The Unitary Executive Theory, U.S. Constitution and Public Administration

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Tom R. Hulst
August 11, 2025

There has been substantial discussion of “unitary executive theory” in recent years. This theory, originating from Article II of the Constitution, has ignited debate concerning the constitutional balance of power, democratic accountability and the management of federal agencies. The theory postulates that the President of the United States exercises far-reaching control over the executive branch and all its functions. Issues have arisen, therefore, concerning the authority of the president over regulatory commissions, personnel decisions to hire and fire individuals in quasi-legislative positions, the power to dissolve agencies created by Congress and control over appropriations authorized by the legislative body. The theory finds its roots in the writings of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, where he advocates for a single executive as essential for effective governance. Hamilton writes in Federalist #70 that, “Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction and of anarchy.”

While the Constitutional Convention of 1787 created the office of the presidency with substantial powers, the Founders were clear about the importance of the separation of powers and checks and balances among the three branches. They took their cues from classical philosophers such as Aristotle and Polybius and enlightenment thinkers Baron de Montesquieu and John Locke. Both Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) and Polybius (204–122 B.C.) wrote about mixed constitutions from which later thinkers drew substantially. John Locke (1632–1704), in The Second Treatise of Government, wrote about the rule of law and the power of legislatures. He opined that, “This legislative is not only the Supreme Power of the common-wealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it; nor can any edict of any body else… have the force and obligation of law.” Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755) was an admirer of John Locke and was clear in his view that liberty depended on the separation of legislative and executive functions. He famously wrote, “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty.”

The Founding Fathers created an “energetic” executive within the Constitution because government under the Articles of Confederation was weak and rudderless. However, the lessons of history, advice of wise philosophers of law and their own experience with the King of England taught the founders that unrestrained authority in an executive could lead to tyranny and despotism. Madison reflected Montesquieu’s ideas when he wrote in Federalist #47 that, “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than [this]… The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

The Founders were not naïve about the operations of government. The branches were not to be hermetically sealed in disconnected and detached compartments. Rather, the framers strategically blended certain powers in a “partial intermixture” of the branches to sustain the principle of separation. Hamilton wrote in Federalist #66 that, “this partial intermixture is even in some cases not only proper. But necessary to the mutual defense of the several members of the government against each other.” In other words, while each branch of government should stay in its own lane, there are important instances of overlap to achieve proper checks and balances. What concerned the members of the Convention was that no agency of the government should usurp the “whole” power of another branch of government.

Recent actions raise the specter that the current administration is commandeering whole powers of the other branches of government. The founders did not imagine that executive orders would replace enacted law or the Constitution itself. The President has issued 170 executive orders since January 2025. Orders have dismantled the Department of Education, impounded spending authorized by Congress and nullified birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The framers did not deign executive actions to disregard the rulings of the judiciary; they did not decide that the origination of revenues and expenditures would become the province of the president or the unelected Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

A careful reading of the Federalist Papers and U.S. constitutional history will reveal that the ideas embodied in the unified executive theory are unfaithful to the ideas set forth by the framers, contribute to a drift toward authoritarianism and constitute bad political theory. To enhance both democratic accountability and effective governance, the nation must acknowledge the need for a decisive executive while integrating institutional checks to prevent the amalgamation of power, retain its commitment to democratic principles and uphold the rule of law.

---

Author: Tom R. Hulst received an MA in public administration from Washington State University. He served as policy advisor to Washington Governor Daniel J. Evans, administrator in the State Superintendent Office of Public Instruction, and superintendent of Peninsula School District. He published The Footpaths of Justice William O. Douglas in 2004 and currently teaches political science at Tacoma Community College. 

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...