Since he assumed office on January 20, 2025, as of February 12th, President Donald Trump has signed 64 Executive Orders (EO), marking the highest number signed in the first 100 days of a Presidential term in more than 40 years. These orders have ranged from an unconstitutional attempt to end birthright citizenship to prohibiting transgender women from women’s sports, ending government DEI programs, and renaming the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ the ‘Gulf of America’.
In the chaos that has ensued, many Americans have begun questioning the true extent of executive authority. How much power does a president have, who must follow these orders, and how will these directives affect the daily lives of U.S. citizens? As the nation navigates these questions, understanding the legal authority and limitations has increasingly become important to stop misinformation and fear-mongering.
Executive orders obtain their power from Article II of the Constitution, which grants the president executive power over the government, stating, “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” They carry the force of law, however, they don’t require Congressional approval and cannot be overturned by Congress as their power is obtained from the Constitution and existing federal statutes.
Executive orders are used to mobilize federal agencies, implement policy initiatives, and swiftly respond to urgent national issues and while their reach is significant, they cannot override federal laws or statutes which must first be passed by Congress and next signed by the President. This ensures executive orders are a powerful but limited tool for shaping policy. Although executive orders can help push through congressional deadlock and create quick policy changes, they are quite controversial. Proponents argue that they are effective forms of governance when Congress is held up by partisan conflicts, while critics argue that they lead to executive overreach and undermine systems of checks and balances.
In terms of scope, executive orders primarily apply to federal agencies and employees, not private citizens. However, they can indirectly affect individuals by shaping policies on healthcare, immigration, or environmental regulations. State governments are not required to enforce federal executive orders unless they pertain to federal law enforcement or policies that directly impact state agencies.
The one exception for this is if an executive order enforces existing federal law which states must comply with under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. They cannot, however, dictate how Congress legislates nor can they influence judicial rulings which have the authority to review and strike down executive orders deemed unconstitutional.
Although the scope and frequency of executive orders vary, practically every president of the United States has issued one. Franklin D. Roosevelt holds the record for the most executive orders issued, with over 3,700 during his 12-year presidency, owing primarily to the Great Depression and Second World War. In contrast, Barack Obama issued more than 270 executive orders during his two terms.
The first 100 days of a presidential term are sometimes viewed as a chance for the president to lay out a clear agenda and use executive orders to quickly enact policy changes. Joe Biden issued over 40 directives during his first 100 days, focusing on undoing many of Trump's initiatives, including his 2017 Muslim ban. Trump has taken a more aggressive approach to using executive orders marking a contrast in volume and the controversial nature of many of his orders.
Trump’s executive orders have been extremely polarising and largely focused on reversing his predecessor's policies. Key policy areas affected include immigration and citizenship, foreign policy and national security, civil rights and social policies, environmental policies, healthcare and health research, education, and the economy and labour. Notably, his End of Birthright Citizenship attempt sought to revoke automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents but was swiftly blocked by federal courts as unconstitutional. Regarding civil rights, his orders include prohibiting transgender women from participating in women’s sports at federally funded institutions, restricting DEI programs by mandating federal agencies to eliminate said initiatives and rolling back workplace protections for LGBTQ+ employees.
On foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization, imposed increased tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, shuttered USAID, which administers civilian foreign aid and development assistance, and renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, sparking international ridicule. He has also lifted restrictions on drilling in federal lands and weakened climate regulations, including withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement again. Regarding labour, the administration has signalled its intent to reverse pro-union decisions from the Biden era, potentially altering policies by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which could make it more challenging for workers to unionise.
Public reaction has been nothing short of polarising. While many supporters argue the orders are necessary for strengthening national security, protecting traditional values and promoting economic growth, critics voice significant concerns. Civil rights groups have condemned the rollback of LGBTQ+ and DEI protection. Environmental advocates have expressed outrage over weakening climate regulations and drilling expansion as the Earth as a whole faces a growing existential crisis. Labour unions have criticised moves to reverse pro-union politics and legal challenges continue to grow as courts block or review the initiatives. The overall reaction has highlighted the deep political divisions that continue to grow within the country, as each new executive order fuels debates about presidential power and the future direction of U.S. policy.
While executive orders have a broad impact, they are not an end-all-be-all. Congress can pass laws to counteract them, courts can invalidate them if they exceed presidential authority, and future presidents can revoke them with new executive orders. This system of checks and balances ensures that executive power remains within constitutional limits. It is crucial to note, however, as of February 9th Vice President J.D. Vance declared on X that “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal…judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power”, effectively challenging (albeit not officially) the judicial check on a President’s Executive Order authority.
This comes as federal courts have temporarily barred the administration's actions from fully taking effect including, ending birthright citizenship, transferring female transgender inmates to male prisons, giving Elon Musk’s DOGE associates access to sensitive Treasury information, and placing thousands of USAID employees on leave. As of February 10th, the administration has currently not taken any action against federal judges, however, if they begin to, it is possible a constitutional crisis could arise as the judicial and executive branches clash.