While the text of the US Constitution does not expressly refer to the doctrine of separation of powers, the constitution divides governmental power among three branches.
The president of the United States holds extensive executive, legislative, and military powers defined by Article II of the Constitution, including serving as Commander-in-Chief, signing or vetoing legislation, making treaties (with Senate approval), appointing judges and Cabinet officials, granting pardons, and ensuring laws are faithfully executed.
In one sense, the president is perhaps the most powerful person in the country (the world perhaps), but with checks and balances.
Yet, as time elapsed, the office of the president used more power, such as executive orders, to implement his policies, right or wrong. This became easier when a president had a loyal Congress (as in the case of the current president), and a majority of Supreme Court judges leaning toward his party.
No other time has this phenomenon been more apparent than in President Trump’s second term, with his free use of executive orders starting with tariffs, midnight assaults on a foreign country and kidnapping its president, and starting a war with another country thousands of miles away from US shores.
How is this possible in a country considered to be a model of democracy and why do other countries accept this?
Domestically, much of the strength of a US president comes from the legislature if it substantially supports him, and his support from a large section of the political party he represents.
Internationally, he gets a pass because he represents the only superpower in the world. Other countries defer more to the office of the president than to the current occupant. Although some may not like him, they cannot afford to annoy him.
Five decades ago, we lived in a world that was dominated by two systems, the capitalist world led by the United States joined by Western Europe and Japan, and the socialist bloc with the Soviet Union at the head.
We became used to such worlds as cold war, war of nerves, and nuclear race between the two systems. Caught between these two were nations, which were mostly poor, comprising nations which had neither resources nor military power to stand on their own.
Yet, there was some comfort among these countries because they did not belong to any of the two powerful combatant groups. They would live relatively securely without the threat of being victims.
Did the world become safer after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Did the developing countries commonly grouped under the “third world” become safer or richer?
Sadly no.
Within two decades of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the second superpower, there were three more wars, two in the Gulf, and one in Afghanistan, all initiated by the world’s remaining superpower.
While the world is still reeling from the effects of these wars, we have now entered into another war initiated by Israel and the US.
What began as a threat against a recalcitrant Iran for its adamance to stop its nuclear program (which the country had been claiming for peaceful purposes) culminated into a full-scale attack on Iran. Iran, a weaker adversary, retaliated nonetheless, but with astonishing response. The war of attrition, apparently deadlocked, has entered a fourth week.
This war perhaps would have ended, with three sides calling for a respite, since it is hemorrhaging not only the economy and arsenals of the warring parties, but also the economy of the whole region.
As a collateral, the world economy is also hurting badly as the Middle East is the largest trader of oil and gas, and employer of a vast number of people from the third world. The US economy has been on a downward slope since the war began, with oil prices rising and stock prices on a free fall.
Yet, the president of the country has been adamant in pursuing his support for Israel and continuance of the war.
The Iran war would not have happened if it were to be guided by prudence diplomacy and normal legislative process. A democratic country requires legislative approval for entering into a war with another country.
In this case, the war was started on the decision of a president who did not like the regime in Iran (as in the case of another country, Venezuela in South America), and as people say, at the behest of the prime minister of Israel.
Even in this fifth week of the war, the president has not formally asked for Congressional approval of the war, even though his Defense Secretary has asked the Congress for a supplementary budget of $200 billion.
It appears that today, we live in a world of virtual reality. This reality is a product more of posturing and pretending than of actions. Therefore, when the president of the most powerful country speaks, his words matter, whether they carry real meaning or not.
In international relations, Trump’s words matter because leaders of great powers do not speak as private individuals. They speak as carriers of state power.
When the president of the United States speaks, other states ask: Is the US about to use force? Is it changing alliances? Is it threatening sanctions? Is it backing down somewhere?
So even one sentence can alter the strategic calculations of Europe, China, Russia, Iran, Israel, India, or NATO states. A smaller country’s rhetoric may be ignored. A US president’s rhetoric cannot be ignored.
Even if foreign governments do not fully trust him, they still have to react. You don’t need to believe every word to be affected by them. You just need to think there is some chance the words will become policy.
Added to this is the media psychology. Trump is a great communicator, in the technical sense. He understands attention better than policy elites do. He uses high-arousal language. Experts say that people pay more attention to messages that trigger fear, anger, surprise, but also pride. He sounds urgent, personal, combative, and dramatic. That makes him memorable, and his words sticky.
Trump-style language turns the same theme into something sharper and easier to repeat. That spreads faster through TV, social media, YouTube clips, political speeches, and dinner-table talk. He uses short phrases, blunt labels, repeated slogans, and moral binaries. That gives him enormous media power.
Not because the ideas are always deeper, but because they are easier to circulate and emotionally process. He deliberately remains unpredictable, which creates a constant state of vigilance. People think: “What did he mean?” That uncertainty keeps journalists, markets, diplomats, and the public glued to him.
Markets hate uncertainty, but they also obsess over it. Trump generates a lot of uncertainty, so markets listen to him constantly. Stocks, bonds, oil, currencies, and commodities move based on what investors think will happen next.
The bottom line is that although the presidency of the United States is defined by the power it represents (currently the only superpower), the personality of the office holder also lends much to the attention of the office.
The chief characteristics of Donald Trump are his unpredictability, communicability, rhetoric and dramatics, and opportunism. It is no wonder why and how the media like to follow him and swallow his every word.
