Since taking office on Jan. 20, US President Donald Trump has signed dozens of executive orders — aiming to fulfil a campaign pledge to undo what he called his predecessor’s “unconstitutional” acts and take unilateral action on the economy and immigration.
From the desk of the Oval Office to the podium at rallies filled with throngs of supporters, Trump has hailed his executive actions as “big stuff” and “very, very important.” The flick of his pen is promoted by the White House as a major “win” and a promise kept to voters.
“TRUMP TAKES ACTIONS TO GET WASHINGTON OUT OF THE WAY,” blared the subject line of one e-mail blast touting a rollback federal regulations.
Illustration: Mountain People
However, an analysis of Trump’s executive actions as he nears the 100th day of his presidency on Saturday — which thus far includes 25 executive orders, 24 memorandums and 20 proclamations — show that Trump’s actions are more cosmetic than they are substantive.
Many of the actions establish big goals, but few provide legislative prescriptions. They order agency reviews and studies, ask for recommendations or tinker at the margins of existing law.
“A lot of it is for show,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a law professor at Yale University who covers constitutional and administrative law.
“Those orders don’t mean anything right now, necessarily, but it really depends in many cases on what the agencies come back with and whether the administration goes forward with and actually implements the recommendations,” she said. “Often the reviews result in a lot of paperwork.”
In many ways, Rodriguez said, Trump’s use of executive authority to break ground on his platform is hardly unusual, but the pomp and pageantry is uniquely “Trumpian.”
One such instructive moment arrived on Monday last week, when Trump visited Snap-on Tools in Kenosha, Wisconsin, to unveil his so-called “Buy American and Hire American” executive order with trademark showmanship.
At the rally, Trump promised to take a “sledgehammer” to what he said were job-killing regulations as he signed an executive order that would tighten rules around foreign worker programs.
Flanked by factory workers, Trump raised the signed order for all to see as the crowd showered him with applause.
At first glance, the move appeared to enact a critical portion of the populist agenda that resonated with the blue-collar workers who propelled him to victory. However, for all the fanfare, there was little in the order that paved the way for substantive changes.
The action directed federal agencies to “assess” the enforcement of existing guidelines that prioritize the use of US firms and goods, and to then “submit findings” within 150 days.
It similarly asked a group of relevant Cabinet secretaries to “as soon as practicable, suggest reforms” on eliminating fraud and abuse of the H-1B program that awards visas to highly skilled foreign workers.
In essence, the action amounted to a self-assessment by government agencies and a request by relevant Cabinet officials to look for ways to re-examine and consolidate existing rules.
The theme was set in motion on Trump’s very first day in office, when he issued an executive order before the cameras that was billed as a major step toward dismantling former US president Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.
However, far from making good on his campaign vow to repeal Obamacare on “day one,” the action called on the US Department of Health and Human Services and federal agencies to weaken healthcare requirements “to the maximum extent permitted by law” — but provided no additional powers or authority to the federal government to follow through on its mandate.
A subsequent effort by Trump and Republicans in Congress to repeal and replace the healthcare law was thwarted by members of their own party.
A second attempt is already facing the same obstacles.
“This president does not have a single legislative achievement to promote right now,” said Mark Rozell, dean of the Schar school of policy and government at George Mason University and author of Executive Privilege.
“Therefore, to show that he’s getting things done he’s showcasing his executive actions,” he added.
A series of orders pertaining to financial regulations have also served as statements of intent, more so than concrete action.
During a visit to the US Department of the Treasury on Friday, Trump signed what he said was an “unprecedented action” by his administration to ease rules on US companies.
“We’ve lifted one terrible regulation after another at a record clip from the energy sector to the auto sector,” he said. “We’re now in the process of rebuilding America, and there’s a new optimism sweeping our country that people have not seen in decades.”
Based on briefings provided by the White House, the latest executive actions seek yet another review of Obama-era rules that sought to better regulate Wall Street and tax avoidance by US companies.
If anything, Trump’s stated priorities would contradict his insistence that he would “stand up for the little guy.”
While they will not yet have any tangible effect, if Trump were to eventually follow through and actually rescind Obama’s regulations, he would open up the door for banks and the private sector to potentially engage once more in the same practices that led to the financial collapse of 2007 to 2008.
However, some of Trump’s executive actions have had far-reaching and immediate effects.
On Jan. 23, Trump withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership brokered by Obama. While the landmark 12-nation trade agreement was already regarded as dead on Capitol Hill, foreign allies, such as Japan, were dismayed to see the new inhabitant of the White House formally place the final nail in the coffin.
Days later, Trump issued arguably his most consequential executive order to bar refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
That action, which also attempted to temporarily suspend the entire US refugee program, prompted chaos at airports nationwide and was subsequently blocked by courts, despite an effort by the Trump administration to implement a revised version.
The US Department of Homeland Security has additionally pursued stricter guidance that advocacy groups have decried as an immigration crackdown. The sweeping guidelines, revealed in February, put in motion the prospect of widespread deportations and closed the borders to migrants fleeing violence in Central America.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to learn more about enhanced enforcement activity by the Homeland Security and US Customs and Border Protection.
Anecdotal reports have indicated enhanced interrogation at the border and, in some cases, the seizure of electronic devices and questioning about religious or political beliefs.
“The bluster itself isn’t inconsequential,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff for the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, who wondered how individual border agents might be altering their behavior based on the Trump administration’s declarations of “extreme vetting” and “keeping the bad guys out.”
“A government is supposed to act in an impartial manner, but when you have this kind of encouragement from the commander-in-chief, don’t you think that’s going to have some impact on the border agent?” Macleod-Ball said.
Trump has also taken initial steps to undermine Obama’s climate legacy, for example the gutting of a rule in February that had been designed to protect US waterways from pollution.
As of now, Trump has signed more executive actions in the same period than his recent predecessors.
If he keeps up his current pace, Trump is on track to sign 96 executive orders by the end of the year, according to the American Presidency Project — far more than George Washington, who signed just eight, but far fewer than Franklin D. Roosevelt, who signed a staggering 3,721 orders as he imposed his sweeping New Deal program in response to the Great Depression.
Republicans, including Trump, routinely denounced Obama for what they claimed was unprecedented unilateral action and often honed their campaign messages around ending Obama’s “overreach” of the executive branch.
However, Obama signed the fewest executive orders per year, 35 on average, since Grover Cleveland in the 1890s.
In total, Obama signed 277 executive orders during his two-term presidency, lower than the tally of his two immediate predecessors: George W. Bush signed 291 executive orders over eight years, while Bill Clinton finished his two-term presidency with 364 such actions.
Experts warn that the statistics alone do not necessarily measure how a president is exerting power.
“It’s not the numbers that matter,” said Ken Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power. “It’s the content and the substance of the orders and few of the unilaterally implemented orders change policy.”
Mayer nonetheless echoed other presidential observers on Trump’s penchant for exaggerating his actual accomplishments.
“This is a president who likes the idea of using the power of the office to drive stakes in the ground on his agenda,” Mayer said.
“But he is discovering, as presidents before him have discovered, that checks and balances are a very real thing,” Mayer said.
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China