3.3.3.2 – Limitations on presidential power and why this varies between presidents
Donald Trump’s response to the Minneapolis situation has highlighted how public opinion can act as a real constraint on presidential authority. While the president authorised a strong federal immigration presence in the city, the political reaction that followed has shown that formal power does not operate in a vacuum. Recent polling by The New York Times and Siena College helps explain why the administration’s stance became harder to sustain. Their national survey put Trump’s overall job approval at around 34 per cent, with approximately 63 per cent of voters disapproving of his performance. On immigration, traditionally one of Trump’s strongest issues, approval was higher but still precarious, sitting in the mid-40s, while disapproval remained above 50 per cent.
Public attitudes towards enforcement tactics were even more damaging. The same polling also found that 63 per cent of respondents disapproved of the way ICE was carrying out its role, compared with just 36 per cent who approved. When asked more directly, 61 per cent said federal immigration enforcement had “gone too far”, while only around a quarter felt the approach was justified. In the wake of events in Minneapolis, nearly half of Americans, about 48 per cent, said they supported abolishing ICE altogether. However, this could be a problematic rallying call for the Democrats if they seek to capitalise on anti-ICE sentiment, as it will have echoes of ‘Defund the Police’, a chant often shouted at protests in response to the murder of George Floyd, and was widely seen as alienating large numbers of moderate voters.
These figures matter because they translate directly into political pressure. As criticism mounted and polling numbers worsened, senior officials began signalling that the federal presence in Minneapolis might be reduced. Talk of a possible drawdown suggested that the administration was responding not to legal limits, but to declining public support and fears of electoral consequences. The episode demonstrates how public opinion can limit presidential power in practice. Although the president has wide discretion over immigration enforcement and the deployment of federal agents, sustaining those choices requires a degree of popular backing. When that support erodes, even a powerful presidency can be forced to adjust course, showing that democratic accountability remains an important informal check on executive authority.