News
George Washington established the presidency. How much of it would he recognize now?
George Washington crosses the Delaware River during the American Revolutionary War in 1776.
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
The U.S. president may be referred to as the most powerful person in the world now, but that wasn’t what the Founding Fathers intended.
In fact, when the United States was born, they didn’t really have much of a plan for the executive branch. After years of British royal rule, the framers were fearful of giving the new nation’s leader too much power.

“Framers never intended the presidency to be a public office. It was meant to be more of a clerk role in charge of the executive office,” says Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. “There is no one moment where a switch flipped where the presidency became a public office. It happened gradually.”
It’s the nation’s first president, George Washington, who understood the potential significance of the role. He helped establish a balance of being a strong leader while not mimicking British royal rule and established traditions that we still see today, historians tell NPR.
As we head into the final two months before Election Day, let’s learn more about the history of the presidential office, how Washington influenced so much of what we see today and just how much the journey to the White House has changed.
The founders didn’t have much of a plan for the executive
In the early days after the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers struggled with the question of what type of executive leadership the nation would have, Arizona State University history professor Catherine O’Donnell says.
Their experience with executive leadership was that of a king or royal governor — “not a great model,” she says.
The founders viewed having one executive for the United States with great suspicion. At one point, they considered having a three-man executive leadership, but the founders settled quickly on a one-person executive.

Nonetheless, Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers, felt it was necessary to defend this choice, O’Donnell says. Writing in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued that a single executive would be more energetic and ultimately less risky, as the American people would be able to closely watch this one man, she says.
Having one leader, the president, was settled. But what that role should consist of was still a question. In fact, there seemed to be a better idea of what it shouldn’t be — i.e., nonthreatening, absolutely not a king, a man of the people, O’Donnell says.
“People were uneasy about it from the start,” she says.
George Washington, the first president of the United States of America, circa 1789.
Three Lions/Getty Images/Hulton Archive
hide caption
toggle caption
Three Lions/Getty Images/Hulton Archive
The man who set the precedents
Enter the first president: George Washington. He was the commander in chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War and was revered after the conflict, says Denver Brunsman, a history professor at George Washington University. Washington never wanted the top job but “had an incredible reputation across the nation,” Brunsman says. “It was a foregone conclusion that he would be president. Then they had to convince him to stay on for a second term.”
Washington is the only president to have been elected unanimously by the Electoral College twice, Brunsman says. “Having Washington as the first president establishes it as an important office from the start,” he says.

O’Donnell notes that Washington was extremely cautious every step of the way, knowing his actions would set a precedent.
“He really thought the office had to convey respect,” she says. “A lot of people were unsure of even what to call him. They can’t use ‘your highness.’ They can’t call him ‘George.’”
They settled on “Mr. President.” And Washington approached the role with formality, O’Donnell says.

The president’s role has changed and evolved along with the United States’ prominence on the world stage, but Brunsman says, “I think he would recognize broad elements of the job” since many traditions and precedents Washington started still remain.
He had a brown suit of American fabric made especially for his inauguration, and he wore this special president’s suit whenever he met with people, she says.
He took extremely seriously the task of meeting with people who called on the president, including statesmen and foreign dignitaries, as he wanted to ensure the public understood it had access to the country’s leader. He established days and times for these face-to-face interactions, which included meetings and formal dinners. Today, the president regularly hosts state dinners for foreign leaders visiting the United States.

Washington created his own Cabinet, much like his war cabinet during the Revolutionary War, when he met regularly with close advisers in the military. That system remains.
Washington’s Cabinet was completely different from the British government at the time. To get a role with the British government, it was all about who you knew. Washington focused on picking qualified people with relevant experience to run the government, according to the George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon.
The Washington administration Cabinet had just four members — Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox and Attorney General Edmund Randolph — compared with today’s 16 positions (the vice president and the 15 department heads).
Washington also established the tradition of making an inaugural address and a farewell address. His final address, which called for political unity among Americans, is still revered today and read each year in the U.S. Senate.
Washington retired from office after serving two terms as president — and no more — a tradition that continued until President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office for a third term in 1941. The two-term limit was later enshrined in the 22nd Amendment.
Presidents didn’t campaign until the 19th century
Texas Gov. George W. Bush, then a Republican candidate for president, attends a Hispanic community breakfast at Jalapeno’s restaurant on Aug. 13, 1999, in Davenport, Iowa.
Luke Frazza/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Luke Frazza/AFP via Getty Images
Kissing babies, eating hot dogs and stopping at state fairs have become common practices for presidential candidates itching to get face time with voters on the campaign trail.
But they are purely modern tactics that weren’t even thought of during Washington’s time, say historians whom NPR spoke with. There was no national campaigning as we know it now.
“It was considered ungentlemanly, crude, even crass to say you wanted the gig,” says Justin Vaughn, an associate professor of political science at Coastal Carolina University.
In the 19th century, as political parties began to form, candidates were selected by party leaders, George Washington University’s Brunsman says.
For his part, Washington opposed the formation of political parties, believing they fueled partisanship and weakened the nation. But this development was out of his control, as political parties began to form by the end of his first term, Brunsman says.
The country’s most wealthy, powerful men and political bosses in “smoke-filled rooms” decided the parties’ nominees for president well until the 1960s, says Vaughn. It wasn’t until the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention that a presidential primary system to select candidates was adopted; the Republican Party followed suit shortly after.
With the earliest parties in the 1790s, newspapers affiliated with either the Federalist Party or the Democratic-Republican Party — the main parties at the time — became a crucial form of media for publicizing their parties’ ideologies and their candidates of choice across the nation, Brunsman says.
“That’s really the start of this modern campaigning,” he says.
Historians consider the election of 1840 — Democrats versus Whigs — to be the first truly modern presidential election.
“Both sides really employed all these modern techniques of the commercialization of politics: posters, songs, all kinds of media,” Brunsman says.
The 1840 presidential election pitted Whig candidate William Henry Harrison — known as Old Tippecanoe, a nickname from his 1811 military victory against Native Americans at the Battle of Tippecanoe — against the then-president, Democrat Martin Van Buren.
That’s when the Whig Party created the “log cabin” campaign and the famous “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” song that praised the achievements of Harrison and eventual Vice President John Tyler.
The log cabin campaign grew out of a Democratic newspaper’s attempt to mock Harrison, saying essentially that he was a simple man who was too old for the job.
Kamala Harris, then a U.S. senator and Democratic presidential candidate, cooks pork burgers at the Iowa Pork Producers Association tent while attending the Iowa State Fair in 2019 in Des Moines, Iowa.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Instead of fighting it, the Whigs embraced this attempt at mockery and presented Harrison as an “everyman” frontier fighter who lived in a log cabin and drank cider, in contrast to the wealthy, out-of-touch Van Buren. This, despite the fact that Harrison came from a wealthy plantation-owning family in Virginia.
The Harrison campaign put log cabins on various campaign items, like cups and teapots, and held “log cabin and hard cider” rallies to push the idea that he was a man of the people — and it worked. Harrison won the 1840 election.
Brunsman says that Washington’s successors “understood that in a democratizing America, you had to campaign and you had to put yourself out there.”
News
Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
For decades, immigrants who have followed the rules and have not broken the law have had hopes of earning a green card, a document that allows them to live legally in the United States and gain a path to citizenship.
But under new guidance issued by the Trump administration, immigrants can now be denied a green card for expressing political opinions, such as participating in pro-Palestinian campus protests, posting criticism of Israel on social media and desecrating the American flag, according to internal Department of Homeland Security training materials reviewed by The New York Times.
The documents, which have not been previously reported, show how expansively the Trump administration is carrying out a directive from last August to vet green card applicants for “anti-American” and “antisemitic” views.
The administration includes criticism of Israel as a potentially disqualifying factor, with the training materials citing as an example of questionable speech a social media post that declares, “Stop Israeli Terror in Palestine” and shows the Israeli flag crossed out.
The materials were distributed last month to immigration officers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and handles applications for green cards and other forms of legal status.
They reflect how U.S.C.I.S. — long considered the gateway agency for legal migration — has rapidly transformed under President Trump into another cog in his administration’s deportation machine. The agency has worked to strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship and has hired armed federal agents to investigate immigration crimes.
The administration is also granting permanent legal residency to far fewer applicants. Green card approvals have fallen by more than half in recent months, according to a Times analysis of agency data.
“There is no room in America for aliens who espouse anti-American ideologies or support terrorist organizations,” Joseph Edlow, the agency’s director, told Congress in February.
Critics of Mr. Trump’s approach say the administration is seeking to restrict legitimate political speech, and has conflated opposition to Israeli government policies with antisemitism.
Basing green card decisions on “ideological screenings is fundamentally un-American and should have no place in a country built on the promise of free expression,” said Amanda Baran, a senior agency official under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Administration officials said they were defending American values.
“If you hate America, you have no business demanding to live in America,” said Zach Kahler, a spokesman for U.S.C.I.S.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration’s policies had “nothing to do with free speech” and were meant to protect “American institutions, the safety of citizens, national security and the freedoms of the United States.”
The administration has moved aggressively against immigrants for expressing political views that officials have deemed anti-American, making ideology a central part of its immigration vetting process. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revoked the visas of pro-Palestinian student activists, including one who wrote a column criticizing her university’s response to pro-Palestinian demands.
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed reviewing the social media histories of tourists seeking to visit the United States.
Immigration officers have significant discretion in deciding whether to grant foreigners long-term permanent residence. They have long considered a variety of factors, including criminal records, national security threats, family ties to the United States and employment histories.
Ideology has also traditionally been one of those factors. In some cases, U.S. law forbids officers from granting green cards to people who have belonged to a Communist or other “totalitarian” political party, have promoted anarchy or have called for the overthrow of the U.S. government by “force or violence or other unconstitutional means.”
But in the past, immigration officers have focused on statements that could incite or encourage violence, given concerns about infringing on constitutionally protected speech, former U.S.C.I.S. officials said.
The new training materials reviewed by The Times guide immigration officers through the factors they should consider when ruling on green card applications. They discourage officers from granting green cards to people with a history of “endorsing, promoting or supporting anti-American views” or “antisemitic terrorism, ideologies or groups.”
Immigration officers have been told to weigh those factors as “overwhelmingly negative.”
The documents list support for “subversive” ideologies as among other factors that could lead to an application being rejected. As an example, the materials point to someone “holding a sign advocating overthrow of the U.S. government.”
In addition, the guidance describes the desecration of the American flag as a negative factor, citing Mr. Trump’s executive order last year directing the Justice Department to prosecute protesters who burn the flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.
Immigration officers have also been told to scrutinize applicants who encourage antisemitism “through rhetorical or physical actions.” They were instructed to “focus particularly on aliens who engaged in on-campus anti-American and antisemitic activities” after the Hamas attacks against Israel in 2023, the documents show.
Further examples in the documents of conduct characterized as antisemitic include a social media post showing a map of Israel with the nation’s name crossed out and replaced with the word “Palestine.” Another illustrative post suggests that Israelis should “taste what people in Gaza are tasting.”
Immigration officers must elevate all cases involving “potential anti-American and/or antisemitic conduct or ideology” to their managers and to the agency’s general counsel’s office for review, according to the documents.
In recent months, the agency has also changed the way it refers to the employees who adjudicate green card applications, long known as “immigration services officers.” In job postings, it now calls them “homeland defenders.”
“Protect your homeland and defend your culture,” one posting says.
Steven Rich contributed reporting.
News
America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war
Additional work by Jana Tauschinski
Oil and gas tanker location and destination data are from Kpler. The map shows the latest position for vessels with an active AIS signal on April 19–20, filtered by minimum capacity thresholds: crude tankers of at least 50,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT); oil product tankers of at least 55,000 DWT; oil/chemical tankers of at least 40,000 DWT; LNG carriers of at least 150,000 cubic metres; and LPG carriers of at least 50,000 cubic metres. Net fossil fuel import data by country are based on Ember analysis of the IEA World Energy Balances 2023.
News
Roommate faces murder charges in deaths of 2 University of South Florida doctoral students
A 26-year-old man is facing two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of two University of South Florida doctoral students who went missing last week, local authorities said Saturday.
The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in Florida said that evidence presented to the state attorney’s office resulted in the charges against Hisham Abugharbieh, the roommate of Zamil Limon, one of the doctoral students.
Abugharbieh is accused of premediated murder with a weapon. He was arrested on Friday, the same day Limon was found dead.
The family of Nahida Bristy, the other doctoral student, told CBS News that police said she is also likely dead. That is based on the volume of blood discovered at Abugharbieh’s residence, which he shared with Limon.
“Police told us she is no longer with us,” Bristy’s brother, Zahid Prato, said early Saturday.
The family was told her body may never be found and police believe she may have been dismembered, according to Prato.
CBS News has reached out to police for more information.
Authorities said in a statement Saturday they were still searching for Bristy.
Limon’s remains were found on the Howard Franklin Bridge in Tampa Friday morning, Chief Deputy Joseph Maurer with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office said. His cause of death was pending autopsy results.
Deputies with the sheriff’s office took Abugharbieh into custody on Friday after responding to a domestic violence call at a home in the Lake Forest Community, a neighborhood near USF’s Tampa campus, officials said. He also faces charges of domestic violence and evidence tampering, as well as a charge of failing to report a death to law enforcement.
Limon and Bristy, both 27, had last been seen in the Tampa area on April 16.
Limon was studying the use of AI in environmental science and was set to present his doctoral thesis this week, his family said. Bristy is studying chemical engineering.
-
Connecticut2 minutes agoRain showers slowly spread east today and tonight
-
Delaware8 minutes agoFort Delaware Debuts Fort Fest for 75th Anniversary – State of Delaware News
-
Florida14 minutes ago
Colts select Florida defensive end George Gumbs Jr. in fifth round of 2026 NFL Draft
-
Georgia20 minutes ago
Bengals “really comfortable” with background on Georgia WR Colbie Young
-
Hawaii26 minutes agoClimate disasters strain Hawaii’s insurance with higher rates, coverage gaps – Hawaii Tribune-Herald
-
Idaho32 minutes agoFlags lowered statewide as Idaho honors former Governor Dirk Kempthorne’s life
-
Illinois38 minutes agoDonut shop broken into in Gurnee, Illinois
-
Indiana44 minutes agoCaitlin Clark returns to the court for the Indiana Fever after 9 months out – WTOP News