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.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations