Trump’s 8 Executive Orders - Part 1

 Trump’s 8 Executive Orders - Part 1

On January 20th, the day Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States, he set a record for most executive orders signed on the first day of a president’s term. In total, he signed 26 executive orders, but from all of those, just 8 have major implications for the American people, 4 of which will be discussed in this article. 

Executive Order 1: Trump declared an emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, vowing to deploy troops to the region, including the National Guard. He also instructed the secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to construct additional border barriers. 

Declaring an emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, deploying active-duty troops, and ordering the deployment of the National Guard have wide-ranging political, legal, and social implications. Politically, the move further polarizes partisan divides between those who feel it's a bold step needed to deal with national security concerns and those who felt this was an unprecedented abuse of power by the now outgoing chief executive. It has, from its beginning, faced questions of legality as to its validity under the National Emergencies Act, apart from concerns about the reallocation of funds by the administration to fund barrier construction not approved by Congress. Militarily, deployment strained resources and raised concerns about using the military for domestic purposes possibly in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act. These actions increased tensions across communities along borders, dislocated the local economy, and even flared up debates over immigration policies as critics believe their arguments were fuelling anti-immigrant rhetoric. It placed further stress internationally on US-Mexico relations, widely criticized and considered only to bolster sentiments about American isolationism. Thus, broad controversy arose legally with regard to governance of the country on issues related to immigration and border security.

Executive Order 2: Trump birthright citizenship executive order is one of his boldest moves was an attempt to end birthright citizenship for those born to undocumented immigrants.

Among the most sweeping and divisive actions by President Trump was the executive order he issued in an attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. This had wide-ranging political, legal, and social repercussions. It solidified his base politically because it was a strong step, for them, in trying to halt illegal immigration, while his opponents criticized the move as unconstitutional overreach and an attack on core American values. Legally, the move faced immediate challenges as critics argued it violated the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil. The executive order thrust the nation into a contentious legal battle, with experts debating whether such a fundamental change could be made without a constitutional amendment. The order has socially stirred a hornet's nest of controversy on immigration policy, with immigrant communities and immigrant rights advocates fearful and outraged over what it portends for their children's future. On the international scene, it drew criticism from human rights organizations and further strained the U.S.'s image as a nation of immigrants. Ultimately, the effort by Trump to void the birthright citizenship law underlined his administration's hard stance on immigration and left a lasting legacy of division and legal uncertainty on the issue.

Executive Order 3: Trump signed an order withdrawing the U.S., the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, from the Paris Climate Agreement.

The decision by President Trump to pull the United States, the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, out of the Paris Climate Agreement was a dramatic about-face for U.S. climate policy that has sent reverberations around the globe. The politically expedient move fulfilled a campaign promise and spoke directly to his core supporters, who saw the agreement as an affront to American jobs and sovereignty, while environmentalists, Democrats, and international allies roundly condemned the move. Legally, the pull-out had few obstacles since the agreement was of a voluntary nature, but it stirred debates on the commitment of the federal government to tackle climate change. Economically, the move was framed by the administration as a protection move for industries such as coal and manufacturing, while critics argued it ceded opportunities in the growing renewable energy sector and undermined the global fight against climate change. The withdrawal weakened the collective effort to combat climate change internationally and strained relations with key allies who saw the U.S. as abdicating its leadership role. Domestically, it heightened debates about climate policy, with states, cities, and private entities redoubling their efforts to reaffirm their commitments to reducing emissions. Trump's action symbolized a broader rollback of environmental protections, leaving a complex legacy of short-term economic priorities over long-term environmental and diplomatic concerns. Right upon assuming office in January 2021, President Joe Biden made environmental policy, especially reentry into the Paris Climate Agreement, which under President Trump the U.S. withdrew from in 2017, one of his signature policy areas. Under Biden's leadership, his administration adopted policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, expand renewable energy, and toughen environmental rules. However, this executive order to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement for the second time in January 2025 upon his return to office reversed many of Biden's environmental policies.

Executive Order 4: Trump declared a "national energy emergency," ordering expedited, deregulated drilling as he's repeatedly vowed to "drill, baby, drill."

Adding onto leaving the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump promoted domestic energy production. Not through something effective such as nuclear energy or through a lower-emission, more sustainable way to get energy, but instead straight up drilling. On January 20, 2025, by executive order, President Donald Trump proclaimed a "national energy emergency" to accelerate and deregulate drilling throughout the United States. This move puts into action his commitment, as previously noted, to increased levels of domestic production of fossil fuels, summed up in the slogan "drill, baby, drill." The executive order looks to ramp up energy independence by quickening oil and gas extraction processes and lessening regulatory hurdles that have prevented development in the past. While proponents insist that this course of action will spark economic growth, create jobs, and enhance national security by decreasing dependence on foreign sources of energy, critics point out the possibility of environmental devastation, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and the undermining of efforts to combat climate change. This represents a drastic shift from the former government's emphasis on renewable energy and protection of the environment and clearly brings to the fore, again, the clash between economic development and environmental care.