WASHINGTON – A growing chorus of observers are drawing parallels between the current administration of President Donald Trump and monarchical rule, citing both symbolic displays of power and substantive expansions of executive authority. The trend, exemplified by state visits mirroring European royal protocol and increasingly overt displays of personal branding, is fueling debate over the balance of power and the long-term health of American democratic norms. this report details the scope of these changes as the president enters his second term, and examines the emerging, though limited, resistance to his assertive leadership style.
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s administration is drawing comparisons to a monarchy, marked by displays of pomp and an assertive expansion of executive power. The shift in style and substance has sparked debate about the balance of power within the U.S. government and its implications for democratic norms.
The recent state visit of Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman showcased this trend. Trump greeted the Prince with a level of ceremony rarely seen in modern White House visits – including a military flyover, a parade of black horses, and an unusually long banquet table in the East Room, diverging from the traditional round tables.
Observers noted the similarities to the state visit of King Charles III of Great Britain just two months prior, which also featured a military flyover, a horse parade, and a grand, lengthy banquet table in the St. George’s Hall at Windsor Castle. The echoes of royal protocol have fueled concerns about the increasing personalization of the presidency under Trump.
Since returning to office, Trump has embraced trappings of power traditionally associated with royalty, while simultaneously exercising what some describe as unchecked authority to reshape the government and American society. This approach has led to comparisons with the “imperial presidency” – a term historically applied to the administration of Richard Nixon half a century ago, but now seen as significantly surpassed.
According to those familiar with the administration, this is a markedly different approach than Trump’s first term. He is no longer constrained by the same level of internal resistance and is actively pursuing policies and displays that were previously tempered.
The changes are visible in numerous ways. Gold adornments have been added to the Oval Office, and the East Wing of the White House is undergoing demolition to make way for a larger ballroom. Trump’s name and image are appearing on federal buildings and even the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and a proposal to designate his birthday as a national holiday with free park access has been floated. These actions, critics say, demonstrate a focus on personal aggrandizement and a consolidation of power that faces limited opposition from Congress or the Supreme Court.
Nearly 250 years after American colonists overthrew their king, some observers argue the country is approaching its closest approximation to centralized monarchical authority in peacetime. Trump is actively reinterpreting constitutional amendments and dismantling agencies and departments created by Congress.
He is also directing private institutions on how to manage their affairs, deploying troops to U.S. streets, and authorizing military action against non-military vessels in the Caribbean, as seen in recent encounters with tankers near Venezuela. Furthermore, he has reportedly used law enforcement to pursue what his Chief of Staff has called “settling scores” against his opponents, granted clemency to allies, and equated criticism with sedition punishable by death.
This reinvention of the presidency is fundamentally altering the balance of power in Washington, with consequences that could extend far beyond Trump’s time in office. The concentration of authority is rarely relinquished voluntarily, and actions once considered shocking may become normalized.
“In many respects, his second term doesn’t simply represent a break with norms and what is expected of the presidency,” said Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “It’s also the culmination of a 75-year process in which presidents have sought to accumulate ever more power.”
This shift is also the result of four years of planning between Trump’s first and second terms. During his initial time in office, he was described as a political novice unfamiliar with the workings of government, surrounded by advisors attempting to restrain his more extreme impulses. This time, he entered office with a clear plan and a team of loyalists determined to fundamentally reshape the country.
“This time, when he took office, the president knew exactly what he wanted to do,” said Jason Miller, a longtime Trump advisor. “Now the president has four years of experience, he knows exactly how everything works, he knows all the international players and all the domestic players. And he knew what strategies and tactics worked the first time and what didn’t.”
The presidency is a dynamic institution that reflects the character of its occupant, whether they are self-proclaimed men of action like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, paternal figures like Dwight D. Eisenhower, legislative masters like Lyndon B. Johnson, or charismatic communicators like Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. More than the sum of the clauses in Article II of the Constitution, the presidency is an evolving construct that adapts to the ever-changing challenges of a complex and fluctuating world.
Trump approaches the presidency as a mantle of power, and the central theme of his second term is power itself. He denies any monarchical aspirations, stating, “I’m not a king,” after millions protested against what they termed “king-like” behavior in October. However, he simultaneously embraces the comparison, seemingly enjoying the idea.
Trump and his team have circulated images of him in monarchical attire, including an AI-generated illustration depicting him wearing a crown and piloting a fighter jet while dropping waste on protestors. He also enthusiastically shared a replica of an ancient gold crown gifted to him by South Korean officials, posting “LONG LIVE THE KING!” on social media.
For his supporters, Trump’s assertion of vast power is not unsettling but invigorating. In a country they believe is in decline, a strong hand is seen as the only way to overcome a progressive “woke” deep state that, in their view, has stifled ordinary Americans in favor of unwanted immigrants, street criminals, global elites, disadvantaged minorities, and disconnected elites.
Voters struggling to maintain their standard of living or understand the world’s rapid changes have twice given Trump the opportunity to fulfill his promise to upend traditional politics and address their concerns. The outcome of this approach could have significant implications for the future of American governance.
Critics, however, view Trump as narcissistic, rude, corrupt, and a danger to American democracy. They accuse him of using his office to enrich himself and his family, tarnishing the image of the United States abroad, attempting to erase the true history of African Americans, and implementing policies that harm those he claims to represent.
However, all agree that Trump dominates the political landscape like no predecessor in generations, setting the agenda and imposing his will on the rest of the system.
At the same time, he remains one of the most unpopular presidents in modern polling history. According to Gallup surveys, Trump has never enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans, neither in any of his three presidential elections nor on any single day of his presidency.
His current approval rating of 36% in Gallup polls is lower than any elected president at the end of their first year, even lower than his first term (39%) and 7 percentage points below the next lowest (Joe Biden, with 43%).
Compared to presidents who served two consecutive terms, Trump remains below each of them at the end of his fifth year, except for Nixon, whose rating plummeted to 29% during Watergate.
Some critics predict that Trump’s unpopularity will ultimately erode his power. “It’s astonishing that Republicans in Congress have supported him,” said former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, who broke with Trump during his first term. “But I think that’s changing, but not out of courage, but by looking at election results and realizing that the midterm elections will be very difficult.”
Trump’s allies dismiss this, calling it the illusion of the president’s detractors. Miller described current poll numbers as a “temporary blip” that will reverse in the first two quarters of 2026, when the tax cuts approved this year take effect. “When the economy shoots up to the levels everyone is forecasting, it will all rebound.”
Towards the end of the year, signs of resistance to Trump’s unchecked power began to emerge. A judge dismissed the government’s charges against two of the president’s adversaries, Letitia James and James Comey, and two grand juries refused to re-indict James. Additionally, Congress approved the release of the Epstein files and a measure cutting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget by 25% if he doesn’t release video of a second encounter with alleged drug smugglers.
If Democrats win the midterm elections next year, they will likely use their newfound power to strike back even harder. Some, like Flake, predict that some Republicans will even begin to speak out as filing deadlines approach for potential primary challengers. Legal analysts also anticipate that the Supreme Court will curtail Trump’s authority on tariffs and possibly on birthright citizenship.
Russell Riley, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, acknowledges that the expansion of presidential authority has a long history in the United States. However, he adds, “We have an equally strong history of returning the presidency to its constitutional framework once a war or economic crisis is over.”
And that history “allows us to speculate with some confidence that what we’re seeing today won’t last.” Is that guaranteed? “I’m not smart enough to know the answer,” the historian concludes.
Translation by Jaime Arrambide
