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

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less