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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting
The polls did not look good for New York progressives this winter when the Working Families party began making its endorsements for city elections. An early February poll from Emerson College showed Andrew Cuomo with a 23-point lead in a hypothetical Democratic primary matchup. None of the four leading progressives even approached double-digit support – including the then unknown assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. He polled at 1%. In the days before ranked-choice voting, the Working Families party's endorsement process might have looked quite different. Like-minded candidates would have drawn sharp distinctions between each other. Party officials might have looked to nudge candidates toward the exits, behind closed doors. Before any votes had been cast in the primary, the party would consolidate behind just one choice. It would have been bloody and left a bitter taste for everyone. Instead, the opposite happened. Working Families, knowing that majorities rule and that no one can spoil a ranked-choice race, endorsed four candidates. Instead of a single endorsement that served as a kiss of death for other progressives, they backed a slate, allowing voters time to tune in and for candidates to make their pitches. Now Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and the overwhelming favorite to go from 1% all the way to Gracie Mansion. There are many reasons why this 33-year-old pulled off a seemingly unthinkable upset and soared from obscurity to the most talked about Democrat in the nation overnight. He energized young people, reached voters where they are on social media and built an unstoppable coalition. He and his volunteers talked to everyone, everywhere. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) encouraged and incentivized that joyous, barnstorming approach. And while Mamdani ultimately would have won a plurality contest or a ranked-choice one, his super-long-shot candidacy might have been squelched at the very beginning under the old system with its different electoral incentives. His victory shows how much more real power voters have under ranked-choice voting. To be clear: RCV is a party-neutral and candidate-neutral tool. Its job is to produce a majority winner with the widest and deepest support from any field of more than two candidates. It puts an end to spoilers and to the impossible, wish-and-a-prayer calculation that voters otherwise have to make when faced with multiple candidates, some of whom they really like and some of whom they do not. Liberals, conservatives, independents and moderates have run and won under RCV, from coast to coast. But while RCV might be strictly non-partisan, it is decidedly pro-voter – and almost always produces a more positive, issue-focused campaign that looks to drive up turnout and appeal to as many people as possible. A ranked-choice campaign rewards engagement and encourages coalitions; it's a race where instead of tearing down opponents, candidates point out areas of agreement and ask to be a voter's second choice. Voters love RCV and find it easy to use. According to a new SurveyUSA poll of New York voters, 96% said their ballot was easy to fill out. More than three-quarters of voters want to keep or expand RCV. And 82% said they had taken advantage of RCV and ranked at least two candidates. (These numbers are similar across RCV elections, and a powerful rejoinder to critics who insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that it's too confusing.) A remarkable number of New Yorkers saw first-hand how RCV makes our votes more powerful – they had the freedom to express themselves and rank a long-shot first, but still had their vote count for either Mamdani or Cuomo in the ranked choice tally. Perhaps the high marks are of little surprise: voters received a campaign unlike most any other. The tone remained positive and issue-based. Instead of cutting each other down, candidates lifted each other up: Mamdani and Brad Lander cross-endorsed each other, cutting joint ads, riding bicycles together to shared events, sharing the couch on Stephen Colbert, and even sharing a stage at Mamdani's victory party. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson endorsed Cuomo and said that they would rank him second. Mamdani helped Adrienne Adams with fundraising. Sign up to Fighting Back Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk. after newsletter promotion Voters always say that they want more choice at the polls, candidates who engage with them, and a genuine, issue-based campaign. They got exactly that in New York City because of ranked choice. And the historic turnout levels – more than 1 million New Yorkers cast ballots, the highest number since the 1980s – shows that when voters get that kind of elevated, engaging campaign, they show up and get involved. When voters have the opportunity to consider new candidates campaigning in creative new ways, the frontrunner with the early name recognition and largest donors can be eclipsed by a newcomer who started at 1%. And instead of going scorched-earth on each other before the general election, even some of the 'losers' seem to have had their status elevated: Lander finished third, and instead of being an asterisk, he has now expanded his base and likability for a future campaign. The majority winner in this race was Zohran Mamdani. But it's also easy to suggest the real winner might be ranked-choice voting. In a moment when so many of our elections are fraught and polarized, all of us looking for a more unified and hopeful path forward – the 'politics of the future', as Mamdani called it when he declared victory – should take a close look at what just happened in New York as proof that stronger elections are truly possible. Outside of Washington, cities and states are becoming laboratories of democracy once again. New York's adoption of ranked-choice voting led to just the kind of campaign our politics so desperately needs: a giant field of candidates presenting their vision of the future, building coalitions, without any time squandered on 'spoilers' or anyone pushed to drop out and consolidate early. In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, voters modernized government and moved to proportional representation to elect the city council, broadening representation to groups and neighborhoods that have never before had a seat at the table. When voters make these changes, they like them, defend them, and expand them, as we have seen in New York, Maine and Alaska. And it won't take long for people to ask why they can't have ranked choice and proportionality in all their elections. David Daley is the author of Antidemocratic: Inside the Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections as well as Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Netanyahu to visit White House amid Gaza ceasefire talks
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Trump at the White House on Monday, as momentum appears to ramp up in the latest talks for a potential Gaza ceasefire deal. NBC News' Daniele Hamamdjian has the 6, 2025
.jpg%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)

The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump scorches Elon Musk's plans for a third party: ‘TRAIN WRECK'
President Donald Trump delivered a brutal takedown of Elon Musk 's plans to launch a third party Sunday evening - calling his former ally a 'train wreck.' In a lengthy Truth Social tirade, Trump said Musk has gone 'off the rails' in recent weeks, and repeated his theory that the tech mogul's problem with the sweeping tax bill signed into law on Friday was its elimination of incentives for electric vehicles. 'I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,' Trump wrote. 'He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States – The System seems not designed for them,' he added. 'The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS, and we have enough of that with the Radical Left Democrats, who have lost their confidence and their minds!' Trump first addressed Musk's plans for the new-found 'America Party' during a press gaggle Sunday afternoon before he boarded Air Force One. 'I think it's ridiculous to start a third party,' Trump said, adding later: 'So he can have fun with it, but I think it's ridiculous.'