Tell my wife that I love her.

With power comes responsibility. These words, written by Stan Lee for Uncle Ben to Peter Parker, were meant to enter popular culture through the cinematic version of Spider-Man. The idea of taking the lead in a team, organization, institution, or country goes beyond just a title or accolades; it comes with a structured decision-making process and a sense of responsibility: being the custodian of a duty.

For a head of state, one of the aspects of this public duty is related to one of the sovereign functions of the state: security. This security covers both the state and its population (residents, citizens, and non-citizens), internally and externally. The US Constitution theoretically provides more leverage to the president in foreign policy, separating politics from national and international security concerns. This distinction places the president at a critical juncture, balancing public opinion and constitutional checks and balances.

It is clear that the current president, dubbed by Daniel Drezner as the “toddler in chief,” has not received these instructions, as he seems to play with both internal and external security as if they are mere toys.

Expanding on the theory of the unitary executive put forth by John Yoo during the George W. Bush administration, the current presidency has expanded its control over the bureaucratic apparatus and eroded the checks and balances. This has led to concerns raised by the organization V-Dem regarding the authoritarian turn in the US political regime. Donald Trump’s personality and practices now permeate the entire decision-making process, blurring the lines between internal and external politics, impacting both national and international security.

In terms of internal security, the blows to the state apparatus since the beginning of his term have been significant. From constructing a threat around the elusive Antifa to shifting surveillance resources from extremism to immigration, the changes have been palpable. The undermining of health institutions, reduction in air traffic security, postal service crisis, and other internal security challenges have raised concerns about the administration’s approach to protecting the nation’s foundational structures.

Regarding external security, the successive purges in key intelligence, defense, and military justice positions have weakened the capability to assess and respond effectively to threats. The reshaping of the National Security Council and the lack of adequate strategic planning have further complicated foreign relations and escalated tensions, notably with countries like Iran.

This presidency’s turbulence and lack of formal or informal control mechanisms have made the US presidential instability a strategic constraint felt globally. The implications of this will be long-lasting, affecting international relations and geopolitical landscapes for years to come.

In the short term, the government’s behavior challenges the value of commitments made, the stability of alliances, and the credibility of nuclear deterrence. The repercussions of these actions are likely to reshape global power dynamics and strain diplomatic relations on multiple fronts.

In the midst of these challenges, the weight of decisions made by those in positions of power becomes evident. The tragic events in history, like the LaGuardia incident, serve as poignant reminders of the gravity of such roles and the impact of the decisions taken.

“Dites à ma femme que je l’aime” (Tell my wife I love her) – These words uttered before a tragic plane crash capture the weight of responsibility in critical decision-making roles. Leading a nation is one such role where decisions carry immense significance and consequences.