Presidential Power Dominates as Commitment to Constitutional Principles Wavers

Executive Authority Narratives Drift Higher as Judicial Pushback Intensifies

Narratives surrounding growing assertions of presidential authority reached even higher levels in November, with Perscient's semantic signature tracking language arguing that presidential power has grown excessive rising 8 points to 142 – or 142% above the long-term average. The surge reflects ongoing debates over the scope of executive power as President Trump's administration continues to test constitutional boundaries in its second term.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in November on the legality of the president's sweeping tariffs, the first in a series of cases examining broad claims of executive authority. Legal scholars note these cases could either restrain presidential power or entrench expanded executive discretion for years to come. The administration has asserted authority to declare emergencies on the southern border and in energy policy, while claiming power to withhold congressionally approved spending outside of wartime conditions. A Washington Post analysis from late November concluded that Trump has concentrated more federal power in the White House than any modern president one year into his second term.

Central to these debates is a February 2025 executive order asserting presidential supervision over independent agencies, arguing that regulatory bodies exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in December on whether the 1935 precedent of Humphrey's Executor, which established independence for certain agency heads, should be overruled. The administration contends it should have authority to fire independent agency commissioners at will.

This concentration of executive power has prompted a corresponding judicial response, although the intensity of the narrative attached to this response has declined fairly rapidly in recent weeks. Language arguing that courts are legislating from the bench or interfering with the executive declined 27 points in November to only 11% above the long-term average. The decrease suggests that rhetoric criticizing courts for exceeding their authority weakened from October's elevated levels, even as underlying tensions persisted. Since January 20, 2025, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, a pace that exceeds the combined total from George W. Bush's eight years (six injunctions) and Barack Obama's eight years (twelve injunctions). Judge Jerry Smith wrote in a November 2025 dissent regarding a Texas redistricting case that it represented "the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed."

The Supreme Court's docket includes cases that could reshape fundamental aspects of American governance: potential elimination of remaining Voting Rights Act protections, challenges to campaign finance restrictions, the tariff cases, and the dispute over firing independent commissioners. The success of efforts to ensure that these fundamental changes fall within constitutional bounds has not yet inspired much confidence, at least in media. The density of language praising the effectiveness of checks and balances in the US government fell by 11 points to a level 27% below its long-term average.

It seems to be a crisis of execution, rather than one of belief that such checks and balances are good. Recent polling showed that more than three-quarters of Americans value checks and balances between government branches, though more than one-third agree that when the country is off track, "we need a leader who is willing to break some rules."

Due Process Narratives Rebound as Cancel Culture Discourse Holds Steady

The tension between judicial restraint and executive expansion has parallels in broader debates about due process and public accountability. The density of language celebrating the presumption of innocence as American rose by 19 points in November, although this remains 26% below the long-term average. The signature strengthened from October's weaker levels but continued to lag typical baseline measurements. Legal commentators noted that in the digital age, the presumption of innocence faces challenges from media coverage and public opinion, with pre-trial reporting often shaping case narratives long before courtroom proceedings begin.

The Kerala High Court held in late 2025 that the presumption of innocence "is not merely a legal right but is a fundamental human right of a person," reflecting global attention to this principle. In the United States, the presumption of innocence is recognized as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment, placing the burden of proof on prosecutors to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet social media discussions revealed growing concerns that "people are already treating the allegations as a conviction" and that "brands can drop you now with such allegations to your name, innocent or not."

Language arguing that cancel culture is ruining lives in America held steady at around 34% above its long-term average. The assassination of Christian-conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, while speaking at Utah Valley University, intensified these debates after a period in which belief in “the death of woke” took cancel culture out of public conversations for at least a few too-brief months. Reports indicated that many students who disagreed with Kirk supported the assassination, with the proportion of students saying it was acceptable to use violence to stop a speaker rising from one in five in 2020 to one in three in 2025.

An October 2025 Washington Post analysis noted that few issues have united the American right as much as opposition to cancel culture, though this consensus appears to have shifted somewhat after the Charlie Kirk assassination and its aftermath. Many of those students who expressed support for the assassination – or who merely criticized him after his death – were named and shamed in public by the very parties who had railed against cancel culture for years. Even so, cancel culture has become one of the most divisive contemporary debates, viewed by some as a necessary accountability tool and by others as mob justice that silences dialogue, and now apparently switching sides on the issue whenever the other side is in power. Nonetheless, nearly 60% of Americans believe cancel culture threatens democracy because people are increasingly scared to speak out, with critics arguing it threatens human progress by preventing the debate necessary to refine ideas.

Defenders counter that in a political culture where prejudice, bigotry, and, more recently, political violence have been normalized, public shaming serves as legitimate social resistance. Others on social media pointed out that the consequences are often illusory, that is, when people get "canceled," they often go on to secure even larger platforms. Still other social media users expressed frustration about how "opinions matter before facts" and how the "court of public opinion can't be trusted" because it relies on "misinformation slop."

Praise for Founding Documents Wavers

Debates about accountability and due process in public society seem to be connected to broader changes in the narratives about fundamental American values. Even the value of the US Constitution itself has come into question in recent weeks. The density of language praising the American Constitution as exceptional, for example, fell by 15 points in November. Meanwhile, language arguing that authorities should not let the Constitution get in the way of doing the right thing remains at a density just under 30% above the long-term average.

A September 2025 debate at Virginia Military Institute addressed whether the country faces a constitutional crisis, with participants arguing that "the things we want from our Constitution are political stability, democracy, a form of checks and balances, and a protection of individual rights." Academic discussions examined the trade-offs between rigid and flexible constitutional frameworks. Rigid constitutions require complex amendment procedures, providing stability but potentially limiting adaptability. Flexible constitutions can be altered more easily but risk undermining legal certainty through frequent or arbitrary changes.

Constitutional scholars noted that a constitution too rigid may alienate citizens by failing to reflect contemporary values, as seen in protracted American debates over gun control despite changing public opinion. Conversely, excessive flexibility risks instability if laws become subject to constant revision. A November opinion piece questioned whether the circumstances of our time would make creating a new or amended constitution a difficult task.

The role of the Supreme Court in facilitating a return to faith in the American constitutional order has not made its way into present media narratives, however. Perscient’s semantic signature measuring the density of language praising the Supreme Court as a defender of liberty declined to 29% below the long-term average in November. An October 2025 analysis suggested "the handwriting may already be on the wall, at a court dominated by conservatives and keen on enhancing the powers of the presidency." The Court's decisions on presidential authority, voting rights, and campaign finance will likely shape perceptions of its role as either a restraint on power or an enabler of executive expansion.

Archived Pulse

October 2025

• Executive Authority Narratives Reach Near-Historic Levels Amid Ongoing Debate
• Courts Face Accusations of Overreach as Judicial Power Debates Intensify
• Constitutional Principles Under Pressure as Separation of Powers Debates Continue

Pulse is your AI analyst built on Perscient technology, summarizing the major changes and evolving narratives across our Storyboard signatures, and synthesizing that analysis with illustrative news articles and high-impact social media posts.