The American presidency faces three growing trends. By several measures, presidents have become more powerful, more partisan, and less popular.¹ 

These trends—each by itself and taken together—make the institution of the presidency less effective and less responsible than the American people seem to want.

If Americans want a more effective and responsible presidency, what would that look like? How would we get there?

First, the trends.

Trend 1: American Presidents Have Become More Powerful

Across the 20th century, presidents reshaped and consolidated their control over the federal government, a process that began during the New Deal and Great Society. In the late 1970s, after Watergate and the Vietnam War, reforms tried to limit presidential power. But since that time, presidential power has been on the rise again, across administrations of both parties. Administrations of both parties use executive authority both to dial back federal programs in some cases and to expand them in others. 

Administrations of both parties use executive authority both to dial back federal programs in some cases and to expand them in others.

The use of executive orders—which, as figure 1 shows, has increased under recent presidents—is one way that modern presidents assert their power. While the volume of orders alone is just one indicator, the broader use of these instruments to institute major new public policy initiatives highlights the shift in presidential authority. Beyond unilateral directives, presidents have increasingly relied on other tools to expand their influence, including withholding congressionally authorized funds, firing career officials, and invoking emergency powers.

Figure 1. Executive orders—each president surpasses his predecessor.

Congress has been complicit in that shift. Congress approves and authorizes the size and scope of the federal government. It often allows the president to expand executive discretion—either because gridlock prevents Congress from acting or because it chooses not to exercise its authority, in a form of tacit consent.

Trend 2: Presidents Have Become More Partisan

Whether in steering congressional legislation or in going around Congress to direct the federal bureaucracy, presidents increasingly pursue their party’s interests rather than trying to reach across party lines to gain bipartisan support. Presidents are increasingly more popular among members of their own party and less popular among members of the other party (fig. 2). Many factors fuel presidents’ partisan turn, including changes to the way we select presidential candidates, the declining number of swing states in presidential elections, the incentives for passing legislation on a party-line basis, and the fractured media environment.

Figure 2. Unilateral presidents are polarizing presidents.

Trend 3: Recent Presidents Have Been Less Popular

Presidents from both parties now struggle to remain above 50 percent in public approval (fig. 3). Their decline in popularity may relate to their partisanship and the power of the office. As candidates, our presidents promise to carry out policies that appeal to their base, as opposed to independent voters, let alone members of the other party. Once elected, their use of executive orders and other presidential powers appeals primarily to their core supporters, leaving behind the majority of voters. While often claiming to speak for “the People and the Nation,” they still act like factional leaders.

While often claiming to speak for “the People and the Nation,” they still act like factional leaders.

Figure 3. Unilateral presidents struggle to reach 50 percent approval. Green line indicates President Biden’s popularity.

In addition, policy failures seem to plague recent administrations. In the last quarter-century alone, tragic events have led to the loss of life and livelihoods for many Americans. Wars, economic shocks, public health crises, unchecked immigration, ineffective responses to natural disasters, and growing national debt have been amplified by a fractured media environment to erode public trust in government. Although presidents from both parties have often worked with Congress in a bipartisan way to address these crises and failures, the stain has been hard to wash away. Public approval of government has reached an all-time low (fig. 4).

Figure 4. Public: driven by discontent.

And while some members of the public may actually want a more aggressive government to address one challenge or another, the public appears uncomfortable with giving the president more unilateral powers to act. Not surprisingly, this is especially the case when the presidency is held by the opposing party (fig. 5). Still, majorities in each party feel this way even when their own favored candidate holds the White House. In other words, it is not just that presidents are less popular but that the presidency itself may be part of the problem.

And while some members of the public may actually want a more aggressive government to address one challenge or another, the public appears uncomfortable with giving the president more unilateral powers to act.

Figure 5. Both parties: “Power too risky . . . in the other team’s hands.”

These three trends may or may not be related to one another. Nevertheless, taken together, they pose a challenge to our political system. Our national governance and discourse have become increasingly polarized. And our presidents seem to be part of the problem, not the solution. Where presidents once helped to unify the nation, they are now dividing it. Although more powerful and more partisan presidents may serve the hopes of their political party when in power, the American people more broadly do not appear to approve.

Priority Areas for Focus 

We discussed many of these trends two years ago and, at that time, identified five priority areas for future focus. For this year’s meeting, we will focus on two action areas:²

• Democracy and Bureaucracy: What are the legitimate boundaries of presidential authority within the executive branch in a democratic system?
• Sharing Powers: How do the president and Congress work together, and can or should that be improved?

To focus the conversation even further across both these areas, we have chosen to focus on two dimensions of the presidency relevant to the president’s relationships with the bureaucracy and with Congress.

Managing the Federal Bureaucracy 

The president manages the vast executive branch and directs all revenues and expenditures. That said, Congress has previously given clear, statutory guidance on budgetary matters and has an ongoing role in the budgeting and oversight process. To explore whether the budget is being administered responsibly and effectively, we will examine the critical and growing role of the Office of Management and Budget. The office has evolved from being a coordinator across the federal government and a neutral source of expertise for the president to an organization that wields extraordinary power in advancing the president’s priorities.

Presidential and congressional cooperation is still essential in the budget process. However, it has been increasingly reduced to one major omnibus bill per presidential administration, followed by a series of divisive debates within Congress each year on whether to lift the ceiling on our growing national debt. For instance, if presidents have a larger role in the budgeting process, does that empower them to go beyond the wishes of wide, complex majorities represented by the Congress? We have recently seen presidents promise to impound funds as a legislative tactic to get Congress to pass bills that explicitly authorize the spending of those resources.

It has been increasingly reduced to one major omnibus bill per presidential administration, followed by a series of divisive debates within Congress each year on whether to lift the ceiling on our growing national debt.

Examining both successes and breakdowns in this process is key to understanding where systems should, or should not, be changed to make the process more responsible and effective.

Responding to Emergencies  

The founders envisioned a president who is prepared to act in the face of crisis. Congress and the courts were also designed to play roles in addressing emergencies, although getting the balance right seems essential to making the government both responsible and effective. There are growing questions about whether we have the government we need to anticipate, prevent, and respond to future emergencies. But what constitutes an emergency? How much say should the branches have in defining emergencies? And how much power should the president have, and for how long, in responding to them? Disagreements about these matters, especially in the sharing and balance of powers among the branches, have become increasingly contentious and may contribute to the public’s unease about presidential power and performance.

As we examine the role of executive emergency powers, we ask: What is the line between a democratically elected crisis manager and an autocratic manager, and how broad are we willing to make emergency powers in light of current concerns?

What is the line between a democratically elected crisis manager and an autocratic manager, and how broad are we willing to make emergency powers in light of current concerns?

Across budget, management, and emergency powers, we also ask: Where does the current system require change and reform, and which changes would be desirable and/or possible in the short term? Are there distinct changes that the administration, congressional leaders, the courts, or others in the political system should consider? Might we look to midterm and long-term changes that are in both parties’ interests? Would changes require policy or law changes, or changes to the Constitution itself?

Across a longer-term horizon, do we need a change in our political culture to disenthrall Americans from their quixotic notion that presidents alone can represent the nation? Is that worth doing, and what would that take?

Endnotes

1.

William Antholis is director and CEO of the Miller Center. Andriy Vretsona provided considerable research and editing assistance. 

2.

In our last conference and in follow-up with participants, we identified these two areas plus three others where we might focus on how to make the presidency more effective and responsible. The others are “Selecting More Effective and Responsible Presidents,” “Holding Presidents Accountable,” and “Presidents as Unifiers.” We will return to these other areas in future meetings.