When Donald Trump assumed office as 47th president of the United States he committed himself under oath to “faithfully execute” the office and to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States”. As he did so, Trump must have been aware that those who had framed the constitution in 1787 believed that one of its primary purposes was to regulate and control the executive power of the president.
That he was conscious of the existence of such restraints is suggested by the actions he has taken to circumvent what the framers introduced. Thus, during his first term as president, he selected judges for appointment to the supreme court who, he expected, would comply with his wishes. More particularly, both when in and out of office, Trump and his supporters have invested much effort and money at district and state levels to help secure the election as members in the House of Representatives and as senators in the US Senate of people who are known to be ardent, uncritical supporters. Because he has taken such measures, Trump could, in good conscience, take the presidential oath confident that he would enjoy support from the judicial and legislative branches of government that the drafters of the constitution had intended would act as counterweights to the executive power of the president.
The constitution was drafted by what is known as the Federal Convention, which met in Philadelphia from May to September 1787 at the instigation of several of the prominent leaders in the recently fought American revolutionary war. These leaders took pride in the independence that Britain had been forced to concede in 1781 to 13 of its colonies in mainland North America that had combined to resist crown authority.
[ While Democrats sleep, Donald Trump is tearing up America’s rule bookOpens in new window ]
However, notwithstanding their victory over Britain, these revolutionary leaders remained convinced that the Articles of Confederation that, since 1781, had bound what had become 13 independent states into a loosely federated United States, were not proving sufficient either to control dissent within and between the 13 states or to resist attack from without. These concerns led them to contemplate the institution of an executive officer at the national level, to be known as president.
10 of the best new shows to watch in April: including Netflix medical drama and two AppleTV+ releases
MobLand review: Pierce Brosnan’s Irish accent is a horror for the ages. Forget licence to kill, this is more Darby O’Gill
Steve Wall: ‘When Bono was offered the medal, I tweeted: Surely he won’t accept that. I didn’t know he already had’
Several of the 39 members who participated in the convention had reservations about this proposal, principally because they had difficulty in reconciling the establishment of an executive authority at the national level with the republican and federal principles that had justified the revolution for which they had fought. These doubtful ones, guided both by what they knew of the fate of the republic in ancient Rome and by their own recent experience with British rule, believed that the creation of a presidency was akin to restoring monarchy with its associated “bribery and influence”, which they believed certain to have a corrupting influence over republican virtue.
The Bill of Rights again reflected the misgiving that was widespread throughout the US that executive power and republican principles were incompatible
To assuage such concerns, the convention recommended the establishment, also at the national level, of an elected Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives) that would have exclusive power to enact laws and approve the raising of revenue, thus placing limitations on presidential power. The members of the convention also recommended the creation of a supreme court that would adjudicate on “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution”. This combination of proposals required that the existing 13 states should surrender to the national government some of the powers and autonomy they had previously enjoyed. To compensate for such loss, the convention recommended that the existing states would, in proportion to their wealth and population, exercise a controlling influence over federal elections both for the presidency and for the two houses of Congress. Furthermore, they recommended that elections for the House of Representatives, for the Senate and for the offices of president and vice-president would each be conducted from a different electoral base and for different periods of time in the expectation that this would ensure that each elected body would be independent of the others.
Following prolonged debate, the members of the convention reached a consensus concerning a draft constitution, which they expected would provide “regular and efficient government” that would not arouse “a natural jealousy” concerning the possible “abuse” of power, and that would treat all states that belonged to the federation equitably. They believed their proposal would provide an effective, republican and federal form of government, and they proceeded confidently to put the draft constitution before the electorate of the 13 states to be ratified by them. They hoped thus to receive a popular endorsement of the draft document after which it could be represented as a constitution that had emanated from “we the people of the United States”.
The ensuing effort to secure ratification from the electorate in all 13 states gave rise to contentious debate that persisted for two years. The outcome was that the constitution drafted by the convention did not become operative until 1789, and then only after it had been augmented by 10 amendments that collectively became known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments again reflected the misgiving that was widespread throughout the US that executive power and republican principles were incompatible. To counteract such concern the Bill of Rights was devoted principally to protecting individual liberties against arbitrary authority.
The constitution that came into force in 1789 did grant “executive power” to the president of the United States in specified areas, and especially so in foreign relations. However, it provided also for a separation of the powers enjoyed by the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches of government. This came to mean in practice that the powers identified specifically with the office of president, other than that “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment”, were subject to the agreement of either the House of Representatives or the Senate. The separation of powers came to mean also that any Act or decision of the president became subject to scrutiny by the supreme court, and that the president, like all other elected officials, might “be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours”.
Several amendments, other than the first 10 of 1789, have since been added to the constitution to meet changing circumstances. However, the framework of government, with its complex checks and balances, that was adopted by the “people” in 1789 has remained constant.
Because of this constancy I believe that a constitutional crisis is about to beset the United States neither because the present administration has infringed upon any constitutional constraints on the power of the president, nor because the current president has plans to amend the constitution, as did Vladimir Putin in Russia. The crisis that I believe to be imminent is that President Trump and his closest advisers have taken steps to circumvent the constraints upon the executive authority of president imposed by the constitution.
Moreover the president leaves no doubt that he wishes to enjoy independent authority to deal with internal and external issues similar to that exercised by his counterparts in Russia and China, and that he will brook no opposition to what he seems to consider a God-given responsibility to “Make America great again”. What precisely Trump means by this mantra remains undefined, but it seems from his actions that he and his closest advisers wish to restore the US to the condition in which it was during the 1920s, when those he likes to describe as “wealth-makers” were untrammelled by regulations relating to banking and stock exchange services, to manufacturing activity and to the general conduct of business.
[ US chief justice criticises Trump’s threat to impeach judgesOpens in new window ]
What Trump and his closest advisers seem to wish for is a return to an era when the federal government showed little concern for the health, wellbeing and education of the country’s citizenship, and when people were permitted to be oblivious to the dangers associated with heedless exploitation of the country’s and the world’s natural resources.
One can hardly wish to deny rulers the wish to pursue utopian dreams, but it is expected in democratic countries that such ambitions be held in check by constitutional constraints. Our one consolation is that the US constitution remains in place, even if its oppositional dimensions have become eerily silent when President Trump and his closest associates invoke “national emergency” and spurn rational debate as they proceed with measures that threaten the lives, security and employment of US citizens.
Even more alarming is the fact that the very survival of humanity is being placed in jeopardy because climate change has been declared a hoax by the leader of the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels per head of population.
Notwithstanding such concerns, I remain optimistic that the existential crisis that seems certain to engulf the world if Trump’s ambitions are not held in check can be averted. My optimism is based first in my belief that members of the supreme and federal courts, even those closely vetted by Trump, will remain true to their obligation to uphold the constitution whenever issues are referred to them for adjudication. In doing so they would be following the example of the late justice Antonin Scalia, who always insisted upon adhering to the literal interpretation of the constitution.
My second reason for optimism is that I expect the autocratic mode in which President Trump has been conducting business will alienate at least a small number of the current Republican members of Congress and persuade them to vote with their Democratic colleagues to curb or withhold money from some of Trump’s more extravagant schemes.
And my third reason for optimism is that I believe a sufficient number of the US electorate who voted for Trump in the 2024 presidential election will have become so alarmed by their president’s recent dictatorial style and by his unvarnished intention to cancel every advantage given to the general population in the New Deal of the 1930s and 1940s that they will turn the midterm elections of 2026 into a referendum on his rule. By November 2026 all seats in the House of Representatives and a third of those in the Senate will fall vacant. If, in the ensuing elections, the Republican Party loses control of either or both houses, this turnabout will produce a restoration of the constitutional constraints on the power of the president.
Should the outcome prove otherwise, we may give heed to the words of Benjamin Franklin who, when he recommended the adoption of the draft constitution at the close of the Federal Convention of 1787, predicted it would become “a blessing to the people if well administered” but that it could “only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government being incapable of any other”.
Nicholas Canny is professor emeritus of history at the University of Galway
