James Freedman (Jim.freedman@gmail.com) is a leadership consultant working in the global health-care sector.
BRATTLEBORO-When President Donald Trump was asked recently what ultimately constrains his power in decisions about foreign policy and the use of American force, here is what he said.
"My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me."
It is an extraordinary statement for any president to make, let alone this one. This remark may be the clearest description yet of how this president approaches power through instinct and gut feeling.
Of course presidents have always relied on judgment. Leadership cannot be reduced to data tables or legal memoranda alone.
Harry Truman's decision to recognize Israel in 1948, John F. Kennedy's management of the Cuban missile crisis, and Ronald Reagan's diplomacy with the Soviet Union all involved moments where personal judgment mattered. But in those cases, instinct operated alongside - not instead of - evidence, debate, and constitutional responsibility.
That distinction matters.
* * *
The American system was deliberately designed to prevent government from resting on one person's impulses. The Constitution disperses power among institutions precisely because the founders distrusted concentrated authority guided solely by personal certainty.
Congress declares war. Courts review legality. Advisors, intelligence agencies, and diplomatic institutions exist to provide the information and scrutiny needed to discipline presidential judgment. History has shown that the presidency works best when instinct is informed by these structures rather than replacing them.
Yet many of this administration's most consequential decisions appear to emerge from something different: a governing style that treats intuition and emotional reaction as substitutes for careful and rigorous analysis.
When announcing military strikes in Syria in 2017, the president described acting after seeing disturbing images on television and concluding his response was simply the "right thing to do."
In 2020, Trump authorized the drone strike that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani - and the president reportedly selected the most extreme option presented during a briefing, surprising even his own advisors.
More recently, he has justified the timing of military action against Iran by saying he "just felt it was the right time." In each case instinct and personal conviction appeared to stand in for a more publicly articulated strategic rationale.
His approach carries obvious risks.
Complex global crises - from nuclear proliferation to economic stability to regional conflict - rarely yield to gut feeling. They require careful evaluation of intelligence, consultation with allies, and sober consideration of unintended consequences.
When those disciplines weaken, decisions become reactive rather than strategic.
* * *
Observers have begun to ask a deeper question: whether Trump's heavy reliance on instinct reflects more than a simple leadership preference.
Governing in a complex modern world requires the ability to absorb competing information, weigh uncertainty, and navigate difficult trade-offs. When a leader repeatedly bypasses these processes, it raises concerns about his willingness - or ability - to engage the full complexity of the choices before him.
Instinct can be valuable when it rests on deep knowledge and experience. Instinct without evidence becomes something closer to impulse of the moment.
James Madison warned in Federalist No. 51 that concentrated power must be restrained by institutional checks because human judgment is inherently fallible. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," he wrote.
The Constitution's architecture - separation of powers, shared authority, and legal accountability - exists not because Americans distrust leadership, but because they understand its limits. No president, regardless of confidence or conviction, can safely substitute personal feeling for the disciplined processes that democratic governance requires.
At its best, the presidency blends judgment with humility. Leaders listen to advisors, examine evidence, respect legal constraints, and accept that no single perspective is sufficient. The office demands intellectual rigor and emotional restraint precisely because the stakes are so high.
That is why statements suggesting that personal morality alone limits presidential power should outrage Americans across the political spectrum. A constitutional republic must not depend on the inner compass of one individual. It depends on institutions, law, and shared democratic rules.
The presidency was never meant to be governed by instinct alone. It was meant to be governed by the Constitution.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.