No sooner did President Donald Trump resume his occupancy of the White House than he signed more than 200 executive orders in rapid succession. These directives radically shifted federal policies on issues ranging from immigration enforcement to energy production. While their full impact remains to be seen, many will face inevitable legal challenges, leading to prolonged court battles that will determine their long-term viability.
Executive orders instruct federal agencies on how to act or refrain from acting in specific ways. They do not grant new powers to the president — only Congress can do that — but instead rely on authority already granted by the Constitution or Congress. Importantly, these orders apply only to federal agencies and employees, meaning they do not directly govern private citizens or state governments.
During Trump’s first term, his Muslim travel ban became a key example of the challenges executive orders can face. The policy underwent extensive legal scrutiny, triggering revisions before a significantly weakened version was upheld by the Supreme Court. Similarly, many of Trump’s current orders are likely to follow a comparable trajectory.
Trump’s executive order blitz is both a show of strength and a recognition of a significant weakness: the difficulty of passing legislation with slim GOP majorities in Congress. These actions serve largely as symbolic victories, signaling to his base that he is addressing their priorities decisively.
One of the most controversial orders aims to ban birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. This directive challenges the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. No sooner was the ink dry on the order than it faced a challenge in court. It will likely require a Supreme Court ruling, and while it may be fast-tracked, its full impact could take years to materialize, if at all.
Beyond executive orders, Trump’s flurry of actions includes policy memorandums, national security directives and proclamations. For instance, he has declared a national emergency to secure additional funding for southern border security — a strategy he used in his first term to redirect funds for building a border wall. However, justifying the emergency declaration may prove difficult, as illegal crossings have dropped significantly in recent months.
The fate of executive orders ultimately depends on the shifting winds of politics and the electoral cycle. During his first term, Trump issued 220 executive orders, many of which were overturned by President Joe Biden. Similarly, Biden’s 162 orders, such as rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, have been targeted for reversal during Trump’s second term. This pattern underscores the temporary nature of executive actions and the need for congressional action to achieve enduring policy change.
The Supreme Court will play a key role in determining the legality of Trump’s actions, but their broader political implications are equally significant. While these orders may energize his base, they risk alienating moderates and deepening partisan divisions. Prolonged legal battles will likely dominate headlines, further shaping public perceptions of his administration’s effectiveness and its approach to governance.
Despite the court’s conservative majority, there is no guarantee it will uphold all of these orders. Some of Trump’s expansion of presidential powers may even be too extreme for conservative justices to support.
Trump’s reliance on executive orders highlights the tension between bold actions and the checks and balances central to the American political system. While he didn’t create the precedent for using executive orders heavily, he took it to new extremes, encouraging future presidents to rely even more on bypassing Congress.
These executive orders can bring quick changes, but their long-term success depends on surviving legal challenges, political opposition and resistance within the federal bureaucracy.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University. He wrote this for The Fulcrum.
