The start of the activist presidency

The concept of the activist presidency began with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson at the beginning of the twentieth century; both presidents operated on the basis that the president could do everything that was not specifically prohibited him and that he was not confined by the powers specifically allocated in the constitution.

The passage by Congress in 1921 of the Budget and Accounting Act created the Bureau of the Budget as part of the executive branch, and gave it the responsibility for compiling a single federal budget proposal. This was a recognition, first, that federal spending was now at a level which needed effective central coordination, and, second, of the overall presidential control of domestic policy.

It was the Great Depression in the 1930s that saw the balance of legislative power shift decisively and irrevocably to the president. The dire nature of the situation created the need for the federal government to have a much more active and interventionist role than it had played hitherto. The formulation of broad and coherent policy programmes, and the rescue of a complex industrial economy, were beyond the disparate and parochial operation of Congress. The programme of policies known as the New Deal, which President Roosevelt initiated, extended the reach of the president and the executive branch into the management of the economy, and substantially increased the size of the federal bureaucracy through the creation of bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labour Board.

Just as the Great Depression expanded the president's powers domestically, so the emergence of the USA after the Second World War as one of two global superpowers had the same effect in foreign policy. For a period before the war Congress had played a significant role in shaping foreign policy — for example, through the passage of the Neutrality Acts — but it was now the president, as head of one of two global superpowers and the 'leader of the free world', who assumed unambiguous control of foreign policy.

President Truman set the precedent of the president taking significant military action through his power as commander-in-chief with only informal consultation with Congress when he ordered military forces to Korea in 1950, in response to the invasion of the South by the Soviet-backed forces of the North. The postwar period also saw the creation of what has become known as the 'national security state'; the 1947 National Security Act created the National Security Council (NSC) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and reorganised the military into the Department of Defense, with its headquarters in the Pentagon in Virginia. After Korea, the armed forces were no longer mobilised and then demobilised to meet a specific threat, but were expanded and became permanent to counter Soviet aggression, reporting to the president as commander-in-chief. As significantly, the president assumed responsibility for the deployment of the nuclear deterrent, which rapidly became a vital factor in the Cold War.

. In October 2025, hundreds of thousands of Americans protested across the United States. The protests occurred mainly in cities, but also in many small towns. People gathered to assert that there should be no more kings or monarchs. They chanted slogans such as, this is what democracy looks like.

Protests were driven by concerns over the expansion of presidential powers, particularly since January 2025, when President Donald Trump significantly increased his authority. He used emergency powers to undertake actions typically reserved for genuine emergencies, such as sealing the border, attacking boats in the Caribbean, using the Justice Department to prosecute political opponents, deploying federal troops in American cities and issuing an unprecedented number of executive orders. Trump has declared nine national emergencies in his first eight months in office, stretching the definition of emergency in creative ways. To put this in context, since 1980, presidents have declared an average of seven in a four-year term.

200-plus executive orders fall far short of the thousands issued by FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a wartime president elected to four terms, but Trump's pace, 142 in his first hundred days, is the highest on record. Supporters argue that these measures are necessary to address the challenges of the current times, and to Make America Great Again. However, protesters view these actions as dangerous and potentially threatening to democracy itself. The debate over presidential power is long-standing, and the current situation has intensified these concerns.

The most powerful man in the world, the most powerful elected office in the world, the leader of the free world. All of these are ways of describing one man or woman, the President of the United States. And yet these are misleading terms, and certainly ones the founding fathers of the United States and architects of the Constitution would not recognize. In 1787, framers of the Constitution set out to create something altogether less impressive.

It is important, therefore, to understand the original intentions of the Founding Fathers of the United States regarding the presidency. The American Revolution, which declared independence from Britain in 1776 and fought a nearly eight-year-long war, influenced the Founders' views on governance. During the war and until 1789, the Americans did not intend to have a president. Instead, they aimed to avoid the concentration of power that could lead to tyranny. The founders viewed the Presidency as a necessary but potentially dangerous office, and they approached its design with caution. The debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 reflected these concerns. There was significant disagreement over the strength of the central government and the powers of the Presidency.

These delegates, well versed in classical history and political philosophy, understood that power tends to corrupt, and that history had shown despotic rule to be a recurring problem. From philosophers such as John Locke and others, they understood the concept of a social contract, and rejected the hereditary basis of authority. They were also aware of Montesquieu's theory of the separation of powers, detailed in

in his 1748 work, The Spirit of the Law, which proposes dividing government into three distinct branches. Legislative, executive, and judicial. The American Revolution itself was a response to perceived tyranny by King George III, characterized by unjust taxes and the use of military force, as described in the Declaration of Independence.

The first attempt at a republic was the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781. They created a loose alliance of thirteen states with a weak central government, which proved inadequate for managing the war and the post-war challenges, including economic disputes, debt and rebellion, as exemplified by Shays's Rebellion.

The States did not have their own monetary systems, so they paid soldiers with paper promises to pay later. After the war the States had no money, and veterans who fought for independence were left bankrupt. They continued farming, but owed taxes in gold, which they did not have, leading to rebellion and resistance to the foreclosure on their property. Daniel Shays,

It is in this crisis that the desire for a stronger federal structure was born. The founders who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, recognized that establishing a presidency capable of responding to crises without becoming a tyranny was essential. George Washington, the nation's first president, exemplified the ideal balance, serving as a unifying figure and refusing to become a monarch. His voluntary relinquishment of power, after two terms, set a precedent for democratic leadership, and a precedent for a two-term presidency. The figure of Washington offered the designers of the Constitution a solution to their fears over the presidency, at least for the first incumbent. And yet the founders were as aware

as was famously described by H. L. Mencken many years later, that they could not always rely on finding men of Washington's calendar, and inevitably, one day, they would end up with a complete idiot, or worse.

When you read the Constitution, it's clear that it's infused with the fear that the presidency might be too powerful. Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia at the time of the convention, refused to sign the initial draft and stated that this presidency was the foetus of monarchy. Therefore, the Constitution's articles 1 and 2 established the separation of powers and a system of checks and balances inspired, as mentioned before, by John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and the social contract theory from Thomas Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. These principles developed the idea that all government actions must be guided by the rule of law, with the Constitution as the supreme authority. The Electoral College was devised as a safeguard against direct election, aiming to select a qualified leader and prevent demagogues or populist dictators from gaining power. This indirect election process was designed to ensure stability and the selection of a capable president, especially in a vast country with limited mass media at the time. What elections across such a huge area would have been very difficult, to say the least. Not that popular democracy was considered at all an advisable idea.

 Overall, the American constitutional framework was created to balance authority, prevent tyranny, and uphold the rule of law, principles that continue to influence the government of the United States today. Further evidence of the nervousness of the Founding Fathers when creating the presidency were the qualifications they specified for the role 

which include being a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and having resided in the United States for at least 14 years. The residency requirement leaves some uncertainty, and this kind of ambiguity would be a feature of the entire Constitution. Its ambiguity indicates that certain aspects were intentionally left open to interpretation and discussion. The President was also limited to four-year terms. 

At the convention they discussed the possibility of making it single seven-year term, while George Washington established the precedent, as mentioned before, that presidents would relinquish the office after the end of a second term. The 22nd Amendment has since limited presidents to two elected terms. There is enough ambiguity here for current discussions about the possibility of Trump becoming president again by serving a third term. This could occur if he were vice president to J.D. Vance, and then Vance resigned, allowing Trump to assume the presidency again, since the 22nd Amendment simply prohibits an individual from being elected more than twice as president, and does not restrict them from serving more than two terms. Such scenarios remain legally conceivable.Well, we shall see. 

One of the most unusual features of the American presidency, given Americans follow the principle of the separation of powers, is the way that the presidency combines the roles of head of state and chief executive. This is uncommon across the world, where the roles of chief executive and head of state are typically kept separate.

example in the UK, the King serves as head of state while the Prime Minister is head of the government and chief executive, along with the cabinet. The President's capacity to wield the powers of chief executive and to hold the status of head of state creates a tension in American political life in which citizens can feel divided between support for the presidency and opposition to the President.

Presidents can preside over moments of great ceremony and national solemnity, while pursuing socially divisive party policies. This gives the American president the ability to wrap himself in the flag, figuratively, identifying himself with patriotism, loyalty, and the mystique of the presidency. Prime Ministers, by contrast, are firmly located in the grubby everyday world of politics and party with only a few exceptional individuals able to escape the gravity of politics, and generally not for long. Returning now to Article 2 of the Constitution, which describes the Presidency, you should first note that it is smaller than the first article. It indicates that the Founding Fathers viewed the structure and powers of Congress as more significant.

 Article 2 outlines the powers of the President and the checks or limitations placed upon them. This aligns with the concept of checks and balances. The first statement of Article 2 declares the President to be the Chief Executive. However, this description is vague and ambiguous regarding the specific responsibilities involved. Although this has come to mean a great deal in contemporary times, especially for proponents of the unitary executive theory,

It's clear that the Founding Fathers did not envision a large role for the President. The Federal Government was intended to be small, with limited responsibilities. Matters such as education, transport, welfare, and health, which today are significant features of American Government, would have been left primarily to the States, and the President would have had a small administration, with minimal duties. The White House which now has thousands of staffers and advisors working in the executive office, barely existed as an institution when Washington employed a nephew, funded from his own pocket. Even by 1922 there was a staff of about 31 people, most of whom were clerks and administrators. Article 2 gives the presidency treaty-making powers. So the president can negotiate treaties with other countries which are agreements or alliances. However, these would have to then be ratified by the Senate, and the Senate would have to do so by a two-third majority. In this sense, for the Founding Fathers, foreign policy or relations with other countries were firmly in the hands of Congress. Article 2 also grants the President the role of Commander-in-Chief.

This role is of great significance today, given the size and power of the American military, which is the most formidable and well-equipped military on the planet. The Founding Fathers considered the need for an army carefully. They believed that a moderate force would be assembled during times of threat. Since America was geographically distant from Europe, with frontiers primarily needing defence, and the British presence limited to Canada, a standing army was not deemed necessary, certainly not a large one. An armed militia composed of a citizenry, equipped with firearms, was considered sufficient. This perspective might explain the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. There was little expectation that the President would frequently need to exercise the role of Commander-in-Chief.

While the framers of the Constitution feared tyranny from the President, they generally opposed the concentration of power within any single branch of government. To prevent this, they provided the President with a check on Congress through the veto power. Legislation passed by Congress had to be signed into law by the President. However, an open-ended veto, meaning the President's ability to reject legislation indefinitely,w as viewed as too much power. Therefore the veto could be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

 Another significant power of the presidency is the authority to appoint officials, including the heads of federal departments. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the potential dangers of a president surrounding himself with cronies, yes-men, or individuals with malicious influence. Therefore,  any appointments made by the President must be approved by the Senate, serving again as a check on executive power. 

Apparently unchecked formal power, which relates to the President's role of head of state, is the pardon power, which allows the President to commute or pardon sentences for criminals or convicted individuals in federal courts. The pardon power is an ancient prerogative, dating back to monarchies.

Most US presidents have utilised this power, which was historically considered minor, but serves as a check against the potential tyranny of the majority. It enables presidents to pardon individuals unjustly convicted due to popular enthusiasm or their minority status. For example, President Obama used the pardon power to address what was perceived as widespread injustices against African Americans convicted of minor drug offences who were given long sentences. Currently, however, the pardon power appears to be expanding under President Trump, who has pardoned friends, allies, and others at his discretion. This expansion raises concerns about the potential for abuse of this presidential prerogative. Historically, therefore, presidents were perceived primarily as servants of Congress. In a political system,which dispersed power among the three branches of government and the fifty states. 

Beyond formal powers, presidents possess significant informal powers, notably the power to persuade, often referred to as the bully pulpit. This involves leveraging social capital, such as approval ratings, media, public opinion, institutional support, and political coalitions to influence policy and public sentiment. Richard Neustadt coined the phrase, power to persuade, in the 1970s, emphasizing that the presidency is more about persuasion than direct control. Presidents build coalitions by appealing to different groups, such as the New Deal coalition in the 1930s, of white liberals, black Americans 

and other minorities, as well as organised labour, and as well as, rather incongruously, Southern whites, or the Reagan coalition in the 1980s, which included social and economic conservatives, as well as working-class voters. Presidents also utilise the media, radio to social media, to communicate directly with the public and shape opinion, thereby hoping to pressure Congress to align with presidential goals.

Presidential powers are generally categorized into two types, expressed and implied. Expressed powers are those explicitly enumerated or listed in the Constitution, primarily within Article 2. For instance, Article 2, Section 2, grants the President the power to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the military, to grant pardons and to make treaties with the Senate's advice and consent. These powers are directly stated. The Constitution's vagueness and ambiguity have led to dynamic relationship, rather than clearly defined powers. The informal powers, often called implied powers, are either necessary to carry out the formal powers, or are suggested by those powers, or by the President's role. For example, the Vesting Clause, found in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1, states that the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. This clause is interpreted to grant the President a general executive authority beyond the specific powers listed. Further, support for implied powers comes from the Take Care clause in Article 2, Section 3, which mandates that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This clause implies the authority to take actions necessary to ensure the effective implementation of federal laws, even if these actions are not explicitly detailed in legislation. Presidents utilise specific tools to implement their implied powers, with executive orders and executive agreements being prominent examples. 

An executive order is a directive issued by the President to the executive branch carrying the force of law unless it exceeds constitutional authority or is overwritten by legislation. While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the authority to issue executive orders is accepted as an inherent aspect of presidential power, again rooted in the duty to take care that laws are faithfully executed. Structural changes, such as the increasing size of the government,

and higher public expectations have made these powers necessary for managing the government effectively. The President's role as leader of the free world, Chief Diplomat and Chief Legislator have expanded over time. As Chief Legislator, most laws now originate as bills promoted by the White House. As Chief Executive, the President can issue executive orders and make executive agreements, which last for as long as the President wishes.

and less revoked by a successor. The role of Commander-in-Chief illustrates the expanding powers of the Presidency. The Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief, but Congress retains the authority to declare war. The concept of formal declarations of war was already outdated by the end of the 19th century, and World War II was the last occasion when such a declaration was made.

After World War II, the US military expanded significantly and the President gained substantial authority to deploy troops without formal declarations of war from Congress. This was a consequence of the permanent state of quasi-war during the Cold War and later the War on Terror, which meant Presidents could deploy troops or engage in military actions as guardians of the nation's safety in the face of a permanent state of threat. This extensive discretionary power led to the passage of the War Powers Act in 1973, which was enacted to limit presidential military power, requiring the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and granting congressional authority to end the military commitments and terminate military action within 60 days with a possible 30-day withdrawal period, unless Congressm 

had authorised the use of force or declared war. Despite this, many presidents have resisted or ignored the law, relying instead on broad authorisations of use of military force, AUMFs, passed by Congress, such as those in 2001 and 2002, which serve as legal justifications for ongoing military interventions. In this way, rather than limiting the President's power of Commander-in-Chief, Congress has tended to grant open-ended permission for Presidents to act militarily, at will. Legal challenges to these actions have often been dismissed as political questions, leaving the Executive Branch with considerable latitude in military matters. 

However, as Edward S. Corwin said, the Constitution is an invitation to struggle

over the direction of foreign policy, and presidents have not had it all their own way. Presidents face oversight, spending constraints, and public opinion, all of which may curtail their use of military force. During the Vietnam War era, concerns over presidential actions, such as the secret bombing of Cambodia, led to committee hearings and the eventual passage of the War Powers Resolution. Over President Nixon's veto. The Obama administration's military intervention in Libya in 2011 prompted congressional objections and a House vote to rebuke the president for maintaining a U.S. presence past the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limit, without authorization. In 2013, Congress refused to give Obama authorization for bombing Syria after the Assad regime had used chemical weapons. A prominent historical example occurred in the 1970s, when Congress utilised this power to help end the Vietnam War by passing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which suspended all federal funding for military activities in Indochina. The Iran-Contra affair was the result of a Congressional block on funding for the Nicaraguan rebels, prompting Reagan, those around President Reagan, to find covert funding sources. 

However, lawmakers are often reluctant to cut off funding for US troops already in the field, which can be perceived as failing to support the military. Overall, the most significant restraint on presidents' ability to use and act as commander-in-chief is public opinion. In the US public opinion tends to be opposed to military action, which may result in the protracted deployment of troops abroad. Except immediately after Pearl Harbor and the 9-11 attacks, the default sentiment has been isolationist and generally resistant to involvement in foreign military adventures. In June and November 2025, resolutions were introduced in both the House and the Senate to prohibit President Trump from engaging in military action in Iran and Venezuela without explicit congressional approval. While these were blocked by the Republican majority in the Senate, it points to the opposition Trump may face if the midterm elections give the Democrats a majority in either house of Congress. If Trump engages in a significant military action in Venezuela, he will also find that many MAGA, Make America Great Again Republicans will see this as a betrayal of his America First commitments. Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld the premise that the President possesses extensive powers in foreign affairs, supporting this through various rulings that have reinforced executive authority, such as in Missouri v Holland and United States v Curtis Wright Export Corporation. In Curtis Wright, the court established the idea that the president has expansive, inherent powers in foreign affairs, independent of domestic powers. This historic deference to the president in the sphere of military action and foreign affairs is currently being tested by Trump's expansive application of emergency powers. 

#

The Supreme Court is currently considering cases that could impact the scope of the president's authority in foreign economic policy, such as the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, to impose broad tariffs. In the Department of State vs AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the case involves the Trump administration's curtailment of the U.S. Agency of International Development, USAID's funding is asserting that such actions fall under foreign affairs powers granted to the president by the constitution. Trump's attempts to take control of state National Guard units and deploy them in cities where he claims there is public unrest and rampant crime over the objection of local and state officials. In Oregon, a federal judge has issued orders blocking Trump's deployment of troops in Portland and appeals court judge whom Trump appointed to the bench in his first term, wrote, This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power, to the detriment of this nation.

By the time the Court issues its final decisions in this term, expected by the end of June next year, three Conservative majority in the Court may have broken new ground and once again fundamentally reshaped American law and the presidency. The court has already established a historic precedent in an expansive view of presidential immunity. In Trump v. the USA, the 6-3 ruling did not outright dismiss an indictment that charges Trump with plotting to overthrow the 2020 election, but it did strip away key elements of the case against him. The justices found that a president has immunity for official acts, but is not immune for unofficial acts, and referred the matter back to a trial judge. The three liberal justices dissented strongly, expressing fear for our democracy. The president is now a king above the law, wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

It is the first time since the nation's founding that the Supreme Court has declared former presidents can be shielded from criminal charges. Critics of the decision have argued that it creates a law-free zone around the president and could give a green light to dictatorship. The decision effectively places more reliance on political checks such as impeachment and public opinion rather than the judicial system, to hold a president accountable for abuses of power.

The expansion of the military and the scope of presidential power have been accompanied by the growth of the federal government itself. The president has significant influence over federal agencies and departments, appointing top officials and directing policy implementation. Unlike the UK, the USA does not have a fully permanent civil service, which is dedicated to the principles of anonymity and neutrality.

As Senator William L. Macy once observed, to the winner goes the spoils. Presidents have used government appointments to reward friends and allies, repay political favours and increasingly appoint officials who share their political views. Following the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield by a disgruntled office seeker, the system underwent major reform. Congress instituted a merit-based civil service managed by the Office of Personnel Management, in which most positions are filled on a non-partisan basis. And the safeguard described earlier was the Senate's power to approve or reject political appointments. The tendency for recent presidents to appoint ideologically rather than on merit applies mostly to senior roles, such as department and agency heads and of course all federal judicial appointments.

The Department for Government Efficiency, or DOGE, led by Elon Musk under the recent Trump administration, has been significant and controversial, focusing on massive cuts to U.S. government spending, workforce and programs, leading to substantial layoffs, dismantling of agencies like USAID, and contentious claims of billions in savings, but also facing

accusations of data exaggeration, harming essential services, and legal challenges over authority, while impacting everything from federal employee morale and public services and foreign aid. In the summer of 2025, Doge systematically moved through agencies, removing civil servants and cancelling programs described as 'ending bureaucratic tyranny' 

but finding little evidence of the fraud they claimed was rampant in government. While Doge claimed hundreds of billions in savings, analysis found much smaller amounts, and with considerable costs revolting from the terminations of staff, lawsuits from states and groups questioned Doge's authority and its access to sensitive data, with some judges blocking access to certain systems and others allowing continued operations. 

Critics argue Musk's approach fails to recognize the value of public services and technology in government, harming efficiency instead of improving it. The abrupt cuts, especially in foreign aid, also raised humanitarian concerns, as well as a loss of U.S. soft power. Doge certainly represented a radical experiment, which after the rapid end to the Doge Program after only a few short months, is widely seen to have failed in its objectives of savings and efficiency. It is, however, an illustration of the application of presidential power over the bureaucracy in pursuit of ideology. This ideologically driven approach to public employment and the bureaucracy is illustrated by the former FBI agents were suing the Bureau head, Cash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, alleging that they were unjustly fired for kneeling during a racial justice protest in 2020. Almost certainly, in the past, such actions would at the most have resulted in minor disciplinary action or likely to have been viewed favourably  as an example of building societal trust.

The US Supreme Court's conservative majority appears to be likely to side with Trump in a case that could have major implications for the independence of federal agencies. The case Trump v. Slaughter stems from President Trump's firing in March of 2025 of Rebecca Slaughter, alongside another Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. The US Supreme Court heard more than two hours of arguments over whether Trump could fire her, since federal law says a commissioner can only be fired for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Trump has argued from a unitary executive viewpoint that a president should be able to have full control over government agencies, even those set up by Congress, to act as regulators and watchdogs, which were designed to be free of presidential interference. In most democracies, the need to have regulatory agencies which are independent or at least at arm's length from government is seen as an essential safeguard against the government's inclination to pursue short-term or narrowly political policies. When the FTC, Federal Trade Commission, was established in 1914 to protect the public from deceptive business practices and unfair competition, Congress passed a law saying a president could only remove commissioners for cause, i.e. the failings mentioned earlier, and that the five-member commission could have no more than three members of the same political party. Similar firing rules exist for other independent agencies, like the National Labour Relations Board.

The law was put to the test in 1935 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to remove a member of the FTC, leading the Supreme Court to uphold the independence of certain federal agencies, such as the Trade Commissioner. In a 90-year-old ruling known as Humphrey's Executor, the Court found that, while the President can remove executive officers without cause, such a power does not apply to agencies like the FTC that are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. Should the Supreme Court reverse Humphrey's executor, it would be a considerable transfer of executive power to the presidency, in the name of unitary executive theory, which I'll discuss later.

So why does the Senate allow these blatantly political appointments?  In 1989, the Senate rejected the appointment of John Tower to the role of defence secretary on the grounds of his drinking and womanising. This example illustrates part of the reason. Tower was the first cabinet-level nominee to be rejected by the Senate. The Senate has historically deferred to the president's choice of his cabinet. However,

Presidents have sought to avoid nominating candidates who ran the risk of rejection. The main reason recent Presidents have been able to appoint based on such obvious political considerations has been the increasing party divide in Congress. When the President's own party has a majority in the Senate, he has a free hand. Conversely, when he does not, the Senate will delay and block appointments. During the Obama presidency,

Republicans, when they were in control of Congress, obstructed his appointments using the filibuster, which meant a two-thirds majority was needed to overcome their blocking tactics. This resulted in the Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid, invoking the nuclear option to end the filibuster for judicial federal appointments. This significantly altered the advice and consent role of the Senate, making it easier for a simple majority party to confirm presidential appointees and contributed to increased partisan polarisation in the confirmation process. Another important check on the President is the power of the purse, which should act as a significant check. James Madison, the fourth President and a leading figure in the Constitutional Convention, wrote in the Federalist Papers that 'the power of the purse was the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure'. 

This power allows Congress to control the federal budget. It's been used to end wars, as described earlier, with Vietnam and Iran Contra, and influence the spending priorities executive agencies. In the early years of the Republic, 

Congress wrote the budget in the sense that individual departments and agencies submitted requests for funding to Congress. The requirement for the US president to submit an annual budget to Congress was established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which was signed into law by President Warren G. Harding. Ever since, the budget has become a source of tension between the executive and the legislative branches which occasionally give rise to the phenomenon of government shutdowns. If annual funding runs out before Congress enacts new appropriations, government agencies generally must halt operations. Based on debatable legal claims, President Obama continued certain health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, even after Congress denied appropriations for them. President Joe Biden

attempted massive student debt relief without clear authority from Congress. Courts blocked both these actions.

So it may be fairly obvious that the presidency has grown far beyond the scope envisioned by the founders. For example, the Constitution says nothing at all about how or even whether the president should communicate with the public. And for the first century and a half of the nation's history, presidents hardly ever did. The historian Roderick P. Hart wrote that the Founding Fathers were concerned not to erect an executive branch that could become overwrought by constant appeals to the national rabble. And yet the bully pulpit became a prime characteristic of presidential behaviour in the 20th century and the advent of mass media, it has vastly amplified the president's voice. From Franklin Delano Roosevelt's fireside chats to Trump's Truth Social. 

This leads to a question. Is Richard Neustadt's famous formulation that the President's power is the power to persuade still the best way of describing Presidential power. Neustadt suggested that rather than thinking of the President as a desk giving orders and using formal powers written in the Constitution, you should think of the Presidential leadership as an attempt to get other political players to come on board to support the President's agenda, to take their little bits of power and bring them together behind the president's chosen agenda. And the phrase, the power to persuade, Neustadt's view of the president as persuader-in-chief, dominated the way scholarship thought about the presidency from its publication in the 1970s. This model of presidential power sees the president attempting to persuade not just Congress, but also popular opinion, the Supreme Court, and political parties, including his own party, to create long-term and short-term coalitions around a particular bill or policy objective.

 Neustadt's presidency is a very personal one. It depends greatly on the capacity of the president, their personal skills. Lyndon Johnson's persuasive powers of a congress, which drew on years of personal relationships, the use of charm and threats. Reagan and Obama and their rhetorical skills, which could influence public opinion, which would in turn put pressure on congress and other institutions. This mixture of public and private persuasion became the measure of presidential effectiveness. 

An alternative view was that the effectiveness of a president largely depended on external factors over which the president had little control. Above all, the economy, but also international crises and events. These factors would give or deny the president political capital in the form of popular support, which might also result in a hostile or supportive Congress. The 9-11 attacks transformed George W. Bush's presidency from a weak beginning with a slender control of Congress and a deeply controversial election to one of great popularity, which gave him Republican control of both houses of Congress in the midterms, which is a fairly unusual outcome. This enhanced political capital allowed Bush to embark on a project to remake the Middle East by toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Events have worked to enhance presidential power and to diminish it. Rising inflation caused by a global economic slowdown fatally eroded Joe Biden's chances of winning a second term. Although, of course, his failing faculties displayed in the presidential debate didn't help. Therefore, presidential power is subject to the context in which the president finds themselves.

 Before I look at the Trump presidency in more detail, I'd like to describe some theoretical models of presidential power. I've already discussed Newstadt's concept of the persuader-in-chief. Some alternative models are the unitary executive theory, the imperial presidency, and the dual presidency.

The term imperial presidency was used by Arthur Schlesinger, Junior, 1973, when he attacked what he viewed as the unconstitutional expansion of executive power under President Nixon. Schlesinger argues that presidents wield huge amounts of power with little or no constraints. In particular, he suggested a failure of the constitutional restrictions to restrain the presidency.  He suggested that presidents have cast aside the checks and balances of the system and are now governing like an emperor. The record of the Nixon presidency, which had conducted secret wars in Cambodia and at home had refused to spend money mandated by Congress, seemed to provide plenty of support for this thesis. However, Nixon's record provoked a fairly swift congressional reaction in the War Powers Act and the Budget Impoundment Control Act intended to rein in what was seen as abuses of the system. Then, only a year after the publication of Schlesinger's book, Nixon resigned in disgrace. 

These additional restrictions on the president led to the suggestion that the presidency was now in peril. This was certainly the view of Nixon's successor Gerald Ford. 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 moving unwilling to cooperate and compromise with elected democratic presidents, such as Obama. An illustration of this is the filibuster, which can block legislation in the Senate by talking it out, and can only be overcome by a two-thirds majority.

Filibusters were once rare, but in recent years they have been used to block almost all presidential bills. However, an exception are bills passed by the reconciliation process, a special budget process allowing Congress to pass major spending and revenue bills, like the Inflation Reduction Act, tax cuts, or Trump's so-called Great Big Beautiful Bill, 

allows bills to be passed with a simple majority in the Senate, avoiding the filibuster. It's a powerful tool for the majority party to enact sweeping partisan policies without needing bipartisan support. Whenever it is used by the majority party, the minority party declare it to be unfair. And then, generally, as Republicans, Democrats have done, use it themselves in this climate of partisan polarisation.

Writer Jeremy Suri has taken this further by describing the impossible presidency. He argues that with every successive generation, presidents take on more and more global and domestic responsibility, including things like healthcare today and anti-terrorism. Think of the scope and expectation of the term war on terror. Presidents are pulled in to too many directions at once. They can't keep it up. And the expectation and responsibility far exceed the office. In that sense, the presidency is impossible and doomed at least to disappoint and probably to fail. 

The imperial presidency, however, continues to be debated. Writers such as William Howell, who pointed out in his book Power Without Persuasion, that presidents have plenty of ways to exercise powers beyond the control of Congress.

These include executive orders, signing statements, executive agreements, recess appointments, and declaration of emergencies. All of these have become more prevalent in recent presidencies. 

The Dual Presidency Theory, also known as Two Presidencies Thesis, is a theory proposed by the political scientist Aaron Wildevsky during the Cold War. It is based on the principle that there are two versions of the American president

one who is concerned with domestic policy and one who is concerned with foreign policy. Vardavsky makes the claim that presidents would prefer to focus foremost on foreign policy because he is granted more traditional constitutional and statutory authority when compared to his domestic policy powers. Vardavsky argues that presidents have assumed a more active role with regards foreign policy because they are able to act more quickly than the United States Congress 

when pursuing foreign policy. Also, a lack of interest groups active in foreign policy allows the president more discretion when making decisions. Wildavsky also observes that presidents tend to focus on domestic issues early in their presidency and foreign affairs later on. Particularly in their second term, this is the result of the declining influence over Congress, often the result of losses in midterm elections and the dissipation of the honeymoon. However, since Wildavski's time, the domestic impact of foreign policy has become more pronounced and important, blurring the lines between foreign and domestic affairs. Politics no longer stops at the water's edge, because Congress receives more reliable information on foreign affairs, and trade and economics are altogether more globalized. 

Foreign policy is very much controlled by partisan politics in United States today. Presidents no longer may take their liberty to assume public support for his foreign policy initiatives and must strive to build and maintain domestic support for them instead. 

Unitary executive theory is a theory of the United States constitutional law which holds that the President of the United States possesses the power to control the entire executive branch. This doctrine is rooted in Article 2 of the United States Constitution, which vests the executive power of the United States in the President. Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine. Donald Trump has a unitary perspective on presidential power. Speaking at a conference in Washington, D.C., in July 2019, just after the publication of the Mueller report, President Trump both criticized the Mueller investigation and concluded, 'I have Article 2, I have the right to do whatever I want as president'. Neither was this the first time that Trump made this claim. Clearly, this is very expansive view of Article 2 and of presidential power.

Some analysts suggest that Trump has forged an altogether new way of understanding the presidency, pointing to the extensive use of executive orders, the declaration of emergencies on the border and in US cities, and to justify imposing tariffs, mostly on America's allies, and the use of the Justice Department to pursue Trump's enemies and attacks on boats in the Caribbean. However, while Trump's actions are unprecedented, they remain within the scope of the Constitution and are subject to judicial review. 

As yet, Trump has not directly ignored a judicial check. The view that Trump has reinvented the presidency depends on how unprecedented or otherwise his actions have been. Trump's second term has seen appointments based on loyalty rather than ability. While this is not unprecedented, the emphasis Trump places on loyalty as the most significant factor in appointing to the executive is unprecedented. His nomination of individuals like Matt Gaetz for Attorney General was criticized due to the nominee's primary qualification appearing to be personal loyalty and for potential conflicts of interest related to past investigations. Other Trump appointments such as Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard and Pam Bondi have appeared based solely on loyalty.

Trump's envoy to Russia, Steve Witkoff, has attracted particular ridicule for his lack of suitability for the role. 

The politicisation of appointments is a reflection of the ideological polarisation in American politics, and recent presidents' objective to advance a more defined political agenda. There is a price to pay in terms of presidential power, since the appointment of people with limited ability attracts criticism, ridicule, and less effective delivery of the president's priorities, an example being, among many, when Trump's second term was when defence secretary Pete Hegseth texted military plans for an attack on Yemen to a reporter from the Atlantic magazine.

The new Trump administration has adopted several controversial policies that are at odds with Congress's power of the purse. On the one hand, the administration has apparently offered many federal employees nine months of paid leave if they agree to resign from federal service. However, the legal basis for these offers is unclear. And no current appropriation by Congress may provide funds for them. The administration has attempted to pause certain government spending even though existing appropriations made by Congress may require at least some of this spending. These actions could violate not only Congress's constitutional power of the purse, but also specific statutes enacted by Congress to reinforce its constitutional authority. The buyout offers could violate a law called the Anti-Deficiency Act, which make it unlawful and sometimes criminal for government officials to commit to spending money without an appropriation providing the necessary funds. The pauses could violate the 1974 Impoundment Control Act mentioned before, which generally forbids the government from delaying or withholding spending the Congress has mandated. Courts are currently considering challenges to these actions based on these laws and other legal issues. Legislation such as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was designed to limit presidential control over spending, asserting congressional power of the purse. However, recent administrations, notably Trump, have challenged this law, claiming inherent presidential authority to withhold or delay spending. During his first term, the Trump administration was found by the Nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to have violated the impoundment act by withholding Congressional approved security aid for Ukraine. This action was a central component of his first impeachment for abuse of power. Early in his second term, Trump implemented a broad spending pause, impacting billions of dollars in federal grants, foreign aid and university funding. These actions have led to legal disputes and lawsuits from states and universities with courts issuing injunctions to halt some of these measures. Trump might be expecting Congress to address potential legal concerns by approving these actions retroactively in the up-and-coming appropriations legislation. Nevertheless, if Trump is genuinely violating Congress's spending laws and faces no repercussions, such actions could weaken Congress's constitutional authority to oversee and regulate Presidential policies.

 Before Trump, presidents observed political and social norms, at least in appearance, and seemed to acknowledge that the system depended on a mutual respect for them. Although many laws governed the behaviour of elected officials, many of the practices Americans had come to expect from their leaders were not codified in law, but rather in tradition. What social scientists call norms. Trump who prided himself in his independence and unique approach to politics routinely violated political norms. Examples include humiliating the president of an ally and a guest in front of the world's press, calling a female reporter piggy, and calling for the execution of democratic representatives who sought to remind those serving in the military of their legal obligation to disobey illegal orders. 

Trump's ability to act is also unprecedented because he has dominated the Republican Party to historically unprecedented extent. While past presidents have enjoyed periods when their party has held sway in Congress, they have still experienced greater opposition than Trump. The acquiescence of Congress, particularly in Trump's second term, is remarkable. In the past, there have been times when Congress was inclined to follow the president's lead, and enact his legislative programme, such as in the early years of FDR or after the 9-11 attacks. However, in Trump's first eight months, Congress has sat on its hands and watched a unilateral presidential abolition of an agency, which is unprecedented, and in the past, Congress has jealously guarded its control over government organisation. Trump has dismantled the United States Agency for International Development, by cutting almost every position and ending almost all funding. Congress has not approved the plan. Other presidents have successfully shut down agencies, often as part of an effort to make government more efficient, but only by working with Congress. 

The latitude which Congress has given Trump in his second term is remarkable. But when accompanied by a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, which is also an expansive view of presidential power, it has led to concerns that the balance of the Constitution is threatened. In the next few years, the elastic Constitution may snap back, particularly after the midterm elections. It's not impossible to imagine a scenario where the Trump family members are convicted of corruption and members of Trump's administration are guilty of war crimes. Trump's failing faculties and record-breaking unpopularity may prove to be increasingly limiting factors. Regardless, the US experiment is certainly being tested and many of its guardrails have buckled.