Episode 11: Trump's Effort to Become King - Explaining Unitary Executive Theory

Donald Trump’s second term isn’t about governance—it’s about absolute power. But behind the headlines and the chaos, the theory of Unitary Executive Power is quietly reshaping the government into something far more Authoritarian.

Unlike traditional governance, this theory argues that all executive power belongs to the president alone—unchecked and unchallenged. Today, we break down:

• The origins of Unitary Executive Theory – How it emerged and why it’s gaining traction now.
• Historical context – From Nixon to Reagan to George W. Bush, how this idea evolved over decades.
• Trump’s use of the theory – How he’s using it to fire officials, consolidate power, and challenge checks and balances.
• The connection between Trump’s psychological profile and Unitary Executive Theory – How his need for admiration, paranoia, and disregard for institutional norms make this theory an ideal tool for consolidating control.
• The Supreme Court’s role – How legal challenges may determine the future of executive power.
• The impact on democracy – What happens when a president claims unlimited authority?
• The road ahead – What steps can be taken to counteract the dangers of expanding executive control?
• Trump isn’t just pushing the limits—he’s actively working to make his rule more absolute.

Next Episode:

• Episode 12 – Russell Vought: The Man Rewriting America’s Future
  • His rise to power
  • His role in Project 2025
  • The deep state purge and dismantling of government agencies
• Christian nationalism and its policy implications

Transcript

Bella Goode  00:04

Hello everyone, and welcome to Surviving Trump. I'm Bella Goode and today we continue with our six part series on Donald Trump. Today we're exploring a term that's showing up in the press with greater frequency. It's something called unitary executive theory. Quite frankly, it's a term I'd never heard before, but it definitely describes the strategy that Trump is pursuing in his second term. Just like last week, there's tons to share with you, but first, let me share a great quote. It seems timely, given the state of our nation right now. It's from a guy by the name of John Simpson of the BBC and he noted that "there are years when the world goes through some fundamental convulsive change, and that 2025, is on track to be one of them, a time when the basic assumptions about the way our world works are fed into the shredder." I thought that was a terrific quote. 

Anyway, let's get back to unitary executive theory. There are kings and there are CEOs, and then there's Trump. Imagine a king who makes all the big decisions for his Kingdom. Choosing his advisors, settling the laws and even changing the rules whenever he wants, without having to answer to anyone. That's the idea behind unitary executive theory, which claims that all the power in the government's executive branch should belong to one person, yep, the president. In an ideal world under this theory, the President would act much like a king, able to decide and act quickly without any obstacles. In reality, though, decision making by a president is far more complex. 

A president usually works through many channels and follows established protocols, which can sometimes slow things down. For instance, before making a major decision, a president must consult trusted advisors, work with the cabinet and coordinate with various government agencies. This system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one person from having too much power, but it also means that responses can be slower compared to a CEO or a king. 

A CEO, for example, in a private company, often has the power to make and implement decisions quickly, as they typically answer only to a board of directors and shareholders. A CEO has significant control over their company so they can act faster than a president, because they don't have to work through its many formal procedures. In short, while unitary executive theory argues for a president with almost king like authority, the reality is that a president's power is checked by law and tradition, ensuring that even though they might need to act decisively in a crisis, they still cannot rule without limits, unlike a king who can take immediate and absolute action, a president's decisions affect the entire nation and must respect constitutional limits. That's an imperative. 

The president must abide by constitutional limits. Well, despite these constitutional limits, a strong faction within Trump's administration is pushing this theory, the unitary executive theory. On the surface, this idea is meant to help the government act fast in emergencies or big challenges. If there were a sudden natural disaster, for example, the President could use his full powers to organize help and get the resources out there without waiting for slow, lengthy processes. The idea of one person having so much power can be, I suppose, both exciting and frightening. It's exciting because it can mean fast action in a crisis, but it's also scary because it might lead to a situation where one person's choices go unchecked. 

In our episode today, we're focused on how President Trump has used unitary executive theory to try to run the government like a company, or worse, like a king. We'll look at what this means and how it works, who's behind the push and why many people are deeply worried about giving one person so much control. So what is this unitary executive theory anyway? So it's a legal framework that is being championed by many conservatives. According to this theory, all the power in the government's executive branch should belong solely to the President. This idea is rooted in Article Two of the US Constitution, which explains that the President is given the authority to execute the laws and manage the government's day to day operations. 

In other words, while Article Two makes the president the head of the executive branch, it does not grant unlimited power. It requires the president to enforce the laws as written by Congress. Despite these limitations, advocates argue that the president's power should be interpreted very broadly, almost like a king's absolute authority. Supporters point out that because the Constitution vests the executive power in a president, he should be able to control all aspects of the executive branch. As law professor Steven Calabresi explains, "I think it means that he has the power to control subordinates through the executive branch, including the independent agencies. And as a corollary to that, he has the power to remove or fire subordinates. 

In 2019 Trump boldly declared, I have an article two where I have the right to do whatever I want as president. This statement, along with his actions, demonstrates his belief that he can reshape the government with very few checks on his power. Well, is this something new, or has it been around for a while, this unitary executive theory? Well, it's been evolving for about 65 years, actually, since the Nixon era back in the 1970s back then, many believed that the President should have strong control over the government, especially during a time when quick decisions were necessary to handle pressing issues. 

The notion was that having a strong central leader could help the country act fast when needed later, during President Reagan's years in the 1980s this idea grew even more popular. Reagan's team compared the president to a CEO running a big company, arguing that just as a CEO makes fast decisions to keep a company running smoothly, the president should be able to make quick choices for a nation. This analogy helped shape a modern interpretation of presidential power. Then, during President George W Bush's administration in the early 2000s unitary executive theory was used to justify major decisions related to national security and military actions. 

The argument was that the President needed to be able to act quickly to keep the country safe without waiting for lengthy debates or rigid rules. This period set the stage for the current push towards strong presidential power. The Modern Approach by Trump marks a clear shift though from previous practices. Instead of operating within a system where power is shared and balanced amongst various branches, Trump's strategy seems to grant the president unilateral control. This raises huge questions about how the government should function and whether it's appropriate for one person to hold so much power. So here's the question, what's the connection between Trump's psychological profile, which we covered a couple of episodes ago, and unitary executive theory? Well, Trump's constant need for admiration, lack of empathy, extreme paranoia and even signs of cognitive decline, all fit very well with unitary executive theory, because he craves constant praise. 

Trump believes he is the only one who truly knows what's best for the country, seeing himself as above the law, almost like a king who can change rules without answerability. This self image makes it easier for him to push for more power over the government when a person has such a strong need for control and is always on guard against perceived enemies, they can end up ignoring rules that others follow. Trump's paranoia leaves him to believe that everyone is out to get him. So he often takes extreme measures like firing officials who disagree with him just to secure his power. His dangerous mix of traits also means that he sometimes makes decisions without listening to advice or respecting the normal checks and balances that protect our government. In short, unitary executive theory fits with Trump's profile because it gives him a way to act as if he alone should have all the power. 

When one person believes that he is always in the right and can ignore established rules, it threatens the entire balanced power in our government. And this is why many experts worry that his mindset could lead to a system where his decisions go unchecked, which would be a serious risk for our democracy, Trump's aggressive actions are not happening in a vacuum. They are being enabled by powerful conservative forces, most notably through Project 2025 and the influence of Russell Vought, his newly confirmed Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Project 2025 is its strategic plan created by his allies to reshape the federal government in a way that centralizes power in the executive branch. Vought- his name is so strange. It's spelled V, O, U, G, H, T, but it's pronounced "vot". I think about that each time I see his name. 

A key figure in this project- a key figure in Project 2025 he believes that the Constitution gives the President almost total control over the executive branch. This belief is the foundation of unitary executive theory, which argues that all executive power should be concentrated in the hands of one person. Vought and his supporters see unitary executive theory as the legal justification for Trump's desire to act like a king. This view is reflected in statements like Trump's own declaration. I have an article too where I have the right to do whatever I want as president. Such bold rhetoric has pushed Trump to take actions that set dangerous test cases for presidential power. 

For example, his efforts to fire officials who are legally protected, freeze federal funds and dismantle entire agencies are clear examples of trying to usurp powers that rightly belong to Congress. These moves are not mere administrative changes. They are part of a broader strategy to consolidate power, as Bob Bauer, a law professor from NYU, warns, "at what point does the kind of power that Trump wants crossover from a constitutional vision to an aconstitutional one?" meaning against the Constitution. Many experts fear that if these actions go unchecked, the balance of power could be irreparably damaged, allowing one man to rule like a king. The combination of project 2025, Vought's leadership and Trump's own claims of unlimited power shows a clear coordinated effort to push the boundaries of presidential authority, making the threat to our democratic system all the more real. Let me give you a couple of examples; during his first month in office, Trump took several bold actions that show he is trying to rule like a king. 

One key move was signing an executive order on February 18 called Ensuring Accountability For All Agencies. This order forces independent regulatory bodies like the Federal Election Commission to work directly under his command so that he can fire government officials at will and even adjust the rules that guide these agencies. This isn't a small change. It's a clear attempt to dismantle the protections that Congress put in place. Trump's strategy goes further. He rapidly fired 17 independent watchdogs and the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and even removed members of the National Labor Relations Board. These actions are not random. They signal his push towards a centralized king-like control over the executive branch. In one dramatic incident, he even tried to end New York City's congestion pricing while declaring himself the king on social media, posting an image of himself wearing a crown. 

This display of self importance shows just how far he is willing to go to act like a ruler with absolute authority. Legal experts are very worried about these moves. They say that by firing officials who have legal protections, freezing federal funds and dismantling entire agencies, like reducing USAID staff from 14,000 to fewer than 300 Trump is not making routine administrative changes. Instead, he is trying to take powers that belong to Congress and reshape the government in his image. Here's another example. He came at a meeting with state governors. At this gathering, Trump attacked governor Janet mills of Maine and threatened to cut federal funding if her state did not comply with his demands about who should be allowed to play sports. 

During the heated exchange, Trump said things like, "We are the federal law and you better comply." And he threatened, "you're not going to get any federal funding if you don't." Governor Mills standing up for her state, replied, "See you in court." This confrontation clearly shows that Trump is using his power as a threat to force states to follow his orders. The reach of Trump's actions isn't limited to regulatory agencies or state governments. There are also signs that his policies are hurting public services. For example, on February 14, the Trump administration laid off 1000 National Park Service Workers and 2000 from the US Forest Service in an effort to cut federal spending. These cuts could lead to a steep decline in visitor experiences at national parks and forests. 

Helen Dew, a 23 year old park guide at Palo Alto battlefield National Historical Park, described how she was gutted and even sobbed on a plane when she learned that she was fired from her dream job. In another case, the semi autonomous agency that oversees the US nuclear weapons production. It's called the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, dismissed dozens of employees after the Trump administration denied a national security exemption to stop the layoffs. Former NNSA administrator Jill Hruby warned that these cuts, which initially affected over 300 employees, could delay crucial nuclear weapons modernization programs and harm national security. Trump's aggressive purges have also been carried out under the watch of Elon Musk's unofficial agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known as DOGE, or as I sometimes call it, DOG-E, under DOG-E's oversight, 1000s of federal employees have been fired in recent days. 

In one confusing incident, the US Department of Agriculture, USDA accidentally fired several employees who are working on the H5N1 avian influenza outbreak, the bird flu. The USDA is now trying to rehire them, but the chaos just shows how these actions can disrupt important government functions and even affect public health efforts. Each of these examples from firing watchdogs and dismantling agencies to threatening state governors and causing chaos in public services, they demonstrate how Trump is using unitary executive theory to push his power to dangerous levels. His actions intended to let him rule like a king, are setting test cases that could permanently upset the balance of power in our government. Experts are not just mildly worried, they are deeply concerned that these unchecked moves will leave our democratic system at risk, making it very hard to rebuild the institutions that keep our country fair and accountable. 

Well, you may wonder, where does the Supreme Court stand? Trump's aggressive use of unitary executive theory has set the stage for major legal challenges and may soon reach the Supreme Court. His rapid firings, especially those of civil service workers and the heads of independent agencies appear to go against the laws designed to protect these jobs. For example, his firing of a member of the National Labor Relations Board has sparked lawsuits claiming that his actions break long standing rules. One key case rests on a 1935 decision in Humphreys Executor versus the United States, which limits the president's power to remove agency's heads. In 2020 the Supreme Court even found that a provision from Congress limiting the President's authority to remove the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violated the Constitution. Many experts are extremely concerned about these trends. Law Professor David Driesen from Syracuse University warns, "I think they are setting up test cases, and this Supreme Court is very likely to expand the theory and overrule other cases that are in tension with it." With a conservative six three majority in the court, including three justices appointed by Trump, there is very real risk that the court could support a very broad interpretation of presidential power. This might allow the President to fire officials at will, even that means ignoring protections that Congress has put in place. Judicial review is the process by which the courts ensure that the President's actions follow the rules of the Constitution. In the past, landmark cases like Humphreys, Executor versus United States helped set clear limits on the President's ability to remove government officials without following proper procedures.

However, there are signs that some judges may be more than willing to give the president greater freedom now. This shift is worrisome, because if the courts decide that a president can remove officials without strict limits, future presidents might control the government even more easily. Adding fuel to the fire, Trump has pushed these ideas by using unitary executive theory to justify his bold moves. He even declared he who saves his country does not violate any law, a statement linked to a quote attributed to the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte by saying this, Trump suggests that if his actions are meant to protect or save the country, then breaking the rules is acceptable. Many experts find this very troubling, because it appears to give the President a free pass to ignore laws when he deems it necessary. Ultimately, the future of the presidential power largely depends on what the courts decide. 

If judges embrace a broader view of executive power, it could mean fewer checks on the President's actions in the future, much. Like having a school principal who can change rules without any oversight from teachers or a school board. This is a critical question that could reshape how our government operates for years to come. In a strong democracy, checks and balances are absolutely essential. They make sure that no one branch of government, the executive, legislative or the judicial become too powerful. For example, while the President can veto laws, Congress has the power to override those vetoes, and the courts can declare actions unconstitutional. 

However, when a president uses unitary executive theory to centralize power, these critical safeguards begin to crumble. Trump's actions are a clear example of this dangerous trend. His executive order that forces regulatory agencies to report directly to him, along with his attempts to control federal spending by freezing funds, directly threaten the balance that our democracy depends on. Experts are not just worried they are extremely alarmed. One law professor bluntly stated that "by the time Trump has finished dismantling or emptying out some of these agencies, rebuilding them will be extremely challenging, if not impossible." The erosion of checks and balances means that if one person's decisions go unchecked, our entire democratic system is at risk. 

This shift could lead to a concentration of power that undermines the rule of law and the fairness that our system is built on. So as we wrap up our discussion, it's important to think about what all these changes mean for our country. Unitary executive theory argues that the President should control the entire executive branch, much like a CEO running a business. But when one person holds too much power, it can completely change how our government works, and it can affect everyday people. 

President Trump's actions, firing officials, issuing bold executive orders and even declaring things like, "he who saves his country does not violate any law," are testing the limits of presidential power, these moves are making us ask some very tough questions, are we giving one person too much control, and what happens when power is misused or when mistakes are made? A healthy democracy works like a well run team where everyone, be it the President, Congress or the courts, has an important role in keeping each other in check. When too much power is concentrated in one person's hands, those checks can break down and only one voice ends up being heard while the other voices are silenced. As citizens, it's our job to stay informed. Ask tough questions about how power is being used in our government. By discussing these issues with others and watching closely what our leaders are doing, we help protect the checks and balances that keep our freedom safe. In short, while strong leadership is important in a crisis, it is equally crucial that power is shared so that no single person can rewrite the rules without facing consequences. 

That's it for today. Next week, I wrap up our series on Trump with Episode 12, and we'll delve into that guy called Russell Vought, the real monster behind the Orange Monster, one of the key architects of project 2025, and the guy who won't stop until democracy has been dismantled. Until then, I have two requests, which I'll always make of you, leave a comment. The transcript for today's episode is available along with references and links. Start a discussion, ask questions, challenge ideas. This is a community. Also leave a review. If this podcast resonates with you, let me know. If it doesn't, tell me that too. I want to get this right. Should I keep going? Should I tweak the approach? Your honesty is invaluable, and follow me on Blue Sky. 

And on that note, I leave you with some Borowitz humor. Dateline Washington calling the bird's behavior a disgrace. On Thursday, Donald J Trump threatened to deport the nation's chickens unless they act immediately to lower the price of eggs. "We're not going to be held ransom by some birds that are quite frankly, disgusting." He said "this should never be allowed to happen in this country." Trump vowed retribution against the poultry, calling the birds far left radical Trump haters noting that egg prices had skyrocketed since he took office. He remarked that "chickens have been treating me very unfairly." Until next time. Stay engaged, stay informed, and most importantly, stay in the fight. This is Bella Goode, signing off.