as much as the current occupant of the office would like them to have loyalty to him personally, they don't

still, Congress has given up too much control and needs to take it back

* blinks *

Yes, they do. He's their commander in chief, authorized by Congress to attack anyone or anything in the name of "fighting terrorism" with zero immediate accountability to anyone. (And yes, as you suggest, this is a problem Congress created for itself.)

POTUS also has the ability to invoke something called the "Insurrection Act," which effectively deploys the military on domestic soil for law-enforcement purposes.

Oh, and speaking of Federal law enforcement, that's an executive branch function as well.

as much as the current occupant of the office would like them to have loyalty to him personally, they don't

An idealistic perspective that isn't always borne out by reality. [1]

still, Congress has given up too much control and needs to take it back

That's for darned sure. Of course, a complicit Congress is arguably worse than an impotent one, because it opens the door to a captive judicial branch as well.

[1]: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/dod-report-reveals-details-s... :

    “[The convoy commander] was also 
    aware of the rules precluding 
    Department of Defense (DoD) endorsement 
    of political candidates during an election,” 
    the documents stated. “However, he believed 
    that flying the flag was not inappropriate 
    since the election was over and since the 
    candidate was now the Commander in Chief 
    of the Armed Forces.”