How Quickly Will Trump Enact Policy?
- WULR Team
- Mar 18
- 6 min read
Executive Orders under the Trump Administration
Published March 18 2025
Analysis by Joe Gonzalez
As the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential Election intensely unfolds, President-elect Donald Trump is once again in the national spotlight. The executive agenda that Trump pledges to enact divides the nation with excitement and fear. The incoming president has made several campaign promises that would quickly reshape the federal government, however, many wonder how he will practically carry out several of these goals given that there is scrutiny from lawmakers regarding enacting these profound transformations. Congress, a democratic body that may take time that Trump’s team does not want to spare, may be overlooked in favor of Executive Orders. The sense of urgency from Trump’s team toward executing these changes poses questions of legality and precedent for executive orders. How many fast-tracked policies can we see from him, and how can a president so quickly reverse course on the executive branch?
Historically speaking, executive orders were used by the first handful of Presidents only when necessary to progress administrative function and ensure government efficiency. As America’s history played out, presidents began to adopt more executive orders during times of crises as a quick avenue to enact necessary procedures during war or financial depressions. The most famous executive order was issued by Abraham Lincoln during the 1863 Civil War in what became known as the Emancipation Proclamation. This landmark order declared all slaves in the Confederacy were free, and in issuing this order, Lincoln cemented slavery as the primary reason for the war while displaying the profound impact of an executive order. During the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted over 3,700 Executive Orders to pull the country out of the worst financial hardship in the country’s history (1). While these orders may have been justified at a time of considerable need, their usage paved the way for more power to the executive branch over time.
Recently, executive orders have become commonplace among presidents, both in quantity and in policy impact. President Joe Biden has amassed 143 orders during his administration; it is unclear how many more will be passed as the president enters the twilight of his term (2). Trump enacted 220 in his first term and Barack Obama deployed 277 during his 8-year tenure. These orders typically fast-track policy goals the President desires in addition to providing administrative orders for the executive branch. Reversing orders from the past administration has become the norm in recent memory, with Joe Biden reversing many Trump-era policies from his first term, most notably on immigration measures (3). Initiating an executive order is especially common during the first one hundred days due to how quickly these orders can be used within the executive branch. Trump has pledged to enact several policies on day one, setting up a reversal of the status quo from the previous administration.
Because it can create direct policy enactment, scholars and constituents alike question the legality of the executive order. Opponents argue that the orders give too much power to the President, comparing the executive to a more tyrannical force than a member of the three branches. Checks and balances have been implemented throughout history to curb the size and scope of the President’s power within these orders. Constitutionally, the idea of an executive order is an implied power. This means that it is not explicitly stated within the Constitution, but can exist within the wording of it. Drawing from Article II, Section 1, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Given the breadth of this interpretation, this essentially gives total control of a third of the government to the president. The president is free to shape and guide the executive branch however they wish to, as they are granted explicit power to do so by the Constitution. Trump intends to use this constitutional power to reshape federal bureaucracy within the executive branch to the likes not seen in quite some time. This will be a fast-paced change within the executive branch, highlighting just how far the pendulum can swing back and forth between administrations.
A more specific place executive orders are derived from rests in Section 3 of Article II, reading, “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” In executing laws, the President can then issue an executive order within the scope of current Federal Law (4). This is known as the Take Care Clause; Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached partially on these grounds. While giving groundwork for an executive order, this also reaffirms that presidents cannot go directly against the current law in place. As many Democrats fear Trump deploying dictatorial methods in the future of his presidency, the previously noted clause provides a guardrail of sorts against this. Trump will only be allowed to operate within the current laws in place; the executive order is not a tool for legislation. To create any law out of thin air would be considered unconstitutional; he may only act within the purview of pre-existing laws.
A similar defense against unchecked presidential power is noted in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer. In 1952, President Truman attempted to seize steel mills for federal use through an executive order. In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturned the action, arguing that “the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”(5) This clear interpretation set in stone that presidents could not enact laws on their own, but simply carry out current laws, given Section 3 in Article II of the Constitution. This dramatically reduced the power of the executive order and the executive itself, and subsequently, the number of orders issued by presidents following this decision decreased.
Given the constitutional groundwork in mind, pros and cons arise from the idea of such an order. During times of Congressional gridlock, these orders provide an opportunity to quickly change the execution of laws currently in place. Trump is likely to reverse immigration, economic, and bureaucratic policies from the Biden administration within the first one hundred days. This provides Trump an opportunity to deliver on campaign promises in a faster route than operating through Congress, but will certainly raise questions of the legal basis if he chooses to aggressively push policies that may not exist within current law.
One thing remains clear: the effect of the next administration will certainly be felt immediately through these executive orders. Given the Constitution checks against these orders, if the incoming president acts outside of the scope of these executive orders, there is a possibility of impeachment. This is not a certainty of impeachment, but rather a check on the incoming administration. The guardrail the Constitution outlines ensures that the president cannot operate outside of his executive realm. Because of the Constitution and court rulings, there will never be a president with unchecked power, despite worries from both sides of the aisle about the incoming president. This should give confidence to lawmakers, citizens, and the Democratic party that the former president cannot take tyrannical steps and seriously threaten democracy without the possibility of impeachment. These boundaries of executive orders exist for a reason: democracy is supposed to evolve slowly. While the democratic system is not perfect, it is the best humans can rely on. There will be gridlock among lawmakers, but this is specifically designed to ensure that the will of the people is heard over time in a collected manner. In a slow, burning process of democracy, passion does not dictate law, but rather the rule of the people. Presidents may come and go, but the Constitution and the belief in democracy will remain forever. Trump can reshape the executive branch, but the federal government as a whole belongs to the people, not the President.
Chervinsky, Lindsay. “The Executive Order: A History of Its Rise and Slow Decline.” Governing Magazine, April 8, 2021. https://www.governing.com/now/the-executive-order-a-history-of-its-rise-and-slow-decline.html.
“Executive Orders.” Federal Register, 2024., https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders.
Christopher Hickey et al. “Here Are the Executive Actions Biden Signed in His First 100 Days.” CNN, April 30, 2021. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/politics/biden-executive-orders/.
Marshall, William P. and Saikrishna B. Prakash. “Article II, Section 3.” The National Constitution Center, 2024. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-ii/clauses/348.
Black, Hugo L. “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/343us579.