Is Trump's expansion of presidential powers setting the stage for future Oval Office holders?

The Guardian

16 hours ago

Near corn dog and cookie vendors, Ray Seeman was washing his hands on a sweltering day. He had come to the rally in a Maga cap and a T-shirt that proclaimed: Cult 45: proud member. Is this a cult? 'It seems like it,' he laughed. 'It seems like you're either in or you're out.'
A cult, perhaps, but not an imperial presidency, Seeman insisted, though he does understand Donald Trump's frustrations. 'I don't like executive orders,' he said. 'I like it to go through due process. But at the same time you've got to get stuff done sometimes.'
A few thousand people had gathered at the Iowa state fairgrounds on Thursday to witness the president kick off a year-long celebration of the US's 250th anniversary of independence from a tyrannical king. No one here seemed concerned that the US might now be propping up a monarch of its own. But Trump's critics warn of an expansion of presidential power unlike anything seen in modern American history.
In less than six months, Trump has taken a series of executive actions that have established new norms for the authority of whoever occupies the Oval Office. Longstanding mechanisms designed to limit executive power – Congress, the judiciary and internal safeguards – are being undermined or proving ineffective in restraining him.
Last month, Trump ordered a military strike on Iran without seeking congressional approval. A solitary Republican, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, spoke out to describe the move as unconstitutional because only Congress has the power to declare war. Trump scorned him and, setting another dangerous precedent, imposed a limit on classified information shared with senators and representatives.
Trump took unilateral action to impose tariffs under the cover of declaring a national emergency. He dismantled agencies, fired civil servants and froze spending that was approved by Congress and assumed to be protected by law; he has, for example, blocked more than $6bn in federal funding that helps fund after-school and summer programmes.
Trump shattered another norm when he took control of California's national guard and deployed it to quell mostly peaceful protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles, despite opposition from state governor Gavin Newsom and other state officials.
The president has breached the justice department's traditional independence, ordering it to scrutinise his political opponents and punish his critics through measures such as stripping their Secret Service protections. At the same time, he pardoned his supporters who took part in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, abandoning any notion that pardons be used sparingly.
While courts have acted to block some executive actions, the US supreme court's recent ruling limiting nationwide injunctions and Trump's direct attacks on judges signal the weakening of another democratic guardrail.
And even as Trump brazenly accepts gifts from foreign countries, seeks to profit from the presidency through a cryptocurrency venture and bullies law firms, media companies and universities – all unthinkable under his predecessors – there is only token resistance from Congress.
Republicans hold the majority in both chambers and have a cultish devotion to Trump, or visceral fear of his wrath. On Thursday, they rammed through his 'big, beautiful bill' despite warnings that it will rip the social safety net from millions of Americans and add trillions of dollars to the national deficit.
Hours later, a triumphant Trump was greeted in Des Moines, Iowa, by supporters in a car park festooned with 55 national flags. One man wore a T-shirt entirely covered with a photo of a bloodied Trump with fist raised after last year's assassination attempt. A bearded vendor in a red T-shirt, checked shorts and plastic flip-flops spread red Trump 2028 caps on the ground. Flags and T-shirts declared: 'Jesus is my savior. Trump is my president.'
Michelle Coon, 57, a psychotherapist, denied that Trump is behaving like an autocrat. 'I don't think he has been given that kind of power,' she said. 'I see people in Congress having a voice. He's lucky enough to have both houses right now; he might not have that in two years. The supreme court has come down both on his side and against his perspective so I see it fairly balanced right now.'
Coon added: 'He's a great leader but I don't think that's necessarily authoritarian. He's trying to gather a lot of people around him to get good wisdom from others. I don't think we have anything to fear here.'
Josue Rodriguez, 38, a pastor who works for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, was equally sanguine. 'We have a wonderful system called checks and balances where, if they feel that an individual has become all too powerful, too mighty, they have the right to take him to court and the supreme court will decide what is correct and not correct,' he said.
Rodriguez also retains faith in political parties, saying: 'If they feel that the president is acting in a manner that goes against the American people or what is allowed legally, he will be challenged within his own party. At the end of the day, these people want to get re-elected and they're not going to allow things that will cause them to lose their re-elections.'
But some analysts suggest that extreme partisanship is preventing effective congressional oversight, as members of the president's party are unwilling to challenge Trump's overreach. They are sounding the alarm about an erosion of democratic norms that could have lasting implications for future presidencies.
Bill Galston, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington, this week initiated a new executive power project because he considers it the most important constitutional issue of the moment.
'It didn't start with President Trump but it may end there,' Galston said. 'It's hard to imagine a subsequent president seeking to advance executive power as a deliberate project to the extent that President Trump has been doing.
'This is not an accident. This was something that was carefully planned as both a political strategy and a legal strategy and I have to say I'm impressed with the administration's strategic focus on the issue of presidential power and the elimination of long-established limits to it.'
Galston pointed to a drive to undermine the autonomy of so-called independent agencies. A legal challenge has been set in motion that will likely culminate in a supreme court decision next term that, Galston suspects, may effectively eliminate a 90-year precedent that guaranteed the independence of agencies.
Trump is not the first American president to see how far he can go. In 1973, the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr published The Imperial Presidency, acknowledging that, while he had cheered on Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the expansion of executive authority now threatened to 'override the separation of powers and burst the bonds of the Constitution'.
The book was timely because the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam war saw a reassertion of congressional authority in the domestic and foreign spheres. Presidential power began to expand again, however, under Ronald Reagan.
Galston noted: 'Young conservatives who came of age serving in the Reagan administration chafed more and more against congressional restraints, culminating in the publication in 1989 of a collection of essays by the American Enterprise Institute called The Fettered Presidency.
'So in 16 years, the adjective switches from 'imperial' to 'fettered' and I trace a lot of the modern conservative drive to expand the powers of the president at Congress's expense to that experience.'
The trend accelerated with George W Bush's aggressive response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks. But other factors were in play: whereas divided government was once cause for negotiation, deepening polarisation between the parties made gridlock more likely, much to the frustration of the White House occupant.
Barack Obama duly used an executive action to create the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) programme. He stepped up his use of such actions in 2014 as he became frustrated with how difficult it was to push legislation through Congress, saying: 'I've got a pen and I've got a phone.'
Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said: 'There's a long history here and it's not just Trump. Look at just this century. Bush expanded presidential powers in ways that Obama took advantage of and then Obama expanded presidential powers in ways that Trump then expanded on.
'You can think of this as a loaded gun that's left on the table in the Oval Office. It's quite alarming. The next president who comes in, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to see the office through the eyes of their predecessor, not through the eyes of George Washington, who was leery of using his powers.'