Society & Politics

Do you understand the premise of the Unitary Executive?

Do you understand the premise of the Unitary Executive?

As President Trump's term is becoming entrenched, there is already an air of change in Washington. Executive agencies are being reorganized. Officials are being dismissed or sidelined for disloyalty. Presidential control over departments, once presumed independent is tightening. To some observers, this looks like chaos or even authoritarian rule. But beneath the theatrical outrages, there is something more deliberate. It is the full realization of a long debated, but rarely applied Constitutional theorizing.

It is called The Unitary Executive. It is not a only a theory. The Unitary Executive premise holds that all executive power; every function of enforcement, administration, and execution of federal law, resides exclusively with the President alone. That power may be delegated to subordinates, but it is never jointly shared. Per the Constitutional design, The Unitary Executive is not a radical claim. Article II Section One begins simply: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Unitary theorists take that language seriously. So why is this so unfamiliar now?

Because for most of the 20th century, presidential power was exercised within an expanding Administrative State, often defined more by expertise than hierarchy. Congress created agencies, insulated them from direct political control, and imbued vast decision-making authority to thousands of unelected officials. Even Presidents who chafed against this system; such as FDR's independent monetary boards, Nixon's EPA, and Reagan's civil rights enforcement, generally operated within them, side stepping entrenched agencies rather than defying or dismantling them.

The notion that the President has direct authority over the entire Executive branch, runs counter to the expert-led norms that shaped modern federal governance. Those norms are not Constitutional requirements. Because of that, President Trump’s has renewed an assertion of direct control over the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Civil Service, and others, has struck so many observers as aberrations. But it is also Constitutional, according to Originalist legal scholarship and multiple Supreme Court rulings that have leaned steadily in this direction.

When President Trump and his allies speak of a deep state, they are not just critiquing bureaucracy. They are challenging the legitimacy of many Executive branch officers who operate independently of Presidential Authority. According to the Unitary Executive premise, the Constitution does not merely permit the President to fire subordinates who resist his agenda. It requires that. Independence within the executive branch is a Constitutional defect.

Critics are justified in raising alarms that President Trump could abuse this power. But many miss the broader story. We are not witnessing the collapse of the Rule of Law. It is a dispute between two very different visions of Executive power. One is rooted in the post–New Deal Administrative State. The other is from a strict reading of the Constitutional text.

This debate has been around for decades. Some time back, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Independent Counsels. Dissenting Justices warned that Executive power must always remain singular and accountable. Then later on, the Court struck down provisions that limited the President’s ability to remove the head of an "independent" agency. That is the foundation for what we are seeing now; not just by President Trump alone, but by a shift in view that has been building for a generation or more.

Whether we agree with the Unitary Executive premise or not, it is critical to understand what it is and what it is not. It is not martial law. It is not a dictatorship. It is the premise that Presidential power is rooted in the idea that voters should know who is in charge and to hold them accountable.

The President cannot make laws or adjudicate them. He and only he can execute them. Most Americans weren’t taught this premise in school. Many legal commentators still treat it as being on the fringe, even though it increasingly drives Executive behavior and judicial reasoning. If we’re going to have a national debate about the proper scope of presidential authority, as we should, we need to start by defining our terms more clearly to evaluate them.

The Unitary Executive isn’t a conspiracy or a penumbra. It’s a Constitutional premise; one that has shaped presidential behavior before, often at the margins or behind the scenes. What is different now is the scale and visibility. For the first time, the country is watching it come to life as the central, unapologetic framework of executive power, owing to its myriad challenges on President Trump's policies and actions. He is settling this debate now.

Do you understand the premise of the Unitary Executive?
Post Opinion