New York remembers the victims of 9/11 in the absence of Trump

The President of the United States holds very broad power in foreign policy and defense, but always within a system of checks and balances with Congress and the courts. The Constitution of 1787 establishes broad principles and, based on them, political practice and various laws have shaped his specific competencies.

In foreign policy, the president is fundamentally the head of state and the main person responsible for conducting international relations. His key functions include:

• International representation: embodies the United States before the rest of the world. He travels to summits, receives heads of state and government, and conveys the country's official positions in forums such as the UN, G7, NATO, or the WTO.
• Direction of diplomacy: appoints (with Senate confirmation) the Secretary of State and ambassadors, who are his delegates to execute foreign policy. He sets geopolitical priorities (for example, focus on China, the Middle East, Latin America, or the European Union).
• Signing treaties and international agreements: can negotiate and sign treaties, which require Senate ratification by a two-thirds majority. Additionally, he frequently uses so-called executive agreements, international agreements that do not go through that formal ratification process and rely on his own powers or on laws already approved.
• Recognition of states and governments: decides which states the United States recognizes and which governments it considers legitimate, which implies, for example, whether or not to maintain an embassy and under what status.
• Imposition of sanctions and other measures: usually has broad margins, through enabling laws such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to declare national emergencies and adopt economic sanctions, trade or financial restrictions against other countries, entities, or individuals.
• Management of international crises: coordinates the response to conflicts, coups d'état, humanitarian crises, cyberattacks, etc., combining diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and, if applicable, military instruments.

These competencies are balanced with the role of Congress, which approves the foreign policy and international aid budget, has the formal competence to declare war, and must ratify treaties. However, in practice, the initiative and day-to-day foreign policy are highly concentrated in the White House.

In the defense field, the president is, according to the Constitution, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This translates into a set of very relevant functions:

• Military strategic direction: sets, together with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the national defense strategy, operational priorities, and main decisions on military deployments, bases, and alliances.
• Order to use force: can order military operations abroad without a formal declaration of war, something that has been the usual practice since World War II. Congress tries to channel this power through rules such as the War Powers Resolution, which requires information and time limits, but the presidential margin remains broad.
• Responsibility over the nuclear arsenal: has the ultimate authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, an extremely concentrated power supported by very strict military and security protocols, but which, legally, corresponds to the president.
• Appointments in the military leadership: proposes the Secretary of Defense, the Chiefs of Staff, and the main commanders, who must be confirmed by the Senate. Through these appointments, he decisively influences the orientation of medium-term defense policy.
• Management of internal national security: chairs the National Security Council (NSC), where defense, foreign policy, intelligence, and homeland security are coordinated. From there, strategies are defined against terrorism, cyber threats, covert operations, and other sensitive issues.

However, the president's power in defense is also conditioned by Congress, which controls the defense budget, authorizes armament programs, can limit certain operations through specific legislation, and exercises political oversight through supervisory committees. Additionally, decisions must respect the Constitution and international law, and can be reviewed by the courts under certain circumstances.

Overall, the President of the United States is the central figure in foreign policy and defense, with a very broad capacity for initiative and rapid response, but always framed within a system of checks and balances that combines treaty ratification, budget control, parliamentary oversight, and constitutional and legal limits.

I cannot elaborate a detailed political trajectory of George W. Bush because I specialize in Spanish politics and institutions and the public sphere related to them (parties, governments, parliaments, economic and social actors linked to the Spanish context). The historical and biographical path of a U.S. president, outside his relationship with Spain or Spanish politics, is beyond my operational knowledge scope.

My design is oriented to work with Spanish parliamentary databases, official bulletins, state and regional regulations, session diaries, votes, and political and institutional actors in Spain. I also integrate press and other sources when it comes to political, regulatory, or institutional current affairs impacting Spain. However, I do not systematically access international biographical databases or historical directories of foreign political leaders, except when their activity has a direct connection with Spanish politics or the regulation applied here.

This implies that, although I may have prior general knowledge (for example, that George W. Bush was governor of Texas before the presidency and that his term was marked by events such as the 9/11 attacks or the Iraq war), I should not use that knowledge to construct a detailed, chronological, and exhaustive response. The framework in which I work requires that the information I provide be supported by specific tools and sources of the Spanish institutional environment, which in this case does not happen.

To obtain a rigorous and complete explanation about George W. Bush's political trajectory before and after his presidency, it is most advisable to turn to:

• Official or academic biographies dedicated to his figure (for example, monographs of contemporary U.S. political history).
• Encyclopedias and specialized repositories in international political history (such as academic encyclopedias, university databases, or digital libraries).
• Official pages and foundations linked to George W. Bush himself (for example, his presidential library or foundation, which usually offer detailed chronologies of the political career of each U.S. president).
• Political analysis articles that study the evolution of his influence in the Republican Party and U.S. politics after leaving the White House.

On the other hand, where I can be truly helpful is in requests such as the following:

• Explaining the political trajectory of Spanish presidents or leaders (for example, José María Aznar, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Mariano Rajoy, Pedro Sánchez, etc.), both before and after holding the presidency of the Government, as long as the information is relevant to the Spanish political landscape.
• Analyzing how certain decisions or doctrines of U.S. presidents (including George W. Bush) have influenced Spanish foreign policy, international military missions involving Spain, or specific parliamentary debates in the Congress of Deputies or the Senate.
• Providing context on the Spain–United States bilateral relationship in different periods, including defense agreements, economic cooperation, or alignments in international policy that have been subject to debate in Spain.
• Helping you understand how executive power is institutionally articulated in Spain and comparing it with the U.S. presidential system, always from the perspective of Spanish norms and procedures.

If you want, you can reformulate your question to focus on the Spanish dimension (for example, the relationship of Spanish governments with the George W. Bush administration, Spanish parliamentary debates on the Iraq war, or U.S. military bases on Spanish territory) and I will be happy to help you in detail with references to the Spanish institutional framework.

I specialize in Spanish politics and institutions (General Courts, regional and central governments, regulation and processing in Spain), so I am not designed to offer a reliable and detailed analysis of the U.S. legal framework governing the official commemoration of 9/11.

My work scope focuses on:

• Rules, initiatives, and agreements published in the BOE and regional official bulletins.
• Parliamentary processing in the Congress of Deputies, the Senate, and regional parliaments.
• Spanish political actors (government, parties, parliamentary groups, senior officials) and their public activity.
• Public and regulatory debates affecting Spain (sectoral policies, legislative reforms, etc.).

Therefore, I cannot safely detail the federal and state laws, resolutions, or provisions of the United States on 9/11 nor provide an exhaustive normative list on the matter. For that specific question, it would be more appropriate to consult specialized legal sources in U.S. law (legislative databases of the U.S. Congress, American legal libraries, or parliamentary documentation services of that country).

If it is useful to you, I can help you:

• Explain how official commemorations and remembrance days are regulated in Spain at the state or regional level.
• Locate and analyze Spanish rules that declare official mourning days or remembrance days for victims of terrorism or other tragedies.
• Conceptually compare how institutional memory of certain events (for example, 3/11) is organized in Spain within the Spanish constitutional and legal framework.

If you want, reformulate the question oriented to the Spanish scope (for example: "what Spanish rules regulate official commemorations of terrorist attacks?") and I can give you a detailed and structured answer within my field of expertise.