Is the President Required to Uphold the Constitution?
May 7, 2025
In an interview on May 4, 2025, with Kristen Welker, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” President Donald Trump was asked: “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as President?” Shockingly, Trump answered: “I don’t know.”
Shocking, because Trump, on Inauguration Day three months ago – for the second time in his life – swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Shocking, because the Take Care Clause in Article II requires the president to “faithfully execute the laws.” Shocking, because Article VI declares that “the Constitution and the Laws of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
Trump’s answer reflects, not ignorance of the solemnity of the oath that he took, but rather the authoritarianism that he is seeking to entrench in the United States, a governing approach that is embodied in a plebiscitary presidency.
The philosophical framework of a plebiscitary presidency, toward which Trump is moving, represents the completion of Richard Nixon’s conception of government. The model is not that created by the Framers of the Constitution, nor is it a parliamentary regime. Trump’s expression of doubt about the binding nature of the Constitution, and his duty to uphold it, cannot be dismissed by his indifference our constitutional system – separation of powers, checks and balances, enumeration of powers – but rather his disdain for it.
Trump, as we have seen, has usurped fundamental congressional powers – lawmaking, appropriations, and appointment, among others – and has unilaterally abolished statutory requirements, defied the Supreme Court’s order requiring adherence to the commands of due process, and engaged in a calculated disparagement of the free press, universities, and other bodies committed to independent thought. Trump has subdued GOP leadership in Congress, and the party faithful, at his beck and call, are loathe to resist his personality, temperament, and judgment. He is in command of the economy, and he has concentrated in his hands, alone, power over foreign and domestic policymaking. At this historic juncture, Trump’s ambitions and perceptions determine acceptable fare for his presidential agenda and the nation.
Trump is engaged in an audacious reconstruction of the Constitution, one grounded in the premises of a plebiscitary presidency, which assumes that democracy is enhanced if the capacity to govern is vested in the White House, undeterred by constitutional restraints. In its glory, it speaks of the investment of the sovereignty of the nation in the chief executive and reflects contempt for the rule of law. As Trump told Time Magazine, “I run the country and the world.” The plebiscitary presidency is intended, as political scientist Theodore Lowi observed, “to evoke the powerful imagery of Roman emperors and French authoritarians who governed on the basis of popular adoration, with the masses giving their noisy consent to every course of action.”
Robert Michels’ classic Political Parties, published in 1911, explained the rationale of the “personal dictatorship conferred by the people in accordance with constitutional rules.” By plebiscitary reasoning, “once elected, the chosen of the people can no longer be opposed in any way. He personifies the majority, and all resistance to his will is anti-democratic. He is, moreover, infallible, for ‘he who is elected by six million votes, carries out the will of the people; he does not betray them.’”
Imagine how much stronger the president would be if elected by 30 million votes. If the opposition becomes annoying, it is the voters themselves, “we are assured, who demand from the chosen of the people that he should use severe repressive measures, should employ force, should concentrate all authority in his own hands.” The president, having aggrandized the powers of the legislature and judiciary, would become democracy personified.
Trump, it will be recalled, has spoken – repeatedly – in such grandiose terms. Daily, he reminds Americans of his victory in the 2024 presidential election, baselessly claiming a “landside” victory, for the purpose of swelling his plebiscitary claims and aims. In his Meet the Press interview, he shrugged off constitutional limitations by reiterating that he won the election – “they had their chance” – as if victory confers power beyond authority derived from the Constitution. In this twisted manner, a plebiscitary presidency may be seen as fulfillment of constitutional democracy. Of course, the Constitution is the sole source of governmental authority, and the president, unless constitutional provisions are surrendered or trampled, has a solemn duty to uphold the Constitution.
– David Adler