What specific quotes has Donald Trump used to describe the limits of presidential power since 2019?
Executive summary
Donald Trump has repeatedly framed the limits of presidential power in personal and expansive terms: in 2019 he invoked Article II to claim near-unfettered authority (“And then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President”) [1], and in a 2026 New York Times interview he declared he did not need international law and that the only constraint was “my own morality. My own mind,” adding elsewhere that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” a line he posted on social platforms and referenced publicly [2] [3] [4].
1. 2019 — Article II as a license: a plain quote and its provenance
In 2019 Trump was quoted asserting, “And then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President,” a formulation cited by academic and journalistic analyses as a blunt claim that Article II provides carte blanche to the executive [1]. The Conversation’s piece uses that exact wording to illustrate how Trump has publicly encouraged an expansive view of executive power that critics say runs up against Article II’s text and historical constraints [1].
2. 2026 New York Times interview — conscience over courts and treaties
In a wide-ranging New York Times interview published in early January 2026, Trump told reporters he “doesn’t need international law” and stated the limits on his use of U.S. power are his “own morality” and “my own mind,” language repeated across outlets reporting the interview [2] [3] [5]. The New York Times and multiple international outlets framed that comment as the most explicit articulation yet of a worldview that privileges personal judgment over legal or institutional checks [4] [6].
3. “He who saves his Country…” — a paraphrase that signals a rule-of-law concern
Shortly after his 2025 inauguration, Trump posted and echoed the line “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” paraphrasing a line from the film Waterloo, which The New York Times and the Times’ opinion pages flagged as implying exemption from legal limits when the president believes he is acting to save the nation [4]. Opinion coverage used that post to argue he was signaling a willingness to place outcome-driven judgments above legal restraint [4].
4. Context, responses and competing readings from media and scholars
Reporting shows a split between outlets and scholars: critics interpret these statements as an assertion of near-absolute power and a rejection of constitutional restraints (The New York Times and The Independent analyze it as a rejection of popular sovereignty and legal limits) [4] [2], while defenders portray the comments as rhetorical emphasis on strong executive action rather than a literal constitutional theory; that defensive framing appears implicitly in pro-administration outlets and in broader White House messaging about national security prerogatives [7] [8]. Legal scholars quoted in contexts like Newsweek note that court rulings and institutional checks have sometimes checked Trump-era moves, underscoring that the president “is not all-powerful” despite rhetorical claims [9].
5. Why the exact wording matters — rhetoric, law, and political effect
The specific phrasing—invoking Article II as “the right to do whatever I want,” denying the relevance of international law, and naming personal “morality” as the constraint—matters because it collapses legal doctrine into personal discretion, a point emphasized in reporting and opinion analysis that links words to policy choices such as unilateral military actions, threats to foreign governments, and contentious executive orders [1] [2] [4]. Coverage from outlets including The Guardian, The Independent, and The Times of Israel documented the comments and tied them to contemporaneous administration actions that prompted Congressional and judicial pushback [3] [2] [5].
6. Limits of the record and implications for accountability
The factual record in the provided reporting contains the quoted language and contemporaneous reactions but does not contain the full interview transcripts, every context in which Trump has used similar formulations since 2019, nor every legal rebuttal; therefore reporting can confirm the specific, cited quotes above but cannot catalog every utterance outside these sources without additional documents [1] [2] [4]. The documented quotes do, however, show a consistent rhetorical pattern—assertions of broad executive authority framed as either constitutional right or personal conscience—that fuels debates about checks and balances and has provoked judicial, legislative and media responses [9] [4].