Blue Press Journal
In the American system of government, the buck is supposed to stop at the President’s desk. The person in the Oval Office is the ultimate decision-maker, the commander-in-chief, and the individual accountable to the public for the actions of the executive branch. But what happens when the public sees moments that cast doubt on that individual’s engagement? Recent observations have ignited a serious and necessary conversation about the operational structure of the current White House and the fundamental question of who is truly at the helm.
These concerns were brought into sharp relief by recent footage that appeared to show the President asleep during a public event. For political commentator Symone Sanders, this wasn’t just an isolated, embarrassing moment. It was a catalyst for a much deeper inquiry into the chain of command. “It brought up the questions again about what the actual apparatus at this White House is and who is actually in charge here,” Sanders said. “Because that can’t be the first time the president fell asleep…So when that happens, who is making the decisions?”
This is not a trivial question. It strikes at the heart of executive function. If the principal decision-maker is disengaged, even temporarily, a power vacuum is created. The critical question then becomes: who fills it? Is it the Vice President? The Chief of Staff? Or is it unelected advisors and policy architects operating without a direct public mandate?
The issue extends beyond moments of apparent fatigue. Former Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend pointed to a pattern of behavior that suggests a potential disconnect between the President and the policies he enacts. She raised concerns about public bill-signing ceremonies where the President seemed to be learning the details of the documents for the first time. “When the president was doing these public signings of these executive orders, and they come in and they explain to him what the executive order is and he’s like, ‘Oh, okay. Yeah.’ I wonder, is that the first time you heard this?”
This observation is profoundly unsettling. Executive orders are powerful instruments that can have sweeping impacts on national policy, the economy, and the lives of millions of Americans. The suggestion that a president might be unfamiliar with the contents of an order he is about to sign into law raises serious questions about his level of involvement in the policy-making process. Is the President reviewing, debating, and shaping these policies, or is he merely serving as the final stamp of approval on decisions made by others?
Townsend drove this point home by naming a specific, influential advisor and posing a direct challenge. “And so we’re using ‘I’ statements? Are you the one making the decision, Stephen Miller, about these strike force teams?” she asked. “How much aware is the president of what is going on? These are questions I think they deserve to be asked.”
This is the crux of the matter. The American people elect a president, not their advisors. While every administration relies on a team of experts and aides, that team is meant to inform and execute the president’s vision, not supplant it. When questions arise about whether senior staff are making pivotal decisions with limited presidential oversight, it becomes a matter of democratic accountability.
These are not partisan attacks; they are fundamental questions of governance. The public has a right to trust that the person they chose to lead the country is actively and knowingly doing so. When credible observers from across the political spectrum express concern about the President’s awareness and engagement, it is a signal that we need more transparency, not less. The questions have been asked. The American people deserve the answers.
Blue Press Journal 