In American government, loyalty is often praised. But the oath taken by public officials is not to a person or a party—it is to the United States Constitution. At a moment when Americans across the political spectrum are alarmed by the president’s increasingly unpredictable behavior on the world stage, that distinction matters. The framers anticipated moments when instability at the top could endanger the country, which is why the Constitution includes safeguards such as the Twenty‑Fifth Amendment.
Across the country, Americans from every political background are expressing concern that instability at the top is testing the constitutional guardrails of steady leadership, clear judgment, and respect for institutional boundaries. Strained alliances and impulsive communication in moments of global tension place additional pressure on those safeguards. Many Americans worry that the president’s increasingly unpredictable behavior—combined with the silence of those closest to him—is weakening the constitutional guardrails the framers put in place.
Recent polling shows that most Americans—and even many Republicans—believe the president’s behavior has become more erratic. That should prompt attention, not dismissal.
Reporting documented the President's public attacks on Pope Leo, a moment that drew international attention and raised questions among allies about U.S. leadership. Moments like this test the standards of responsible leadership — and even his supporters can care about the president while still insisting on responsible conduct, sound judgment, and the responsible use of power. That is not disloyalty; it is stewardship.
The presidency has long been understood as a stewardship. Theodore Roosevelt described the executive as a “steward of the people,” responsible for upholding democratic norms. Alexander Hamilton connected executive energy to the “steady administration of the laws.” Modern analysis notes that the office requires avoiding behavior that demeans the country, because a president’s conduct shapes national credibility.
These concerns are not occurring in a vacuum. The president’s approval ratings remain low, and polls show Americans uneasy about recent foreign‑policy decisions. A new AP-NORC poll found that 59% believe U.S. military action in Iran has gone too far and are worried about affording gasoline. This week, I paid a little over $95 to fill my gas tank — more than $20 higher than when this crisis began — a reminder that global instability reaches directly into the lives and budgets of ordinary Americans. New AP-NORC findings also show low trust in the President’s judgment on the use of military force overseas and only about one‑third approving of his handling of foreign policy.
Some Americans reassure themselves that the system will “hold” until the next election. But the presidency is not passive. Decisions are made daily, words can shift global events, and rhetoric can strain alliances, complicate diplomacy, and raise the risk of conflict. Recent reporting made those consequences impossible to ignore: news organizations documented a public threat toward Iran that shocked global leaders and unsettled some Republicans. Analysts described confusion over shifting objectives, and lawmakers questioned whether Congress had a clear rationale for the conflict. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote, ‘No civilized nation threatens to wipe out another civilization,’ a warning that underscores how dangerous such rhetoric becomes.
Those concerns deepened when the President and Secretary Hegseth publicly celebrated what they described as a major ceasefire "victory," even though independent fact‑checking showed that the administration’s four stated objectives had not been met. The contrast between the celebration and the facts was visible not only to Americans, but to foreign governments watching closely. In moments of global tension, that disconnect carries real consequences for national credibility.
That credibility was tested.
International institutions reacted quickly. NATO allies expressed concern about the president’s public statements. European leaders warned that unpredictable rhetoric increases the risk of miscalculation.
Foreign‑policy analysts have also noted that U.S. instability creates openings for strategic rivals. China has used the moment to expand its diplomatic influence, and Russian state media has amplified the turmoil to weaken Western unity. Both countries benefit when American leadership appears divided or unpredictable.
Legal scholars also raised alarms. Hundreds of international law professors argued that the U.S. strikes in Iran violated the UN Charter, and experts questioned whether the escalation was necessary. These assessments emerged alongside reporting confirming loss of life—including American service members and civilians.
Taken together, these patterns paint a picture of instability at the highest levels of government—instability that affects alliances, national security, and the safety of Americans at home and abroad. Several lawmakers, national security experts, and international allies have warned that the President’s escalating rhetoric is undermining U.S. credibility and placing the country at greater risk. Recent AP-NORC findings reinforce these concerns, with majorities saying U.S. military action has gone too far and expressing deep anxiety about the economic fallout.
That is why the Constitution provides guardrails.
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment outlines a clear constitutional process: the Vice President is the central actor, empowered to initiate a transfer of authority if a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. A majority of the Cabinet must agree. If the president contests the action, Congress becomes the final arbiter, requiring a two‑thirds vote in both chambers. These roles were designed for moments when behavior—not ideology—raises questions about a president’s ability to lead safely.
This concern has become bipartisan. Reporting has noted that Republican lawmakers—including figures who have historically supported the president—have privately expressed alarm about his recent behavior, particularly in the context of the Iran conflict. A 2024 book reported former Republican Leader Mitch McConnell describing the president as having “every characteristic you would not want a president to have” and calling him “irascible” and “nasty.” Members in both parties have discussed the Twenty‑Fifth Amendment as a safeguard because they view the current unpredictability as dangerous.
When threats, celebrations, reversals, and false claims occur in rapid succession, the country is left without the steady leadership national security tests. What the president may view as strength is, to many observers, a sign of instability—a leadership style that appears reactive, unplanned, and disconnected from the facts. The United States is more vulnerable—diplomatically, strategically, and institutionally.
When leadership at the top is tested and the country grows vulnerable, citizens must use their voices—through calls, letters, public dialogue, and civic engagement—to reinforce the Constitution’s guardrails. Calls, letters, and emails to elected representatives are tracked, and they influence priorities. Asking for oversight, briefings, and transparency in presidential decision‑making is not a political act; it is a constitutional one. Public scrutiny—grounded in facts and democratic principles—helps counter misinformation and strengthens civic understanding.
Supporting institutions rather than individuals is another safeguard. The strength of the American system lies in its checks and balances, and citizens play a role in upholding them. It is also important to understand that the U.S. military is bound by law to follow only lawful orders. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Law of Armed Conflict, and the military’s oath to the Constitution, service members must refuse orders that are unconstitutional or manifestly illegal. Finally, participation in elections at every level—federal, state, and local—remains one of the most powerful tools available to the public.
The framers of the Constitution did not assume perfection in leaders. They assumed human fallibility—and built a system to account for it. But that system is tested by people: elected officials willing to act, and citizens willing to insist that they do.
Waiting is not a safeguard.
Engagement is.
Duty must come before loyalty—especially when the Constitution is tested.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership and civic renewal. She writes on institutional trust, democratic responsibility, and the role of principled leadership in public life.
