The First Month of 2025 Delivered Unprecedented Change in America. Elected to a second term, President Trump issued a series of executive orders impacting many areas of public life to include federal employment, higher education, and an issue that dominated the 2024 election, immigration.
The swift unveiling of these executive orders contributed to uncertainty among various constituencies of body politic. Many of those affected, including federal workers, higher educational institutions, and those who had immigrated to this country, expressed measurable apprehension.
Liz Crampton, in her recent article published by Politico, states that federal workers are “reeling“ and expressing considerable “digital anxiety.” Uriel Garcia, et al., notes in the Texas Tribune that there is “a lot of fear going on“ in the Texas immigrant community. Webb Wright of WCIV ABC4 News has reported that President Trump’s new executive orders “have sparked fear and uncertainty among local communities.”
This mood of uncertainty, precipitated by a flurry of executive orders, remains palpable among a variety of constituents. In his January 28, 2025, U.S. News & World Report article, Tim Smart discusses a survey indicating a sharp decline in how many Americans feel about the state of the economy. While the primary issue of the 2024 presidential campaign focused on the economy and inflation, many fear that reductions in the cost of food and other essentials may not be seen for quite some time.
Change naturally breeds uncertainty. Security, however, can possibly accompany change within a truly functional democracy.
Democracy constitutes a complicated phenomenon fraught with complications. Diverse constituencies often clash due to competing objectives. These objectives are often advanced in spirited debate that concludes with a vote resulting in a “win” by those in the majority. Majoritarian rule achieves functionality through a government that passes constitutionally valid laws, which, hopefully, are respected and enforced.
Democracy, as exercised in the United States, includes three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. These three branches work independently but operate collaboratively through mutual checks on the powers exercised by each branch. As the United States Supreme Court stated in the 2012 case of U.S. v. Alvarez, the framers of the Constitution provided for checks on the powers of these branches to ensure that no branch would become too powerful in governing.
Checks on powers exercised by the three branches of government become sources of stability during times of uncertainty. These checks either limit the unconstitutional actions of these branches or substantiate their actions that are found to be constitutionally valid. This fundamental feature of American democracy will invariably affect a number of executive orders issued by President Trump.
As a basic rule, executive orders constitute mandatory legal requirements. They are laws with the same import and force as legislatively proscribed laws. Despite their status as legal mandates, executive orders may face limitations if they conflict with the Constitution or laws passed by Congress.
The requirement that executive orders be congruent with the Constitution and established laws becomes critical as the body politic reacts to a president’s executive orders. These orders can often be subject to legal scrutiny, initiated by those who petition a federal court to determine whether the president’s exercise of power is constitutional. History proves this point.
Early in his first term as president, George W. Bush issued an executive order that limited public access to the records of past presidents. A federal district court judge struck down that order, stating that it violated a requirement of the Presidential Records Act.
An executive order issued by President Obama in 2012 sought to allow 5,000,000 undocumented immigrants to apply for a reprieve from deportation proceedings if they would pass background checks, pay taxes, and have been in the country for more than five years. A federal court granted an injunction to halt implementation of this order. An evenly split United States Supreme Court, which ultimately reviewed a lower court’s decision to block the plan, became deadlocked, and the plan remains blocked. President Obama’s plan never came to fruition.
No doubt a number of President Trump’s executive orders will be subject to judicial review. As recently as February 10, 2025, a federal district court in New Hampshire had blocked Trump‘s executive order that sought to strip certain babies born in the United States of their U.S. citizenship. The judge’s opinion states that the president’s executive order clearly violated the Constitution.
Judicial scrutiny of laws may not only limit unconstitutional orders but also could alternatively reinforce the validity of orders found to be constitutional. President Trump‘s attempt during his first term to ban nationals from certain countries demonstrates this point.
In 2017, and later in 2020, President Trump issued an executive order that placed the 90-day restriction on entry into the United States by nationals of certain countries such as Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Upon challenge of this order, lower federal courts issued and sustained a restraining order on the implementation of the president’s order. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court, after agreeing to hear arguments, dismissed the ban due to time lapses. The Trump administration then issued a more narrowly tailored ban that was enforced until the Biden administration revoked it in 2021.
Anyone, regardless of political persuasion, should take heart that the United States’ system of checks and balances can assuage uncertainty and ensure democracy’s functionality. As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 51 (1788), “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.“
For almost 250 years, the United States has periodically faced governmental changes that have unsettled some and pleased others. The system of checks and balances, which are inherent in the operation of government in this country, has often calmed the storms resulting from abrupt change. This reality potentially bodes well for American democracy, which will hopefully retain resiliency as the winds of change continue to blow.