Steady Hands in Shifting Tides: Insights for Research Organizations Navigating Presidential Transitions

Helmuth von Moltke, the 19th-century Prussian military strategist, emphasized the necessity of flexible planning in the face of uncertainty. His well-known assertion that plans seldom survive past first contact with the opposition is particularly relevant in periods of federal administrative change. When shifting priorities, policy reversals, and leadership transitions create an environment of turbulence, organizational and individual anxiety is always high. Previous plans can seem ineffective during the transition period, but there is value in holding course while building resilience and flexibility into their plans. Furthermore, it is important to remember that as fast as the new administration moves, the confirmation process always takes time, and during the transition period, agencies are staffed with “acting” leaders.

During changes in presidential administrations, federal agencies face shifting priorities, rapidly changing guidance, and leadership turnover, all within the constraints of bureaucracy. Recent events have underscored this reality. With the new administration staunchly focused on public funding stewardship, they have emphasized preventing fraud, waste, and abuse through a flurry of Executive Orders. Some acting leaders, and others in their organizations, risk interpretative drift—some overextending new priorities, others reluctant to move from the status quo, and some weaponizing uncertainty through malicious interpretation as a form of institutional defiance. This chaotic landscape creates uncertainty in federal agencies and the broader funded enterprise. Often, during transitions, the anxiety created by the chaotic landscape usually persists until confirmed agency heads assume authority, assess their environment, and can impose greater structure, clearer interpretation of administration priorities, and application of their appointment authorities, ushering in a more stable, measured environment.

Now, and moving forward, research security remains non-negotiable. While the new administration seeks to cut overly bureaucratic regulations, the administration’s commitment to safeguarding U.S. economic, military, and innovation dominance remains firm. Protecting intellectual property and critical research remains a national imperative. Organizations with efficient due diligence and effective oversight mechanisms will be best positioned to overcome uncertainty and compete for funding aligned with evolving federal and administrative priorities.

Success in federal awards does not hinge on resisting change but mastering adaptation. In a world of inevitable political and administrative shifts, resilience belongs to those who anticipate risk, remain flexible, and refine their execution strategies for greater vigilance. When the transition turbulence calms, a strong research security program and a posture of compliance will increase competitiveness for funded priorities.

Next
Next

Critiques from Congress: House Select Committee on China Chair’s Response to New BIS Controls.