From Washington to Biden, every American president has issued executive orders. Though history’s most famous examples include the Emancipation Proclamation and the pardoning of Richard Nixon, hundreds of decrees have passed in between. They are neither unprecedented nor fraudulent.
Like those of his predecessors, President Donald Trump’s orders act as mechanisms of policy implementation. Given their recklessness and fragility, they also serve a broader purpose. Trump’s poignant display of unilateralism does not aim to enact true legislative change but rather, perpetuate an agenda centered on spectacle and impulsivity.
While abundant, Trump’s executive orders do not constitute a corruption of presidential power. According to Hon. Marna Rusher, EOs are permitted by law, even if not explicitly mentioned by the framers. With more than 20 years of judiciary experience, Rusher is a former immigration judge for the Department of Justice and previously served as an assistant chief counsel for the Department of Homeland Security.
“Executive orders are constitutionally legal,” Judge Rusher said in an interview with The Villanovan. “Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests executive authority in the president. While the Constitution does not specifically mention ‘executive orders,’ they are considered a legitimate exercise of presidential authority to manage the operations of the federal government and to direct the enforcement of laws.”
While constitutionally allowed, EOs are often touted as more bark than bite. Lacking the scrutiny of the legislative process, they can be swiftly overturned by subsequent administrations. One example is the United States rejoining the Paris Agreement under President Biden, only to withdraw under Trump. Alongside other shifts, these decisions reflect the fluidity of policy priorities under changing leaders.
This revocation process is customary, enabling new executives to set agendas for their upcoming terms. However, the practice leaves policies vulnerable, unable to enact substantial reform. Even Trump himself has criticized overreliance on executive orders.
“Look at Obama,” Trump said in a 2015 interview. “He doesn’t get anything done… You’ve got to close the door and get things done without signing executive orders all the time. That’s the easy way out.”
Hypocritical? Maybe. Yet, his words reinforce the underlying problem of executive orders: they are often temporary solutions to long-term matters. This reality is both reassuring and unnerving. While political junkies may scorn at the fragility of these methods, those unfamiliar with the legislative process perceive them as sweeping and authoritative.
President Trump is cognizant of this fact. As evidenced by the nature thus far of his second term, he does not aim to cultivate a legislative legacy so much as a cultural one. The United States is currently in the midst of the political honeymoon of its most recent election cycle. Despite slim congressional margins, Trump’s approval ratings are high. Aiming to capitalize on his first 100 days in office, he set the tone for his second term through highly publicized actions.
In its frenzy, his administration neglected to meticulously scrutinize its actions. It is precedent for executive orders to be screened by civil servants, undergoing a quality-control process through both the Office of Management and Budget and Department of Justice. However, the Trump administration relied on outside counsel for the vetting process. This bypassing of traditional procedures only reinforces broader themes of haste and self-interest that have since defined his presidency.
The framers engineered the political system with durability in mind, embedding checks and balances as deliberate accountability mechanisms. Though lawmaking often seems slow and inefficient, this is by design. Trump’s rash decision-making, even if largely optical, is an irresponsible display of authority.
Executive orders have been utilized on both sides of the aisle, and have the capacity to be useful political tools. However, they are a poor substitute for the legislative process. Performative gestures should not overshadow the legitimacy of traditional lawmaking, and Trump’s overuse of them is both impulsive and frightening.