Throughout American history, presidents have not been judged by whether violence occurred during their time in office, but by how they responded to it. Every crisis presents the same test: will the person in power use their position to stabilize the nation or deepen its divisions?
The presidential oath exists for exactly this kind of moment. It commits the president to something greater than self-interest or party loyalty—the Constitution and the rule of law. Following the death of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump has abandoned this oath, using his influence to further divide an already fractured country rather than unite it. History will remember this act of political opportunism.
This challenge is not new. On the verge of civil war, Abraham Lincoln appealed to the “better angels of our nature” and emphasized the president’s constitutional duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” True leadership in such moments means turning shock into a reaffirmation of equality and lawful process.
But not every president has risen to the occasion. After Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson used his platform to attack members of Congress and even delayed protections Lincoln had promised to formerly enslaved people. He refused to condemn the violence targeting Black citizens and Reconstruction supporters. His conflict with Congress and neglect of constitutional duties led to his impeachment and left a legacy of division and regression.
This lesson is not just academic—it’s urgent. When violence shakes the nation, the president’s role is to uphold the truth of the law, call for calm, and emphasize that guilt belongs to individuals, not groups. The oath is a promise to all Americans, requiring the president to speak for the entire country and apply the law fairly. It rejects blaming whole communities for one person’s actions or using grief for political gain.
Yet in this moment, the president has chosen to exploit tragedy. By blaming the so-called “radical left” for an individual’s actions, he has not only avoided responsibility but mocked the oath itself. What should unite is being used to divide, sending a clear message to political opponents and vulnerable groups: you are targets first, citizens second.
In an interview with NBC News, Trump claimed he wanted to heal the nation, but in the same breath blamed a vague “radical left group of lunatics.” He followed this by threatening an investigation into Democratic donor George Soros. This president is repeating his divisive tactics, blaming political opponents for national tragedies and dishonoring his oath.
There is another way, as recent history shows. After 9/11, George W. Bush visited a mosque and made clear that American Muslims were not the enemy, rejecting collective blame. After the Oklahoma City bombing, Bill Clinton called for calmer rhetoric and warned against conspiracy theories that justify violence. Following Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination in 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson addressed a grieving nation, urging a renewal of commitment to democracy and justice, and emphasizing the government’s role in protecting civil rights rather than spreading fear.
What would upholding the oath look like now? It would mean…We must begin by clearly condemning political violence and vigilantism. This statement should affirm the independence of investigators and courts, and promise that the law will be applied fairly. It should reject the idea of collective guilt and refuse to use grief as a weapon against political opponents. It should call on Americans to unite around our Constitution, resolving our deepest disagreements through laws, debate, and elections—not through intimidation.
The choice today is clear. A president can rise to the moment by defending the Constitution and bringing the nation together. But this president has chosen a different path. He has appealed to our worst instincts, not our better nature. He has blamed an entire group—the so-called “radical left”—for the actions of one individual, even though the motives behind that person’s violent act are still unclear. Instead of answering the call of the Constitution, he has targeted his enemies and vilified his opponents. History will remember him not like Lincoln, who honored his oath, but like Johnson, who made a mockery of it.
Corey Brettschneider is a professor of political science at Brown University. He co-hosts the podcast The Oath and the Office and is the author of The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs based on the statement Trump has failed to uphold the duties of his office History will judge him harshly Corey Brettschneider
BeginnerLevel Questions
Q What does it mean to uphold the duties of the office of president
A It means faithfully executing the laws of the country protecting the Constitution and acting in the best interest of the American people not for personal gain
Q Who is Corey Brettschneider and why is his opinion important
A He is a professor of political science who specializes in constitutional law and American politics His analysis is based on a scholarly interpretation of the presidents constitutional duties
Q Can you give a simple example of a president failing their duties
A A simple example would be a president refusing to enforce a law passed by Congress or using the power of the office to punish political enemies
Q Isnt this just a political opinion Why should I care
A While it is an interpretation its based on specific actions that can be measured against the responsibilities outlined in the Constitution which is the foundation of the US government
IntermediateLevel Questions
Q What are some specific duties critics say Trump failed to uphold
A Critics often cite his alleged obstruction of justice during the Russia investigation his attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival and his response to the January 6th Capitol attack as failures to faithfully execute the law and protect the nation
Q What does History will judge him harshly mean
A Its a prediction that future historians with the benefit of time and more complete information will view his presidency as damaging to democratic norms the rule of law and the stability of the countrys institutions
Q Didnt Trump get impeached for this How does that relate
A Yes he was impeached twice by the House of Representatives The charges were directly related to allegations that he failed his constitutional duties
Q What about his policy achievements Dont those count as upholding his duties
A This is a key debate Supporters point to policy wins like tax cuts or judicial appointments as fulfilling his duty to lead
