Imperial presidency is a term describing the modernpresidency of the United States. It became popular in the 1960s and served as the title of historianArthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s 1973 bookThe Imperial Presidency, addressing his concerns that the presidency was uncontrollable and had exceeded its constitutional limits.[1]
According to political science professorThomas E. Cronin, author ofThe State of the Presidency, the term "imperial presidency" describes the danger inherent in the Americanconstitutional system's letting a president create and abuse presidential prerogatives during national emergencies,[2] based on presidential war powers that are vaguely defined in the Constitution, and on secrecy which shields a president from checks and balances by the government's legislative and judicial branches.[2]
Until the 1930s, the president had few staff, most based in theCapitol, where the president had always maintained an office (thePresident's Room). The office later became used only for ceremonial occasions, but in the 19th and early 20th centuries, presidents regularly operated out of the Capitol Hill office. However,Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency (1933–1945) during theGreat Depression andWorld War II altered the previous importance of the office. The new age of electronic media, the growth of executive agencies under theNew Deal, hisBrain Trust advisors, and the creation of theExecutive Office of the President in 1939 all marked the growth of the traditionally small presidential staff.
The post-war presidency has a large executive staff most often crowded in theWest Wing (redesigned in 1934), the basement of theWhite House, or in theEisenhower Executive Office Building, which is beside the White House and used by the Departments of Defense and State. Progressive overcrowding in the West Wing led PresidentRichard Nixon to convert the former presidential swimming pool into apress room.
The presidencies ofRichard Nixon andRonald Reagan were particularly described as surrounded by "courts" in which junior staffers acted occasionally in contravention ofexecutive orders orActs of Congress. Schlesinger pointed out activities of some Nixon staffers during theWatergate affair as an example. Under Reagan (1981–1989), the role of Lieutenant ColonelOliver North, USMC, in the facilitation of funding to theContras in Nicaragua, in explicit contravention of a congressional ban, was highlighted as an example of the ability to act by a "junior courtier" based on his position as a member of a large White House staff.Howard Baker, who served as Reagan's final Chief of Staff, was critical of the growth, complexity, and apparent unanswerability of the presidential "court".
HistorianZachary Karabell argued that executive power grew further in the 21st century, due in part to congressional inaction. Citing the presidencies ofGeorge W. Bush andBarack Obama as examples, he wrote: "9/11 saw the beginning of the current move toward an imperial presidency, as George W. Bush keyed off the crisis to expand executive authority in national security and domestic surveillance. In that, his administration had the legal but classified support of Congress, and for a time, a considerable portion of the public." Karabell said that this trend continued under Obama, and that "stonewalling" from Congress "provoked the Obama administration into finding innovative ways to exercise power," making Obama "one of the most powerful presidents ever." He wrote that this trend could potentially set precedent for further expansion of executive power.[3]
Karabell later argued that thefirst presidency of Donald Trump had the possibly unintended effect of eroding executive power, citing the rescission of theDACA immigration policy and the Trump administration's threat to use its position to withdraw fromNAFTA as instances which have led to some power being returned to Congress at the executive branch's expense.[4] Nevertheless, Princeton University historians Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer argued that aspects of the imperial presidency were apparent in the Trump administration.[5]
In 2024, the US Supreme Court granted presidents presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts, and absolute immunity for acts within their "conclusive and preclusive" constitutional authority in a 6-3 ruling in the caseTrump v. United States. In her dissenting opinion to the ruling, JusticeSonia Sotomayor said that "in every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law." JusticeKetanji Brown Jackson also described immunity as giving rise to a king in her dissent.[6] Legal commentators have described the decision as enshrining the imperial presidency into law by placing the president above the law.[7][8][9]
Alasdair Roberts argued that the concept of the imperial presidency neglects several important changes in the context of governance over the last three decades, all of which tend to restrict the president's actual power:[10]
The "Imperiled Presidency" was a theory of former PresidentGerald Ford.[11] Ford argued that rather than being too powerful, the president does not have enough power to be effective. The growth in the size of the bureaucracy surrounding the president since theNew Deal made the executive more difficult to control. Ford said that "a principal weakness in the presidency is the inability of the White House to maintain control over the large federal bureaucracy. There is nothing more frustrating for a President than to issue an order to a Cabinet officer, and then find that, when the order gets out in the field, it is totally mutilated."
According to Dino P. Christenson and Douglas L. Kriner, presidents have considerable leeway to act independently of Congress and the courts, but unless domestic public opinion is in their favor, unilateral action risks inciting political pushback.[12]
The presidencies of France[13][14] and South Korea[15][16] have also been described as imperial presidencies.
Especially in South Korea, because of this, the Institute for Democracy and Diversity (V-Dem) insists that South Korea's dictatorship has been under way sinceYoon Suk-yeol assumed office as president. V-Dem was based on the fact that the Yoon Seok-yeol government had taken suppressions against the opposition party.[17]