My recent visit to the civic religious shrines and historical museums in Philadelphia highlights the threat executive power poses to democracy.

In 1776, the 13 colonies declared their independence. They went to war to secure their equality, liberty and happiness from the arbitrary and abusive executive authority of the British empire.

The colonists made 27 grievances against King George III. A few of those grievances from the Declaration of Independence are: 1) the king’s refusal to approve colonial legislation, 2) his dissolution of colonial legislatures that denied the right of the king to tax the colonies, 3) his nullification of the naturalization and immigration of Germans, 4) his usurpation of the judicial power by making it beholden to his will, extraditing colonists to stand trials in Britain or in other colonies, and by depriving trial by juries, and 5) his imposition of military rule and armed forces to quell the unruly and rebellious colonists.

Fundamentally, the colonists grieved the end of self-rule to an unfettered executive authority.

The 1776 clarion call of the dangers of executive power ring true today. For the power, resources and tools of the American presidency have grown substantially and supplanted most of the powers of the legislative and judicial branches. And that trend, which began earnestly in the mid-20th century and has intensified in the 21st century, has become a grave threat to American democracy.

ZENITH OF POWER

The presidency has reached the zenith of its power and authority and towers over the other government branches and the people. The current president, who has never won a majority of the popular vote (Donald Trump won 49.8% of the popular vote in 2024, a plurality), rules through executive orders, memorandums, tweets and private advisors. Through the tools and resources of the office of the presidency and his executive appointees, the president has capriciously and arbitrarily created and destroyed agencies; frozen or canceled congressionally appropriated funds and grants; and targeted political opponents by ending their government-funded security details, barred them from federal buildings or summarily canceling their government contracts.

He’s levied excessive tariffs, broken trade agreements, threatened the territory of long-time friendly nations; fired federal civil servants; used masked law enforcement officials in unmarked vehicles to arrest persons, to detain them in facilities far away from friends and families and attorneys and to abridge their due process rights; threatened and manhandled members of the opposing political party; and pardoned persons from criminal offenses who demonstrate personal loyalty to the president or provide large contributions to him.

In the 1970s a coalition of Republicans and Democrats fought against the rise of executive power. The results were the resignation of President Richard Nixon and the enactment of legislation to curb the power of the president to impound funds and to arbitrarily control the executive branch. Indeed, a new law tried but failed to control the war-making powers of the presidency.

Today there is no coalition of Republicans and Democrats to thwart executive power. Both congressional parties fight for the extensive use of executive powers when the president is of their political party. The most egregious manifestation of that are the current Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The budget reconciliation bill that passed the House and Senate was solely the president’s budget. The House Republican Party under the direction of Speaker Mike Johnson is merely a vessel to deliver the wishes of the president.

The Senate GOP, which offered slightly more resistance on the budget bill, nevertheless demonstrated the same when it acquiesced to presidential appointments no matter the qualifications of the candidates. Neither of the Republican majorities advocate for the power and prerogatives of the legislative branch. There is not an institutionalist among them.

The majority of the Supreme Court justices are not much better. The ruling majority is more concerned with procedural niceties that extend executive powers, prerogatives and autonomy instead of the substance of the issues before them. We must remember that the ruling majority of justices were attorneys in the executive branch and thus generally defer to it.

CONGRESS AND COURTS DISMISSED

Ultimately, the current presidential administration does not care about Congress or the courts. The president and his administrators praise the other branches when they do what the current administration wants and demonizes them when they do not. Their testimony before Congress, their briefs and oral arguments before judges, their public statements and their behavior indicates their disdain, contempt and brazen disregard of the legislative and judicial branches. The president and his team believe that they are the rightful rulers and the president is the manifestation of the will of the people. Thus, they believe they can use the tools and resources of the executive branch to do as they see necessary to accomplish their policy objectives.

I wonder what the colonists, who fought for the principles of self-rule and a republican form of government, would think about our new form of government: the American Presidential System — One Branch to Rule Us All.

I think the colonists would not only be displeased, but angry. Our forebears would be irate that we have undermined the principles for which they fought so valiantly. We have become subjects to a 21st century type of kingship. One for which the precedent has been set for the greater expansion of executive power and the continued reduction of legislative and judicial power no matter which political party controls the presidency.

I think the colonists would urge us to secure our right to equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness against an imperial presidency. They would urge us to claim our independence again.

(David Fitz, PhD, political science, University of Pittsburgh, lives in Bradford.)