President Donald Trump believes that the presidency holds vast powers that his predecessors used only sparingly. And if obstacles arise, the courts are ready to provide the ruling that suits him, since he has filled them with conservative judges—six of the nine Supreme Court justices, three of whom he appointed himself.
The theory of expanding executive power points to a profound shift in the way the United States is governed. It disrupts the balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at the federal level, and undermines the balance between the federal government and the powers and rights of the states. This is a structural transformation that goes beyond day-to-day politics, and whichever party controls Washington tends to embrace it. It reflects deep political polarization that hinders bipartisan cooperation in Congress, as it also reflects voters’ expectations that the president must act to compensate for congressional gridlock.
Evolution of Executive Power
Expanding presidential authority is not a new phenomenon but an accelerating pattern. The “Founding Fathers” intended a balanced system in which each branch checks the others. But presidents’ appetite for greater authority sparked early disputes over executive power.
The “stewardship theory,” advanced by President Theodore Roosevelt, held that the president carries a mandate from the people and therefore has the right to take any action he deems in the public interest unless explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. By contrast, President William Howard Taft embraced the “strict constructionist theory,” which confined presidential authority to narrowly defined constitutional powers.
Critical periods such as the Great Depression and World War II greatly expanded presidential power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected to four terms, introduced social programs that pulled the United States out of depression into a wartime economy and later prosperity. These programs set a precedent for strong presidential leadership in times of crisis.
After the war, the U.S. experienced an “imperial presidency,” especially in foreign policy, as presidents sent troops abroad without an official declaration of war, which is Congress’s prerogative. Later administrations strengthened the presidency further: President Reagan invoked the doctrine of “presidential supremacy in times of crisis,” while Presidents George H.W. Bush and successors used executive orders to reinterpret laws in ways favorable to the presidency rather than to Congress’s intent.
Executive in Modern Governance
Executive orders have become powerful tools, allowing presidents to set policy unilaterally. In July 2025, for example, a single administration issued orders concerning college sports, homelessness, artificial intelligence, and regulatory exemptions. These often reflect ideological priorities, such as repealing climate policies set by the previous administration or reframing homelessness policy from a social issue to one of mental health.
“Regulatory preemption” is another mechanism: federal agencies override state laws through regulations. For instance, while some states imposed emissions controls and fines, the Trump administration granted multi-year exemptions to industries.
Budget approval has also become an instrument of presidential leverage. Instead of bipartisan compromise respecting the Senate’s 60-vote rule, negotiations are increasingly confined to majority factions within both chambers, producing unified texts that bypass traditional legislative procedures. A fierce debate is set to resume next week to avoid a government shutdown at the end of this month if Congress does not authorize continued spending.
Erosion of States’ Rights, Partisan Federalism
Policies traditionally left to the states—such as education, health, and policing—are increasingly overridden by federal pressure. The current administration often reduces federal funding to states in order to force compliance with its policies.
This practice has weakened constitutional protections for states’ rights in favor of federal authority, since partisan loyalty now outweighs constitutional or ethical considerations.
Immigration policy under Trump illustrates this tension. His administration’s push for stricter measures—such as building the border wall and expanding deportations—faced resistance from states and localities with more lenient policies. Enforcement thus varied, succeeding where local authorities shared partisan loyalty with the federal government. Trump even deployed the National Guard in certain states without governors’ approval, contrary to law.
Constitutional, Institutional Consequences
This shift in power generates serious constitutional tensions over the balance of authority. Trump circumvented Congress’s role by exploiting partisan divisions, turning to “budget reconciliation”—a deal between Republican majorities in both chambers—that allowed massive spending without securing the 60 Senate votes otherwise required. This enabled the administration to push through its political agenda while sidestepping traditional legislative safeguards.
Congress also struggles to maintain its exclusive right to declare war. Presidents dispatch troops abroad for up to 90 days without such declarations, leaving Congress to accept a fait accompli.
The judiciary has likewise been drawn into legitimizing executive overreach, with courts endorsing expansions of presidential authority and granting presidents immunity for all “official acts” without clearly defining their scope. Recent Supreme Court rulings on presidential powers have eroded public confidence in the Court, with approval ratings nearing historic lows. This erosion of legitimacy challenges its effectiveness as a constitutional check.
Politics
