7-Does the US have an imperial presidency?

Paragraph 1: Executive Orders and Signing Statements

Explanation:
Some argue the president can bypass Congress using executive orders and signing statements, allowing them to enact policy unilaterally. This could reflect an imperial presidency where checks are weakened.

Evidence:
For example, Trump issued 220 executive orders, including his controversial 2017 travel ban. Presidents also use signing statements to declare parts of bills "unconstitutional" and refuse to enforce them, such as Bush on national security bills.

Stronger Argument (Against Imperial):
However, these powers are limited and can be legally challenged or overturned, so they do not amount to unchecked power.

Explanation:
Executive actions must comply with the Constitution and are regularly reviewed by courts. Most major policy still requires congressional approval—especially where funding is involved.

Evidence:
Trump’s travel ban was blocked by lower courts before a revised version passed. Similarly, Biden has struggled to enact key policy areas (e.g. Build Back Better) despite heavy use of executive orders—showing limited actual power.

Paragraph 2: Executive Agreements and Treaties

Explanation:
Presidents can use executive agreements instead of treaties, bypassing the need for Senate ratification and increasing their unilateral control over foreign relations.

Evidence:
Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal (2015) avoided Senate approval, and Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord via executive order. These decisions involved major global commitments without direct congressional involvement.

Stronger Argument (Against Imperial):
However, executive agreements lack the permanence or legitimacy of treaties and can be undone easily, showing the limits of presidential power.

Explanation:
Because they do not go through the Senate, these agreements are more vulnerable to reversal, undermining their long-term effectiveness and credibility in international affairs.

Evidence:
Trump quickly withdrew from both the Paris Agreement and the Iran Deal upon entering office. This inconsistency reflects that presidents aren’t truly dominant in international policymaking without congressional backing.

Paragraph 3: Foreign Policy and War Powers

Explanation:
The president’s role as Commander-in-Chief allows them to take military action without consulting Congress, suggesting strong imperial tendencies in foreign policy.

Evidence:
Obama used drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen without congressional approval. Trump dropped the "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan and assassinated Soleimani, again without prior authorisation.

Stronger Argument (For Imperial):
In contrast to other areas, foreign policy is where the president truly acts imperially, often unchecked in practice due to vague legal limits and slow congressional response.

Explanation:
The War Powers Resolution (1973) has been frequently ignored or side-stepped, and Congress rarely punishes presidents for unauthorised military action. Public expectation that the president “acts fast” in crises enhances this unchecked power.

Evidence:
Presidents regularly inform Congress after military operations begin, rather than before. The Supreme Court has not blocked this, and Congress rarely intervenes, even in extended conflicts (e.g. Afghanistan, Syria).