Donald Trump may not appear by name in a new collection of presidential essays marking America’s 250th anniversary, but his presence is difficult to miss.
Former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have joined a broader group of political leaders, historians and public figures contributing essays to a project called In Pursuit. The series looks backward at former presidents and first ladies, but many of its themes—restraint, humility, constitutional loyalty, peaceful transfers of power and the responsibilities of leadership—inevitably resonate with current debates about the presidency. (apnews.com)
Trump is not directly discussed in the essays highlighted by the project, and organizers say the series is intended to be historical rather than partisan. Yet the timing matters.
America is celebrating 250 years of independence during a period when arguments over executive power, democratic norms and political loyalty remain intense. That makes reflections on Washington, Roosevelt, Grant and other past leaders feel less like distant history and more like commentary on the present.
George W. Bush Chose George Washington—and Humility
Bush’s contribution focuses on George Washington.
That choice alone carries enormous symbolic weight.
Washington became the first president and then voluntarily surrendered power, establishing one of the most important democratic traditions in American history. Bush emphasized that decision in his essay, writing about Washington’s humility and his willingness to step away from authority.
The George W. Bush Presidential Center has highlighted the importance of Washington’s decision to relinquish power, describing it as a precedent that helped establish the peaceful transfer of authority as a defining American principle.
Bush’s argument is broader than a lesson about one president.
It suggests that presidential strength does not always come from accumulating power.
Sometimes it comes from surrendering it.
That principle has obvious relevance in any era when Americans are debating whether a president should push institutional boundaries, challenge election outcomes, or treat political power as something personal rather than temporary.
Bush does not need to name Trump for readers to notice the contrast.
The Presidency Is Supposed to Be Bigger Than the Person
Bush has repeatedly emphasized the institution of the presidency rather than the personality occupying it.
The Bush Center summarized one of his central ideas by noting his view that the office itself is more important than the individual who temporarily holds it. (bushcenter.org)
That distinction may sound old-fashioned in a political culture increasingly built around personalities.
Modern presidential campaigns often become deeply personal. Supporters identify strongly with individual candidates, while opponents may define their political identity around resisting the same figure.
But the constitutional idea of the presidency is different.
A president enters an institution governed by laws, traditions and limits. He does not own the office. He holds it temporarily.
Washington’s example remains powerful because he demonstrated that leaving power could strengthen the presidency rather than weaken the president.
That is why an essay written about the 1790s can feel so contemporary.
Clinton Looks at Theodore Roosevelt and Populism
Bill Clinton approaches the project from a different direction.
His essay reflects on Theodore Roosevelt, a president associated with reform, economic power, political energy and a complicated form of populism.
Roosevelt challenged powerful corporations and argued that government had a responsibility to prevent economic power from becoming politically dominant. He also embodied a muscular presidency, using the office aggressively and expanding the public’s expectations of presidential leadership.
According to the Associated Press, Clinton’s essay examines Roosevelt’s populist reforms while also acknowledging the contradictions and complexities in his record.
That makes Roosevelt an especially interesting figure to revisit in 2026.
Populism has again become one of the defining forces in American politics.
Trump built much of his political appeal around hostility toward elites, distrust of institutions and the argument that government had failed ordinary citizens.
Theodore Roosevelt operated in a very different political environment, but he also understood the power of presenting himself as a champion against entrenched interests.
The comparison is not exact.
That is precisely why it is useful.
History rarely repeats cleanly, but it often provides patterns that help explain why certain political ideas return.
Obama’s Presence Adds Another Layer
Barack Obama’s participation inevitably brings the Trump era into the background, even when Trump is not the subject.
Obama’s presidency directly preceded Trump’s first administration, and the political movements surrounding the two men have often been interpreted as competing visions of America.
Obama has generally been selective about how directly he engages with his successors, but his post-presidential work has increasingly focused on democracy, civic leadership and institutions.
The Obama Foundation continues to organize programs around public service, civic leadership and democratic participation, reflecting the same broader concerns underlying the anniversary essay project.
In this context, Obama’s reflections on earlier presidents are not merely exercises in historical admiration.
Every former president writes from experience.
He knows what executive power feels like from inside the White House.
When someone who has exercised that authority writes about presidential leadership, readers naturally compare the historical example with the presidency they see today.
That is true whether the author intends the comparison or not.
Trump Is Absent for a Deliberate Reason
The project does not include essays focused on Trump or Joe Biden.
Organizers say those presidencies are simply too recent for the kind of historical perspective the series is attempting to create. (apnews.com)
That decision also helps the organizers maintain their claim that the project is not intended as an anti-Trump collection.
The broader initiative brings together presidential centers, historians and civic organizations around America’s 250th anniversary.
Its stated goal is to revisit lessons from the country’s political history rather than produce a partisan judgment on the present administration.
But historical writing cannot completely escape the present.
When Americans read about Washington voluntarily giving up power, they remember modern disputes about elections.
When they read about Grant’s loyalty to the Constitution, they think about modern arguments over personal loyalty in government.
When they read about Roosevelt’s populism, they inevitably compare it with current populist politics.
Trump remains outside the essays but inside the reader’s interpretation.
Stanley McChrystal’s Grant Essay Makes the Point Even Clearer
Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s contribution on Ulysses S. Grant may be one of the clearest examples.
McChrystal emphasizes Grant’s commitment to the Constitution and the principle that loyalty should be directed toward institutions and law rather than toward an individual leader. (apnews.com)
That theme has enormous contemporary resonance.
American political debate has repeatedly focused on whether officials owe loyalty to a president personally or to the Constitution and the institutions they serve.
The distinction is fundamental to democratic government.
A cabinet member serves in an administration.
A military officer serves the Constitution.
A civil servant serves the government.
A president leads the executive branch but does not personally own those institutions.
Grant’s history gives writers a way to discuss that principle without turning the essay into a direct attack on anyone currently holding office.
The Project Is Also About America’s 250th Birthday
The essays are appearing during America’s semiquincentennial, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
That anniversary naturally encourages two different types of reflection.
One celebrates endurance.
The United States has survived civil war, depressions, assassinations, political scandals, world wars and repeated periods of intense polarization.
The other asks whether the institutions that made that endurance possible remain strong.
The Bush Center’s America 250 work has similarly focused on themes including democratic participation, pluralism, civic responsibility and the meaning of the American experiment.
The essays therefore fit into a larger national conversation.
What exactly has allowed the system to survive for 250 years?
And which political habits must Americans preserve if they want it to survive another 250?
History Becomes a Safer Way to Talk About the Present
There is something strategically effective about discussing Trump without discussing Trump.
Direct political criticism often causes readers to immediately retreat into partisan positions.
Historical examples can sometimes create more space.
A reader may disagree passionately about Trump but still agree that Washington’s peaceful surrender of power was important.
Someone may have strong views about Obama or Clinton but still accept that presidents should respect constitutional limits.
History shifts the conversation from personalities to principles.
That does not make the essays politically neutral in how every reader will interpret them.
It simply changes the vocabulary.
Instead of asking whether Trump is good or bad, the essays ask what makes presidential leadership legitimate, restrained and durable.
Readers can make their own comparisons.
Trump’s Absence May Be What Makes His Presence Stronger
The irony of the project is that explicitly including Trump might actually make the essays feel more partisan and less historically interesting.
Leaving him out creates a different effect.
Washington’s humility stands on its own.
Grant’s constitutional loyalty stands on its own.
Roosevelt’s populism stands on its own.
Then readers look at modern America and decide what those lessons mean.
That is why Trump can go entirely unmentioned yet remain impossible to ignore.
The essays are technically about presidents who governed decades or centuries ago.
But presidential history is never only about the past.
Every generation returns to Washington, Lincoln, Grant, Roosevelt and other presidents because it is trying to answer the same question about its own time:
What should presidential power actually look like?
