essay: evaluate the extent to which there is an 'imperial presidency' in the USA

intro:

imperial presidency: misuse of presidential powers, esp excessive secrecy in foreign policy and haughtiness in dealing w Congress

opposite = imperilled presidency: holder of a weak office ie insufficient power

judgement: can absolutely be described as imperial, rather than imperilled, but indeed sometimes inhibited, particularly when the president lacks a trifecta, but Trump currently does have a trifecta

p1: unilateral war powers n control of foreign policy, often without consulting congress = yes there is an imperial presidency to a large extent

• In 1958, President Eisenhower sent 14,000 troops to Lebanon again without any congressional authority.

• Libya 2011, Obama ordered air strikes - helped to destabilise the Libyan government.

• Trump paused military aid to Ukraine earlier this year (2025), without congressional approval, in order to pressure Pres Zelensky into negotiating peace terms w Russia

• this data shows the power that the president has at their disposal, which whilst not always used, can easily become imperial under hasty presidents eg Trump, and with a field as impactful as warfare, the exclusion of a variety of democratic voices is an increasing concern

• cp: limits of war powers = slight inhibitions on imperial presidency, but not so much that it can be described as imperilled

  • Presidents are particularly powerful over short-term action; longer term action is more easily regulated by the war powers act (1973) which limited presidents use of troops unless congress declared war, or funding restrictions

  • These regulations put over the president create more of an imperilled presidency

• mini-judgement: although presidents are technically regulated in terms of the military, more times than not they have had the power to do as they wish, and these powers are being increasingly utilised. the war powers act has indeed been ignored, circumvented or contested at least 4 times since 1999.

p2: presidential power of executive ordering » increasing prominence of such activity = yes, imperial presidency

• POTUS can instruct the executive branch to carry out/not carry out certain practises without consulting congress.

• This could be seen as effectively creating new policy without the need for a congressional vote.

• eg: Trump's 2017 executive order banning immigration from seven specified countries.

• Trump 2025 executive, unilateral order, withdrawing usa from the world health organisation

• these examples shows that the president can often find methods of evading the technical checks n barriers they are subject to = imperial presidency

• cp: limits to executive order » whilst theoretically the president should be inhibited from holding such power, they are often not, meaning that the imperial presidency claim still stands

  • The scope of these orders is limited:

  • in theory the president Cannot pass new laws but only enforce existing ones or use their power to govern the executive branch.

  • Obama’s DAPA and DACA was halted by a court ruling in 2016, as was Trump’s immigration executive order in 2017 » imperilled presidency?

  • these examples show that the president’s power is not as ultimate as some eg Trump II like to make it seem, as they remain subject to the judiciary particularly » unconstitutional behaviour is unconstitutional behaviour, and even the president cannot blatantly disregard this

• mini-judgement: though Presidents can evidently be inhibited when trying to pass through executive orders, in the larger scheme of things, they are often successful

p3: presidential power of signing statements » this is perhaps the most important point backing the claim of American presidencies as now being imperial positions, because even when bills pass through all correct procedures and channels democratically, the president has the final say in all the particular details of said bills

• A statement written and signed by POTUS at the same time as signing a piece of legislation.

• Gives POTUS power to effectively hold a line- item veto, allowing them to strike out individual lines of a bill.

• eg: in 2014, Obama signed the National Defence Authorisation Act, which contained a clause requiring the defence secretary to notify congressional committees at least 30 days before moving someone from Guantanamo Bay.

• this example shows the power presidents have, as the final signatory, even though they technically form only a little of the executive » quality over quantity

• moreover, presidents can simply not sign a bill within the 10-day period, with Congress adjourned, effectively vetoing the bill

• cp: limits to signing statements

  • POTUS can issue such words but may find it difficult to bring about any change.

  • For most laws, such as budget agreements, there is little a president can do through signing a statement - imperilled?

• mini-judgement:

  • though the laws that presidents actually have the ability to alter are in the minority, the fact that this power even exists for that one individual throughout the entire American governing system points to the imperiality of such a position

conclusion:

• in the usa, the presidency is imperial to a large extent, where, as the democratic nation contributes to the government process, the president’s role has become increasingly king-like. Trump, having only been in power for 2 months, has demonstrated extensively just how imperial this tenure of his will be, that is, to a large extent