The Royal Presidency: How Trump’s Kingship Language Challenges Democracy

Image via White House Official Instagram Page 

*** 

On February 21, 2025, the White House amplified a statement from President Donald Trump that read, “LONG LIVE THE KING!” alongside an AI-generated image of him wearing a crown. Originally posted on Trump’s Truth Social account, this statement followed the Trump administration’s decision to revoke federal approval of New York City’s congestion pricing plan; a program aiming to reduce traffic and pollution by charging vehicles a toll to enter Manhattan’s central business district. Traditionally, “Long Live the King” is a phrase that signifies a continuation of monarchy. Its use by an American president raises a serious question: Is this declaration merely a bluff, or does it reflect a calculated shift in Trump’s rhetoric that carries grave implications for American democracy?

Unsurprisingly, reactions to the White House post have been divided. New York Governor Kathy Hochul responded directly, stating, “We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king.” Critics, including political analysts and other government officials, argue that embracing such rhetoric is dangerous as it undermines the foundational principles of democracy—such as the rule of law and the separation of powers. On the other hand, some Trump supporters lauded his declaration, while others expressed discomfort with this branding.

Political rhetoric is never just meaningless words strung together–it shapes public perception of power, defining and redefining the boundaries of socially acceptable discourse. 

History offers numerous examples of leaders whose rhetoric not only redefined the nature of political power but also laid the foundation for its expansion. For instance, Adolf Hitler leveraged widespread discontent in post-war Germany, using ultra-naturalistic propaganda to rally dissatisfied former servicemen and promote the Nazi Party’s message. Around the same time, Juan Perón in Argentina used his own strain of justicialist populist rhetoric to consolidate power—blurring the lines between democracy and autocracy. More recently, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have employed nationalist and strongman rhetoric to justify crackdowns on freedom of press and judicial independence. These historical precedents serve as stark reminders of how rhetoric, even if seemingly performative, can be used to lay the foundations for significant and real political change. 

This is not the first time Trump has hinted at an expansion of executive power. He has frequently ‘joked’ about serving more than two terms, referred to himself as  the “chosen one,” and suggested that the presidency grants him total authority. During his first term, he infamously claimed, “I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” a statement that clashes with the foundational constitutional limitations of the executive. 

By embracing the imagery of kingship, Trump reinforces a broader narrative that positions him not as a public servant at the mercy of his constituents, but as a ruler whose authority transcends institutional checks. This rhetorical shift blurs the line between democratic leadership and personal rule. Trump’s repeated use of monarchical language should not be taken lightly. In America’s democracy, presidential leadership is meant to be temporary, constrained, and accountable to the people. 

Trump’s embrace of monarchical rhetoric does not exist in a vacuum. By framing the presidency as an extension of personal rule rather than an office bound by institutional constraints, he establishes a precedent for future leaders to follow. When a sitting U.S. president openly invokes the language of monarchy, the barrier between democracy and authoritarianism grows thinner–not through policy alone, but through the erosion of the norms that restrain power. 

Trump’s invocation of kingship is part of a broader global historical trend in which populist leaders have adopted and are adopting strongman imagery to consolidate political influence. Whether this signals a substantive shift in American political culture or remains a rhetorical embellishment will depend on how institutions, constituents, and future leaders respond to such language in the years ahead. If history is any guide, the reshaping of power often begins not with laws, but with words that make the unthinkable seem ordinary. 

***

This article was edited by Gagandeep Kaur.