The Paradox of Presidential Power
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
Jun 13, 2025 -
All presidents face a paradox: the public's expectations for presidents often exceed the scope of their formal powers. This discrepancy compels them to stretch the limits of executive power to fulfill these expectations.
We expect presidents to stimulate the economy, promote national interests, resolve crises, console us during tragedies, and solve every conceivable economic, social, and international problem. When they fail to meet these expectations, presidential disapproval rises, and we remove them and their party from office.
The problem is that the president’s formal powers are insufficient to accomplish the tasks at hand. The president’s power to propose legislation and appoint officials cannot prod domestic and international actors to do the president’s bidding. Consequently, the president takes bold, unilateral action and dares adversaries to stop him.
Like his predecessors, Trump utilizes constitutional, statutory, and emergency powers as a legal foundation for his actions. First, President Trump argues that Article II’s Vesting Clause grants the president exclusive authority over the executive branch. This means every policymaker in the bureaucracy must act according to Trump’s directives. Unlike other presidents, Trump believes this authority encompasses independent regulatory agencies that perform quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions. As a result, he has dismissed both career officials with civil service protection and independent agency officials serving fixed terms, while mandating that independent agencies submit their regulations for his approval.
Second, Congress delegates the president authority to undertake specific actions, such as suspending the entry of dangerous individuals. Third, Trump has declared eight national emergencies to advance fossil fuel production, curb the flow of fentanyl, construct a border wall, and impose sweeping tariffs. Presidents utilize emergency powers because emergencies heighten public tolerance for sweeping executive action.
Presidents frequently employ unilateral actions to overcome political gridlock and strengthen their position. Trump is reducing government spending, laying off bureaucrats, deporting illegal immigrants, and initiating trade wars that Congress would likely not approve on its own. Even if Congress did agree, he would have to wait a year or more to act. Instead, he is taking quick and decisive actions to fulfill his campaign promises, which excites his political base.
Trump is also strategically utilizing unilateral action to shift the terms of debate in politically favorable ways. His most aggressive actions are what Republicans refer to as “80-20” issues, where the majority of the public aligns with his views. When discussions focus on meritocracy versus equity and affirmative action, combating antisemitism versus pro-Hamas protests, deporting illegal immigrants, men competing in women's sports, or politically correct universities, Republicans tend to come out on top. Even when Trump overreacts — as evidenced by his pressure on universities — he inadvertently strengthens the resolve of other players (e.g., administrators, moderate faculty, alumni, and state legislatures) to push for reforms that advance his goals.
Despite these actions, there are significant Congressional, bureaucratic, and judicial checks on unilateral power. First, President Trump cannot eliminate any cabinet department or agency, as that authority lies with Congress, and Trump lacks the votes to do so. Moreover, appropriations bills require a supermajority to pass the Senate, which leads the parties to support each other’s priorities. Consequently, most spending cuts will likely be restored this year.
Second, bureaucratic resistance checks unilateral action because the president delegates the implementation of orders to bureaucrats and department heads. This resistance helps explain the failures of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Although DOGE claims to have cut $180 billion, this amount is less than Elon Musk’s promised $2 trillion reduction. Initially, DOGE implemented broad, indiscriminate cuts, but they soon had to reverse many of these decisions. Subsequently, cabinet secretaries intervened to determine cuts within their departments, which limited DOGE's authority.
Third, the Associated Press has reported that the courts have either partially or fully blocked 89 executive actions while upholding 49 actions, with 78 cases still pending. Recent Supreme Court decisions on presidential immunity (Trump v. US, 2024) and presidential removal (Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2020) suggest the Supreme Court may support Trump’s claims to direct the bureaucracy. However, the “major questions” doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) and limits on presidential discretion to interpret laws (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024) will likely restrict presidential actions unless Congress provides explicit authorization.
Finally, presidents check each other and cancel extreme orders. Executive actions that are ideologically moderate, popular, or strongly grounded in the law or constitution are likely to persist. For instance, Trump’s orders banning affirmative action align with the Civil Rights Act and constitutional law (Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard, 2023), making them unlikely to be reversed.
The irony of the paradox of presidential power lies in the fact that the democratic desire to meet public expectations can undermine the separation of powers. However, even when a president stretches boundaries like Trump, we should remain hopeful that our institutional checks and balances will safeguard constitutional governance.
This column originally appeared in the online Jackson Sun on June 13, 2025