Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Impact of President Trump’s Executive Actions

Introduction: A Series on the Impact of President Trump’s Executive Actions

Opinion

The Impact of President Trump’s Executive Actions
U.S. President Donald Trump signs a series of executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on February 10, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Since taking office, President Trump has fired off a barrage of sweeping executive orders that reach into the federal government, higher education, business, and other institutions. But how does all of this affect you and your family?

Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), a nonpartisan organization aimed at protecting democracy and the rule of law, hopes to answer that question through a series of deep dives into the actual impacts of all this frenetic activity.


Let's start with the fact that the Trump administration's broad and chaotic attacks on the government have little to do with waste and fraud. The real goal was set forth in Project 2025, an extremist blueprint created more than a year before the President was elected: “To…go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State."

The administration wants you to believe that federal workers are lazy and incompetent people who waste your tax dollars. Yet, as the first installment in our series will explain, these federal workers—whose duty is to serve the public interest—use their special skills and training to: protect public health; implement a fair tax system; help provide medical care and high-quality research; safeguard our financial and banking systems; help needy families and children; support seniors in retirement; promote safe air, rail, and highway travel; preserve U.S. national security; enforce the law; and protect our food supply, the water we drink and swim in, and the air we breathe.

Public opinion overwhelmingly supports these goals. Federal workers strive each day to make all of this possible. Carefully eliminating waste is one thing but randomly dismantling federal programs does nothing to improve efficiency while undermining the nation's security and prosperity.

Additionally, some of Trump's executive orders have already weakened consumer protections against unethical and potentially dangerous behavior. Our series will describe these impacts in careful detail.

The series will describe how the administration’s demolition of the federal government weakens the enforcement of legal protections that are more likely to cause harm to American families while benefiting wealthier individuals. History has proven that left unregulated, businesses may prioritize profit over consumer and public well-being. A broad-based elimination of regulations without careful consideration about what those regulatory programs are trying to accomplish will increase harmful practices and reduce public health and safety.

The series will also analyze how these dramatic cuts will have direct impacts on individuals. To provide just one example, drastically cutting staff at the Internal Revenue Service will make it easier for the wealthy to be protected by the administration as they exploit loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Those outside that elite category have no such advantages.

Another example can be found in how eliminating basic federal medical research funds will endanger families by leaving us without protection against deadly infectious and chronic diseases. Federal funding has been crucial in the race to find cures and treatments, provide ongoing research for diseases that devastate families—such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, and Parkinson’s—and eradicate once terrifying diseases, such as polio. Slashing funding for medical research will leave us unprepared for the next pandemic.

The series will also explain how reducing civil service protections for federal workers will result in a government of loyalists, not experts. As an example, the administration is already undermining the independence of the FBI and the Justice Department, allowing the President to use them as political tools.

As a result, the awesome coercive power of the federal government may be used not to pursue justice but to punish any individual who dares to express views that the administration regards as unacceptable. This has been the blueprint for the rise of autocrats in other countries where democracy and the rule of law are under attack.

The flood of executive orders and related actions is designed to overwhelm the public's ability to deal with these threats one by one. This series will focus on the larger picture while also examining specific actions in detail to reveal the serious impacts on all of us and the future of our democracy and the rule of law.

This is not the America that our founders envisioned. But it is not too late for an informed public to change our nation's course.


Lawyers Defending American Democracy is dedicated to galvanizing lawyers “to defend the rule of law in the face of an unprecedented threat to American Democracy.” Its work is not political or partisan.

Read More

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less