Fareed Zakaria GPS

Episode: America’s New Export: The Unchecked Executive
Date: November 30, 2025
Host: Fareed Zakaria
Guests: Walter Isaacson, Ken Burns, Beverly Gage, Ivan Krastev

Episode Overview

This episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS investigates the state of American democracy on the eve of the United States’ 250th anniversary, focusing on the rise of unchecked executive power at home and its global implications. Fareed explores historical and contemporary threats to liberal democracy, featuring conversations with historian Walter Isaacson on the Declaration of Independence, documentarian Ken Burns on the American Revolution, Yale professor Beverly Gage on historical echoes of the Trump era, and political scientist Ivan Krastev on rising illiberalism in Eastern Europe.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

Fareed's Opening Essay: The Rise of the Unchecked Executive

[03:33–09:17]

America’s Shift Toward Executive Power
- Fareed recounts a conversation with a Pakistani friend who compares Pakistan’s military empowerment to recent US Supreme Court decisions, noting that American legal precedent is now being “exported” as a model for unchecked executive power:
  
  “Didn’t your Supreme Court rule that the president could kill his political opponents and yet be immune from prosecution? Welcome to America's new democratic export: the unchecked executive.” ([03:51])
- Founders’ intent was a fragmented, balanced government, particularly with a restrained executive—the presidency meant to faithfully execute laws within checks and balances (drawing from Federalist Papers 47, 51, 69, and 75).
The Erosion of Constraints and Norms
- Despite efforts, including the Inspector General Act (1978) established post-Watergate, Congress has lost political will over time, particularly after the 9/11 era, enabling an ever-stronger presidency.
- Norms such as the firewalling of the Justice Department and financial disclosures have been disregarded, particularly under the Trump administration.
- Fareed critiques the "unitary executive theory," which the Supreme Court has used to justify virtually unchecked presidential power, culminating in the Trump v. United States (2024) decision:
  
  “The court held that the president enjoys absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity at a minimum for all other official acts.” ([08:10])
- Justice Sotomayor’s dissent highlights the danger:
  
  “A president could arguably order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and be shielded from criminal liability, provided the order was given through official channels.” ([08:40])
Conclusion: A Precarious Legacy
- The presidency has evolved from a restricted position to a near-“modern dictatorship,” with Congress weakened and the Supreme Court “a rubber stamp.”
- Fareed’s warning:
  
  “If not, the American presidency will become for the world not an example of limited constitutional government, but rather of a modern dictatorship wielding far more unbridled power than George III did when the Founding Fathers rebelled against him 250 years ago.” ([09:10])

Walter Isaacson: The Declaration’s Greatest Sentence and the American Dream

[09:52–17:11]

Origins and Meaning of “We Hold These Truths…”
- Walter Isaacson discusses the drafting and revision process of the Declaration’s central sentence, highlighting the blend of Enlightenment rationality and religious reference:
  
  “Jefferson starts it with, ‘we hold these truths to be sacred.’ And there’s Benjamin Franklin’s backslashes of apprenticeship putting in ‘self evident’…saying, okay, our rights come not from the dogma of religion, but from reason.” ([10:46])
Balancing Religion and Reason
- The editing process incorporated both divine and rational sources for rights, reflecting a pragmatic founding philosophy:
  
  “[They were] doing the balance of the role of divine providence, the role of rationality in creating the nation, but not banking it totally based on religious beliefs.” ([11:27])
The Declaration as Aspiration
- Isaacson emphasizes the sentence as a living mission statement, continually reinterpreted by each generation:
  
  “Most of us can subscribe to [the Declaration] as an aspirational thing, not something we've achieved or they achieved, but we have to keep achieving.” ([12:04])
The Notion of “Happiness” and the American Dream
- Fareed and Isaacson explore the evolution from “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” situating it in a broader context of personal and communal fulfillment—“serving your community, serve their own family, and serve their country.” ([14:30])
Contradictions and Racial Exclusion
- The founders’ awareness of slavery’s contradiction:
  
  “Imagine that room… Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson. But also Robert Hemings, 19 years old, an enslaved valet who's traveling with Jefferson…. So all those contradictions are there.” ([15:26])
The Declaration and Its Legacy
- Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as an explicit reference to the unfulfilled promises of the Declaration:
  
  “That sentence, when written by Jefferson, did not include enslaved people, but that's what the Battle of Gettysburg was about.” ([16:35])

Ken Burns: Re-examining the Revolution

[17:52–25:03]

The International Dimension of the American Revolution
- Burns contextualizes the Revolution as part of a global conflict (the Seven Years' War), highlighting the British Proclamation Line that restricted colonial expansion:
  
  “In 1763, they put a line down through the Alleghenies, saying, you can't go over that. Which enrages not only individual folks...but also the big land speculators like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.” ([19:31])
George Washington in Three Dimensions
- Recognizing Washington’s faults and humanity, yet his unparalleled historical significance:
  
  “We don’t have a country without him… He's able to defer to Congress. He's able to convince people...that they're not from separate countries… but Americans.” ([21:43])
Global Impact and Enduring Inspiration
- The Revolution as an inspiration for centuries of global movements:
  
  “Our revolution inspires revolutions that take place for 200 years… when Ho Chi Minh declares Vietnamese independence… he's quoting Thomas Jefferson: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident…'” ([23:07])
The Value of Historical Perspective
- Burns calls for revisiting the Revolution not for nostalgia, but for context and recommitment to founding ideals:
  
  “People are very much narcissistic in the present… But in fact, we are way more divided during our revolution, way, way more divided, obviously, and our Civil War.” ([25:03])

Beverly Gage: Echoes of Trumpism in American History

[26:00–33:17]

Historical Parallels to the Trump Era
- The “Make America Great Again” slogan is unpacked:
  
  “Well, the phrase ‘make America great again’ has always had this implied question, so when was America great?” ([26:45])
The Gilded Age Analogy
- Gage compares the current moment to the Gilded Age: rampant inequality, cronyism, and the spoils system:
  
  “At the time it was called the spoils system…you took what you could from the government, you gave jobs to your friends, and that's what you were there for.” ([27:42])
Backlash and Reform
- Pressure led to reforms—the civil service, direct election of senators—that set expectations of public service beyond partisanship.
Repression and Red Scare Parallels
- Fareed asks about parallels to McCarthyism; Gage agrees there are echoes, especially around speech and deportation:
  
  “My antenna goes up every time we're talking about deportation for speech related reasons…all very resonant with the Red Scare.” ([29:29])
- But notes a key difference: the Red Scare was anchored in real external threats, whereas today’s anti-communist rhetoric floats free of context.
The Loss of Progressive Hope
- Gage notes that unlike past moments of crisis, today’s America seems short of hope:
  
  “During these earlier periods, you saw lots of energy and hope…Unfortuntately I think we've lost a little bit of that in our politics.” ([31:08])
Historical Lessons on Partisanship
- Polarization today is compared to the post-Civil War period; reforms and new crises ultimately created change.
Memorable Moment
- On transformative crises:
  
  “In a weird way, what we have to hope for in a sense is a huge crisis which will make the partisanship pale in comparison.” ([32:53])

Ivan Krastev: Eastern Europe and the Lure of the Strongman

[35:02–39:34]

Resentment and the End of History
- Krastev argues that imitation of the West after 1989 sowed the seeds of resentment:
  
  “Imitation is not a fun business. If I’m imitating you…it means that I recognize that you are better than me…resentment against imitation, in my view, was the reason why in Eastern Europe…you have this kind of a populist resentment.” ([36:27])
Hungary’s Viktor Orban as Exemplar
- Orban, an ex-liberal, pivoted to illiberal democracy:
  
  “At some point, he decided that what he does not like about liberalism is liberal democracy, that when you are winning, you are not winning enough.” ([36:36])
The Right’s Complicated Relationship to Russia
- Cultural, not just geopolitical, affinities emerge:
  
  “The idea of this liberal west…is replaced by a much more cultural view…white and Christian. So from the point of view of Russia, white and Christian Russia belongs in that way.” ([37:48])
- For some, Putin is a model of the strongman:
  
  “Putin with his…focus on history…goes to a very kind of a strong understanding of East European nationalism.” ([37:51])
Convergence of East and West
- The region is not simply “moving West,” but the West is growing more like the East:
  
  “Rather than the east becoming more like the west, now, the west is much more dynamic, much more like the East.” ([39:30])

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

Fareed Zakaria:

“Welcome to America's new democratic export: the unchecked executive.” ([03:51])
Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Quoted):

“[A] president could arguably order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and be shielded from criminal liability, provided the order was given through official channels.” ([08:40])
Walter Isaacson:

“Most of us can subscribe to [the Declaration] as an aspirational thing, not something we've achieved or they achieved, but we have to keep achieving.” ([12:04])
Ken Burns:

“Without George Washington, we don't have a country. No him, no us.” ([22:49])
Beverly Gage:

“At the time it was called the spoils system…you took what you could from the government, you gave jobs to your friends, and that's what you were there for.” ([27:42])
Ivan Krastev:

“Imitation is not a fun business…this resentment against imitation…was the reason why in Eastern Europe…you have this kind of a populist resentment.” ([36:27])

Important Segment Timestamps

Fareed’s Essay: The Unchecked Executive: [03:33–09:17]
Walter Isaacson Interview (Declaration’s meaning): [09:52–17:11]
Ken Burns Interview (Revolution’s global role, Washington): [17:52–25:03]
Beverly Gage Interview (Historical analogies for Trump era): [26:00–33:17]
Ivan Krastev Interview (Eastern Europe and populism): [35:02–39:34]

Tone & Language

The episode maintains Fareed’s signature mix of historical erudition, urgency, and thoughtful inquiry, blending accessible explanations with learned references. Guests match this tone, engaging in reflective, context-rich dialogue rather than polemic.

Summary Conclusion

As America marks 250 years of independence, this episode grapples with the erosion of democratic norms at home and the global trend toward charismatic, unchecked leaders. The unchecked executive—once designed to be strictly bounded—is now both America’s new export and its central national challenge. Through history, poignant analogy, and global comparison, the episode urges a re-examination of ideals, a reclaiming of political will, and the humility to learn both from America’s founding contradictions and the turbulent lessons of other nations.

Transcript

Ken Burns (0:00)

Transform your home during blinds.com's Cyber Monday Super Sale. Get up to 50% off site wide plus huge doorbuster deals on popular styles. Go DIY and do it all 100% online or choose White Glove service with expert design help and professional installation, Both backed by Blinds.com's 100% satisfaction guarantee. Blinds.com's Cyber Monday Super Sale is here. Save up to 50% site wide and get a free professional measure. Limited time offer rules and restrictions apply. See blinds.com for details.

Fareed Zakaria (0:32)

This is GPS, the global public Square. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you from New York. Today on the program A closer look at American Democracy. The second president, John Adams, warned that it never lasts long, and today many observers worry about the present and future of American democracy. We will get insights from Walter Isaacson, who has written a book about the most important sentence in the Declaration of Independence from Ken Burns, who has released a magnificent documentary about the American Revolution. It was fought in hundreds of places, from the forests of Quebec to the back country of Georgia and the Carolinas.

Ken Burns (1:24)

From the rough seas off England, France.

Fareed Zakaria (1:27)

And in the Caribbean to the towns.

Ken Burns (1:30)

And orchards of Indian country.

Fareed Zakaria (1:33)

Beverly Gage of Yale about the Gilded Age in America, when democracy's future was also at risk. But first, here's my take. In a conversation with a friend originally from Pakistan, I lamented that country's recent decision to give its head of army expanded powers, including lifetime immunity from legal prosecution. My friend replied, we're just following in America's footsteps. Didn't your Supreme Court rule that the president could kill his political opponent and yet be immune from prosecution? Welcome to America's new democratic export, the unchecked executive. If America's Founding fathers were to come back and look at their legacy, what would stun them, without a doubt, is the modern presidency. They designed the American political system explicitly to fragment power. They were reacting against a monarch and the accumulation of all powers in the same hands. That's a quote from Federalist 47. They purposefully conceived of a decentralized and restrained executive described in the notably brief Article 2. The presidency was an office for faithfully executing the laws bounded by carefully constructed checks from the legislature and the judiciary. Congress, by contrast, was named the first branch of government invested with the lion's share of authority, the powers to tax, spend, declare war, and regulate commerce. James Madison, the de facto author of the Constitution, explicitly acknowledged this fact in Federalist 51, writing that in Republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. Even Alexander Hamilton, often thought to have urged an imperial presidency, in fact believed strongly that the president had few monarchical powers. In Federalist 69, he contrasts the British king with the American president, saying the latter is elected for merely a four year term and is amenable to personal punishment and disgrace race. He adds that Congress, and not the president, had been given the powers to provide advice and consent on treaties, declare war, and raise an army. The reason the president's foreign policy powers are mostly limited to military command, he explains in Federalist 75, is that an avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. Yet by the 1960s this finely tuned mechanism had clearly seized up. Wars, economic crises, and the media's tendency to nationalize and centralize attention created a one way ratchet, forever increasing unchecked presidential power. This dramatic imbalance culminated in the constitutional crises of the Vietnam War and Watergate. And in the 1970s Congress, finally energized by bipartisan outrage, passed a series of laws designed to rein in executive excess. For example, the Inspector General act of 1978 created a cadre of internal watchdogs to root out waste and fraud in departments premised on the understanding that they would be protected by from political retaliation. The whole set of restraints didn't work. While Congress established the legal mechanisms for control, for example regarding war powers, it lacked the collective political will to hold the president to them. Furthermore, after 911 War on Terror resolutions effectively nullified these restraints, all but giving presidents carte blanche for the use of military force. Beyond laws. After Nixon, both parties had agreed to a set of powerful norms, for example firewalling the Justice Department from the White House. One principle established that the president should not direct the attorney general to investigate or prosecute specific individuals. Additionally, presidents voluntarily released their tax returns and placed assets in blind trusts, financial transparency designed to assure the public that the commander in chief was not profiting from the office. The Trump administration has shredded these constraints. Even worse, the most egregious violations have been sanctified by the Supreme Court based on the bizarre unitary executive theory. This once fringe legal doctrine asserts that a terse phrase in Article 2 somehow grants the president unrestricted authority over the executive branch, even though Congress has been explicitly given the power of the purse and can use it to create agencies and departments, determine their structure and functions, and direct where its funds be spent. The president has virtually unlimited powers under this interpretation to run those agencies, even when he violates specific congressional intent. This expansion of executive power has culminated in the court's 2024 decision in Trump v. United States, in which the court held that the president' enjoy absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity at a minimum for all other official acts. In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that under this standard, a president could arguably order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and be shielded from criminal liability, provided the order was given through official channels. The American presidency has journeyed from a modest, constitutionally constrained office to a super presidency that commands total attention and power. Donald Trump has pushed these powers to the utmost, but he has been enabled by a failure of political courage in Congress and an ideological Supreme Court that seems to have lost any respect for original intent and precedent. The result is a structural asymmetry where the first branch of government is now the weakest and the Supreme Court is a rubber stamp. The court does have a chance to stop this accumulation of power by asserting what they plainly know is true that the president can't just declare national emergencies at will to place and remove tariffs unilaterally. If not, the American presidency will become for the world not an example of limited constitutional government, but rather of a modern dictatorship wielding far more unbridled power than George III did when the Founding Fathers rebelled against him 250 years ago. Go to fareedzakhariya.com for a link to my Washington Post column this week. Coming up on gps, we'll dig into different aspects of democracy in America and around the world, starting with the revolutionary idea that begat an revolution that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.