From the Editors: Return to the State of the Union of Thomas Jefferson’s ideal

This week, President Donald Trump gave the State of the Union address, a nationally televised spectacle in which presidents fulfill their constitutional duty to “from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

Addressing Congress in this fashion is not unusual – it happens nearly every year and has for some time. But the substance of the speech has gone from constitutionally prescribed information session to political rally. It is not the fault of either party, but the gradual degradation of the executive office from temporary steward of part of the government to an emperor who requires applause and pageantry.

Everyone likes to complain about the imperial presidency — when it’s not their party’s turn in the White House. But no matter who earned your vote in 2024, or 2020, or any other year, it is worth considering whether that person ought to address the legislature in a speech consciously modelled on the United Kingdom’s Speech from the Throne.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Moreover, it wasn’t always this way. For about half of American history, presidents submitted their State of the Union analysis to Congress by courier, not in person. It is a custom to which our republic should return.

Surely, there is some fun in it when your party’s president is giving the speech. This week, we saw Trump skewer the Democrats on the horns of a dilemma, forcing them to either stand to support his statement that they were all elected to look to the interests of Americans, not illegal aliens, or sit and signal that they disagreed. It was quite the political gotcha — but  what does it have to do with the State of the Union? 

This is not just a problem with the current occupant of the Oval Office. Consider Joe Biden’s bizarrely amped-up performance in 2024, which even CNN called “a particularly politically tinged yearly address.” Or the pageantry of the special guests in the gallery, a practice initiated by Ronald Reagan and continued by every president since. Again, it is a fine piece of political theater, but has little bearing on the supposed task at hand.

The conflict arises because the chief executive has some duties that are plainly political and others that are ceremonial. And in these increasingly polarized times, the ceremonial acts are taking on a political tinge. 

There is no problem with the president giving a political speech. He is, after all, a politician, elected to political office by the people. But not every situation is an occasion for political pageantry. Let the president make his proposals and give his report on paper, as presidents from Jefferson to Herbert Hoover did. Keep the political showmanship out of this clerical function, and spare the country the interminable speech that we have all come to dread.