Embedded Files
The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.
An imperial presidency is one in which the president exercises the Constitution in a manner that stretches its bounds, such as in the roles of chief executive and commander in chief, and may disregard the wishes of Congress.
The term 'imperial presidency' was used by Arthur Schlesinger Jr in 1973, when he attacked what he viewed as the unconstitutional extension of executive power under President Nixon. Schlesinger argues that presidents wield huge amounts of power with little or no constraints. In particular, he suggests a failure of the constitutional restrictions to restrain the presidency.
Successive presidents have acquired powers that go beyond the intended checks imposed by the Founding Fathers, or such regulations fail to operate. The president can evade constitutional regulations, using a `toolkit' of methods to exert huge power.
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr 1961
The power of the presidency grew to such an extent in the postwar period that in the early 1970s, Arthur Schlesinger coined the term 'the imperial presidency', suggesting that the president had cast aside the checks and balances of the system, and was now governing like an emperor. The record of the Nixon presidency, which abroad had conducted a secret war in Cambodia, and at home had refused to spend money mandated by Congress, seemed to provide plenty of support for his thesis. However, Nixon's record provoked a fairly swift congressional reaction in the War Powers Act and the Budget and Impoundment Control Act, intended to rein in what were seen as his abuses of the system. Then, only a year after the publication of Schlesinger's book, Nixon resigned in disgrace. The reassertion of Congress was such that Gerald Ford was referring only a few years later to the 'imperilled presidency', and during the 1980s and 1990s Congress carried out its role of presidential checking with sufficient vigour for the debate over any imperial aspirations of the president to largely die away.
Are the president's unilateral powers evidence of an imperial presidency?
Are the president's unilateral powers evidence of an imperial presidency?
The president has a number of powers that are not subject to checks and do not require the president to exercise his powers of persuasion.
Presidents have the power to declare national emergencies which is increasing used to exercise unchecked powers. National emergencies allow the president to bypass the normal legislative process. On his first day back in office in January 2025, Trump declared illegal immigration a national emergency. This authorised the deployment of military resources, accelerated border wall construction, and revived the “Remain in Mexico” policy, all without waiting for Congress to act.
In his second term Trump is attempting to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to deport Venezuelan migrants. His actions have been challenged up to the Supreme Court, which temporarily blocked deportations under the law on April 19. Presidents have invoked the law during three wars, including World War II, when it was part of the rationale behind Franklin D. Roosevelt’s executive order that led to the internment of around 120,000 people, mostly of Japanese heritage. (In the following decades, the government has issued formal apologies for its actions.) But the law has never before been used to remove unauthorized immigrants
Presidents possess significant autonomy in foreign policy and military decisions.
Who runs foreign policy, the president or Congress?
This ability to deploy military force is characteristic of imperial behavior. For instance, on January 3rd, 2020, President Trump authorized the targeted killing of Iranian General Qassim Soleimani without prior approval from Congress. In October 2025, Trump ordered attacks on civilian boats suspected of carrying drugs in the Caribbean. In November 2025 Trump declared a no-fly zone over Venezuela, which was in the form of a post on social media. While Biden also conducted airstrikes without Congressional approval, Trump's attack on civilians and use of social media to exert power are unprecedented.
Administrations have historically been accused of manipulating or withholding information to sustain or expand their authority. Nixon's CREEP fund and secret war in Laos led to campaign finance reforms and the Wat Powers Act. The Trump administration manipulated and withheld information when handling COVID-19 pandemic, with President Trump downplaying the virus's severity. In his second term, Trump has conducted an attack on the media as 'fake news' while simultaneously repeating unfounded claims. ie, that the election of 2020 was rigged, that the economy was doing far better than it was in reality. Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner, in August 2025, after accusing her agency of “faking” the latest employment figures for “political purposes”, which showed the US economy adding a lower-than-expected 73,000 jobs in July. The BLS is widely regarded as a reliably independent organisation. The Biden administration also encountered scrutiny over transparency issues, such as the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021.
Presidents have used emergency economic powers to implement significant economic policies without congressional approval. For example, in 2018, the administration issued extensive executive orders to address economic issues, including COVID-19 relief measures in 2021. President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, framing the action as a national emergency. On April 22, 2025, dubbed “liberation day” by his administration, Trump announced plans for an extensive list US tariffs on the world. This contrasts with Obama who was faced with a genuine emergency after the banking crisis of 2008, and responded with Congressional legislation. e.g, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Trump's invocation of imagined emergencies is unprecedented.
Presidents can make or shut down agencies and departments. Trump dismantled the United States Agency for International Development by cutting almost every position and ending almost all funding. Congress has not approved the plan. In the past, other presidents have successfully shut down agencies, often as part of an effort to make government more efficient, but only by working with Congress.
Presidents can control federal spending by withholding funds. The Trump administration threatened to withhold billions in federal dollars to colleges that don’t comply with its demands. At Columbia, where $400 million in funding was canceled, those demands included putting in stricter security procedures and appointing someone to oversee its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies department. Harvard, which is fighting administration demands, has had more than $2 billion in federal grants withheld. In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order saying federal funds would not go to schools that mandate COVID-19 vaccines. In the past, presidents have threatened to withhold funds. in a 2012 speech, President Barack Obama threatened to keep funds from colleges that kept hiking tuition, but he never followed up on the threat. In the 1970s, the Internal Revenue Service under the Nixon administration said it would revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because it refused to admit nonwhite students. That would have cost the university significantly, but it was not a revocation of direct federal funding. (The Trump administration has threatened the tax-exempt status of Harvard, in addition to withholding funding.) After a long legal battle, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government against Bob Jones.
The return of Presidential Impoundment? In the U.S. federal government, impoundment refers to the President's act of refusing to spend funds that Congress has already appropriated. This power, once considered inherent to the presidency, was significantly curtailed by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Donald Trump’s 2024 reelection campaign promised, however, that Trump, if elected, would “restore executive branch impoundment authority to cut waste, stop inflation, and crush the Deep State.” “When I return to the White House,” Trump pledged, “I will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court. The Supreme Court ( in DEPARTMENT OF STATE, v AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION) gave President Trump the go-ahead to unilaterally withhold $4 billion in foreign aid previously appropriated by Congress, a crucial milestone in an intense legal battle over the constitutional power of the purse.
The Supreme Court has been remarkably compliant to President Trump The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts, with its solid conservative majority, has frequently ruled in favor of the Trump administration, especially concerning the scope of executive power. In cases involving the Trump administration, particularly those decided through the emergency docket (the "shadow docket"), the Supreme Court has ruled in Trump's favor in a startlingly high percentage of cases. One analysis found that between May 1 and June 23, 2025, the court ruled for Trump in 15 out of 16 cases (93.7%), often without oral arguments or published opinions. Another analysis of 17 cases found 12 sided with the Trump administration as of July 8, 2025. Major rulings have broadly expanded presidential power. A significant 2024 decision in Trump v. United States granted a former president immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts committed while in office, a ruling widely criticized as anti-democratic by some legal experts.
Parties have become more polarized and ideologically united. Voting behaviour in Congress is now more likely to be guided by party loyalty. The advent of the MAGA movement has given Trump a means of intimidating his own party and ensuring almost total Republican support in Congress. Analysis of votes in (as of late 2025) has found extremely high alignment with the Trump administration's position. Senate Republicans, on average, have voted with Trump over 99% of the time, while House Republicans have done the same at a rate of 99.5%. Republicans in Congress who have publicly opposed Trump's agenda or actions have faced high political costs, including primary challenges or decisions to retire rather than face dim electoral prospects. High-profile Trump critics within the party, such as former Speaker Paul Ryan and Congresswoman Liz Cheney, are no longer in Congress.
While modern presidents have become adept at using the media, from FDR's fireside chats to press releases and stage photo opportunities, the rise of social media has given presidents a means of communicating directly with their own supporters and shaping a personal narrative that makes them less susceptible to scrutiny from the traditional media. Trump has successfully promoted the idea, in the minds of his supporters, that news reports which are unfavourable to him are 'fake news'. Consumption of news has become polarised, with Trump supporters trusting Fox News and Democrats trusting MSNBC. This creates a teflon presidency where scandals such as Trump's criminality, corruption, and links with Epstein have less impact. For context, Clinton was nearly removed from office for a consensual affair. Even if this is unique to Trump, it is likely that the days when the public trusted the mainstream media are over.
.
Ted Cruz accused Obama of being an Imperial President because of his use of Executive Orders to reshape his Health Care Law (Obamacare)
You could certainly make the case that these powers have been used by the modern presidents in ways unintended by the founders, and since they are in effect governing by presidential decree- unchecked by Congress- they are a form of arbitrary power that would characterise an emperor or monarch. Ted Cruz certainly thinks this is the case when Obama used executive orders to amend his health care legislation. Cruz argued that this was a violation of the separation of powers
The imperilled presidency
The imperilled presidency
The theory of the imperilled presidency suggests that the president is not simply restricted but is the holder of a weak office, without sufficient power. Former President Gerald Ford put forward this contrasting theory to that of an imperial presidency. He found that the federal bureaucracy was too big to manage effectively, and complained of the president's lack of control over an increasingly complex executive branch.
The phrase has since been adapted to argue that there are excessive limitations on presidential power, which cause ineffectual political leadership. The rise of polarised parties could be applied to this idea, with a recalcitrant Republican Party proving unwilling to co-operate and compromise with elected Democrat presidents, such as Obama.There are a number of issues that inhibit effective presidential control of the bureaucracy. (US civil Service) First, some issues are common to the relationship between all elected politicians and their bureaucracies:
'There is nothing more frustrating for a President than to issue an order to a Cabinet officer, and then find that, when the order gets out in the field, it is totally mutilated.'
President Gerald Ford
Problems of control:The bureaucracy has experience and expertise in its area of operation, which is unlikely to be matched by any elected politician or their personal advisers; it has access to and control of information; and it is made up for the most of permanent career civil servants who can stall policy change while waiting for a change of administration.A bureaucracy has its own interests which do not coincide with its political masters; it will promote policies which are best able to further its own goals of survival and expansion; and it has limited interest in the overall national interest, or in pursuing policies which threaten the status quo.
It is aided in the pursuit of these goals by the nature of legislation, which in places will be vague or ambiguous, and the implementation of which requires interpretation by the bureaucracy. Even if it is not always implemented in the narrow interests of the bureaucracy, it may well cause difficulties or embarrassment for the president.
Divided loyalties: The bureaucracy is part of the executive branch and its function is to serve the president, but it is dependent on Congress for its continued existence and funding. Congress has the power of oversight of its activities and to establish, merge, or abolish federal departments. In addition, the power of incumbency means members of Congress are likely to be around much longer than the president, so bureaucrats have a strong incentive to pay as much or more attention to the wishes of Congress as to those of the president. Notoriously, the bureaucracy can form alliances with congressional committees and pressure groups to form 'iron triangles'.
Link: Iron Triangles
Link: The federal bureaucracy
Lack of coordination: Multiple agencies, for example, have a stake in foreign policy: the State Department, the Defense Department, the NSC and the CIA, to name just some of the most prominent. All have different priorities and sometimes pull in different directions. In particular, there is a long history of tension between the State and Defense Departments, which was highly visible, for example, during the first term of the Bush presidency in the rivalry between Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. Cabinets are not bound together by Collective Responsibility. President Trump experienced high turnover and public disagreements with key officials, including the resignation of National Security Advisor John Bolton in September 2019. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson described him as a 'moron.' he was later sacked by Trump. James Mattis (Defense Secretary) submitted a detailed, two-page letter outlining his strongly held views on the importance of treating allies with respect and being clear-eyed about malign actors, implicitly contrasting them with President Trump's approach. In his second term, Trump's failing mental acuity and dislike of policy details have allowed members of the administration to initiate policy. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly ordered a pause on weapons deliveries to Ukraine multiple times (at least twice in early 2025) shortly after taking office under the second Trump administration. Records indicate these were verbal orders from his office, not direct instructions from the President. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was recorded advising Russian diplomats on how to manage Trump using flattery
Traditionally, presidents face significant obstacles in successfully legislating their agenda due to opposition from Congress. In 2017 Trump was unable to pass the American Health care Act to maintain his promise of removing the Affordable Care Act. Opposition to Trump was limited in the first year of his second term, but he was forced to release the Epstein files and face the longest government shutdown in history. However, most presidents face increasing difficulties as their term progresses. After the honeymoon period ends, and particularly if the midterm elections change the power balance in Congress, presidents find themselves transformed into lame ducks.A significant factor in this relationship is the traditional lack of party discipline in Congress. The separation of powers means that congressmen and -women stand on their own record for re-election, and their willingness to support the president will depend on how far that support will aid their own re-election prospects. This means that the discipline which characterises the UK House of Commons is absent from both the House and the Senate, and the president cannot automatically count on the support of even members of his own party.
Link The relationship between the president and the Supreme Court
Link The relationship between the presidency and Congress
The judiciary serves as a vital check on presidential authority. Birthright citizenship: A federal appeals court blocked Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, a move that was the subject of ongoing litigation. Immigration policy: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked an effort to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelans, ruling that the administration had illegally invoked the wartime law. Targeting of law firms: Courts have blocked executive orders that threatened to strip security clearances from attorneys at firms that took on cases against the administration, with concerns that these orders could have a chilling effect on legal challenges. President Biden's moratorium on deportations was halted by a federal judge in January 2021. These judicial interventions demonstrate that the judiciary functions as a powerful barrier to presidential overreach, thereby limiting the potential for imperial behavior.
The realities of international law, alliances, and realpolitik also constrain presidential foreign policy actions. President Trump's claim that he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours failed when faced with reality. European leaders objected to the favourable terms he offered Russia, and Putin was a more capable negotiator than Trump. Trump's 'liberation day' tariffs fell apart soon after being announced. Trump was forced to make many exceptions and special deals. Trump's tariffs against China were countered by China's restriction on rare earth minerals. Similarly, Presidents have sought international support for wars from Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq and have been hesitant to become involved in extended conflicts alone. In the second Iraq war, the US was insistent that it was justified by the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
The media plays a significant role in shaping public opinion, but is also significant in scrutiny. As Congress has become less able to effectively monitor oversight, the media has acted as an effective watchdog. The media alerted the public to Biden's failure to manage immigration and exposed his failing health. During Trump's first term, the media documented his failures in handling the pandemic. The media have exposed Trump's links with Epstein, and their record of the Trump family's corruption will provide a basis for future legal accountability.
Traditionally, Presidents could not depend on their own party for support. American parties are broad coalitions with conflicting priorities. Obama was forced to make considerable concessions to his own party to pass the Affordable Health Care Bill. President Biden faced internal challenges within the Democratic Party, affecting legislative efforts like the infrastructure bill negotiations in 2021. Trump supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene fell out with Trump over the release of the Epstein files. The Republicans in the Senate refused Trump's demand that they use the so-called 'nuclear option' to remove the filibuster.
Public opinion remains a critical constraint on presidential actions. Unpopular policies or decisions often face resistance, as seen with President Trump's low approval ratings and protests over issues like health care and immigration, including the backlash to family separation policies in 2018. Opposition from farmers led Trump to exempt soybean imports from tariffs. Trump's mishandling of the Pandemic and rising inflation led to a decline in his popularity in his first term. Presidents use the 'bully pulpit,' ie, direct appeals to popular opinion to exert pressure on Congress. When their approval rating is low, Congress is less easily persuaded. President Biden's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal drew significant criticism, impacting his approval ratings. Biden's perceived failure to deal with inflation led to a significant decline in his popularity.
The Impossible Presidency In his book The Impossible Presidency Jeremi Suri of the University of Texas at Austin argues that the expectations on the President and scrutiny of the President have increased to such an extent as to make the job nearly impossible. President Obama was elected, promising to change the world, and President Trump has promised to make America great again. Clearly, both of these objectives, while rhetorical, are also impossible. Given the constraints, checks, and balances, a limited time is placed on the president. Much of what the president will try to do is out of his control. The economy is governed by forces he has only limited control. He can certainly make things worse, but it is very difficult to make things better substantially in the short time he has in office. A trade slump, a banking crisis, rising inflation, and Wars abroad. Global turmoil beyond the president's ability to control. James Carville noted that If he wanted real power, he'd be reincarnated as the bond market. In this sense, all presidents are doomed to disappoint, which might explain why all recent presidents, that is, since the Second World War, have ended their presidency considerably less popular than they started.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse