Political analysts are raising alarms about the substantial expansion of presidential authority in the United States, warning that the current administration’s unprecedented use of executive actions threatens the foundational system of checks and balances. With 228 executive orders issued within the first year—a significant increase over previous administrations—concerns are mounting about the long-term implications for American democracy.
The American Presidency Project database reveals that many of these orders invoke national emergency declarations or national security justifications to implement sweeping policies across immigration, trade, and foreign affairs. Notably, the administration declared a national emergency at the southern border on its first day in office, followed by April’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose comprehensive ‘reciprocal tariffs’ on all trading partners without congressional consultation.
According to Zhang Guoqing, associate researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of American Studies, ‘This explosion of orders and routine use of national emergency declarations have significantly expanded executive power beyond traditional boundaries.’
Experts identify multiple factors enabling this power shift, including legislative gridlock and heightened partisan polarization. Diao Daming, professor of US studies at Renmin University of China, notes that ‘executive orders allow the administration to bypass legislative constraints on controversial policies’ when congressional cooperation proves unattainable.
Zhang Tengjun, deputy director of the China Institute of International Studies’ Department for American Studies, observes that the current administration operates within legal gray areas where constitutional boundaries remain ambiguous. ‘The power to levy taxes is constitutionally granted to Congress, not the president. Yet massive tariffs were imposed without congressional consultation through emergency powers,’ he noted.
The legislative branch’s weakened response reflects both partisan alignment and institutional limitations. With Republicans controlling both chambers, few party members challenge presidential actions from their own party. Meanwhile, the judicial system shows increasing signs of politicization, with appellate judges appointed by Democratic presidents ruling against administration policies 73% of the time compared to 32% for Republican-appointed judges.
Diao warns that ‘the independence of the US judicial system has clearly been significantly eroded,’ as evidenced by divergent rulings on identical legal questions along partisan lines. This erosion of traditional safeguards creates long-term risks for institutional stability and social cohesion.
Experts conclude that while executive power expansion offers short-term policy implementation efficiency, it potentially inflicts profound damage on constitutional separation of powers. The precedent established could enable future presidents—regardless of party—to govern through executive action rather than legislative process, potentially triggering systemic crisis in America’s constitutional order.