Fundamental reshaping of the constitutional president trump
We might already be seeing a fundamental reshaping of the constitutional president less than a month into the second Trump administration. The main goal of President Donald Trump’s first few weeks in office has been to undermine the executive branch, which he was elected to lead, through executive orders and memoranda. Among other things, he has fired thousands of federal employees who do critical work and frozen congressionally allotted monies in defiance of federal law. These show that Trump’s leadership style has the potential to completely alter the constitutional framework and the president’s function inside it.
The presidency has experienced numerous significant changes over the course of its history, and we may currently be on the verge of yet another pivotal moment. This evolution has the potential to shift our constitutional framework further away from a cooperative, interbranch democracy and towards a model that anticipates a powerful and haphazard presidency. Consequently, the forthcoming constitutional presidency may stand in opposition to the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
The rhetorical presidency
In 1987, political scientist Jeffrey Tulis released “The Rhetorical Presidency,” in which he identified a significant shift in the nature of the constitutional presidency during the early 20th century. Unlike their 19th-century predecessors, who were generally more reserved and viewed their role as complementary to that of Congress, presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt began to actively engage with the public. Tulis characterizes this evolution — the emergence of the rhetorical presidency — as the second constitutional presidency. This new form of presidential leadership has transformed the role of the presidency, yet it remains in constant tension with the original constitutional presidency, which cannot be entirely overshadowed due to its foundational constitutional principles.
The emergence of the rhetorical presidency signified a shift in the public’s perception regarding the role of the presidency and the expectations associated with presidential conduct. A president exhibiting a contrasting style would be perceived as atypical and out of place—potentially viewed as unsuccessful. A president who refrained from addressing the public directly or who did not frequently communicate beyond the confines of Congress would be seen as failing to meet the evolving public expectations of presidential responsibilities.
In this context, the tepid public approval ratings of President Joe Biden become more understandable. He has not neglected the responsibilities mandated by the Constitution; he has consistently fulfilled his role and ensured that laws are executed properly. Naturally, some of his decisions have not been universally accepted, which is typical for any president. Thus, Biden’s primary shortcoming lies not in the constitutional obligations of his office, but rather in his ability to communicate effectively. He has struggled as a rhetorical leader. His noticeable decline in cognitive function and his lifelong stutter have hindered his capacity to meet contemporary expectations of presidential communication, which demand a commanding presence, incisive remarks, and regular public engagement. With the evolution of the rhetorical presidency, the public now anticipates that presidents will frequently interact with them both in person and through media. As a result, Biden’s limited engagement has led many to perceive him as either ineffective or inadequate in his role.
The concept of the rhetorical presidency
The concept of the rhetorical presidency represents a significant constitutional evolution in two distinct ways. Firstly, it has become so integral to American political life that the Supreme Court recognizes the president’s rhetorical responsibilities as part of his “official acts,” thereby granting him immunity from criminal prosecution. Secondly, and more importantly, it has transformed the functioning of the constitutional system. Presidents are now increasingly viewed as the heads of their political parties and the primary architects of the government’s policy agenda. They are anticipated to present a comprehensive policy platform, rather than merely serving as effective administrators of government operations. This shift has resulted in a more prominent role for the national executive.
We currently inhabit a landscape characterized by what historian Arthur Schlesinger referred to as the “imperial presidency.” This concept highlights the gradual abandonment of constitutional constraints on presidential authority, particularly in the realms of foreign policy and military engagement. An example of this phenomenon is President Trump’s indication that he would not dismiss the option of employing military force to assert control over Greenland and the Panama Canal. While Schlesinger primarily focused on the diminishing legal boundaries surrounding presidential power, Tulis identifies a corresponding evolution in the presidency itself—a “metamorphosis” of the institution, rather than merely an alteration of the president’s legal powers.
It would be erroneous to consider Trump merely as another president within the continuum of those functioning under the imperial and rhetorical presidencies. Despite his difficulties in providing precise information and articulating responses clearly, Trump meets the public’s desire and increasing expectation for a president who interacts regularly and directly with the populace.
The approach to presidential governance adopted by Trump is characterized by the use of executive orders, memoranda, threats, and social media. This method tends to disregard legislation enacted by Congress, thereby diminishing the institution’s significance, which becomes primarily a forum for both staunch supporters and outspoken critics. Supreme Court rulings that limit executive authority are perceived as obstacles to be surmounted. There is an expectation for swift action and immediate outcomes, and the Constitution is viewed as malleable, or at times, even erroneous.
The significant and apparent inquiry is: Will Trump’s novel approach genuinely signify the next evolution in presidentialism? Will his manner become so ingrained in the narratives promoted by the public and the media that it will fundamentally alter the nature of the presidency? Is Trump’s presidential style indicative of the forthcoming rhetorical presidency? Are we observing the emergence of the third constitutional presidency?
Who assumes office without pledging
A president who assumes office without pledging to dismiss all appointees made by their predecessor, and without a clear agenda to overhaul the government, may be perceived as ineffective and unable to meet the high expectations associated with the role. Furthermore, any president who sets more restrained objectives than significant territorial expansion, dismantling long-standing administrative practices, or challenging previously accepted norms and institutional safeguards may face electoral repercussions.
This decree indicates that the government will be perceived as primarily centered around the presidency. Congress will likely be anticipated to continue its recent trend of remaining passive while the president disregards long-established laws that have been enacted over many years. Consequently, Congress will serve primarily as a venue for individuals aspiring to the presidency to refine their abilities and develop their platforms aimed at reshaping America according to their vision.
It is still too early in his administration to definitively assess whether Trump’s approach to the presidency will represent a new rhetorical style that fundamentally alters public perception of the office. At this point, we cannot ascertain whether Trump will usher in what could be termed the third constitutional presidency.
The enduring nature of the rhetorical presidency can be attributed to the public’s endorsement of the foundational concepts that support it. In a way, the normalization of the rhetorical presidency narrative has solidified its status as a significant political evolution. Embracing the narrative surrounding Trump’s approach to the presidency and viewing its principles as aligned with the Constitution will increase the likelihood of its permanence. This acceptance would signify that Trump’s presidential style is likely to be regarded as the standard, rather than the current perception of it as a serious challenge to the constitutional framework that has been cherished for an extended period.