Why Didn’t President Biden Use His Powers to Stop Trump? A Question for Future Generations
As future generations look back at the early 21st century, they may grapple with one of the most perplexing questions of the era: Why didn’t President Joe Biden use his presidential powers to stop Donald Trump and the forces that many saw as existential threats to American democracy?
By the time Trump announced his run for re-election in 2024, his presidency had already left an indelible mark on the nation. He had been impeached twice, was embroiled in numerous criminal investigations, and, by many accounts, encouraged violent political rhetoric and undermined democratic norms. The January 6th insurrection still loomed large in the national consciousness, with ongoing fears that Trump’s return to power could unravel the country’s democratic institutions altogether. Yet, despite these dangers, President Biden did not take drastic action — such as invoking emergency powers — to jail Trump, imprison his Congressional allies, or shut down media outlets like FOX News that amplified his message.
Why didn’t Biden act when the very future of democracy appeared to be at stake? The question remains a source of speculation for historians and political scientists. Here are a few reasons future generations might consider as they seek to understand Biden’s decision.
The Fear of Authoritarianism Through Emergency Powers
One of the primary reasons Biden may have refrained from taking such extreme measures was the potential for backlash and accusations of authoritarianism. While Trump’s detractors viewed him as a growing autocrat, using emergency powers to jail a political opponent would have fundamentally changed the nature of American democracy. The very act of invoking such powers to imprison Trump or censor media could have been seen as Biden overreaching his authority, mirroring the type of authoritarianism he was ostensibly trying to prevent.
Future historians may point out that while Biden faced intense pressure to act decisively, he was likely wary of setting a precedent that could erode the balance of power between the executive branch and other democratic institutions. Using emergency powers to jail Trump could have emboldened future presidents to use similar tactics to eliminate political rivals, leading to a cycle of authoritarianism rather than the protection of democracy.
Legal Constraints and Constitutional Boundaries
Despite the emotional appeal for drastic action, Biden was bound by the Constitution, which places limits on the powers of the presidency. While previous presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush invoked emergency powers during times of war or national crisis, Biden was navigating a polarized, but not conventionally wartime, situation.
The invocation of emergency powers would almost certainly have been challenged in court, and any attempt to jail Trump, MAGA leaders, or suppress right-wing media would likely have faced immediate legal opposition. The U.S. judiciary, including a Supreme Court that leaned conservative, would likely have ruled such actions unconstitutional. Biden, knowing this, may have chosen to respect constitutional constraints rather than risk a legal defeat that could further embolden Trump and his followers.
Future generations might wonder if these legal hurdles were insurmountable or if Biden was simply too cautious. Some may argue that in times of unprecedented threat, unprecedented action is necessary. But in Biden’s view, respecting the Constitution may have been essential to maintaining the legitimacy of the very democracy he sought to protect.
The Belief in Electoral Justice
One plausible reason Biden didn’t invoke emergency powers against Trump could be his belief in the democratic process. Biden and his administration may have felt that it was not their place to determine Trump’s political future — that responsibility rested in the hands of the American electorate.
Biden, as a long-time believer in democratic institutions, may have feared the political fallout of bypassing the electoral process in favor of emergency measures. For better or worse, the U.S. system has historically relied on voters to hold leaders accountable, and Biden may have been reluctant to interfere with that fundamental principle. Invoking emergency powers would have appeared as though Biden was intervening in an election process that, even with all its flaws, was meant to serve as a check on tyranny.
Looking back, future generations may question whether Biden placed too much faith in the electoral system at a time when misinformation, voter suppression, and political violence were on the rise. They may wonder if Biden underestimated the threat Trump posed to democracy and missed a crucial opportunity to protect the country from his influence.
Concerns Over National Stability
Another factor future generations might consider is Biden’s concern for national stability. Invoking emergency powers to jail Trump, Congressional leaders, or shut down FOX News could have triggered a violent backlash. The MAGA movement had already demonstrated a willingness to resort to violence, as evidenced by the January 6th Capitol insurrection. Biden may have feared that such drastic action would spark further unrest, leading to widespread civil conflict.
By not taking emergency measures, Biden may have been attempting to prevent bloodshed and avoid further radicalizing Trump’s base. The potential for violent backlash may have outweighed the perceived benefits of removing Trump from the political equation. Future historians could debate whether Biden’s caution preserved national stability or whether his inaction allowed Trumpism to grow unchecked.
The Long Shadow of History
Finally, future generations might compare Biden’s decision with historical precedents. Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans, and Bush’s use of emergency powers after 9/11 were all controversial and are now seen through a more critical lens. Each of these actions, while justified at the time, left lasting scars on the nation and eroded civil liberties in ways that were only fully understood decades later.
Biden, who was acutely aware of the weight of history, may have sought to avoid leaving a similar legacy. By refraining from using emergency powers, Biden may have been attempting to protect the integrity of democratic institutions, even at the risk of allowing Trump to remain a political force. Future historians may argue that Biden prioritized the long-term health of American democracy over the short-term removal of a dangerous political figure.
A Question Without an Easy Answer
As future generations reflect on the political turmoil of the 2020s, they will likely continue to debate whether President Biden’s decision to avoid using emergency powers was the right one. Did Biden protect democracy by adhering to constitutional norms, or did he fail to act in a moment of crisis, allowing a political movement to undermine the very institutions he sought to defend?
In the end, this question will be left for historians, political scientists, and the American public to grapple with. For now, it remains one of the great “what ifs” of the Biden presidency — why didn’t he act when democracy itself seemed to hang in the balance?
