Authors:
Historic Era: Era 10: Contemporary United States (1968 to the present)
Historic Theme:
Subject:
Winter 2025 | Volume 70, Issue 1
Authors:
Historic Era: Era 10: Contemporary United States (1968 to the present)
Historic Theme:
Subject:
Winter 2025 | Volume 70, Issue 1
Editor’s Note: Todd Belt is a Professor and Director of the Political Management Master's Program at George Washington University. He is the co-author of four books, including The Presidency and Domestic Policy: Comparing Leadership Styles, FDR to Biden, the third edition of which was released in 2024.
For the past 25 years, I have taught courses on the U.S. presidency, emphasizing a fundamental principle: the president is not a king. While most of Americans don’t want a king, they do want a more active chief executive — and a more effective government.
As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 70, the energy of government is in the executive (branch), and that is where we expect it to originate. In popular culture, we often laud presidents who find a way to get things done. In the TV show House of Cards, for example, President Frank Underwood resorts to emergency powers to get his employment program (called AmWorks) implemented.
Some see our governmental system as sclerotic and in need of a push. Others are concerned about consequences that could result if pushed too hard. That’s why it is crucial for us to consider what history reveals about presidents who have pushed the system and some of the tools they have used – from Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to Franklin Roosevelt’s court-packing plan to Richard Nixon’s assertion of executive privilege. More recently, Donald Trump has tested the limits of executive power in unprecedented ways.
Understanding these moments in history helps us navigate our country’s ongoing tension between strong leadership and the constitutional limits designed to prevent an imperial presidency.
The president’s powers are often unclear, with limited direct constitutional authority. Article II of the Constitution, which addresses the presidency, was written to be deliberately vague. The authors of the Constitution knew they wanted a president because the Articles of Confederation weren’t working. They needed a head of state who could exert executive power. But they also knew they didn’t want a king. To strike a balance, they left it largely up to the discretion of the office holders to define the office over time.
We have a system of government with checks and balances, shared powers, and federalism (the division of the powers between the states and the federal government). As Congress has given away more and more power to the presidency, states have increasingly used the federal courts to block presidents’ actions. Trump’s quick use of executive orders in the first week of his second term generated numerous and nearly immediate challenges in the federal courts.
All of these potential roadblocks can make things difficult for a president trying to exert power. As presidential scholar Richard Neustadt noted, unlike the specific authority grated to congress in the Constitution, a president’s true influence lies in the ability to persuade, achieved through bargaining and even personal pressure. A perfect example is the famous photo of Lyndon B. Johnson’s giving his signature “treatment” to Senator Theodore Green of Rhode Island, a display of power and persuasion from Johnson’s days as Senate majority leader.
LBJ continued to use his powers of persuasion in the White House to push his legislative agenda effectively. Other less direct avenues for persuasion and pressure exist through mass media (exemplified by Ronald Reagan) and social media (exemplified by Donald Trump), whereby the public is rallied to pressure the president’s targets.
We know that presidents face different levels of opportunity. To use a baseball metaphor, presidents aren’t starting pitchers; they are relief pitchers who come in midway in a game facing different situations. Barack Obama inherited two wars. Joe Biden inherited a COVID pandemic. President Donald Trump inherited two crises, one in Ukraine and one in Israel.
Opportunities for presidents to leverage their power comes in various forms. The mood of the public is one factor that shapes their opportunities. Sometimes people want the president to do something. When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933 during the Great Depression, for example, many Americans were desperate for government action. At other times, the public has wanted presidents not to do something. In 1980, for instance, voters elected Ronald Reagan, who championed limited government and deregulation. Back then, government was seen by many as the problem, not the solution.
In considering President Trump’s opportunities in his second term, it’s important to recognize that the public mood in the election was one of change. In terms of public support, he claims an electoral mandate for change, having won all seven swing states, but he only secured 49.8% of the popular vote. It’s possible that President Trump is not merely overstating his mandate but also misreading it, since it remains unclear whether his voters supported some of his most radical policy priorities since taking office, such as acquiring Greenland or the Panama Canal Zone.
An important question is also perception: do the people around President Trump, and do members of Congress, believe he has that public support? And are they concerned about his level of support? Importantly, do sitting members of Congress believe the president’s level of support is particularly problematic for their electoral future?
If presidents can bring in new members of Congress from their own party and secure a favorable balance of power in the House and the Senate, those opportunities can significantly enhance