The Presidential Power Paradox: Necessity, Danger, and the Trump Example

A Powerful Executive is Essential in Modern Governments, but how much Power is too much?

Jul 07, 2025

Late on a Monday evening in January 2025, Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent out a deceptively brief two-page memo that would trigger one of the most dramatic constitutional crises of Trump's second term. The memo ordered federal agencies to "temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance"— a directive so sweeping it effectively attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in congressionally appropriated funding with the stroke of a pen.

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One en route from Miami to Joint Base Andrews, Md., Monday, Jan. 27, 2025. Source: Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo

The memo's language was both vague and alarming. It instructed agencies to halt funding for programs that might be "implicated" by Trump's executive orders, including anything related to "foreign aid, non-governmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal". What made this particularly striking was not just the partisan language embedded in an official government document, but the sheer breadth of programs potentially affected. The directive covered everything from infrastructure projects and energy grants to diversity programs and international aid — representing what one federal employee described as "essentially the entire federal government except Social Security and Medicare".

FTotal Outlays for Grants to State and Local Governments by Function, Agency, and Program. Source: Tax Policy Center.

The Immediate Chaos

Within hours of the memo's release, chaos erupted across the federal government. Agency officials found themselves in an impossible position: comply with the directive and potentially violate congressionally mandated spending requirements, or ignore it and risk disciplinary action from the White House. The confusion was so widespread that even the administration's own clarifications seemed to contradict each other.

At the Department of Health and Human Services, officials frantically tried to determine whether Medicaid payments to states would be affected — a question with life-or-death implications for millions of Americans. Meanwhile, at the Department of Education, administrators weren't sure if Title I funding for disadvantaged schools should continue flowing, despite the White House's later assertion that such programs were exempted.

The memo's 5p.m. Tuesday deadline for implementation added to the frenzy. Nonprofit organizations that depend on federal grants began making emergency plans to lay off staff. Universities worried about losing research funding mid-project. State governments, which rely heavily on federal transfers, started preparing for potential budget shortfalls that could affect everything from highway maintenance to public health programs.

Perhaps most tellingly, the administration's own attempts to clarify which programs were exempt only deepened the confusion. A White House fact sheet released Tuesday afternoon stated that programs providing "direct benefits to Americans" were excluded, but failed to define what constituted "direct benefits" versus indirect assistance. Was the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program considered direct assistance, or was it subject to the freeze because it operates through state agencies? The administration couldn't provide a clear answer.

The American presidency embodies one of democracy's most profound tensions: how to vest sufficient authority in an executive to govern effectively while preventing that power from corrupting democratic institutions. This paradox has become particularly acute during the Trump era, where the boundaries between necessary executive action and authoritarian overreach have been repeatedly tested and, according to many constitutional scholars, crossed.

Thanks for reading Contrarian Indicator! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

Crisis Demands Leadership

Presidential power exists for sound constitutional and practical reasons. National emergencies require decisive leadership, and the presidency, unlike the fragmented legislative branch, can act with speed and unity of purpose. During crises, whether economic depressions, natural disasters, or national security threats, the public naturally looks to the president for leadership. Historical precedents demonstrate that effective presidential action can be essential for national survival and prosperity.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's expansion of federal power during the Great Depression illustrates this necessity. His administration fundamentally reshaped the relationship between government and citizens, creating lasting institutions like Social Security and establishing the federal government's role in economic stabilization. While controversial at the time, these actions arguably saved American democracy by addressing existential economic threats through democratic means rather than allowing conditions to deteriorate toward more radical solutions.

Number of Emergencies No Longer in Effect, by Preseident 1979-2019 Source: L. Elaine Halchin, Cong. Research Serv., CRS Rep. No. 98-505, National Emergency Powers 12 (2020). https://socialchangenyu.com/harbinger/trust-the-process-how-the-national-emergency-act-threatens-marginalized-populations-and-the-constitution-and-what-to-do-about-it/

Administrative Efficiency

The modern federal government employs over 4 million people and manages complex operations across countless agencies. The unitary executive theory, in its moderate form, recognizes that effective governance requires clear chains of command and accountability. A president must be able to direct executive branch officials to implement policies consistently with the administration's priorities. Without this authority, the executive branch would become a collection of independent fiefdoms, undermining democratic accountability and efficient governance.

The constitutional design reflects this understanding. Article II vests "the executive power" in the president and requires that laws "be faithfully executed". This grants presidents both the authority and responsibility to manage the executive branch effectively. When used within constitutional bounds, this power enables responsive government that can adapt to changing circumstances and public needs.

Historical Warnings

The Framers understood that concentrated executive power posed inherent dangers to liberty. Their recent experience with monarchical rule informed a constitutional design explicitly intended to prevent tyranny through separation of powers and checks and balances. As Alexander Hamilton noted, while energy in the executive was essential, it had to be constrained by law and institutional checks.

The historical expansion of presidential power demonstrates how temporary emergency measures can become permanent features of governance. Each crisis tends to ratchet executive authority higher, with subsequent presidents inheriting and often expanding upon their predecessors' precedents. This process accelerated dramatically in the 20th century, particularly after the New Deal and World War II, creating what scholars term the "imperial presidency."

The Trump Administration as Case Study

The Trump presidency provides a stark illustration of how executive power can be weaponized against democratic institutions. Trump's approach represented what legal scholars describe as a "unitary executive on steroids"—an extreme interpretation that views presidential authority as virtually unlimited.

Donald Trump, on his first day as president during his second term, signing executive orders and taking press questions in the Oval Office on January 20, 2025 Source: Wikipedia

Constitutional Violations

Trump's actions during both his first and second terms demonstrate the dangers of unchecked executive power. His 2025 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship directly contradicts the 14th Amendment and over a century of Supreme Court precedent. By ordering federal agencies to refuse citizenship documents to constitutionally guaranteed citizens, Trump essentially attempted to unilaterally amend the Constitution—a power reserved exclusively to the constitutional amendment process.

Similarly, Trump's federal spending freeze violated the Constitution's separation of powers. The "power of the purse" belongs exclusively to Congress under Article I, yet Trump attempted to halt congressionally appropriated funding through executive action. When courts ordered him to stop, his administration initially defied judicial authority, undermining the rule of law itself.

Systematic Assault on Oversight

Trump's mass firing of inspectors general represents another dangerous precedent. These watchdogs serve as crucial checks on executive power, investigating waste, fraud, and abuse across agencies. By firing them en masse without the legally required 30-day notice to Congress, Trump violated federal law while eliminating key oversight mechanisms. This "Friday night purge" was designed to remove independent voices that might constrain his authority.

The pattern extends to broader attacks on the administrative state. Trump's executive orders systematically dismantled diversity and inclusion programs, removed protective regulations, and restructured agencies to concentrate power in political appointees rather than career civil servants. This represents an effort to politicize the entire federal bureaucracy, making it responsive to presidential whims rather than law and professional expertise.

The Collapse of Checks and Balances

Congressional Abdication

The Trump era has exposed fundamental weaknesses in the constitutional system of checks and balances. Congress, designed as a co-equal branch, has largely abdicated its oversight responsibilities when controlled by the president's party. During Trump's first term, a Republican Congress repeatedly refused to investigate clear abuses of power, treating party loyalty as more important than constitutional duty.

This partisan capture of oversight functions represents a systemic failure of the Framers' design. The architects of the Constitution assumed that institutional loyalty would trump partisan considerations—that members of Congress would defend their branch's prerogatives against executive encroachment regardless of party affiliation. Instead, hyper-polarization has transformed Congress into an enabler rather than a check on presidential power when unified party control exists.

Judicial Resistance and Executive Defiance

While federal courts have repeatedly blocked Trump's most extreme actions, the administration's response reveals the ultimate fragility of legal constraints. When judges issued injunctions against the birthright citizenship order and federal spending freeze, Trump's team initially suggested they would ignore adverse rulings. Vice President Vance's assertion that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" represents a fundamental rejection of judicial review.

This defiance threatens the entire constitutional order. The American system relies on voluntary compliance with legal constraints—if a president simply refuses to follow court orders, the rule of law collapses. Trump's strategy appears designed to create a constitutional crisis where legal institutions become powerless to constrain executive action.

The Authoritarian Trajectory

Incremental Autocratization

Scholars studying democratic breakdown identify Trump's actions as following the classic pattern of incremental autocratization. This process involves gradually dismantling democratic institutions while maintaining the façade of constitutional government. Rather than seizing power through a coup, would-be authoritarians use legal and quasi-legal means to concentrate authority and eliminate constraints.

Trump's approach includes mass firing of civil servants, excessive use of executive orders to bypass Congress, attacks on press freedom, and systematic efforts to limit civil rights. Each action individually might seem within presidential prerogatives, but collectively they represent a coordinated assault on democratic institutions. The goal is to create what scholars call an "elected autocracy"—a system where elections continue but meaningful constraints on power disappear.

The Project 2025 Blueprint

The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 provides a roadmap for this transformation. The plan explicitly calls for "abolishing the administrative state" and restructuring government to serve authoritarian aims. It envisions firing supposedly "un-fireable" federal bureaucrats, shuttering agencies that provide oversight, and concentrating power in political appointees loyal to the president rather than the Constitution.

This represents a fundamental reimagining of American governance. Rather than a government of laws administered by professional civil servants, Project 2025 envisions a personalized system where presidential will becomes the organizing principle. Such a transformation would effectively end the American experiment in constitutional democracy.

Balancing Power and Accountability

Necessary Reforms

The Trump experience demonstrates that existing constitutional safeguards are insufficient for the modern presidency. Reform efforts must focus on both strengthening constraints on executive power and ensuring presidents retain the authority necessary for effective governance.

Statutory reforms could include strengthening inspector general independence, requiring supermajority votes for their removal, and creating more robust oversight mechanisms that cannot be easily dismantled. Congressional procedures should be reformed to ensure meaningful oversight regardless of partisan control, perhaps through empowering minority party members with investigative authority.

Constitutional amendments might be necessary to clarify the limits of executive power, particularly regarding emergency authorities and the scope of unilateral action. The vague language of Article II has proven insufficient to constrain determined presidents willing to push boundaries.

Protecting Democratic Institutions

The ultimate safeguard against executive overreach must be a democratic culture that values constitutional constraints over partisan advantage. This requires both political leaders and citizens who understand that preserving democracy sometimes means accepting electoral losses rather than undermining institutional safeguards.

Educational institutions, civil society organizations, and the press play crucial roles in maintaining this democratic culture. They must help citizens understand that protecting constitutional democracy serves everyone's long-term interests, even when it constrains preferred policies in the short term.

Conclusion

The tension between executive effectiveness and democratic accountability represents an enduring challenge for constitutional democracy. Presidents need sufficient authority to govern effectively, particularly during crises that demand rapid, decisive action. However, the Trump presidency demonstrates how this necessary power can be weaponized against the very democratic institutions it is meant to serve.

The solution lies not in eliminating presidential power but in strengthening the institutional and cultural constraints that channel that power toward constitutional ends. This requires both structural reforms and a renewed commitment to democratic norms among political leaders and citizens alike. The stakes could not be higher: without effective constraints on executive power, American democracy faces an uncertain future where electoral victory becomes a license for authoritarian rule rather than an opportunity for democratic governance.

The ultimate test of American constitutional democracy will be whether it can adapt its 18th-century framework to address 21st-century threats to liberty while preserving the executive energy necessary for effective governance. Success will require both institutional reform and cultural renewal—a recognition that preserving democracy demands constant vigilance against the concentration of power, regardless of which party benefits in the short term.

Notes: This is my own opinion and not the opinion of my employer, State Street, or any other organization. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell any stock. My team and I use a Large Language Model (LLM) aided workflow. This allows us to test 5-10 ideas and curate the best 2-4 a week for you to read. Rest easy that we fact-check, edit, and reorganize the writing so that the output is more engaging, more reliable, and more informative than vanilla LLM output. We are always looking for feedback to improve this process.

Additionally, if you would like updates more frequently, follow us on x: https://x.com/cameronfen1. In addition, feel free to send me corrections, new ideas for articles, or anything else you think I would like: cameronfen at gmail dot com.

Contrarian Indicator