Since the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump has centralized power within the executive branch, a move that has raised significant concerns about the implications for American democracy and governance. While many have scrutinized his reliance on executive orders, his appointments based on personal loyalty, and his reactions to dissenting judges, what is equally alarming is his approach to international treaties.
Traditionally, significant foreign treaties are ratified through a two-thirds majority vote in the U.S. Senate or a majority vote in both houses of Congress. Treaties negotiated and signed solely by the president are typically limited to minor matters and are known as “sole executive agreements.” Historically, all major treaties—those that established the United Nations, the World Bank, NATO, and many others that addressed tariff reductions, human rights, and criminal extradition—have required some form of congressional consent. Congress has also rejected treaties it deemed inadequate, such as the Treaty of Versailles and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
However, the current climate under Trump signals a potential dismantling of this foundational treaty-making system. The president has entered into agreements with foreign nations without submitting them to Congress for approval, treating the power to make treaties as an executive prerogative. His direct engagement in agreements, such as the recent deal with Ukraine concerning critical mineral resources, exemplifies his unilateral approach. In his first six months in office, Trump authorized numerous international agreements—many of which are not binding—while invoking expansive claims of presidential authority to classify them as sole executive agreements.
This unprecedented personalization of treaty-making draws unsettling parallels to historical monarchs, who often entered into personal treaties that expired with their reign. The 18th-century legal scholar Emer de Vattel distinguished between personal treaties, which were transient and tied to individual rulers, and formal treaties that were enduring and attached to the state itself. The evolution of international law throughout the 16th and 17th centuries gradually shifted treaty-making authority away from monarchs to sovereign states, requiring legislative approval regardless of the head of state’s title.
Trump’s circumvention of Congress not only contradicts modern international law but also poses significant risks: foremost among them is a lack of transparency. Former President Woodrow Wilson famously advocated for the end of secret treaties, a call that has been echoed throughout international agreements. The current administration’s trade deals remain largely undisclosed, leaving the American public unaware of the commitments made in their name. For instance, the texts of agreements with Japan and South Korea have not been made public, leading to disputes regarding the administration’s characterizations of these deals.
Moreover, Trump’s agreements could impose financial obligations on the country, a power constitutionally reserved for the House of Representatives. The potential implications of Trump’s negotiations with foreign leaders, particularly concerning sensitive issues like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, could lead to dire consequences. If Trump were to position the U.S. as a guarantor of a peace treaty that recognizes Russian territorial claims, it could violate international law and entangle the U.S. in military actions based on questionable premises.
Additionally, Trump’s personal agreements risk conflicting with previously ratified treaties, as seen in ongoing negotiations with Canada, Mexico, and South Korea. These sole executive agreements could undermine earlier accords, raising further constitutional concerns.
The opacity surrounding these personal agreements complicates the judiciary’s role in protecting individual rights. Instances have arisen where agreements were not disclosed, leaving courts unable to determine their legality. For example, the arrangement with El Salvador that involved deportations remained secret until recently, making it impossible for courts to rule on the legality of actions taken under this agreement.
In a historical context, Alexander Hamilton articulated the need for a balanced approach to treaty-making in the Federalist Papers, emphasizing a departure from the absolute authority of hereditary monarchs. He argued that an elective president should not wield unilateral treaty-making power, a principle enshrined in the Constitution, which requires shared authority between the president and Congress.
As Congress grapples with the implications of Trump’s treaty policies, it is vital for legislators to reclaim their role in this process. Although the current Congress may be reluctant to confront the president, it is imperative for those who value the integrity of U.S. foreign relations to demand transparency and adherence to lawful treaty-making practices. Congress must insist that Trump provide the full text of all treaties and significant political agreements, and consider restricting funding for treaties that bypass legislative approval. Without a revival of congressional authority in treaty-making, the U.S. risks sliding into a system where international commitments are dictated solely by the whims of the president, undermining the foundational principles of democracy and accountability in foreign policy.
