A New Imperial Presidency

Eric Fan

“LONG LIVE THE KING” 

• Official White House social media, Feb. 19, 2025

The basis of our republican government has been a system of checks and balances that ensures no single branch of our federal government grows too powerful. It is a concept that is taught in basic American civic lessons. For centuries, these checks and balances have, for the most part, been successful in preventing any one branch of government from becoming dictatorial. In the 249 years since our nation’s inception, no president has threatened to be as imperial as the second Trump administration. 

Since his inauguration, the 47th President has exercised a level of executive power that has pushed the constitutional boundaries of his authority to its limits. He has signed an executive order that gave himself greater power over independent regulatory committees such as the Securities Exchange Commission. Trump has insisted that all government employees be loyal to him and extended his influence into previously nonpartisan areas. Trump granted Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team sweeping access to various regulatory agencies in the federal government, including sensitive data that includes sensitive social security information and child support databases. The administration has also set its sights on shutting down agencies such as the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. However, it is unclear whether Trump has the authority to unilaterally shut these agencies down, as their  budgets have already been allocated and approved by Congress. Then again, his authority to implement many of the items on his agenda remains unclear. We are entering a presidency that, in its infancy, already has raised significant questions on its constitutional authority. Trump himself is all too familiar with these questions. The end of his first term in office was marred in controversy as he violated multiple laws and constitutional principles during his attempts to overturn the 2020 election with the fake elector scheme and Jan. 6 insurrection. And yet, he has emerged completely unscathed, dodging any consequences for his actions during that period. Trump himself has learned from this experience and he has so far followed Project 2025 to a tee, clearly laid out the intention of greatly expanding the power and influence of the executive through the Unitary Executive Theory, and on the campaign trail, Trump consistently called for retribution against those that he perceived as having targeted him during this period. 

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

• John Adams, Federalist No. 47

 Fortunately, our founding fathers predicted the possibility that the chief executive would disregard the Constitution and its norms in this manner. They took it upon themselves to ensure that the legislature, judiciary and executive are designed to work in conjunction to balance each other’s powers and have, thus far, successfully kept the presidency in check. Yet the influence of the popular juggernaut that is Donald Trump has critically undermined the independence of the other branches, leaving our system of checks and balances in greater danger than ever before.

Legislative Abdication

“[The Senate’s power to approve or reject the President’s nominees] would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters.”

• Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 76

 From RFK Jr., a vaccine skeptic chosen to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, to Kash Patel, the nominee to lead the FBI  with no law enforcement experience, to Tulsi Gabbard, who has expressed sympathies for America’s adversaries and appointed to be the Director of National Intelligence, the nominees Trump has put forth to carry out his agenda have been unprecedentedly controversial. Many of these nominees lack the conventional qualifications one would expect—with the exception of their personal loyalty to the president. Yet, one after another, GOP senators have fallen in line and each of Trump’s nominees have cruised to confirmation. Bill Cassidy, a former physician-turned-Republican senator, an opponent of vaccine skepticism and Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election in the past, voted in favor of RFK Jr. ‘s nomination. Thom Tillis, a senator from a crucial swing state, has voted for all of Trump’s nominees as well. The nomination of Russel Vought, key architect of Project 2025 and a self described Christian nationalist, was pushed through with the votes of every single Republican senator.

The Republican Party’s reluctance to resist Trump’s nominees and his agenda as a whole stems largely from the president’s stranglehold on the party’s electoral politics. Many Republican lawmakers, even those who may privately disapprove of Trump’s methods, fear alienating the GOP base, which remains fiercely loyal to him. The consequences of speaking out against Trump have been demonstrated repeatedly. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, once staunch conservatives, became political pariahs within their own party after criticizing Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Cheney, a former member of House Republican leadership and daughter of a former Republican vice president, was ousted in a primary by a Trump-backed challenger after criticizing Trump for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. Kinzinger, facing a hostile political environment, chose not to seek re-election. Both were labeled “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only) despite years of unwavering conservative voting records.

This climate of fear has turned the legislative branch into an enabler rather than a check on executive power. The Senate, meant to serve as a guardrail against unqualified appointees, now rubber-stamps nearly all of Trump’s nominees, prioritizing party loyalty over institutional integrity. The result is an emboldened executive that faces little to no meaningful resistance from the branch that was designed to counterbalance it.

Judicial Weakness

“The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.”

• Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The judiciary has historically been the strongest institutional check on the executive branch. For over two centuries, courts have intervened to curb presidential excesses, striking down unconstitutional executive orders and ensuring legal accountability.

However, judicial independence is now under siege. Trump’s three Supreme Court appointments have cemented a conservative supermajority that will shape American law for generations. This same court granted Trump wide-ranging immunity in Trump v. United States (2024). Lower courts have also been stacked with judges sympathetic to Trump’s legal theories, some of whom have shown reluctance to rule against him. Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, has drawn scrutiny for her rulings that consistently appear to favor Trump in legal proceedings related to his handling of classified documents. 

Despite some judicial resistance—such as court rulings stalling DOGE initiatives to unilaterally fire federal workers and shut down agencies, the overarching trend has been one of deference. Trump’s legal entanglements, which include multiple indictments and allegations of election interference, have yet to seriously hinder his political ambitions. The judicial branch’s reluctance to act decisively raises serious questions about its ability to function as a meaningful check on executive power.

The situation is further exacerbated by the rhetoric of Trump’s allies. Vice President J.D Vance recently suggested that the courts lack the legitimacy to restrain executive authority altogether. Such sentiments echo the legal arguments Trump’s lawyers have made in court, particularly regarding claims of presidential immunity. If these arguments gain traction, they could effectively place the presidency above the law, eliminating the judiciary as a counterbalance altogether.

A System in Peril

The erosion of legislative and judicial constraints on the presidency is unprecedented in American history. While past presidents such as Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and FDR have wielded the executive branch as a sledgehammer, the combination of a compliant Congress, a compromised judiciary and an ideological framework that seeks to dismantle checks and balances marks a turning point in the boundaries of executive authority. 

The Founding Fathers, wary of concentrated power, designed a system that required institutional pushback from all three branches. However, they did not anticipate a scenario in which one branch could so thoroughly dominate the others. With the Republican Party largely in lockstep behind Trump, internal resistance is unlikely. The opposition now falls primarily to Democratic lawmakers, state governments, and civil society organizations. The question remains whether these forces will be enough to preserve the fragile balance of American democracy. As Project 2025 looms and the Unitary Executive Theory gains traction, the United States faces a constitutional crisis of its own making. If the presidency continues its drift toward unchecked authority, the fundamental principles of American governance may be irreversibly altered. Whether the nation’s institutions can still fulfill their intended roles remains the defining question of this era.