3.2 - Informal powers and the presidential office

Mandates and national events

Winning the presidency gives a person legal authority to hold the office, but the strength of the political claim attached to that victory varies. An electoral mandate is a claim that electoral support authorises a programme or direction of policy. It is an argument about legitimacy and support, rather than an additional constitutional power.

A president can emphasise a clear campaign promise, a large victory or control of Congress to argue that legislators should cooperate. Opponents can reply that voters chose a candidate for many reasons, rejected some proposals, or separately elected representatives with different priorities. Donald Trump won the Electoral College in 2016 despite receiving fewer nationwide popular votes than Hillary Clinton. His victory authorised him to take office, but did not establish that a majority of voters supported every part of his programme. Electoral College success, popular support and congressional support are different measures.

If you sit in 2027 — Issue 3: the older informal-powers glossary uses wording suggesting presidents simply assume powers. The clearer meaning is an established source of influence not separately enumerated in the Constitution. An informal method is not automatically unlawful; an executive action still needs a lawful basis.

If you sit in 2027: Clinton won 370 electoral votes in 1992 and 379 in 1996, securing election and then re-election. The 1992 and 1996 National Archives results establish those victories. Re-election renewed his authority to hold office and could strengthen a political claim to support, but did not add a constitutional power to command Congress or demonstrate agreement with every policy. These examples retain the earlier presidential evidence range for 2027; the main post-2000 examples support both series.

National events can change how willing others are to follow a president. After the attacks of 11 September 2001, George W. Bush occupied a central public role as national leader. Congress enacted the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, permitting force against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. The crisis helped create political conditions for an important grant of statutory authority. The event itself did not amend the Constitution or automatically transfer Congress's powers to Bush.

A crisis can also weaken a presidency if voters or legislators judge the response ineffective. Its effect depends on performance, blame, public expectations and whether the proposed response retains support. National prominence creates an opportunity for influence; it does not guarantee success.

Executive orders and legal authority

An executive order is a presidential directive to the executive branch. Executive orders are not separately named in the Constitution, which is why they appear among informal sources of presidential power in this specification. However, an order with legal effect must draw on an existing constitutional power or authority delegated by Congress. Calling it informal does not remove the need for legality.

Orders can set administrative priorities and direct how federal agencies use discretion already given to them. They can act more quickly than a new bill moving through Congress. They cannot validly repeal an Act of Congress or create unlimited authority merely because the president signs them. Congress can legislate, refuse necessary appropriations or conduct oversight; courts can review a challenged order; a later president can reverse or amend it within the law.

In February 2014, Obama issued Executive Order 13658, setting a minimum wage for workers on covered federal contracts. The order used the federal government's role in procurement. It did not raise the statutory minimum wage for every employee in the country. This distinction shows both the reach and the boundary of unilateral action: Obama could affect a defined field of government contracting while a nationwide statutory change required Congress.

Do not call every executive action an executive order. A presidential memorandum, an agency rule, an enforcement decision and a proclamation can have different forms and legal bases. For example, the final travel restrictions upheld in Trump v Hawaii (2018) were set out in a presidential proclamation. The Supreme Court accepted the relevant statutory authority and rejected the challenge before it. That judgement does not mean the president possesses an unrestricted power to exclude any person for any reason.

The Congressional Research Service's explanation supports the legal-basis distinction. The Department of Labor's record of Order 13658 identifies the order's original scope and implementation. These are historical examples, rather than claims about the wage rules in force today.

Persuasion and bargaining

Presidential persuasion works by changing another actor's judgement about the benefits or costs of cooperation. It is necessary because legislators, judges, state officials and organised interests are not all under presidential command.

A president can bargain privately, adapt a proposal, offer support for a legislator's priority, work through party leaders or appeal publicly to voters. Public appeals are sometimes called going public: the president hopes constituents will encourage representatives to support the proposal. A veto threat can support bargaining because legislators must consider whether their bill could become law. Access to the president, a campaign visit or participation in a public event can also have political value. None of these tools removes the other actor's choice.

Joe Biden's infrastructure programme illustrates cooperation across party lines. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed the Senate by 69–30 in August 2021 and was signed into law in November. Republican and Democratic senators participated in negotiations. The result shows a president advancing a priority through an agreed legislative coalition, rather than simply issuing an instruction to Congress. Support for roads, bridges and other infrastructure could overlap across party lines even while other parts of Biden's programme remained disputed.