pleading insanity, which led to a change in the federal insanity defense law. Hinckley also had once been arrested in Nashville — for illegal possession of a firearm — during Jimmy Carter’s term. In 2016, a federal judge ordered Hinckley, then age 61, released, ruling that he was no longer a threat.

Reagan’s survival was miraculous. The bullet was a “Devastator” designed to explode upon impact. The fragmented bullet had entered his lung. Jerry Parr, the secret service agent who had pushed Reagan into the presidential limo and rolled on top of him, noticed as they headed back to the White House — the originally preferred destination for reasons of security, in case other assassins were at large — foamy blood on Reagan’s lips, indicating a punctured lung. Parr immediately ordered the driver to head for nearby George Washington University Hospital. His decision saved Reagan’s life.

Reagan wound up politically profiting from his near-miss due to his widely reported aplomb at the hospital. While he was being treated, he quipped to Parr: “I hope they (the doctors) are all Republicans.” He told the doctors: “All in all, I’d rather be in Philadelphia.” His first words to Nancy Reagan were: “Honey, I forgot to duck!” The public was under the impression that Reagan was immediately able to fully resume his presidential schedule. Medical briefings by GWU medical staff were upbeat, with no mention made of how close Reagan came to dying. But according to his personal physician, it was not until June 3 that Reagan worked a full day, and not until October that he told his doctor: “Now, I really feel like I’m all the way.”

Less remembered, but a big story for a few days, was the disastrous press conference held at the White House on March 30. With Reagan under general anesthesia, clearly, he was temporarily disabled. At the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Larry Speakes, replacing his permanently disabled boss, was asked who had command of the nuclear codes, given that Vice President Bush was on an airplane, flying back from Texas. The inexperienced Speakes was sputtering, looking like a deer caught in the headlights; he had no idea how to answer such a question. Downstairs in the White House Situation Room, meeting with other national security officials, the secretary of state, Alexander Haig, rushed upstairs into the press room, announcing that he was “in control here” until Bush returned, and that if anything happened, he would check with the vice president.

Unfortunately, Haig also said: “Constitutionally, you have the president, the vice president and then the secretary of state, in that order.” Haig, an expert on national security matters — albeit, later on, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger told Haig that he had misstated the nation’s alert status — was hardly one of the best constitutional scholars. He had omitted the Speaker and president pro tem, both of whom stood in front of Cabinet officials in the line of presidential succession. People more knowledgeable on the relevant laws sat downstairs, aghast, including Attorney General William French Smith. Haig, in his haste, was flustered as he took the podium, which amplified the negative impact of his well-intentioned effort.

The only senior official who had done any contingency planning was White House counsel Fred Fielding, whose preliminary draft became the basis for handling future instances. Twenty-fifth Amendment scholar John Feerick notes that it remains unclear to what degree Vice President Bush was involved; Bush, for his part, was scrupulous in avoiding even the appearance of being a usurper. He flew from Andrews Air Force Base to the vice president’s residence and then took a chopper to the White House South Lawn. He worked as acting president from the vice-presidential office. In any event, the Haig kerfuffle proved a proverbial tempest in a teapot, thanks to the president’s bravura performance.

Mini-Intervals (1985-2007)

Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 saw several episodes of routine presidential incapacity due to the administration of anesthesia. In 1981, Reagan’s advisers decided not to invoke the 25th Amendment. According to Nancy Reagan and others, the 25th Amendment was informally invoked when Reagan went under surgery in 1985 for the removal of colon polyps. It was not formally, publicly invoked for fear that acknowledging presidential disability would alarm the public and our allies. To reassure the world, the first lady stayed at the White House, and the vice president stayed at his family summer home in Maine. In early 1987, some White House aides reportedly asked Chief of Staff Howard Baker to invoke the involuntary disability provisions of Section 4 of the 25th, asserting that the president was “inattentive and inept.” Nothing was done.

In May 1991, President Bush had minor surgery for an irregular heartbeat, but not under general anesthesia. That December, he had an intestinal virus that struck him at dinner during a state visit to Japan; he recovered by morning. In neither instance was the 25th invoked.

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, in March 1997, he slipped on stairs while visiting Aussie golfer Greg Norman. The “White Shark” caught Clinton and cushioned his fall, preventing serious injury. The president underwent knee surgery, for which he was put under local anesthesia. A 25th Amendment letter was drafted but not transmitted.

Bush 43 & VP Cheney

On June 29, 2003, President Bush formally invoked the temporary disability provisions of Section 3 when he was given anesthesia during a colonoscopy. The procedure took only 20 minutes, but Bush did not resume his powers until fully clear of sedation effects. Vice President Cheney was acting president for 2 hours, 15 minutes. The ongoing War on Terror was the stated reason for transferring power. In July 2007, Bush underwent a similar procedure. This time Cheney was Acting President for 2 hours, 5 minutes.

For his part, Cheney, because he had a long history of coronary artery disease, and aware that the 25th Amendment does not have a vice-presidential disability provision, had his chief of staff prepare a resignation letter, signed by the vice president, to be effective upon delivery to the secretary of state. Only the president was shown the letter. The president alone would decide whether to deliver the letter.

Trump (2017, 2020, 2021)

Thrice in President Trump’s term the idea of using the involuntary disability provisions of Section 4 was surfaced. In April 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reportedly proposed removing Trump because of his firing of FBI Director James Comey, and alleged collusion with Russia. He reportedly gathered evidence by secretly taping the president. Rosenstein denied this, saying his suggestion was “sarcastic” and “in jest.”

In October 2020, when Trump and the first lady contracted COVID, there was public discussion of presidential disability if the president’s condition worsened and depending upon what medications he was taking. The president rapidly recovered, and nothing came of this.

After the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, some in Congress called for using the 25th Amendment. On January 11, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi give Vice President Mike Pence 24 hours to invoke the involuntary disability clause of Section 4, or else she’d call for impeachment. Pence refused.

Bottom Line

Modern 25th Amendment precedents have made Section 3 on temporary disability routine in straightforward cases. While Section 4 on involuntary disability has never been used, that may change with the current administration.

John Wohlstetter, author of Sleepwalking With the Bomb, is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy (www.Goldiis.org)

25th Amendment Genesis,Part II: Presidential Disability and Reform, 1961-1967

In Part I, I covered historical precedents from the Republic’s 1789 birth to the end of President Eisenhower’s tenure. Part II covers the Kennedy-Johnson years, when events pushed the president and Congress towards adopting the 25th Amendment to stabilize presidential succession.

Turning Point: JFK’s Thousand Days (1961-1963)

The ascension of John Fitzgerald Kennedy as 35th president of the United States on January 20, 1961, was an especially festive occasion. The first inaugural telecast nationwide, its audience was swelled by students on the eastern seaboard, much of which was blanketed by a blizzard in the preceding 24 hours. A seemingly vigorous president, three decades younger than the elderly man he replaced, stepped up to the microphone to deliver what has since been widely recognized as one of the greatest inaugural addresses.

Kennedy’s apparent robust health was fiction: he suffered from numerous maladies, some known — his back troubles; others unknown — his having Addison’s disease, a rare malady, potentially fatal, in which the adrenal glands develop hormonal — and, hence, functional — insufficiency. JFK was philosophical about the risk of assassination, saying matter-of-factly: “If anyone is crazy enough to want to kill a president of the United States, he can do it. All he must be prepared to do is give his life for the president’s.”

Author Gerald Posner recounts in his superb 1994 book, Case Closed, the chaotic aftermath of the shooting and JFK’s having been pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital. The president’s body was to be flown back to the Capital on Air Force One with vice president Lyndon Johnson and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy. But the Dallas authorities stated that they would first perform an autopsy in Dallas before allowing shipment. LBJ would not leave without the casket, and Mrs. Kennedy would not leave the hospital without her husband’s body. A tense confrontation between the Secret Service ensued, with the agency prepared to force the issue. Unknown to those outside the hospital, the doctor in charge of the emergency room had authorized removal. In any event, violence was averted, and before takeoff LBJ was sworn in on Air Force One by a federal judge.

Such disputes are of course well below the level of constitutional questions, but one thought dominated discussion about presidential disability, in the wake of the assassination. John Feerick, in his authorized history of the 25th Amendment, quotes New York Times columnist James Reston, writing on November 23:

For an all-too brief hour today, it is not clear again what would have happened if the young president, instead of being mortally wounded, had lingered for a long time between life and death, strong enough to survive but too weak to govern.

LBJ fully understood this, and made shepherding a constitutional amendment covering presidential and (with limits discussed below) vice-presidential succession a priority, from proposal through final ratification.

The 25th Amendment Emerges: 1964-1967

Historically antecedent to the serial deaths and disabilities of presidents and vice presidents was how the 1787 Grand Convention dealt with succession issues. Feerick notes that the vice presidency was minimally covered during the three and a half months in Philadelphia. The vice president, a member of the executive branch, would be the ex officio president of the Senate; in event of presidential disability or death, he would succeed the president.

Although not explicit in the original constitutional language, the Framers drew a clear distinction between a temporary acting president, and a permanent successor president. The former would assume, for the duration of the president’s disability, the powers and duties” of the president, but not the actual office of president. This allowed a disabled president, upon removal of disability, to resume his position as chief executive. Only if the president leaves office irrevocably — dies, resigns, or is removed — does the vice president ascend to the office of president. This arrangement, informal and improvised ad hoc, prevailed for 150 years, until superseded by Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, first used in January 1937.

Though treated as superfluous appendages well into the 20th century, between 1841 and 1964 eight vice presidents succeeded a deceased president. In all, in the 176 years from 1789 to 1964, the vice presidency was vacant for over 37 years — more than 20 percent of the time.

And up until 1886, the sole provision, by 1792 statute, for presidential succession beyond the vice presidency provided only for the president pro tem of the Senate and then the speaker of the House; no Cabinet officers, nor any other persons, were in the line of presidential succession. The Speaker was placed behind the president pro tem because members of the House represent a single Congressional district, whereas senators are chosen statewide (originally by state legislatures, then by voters upon ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913).

Flashback: 1886 and 1947 Succession Laws

Ironically, while for a century the new republic had no provision for succession to the vice presidency, during colonial times there had been such arrangements. Provinces had a governor and lieutenant governor; if both were vacant, a governor’s council (loosely equivalent to today’s presidential Cabinet) or the senior councilor would step up. Both Rhode Island and Connecticut used legislative replacements on “numerous occasions.”

Nothing was done in the First Congress; Feerick notes that one member of that Congress forecast that a double vacancy would not occur even once in a century; another member said that it would not happen more than once in — NOT making this up — 840 years. (A double vacancy can be simultaneous — in 1963 had LBJ been riding in an open car and there had been a second shooter; or it can be serial — in 1973 had Nixon resigned after Agnew did and before a new vice president was confirmed by Congress.)

The Second Congress passed the first succession law (noted above), and no double vacancy occurred, though presidents John Tyler (injured by an explosion) and Millard Fillmore (taken seriously ill with malaria) made for close calls. The bill also mandated a special election in event of a double vacancy.

The 1886 law eliminated the succession of president pro tem and Speaker, substituting Cabinet line of succession (only seven departments in 1886) in this order: State, Treasury, War, Attorney-General, Postmaster-General, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Interior. From 1886 to 1945, three presidents and two vice presidents died in office, but fortunately, there was no double vacancy.

The 1947 law in my view was the worst domestic policy mistake of Truman’s presidency. Truman proposed what remains the law today: the Speaker of the House and then the Senate president pro tem stand in third and fourth positions. He reasoned that although the Speaker is elected by only 1/435th — less than one quarter of one percent — of the national electorate, the House elects a Speaker, representing all House districts in that capacity. Further, House members are up for election every two years, making them more responsive to voters than senators serving six-year terms. Truman’s choices were politically palatable to the Republicans, who after the 1946 elections controlled both houses of Congress. The prospect of control shifting to the opposition party should a double vacancy occur would effectively repudiate the voters’ choice of administration — voters vote not for presidents and vice presidents alone (or against the other party’s ticket); they also vote to be governed by a particular administration, with a mid-term grade given after two years. As Eugene McCarthy — an independent, albeit he usually voted with the Democrats — put it in 1964:

The succession law should respect the mandate of the people, who vote not only for a man, but also, in a broad way, for his party and his program. The elevation of a leader of another party in mid-term is undesirable in principle and could have most unfortunate practical effects.

Frequently, the opposition party has either controlled one or both houses of Congress. In the 19th century this happened with 15 Congressional sessions, first in 1827; in the 20th, 20 times, first in 1913; and already in the 21st, 5 times, first in 2001. The current Congress is the 117th. Thus of 117 Congresses, 40 times — 34 percent — have featured partisan division. Indeed, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, during their entire 12 years in office, never controlled both houses.

When the Nixon-Agnew crises for 1973 and 1974 (more on this below) came to pass, the House Speaker was elderly Democrat Carl Albert of Oklahoma, a cipher whom no one save political junkies and insiders have ever heard of, outside his home state. Albert, to his credit, said: “Lord help me; I pray every night it doesn’t happen.”

The 25th Amendment

The text of the 25th Amendment is one of the longest and most complex of the 27 Amendments ratified in the 230 years that began with the first ten — the Bill of Rights — on December 15, 1791. It is divided into four sections, the first three of which are simple, each addressing a single problem. Section 4 is long, complex, and addresses several problems. Section 1 provides that whenever — and however — the president permanently leaves office, the vice president automatically succeeds him. Section 2 provides that the new president shall nominate a vice president, effective upon confirmation by majority vote of both houses of Congress.

Section 3 covers voluntary disability. It also specifies implementing procedures: a president who is temporarily disabled must send a written declaration to the Speaker and president pro tem advising them of his disability; the vice president becomes acting president, assuming the “powers and duties” of the presidency without taking office. Upon termination of the president’s disability, he sends a written declaration of recovery to the Speaker and president pro tem. The text of Section 3 does not specify when declarations become effective. During George W. Bush’s first term, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked by a reporter when voluntary disability declarations become effective. He answered that Section 3 does not specifically say, and hence (his opinion, not contradicted since) such declarations are effective upon transmittal.

Section 4 encompasses in a single paragraph (numberings below are mine) the thorniest issues surrounding when a president declares, or expresses an intention to declare, himself fit to resume his office, and designated major players disagree. The “challenge” provisions, covering involuntary disability, are necessarily detailed, and can be divided into four parts:

  1. Whenever the vice president and a majority of either the Cabinet, or “such other body as Congress shall by law provide” transmits a written declaration to the Speaker and president pro tem that the president is unable to discharge the “powers and duties” of his office.
  2. Congress “shall decide” the issue, assembling within 48 hours for that purpose if not in session.
  3. Section 4 declarations become effective when received. Within 21 days of such receipt, Congress must decide the issue.
  4. If Congress fails to decide, by a two-thirds vote in each House, the president recovers the “powers and duties” of his office.

Unspecified in Section 4 is whether the declarations therein by the vice president and by the Cabinet are to be issued jointly or separately. As logistics in emergencies may dictate one form over the other, it was best left unsaid. Notably, the courts are left entirely out of these matters, with no provision for judicial review.

One final major omission: the president- or vice president-elect dies after the election and before Congress formally certifies the result. Such a procedure would properly be done by another constitutional amendment. Feerick observes that these kinds of fundamental issues are best decided in periods of relative calm, hardly the case today.

Bottom Line

If the proverbial best is the enemy of the good, then it can be said that with the 25th Amendment, the perfect is the enemy of the excellent. The 25th covers extraordinarily complex issues with remarkable clarity, few omissions, and wisely leaving unsaid certain matters that are inherently impossible to predict in advance. Put simply, presidential and vice-presidential succession are riven with the uncertainties endemic to countless possible permutations and the vagaries of human fallibility.

John Wohlstetter, author of Sleepwalking With the Bomb, is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy (www.Goldiis.org)

Biden Floundering: Historical Precedents on Presidential DisabilityThe American presidency has been affected by ill health many times before.

This article first appeared in the American Spectator: https://spectator.org/biden-presidential-disability/)

It appears increasingly unlikely that President Joe Biden can finish this year, let alone his term, in the Oval Office. One need not be a physician to see the substantial cognitive decline that’s occurred even since Biden was a candidate. Sooner or later, Biden may either be persuaded to voluntarily resign or face a first-ever formal challenge to a president’s continuance in office, per the 25th Amendment.

To date, we have managed reasonably well in the face of presidential disability, with the signal exception of the Lincoln assassination. His death unleashed demons that dashed Lincoln’s hopes for the aftermath of America’s most ruinous war that, “with malice towards none and charity for all,” would “bind up the nation’s wounds.” Today’s emerging grave crisis comes at a time that manifests the most savage domestic partisanship since the Civil War, exacerbated by the malignant accelerants of mass and social media and exploited by a coterie of political, financial, cultural, and globalist elites. Society is still reeling from 18 months of pandemic hell and summer 2020’s protected orgiastic rioting. The latter triggered nationwide destruction of once-revered national symbols and left major American cities devastated, with spiraling crime and sputtering economies. Never in my 74 years of life — not even at the height of the Cold War, save for the transient fortnight of 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis — has the famed first verse of William Butler Yeats’s poem, “The Second Coming” (1919), seemed more apt:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

In a historical coincidence, 1919 marked the first great 20th-century leadership crisis in America, that being the year that Woodrow Wilson suffered a massive, permanently debilitating stroke. Then, in 1945, came Franklin Roosevelt’s death, less than 100 days into a term for which he should never have run; it left Vice President Harry Truman scandalously unprepared by the dying FDR, who never even told Truman about the atomic bomb. Fortunately, Truman rose to the occasion. The third crisis was after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, when an orderly succession by Lyndon Johnson was handled as well as could be hoped without the formal guidance that a constitutional amendment would have provided. Johnson made the 25th Amendment a primary project for his administration and succeeded in winning ratification halfway through his one full term, to his great credit.

But our story begins nearly two centuries earlier, when the 1787 Grand Convention yielded a Constitution that was a marvel, without equal on the planet, but also without addressing the grave issues attendant to presidential and vice-presidential disability. To be fair, the Framers were dealing with immense, complex, and vexing issues of fundamental structure, powers, and rights, all from scratch and within a narrow window of time. Had this been missed, it might well have doomed hopes for “a more perfect union” for decades, perhaps forever.

From Washington Through Taft (1789–1912)

In the nation’s early days, presidential and vice-presidential disabilities were minimal. Two vice presidents who served under James Madison died while in office (George Clinton, 1811, and Elbridge Gerry, 1812); a third vice-presidential vacancy occurred in 1832, when John C. Calhoun resigned to accept an appointment as senator for South Carolina. In all, during Madison’s two terms, the nation was without a vice president for over three years. The only presidential disability of consequence was when Madison was sidelined for four months in 1813 with an illness never definitively diagnosed.

The 1840s and 1850 were to provide several dramas. William Henry Harrison died of pneumonia one month after his March 4, 1841, inaugural address, which ran more than two hours and was delivered in a cold rain. John Tyler succeeded him. Though Tyler was not required by the Constitution to take an oath when ascending to the presidency — the Framers thought a vice president having taken the vice-presidential oath sufficed — Tyler insisted on being formally sworn in, establishing a precedent followed ever since. Similarly, Millard Fillmore succeeded Zachary Taylor in 1850, and Andrew Johnson did so upon Lincoln’s murder by John Wilkes Booth in 1865.

The first protracted presidential crisis came with the shooting of James Garfield by a disgruntled office-seeker on July 2, 1881. Garfield lingered for 79 days and died on September 19. Chester Arthur, who had never held office higher than New York City port commissioner, became president. At the time, not only was the vice presidency now vacant, but the offices of president pro tempore of the Senate and speaker of the house, the only two in line of succession per a 1792 law, were also vacant.

Had Arthur died before Grover Cleveland was sworn in on March 4, 1885, the only procedure available was to call a special election. Not until the 1886 federal election law was passed were Cabinet officials placed officially in the line of succession. The 1886 law, passed during Grover Cleveland’s first term, added the then-existing seven Cabinet officers to the succession list in the order that departments had been created, beginning with the State Department and Treasury Department.

Cleveland’s second term was marked in early 1893 by developing a cancerous tumor in his right jaw while on vacation. He underwent emergency surgery, during which part of his jaw was removed to be replaced by an artificial implant. It was five weeks before he returned to Washington. Of this drama, not only was the public unaware; only one member of the Cabinet knew. Worse (not making this up), Vice President Adlai Stevenson (whose son was to lose twice to Eisenhower, six decades later) was kept in the dark. It was not until 1917 that the episode was made public. In the interim, on September 6, 1901, an anarchist gunned down William McKinley, who died eight days later, which made Theodore Roosevelt president.

Then the you-know-what really hit the fan.

From Wilson Through Eisenhower (1913–60)

Woodrow Wilson fell ill in September 1919. He was in the later stages of a punishing nationwide tour searching for support for ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and entrance into the nascent League of Nations. He returned to Washington on September 28, and on October 2, he was laid low by a massive stroke that paralyzed his left side. Thus ended any serious chance of Wilson achieving his cherished twin goals (albeit, both battles were already steeply uphill). For more than six months, Wilson hardly saw anyone and was only able to do minimal work for the remainder of his term. From October 2, 1919, to March 4, 1921, when Warren Harding became president, the nation was without a fully functioning president.

In his magisterial biography, historian August Heckscher wrote that warning signs had preceded Wilson’s collapse for decades. As early as 1896, he had endured episodes of “neuralgia,” and in 1906, he suffered a stroke that left him nearly blind in one eye. In the run-up to the final sequence of strokes that felled him, he was hit with a series of transient ischemic attacks (mini-strokes).

Because there is archival film footage of Wilson’s presidency, there is a tendency to think of his tenure as a genuinely modern presidency. Yet this was hardly the case. The first transcontinental telephone call was made in 1915; it was not until 1920 that the first commercial broadcast radio station went on air (in Pittsburgh). Actual nationwide broadcast radio made FDR the first radio president, yet it was not until 1934 that telephone service reached 50 percent of Americans. And it was not until the presidency of Harry Truman that, in 1948, the first regular over-the-air nationwide broadcast television programs made their debut.

Thus was made possible what amounted to a sub-silent regency on the part of Edith Bolling Galt, the prominent socialite and second wife of Wilson; Wilson’s personal secretary, Joseph Tumulty; and the president’s physician, Dr. Cary Grayson. A few Cabinet members knew —notably, Secretary of State Robert Lansing, who confronted Tumulty and Grayson the day after the president’s massive stroke. He told them that the vice president should step in, per the Constitution’s 12th Amendment — “in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the president” — given Wilson’s manifest inability to carry on. Asked by Tumulty, who would decide Wilson’s inability, Lansing replied that Tumulty and Grayson should do so. Tumulty and Grayson adamantly refused. By October 4, Grayson had concluded that Wilson would never recover. Heckscher wrote, “Thus begun, with the silent ascent of some, and the active maneuvering of others, such a coverup as American history had not known before.”

Vice President Alfred Marshall, whom Wilson thought “a small-calibre man,” was kept in the dark. For his part, Marshall was in no mood to accept designation as acting president, fearful of the first lady. Reputedly he said, “I am not going to get myself entangled with Mrs. Wilson.” Lansing, for his part, convened the Cabinet some 20 times during the worst months of Wilson’s illness, to make essential decisions before Wilson’s minimal — more accurately, pseudo — recovery.

Warren Harding was stricken in late July 1923 while on tour, succumbing to cerebral thrombosis (blood clot) on August 2, and was succeeded by Calvin Coolidge.

Fast forward to 1945. FDR traveled some 5,300 miles each way to an arduous February summit in Yalta and had a week-long summit meeting with Stalin and Churchill sandwiched in between. While he was taking much-needed rest at his home in Warm Springs, Georgia, after his journeying, he died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on April 12. FDR’s physicians had examined him in early 1944 and realized he was gravely ill, but the diagnosis was not even shared with FDR’s family.

Dwight Eisenhower’s eight years were marked by three notable health crises in his second term. “Ike” had a heart attack in late September 1955 and could not meet with his Cabinet for two months. He did not fully recover until mid-January 1956. That June, Ike had surgery to remove an obstruction in his intestine. It was two months before he could resume a full schedule. In late November 1957, Ike had a minor stroke that left him with difficulty speaking, but he was back at work within a week.

Two days into this last ordeal, Ike told his inner circle, “If I cannot attend to my duties, I am simply going to give up this job. Now, that is all there is to it.” Top Eisenhower aide Sherman Adams then alerted Vice President Richard Nixon that he might become president in 24 hours. The popular Ike finished his second term, but unbeknownst to all at the time, the American — and world — stage was set for the political shock of a lifetime.

Kennedy and Beyond

America weathered major presidential health crises several times by narrow margins, albeit not without key business at times being delayed or not done at all. But then came November 22, 1963, and America’s lucky streak ended on a scorching day in Dallas. The impact upon the American polity was captured in an exchange between Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. She recalled saying to Moynihan, then an assistant secretary of labor, “We will never laugh again.” Moynihan replied, “Mary, we’ll laugh again, but we’ll never be young again.”

Part II on this complex subject will begin with the calamitous JFK assassination, and end with the 1967 ratification of the 25th Amendment

John Wohlstetter is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy (www.Goldiis.org) author of Sleepwalking With the Bomb (Discovery Institute Press, Second edition 2014).

To learn more about the Gold Institute for International Strategy Click here
To support the Gold Institute for International Strategy Click Here

How to Keep the Taliban Flush With Bombs

(This article was originally published in The Epoch Times: https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-to-keep-the-taliban-flush-with-bombs_3919804.html)

A terrorist can really express himself with 5,000 metric tons of explosives. That’s precisely why specialized teams of U.S. troops and contractors in Afghanistan helped account for and secure huge stockpiles of munitions stored at eight key sites across the country.

But not anymore. Those Americans have already headed home, and any remaining folks capable of assuming the mission are withdrawing along with all the other Americans ordered out by President Joe Biden.

The Afghan National Army (ANA) colonel left holding the bag and responsible for this ammo is worried. “What happens when everything turns bad,” he asked, “and this stuff ends up in enemy hands?”

His old boss, ANA General Hotak, former Chief of Munitions Management for the Afghan Ministry of Defense, may have provided the answer. “There are enough explosives here to supply operations for the next twenty-five years,” he said.

Retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel Ron MacCammon agrees. “This stuff is all vulnerable to Taliban advances and tribal and militia influences if the situation deteriorates. Some of this ammunition could easily find its way into the hands of malign actors and turn up in global terrorist or criminal networks.”

MacCammon should know. He spent years in Afghanistan directly involved in specific U.S. programs purposed to keep this stuff out of enemy hands. After ten years of Soviet military presence there and twenty years of American presence, it’s not surprising that the stockpiles, acknowledged and clandestine, are overwhelmingly of U.S. and Soviet origin.

The bulk of the tonnage is of small arms ammunition, but also included are large quantities of other classes of munitions, such as hand grenades, 82 mm and heavier mortars, RPGs and other light anti-tank weapons, Soviet-era anti-tank landmines, and various other explosive compounds including Composition C4. Of course, that’s just what’s on the books. The ANA has always maintained other munitions in other bunkers that they keep off-limits to American eyes.

The locations of the eight major munitions storage sites are known to everyone, including the Taliban. Located at various points along Afghanistan’s Ring Road, each site contains dozens of bunkers, depots, or 40-footlong containers. We know the tonnages and types of munitions at each major site but one.

That one is close to the capital, and the ANA are very reluctant to disclose the capabilities they keep close to the capital, so they haven’t told us much about what they keep there. It’s safe to say that its quantities are substantial, and its types of munitions include “specialty items.”

What are “specialty items”? Things like MANPAD surface to air missiles. Yeah, those. All told across all sites we’re talking nearly 5,000 metric tons.

To make matters worse, with the departure of American expertise, so went Afghan willingness to continue using the computerized munitions accountability system we helped install. Now the state of the art in munitions accountability for the ANA is a pencil and ledger system. No joke.

In fairness, an experienced international NGO supported by U.S. and E.U. funding is now providing munitions management assistance to the ANA. The problem is members of this same NGO, likely in fear of running afoul of Taliban desires, have a reported history of refusing to clear IEDs emplaced by the Taliban. That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence the members of this NGO will resist Taliban desires in the future.

So it’s not like we don’t know that this stuff is vulnerable. It just seems we don’t care.

Here’s when we WILL care—when a platoon’s worth of next-generation shoe bombers get their hands on several hundred pounds of C4, for example. C4 is 30 percent more powerful than the so-called Mother of Satan, TATP, the explosive that al-Qaeda member Richard Reid used in his attempt to bring down American Airlines Flight 63 in 2001. According to FBI sources Reid used only 10 ounces. Imagine how creative al-Qaeda members can be should they take possession of 5,000 metric tons of explosives.

We can reduce the likelihood of such an atrocity and worse from occurring, and doing so is squarely in our national interest, but doing so will require the honesty and the courage to say, “You know what? I was reckless. We need to put enough American combat power back on the ground to secure these munitions until they can be destroyed or otherwise rendered safe.”

A man who knows more than a little about violence in Afghanistan is Ahmad Massoud, son of the late Ahmad Shah Massoud, former commander of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by order of Osama Bin Laden two days before 9/11. When I asked Massoud about the likelihood of these munitions finding their way into Taliban hands, he replied, “That is certain, so we should thank God that Afghanistan doesn’t have a nuclear weapon.”

Amen.

Ernie Audino is a retired brigadier general, U.S. Army. He serves on the staff of U.S. Congressman Michael Waltz and is a senior military fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy and at Soran University in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. He is the only American general officer to have previously served a full year on the battlefield embedded with Kurdish peshmerga forces.