From Bully Pulpit to Bully Presidency
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
Oct 2, 2025 -
President Trump has shifted from using the bully pulpit to persuade and bargain with political leaders to being a bully president who coerces and intimidates others to achieve his goals.
Teddy Roosevelt believed the presidency was a bully pulpit that gave him a platform to advocate his ideas. When Congress refused to cooperate, he traveled around the country giving speeches to get the public to pressure their Congressmen to support his policies. Roosevelt used this approach to bargain with conservatives in Congress to pass his anti-trust and conservation laws.
Consequently, Richard Neustadt, in his Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, stated, “the power of the president is the power to persuade.” Neustadt argued that the president has few formal powers and that the most important powers, such as legislating, confirming officials, and negotiating treaties, are shared with Congress, foreign leaders, and others.
Since these officials have different interests and rely on others to keep their jobs, the president must convince them that what he wants is also in their best interest. If a president is popular, can mobilize the people, and is skilled at using his power, he increases his bargaining advantage and moves others closer to his preferred position.
While Donald Trump calls himself a dealmaker, he tends to issue ultimatums to secure concessions and then negotiate the details. He imposes tariffs to open other countries' markets and push them to invest in the U.S. Additionally, he threatens to cut federal money to universities based on their handling of antisemitism and breaking civil rights laws by following Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, to enact broader higher education reform unrelated to these issues.
He also intimidates opponents. He threatens to stop law firms from getting government work if they hire lawyers who oppose his administration. He threatens media companies with lawsuits and investigations to influence coverage of his administration. He pressures Republican lawmakers with threats of primary challenges to pass bills, silence intra-party opponents, and confirm nominees of questionable competence and character.
Since his threats are often effective, other leaders try to anticipate his reactions and may give in more easily than they would otherwise. This success can make challenging him seem too risky or pointless, which increases his ability to achieve his policy goals.
However, Trump’s coercive tactics have drawbacks. These tactics punish those who do not comply but offer no rewards for cooperation. Politics works best when compromise allows all sides to achieve some of their goals. Coercion, however, creates winners and losers and makes future cooperation harder.
Relying on coercion often leads to short-term gains instead of long-term benefits. For example, while Trump’s tariff policies have increased government revenue, spurred promises of foreign investment, and opened some foreign markets, they have undermined international alliances and damaged our global reputation. These developments cause nations to lessen their reliance on American exports and the dollar as a reserve currency, which could harm the U.S. economy over time.
As we transition to a multipolar world, we are encouraging Europe to emerge as a rival bloc, which may make achieving our foreign policy goals more difficult. It also prompts China to play Europe against the U.S. in trade negotiations instead of the West presenting a united front to open up China.
Trump’s willingness to tear up trade deals he made in his first term with Japan and South Korea undermines trust and our commitments to other nations. Furthermore, our perceived selfishness decreases our soft power, or global cultural appeal, making it easier for foreign leaders to resist or oppose the U.S.
Domestically, coercing the institutions of civil society weakens democracy. Democracy relies on a strong, independent civil society to hold the government accountable by mobilizing citizens to oppose the government and providing alternative standards to evaluate government actions. Trump’s attacks on colleges, law firms, the media, and other institutions increase their dependence on and responsiveness to the government. Future Democratic administrations could leverage this new power to target conservative institutions such as religious organizations.
Coercive policies also threaten economic and political stability because changes in the presidency can lead to sharp ideological policy shifts. Frequent, large changes in the business regulatory environment create uncertainty and discourage business investment. Frequent policy reversals undermine the rule of law, erode government legitimacy, and diminish public trust.
Ultimately, persuasion and coercion are very different tools. Persuasion requires seeing things from various perspectives, recognizing the value in others' viewpoints, negotiating with those who disagree, and compromising when you see they may be right. Persuasion can win the person and the argument while leaving everyone else better off.
Coercion often assumes one is always right, refuses to engage with others, alienates people, and makes cooperation difficult. Sustained political success ultimately depends on more than threats and intimidation; it requires patience, discipline, humility, and persuasion.
This column originally appeared in the Sept. 28th edition of The Jackson Sun