A Republic if You Can Keep It Narratives as of October 2025

This Storyboard - which we call our "stain" chart - shows you at a glance how strong or weak a given narrative is right now relative to its history.

For each narrative or "semantic signature" listed on the left of the chart, we have a series of blue dots on the right, each of which represents a specific weekly density or volume of that narrative. reading from within the date range that we are covering. The yellow arrow is the most recent reading, so it's just like the "YOU ARE HERE" spot on a map. The x-axis scale shows the range of index values.  If a dot is at 100, that means that story is 100% more present in media than usual. If it’s at 0, it means it’s at its normal level.

The light blue shaded box covers the middle 50% of readings across the date range, so you can see quickly if the current reading is typical (inside the blue box), depressed (left of the blue box), or elevated (to the right of the blue box).

If you hover over a specific blue dot, you will see the specific date and measurement that the dot represents.

Institutional Power Struggles Define October's Constitutional Discourse

Executive Authority Narratives Reach Near-Historic Levels Amid Ongoing Debate

The constitutional boundaries of presidential power have become a defining feature of American political discourse as the Supreme Court opens a new term centered on executive authority. Perscient's semantic signature tracking language about excessive presidential power reached a z-score of 2.49 this month, matching its all-time high and indicating that media discussion of an increasingly imperial presidency has reached unprecedented levels. This represents a 0.37 increase from the previous month, suggesting that concerns about executive overreach continue to intensify.

The Supreme Court term promises to be hugely consequential, focused in large part on how much power the Constitution gives to the president. Multiple cases will test the limits of executive authority, including challenges to Trump administration policies on tariffs, the firing of federal agency heads, and other sweeping executive actions. Legal observers note that this term will showcase clashes between President Trump's view of presidential power and the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation.

Recent polling data reveals that solid majorities of Americans believe President Trump is operating outside his legal and constitutional authority, a perception that aligns with the elevated signature readings. The debate extends beyond abstract constitutional theory into concrete policy disputes. Major cases before the Court involve the U.S. Federal Reserve, immigration policy, domestic troop deployment, birthright citizenship, and federal worker protections, among other matters.

Language asserting that nobody is above the law in America rose by 0.28 to a z-score of 1.03, suggesting increased media attention to the principle of equal application of law. Meanwhile, the semantic signature tracking language arguing that constitutional constraints should yield to practical governance needs remained flat at 2.49, also at its all-time high. This sustained elevation indicates ongoing media discussion of whether strict constitutional adherence should give way when facing urgent challenges.

Social media commentary reflects the polarization around these issues. Some voices emphasize that the Constitution does not give the president unilateral power to impose tariffs, declare war, or redirect appropriated funds, while others argue that the president has clear authority to hire and fire executive branch members. The tension between these perspectives captures the fundamental disagreement about where constitutional lines should be drawn.

Courts Face Accusations of Overreach as Judicial Power Debates Intensify

The judiciary has likewise found itself under sustained scrutiny as debates over judicial activism reach near-record levels. Perscient's semantic signature tracking language about courts overstepping their power remained flat at a z-score of 2.88, near its all-time high of 3.25. This sustained elevation reflects ongoing media discussion of judicial activism and concerns that courts are legislating from the bench rather than interpreting law.

The statistics are striking: since January 20, 2025, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, compared to six during George W. Bush's eight years and 12 during Barack Obama's eight years. This acceleration has fueled congressional concerns about judicial interference with executive authority. During a recent hearing, Representative Issa stated that "the federal judiciary isn't interpreting the law, it is impeding the presidency", arguing that courts are holding themselves superior rather than co-equal to the executive branch.

The Trump administration has experienced an unusual pattern where even judges appointed by the president have ruled against his policies. From National Guard deployments to deportation policies, Trump has suffered numerous legal setbacks from people he put on the bench, creating an awkward dynamic that has intensified debates about judicial independence versus judicial activism.

Attorney General Bondi has criticized what she terms judicial activism, noting that the administration has faced an unprecedented number of judicial stays in its first nine months. The administration secured a Supreme Court win narrowing the scope of nationwide injunctions, but lower court actions continue. California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised court rulings upholding injunctions against Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, illustrating how the same judicial actions viewed as overreach by some are celebrated as constitutional guardianship by others.

Notably, language praising the Supreme Court as a defender of liberty fell by 0.38 to a z-score of -0.75, indicating decreased positive characterization of the high court. This decline coincides with warnings from watchdog groups that the justices have "regularly abetted Trump's unlawful power grab and indulged his anti-constitutional impulses". Since Trump returned to office, the Supreme Court has acted in 23 emergency cases involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times.

Social media reflects the deep divisions over judicial power. Some commentators celebrate appellate decisions that walk back district court blocks on National Guard deployments, predicting that activist judges will be overturned. Others view the pattern differently, seeing continued provocation by activist judges designed to constrain Trump and create political dilemmas regardless of eventual outcomes.

Constitutional Principles Under Pressure as Separation of Powers Debates Continue

The broader framework of constitutional governance faces scrutiny as fundamental principles about institutional balance come under stress. Perscient's semantic signature tracking language about the effectiveness of checks and balances remained flat at 1.37, indicating continued discussion of separation of powers, though this represents a slight decline from the prior month's 1.49.

Concerns about institutional erosion extend beyond specific policy disputes. Observers note that the administration attacks the court itself when decisions go against it, using name calling and accusing individual judges of "hating America" and suffering from a "sick ideology." Legal scholars warn this represents a danger to separation of powers and to judicial independence itself. Retired federal judges are examining the constitutional role of courts and the sources and consequences of sustained campaigns aimed at undermining judicial authority.

The historical context matters. The Framers designed Congress as the first branch, vested with the power of the purse, the power to legislate, and the power to oversee. Yet in recent decades, the balance of power has shifted decisively toward the presidency, with presidents of both parties testing constitutional limits. Critics argue that Trump sees himself as more like a king than president, pointing to his ambition to extend presidential powers and prompting national protests.

Language praising the Constitution as exceptional remained flat at 1.58, near its all-time high of 1.62, showing sustained positive characterization of the founding document. This suggests that even as institutional tensions rise, reverence for the Constitution itself remains strong in media discourse. The challenge lies not in constitutional veneration but in competing interpretations of what the document permits and requires.

Some analysts warn that the pillars of democratic foundation are being eroded, including the rule of law. They argue that Americans cannot afford to focus solely on individual rights and due process while assuming that institutions of governance will endure automatically. The concern extends to whether the legislature, judiciary, and executive will maintain their proper roles and relationships.

The Supreme Court's new term features major disputes with implications for the economy, foreign policy, and the midterm elections. As scrutiny on the nine justices reaches new intensity, the fundamental question remains whether the constitutional system can accommodate aggressive assertions of executive power while maintaining meaningful checks and balances. The resolution of cases this term will likely shape American governance for years to come, determining not just specific policy outcomes but the broader contours of institutional power in American democracy.

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.