Trump's Progressive Presidency
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
May 12, 2025 -
The irony of the Donald Trump presidency is that he is using the progressive presidency to attack progressivism. As Democrats used executive action to advance liberal ends, Trump is using executive action to advance conservative ends. As progressives realize the problems with the progressive presidency, hopefully, we can restore our Founders’ constitutional vision.
Our Founders created the Constitution to build consensus and prevent tyranny of the majority. In Federalist #10, James Madison argued that a large republic would create a diversity of interests that would make it difficult for any one group or faction to be large enough to win power and impose its will.
Furthermore, he argued in Federalist #51 that the separation of powers would divide governmental authority among the three branches, and the institutional “ambition” of each branch would check and restrain the other branches’ “ambition.”
This system would also force groups to negotiate and compromise to pass legislation, just as the Founders compromised to create and ratify the Constitution. As Yuval Levin has recently argued in American Covenant, the system requires narrow majorities to broaden themselves before empowering them to act. The more powerful group would be forced to compromise with other groups so that all could “win” something in the negotiation and broaden the coalition. This incremental policymaking creates stable and enduring bipartisan policy.
The president, then, according to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #70, would be a force of stability because the president has the “energy” to protect against injustice and secure liberty from factions. Indirect election via the Electoral College ensures the president would be representative of the people, but not necessarily responsive to them. Thus, the Founders gave the president sufficient constitutional power to withstand public pressure and pursue steady administration.
However, Jeffrey Tullis in The Rhetorical Presidency shows that Woodrow Wilson and progressives saw the separated powers system as a threat to progressive policy goals. Wilson wanted to update the Constitution by using parties to overcome Congressional obstacles to promote effective governance. The president would become the leader of his party, integrate the president and Congress, and turn our system into something resembling a parliamentary system.
The president would rely on his national mandate as the only nationally elected figure to pursue his policies. In the election, presidential candidates would raise public discussions to the level of major principles to educate the public. The president would then recognize the majority’s sentiment and explain the public’s desires in a way they could understand. This majority sentiment would be one voice, the public interest, because Wilson saw Madison’s diverse interests as favored groups using their position to write their preferences into law.
The problem is that presidents interpret majority sentiment to be whatever they believe. In this age of elite polarization, it is always something too liberal or conservative. Today, interpretation promotes ideological overreach and the danger of abuse from a demagogue.
The modern innovation of the progressive presidency is expansive executive power because Congressional polarization prevents legislative solutions. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama popularized executive action with their “stroke of a pen, law of the land” and “I have a pen and phone and will use them” quotes. We see this recently as Biden imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, tried to forgive $475 billion in student loan debts, and violated the spirit of immigration law with his “open borders” policy.
Trump’s populism fits well with the progressive presidency. He sees one interest – the people’s interest – contrary to the corrupt elite, and he claims his policies reflect that interest. His election victory justifies all of his actions, as Karoline Leavitt, his press secretary, repeatedly claims, “The president is doing what the people elected him to do.” Congress’s acceptance of his executive actions, instead of legislation, validates his actions.
Trump is now using executive action on steroids. He has signed 150 executive orders, 39 memoranda, and 50 proclamations, but only five laws. These 150 executive orders in 100 days are almost the same number that Obama signed in his first term. Many of these executive orders are perfectly legal, but others are unconstitutional, constitutionally suspect, and unwise. The unwise are like his attacks on universities. Trump has some legitimate concerns, but uses the wrong means to address them. A president who uses possible extortion to change liberal universities can do the same to conservative ones.
Regardless, one president should never be able to unilaterally launch trade wars, deny due process to deport migrants, bull-DOGE the administrative state, create/eliminate DEI programs in public and private institutions, and force reforms on universities, law firms, corporations, and the media.
This rule by presidential decree strikes at the heart of our constitutional system, which privileges Congress. And it is contrary to steady administration, as policy changes drastically with a change in presidential administrations.
In the short term, the courts will restrain Trump’s overreach. But in the long term, a restoration of the constitutional system will require Congress to flex its muscles and the parties to compromise with each other, so we can solve our problems.
This originally appeared in the May 11th edition of the Jackson Sun