Trump: An Imperial Presidency
From the excessive and coercive response in the streets of cities like Los Angeles and Minneapolis—where the National Guard and ICE immigration agents are deployed against protesters—to international interventions in Venezuela and Iran and pressure on Cuba and Greenland, Donald Trump not only acts as if his power were unlimited, but also as if his power were unlimited. And he does so because the system—until now—has largely allowed it: Congress, dominated by his party, has relinquished its role as a counterweight; the Supreme Court has offered him crucial cover, shielding his executive orders from almost any judicial checks; and both the economic elites and the international community have validated his power, whether out of self-interest or fear of reprisals.
In fact, since the beginning of his term almost a year ago, Trump has presented himself as a sovereign with almost absolute power. Even in his inaugural address, he sought an almost mystical legitimacy and presented himself as an envoy of God to make America great again. This aura of an untouchable leader took shape shortly afterward: first, with a fake cover on Time where he appeared crowned as a king and, finally, with a tweet in which he paraphrased Napoleon: "He who saves the country does not break the law."
With this phrase, Trump links his power to modern absolutism and, more specifically, to the theory of the German thinker Carl Schmitt: the idea that "the sovereign is the one who decides on the state of exception"; that is, the leader who can suspend the ordinary legal order to protect the state. When a leader feels legitimized to suspend the law at will, institutions are emptied of meaning: the norm is no longer the Constitution, but the conscience of the leader.
He expressed this himself just a week ago in an interview in the New York TimesWhen he stated that the only limit to his actions is his own morality. Days later, on CBS, he clarified that in domestic matters, the Constitution and the courts remain the ultimate authority, but insisted that, in his conception of power, these checks and balances are secondary. According to the president, his desire to "look out for the good of the country" acts as a prior guarantee that makes judicial intervention almost unnecessary: "We'll never have to go to court," he asserted.
Unilateral power without checks and balances
His unilateral actions and self-confidence have been especially visible in foreign policy. In this area, his style of governance seems to fit with another form of modern absolutism: the "imperial presidency," as described by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. The Imperial Presidency (1973), thinking especially of Richard Nixon. For Schlesinger, this type of presidency concentrates power, governs in secret, and empties democratic checks and balances of their content until they become inoperative. We could say that Trump has put this vision into practice in his actions in Venezuela and Iran, in the threats against Greenland, and in the tariff offensive against allies and adversaries: scenarios where unilateral action has replaced international norms and institutional checks and balances.
However, this increasingly absolute power of Trump could have an expiration date. The midterm elections are approaching, and a loss of the Republican majority in one of the chambers—a scenario that seems quite likely—could reintroduce real political brakes and restore the legislature's counterbalancing function. But until this happens, if it happens at all, Trump continues to govern with the conviction that the scope of his power is not defined by rules, but by the limits placed upon him.
