Presidential duties in office
<p>Is a U.S. President a <em>fiduciary</em> in the same sense a trustee or bank officer is a fiduciary?</p>
<p>Does a U.S. President have a <em>duty</em> to apply critical thinking to his public acts and statements?</p>
<p>By <strong>critical thinking</strong>, I mean the <em>objective analysis and evaluation of an issue</em> in order to form a judgment.</p>
<p>Assuming affirmative answers above, could a U.S. President who was acting in an obviously irrational way in exercising his discretion ( for example, by not using critical thinking) be held accountable under 28 U.S. Code § 1361 - action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty.</p>
<p>If such a writ of mandamus were issued and ignored, what are the possible resolutions?</p>
<p>As an example (contrived to fit comments) let's say the President gets furious about some occurrence of flag burning he sees.   He then begins repeatedly proposing that flag burning be made a felony or speaking as if it were already a felony under the flag code.  He does this despite the fact that SCOTUS has found it to be a protected activity.</p>
<p>While many people wouldn't be injured by his flag-burning rants, but for a few that want to engage in that activity, the president's action might improperly discourage them from it, without causing physical or economic damage.   It seems like the ones who want to burn flags might bring an action.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is a U.S. President a fiduciary in the same sense a trustee or bank
officer is a fiduciary?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does a U.S. President have a duty to apply critical thinking to his
public acts and statements?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>could a U.S. President who was acting in an obviously irrational way
in exercising his discretion ( for example, by not using critical
thinking) be held accountable under 28 U.S. Code § 1361 - action to
compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. 28 U.S. Code § 1361 applies only in circumstances where the duty to act involves no critical thinking or discretion whatsoever.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is a U.S. President a fiduciary in the same sense a trustee or bank officer is a fiduciary?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No.  The traditional responsibilities of office are probably substantially similar, but they are not spelled out in the law as they sometimes are in other contexts.</p>
<p>Regardless, the type of duty you have in mind is not the subject of  28 USC 1361.  See the Justice Department's <a href="https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-215-mandamus" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Civil Resource Manual</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The power of a district court to compel official action by mandatory order is limited to the enforcement of nondiscretionary, plainly defined, and purely ministerial duties. See Decatur v. Paulding, 39 U.S. (1 Pet.) 496, 514-17 (1840); Work v. Rives, 267 U.S. 175, 177 (1925); Wilbur v. United States, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930). An official action is not ministerial unless &quot;the duty in a particular situation is so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt and equivalent to a positive command.&quot; Wilbur v. United States, supra; See United States ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931); ICC v. New York, N.H. &amp; H.R. Co., 287 U.S. 178, 204 (1932); United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v. Helvering, supra; Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (1967); Donnelly v. Parker, 486 F.2d 402 (D.C. Cir. 1973). &quot;But where there is discretion . . . even though its conclusion be disputable, it is impregnable to mandamus.&quot; United States ex rel. Alaska Smokeless Coal Co. v. Lane, 250 U.S. 549, 555 (1919).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no plainly defined duty to employ critical thinking, and even if there were, it would not be a ministerial duty, which means a duty that the government owes without discretion, such as granting a passport, processing administrative paperwork, and so on.</p>
<p>If you search the US Code for the phrase &quot;president shall,&quot; you mostly find requirements to submit reports to congress.  Congress probably does not need to resort to the judiciary if the president fails to meet such a duty.  Ministerial duties that affect the general public are typically assigned to cabinet officers (perhaps not coincidentally, as these are the US analogue of officers known in many other countries as <em>ministers</em>).  While the president does have responsibility for the actions of cabinet officers, the proper target of an action under section 1361 would be the cabinet officer to whom the duty is given, or indeed to a more junior official to whom the duty is actually delegated, not the president.</p>

united-states us-president