In this episode of the Village SquareCast, Dr. Danielle Allen, Harvard Professor, classicist, and political scientist, discusses this critical moment in the future of building a multiracial democracy and ways to guide us to the other side of our current crisis of faith in democracy. This program is part of the Created Equal and Breathing Free podcast series presented in partnership with Florida Humanities.
President Donald Trump signs two executive orders and speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
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 of these will face inevitable legal challenges, leading to prolonged court battles that will likely shape their outcomes and 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 President 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 multiple court battles and requiring 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, encountering legal disputes that will likely delay or significantly alter their implementation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
President 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. With legislative gridlock persisting, executive orders allow him to create the appearance of advancing his agenda without requiring congressional approval.
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 Fourteenth Amendment, instructing federal agencies to deny citizenship documents to such children. No sooner was the ink dry on the order than it faced an immediate challenge in court by the ACLU. 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, President 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.
President Trump has also revived Schedule F in an effort to strip senior civil servants of job protections and allow their replacement with political appointees. Supporters argue this ensures loyalty to presidential priorities, but critics warn it could politicize the federal workforce and revive the corruption of patronage. Legal challenges to test its compliance with employment laws are inevitable.
Another policy targeted by President Trump focuses on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in federally funded institutions. By tying federal funding to the elimination of these programs, Trump aims to dismantle what he views as ideological control of big institutions. However, this heavy-handed approach risks undermining meaningful progress in promoting diversity and addressing systemic inequities in both corporations and universities.
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 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 highlights 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, as justices may still scrutinize their legal and constitutional foundations. 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 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.
Sunset over cracked soil in the desert. Global warming concept
I want to offer you a different lens through which to better understand the climatological and environmental crises that we—indeed all of humanity—are facing. I would like you to view these crises through the long lens of our planet’s geologic and evolutionary history.
From the beginning of our planet’s formation, some 4.6 billion years ago, to the present there have been five major extinction events which destroyed anywhere from70% (during the Devonian Period) to 95% (at the end of the Permian Period) of all living things on earth. These extinctions were natural events: caused by some combination of rapid and dramatic changes in climate, combined with significant changes in the composition of environments on land or in the ocean brought on by plate tectonics, volcanic activity, climate change (including the super cooling or super heating of earth), decreases in oxygen levels in the deep ocean, changes in atmospheric chemistry (acid rain), changes in oceanic chemistry and circulation, and in at least one instance, a cosmological event—the massive asteroid strike inChicxulub, near what is now the Yucatan peninsula.
Contrary to climate change detractors, science-deniers and those who refuse to acknowledge the climatological and environmental crises facing us, any notion that these do not exist, will not come to fruition, or that humans will somehow subdue the earth is utter nonsense. Rather, it is the earth and cosmos that will, in due course, subdue all living things—as nature has already done, time and time again, for billions of preceding years.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Indeed, and to that point, our planet is presently in the midst of adverse climatological changes and a sixth major extinction event—in this instance, however, both caused by human beings.
And that brings me to the new apex predator--US.
Humans--homo—evolved from a genus of apes about 2.5 million years ago. Our species, homo sapiens, evolved from these early humans, between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago. Up until a time between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago (12,000 years ago is the date most frequently cited) humans lived in small hunting and gathering groups. It was during this time forward, that various of these hunter/gatherer groups settled in larger units—villages, towns, cities, and empires--planting and harvesting food crops, domesticating animals, and dividing labor as a more efficient way of living. Modern civilization.
If one were to view this geologic and evolutionary history through the lens of a standard 12-month calendar, life first appeared on January 1st; the dinosaurs went extinct on December 25th; humans first appeared at 11:00 pm on December 31st; and modern civilization began at two minutes before midnight on December 31st.
During these two minutes homo sapiens crafted written language, digital technology, and methods to communicate information anywhere in the world in seconds. We split atoms, and harnessed their power. We sent people to the moon. Our presence in space grows more far-reaching and sophisticated each year. With our space-based telescopes, we have observed the light from a few hundred thousand years after our universe’s formation.2 We domesticated animals, and we grew agriculture on a massive scale. We invented treatments and cures for a goodly number of ills that killed many of us less than a hundred years ago. We probed the depths of the oceans. We learned how to change the structure of DNA and genes, ours included. We developed machine intelligence that will in all likelihood, itself, become sentient in not too many years. We explored the particles and forces that comprise time, space, gravity, and the laws that created us and still enable our very existence.
All of that in those two minutes.
However, in those same two minutes we also created monotheistic religions; we wrote sacred texts; and, for good and evil, we empowered priests, pontiffs, prelates, and prophets to institutionalize our sectarian myths. We governed ourselves with warlords, kings, queens, dictators, and presidents, counting among those both the wisest and most evil and ignorant leaders. We warred against each other constantly, and killed billions of us. We explored, and we decimated indigenous populations in the process. We hold on to systemic racism, sexual and gender-based phobia, misogyny, and xenophobia. We discriminate against and punish each other for our differences. And, we have fouled our nests, our waters and our air with allmanner of filth, waste, disease, pollution and, ultimately, the heat from our industriesand lifestyles equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs detonating everyday--four every second.3 Since the start of the industrial revolution we have pumped over 2000 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere—presently, about 40 billion metric tons every year; over 5000 million metric tons by the U.S. alone.
We are the first species with the power to render our kind and most otherliving things extinct; and we are exercising this power to do just that. Homo sapiens has become homo extinctor (man the destroyer, the annihilator).
All in those same two minutes.
We became so smart, so fast, that we outsmarted ourselves. Modern humans have existed but for a nanosecond of geologic time. But, look at the appalling, toxic mess that we have created in our two minutes on earth.
Indeed, if we do not change course, if we do not engage our prefrontal cortex to rein-in our limbic brain, we will not be around for the next two minutes in a new January 1st. If we are to preserve the right of this and future generations to exist in
a clean and healthful environment, then we must act.
And, make no mistake, we don’t have a million years to get our act together—that option is not on the table. We will not have another 40,000 years much less even 12,000 years--another two minutes-- to learn to respect and nurture what our planet has given us, and to try to slow the progress of the disastrous climatologic and environmental Rubicon we are destined to cross within the next six years. As it is, it will take many thousands of years, if not more, for our planet to recoup and rebalance from the excesses and mismanagement already committed in our two minutes of stewardship.
We are at the edge of the abyss. If we don’t change, homo extinctor will have destroyed most living things, and, in the end, will have annihilated our own species.
Our two minutes on earth will be over. And, we will have squandered it.
James C. Nelson is a retired attorney and served as an associate justice of the Montana Supreme Court from 1993 through 2012.
Question marks on a stack of small blocks.
Donald Trump loves to keep us guessing. This is exactly what we’re all doing as his second term in the White House begins. It’s one way he controls the narrative.
Trump’s off the cuff, unfiltered, controversial statements infuriate opponents and delight his supporters. The rest of us are left trying to figure out the difference between the shenanigans and when he’s actually serious.
At a recent news conference, Trump was in an expansionist mood, telling reporters he wants to take over Greenland, annex Canada, and return the Panama Canal to U.S. control. But is this all a part of a negotiating strategy to get something else?
For extra measure, he also declared “all hell will break out” if a deal to release Israeli hostages held by Hamas was not done before his inauguration on January 20, 2025. Both Israel and Hamas wanted to avoid finding out what his comments mean as both sides reached a ceasefire agreement within days of Trump’s threat. Now he’s getting credit for movement in negotiations that had been stalled for months.
Will the next four years be like his first administration? Yes and no. While Trump himself doesn’t appear to have changed much, apart from getting older (quite a bit older) and more experienced in the ways of Washington, his administration could be far more disciplined than the chaotic first four years.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Susie Wiles, the incoming chief of staff—Trump’s closest advisor—says backbiting and drama won’t be tolerated in this White House. Wiles is a politico pro, seen as a steady and experienced hand who played a key role in Trump’s well-run 2024 campaign. She will control information and access to the Oval Office, set the president’s daily agenda, and manage his White House staff.
Unlike the first time around, Trump’s top picks for his second term were announced very quickly. All but a few nominees are poised to win easy approval in the Republican-run Senate.
From Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at HEW and Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence to Scott Bessant at Treasury and Marco Rubio at State, the new administration will include a surprisingly broad range of opinions, from brash tech entrepreneurs and traditional corporate conservatives, to conspiracy theorists, and Make America Great Again (MAGA) populists.
Are diverse viewpoints a sign of confident strength or mere confusion and chaos? We are kept guessing and only time will tell.
While the president-to-be and his loudmouth MAGA allies have cowered all but a handful of Republicans in Congress, the Trump coalition is already facing a bitter split over immigration. Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and the big business wing of the Republican Party think that admitting more skilled immigrants, including brainy scientists and technology wizards, would be good for business innovation and the economy. Trump’s hardcore populist supporters want to shut the door on newcomers. So far, Trump seems to be siding with Musk.
We know that many will be angered by what Trump does, but exactly who he surprises and who he offends is almost impossible to predict. Despite what you may read from ever-confident pundits online or in the columns of your favorite newspaper, we’re all guessing. Perhaps that is all part of Trump's negotiating strategy.
In a best-case scenario, a second Trump administration will boost growth, reduce undocumented immigration in an orderly way, manage China, and broker a ceasefire in Ukraine. But the worst case would include an assault on democratic norms and trust in public institutions, along with more political polarization and violence in the streets. Under Trump, the U.S. may help Putin and America’s adversaries by turning its back on long-time allies, undermining NATO and Ukraine, and getting into a full-on trade war with China, leading to higher inflation and an economic crisis.
The possible outcomes range from exhilarating to deeply alarming.
For almost a decade Donald Trump and his MAGA movement have been banging at the gates of power, challenging the elite, and ridiculing the government. And now there's a chance to prove they can go from complaining about the problem to implementing solutions.
Now he’s in charge. It’s his show. His supporters are the new establishment.
So this question for the next leader of the free world: Will you lift up more than you tear down? We’re still guessing what the outcomes will be.
Richard Davies is a podcast consultant, host, and solutions journalist at daviescontent.com.
The inauguration of Donald Trump.
Before his inauguration, Donald Trump promised to issue a total of 100 or so executive orders once he regained the presidency. These orders reset government policy on everything from immigration enforcement to diversity initiatives to environmental regulation. They also aim to undo much of Joe Biden’s presidential legacy.
Trump is not the first U.S. president to issue an executive order, and he certainly won’t be the last. My own research shows executive orders have been a mainstay in American politics – with limitations.
Though the Constitution plainly articulates familiar presidential tools like vetoes and appointments, the real executive power comes from reading between the lines.
Presidents have long interpreted the Constitution’s Article 2 clauses – like “the executive power shall be vested in a President” and “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” – to give them total authority to enforce the law through the executive branch, by any means necessary.
One leading way they do that is through executive orders, which are presidential written directives to agencies on how to implement the law. The courts view them as legally valid unless they violate the Constitution or existing statutes.
Executive orders, like other unilateral actions, allow presidents to make policy outside of the regular lawmaking process.This leaves Congress, notoriously polarized and gridlocked, to respond.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Thus, executive orders are unilateral actions that give presidents several advantages, allowing them to move first and act alone in policymaking.
Every U.S. president has issued executive orders since they were first systematically cataloged in 1905.
In March of 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized President Obama’s use of executive orders.
“Executive orders sort of came about more recently. Nobody ever heard of an executive order. Then all of a sudden Obama – because he couldn’t get anybody to agree with him – he starts signing them like they’re butter,” Trump said. “So I want to do away with executive orders for the most part.”
Little in this statement is true.
Obama signed fewer orders than his predecessors – averaging 35 per year. Trump issued an average of 55 per year.
Against conventional wisdom, presidents have relied less on executive orders over time. Indeed, modern presidents used drastically fewer orders per year – an average of 59 – than their pre-World War II counterparts, who averaged 314.
Executive orders have been used for everything from routine federal workplace policies like ethics pledges to the controversial 2017 travel ban restricting entry into the United States.
They have been used to manage public lands, the economy, the civil service and federal contractors, and to respond to various crises such as the Iran hostage situation and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Presidents often use them to advance their biggest agenda items, by creating task forces or policy initiatives and directing rulemaking, the process for formally translating laws into codified policy.
Why don’t presidents always issue executive orders, a seemingly powerful policy device? Because they come with serious constraints.
First, executive orders may not be as unilateral as they seem. Drafting an order involves a time-consuming bargaining process with various agencies negotiating its content.
Second, if they are issued without proper legal authority, executive orders can be overturned by the courts – although that happens infrequently.
Trump’s 2017 travel ban faced several legal challenges before it was written in a way to satisfy the court. Many of his initial orders, on the other hand, didn’t face legal scrutiny because they simply requested agencies to work within their existing authority to change important policies like health care and immigration.
Congress is another barrier, as they give presidents the legal authority to make policy in a certain area. By withholding that authority, Congress can deter presidents from issuing executive orders on certain issues. If the president issues the order anyway, the courts can overturn it.
Legislators can also punish presidents for issuing executive orders they do not like by sabotaging their legislative agendas and nominees or defunding their programs.
Even a polarized Congress can find ways to sanction a president for an executive order they don’t like. For example, a committee can hold an oversight hearing or launch an investigation – both of which can decrease a president’s public approval rating.
Congresses of today are equipped to impose these constraints and they do so more often on ideologically opposed administrations. This is why scholars find modern presidents issue fewer executive orders under divided government, contrary to popular media narratives that present executive orders as a president’s way of circumventing Congress.
Finally, executive orders are not the last word in policy. They can be easily revoked.
New presidents often reverse previous orders, particularly those of political opponents. Biden, for instance, quickly revoked Trump’s directives that excluded undocumented immigrants from the U.S. Census.
All recent presidents have issued revocations, especially in their first year. They face barriers in doing so, however, including public opinion, Congress and legal limitations.
Regardless, executive orders are not as durable as laws or regulations.
Some of Trump’s executive orders, particularly those focused on the economy, will require legislation since Congress holds the purse strings.
Though Trump inherits a Republican House and Senate, their majorities are marginal, and moderate party dissenters may frustrate his agenda. Even so, he will undoubtedly use all available legal authority to unilaterally transform his goals into government policy.
But then again, these directives may be undone by the courts – or by the next president with the stroke of a pen.
Sharece Thrower is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University. Her research focuses on how both Congress and the courts constrain the president’s use of various policy instruments such as executive orders, signing statements, rule making and regulatory review.
