Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent, has covered the past six presidencies and wrote a book about President Trump’s first term. He reported from Washington.

When President Trump   hosted the crown prince of Saudi Arabia   last month, he pulled out all the stops. To the traditional pomp of a formal White House visit, he added a few even fancier touches: a stirring military flyover, a procession of black horses and long, regal tables for the lavish dinner in the East Room instead of the typical round tables.

For surprised White House veterans who were paying attention, the unusual flourishes looked a little familiar. Just two months earlier, King Charles III of Britain welcomed Mr. Trump for a   state visit   that included, yes, a stirring military flyover, a procession of black horses and a long, regal table for the lavish dinner in St. George’s Hall at Windsor Palace.

In his first year back in office, Mr. Trump has unabashedly adopted the trappings of royalty just as he has asserted virtually unbridled power to transform American government and society to his liking. In both pageantry and policy, Mr. Trump has established a new, more audacious version of the imperial presidency that goes far beyond even the one associated with Richard M. Nixon, for whom the term was popularized half a century ago.

He no longer holds back, or is held back, as in the first term. Trump 2.0 is Trump 1.0 unleashed. The   gold trim   in the Oval Office, the   demolition of the East Wing   to be replaced by a massive ballroom, the plastering of   his name   and   face   on government buildings and now even the   John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts , the designation of   his own birthday   as a free-admission holiday at national parks — it all speaks to a personal aggrandizement and accumulation of power with meager resistance from Congress or the Supreme Court.

Mr. Trump’s reinvention of the presidency has altered the balance of power in Washington in profound ways that may endure long after he departs the scene. Authority once seized by one branch of government is rarely given back willingly. Actions that once shocked the system can eventually become seen as normal. While other presidents pushed the limits, Mr. Trump has blown right through them and dared anyone to stop him.

“His second term in many respects represents not simply a break from presidential norms and expectations,” said Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “It’s also a culmination of 75 years in which presidents have reached for more and more power.”

It is also a culmination of four years of planning between Mr. Trump’s first term and his second. The last time around, he was a political novice who did not understand how government worked and surrounded himself with advisers who tried to restrain his most extreme instincts. This time, he arrived in office with a plan to accomplish what he did not in his first term, and a team of like-minded loyalists intent on remaking the country.

“The president knew exactly what he wanted to do coming into office this time,” said Jason Miller, a longtime Trump adviser. “Now the president had four years under his belt. He knows exactly how everything works. He knows all the international players. He knows all the national players. He knew what strategies and tactics worked the first go around and what strategies didn’t work.”

Strong and Weak

The presidency is a living organism, shaped by the person inhabiting it, whether it be self-styled men of action like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, father figures like Dwight D. Eisenhower, legislative wizards like Lyndon B. Johnson or captivating communicators like Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. More than the sum of the clauses of the Constitution’s Article II, it is an evolving construct, one that has adapted to the ever-changing challenges of a complex and fast-moving world.

Mr. Trump wears it like a cloak. Power is the leitmotif of his second term. For the record, he disclaims royal aspirations.   “I’m not a king,”   he said after millions of Americans took to the streets in   “No Kings” demonstrations   in October. But at the same time, he embraces the comparison, at least in part to troll his critics but also, it seems, because he enjoys the notion.

He and his staff have posted images of him in monarchical regalia, including   an A.I.-generated illustration   of him wearing a crown and flying a fighter jet labeled “KING TRUMP” that dumps excrement on protesters. He delighted when the South Koreans gave him a   replica of an ancient golden crown . “LONG LIVE THE KING!”   he wrote   about himself on social media.

Image

To his critics, Mr. Trump is narcissistic, uncouth, corrupt and a danger to American democracy. He has used the office to enrich himself and his family, sullied the image of the United States around the world, sought to erase the true history of Black Americans and pursued policies that harm the very people he purports to represent.

What everyone agrees on is that Mr. Trump dominates the political landscape like none of his predecessors going back generations, single-handedly setting the agenda and forcing his will on the rest of the system. At the same time, he is the most consistently unpopular president since the advent of polling. He has never had the support of a majority of Americans, not in any of his three presidential elections and not for a single day of either term   in Gallup surveys .

His current   36 percent approval rating   in Gallup is lower than that of every elected modern president at the end of their first year, lower even than it was in his first term (39 percent) and seven percentage points below the next-lowest (Joseph R. Biden Jr., at 43 percent). If compared against presidents who served two terms consecutively, Mr. Trump is still below each of them at the end of their fifth year, except Mr. Nixon, who had plummeted to 29 percent in the throes of Watergate.

Some critics predict that Mr. Trump’s unpopularity will begin to erode his power. “It’s been striking that Republicans in Congress have stuck behind him,” said former Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona who broke with Mr. Trump in the first term. “But I do think that is changing. Some of it’s not exactly a profile in courage, but it’s looking at the electoral wins and realizing the midterms are going to be very difficult.”

Mr. Trump’s allies dismiss that as wishful thinking by the president’s critics. Mr. Miller called current polling a “temporary blip” that will reverse as tax cuts passed earlier this year take effect in the first couple of quarters of 2026. “Once the economy rockets to where everyone’s predicting it to be for Q1 and Q2,” he said, “that will all snap back.”

Bypassing Limits

Presidents have been pushing the boundaries of power going back to the early days of the republic, most aggressively during wartime. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus even beyond the battlefield and emancipated enslaved people in rebel areas. Woodrow Wilson prosecuted critics of World War I and effectively censored some newspapers. Franklin D. Roosevelt interned more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry, including American citizens. In most cases, the pendulum swung back to a degree after the wars were over and security restored.

In the modern era, the notion of an imperial presidency was made prominent by   the book of that name   published in 1973 by the historian   Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. , who had worked in John F. Kennedy’s White House. Mr. Schlesinger argued that under Mr. Nixon, who refused to spend certain money appropriated by Congress, secretly bombed Cambodia, wiretapped opponents and used government to pursue his enemies, the presidency “has got out of control and badly needs new definition and restraint.”

Image

Some argued that the post-Watergate reforms went too far in emasculating the presidency after the voter-abbreviated tenures of Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter. Mr. Reagan and George W. Bush in different ways worked to empower the office again, particularly in foreign policy and national security. Mr. Obama pushed further by   exempting from deportation many immigrants   who had arrived illegally as children and Mr. Biden unilaterally tried to   forgive $400 billion in student loan debt . But all four encountered pushback from the courts and Congress and none went as far as Mr. Trump has.

“Some of the stuff that people were upset at Nixon for doing was kind of quaint compared to just the totally out-of-control stuff” that Mr. Trump has been doing, said Robert Schlesinger, a son of Arthur Schlesinger and himself a longtime journalist and historian of the White House.

“Even Nixon was a guy who got that there were limits that he had to tread carefully around even as he was trying to push them,” Mr. Schlesinger added. “Whereas Trump, he’s not interested in limits. And whether it’s through a conscious strategy or just unconscious cunning, by being so open about it, it normalizes it to some extent.”

Learning Curve

That may stem from Mr. Trump’s distinctive ability to overcome obstacles and scandals that would hobble any other politician. He was impeached twice, indicted four times, convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for sexual abuse and found liable for business fraud while his firm was convicted of criminal tax evasion. Yet he won a stunning, against-the-odds comeback election victory. The Supreme Court even granted him and his successors broad immunity that it had never bestowed on any previous president.

And so Mr. Trump evidently sees little reason to restrain himself. He has pursued an everything-everywhere-all-at-once strategy of pushing policies, even knowing that some of them may be rejected — a gamble that paid off, from his vantage point. As it turned out, not only has Congress acquiesced to vast intrusions on its traditional spheres of authority, most notably spending, but even the courts have been more of a speed bump than a stop sign.

But as she pointed out, that does not mean there has not been staff turmoil. It’s just that Mr. Trump does not advertise it as much by firing people on social media, as he did the last time around, and Americans have become used to it. Without much notice, Mr. Trump withdrew 52 nominations in his first 10 months in office, four times as many as Mr. Biden did in the same period,   according to figures compiled by Chris Piper , a Brookings colleague.

Working off a Project 2025 blueprint devised by allies during his four years out of power, Mr. Trump came back to office with a raft of executive orders that have allowed the instant-gratification president to dispense with the slow grind of congressional negotiations. So far this year, Mr. Trump has issued about   225 executive orders , nearly three times as many as any other first-year president in three-quarters of a century.

Mr. Miller credits a more cohesive team. “There are a lot less hangers-on or superfluous characters floating around,” he said. “That White House is about getting things done.”

But some Republicans said the lack of contrary voices in the West Wing has a cost. While Mr. Trump has successfully sealed the border as he promised and brokered a fragile cease-fire in Gaza, he looks out of touch on affordability and was rolled by the bipartisan coalition demanding the release of files related to the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

“You live in a bubble if that’s the situation and sometimes you get blindsided by reality,” said Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, one of the few incumbent Republicans who has been critical at times. “I don’t know that he’s hearing that kind of feedback. His first administration he had people who would say, ‘Mr. President, I know what you’re saying, this is what I’m thinking.’” By contrast, Mr. Bacon said, “this time, you’ve got pretty much yes men.”

Imperial or Imperiled?

The lack of checks on Mr. Trump has given him latitude that his predecessors did not enjoy, not just in policymaking but also in profit-making. While other presidential families have   cashed in on the White House , none has been as successful or brazen as Mr. Trump and his clan. In the 11 months since he reclaimed the White House, the president’s family has made billions of dollars, at least on paper, through business deals around the world and cryptocurrency investments from people with a vested interest in American policy.

At the same time, Mr. Trump has systematically dismantled many instruments of accountability. He installed loyal partisans at the F.B.I. and Justice Department, fired inspectors general and the special counsel, purged prosecutors and agents who participated in past investigations into his dealings and gutted the public integrity section that probes political corruption. Congressional Republicans who eagerly looked into Hunter Biden’s business ties have no interest in scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s.

The question is how much of this change will be sustained. Is the presidency rewired for the long run or will it cycle back down the road?

As the year ends, there have been signs of resistance to unchecked power. A judge   threw out   the Trump administration’s indictments against two of the president’s adversaries, Letitia James and James B. Comey, and two grand juries   refused to re-indict Ms. James . In addition to legislating release of the Epstein files, Congress passed a measure slashing Defense Secretary   Pete Hegseth’s travel budget   by 25 percent if he does not turn over video of a second strike on a boat of supposed drug traffickers.

If Democrats win the midterm elections next year, they will surely use their newfound power to push back further against Mr. Trump. Some, like Mr. Flake, predict that even some Republicans will begin to speak out after filing deadlines for possible primary challengers have passed. And legal analysts expect the Supreme Court to clip Mr. Trump’s wings on tariffs, and possibly on birthright citizenship.

Russell Riley, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, acknowledged the nation’s long history of expanding presidential authority. But, he added, “we have an equally robust history of cramming the presidency back into its constitutional box once war or economic crisis has passed.”

That history “strongly suggests that what we are seeing today will not, in fact, endure.” Is that a guarantee? “I’m not smart enough to know the answer to that.”

Peter Baker   is the chief White House correspondent for The Times. He is covering his sixth presidency and sometimes writes analytical pieces that place presidents and their administrations in a larger context and historical framework.