Presidential Overreach: Amending the Executive Order

Spring 2025

Alina Gudeli

Edited By: Lauren Penepacker

The framers of the Constitution knew that the power of the executive could make or break the nation, which is why Section 3 of Article II states that the President must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” [1]. This statement was deemed so crucial that similar phrasing was included in the presidential oath. While no mention of executive orders (EOs) can be found within Article II, guidelines like these were the foundation of this powerful and extremely relevant ability. In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that the checks and balances against executive orders have proven insufficient to curb the tyranny sweeping through the Oval Office. As Trump once again enforces outrageous statutes that push the boundaries of constitutional authority, it is imperative to reconsider the true power of the executive. Though executive orders have remained prevalent since 1789, their frequency has increased dramatically since then. Such unchecked authority provides those with unsavory intentions with the perfect opportunity to dismantle important factions of government with few repercussions. Donald Trump’s use of executive orders has reverberated across law firms, disrupted federal operations, shaken the economy, and most importantly, affected the lives of U.S. citizens. Although lawsuits have surged in response to some of these outrageous directives, there is an urgent need to impose new limits on executive power.

While the president’s first 100 days are typically scrutinized for dramatic changes, few moments in modern history have carried as much national anticipation as the start of Trump's second term. This apprehension stems from his anti-regulation ideology that has prompted a war against the federal government. Although many of his executive orders appear unrealistic, some project the sinister agenda of the MAGA movement.

Despite their long-standing use in the United States, executive orders remain unchecked and unregulated. While judicial review and other checks have been implemented, it wasn’t until 1952 that the Supreme Court made a landmark decision on the reach of EOs. The turn of the century brought war after war and an influx of executive orders, as presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt struggled to maintain stability with EOs during such a fragile period [2]. During the Korean War, President Truman grappled with defining the limits of executive authority during a time of national crisis and labor unrest. When he decided to seize and operate steel mills to prevent expected strikes and maintain industrial output, public outrage ensued over the constitutional legitimacy of executive power. This controversy culminated in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), which, in a 6-3 decision, established limitations on the executive’s ability to take over personal property and emphasized the need for the Constitutional or congressional backing of executive orders [3]. Restoring the balance of powers has done little to alleviate the orders that seem to contradict the foundation of the U.S. during Trump’s current term. While federal judges are fighting tirelessly, the Supreme Court and legislature have been more or less silent.

Although many U.S. citizens are concerned or even surprised by the seriousness of these orders, few are likely shocked by the response of the other federal branches. This shared indifference stems from a shift away from traditional party support toward unwavering personal loyalty. While not every republican might identify as “MAGA”, Trump is still the figurehead of their party, and his ideologies are what they must now stand for. With both houses having a republican majority and six out of the nine Supreme Court justices holding conservative values, the incentive to oppose Trump is significantly diminished. Another reason for their reluctance is his ability to manipulate conservative ideologies in his favor. Many of his initiatives–like dismantling the Department of Education, imposing strict immigration controls, and drastically reducing the federal government’s size–align with conservative beliefs, but he often pushes these policies to an extreme that alienates the average voter. The absence of clear legal limitations on executive orders gives right-wing legislators grounds to allow them.

Despite the United States’ widely acknowledged label as a nation of immigrants, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act and its later amendments marked the first time race could not be used as reason to restrict entry or citizenship [4]. This necessary precedent, however, led to growing concerns about the criminality and legal immigration status of non-white migrant groups. While deportation has long been a tool of U.S. immigration policy, the turn of the 21st century and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security marked the rise of new policies centered on removal [5]. The next two decades saw over six million deportations with bipartisan support [6]. Key differences, however, emerged in how each party approached the issue. Trump’s first term and his ‘build a wall’ rhetoric invited opposition against all immigrants and provided the necessary foundation for his current retaliatory policies. EO 14159, titled Protecting the American People Against Invasion, encapsulated much of his current agenda for immigration. It opened with a crude assessment of Biden’s immigration policies and revocation of his own EOs, and then called for the establishment of Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTF) in every state to concentrate all state enforcement resources on deportation. These objectives, while aggressive, align with what is expected when a new president prioritizes immigration. Other sections, however, prove to be more concerning. Targeting sanctuary cities, a legal and beneficial practice in predominantly Democratic cities, Trump promised to cut all federal funding to force compliance. Trump’s inflammatory language toward ‘aliens’ portrays many as posing “significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans” and claiming their presence has cost “taxpayers billions of dollars” [7]. The presence of threats and falsehoods within a legal document underscores the need for the regulation of executive orders.

Consistent with his other anti-bureaucratic directives, Trump’s EO on education proposes dismantling the Department of Education (DoE). Republicans have promoted this agenda since the agency’s creation in 1980, driven by the belief that the federal government was encroaching on state and local authority. Although this department plays a role in various areas of educational support, its primary function is to aid states when specific needs arise. EO 14242 reflects Trump’s misrepresentation of the DoE’s true purpose, as he claims that dismantling the agency will resolve systemic educational issues [8]. While relying on survey data collected and organized by the DoE, he asserts that the department underperforms relative to its sizable budget, pointing to the fact that it does not directly educate students. The fact that the Department of Education does not directly educate students is actually consistent with conservative ideologies, which favor leaving curriculum decisions to the states. In reality, some of its legitimate functions include allocating grants to disadvantaged students, funding a variety of educational programs and improvements, and providing loans for higher education–all of which are vital to ensuring equitable and effective educational outcomes for all students [9]. Grants and funding are determined by each state’s investment in education, as well as factors like poverty levels and property tax rates [10]. This often places predominantly Republican states at the higher receiving end of these added benefits, partly because of their lower tax rates. This EO provides no real solution to the apparent issues, and instead just calls for power to be restored to the states. While dissolving a department cannot be accomplished through executive orders, the greater concern with an order like this is the misinformation it perpetuates. Not only are citizens being misinformed about the DoE’s purpose, but they are also being led to believe that Trump’s powers exceed legal limits. Under the guise of ‘improving education’, Trump and his administration are actively limiting scholastic resources for those who need it most.

Among the numerous executive orders that pose a threat to the nation’s future, Trump’s retaliatory efforts against his opposition are some of the most concerning. This series of EOs included provisions that subjected law firms to penalties, cutting off all government contracts and communication. Many of these firms were involved in prosecuting Trump's various legal cases–ranging from election-related falsehoods to connections with Russian officials–while others were simply accused of supporting DEI programs that the president opposed [11][12][13]. In order to reverse these sanctions, firms must negotiate with the administration, often compelled to provide pro bono services for Trump’s approved lawsuits. Allowing the president to use coercion and censorship to reward loyalty and punish dissent demonstrates the dangerous power executive orders can hold. Throughout the year, lawsuits against Trump have continued to mount, with law firms arguing that his retaliatory actions are both unfounded and unlawful [14]. The legal victories secured so far highlight the need for a broader, systemic solution. If individual lawyers are working to challenge executive overreach, the federal government must take similar action.

References

[1] U.S. Constitution. art. 2, sec. 3.

[2] Roosevelt Institute. FDR’s First 100 Days: A Blueprint for Bold, Democratic Government. April 23, 2025. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/fdrs-first-100-days/

[3] Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

[4] Congress.gov. H.R.5678 - 82nd Congress (1951-1952): Immigration and Nationality Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/82nd-congress/house-bill/5678 

[5] Congress.gov. H.R.4660 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): To establish the Department of National Homeland Security and the National Office for Combating Terrorism. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4660 

[6] Office of Homeland Security Statistics. Table 39. Noncitizen Removals, Returns, and Expulsions: Fiscal Years 1892 to 2022. https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2022/table39 

[7] EO 14159.

[8] EO 14242.

[9] U.S. Department of Education. Federal Role in Education. January 14, 2025. https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/federal-role-in-education 

[10] Pew Research Center. What the Data Says about the U.S. Department of Education. March 18, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/18/what-the-data-says-about-the-us-department-of-education/ 

[11] Cameron, Chris. Trump Targets WilmerHale, Citing Law Firm’s Connection to Robert Mueller. The New York Times, March 28, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/27/us/politics/trump-wilmerhale-law-firm-mueller.html 

[12] Cameron, Chris. Trump Signs Orders Punishing Those Who Opposed His 2020 Election Lies. The New York Times, April 10, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/us/politics/trump-executive-orders-law-firm-krebs.html 

[13] Ngo, Madeleine. Trump Administration Questions Law Firms over DEI Employment Practices. The New York Times, March 18, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/us/politics/trump-dei-perkins-coie-law-firms.html 

[14] Montague, Zach. Trump’s Order Targeting Law Firm Perkins Coie Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules. The New York Times, May 2, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/us/politics/trump-law-firms.html 

[15] Shapiro, Stuart. The Impossibility of Legislative Regulatory Reform and the Futility of Executive Regulatory Reform. George Mason Law Review 28 (2): 720-722.

[16] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).

[17] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[18] Supreme Court of the United States. Current Members. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx 

[19] The Economist. Tracking the Presidency. January 20, 2024. https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker 

[20] Stojanovic, Sandra, and Omar Younis. Trump Deploys National Guard as Los Angeles Protests against Immigration Agents Continue. Reuters, June 8, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-aide-calls-los-angeles-anti-ice-protests-an-insurrection-2025-06-07/