On Leadership Beyond the Oath of Office

Scott Curran, CEO of Beyond Advisers, recently contributed a piece to TIME examining the role former U.S. presidents can—and should—play in safeguarding the integrity of the presidential oath. In the article, he argues that the responsibility to uphold democratic norms does not end when a president leaves office. Instead, former leaders carry a unique moral authority to reinforce constitutional principles, model restraint, and speak out when those norms are at risk.

America's Former Presidents Should Protect the Oath of Office

By Scott Curran

The road up to and through the White House is a partisan one. But when a President retires from the Oval Office, their path becomes much less so.

That’s why the institution of the post-presidency has traditionally functioned as a genteel club in which constraints of professional courtesy restrain former presidents from commenting on the work of the current officeholder. 

And rightfully so: the underlying assumption has always been that while the sitting president may be doing things differently, he is nonetheless doing his best to serve the American people. 

In our current political climate, it’s worth reconsidering that unspoken rule. What happens if the presidential oath of office appears to have been forgotten? If the President ignores the core tenets and basic functions of the job? Or worse, if he is the one flouting the rule of law, undermining democracy, seeming hell-bent on pivoting America’s standing as the world’s leader to the world’s boss and, as of last week, starting a war without congressional approval?  

I would argue that we’ve arrived at that moment—and that our former presidents are the people best positioned to provide a credible, experience-based performance review. Who better to speak up with clarity and earned authority if the president fails to uphold his duty to the Constitution? 

All of the living former presidents have spoken up in recent months, from President Bill Clinton’s statement condemning the deadly overreach of ICE in Minneapolis; to President Barack Obama’s recent remarks about the “devolution of the discourse” and “clown show” of Trump-era politics; President Joe Biden’s excoriation of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech; and Geroge W. Bush’s President’s Day essay about George Washington, which, as The New Republic suggested, “served to underscore just how unpresidential the current administration has become.” 

You had to read between the lines of Bush’s essay to arrive at that conclusion, but it offers a clear alternative to Trump’s approach to the presidency. Bush may not be engaging at the volume some would prefer, but any engagement is better than silence, given the stakes. Moreover, as the only living former Republican president, his participation in the national dialogue is essential to the bipartisan credibility of the “formers” as a group.

We need more of this—a lot more. And we need it fast. Because right now, the institution of the post-presidency is not being activated to its full potential. Plus, given the small number and advancing ages of its members, its influence could very well diminish in the not too distant future. The formers have the capacity, standing, and expertise to clarify what Americans—without party or partisan preferences—should expect from the president, his cabinet officials, and the operations of all three branches of government. Their collective authority, deployed intentionally and in unison, would carry a moral weight no single former president can wield alone. 

Americans are inundated with noise. The formers can provide a clear signal by reasserting the moral vocabulary of the office. They could achieve this by speaking plainly about the oath, service, restraint, and responsibility; by illuminating fundamental realities of democracy and constitutional fidelity; by articulating what presidential leadership looks like when it is healthy, and what it looks like when it is veering off course. They shouldn’t act as partisans, but as respected alumni of the most powerful position on earth. Their combined reach could be marshaled to counter false narratives with steady, fact-based clarity. 

Imagine a standing, bipartisan council of ex-presidents that convenes regularly to address threats to democracy. Imagine televised forums clarifying constitutional guardrails and elevating respected legal, military, and scholarly voices. Imagine a cross-foundation campaign clarifying the oath of office and the limits of presidential authority, or town halls explaining how executive power actually works. 

The post-presidency has infrastructure, staff, fundraising capacity, and extensive global networks. Those assets can be activated in ways that are strategic, sustained, and institutional rather than fragmented or episodic. What if the formers used their respective foundations as a collective operational platform for democratic resilience? The Carter Center, for example, monitored elections abroad; why not formalize domestic election observation partnerships, especially at a time when credible reporting suggests that the current administration may take the unprecedented and extraordinary step of undermining the 2026 midterm elections? The Bush, Clinton, Obama, and Bush foundations all train leaders; why not scale programs that prepare state and local officials to recognize and withstand political pressure and disinformation, in an age when disinformation requires a united effort to combat it with clarity and credibility?

The formers could act less like emeritus professors and more like guardians of the republic: Convene emergency summits on democratic stability. File amicus briefs when executive overreach threatens constitutional order. Jointly demand congressional oversight when norms are violated. Decline ceremonial appearances that legitimize behavior they know violates the spirit—or oath—of the office. The presidency is not a club, but a constitutional trust. And those who have held it retain far more than the title when they leave the office—they retain a continuing responsibility to defend it.

These ideas may sound quixotic, even disruptive. But we find ourselves in the midst of a seismic disruption to our entire system of governance. It is time to try something new by looking to our leaders of the past.

President Trump has cast his living predecessors as enemies whose legacies are to be scorned rather than celebrated. He’s gone so far as to threaten two of them—Biden and Obama—with baseless legal retribution. Trump’s own post-presidency, the first time around, was marked not by reflection or service, but by relentless grievance politics and campaigning to reclaim power. 

In the face of this upheaval, our former presidents could be forgiven for eschewing orthodox notions of post-presidential decorum. Stepping into the fray might not be conventional or comfortable. And it’s surely less appealing than philanthropy and speaking engagements; books and production deals. But on the eve of our nation’s 250th anniversary, in a period when democracy feels fragile and America’s status as the leader of the free world has come into question, we need our former presidents more than ever before.