The Conversation
(Translation in english from the original french text)
Donald Trump's presidential regime and the theory of the unitary executive
Published: June 7, 2026 3.08pm CEST
The reference to the theory of the "unitary executive" – an interpretation of the Constitution that consists of giving the president of the United States a very broad power – allows Donald Trump to govern as he pleases, or almost, in particular by taking control of normally independent agencies, to dismiss some of their officials or to exert greater influence over the Department of Justice. In itself, the theory is not absurd; but in the hands of such a man as the present occupant of the White House, it arouses the greatest fears.
Since his return to the White House on January 20, 2025, Donald Trump has continued to seek to expand his prerogatives. The actions taken in this direction have given rise to ever more alarming statements about the future of American democracy, the head of state being suspected of simply wanting to abolish elections, or of seriously considering a third presidential term, even though this would be contrary to the Constitution.
The current presidentialist drift manifests itself in various ways: Trump "governs by decree" bypassing Congress, embodies a form of "imperial presidency", politicizes the judiciary and constantly feeds cultural and media polarization.
All this is partly justified by the invocation of the theory of the unitary executive, promoted by thinkers close to the head of state, starting with those of the Heritage Foundation: a reading of the Constitution that aims to greatly reduce the checks and balances on presidential power.
Historical perspective
This theory of the "unitary executive" is, in itself, nothing absurd, because the US presidency has always been an ill-defined object.
In the first chapter of his reference work on the subject, published in 1957, the jurist Edward S. Corwin (1878-1963) began by recalling that the executive power was "undefined as to the function [...] and plastic as to the method", and that Article 2 of the Constitution (the one that defines the executive power) was "the most crudely sketched".
Europeans, get our weekly newsletter with analysis from European scholars
Please enter your email...
Get free newsletter
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
This is why constitutional experts regularly question the intentions of the "Founding Fathers", in particular by examining the content of the articles of the Federalist Papers, written by several of these Founding Fathers in order to convince Americans to ratify the Constitution after it has been drafted. As might be expected, the authors did not always agree on these issues.
Alexander Hamilton was notoriously in favor of a "vigorous" executive, whereas Thomas Jefferson expressed more reservations. However, in practice, Jefferson, president from 1801 to 1809, contributed just as much as his political opponents to extending presidential powers, notably during the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, or through his dispatch of the navy against the Barbary States before obtaining the agreement of Congress. From the first years of the United States' existence, theory and practice were therefore not always aligned.
It is for this reason that historical practice is often examined, as two eminent conservative jurists, Steve Calabresi and John Yoo, did in 2008. It appears that the vast majority of presidents have interpreted their prerogatives in a relatively broad way – including when they denounced this practice before they came to power. The need to take into account the president's propensity to maximize his personal power is at the heart of the theory of checks and balances, according to which, as James Madison (president from 1809 to 1817) famously puts it, "ambition must thwart ambition."
Similarly, the Founding Fathers knew that crises – and war in particular – would benefit the executive. It is precisely this importance of international tensions that historian Arthur M. Shlesinger Jr. Imperial President was emphasized in 1973 by the formula "imperial presidency", to describe the abuses of power that the tenants of the White House could indulge in by taking advantage of exceptional situations in foreign policy.
As you can see, the question of the unitary executive is part of the broader question of the respective prerogatives of the different branches of the federal government.
The theory today
The issue has remained a subject of debate over time, with the Supreme Court being seen as moving from one extreme to the other: Myers v. US (1926) upheld the power of removal, while Humphrey's Executor v. US (1935) restricted it by holding that an agency such as the Federal Trade Commission, created by an act of Congress, does not have an executive or political function.
The theory as we know it began to emerge during the debates over "executive privilege" under President Richard Nixon, particularly in the United States v. Nixon (1974) and Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) cases, when the president faced the threat of impeachment in the wake of the Watergate scandal. This is a historic moment in the debate over the presidency, which foreshadows the political polarization we know today and which is often attributed to Newt Gingrich and, to a lesser extent, Pat Buchanan.
Read more: Understanding Trumpism Beyond Trump
The theory really took shape during the "conservative revolution" led by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, which can be better understood as a "counter-revolution" responding to the progressivism of the previous decades, notably manifested by the civil rights laws adopted in the 1960s (Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act) or on the protection of abortion through the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in 1973. The Reagan administration then sought to limit the ability of federal agencies to implement affirmative action, to which it preferred "colorblind" policies, and declared during these disputes that the presumed independence of certain commissions was only "hogwash". It is striking to see how the policies of the Reagan administration foreshadow the attacks of the Trump administration and the Roberts Court (the current Supreme Court, composed of six conservatives, including Supreme Justice John Roberts, and three progressives) against the successes of the civil rights movement.
It should be noted, however, that while the theory remains popular among conservatives, a less extreme but comparable version was developed by progressives as the "presidential administration" in the aftermath of the Clinton presidency, notably in 2001 by legal scholar Elena Kagan, who would become a Supreme Court justice in 2010. The popularity of these ideas, then, cannot be attributed solely to the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025," the latest in a series of documents aimed at helping Republican presidents implement conservative policies – a project in which the American Civil Liberties Union has seen a program that threatens to erode citizens' civil rights and freedoms.
Read more: "Project 2025": Trump's secret playbook comes to life
It is now expected that the Supreme Court will make a reversal of jurisprudence through the Trump v. Slaughter, about Trump's dismissal in 2025 of a (Democratic) member of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter. For the time being, Humphrey's Executor v. US (1935) is still a precedent: it states that the president cannot dismiss the members of this Commission without serious misconduct. But the Supreme Court's first decision on the case, taken "as a matter of urgency" – a practice that is also being debated – already shows that the court's conservative justices intend to give the president the power to fire members of all federal agencies.
The theory... and its application
The theory of the unitary executive is part of a broader context and developments. Calabresi and Yoo explicitly limited its contours to the management of federal agencies, excluding issues related to foreign policy or dealing directly with civil rights. It can be noted that Yoo has already distanced himself from the policies of the first Trump administration, which shows that even the theorists of the unitary executive are not insensitive to the president's abuses.
It must be said that the Trump administration has used theory to attack certain agencies with extreme brutality, through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk until May 2025. Through numerous decrees, he has reduced the workforce, drastically reduced hiring, and asserted his control over federal civil servants, who are now subject to statutes aimed at ensuring their obedience. The dismantling of the Department of Education by decree or the closure of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) by DOGE were certainly among the most shocking applications of the theory.
However, the latter represents only one conceptual tool among others from which the Trump II administration can draw to increase the power of the president. If it sounds frightening, it's because it's combined with many other developments: a cultural and political polarization that leads to historical developments such as the end of the constitutional right to abortion by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022); a growing erosion of checks and balances; and a presidentialism that owes much to Donald Trump's histrionic personality.
United States
Constitution
Donald Trump
Constitutional Law
Separation of powers
Trumpism
Supreme Court (United States)
Author
Jacob Maillet
Doctor in Anglophone Studies, specializing in American Civilization and American Politics, Université Paris Cité
Disclosure statement
Jacob Maillet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners
University of Paris Cité
Université Paris Cité provides funding as a member of The Conversation FR.
View all partners
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64628/AAK.cyeg9m3ep
CC BY ND
We believe in the free flow of information
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.
Republish this article
Hear from more scholars in Europe
There are millions of people who are working to find solutions to our biggest problems.
In our weekly email, which I help curate, you will get a balanced news diet that doesn't leave you exhausted... but energised and hopeful about European matters.
Get our newsletter
Avatar
Laura Hood
Politics Editor & Assistant Editor, The Conversation UK
No comments:
Post a Comment