The U.S. Constitution’s Article II states that “He (the president) shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient … “

On Jan. 8, 1790, our first president, George Washington, appeared at Federal Hall in New York City and gave a short, less than 10-minute, formal and humble talk to Congress. He spoke about the importance of a strong defense and the need for fiscal discipline, and he offered general recommendations such as “nothing can better serve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature.”

Washington and our second president, John Adams, continued the practice of going to Congress and sharing their thoughts and recommendations. President Thomas Jefferson was a gifted writer but less gifted as a speaker, so he decided to share a written report to Congress.

Jefferson also worried that the personal delivery of this report too closely resembled the British monarch’s speech from the throne.

Jefferson’s practice of a written report was continued for more than 100 years. Woodrow Wilson, a gifted writer and orator, revived the tradition of delivering his State of the Union remarks in person.

Radio and television gradually transformed this report into a much-hyped and increasingly theatrical event, with the president center stage in one of our national shrines and members of Congress expected to stand and applaud their leader. Supreme Court justices, the cabinet and military leaders add gravitas to the event. The State of the Union address is now a presidential Super Bowl.  More than 32 million Americans, mostly older people, viewed Tuesday’s talk.

President Trump loves the limelight and rallies. He thrives when being the center of attention, and he is relaxed before the national cameras.

In his address to Congress and the nation this past Tuesday, he spoke for one hour, 47 minutes. (Most recent presidents have talked for an hour or less.) He praised and honored a score or more of “gallery guests,” including the U.S. men’s hockey team, fresh from their Olympic triumph, military servicemen, and activist Charlie Kirk’s widow.  Trump basked in the reflected glory of these heroes.

Four members of the U.S. Supreme Court were just a few feet in front of Trump. They sat stoically as he chastised their recent tariff decision as “unfortunate.” A few days earlier, he condemned several of them as “unpatriotic.” 

Trump defiantly announced he would continue administering tariffs, relying on other executive emergency powers and future help from Congress. It had taken months for the Court to make its decision. And it took merely a few hours for the White House to decide Trump could largely ignore their ruling.

Trump briefly noted international trouble spots. Notably, he said little or nothing about putting pressure on Vladimir Putin to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He spent more time boasting that NATO nations now fully pay the U.S. for weapons to fight on behalf of Ukraine. He again praised himself as the world’s best peacemaker.

Trump claimed justified credit for securing the country’s southern border. He called for national resolve in deporting illegal immigrants and the need to fight foreign drug cartels.

The president declared the state of the union was strong, boasting that he had presided over the biggest economic turnaround in history. He said we are winning and that this is the beginning of a golden age. He dismissed as fake news reports of an “affordability crisis” even though affordability was one of his issues in his 2024 campaign. He said the price of eggs and gas has come way down and that his tariffs are bringing in billions of dollars.   

Polls indicate the public is very concerned about the economy. But Trump offered an upbeat account, and Republicans in Congress gave him rousing applause for his claims.

Trump and his strategists know he has lost support from independents. The strategy on Tuesday was “bash and shame” Democrats. Congressional Democrats, at least those who showed up, sat there unable to figure out what to do.  A few shouted retorts, but this looked unbecoming.

Trump called Democrats “crazy” and put them on the spot with a trick “got-cha” question. “Stand up,” he said, “if you believe  the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens and not illegal aliens.” Democrats, caught by surprise, sat in silence, slouching in their seats.

Here was Trump, accusing them of being unpatriotic or worse, just as he had accused the Supreme Court a few days earlier. The Democrats who did not stand looked bad, yet in the end, Trump will be faulted for misusing his “throne” for partisan trickery.

It was not a good night for Democrats. Many boycotted the event. The occasion calls for respect for the office of the president, yet if the president lies, exaggerates or unfairly attacks and tricks you, what do you do?

This format of the State of the Union address gives the president a great theater stage, and makes the other two branches look passive and un-equal. The Supreme Court is already, by its mandate, a passive branch. Few people pay attention to the end-of-the-year annual report by the Chief Justice.  Congress, with its two chambers and two parties (plus some independents) rarely speaks with one voice. 

We are, more than we want, a nation with an increasingly centralized federal government. And we are a presidency-dependent nation – more than the founders wanted and more than we would like. The same dependence on the chief executive is true today around much of the world. Globalization explains some of this, and national security issues dictate some of it. And by design, Congress and the justice system are decidedly slower than the executive.  

Would the founders approve of what has become the rally/theater ritual (even filibuster) of our State of the Union addresses? 

Probably not. They would most likely suggest that we should revisit Washington’s model of brevity, humility and nonpartisanship.

Wishful thinking.

Tom Cronin and Bob Loevy are news columnists who write regularly about politics.