What is a major consequence of a President's ability to utilize executive agreements?

The correct choice highlights a key feature of executive agreements, which allow the President to engage in international agreements without the necessity of going through the treaty ratification process that requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. This ability provides the President with greater flexibility and speed in conducting foreign policy since executive agreements can be negotiated and executed more swiftly than treaties. Consequently, this means that a president can implement policies and respond to international situations more rapidly without needing the often lengthy and complex process of Senate approval.

In contrast, options that suggest requiring Senate ratification or subjecting executive agreements to judicial review do not accurately reflect the nature of these agreements. While executive agreements are generally less formal than treaties, they remain legally binding under international law, and while they can face judicial review in a broader sense, this aspect does not directly relate to their fundamental characteristic of bypassing the ratification process. The notion of strengthening checks on presidential power is also not applicable, as the use of executive agreements can, in fact, centralize power within the executive branch and diminish legislative oversight.