If there are any limits to a president’s power, it wasn’t evident from Donald Trump’s speech before a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025.

In that speech, the first before lawmakers of Trump’s second term, the president declared vast accomplishments during the brief six weeks of his presidency. He claimed to have “brought back free speech” to the country. He declared that there were only two sexes, “male and female.” He reminded the audience that he had unilaterally renamed an international body of water as well as the country’s tallest mountain.

“Our country is on the verge of a comeback the likes of which the world has never witnessed, and perhaps will never witness again,” Trump asserted.

The extravagant claims appear to match Trump’s view of the presidency – one virtually kinglike in its unilateral power.

It’s true that the U.S. Constitution’s crucial section about the executive branch, Article 2, does not grant the president unlimited power. But it does make this figure the sole “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”

This monopoly on the use of force is one way Trump could support his 2019 claim that he can do “whatever I want as President.”

Before Trump’s speech, protesters outside had taken issue with Trump’s wielding of such unchecked power. One protester’s sign said, “We the People don’t want false kings in our house.”

With those words, she echoed a concern about presidential power that originated more than 200 years ago.

Remnants of the monarchy

When the Constitution was written, many people – from those who drafted the document to those who read it – believed that endowing the president with such powers was dangerous.

Ratified after a lot of huffing and puffing, on May 29, 1790, by rather nervous citizens, the text of the Constitution had stirred many controversies.

It wasn’t just the oftentimes vague language, which includes head-scratchers such as the very preamble, “We the People of the United States.” Nor was the discomfort due solely to the document’s jarring brevity – at 4,543 words, the U.S. Constitution is the shortest written Constitution of any major nation in the world.

No, what made that document especially problematic, to borrow from John Adams, was that it provided for “a monarchical Republick, or if you will a limited Monarchy.”

Adams would eventually become the nation’s second president in 1797. Even though he was a staunch supporter of the Constitution, he was honest enough to take a hard look over the political layout of the new nation. And what he found were remnants of the British monarchy and traces of a king whose unchecked abuses had led the Colonists to demand their independence in the first place.

“The Name of President,” Adams couldn’t help concluding in a letter to prominent Massachusetts lawyer William Tudor, “does not alter the Nature of his office nor diminish the Regal Authorities and Powers which appear clearly in the Writing.”

While Adams was only somewhat uncomfortable, as a historian of the early republic I can stress that other observers at the time were downright appalled.

In a 1787 article published in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, “An Old Whig” – identity unknown – wrote, “The office of President of the United States appears to me to be clothed with such powers as are dangerous.”

As the commander in chief of the Army, the American president “is in reality to be a king as much a King as the King of Great Britain, and a King too of the worst kind – an elective King.”

Consequently, as the author of this article resolved, “I shall despair of any happiness in the United States” until this office is “reduced to a lower pitch of power.”

‘Subjects of a military king’

Concern over a commander in chief declaring martial law, no matter the legality of the measure, was similarly on the minds of the Americans who had read the Constitution.

In 1788, a patriot who went under the pseudonym of “Philadelphiensis” – real name, Benjamin Workman – issued a sweeping warning. Should the president decide to impose martial law, “your character of free citizens” would be “changed to that of the subjects of a military king.”

A president turned military king could “wantonly inflict the most disgraceful punishment on a peaceable citizen,” the piece continued, “under pretence of disobedience, or the smallest neglect of militia duty.”

Another power given to the president was also universally considered extremely dangerous: that of granting pardons to individuals guilty of treason.

Maryland Attorney General Luther Martin reasoned that the treason most likely to take place was “that in which the president himself might be engaged.” What the president would do, Martin wrote, would be “to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates and abettors of his treasonable practices, by granting them pardons.”

George Mason, who participated in the Constitutional Convention and also drafted Virginia’s state Constitution, foresaw a gloomy scenario. He shivered at the idea of a president who would “screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.”

Choosing ‘villains or fools’

The framers did limit executive power in one significant way: The president of the United States is subject to impeachment and, upon conviction of treason or other high crimes, removal from office.

But in the meantime, the president may enact irreparable damage.

The Constitution was finally ratified – but only begrudgingly by the American citizens, who feared a president’s abuse of power. More persuasive than the legal restraints placed on the office, the belief that the people would choose their leader wisely tipped the scale toward approval.

Delegate John Dickinson asked a rhetorical question: “Will a virtuous and sensible people chuse villains or fools for their officers?”

Also, 18th-century common sense deemed it improbable that a person without virtue and magnanimity would run for the nation’s highest office. Americans’ faith in their first president, the upstanding George Washington, helped convince them that all would end well and their Constitution would be sufficient to protect the republic.

The Federalist Papers, the 85 essays written to persuade voters to support ratification, were suffused with this optimism.

People “of the character marked out for that of the President of the United States” were widely available, said the Federalist #67.

“It will not be too strong to say,” reads Federalist #68, “that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.”

Government of laws?

Adams wasn’t so optimistic. He wavered. And then he flipped the issue on its head.

“There must be a positive Passion for the public good … established in the Minds of the People,” he had written in a 1776 letter, “or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty.”

After almost 250 years of uninterrupted republican life, Americans are used to thinking that their nation is secured by checks and balances. As Adams kept repeating, America aims at becoming “a government of laws, and not of men.”

Americans, in other words, have long believed it is their institutions that make the nation. But the opposite is true: The people are the soul and the conscience of the republic.

Everything, in the end, boils down to the character of these people and the control they assert over who becomes their most important leader.

Maurizio Valsania, Professor of American History, Università di Torino

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

IMAGE: President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

There is a growing incidence of toxic leadership in organisations across the world. This is clear from anecdotal evidence as well as research which suggests that one out of every five leaders is toxic. My own research shows that closer to three out of every ten leaders are toxic.

This cancer of toxicity threatens the well being of both individuals and organisations. It also affects the performance of a society and country. That’s why there is a pressing need for leaders to understand the nature, dynamics and evolution of toxic leadership and organisations.

The word “toxic” comes from the Greek “toxikon” which means “arrow poison”. In a literal sense, the term in its original form thus means to kill (poison) in a targeted way (arrow). Toxic organisations and leaders therefore are those who deliberately destroy the fabric of the institution.

What makes a toxic leader?

Toxic leadership represents the “dark” side of leadership. It affects individuals as well as organisations.

In the case of individuals toxic leadership refers to ongoing, deliberate, intentional actions – the “arrow” – by a leader to undermine the sense of dignity, self-worth and efficacy of an individual – the “poison”. This results in exploitative, destructive, devaluing and demeaning work experiences. These destructive actions may be physical, psychosocial or even spiritual when they diminish a person’s meaning and purpose.

A toxic organisation is one that erodes, disables and destroys the physiological, psychosocial and spiritual well being of the people who work in it in permanent and deliberate ways. In other words, an organisation becomes metaphorically a “poison pill” for employees.

Workplace bullying is similar to toxic leadership, but is just one form of it. Bullying is more centred on individual, one-on-one, physical or emotional abuse by any one individual, including a leader, on another person.

In contrast to toxic leadership, healthy, authentic leadership nurtures and affirms the dignity, worth and efficacy of an individual. It creates enabling, empowering and meaningful work experiences.

And a healthy, authentic organisation is one that nurtures and grows the physiological, psychosocial and spiritual well being of its organisational members.

Can toxic leaders be competent?

Leadership toxicity and incompetence are not directly related. Both competent – getting the desired results – and incompetent leadership can be toxic.

If a narrower definition of competence is used – only focusing on technical and professional competencies – a toxic leader may still be seen as competent because they are “delivering the goods”. This is particularly true if a short term view is taken. But over the longer term their short term success is unsustainable. This is because they are destroying their teams, departments or organisations in the process.

If a comprehensive, long term view is taken toxic leaders are incompetent because they are not competent across all domains of a well-rounded leader. Taking a comprehensive view, leadership qualities include personal attributes, technical and professional competencies, values and attitudes, and conduct.

I believe that toxic leaders, regardless of their level of technical and professional competence, are incompetent. After all, competent leadership is all about getting things done with people.

Typical toxic leaders

Five typical toxic leaders exist:

• The Cold Fish: the ends justifies the means. So any decision and action is justifiable in terms of the results desired.
• The Snake: the world serves me in the endeavour to satisfy my personal needs like greed, status and power.
• Glory Seeker: personal glory and public visibility at any cost, regardless of whether I have made any real and meaningful contribution.
• Puppet Master: absolute, centralised control over everything and anyone, under all circumstances.
• Monarch: ruling the organisation as if it is my kingdom. All of its assets are available for my personal use.

The more prolific these toxic leaders are in an organisation, the more toxic the organisation. The table below profiles these toxic leaders.

Typical toxic organisations

The typical manifestations of a toxic organisation resulting from toxic leadership are:

• Negative emotional moods and mood swings: anger, despair, despondency, frustration, pessimism and aggression.
• Unproductive and meaningless work.
• Destructive and counterproductive conduct.
• Employee physical and emotional disengagement and withdrawal such as absenteeism, lack of contribution, and turnover.
• Unethical, deviant conduct: theft, fraud and sabotage.
• Poor well-being and health.
• Low (team) morale and work satisfaction.
• Organisational dis-identification and low organisational commitment.
• General life dissatisfaction.

But organisations can be toxic in their own right through the organisational culture they have. Organisational culture refers to shared ways of seeing, interpreting and acting upon the world that becomes ingrained in an organisation’s DNA. It’s the glue holding it together and provides an organisation with a way of looking at and relating to the world.

When toxic patterns become ingrained into the DNA of an organisation the following patterns emerge:

• Paranoid: the defensive, afraid, suspicious, trusting no-one or nobody organisation.
• Compulsive: the over-planned and over-programmed organisation.
• Hyperactive: the impulsive, unfocused organisation, acting like an adolescent.
• Deflated: the energyless, depressed and impotent organisation.
• Delusional: the reality estranged, make-believe organisation, living in a world of its own.
• Conscienceless: the unethical, amoral organisation.

There appears to be a growing incidence of the cancer of toxic leadership and organisations. This is in no uncertain terms endangering the well being of organisational members, compromising future sustainable organisational, community and societal performance and success, as well as the very continued existence of them.

This article is based on a longer, more comprehensive academic paper.

Theo Veldsman, Professor and Head, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Trump 2.0 can be described as a kakistocracy – a state or society governed by its least suitable or competent citizens.

Let’s process that.

Donald Trump and the Republican Party have made dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives a core part of their political platform, claiming these programs undermine merit and lower standards. Yet, when it comes to their own appointments, qualifications and competence take a backseat to blind loyalty and political convenience. WTF?

The contradiction couldn’t be clearer: while they rail against DEI as a threat to excellence, they openly embrace mediocrity when it serves their own interests.

Trump’s first term was a case study in this hypocrisy. He repeatedly filled key government positions with individuals who had no business being there. Betsy DeVos, a billionaire donor with no experience in public education, was put in charge of the Department of Education. Rick Perry, who once pledged to eliminate the Department of Energy, was placed in charge of it—only to later admit he didn’t fully understand its function. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon with no background in housing policy, was appointed to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The problem wasn’t just incompetence—it was an intentional disregard for expertise in favor of ideological alignment. Trump sought appointees who would be loyal to him personally, rather than those who had the knowledge and skills to effectively lead their respective departments. This trend continued in his judicial appointments, where qualifications took a backseat to political allegiance, resulting in the nomination of judges deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association.

Now, for Trump 2.0, his potential cabinet picks reveal the same troubling pattern:

• Marco Rubio, Secretary of State – A career politician with no foreign policy leadership experience. Lacks deep diplomatic experience; more of a legislator than a negotiator.
• Kash Patel, F.B.I. Director – Has never served in a senior law enforcement position or led a large investigative agency.  Mr. Patel is a right-wing operative who has vowed to use the position to exact revenge on Mr. Trump’s adversaries.
• Pam Bondi, Attorney General – A former Florida attorney general with ties to Trump’s legal battles. Faced scrutiny for dropping a Trump University fraud investigation after receiving a $25,000 donation from Trump’s foundation.
• Pete Hegseth, Defense Secretary – A Fox News host with military experience but no Pentagon leadership background. Unlike past Defense Secretaries, he has never held a senior military or civilian leadership role in the Department of Defense.
• Kristi Noem, Homeland Security Secretary – A governor with no direct national security experience.
• Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Labor Secretary – A former congresswoman with limited labor policy experience.
• John Ratcliffe, CIA Director – A former congressman with a history of politicizing intelligence.
• Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence – A former Democratic congresswoman with a controversial record on foreign policy.
• Mehmet Oz, Medicare and Medicaid Administrator – A TV doctor known for promoting dubious medical treatments.
• Lee Zeldin, EPA Administrator – A politician with a record of voting against environmental protections.
• Elise Stefanik, UN Ambassador – A Trump loyalist with little foreign policy experience.
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr., HHS Secretary – A vaccine skeptic with no public health credentials.
• Doug Burgum, Interior Secretary – A governor with strong fossil fuel industry ties.
• Doug Collins, Veterans Affairs Secretary – A former congressman with military chaplain experience but no VA leadership background.
• Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary – A hedge fund billionaire with financial conflicts of interest.
• Brooke Rollins, Agriculture Secretary – A conservative think tank executive with no agricultural policy background.
• Howard Lutnick, Commerce Secretary – A Wall Street executive facing potential conflicts of interest.
• Sean Duffy, Transportation Secretary – A reality TV star turned congressman with no transportation policy experience.

The lineup underscores the blatant hypocrisy at play. The GOP’s claim that DEI threatens meritocracy is a smokescreen for their real objective: consolidating power and rewarding loyalty over competence. If Republicans were truly concerned about merit, they would demand expertise in governance—not just fealty to Trump.

You got played, MAGA. You elected the Keystone cops – the gang that couldn’t shoot straight!

BY Rebekkah Markey-Towler, The University of Melbourne

On his first day back in office as United States president, Donald Trump gave formal notice of his nation’s exit from the Paris Agreement – a vital global treaty seeking to rein in climate change.

Before signing the order, Trump declared his reasons to an arena of cheering supporters, describing the global agreement as an “unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off”.

Of course, this is not the first time Trump has withdrawn the US from the Paris deal – he did it in 2017, during his first term in office.

On one hand, Trump’s move is a huge blow to efforts to global climate action. The US is the world’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution, after China. The country is crucial to the global effort to curb climate change.

But given Trump’s climate denialism, it’s actually better that the US absent itself from international climate talks while he is in power. That way, the rest of the world can get on with the job without Trump’s corrosive influence.

A quick refresher on the Paris Agreement

Signed by 196 nations in 2015, the Paris Agreement is the first comprehensive global treaty to combat climate change.

Its overall goal is to hold the increase global temperatures to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C.

Scientists say meeting the more ambitious 1.5°C target is crucial, because crossing that threshold risks unleashing catastrophic climate change impacts, such as more frequent and severe droughts and heatwaves.

Under the agreement, each nation must make national plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help reach the global temperature goals. These plans are known as “nationally determined contributions”.

What Trump’s withdrawal means

Under Trump’s last presidency, the US was only out of the Paris deal for four months, due to the time it took for the retreat to take effect. President Joe Biden rejoined the agreement in early 2021.

This time, the US withdrawal will become official more quickly – after a year. Then, the US will join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only United Nations countries not party to the agreement.

The US can keep participating as a party to the Paris agreement until January 2026. That means it may try to negotiate at the COP30 climate change conference in Brazil this year.

COP30 is a big deal. It is when each country is due to present its new nationally determined contributions. The US withdrawal means it is unlikely to bring a new contribution to the meeting – if it attends at all.

Should the US show up, its presence would potentially destabilise negotiations. That’s why removing Trump-backed negotiators from the climate talks going forward is a good outcome.

If the US stayed in the tent under Trump, its negotiators could, for example, agitate to weaken any deals struck at future COP meetings. We saw such tactics from Saudi Arabia at COP29 in Baku. The oil state repeatedly disrupted the talks and in one instance, sought to alter important text in the agreement without full consultation.

With the US out of the way, the other parties to the Paris agreement have a better chance of progressing climate negotiations.

At this stage, it doesn’t appear other countries are preparing to follow Trump out the door. This is despite controversy at the COP29 talks when Argentinian president Javier Milei ordered his negotiators to withdraw only a few days in. Milei had previously described the climate emergency as a “socialist lie”.

At this stage, Trump has not withdrawn from the Paris Agreement’s parent convention, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. So after it withdraws from the Paris deal, the US can still attend COP meetings, but only as an observer.

Onwards and upwards

Of course, there are downsides to the US withdrawal from the Paris deal.

Leaving the Paris agreement means the US is no longer required to provide annual updates on its greenhouse gas emissions. This lack of transparency makes it harder to determine how the world is tracking on emissions reduction overall.

Under the Biden administration, the US contributed funding to help developing nations adopt clean energy and cope with climate change (albeit delivering less than it promised). Trump is expected to slash this funding. That will leave vulnerable nation states in an even more precarious position.

While the US was technically only out of the Paris deal for a short period last time, the process was destabilising. It weakened what was an unprecedented show of international solidarity and sent a damaging message about the importance of climate action.

Trump’s latest withdrawal is a similar blow to morale. It’s particularly galling for Americans fighting for climate action, and those struggling with its devastating effects – most recently, the unthinkable fires in Los Angeles.

But Trump’s withdrawal can easily be reversed by a new US president. And we can expect other parties to Paris, such as China and the European Union, to continue to play a leadership role, and others to fill the vacuum.

What’s more, as others have noted, Trump cannot derail global climate action. Investment in clean energy is now greater than in fossil fuels. When Trump last pulled out of Paris, many US state and local governments pressed ahead with climate policy; we can expect the same this time around.

And the vast majority of the rest of the world is still pursuing emissions reduction efforts.

So overall, the US exit from Paris is probably the best of a bunch of bad options. It mutes Trump’s capacity to destabilise international climate action, allowing others to step into the breach.

Rebekkah Markey-Towler, PhD Candidate, Melbourne Law School, and Research fellow, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.