Donald Trump’s political style may give the impression that US politics is governed by the whims of the president. But fundamentally, American power is tightly regulated. At the same time, Trump has found ways to stretch the system – especially on issues of tariffs and national emergencies. The question is how far the president’s powers actually extend.
In the United States, power at the federal level is divided between three institutions: Congress, the President, and the courts. It is Congress – the Senate and the House of Representatives – that makes laws. The President’s role is formally limited to signing laws or vetoing them.
Yet, both during his first term and after his return to the White House, Donald Trump has made far-reaching policy decisions without going through Congress. The explanation lies in a legal and political borderland: presidential decrees and emergency legislation.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PpSi6qSdCXQ%3Ffeature%3Doembed
Presidential decree – a controversial tool
Trump has used so-called executive orders, legal acts issued by the White House without the involvement of Congress. Executive orders are not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, but have grown out of the wording of Article Two, which states that executive power belongs to the president.
All modern presidents have used executive orders, but Trump has done so at an unusually high rate and in areas traditionally considered the responsibility of Congress. One of the clearest examples is tariff policy.
Tariffs are effectively taxes on imports and have therefore historically been decided by Congress. When Trump imposed broad tariffs, he did so not through new legislation, but by executive order.
State of emergency as a legal shortcut
To justify this, the Trump administration has invoked a national emergency. At its core is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), passed in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter. It gives the president the right to make economic decisions if the United States is exposed to “unusual and extraordinary threats from abroad.”
The Trump administration interprets the US trade deficit as such a threat. With the support of IEEPA, the White House has therefore argued that the president can temporarily take over powers that otherwise lie with Congress.
This interpretation is controversial and has been challenged in court. The Supreme Court can decide whether an individual decision is consistent with the law, but it does not rule on how far a claimed emergency can generally extend. In addition, the Trump administration has signaled that it can rely on other laws if a legal basis fails.
A system that slows down – but doesn’t stop
The US separation of powers is supposed to act as a check and balance. The courts are part of it, as are Congress, the president’s own party, and by extension the voters. But in practice, the system is slow and fragmented. It allows a determined president to act first and let the test come later.
Military power and NATO – clearer boundaries
When it comes to military action, the president’s scope for action is both greater and more regulated. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but it is Congress that, according to the Constitution, has the right to declare war.
After the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973. It allows the president to deploy military force for a maximum of 60 days without congressional approval. After that, a formal decision is required.
A military attack on another NATO country thus appears complicated. NATO is based on the principle that an attack on one member country is an attack on all. Such action by the United States would not only violate the alliance’s foundations, but would also require congressional approval, especially for continued funding.
Greenland
Greenland is not an independent country, but a self-governing territory within Denmark . Nevertheless, the island is considered part of NATO, which often leads to confusion about its military and political status.
The background is simple: when Denmark joined NATO in 1949, membership automatically included all Danish territories – including Greenland and the Faroe Islands. This means that responsibility for international defense and security policy lies with Denmark as a member state , while Greenland’s own government is responsible for local issues, such as infrastructure, the environment and certain economic issues.
This is also why Greenland has a strategic role in NATO planning: the island’s geographical location between North America and Europe makes it an important point for surveillance, air crossings and radar systems. The US has long had a military presence in Greenland, including through the Thule base, which is part of NATO’s defense structure.
If Greenland were hypothetically purchased by the United States, it would likely be granted the status of an unincorporated territory , similar to Puerto Rico or Guam, with self-government but without full state rights. This would mean American sovereignty over defense, foreign policy, and federal law, while local autonomy would be handled internally.
The limits of power are tested in practice
The United States recognizes three main options for territories: statehood (full statehood), independence, or free association (compact of free association, like Palau). For Greenland, with its strategic location in the Arctic, unincorporated territory would be most likely initially, with limited citizen representation in Congress. The population’s self-government would be circumscribed, similar to that of the Inuit in Alaska.
Donald Trump’s presidency has made clear how much power lies in the gray areas between law, practice, and political will. The system for limiting presidential power exists—but it is not watertight. How far a president can go is ultimately determined not just by the statute book, but by the fierce resistance from Congress, the courts, and the electorate.
/ By Ingemar Lindmark