The American Revolution was a result of the tyranny experienced by colonists under the British monarchy . Many Americans had fled from Europe where they had been persecuted under the rule of powerful monarchs. The government produced by the revolution was designed to ensure no such tyranny could be reproduced in the newly formed United States.
Author
- Dafydd Townley
Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth
The framers of the constitution created a checks-and-balances system of government to ensure that no single branch of the federal government (executive, judicial or legislative) could dominate the others. Each branch has powers to curtail or empower the others.
However, some Americans are concerned about a return of absolute rule due to the steps taken by Donald Trump's second administration. This has sparked around 100 "no kings" protests all over the US, organised to coincide with Trump's birthday on June 15 .
Increasing presidential power
The second Trump administration has made a determined effort to strengthen presidential power and reduce oversight of the executive branch (the presidency). Achieving this could mean the president acting in an arbitrary manner similar to absolute monarchs of the past, free of congressional or judicial interference.
Trump's "big beautiful bill" , which has been passed in the House of Representatives and now must go to the Senate, contains certain provisions that strengthen the role of the president and undermine the checks-and-balances system.
Previous presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt during the New Deal era of the 1930s, had many of their executive orders cancelled by Supreme Court rulings. Over the last five months, the judiciary has ruled on the constitutionality of Trump's executive actions, putting at least 180 on hold.
As a consequence, the president has continually questioned the validity of the courts to act. At last week's West Point graduation ceremony, Trump claimed that last November's election result "gives us the right to do what we wanna do to make our country great again".
As Robert Reich, the former US secretary of labor, wrote recently, this "big beautiful bill" will remove the courts' ability to hold executive officials in contempt and undermine any efforts to stop the administration. Supreme Court rulings could be ignored by the executive branch, and Congress would be unable to enforce its subpoenas and laws. "Trump will have crowned himself king," Reich concluded.
Just like the judicial branch, the legislative branch (Congress) also has the ability to check the executive branch. Congress can override the presidential veto if both the House and Senate pass legislation with a two-thirds majority. And the executive branch (the president) cannot fund any initiatives without the budget being approved by Congress first.
But Trump and his supporters have minimised the impact that Congress can have on this particular bill by including all of the provisions within a budget reconciliation bill . This is a special legislative procedure that is designed to pass bills through Congress quickly.
Bills usually require 60 votes to bypass a filibuster - a tactic used by senators to delay voting on the bill by refusing to end the debate and speaking for exceptionally long times without a break.
But because this is a budget reconciliation, it only requires a majority - 51 votes - to pass the Senate. And because the Republicans have 53 seats in the Senate, Trump is confident the bill will pass without any Democratic interference.
The House narrowly passed the bill, despite some opposition from Republicans. And some Republican senators have also expressed concerns. But this is the latest move to centralise greater power within the presidency.
Trump v the courts
Trump's apparent belief that he is above the law has, in part, been supported by last year's Supreme Court ruling which stated that former presidents had immunity from prosecution for official presidential acts. The Trump v United States decision decided such acts included command of the military, control of the executive branch, and execution of laws.
However, this week's federal court ruling on the legality of Trump's economic tariffs represents a setback to the administration's efforts to strengthen presidential power. The Court of International Trade ruled that the White House's use of emergency powers did not grant it the authority to impose tariffs on every country, and that the constitution states such power resides within Congress.
The Trump administration immediately said it would be appealing the decision. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," Kush Desai, the White House deputy press secretary, said on the ruling, and that Trump would use "every lever of executive power" to "restore American greatness".
All of which has led Trump to quote another authoritarian leader, Napoleon, on social media. His post - "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law" - was a clear rebuke to those who have tried to limit executive authority while he has been in office, and echoes that of former president Richard Nixon who, in an interview with David Frost about the Watergate scandal, argued that the constitution allowed the president to break the law.
This is an extension of the notion that Article II of the constitution has granted the president the authority to act without checks and balances when dealing with the executive branch. It is a theory much touted within Project 2025 , believed to be the blueprint for the Trump presidency.
There are other historical comparisons that could be made of Trump's authoritarian actions, such as the rule of Charles I of England (1625-49), who believed he could govern without consulting parliament except when he needed to raise taxes to conduct overseas campaigns. Ultimately, this led to a period of civil wars and the execution of the king for treason.
While none of these consequences are likely to be replicated, it is clear the US is currently in a constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court has a number of rulings to make on the judicial challenges to Trump's executive authority. These will have generational consequences - but it is unclear in which way the court, where conservative judges have a 6-3 majority, will lean.
While Trump may not be seeking a crown for his head, he is certainly arguing that he has the right to control the executive branch in the way he sees fit, without any interference from Congress or the judiciary. This is not the separation of powers as prescribed by the framers of the US constitution, but more like the absolutism of medieval monarchs.
Dafydd Townley 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.
