Doctrine to Dominance

How the Unitary Executive Has Reshaped American Power and Tested Democracy

Origins and Doctrine: Unitary Executive Theory

The unitary executive theory (UET) holds that the U.S. Constitution vests all executive power exclusively in the president, meaning that the president should exercise comprehensive control over the entire executive branch, including regulatory agencies and enforcement functions. This interpretation originates from Article II and legal decisions such as Myers v. United States, which affirmed the president’s authority to remove executive officials without Senate approval and emphasized presidential supervision over the executive branch.¹

In theory, UET is a constitutional doctrine debated among scholars and jurists. In practice, however, when embraced by a political leadership committed to maximizing executive power, it becomes a practical blueprint for centralizing authority — particularly when institutional resistance is weak or norms are eroded.

Historical Preconditions: Setting the Stage for Power Consolidation

Before 2025, multiple developments weakened democratic safeguards and laid groundwork for executive consolidation:

Blocking Merrick Garland (2016). Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings or a vote on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, in a calculated procedural move. This ensured a more conservative judicial majority later, shifting the Supreme Court’s ideological balance and affecting future checks on executive authority.

January 6, 2021. The attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump — driven by claims that the 2020 election was “stolen” — exposed vulnerabilities in democratic norms and demonstrated how narratives of illegitimacy could mobilize political violence and pressure institutions to reconsider electoral outcomes.²

Electoral denialism. Post‑2020, repeated claims of widespread election fraud, including false assertions of systemic voter fraud and racketeering, eroded public confidence in elections and normalized distrust toward democratic processes. These narratives set important social precedents for future institutional conflicts.

The Second Trump Presidency: Unitary Executive in Practice (2025–2026)

Immediate Executive Actions and Agency Control

Executive Orders reshaping governance. Beginning with his second inauguration, President Trump issued a series of executive orders aimed at consolidating control over the federal bureaucracy and limiting independent authority:

Initial orders rescinded policies and shifted agency priorities, signaling an aggressive reshaping of administrative governance.³
A February 18, 2025 order (per White House fact sheets) required all federal agencies, including previously independent commissions, to submit regulatory actions for White House review and consultation, dramatically expanding presidential oversight.⁴
Critics described this and related orders as effectively eliminating the independence of regulatory bodies, bringing them under direct presidential supervision and interpretation of the law.⁵

These actions, in essence, operationalized UET by subordinating so‑called independent agencies to direct executive control, diminishing one of the last bureaucratic checks on presidential authority.

Electoral Interventions and Legal Resistance

Election administration overhaul attempts. On March 25, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order seeking proof‑of‑citizenship requirements for federal voter registration, federal oversight of state election systems, and conditional funding for non‑compliant states. Legal experts argued this order exceeded presidential authority, intruding into election rules constitutionally reserved for Congress and the states.⁶

Federal courts permanently blocked key provisions of this order, finding that the president lacked authority to unilaterally alter election procedures and affirming that those powers belong to legislative and state authorities.⁷ This legal resistance underscores that constitutional constraints still operate even amid executive overreach.

Nevertheless, the attempt reflects a strategic exploitation of executive powers to influence electoral processes, particularly voter eligibility and data control — mechanisms with potential long‑term impact on turnout and representation.

Federal Enforcement and Selective Application of Constitutional Rights

Federal law enforcement actions. In early 2026, a series of controversial incidents involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents drew national scrutiny. According to reporting, federal officials publicly justified at least 16 shootings involving DHS personnel before investigations were completed, with several incidents resulting in civilian deaths and injuries, including U.S. citizens.⁸

In Minneapolis, two fatal shootings — of ICU nurse Alex Pretti and Renee Good — occurred under controversial circumstances and sparked widespread protests and demands for accountability.⁹¹⁰¹¹ The administration’s characterization of these incidents, followed by reassignment of leadership and promises of investigations, reflects selective narrative control and law enforcement deployment with minimal disciplinary consequences.

These enforcement actions highlight how executive power can be exercised with limited transparency or judicial constraint, especially when empowered by broad discretionary authority over federal agencies.

Narrative Control, Propaganda, and Intimidation

Propaganda and delegitimization. Political rhetoric during this period has repeatedly framed opposing political actors, protesters, and critics as threats to national stability. Language describing elections as “fake,” “rigged,” or “corrupt” reinforces narratives that democratic institutions themselves are suspect if outcomes don’t align with the executive’s agenda. Such messaging erodes trust and sets a foundation for legitimizing extraordinary measures.

Intimidation through investigations and funding threats. Subpoenas and legal actions against state and local officials who oppose federal policies, combined with threats to withhold funding, illustrate how legal tools can function as intimidation mechanisms. These produce chilling effects on bureaucrats, universities, law firms, and political actors, effectively discouraging institutional resistance.

Public fear and elite influence. Major business and tech leaders, including high-profile executives, publicly condemned federal enforcement tactics such as the Minneapolis shootings, signaling elite pushback against fear-based governance.¹² However, the existence of both corporate opposition and pro‑administration commentary illustrates how propaganda and narrative influence are contested arenas shaping public perception.

Mass Protest and Civic Response

Despite executive consolidation efforts, significant civic resistance has emerged. The “No Kings” protests in mid‑2025 drew millions of participants nationwide, uniting diverse groups in defending constitutional rights and opposing what organizers described as authoritarian tendencies.¹³

Similarly, the 2026 Minnesota general strike — triggered by federal enforcement actions and labor organizing — showcased how localized resistance can connect to broader political and civil rights concerns.¹⁴

These civic movements illustrate that public readiness to contest perceived overreach remains a powerful counterweight to institutional consolidation.

Mechanisms of Consolidation and Erosion

The events described reveal several recurring mechanisms that together facilitate institutional capture and democratic erosion:

Judicial alignment: Conservative judges, installed through prior political maneuvers, often defer to broad executive interpretations, weakening judicial checks.
Legislative acquiescence: Rather than serving as an independent constraint, Congress frequently aligns with executive preferences or fails to assert oversight effectively.
Bureaucratic control: Political appointees replace career professionals, reducing independent enforcement of statutory and regulatory norms.
Electoral manipulation: Structural changes to voting rules and administrative attempts to shape election procedures impact political competition and civic participation.
Propaganda and intimidation: Narrative framing and legal pressure create social conditions that discourage dissent and normalize executive dominance.

Collectively, these mechanisms demonstrate how legal doctrine, political strategy, and social psychology converge to concentrate power within the executive — a process that can be gradual but transformative.

Parallels to the Führerprinzip and Authoritarian Outcomes

Although the United States has not adopted full authoritarian rule, the convergence of centralized executive power, narrative control, and institutional compliance exhibits functional parallels to the Führerprinzip. In Nazi Germany, the leader exploited legal mechanisms, crises, and popular narratives to consolidate authority within existing structures. In the contemporary U.S. context, the unitary executive doctrine, aggressive executive actions, and propaganda campaigns show how authoritarian dynamics can occur within a constitutional framework.

Unlike overt dictatorship, this model relies on a blend of legality, narrative manipulation, and strategic intimidation rather than force. Fear, reprisal, and delegitimization — rather than tanks or uniforms — become tools of power consolidation.

Conclusion: Threats to Democratic Governance

The timeline mapped here illustrates that the erosion of democratic norms can be incremental, legal, and highly strategic. While formal constitutional checks remain in place, their effectiveness is diminished when norms are disregarded or selectively applied, when institutional authority is weakened, and when public trust is undermined.

Innovations in governance, such as executive overreach into electoral administration, selective enforcement of constitutional protections, and intimidation of opposing actors, create a cumulative effect that significantly shifts the balance of power. The result is a system where executive dominance becomes normalized rather than exceptional, raising profound questions about the future of democratic governance in the United States.

In such a context, civic engagement, judicial independence, legislative vigilance, and public scrutiny become essential defenses of democratic norms.

Endnotes

Unitary executive theory. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Online Emotions During the Storming of the U.S. Capitol. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.04245
White House Fact Sheet, “President Donald J. Trump Reins in Independent Agencies.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-reins-in-independent-agencies-to-restore-a-government-that-answers-to-the-american-people/
Ibid.
Critics warn that executive orders centralizing agency authority undermine regulatory independence. American Bar Association, “Trump’s Executive Orders on Federal Agencies Threaten Independence,” 2025. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/trump-executive-orders-threaten-agency-independence/
The President’s Executive Order on Elections Explained. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/presidents-executive-order-elections-explained
Ibid.
“Trump aides declared 16 DHS shootings since July justified before probes completed.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/01/27/ice-border-patrol-shootings-immigration-trump/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“Biden condemns ‘our own government targeting’ US citizens in Minneapolis.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/27/biden-minnesota-minneapolis-ice-shooting-reaction?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“Minneapolis shooting: Tim Walz calls ICE tactics ‘illegal’.” The Times. https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/ice-shooting-minneapolis-latest-updates-alex-pretti-862sqt8mq?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“US court allows ICE to arrest and pepper‑spray peaceful protesters in Minnesota.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/21/ice-arrest-pepper-spray-protesters-minnesota?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“Business and tech leaders react to Minneapolis ICE shooting.” Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/ice-shooting-minneapolis-alex-pretti-business-tech-leaders-react-2026-1?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“October 2025 No Kings protests.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2025_No_Kings_protests?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“2026 Minnesota general strike.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minnesota_general_strike?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Search This Blog

MOUND