The President’s Executive Orders: Reshaping America and its Place in the World

President Donald Trump has signed an unprecedented 75 executive orders in under 40 days following his second inauguration in January, fundamentally reshaping federal policy across a wide range of issues. From immigration and energy policy to social directives, economic measures, and foreign relations, these executive actions have set the tone for what is shaping up to be a presidency unlike any before it, which some will love, some will hate, some will fear, and others will be dishonest about how they really feel. While the use of executive orders as a tool of governance is well established, the scale, scope, and speed of Trump’s orders are unprecedented.

While legislation has been the primary tool of policymaking in America, presidents have resorted to executive orders to implement urgent measures in times of crisis, and more recently to bypass congressional gridlock. However, given that executive orders can be overturned by future administrations, challenged in courts, or blocked by Congress, their use has been in decline since the mid-20th century, as presidents have increasingly sought to work through Congress to ensure their policies have lasting impact.

President Trump’s second term marks a stark departure from recent norms. Despite his party controlling both chambers of Congress, his administration has opted to implement a wide range of campaign promises and policy objectives unilaterally, covering everything from ending birthright citizenship and scaling back DEI programs to imposing tariffs and withdrawing from international agreements. This suggests a number of things: this presidential administration is much better organised than in 2016, has clearer goals, a desire for policy acceleration, and a broader effort to expand presidential power and redefine the limits of executive authority. This is not a president running a “lame duck” presidency.

This month’s Sign analyses Trump’s executive orders in his second term thus far, comparing them to past presidential actions, categorising their key focus areas, and outlining their broader implications for America and the world.

Governance by Fiat: Executive Orders in Context

Less than 40 days into his second presidential administration, President Trump has signed 75 executive orders¹, driving sharp policy shifts across a wide range of areas from immigration, economics and trade, energy and the environmental and social policy, among others, and testing the limits of executive power in the process.

Firstly, it is important to understand what an executive order is and is not. “Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect,”² says the American Bar Association, one of the world’s largest voluntary professional organisations which supports its members, strengthens the legal profession and advances the rule of law across the US and globally. According to the US Constitution, the system of checks and balances ensures that legislative, executive, and judicial powers remain distinct, with each branch limiting the others to prevent overreach, uphold judicial independence, and maintain the separation of powers essential to American democracy³. To understand if they are effective or not one would need to understand the application of the current 75 executive orders in today’s setting.

For context, the use of executive orders bypassing Congress and accelerating policymaking is not in itself unusual. President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery by executive order and used executive orders to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed over 3,700 such orders during his 12 years in office, enacting large portions of the New Deal and the policies leading up to World War II without going through Congress, including controversial orders such as confiscating all citizens’ gold (EO 6102, 1933), and ordering the internment of Japanese American citizens (EO 9066, 1942). President Truman used executive orders to ensure desegregation (EO 9980 and 9981, 1948) and to nationalise the steel industry during the Korean War (EO 10340, 1952).

Since the end of World War II however, the use of executive orders has declined significantly, thought to be due to legal, judicial and political challenges – and the inherent impermanence of executive orders given that they can be, and usually are, rescinded by successors – which has resulted in presidents increasingly opting to work through Congress to enact their agendas (see chart below).

In the 21st Century, however, given increasing political polarisation and legislative gridlock there has been a growing trend among presidents from both parties for using executive orders in the initial days of their administrations to provide an immediate impetus to their own agendas, quickly undoing key policies of their predecessors. President Obama issued 16 executive orders in his first 40 days in power, more than double the number that his predecessor did in the comparable period. And President Biden, after coming to power in 2021, issued 34 such orders before the end of February, more than double the number of orders in the initial months of the first Trump administration. President Trump has arguably doubled the previous president too, but has set such a high bar with his 75 orders. It bears further analysis of what and why.

Other than rescinding the orders of their predecessors, presidents have also relied on executive orders to reorganise the federal government to implement their agendas (such as when President Clinton created the National Economic Council), to tackle politically intransigent social issues (such as when President Biden ordered federal agencies to review non-discrimination policies with respect to gender identity and sexual orientation), or to deal with national emergencies (such as when President Bush issued orders in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to order the armed reserves to active duty and prohibit transactions with potential terrorist organisations).

Ultimately, executive orders can be suspended by federal courts if they are deemed to violate existing laws, exceed presidential authority, or be unconstitutional, and these rulings can be appealed to the Supreme Court. They can also be overturned by Congress, or they can be rescinded by future presidents. As a result, they have thus far been seen largely as an administrative tool or at most a short-term solution, and most previous presidents eventually settle in to the more cumbersome task of negotiating legislation with Congress to implement key parts of their agendas, using executive orders only by exception (such as when President Obama used executive action to implement his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program).

What is notable about the executive orders so far in the second Trump administration, other than their volume and frequency, is the sheer breadth of topics they cover. It is also unusual in that it seeks to implement core parts of Trump’s agenda by executive action rather than legislation, despite the fact that his party currently has majorities in both houses of Congress. This points to a potential strategy of expanding executive power, making executive orders the primary modus operandi, and testing the limits of the US system of checks and balances by implementing orders that may infringe on existing laws or constitutional provisions (for example ending birthright citizenship or suspending the US refugee resettlement program) that are near certain to, and in some cases already have attracted legal challenges. It also does not leave the party’s majority with a meaningful role in implementing the agenda at this stage.

Enacting the MAGA Agenda: Key Focus Areas of Trump’s Executive Orders

Donald Trump’s 75 executive orders thus far, in addition to the usual task of rescinding his predecessor’s orders, have also focused on a broad range of his campaign promises to his base and various other constituencies. The orders cover everything from social directives on DEI and transgender rights, to immigration and trade restrictions, withdrawal from multilateral institutions and frameworks, energy policy to fulfil his promise to “drill, baby, drill”⁴, tech policies to ensure America’s continued dominance in the sector, to even banning paper straws and promoting the use of plastic ones.

The graph and below breaks down Trump’s executive orders during his second term by category.

At the top of the list, representing nearly one third (29%) of the total, are orders related to civics and civil society that are the battleground for the culture war underway in America. Actions like eliminating DEI programs and limiting transgender rights play firmly to the conservative base and would likely have been a political minefield for Congress to enact. The second largest group of orders (17%) relate to what is the most significant reorganisations of the US federal government in recent memory, spearheaded by leading Trump campaign financier and the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who in addition to simultaneously running three large tech businesses (Tesla, SpaceX and X) is now looking to radically streamline the federal government, cutting spending, eliminating programs and in some cases, entire departments. Next are Trump’s economic and trade related priorities (16%), including the imposition of trade tariffs and deregulation among other things, followed by immigration and national security related orders (13%), foreign policy related orders (10%), withdrawing from several multi-lateral organisations and stopping foreign aid, and energy and environmental orders (8%) that signal a significant shift away from clean energy and towards fossil fuels, as well as a small number (7%) of miscellaneous orders.

These categories align closely with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 agenda⁵, which provides a strategic roadmap for a second Trump administration. The plan emphasises dismantling DEI initiatives, restructuring the federal bureaucracy, imposing tariffs on trade partners, tightening immigration controls, and expanding fossil fuel production—ensuring that executive orders drive a sweeping conservative policy overhaul. The table below lists the key topics of executive orders for each of the major categories laid out above.

Key Topics of Trump’s Executive Orders in his Second Term, by Category

Source: Office of the Federal Register. (2025). Donald Trump – Executive orders. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025

* Includes one executive order which is also classified under multilateralism and foreign policy (US withdrawal from Paris Treaty)

** Order signed on 25 February 2025, but not yet published

Collectively, the 75 executive orders represent one of the most significant policy shifts in recent memory for a major world power. With these orders, Donald Trump has not only undone many of his predecessor’s signature achievements but also launched with a sense of urgency a wide-ranging political agenda with the potential to reshape America and its relations with the world.

Implications for America and the World

Having won the popular vote and a far more decisive mandate than in 2016, the Trump Administration is seeking to radically reshape America and its role in the world. The executive orders Trump has signed in his first 40 days will drive critical shifts in America’s policy and reset its trajectory on major domestic and foreign policy that will be difficult to undo even if the next president were to rescind them.

Taken collectively, the executive orders, (together with significant foreign policy actions with regards to Russia and Europe, and Israel and the Middle East) signal a sharp shift not only in US policy, but also in the means by which the President is seeking to accomplish them.

Changed Modus Operandi

There are six key conclusions that are critical for domestic and international stakeholders to keep in mind as they look to navigate the new political and geostrategic landscape:

1. Launching A More Prepared Presidency. Trump’s first administration in 2016 was kicked off with little preparation, a bare-bones transition team and limited institutional support from the Republican party, experienced twice the level of turnover in senior positions relative to all presidents since 1980⁶, and ultimately failed to achieve major long-term policy victories. Trump 2.0 is clearly a different model, more disciplined and deliberate, translating campaign promises into a clear set of policy objectives, and implementing these with a sense of urgency.

2. Expanding Presidential Power. The implementation of a range of policies through executive order rather than legislation, even with the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, suggests a clear preference for unilateral action rather than building stakeholder consensus. With the US Supreme Court last year giving broad immunity to the President for all ‘official’ acts, and in the face of a largely compliant legislative majority, this modus operandi is likely to endure, have its limits tested, and be expanded. Interestingly, the biggest inhibitor to further power accumulation may be public opinion ultimately. While the American public is deeply divided on expanding Trump’s presidential power (with 59% of Republican and only 9% of Democrats saying many of the country’s problems could be addressed more effectively if Trump did not need to worry so much about Congress or the courts), 65% of the country overall say it would be “too risky” to give Trump more power⁷.

3. Leaning into the Cultural Divide. The president is leaning into the culture wars that are at the centre of American political partisanship. While many presidents during their second term shift away from divisive positions as their approval ratings continues to trend downward and as they seek to establish longer-term legacies, the current executive orders elevate the divisions between Americans. Moreover, the administration is willing to do this not only on hot-button cultural issues such as DEI and trans rights, but also on areas such as economic and energy policy, with potentially significant macro-economic and geopolitical implications. For example, pausing onshore and offshore wind projects across America appears to be ideological given that it is the cheapest source of energy in the United States currently⁸, and plays to a Republican suspicion of renewables and climate change more generally⁹.

4. Flooding the Zone. Unlike in his first term which saw a more sequential focus on different policy areas which effectively united opposition against him, the second Trump administration is pursuing effectively the same policy direction across multiple areas simultaneously. There are two potential explanations for this phenomenon: one suggests a deliberate strategy or a “flooding the zone”¹⁰ approach where radical actions across a wide range of areas serve to confuse and divide the opposition’s priorities across a range of issues, and the other that the breadth of orders is a function of the diverse priorities of senior members within the Trump administration, which includes Silicon Valley techno-libertarians, national populists, and right-wing Christian groups, many of which may have a reasonably free hand to enact policy given Trump’s famously hands-off approach. In either case, it is unclear which of these policies is critical to the president’s own agenda, denying political opponents a target to rally around.

5. Working on a Clock. The speed with which the Trump administration is pursuing their agenda seems to suggest that the President and his staff are acutely aware that this is Trump’s last presidential term, and that a loss of one or both houses of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections may render the president a lame duck. With the battle for the next commander-in-chief kicking off in 2026, the president has two years (or potentially four if he can consolidate sufficient power) to enact the agenda and build a legacy based on Trump’s promise of America “reclaim[ing] its rightful place as the greatest, most powerful, most respected nation on earth, inspiring the awe and admiration of the entire world.”¹¹

Major Policy Positions

The content of what forms America’s position on major local and international affairs have also changed dramatically in the space of four weeks following the 75 executive orders.

1. Civics and Civil Society. The executive orders mark a fundamental realignment of American social policy, reversing progressive initiatives and entrenching conservative priorities. Eliminating DEI programs, restricting transgender rights, and reinforcing religious freedoms reflect a direct challenge to cultural shifts across previous administrations. Education reforms, abortion limitations, and protecting the Second Amendment’s gun rights consolidate a traditionalist agenda, bypassing congressional gridlock and escalating ideological polarisation.

2. Government Reorganization. A sweeping overhaul of the federal government centralises executive authority, cutting bureaucracy, eliminating entire departments, and rescinding Biden-era directives. The creation of DOGE and increased presidential oversight on spending aim to streamline governance but weaken institutional checks on changes. Revoking security clearances for perceived political adversaries signals not just petty vengeance but also a broader concentration of power within the current administration.

3. Economic, Trade, and Investment Policy. A return to protectionism reshapes American economic engagement with the world. Tariffs on key trade partners, including allies such as Canada and Mexico, and rivals such as China, disrupt global supply chains, seeking to favour domestic industry. Deregulation in AI and cryptocurrency seems targeted at fostering advances in these areas but also removes critical oversight, particularly given the widespread alarm at the power of AI and the potential threat of cryptocurrencies to the traditional financial system, what has been a key asset of American power. Creating a sovereign wealth fund indicates a shift toward state-managed economic interests, reinforcing a nationalist approach to economic policy, while the suspension of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act signals a change in the values expected or allowed of American businesses abroad, expanding Trump’s transactional approach from diplomacy to international private trade.

4. Immigration and National Security. A hardline immigration agenda targets border security, expands enforcement, and aims to end birthright citizenship, signalling the most restrictive immigration stance in America’s recent history. The designation of new terrorist organisations may well intensify global security tensions given it expands definitions of terrorism beyond currently accepted norms, creating challenges for international anti-terrorism coordination. The development of a next-generation missile defence shield marks a renewed emphasis on military deterrence, which while unlikely to have the same escalation effect as Reagan’s Star Wars initiative in the 1980s, will likely antagonise China at a minimum. These actions seem to advance geopolitical divides between America and others, while signalling an indifference to international concerns on these matters.

5. Multilateralism and Foreign Policy. The executive orders redefine US global engagement, withdrawing from key international agreements, including the Paris Treaty, WHO, UNHRC, and UNRWA. The review of US participation in multilateral organizations signals a potential broader disengagement, while sanctions on ICC officials reject multilateral legal oversight. Foreign aid suspensions, particularly halting assistance to South Africa, underscore a transactional approach to diplomacy, prioritising US strategic and ideological interests over traditional liberal values.

6. Energy and Environmental Policy. A decisive shift toward fossil fuel dominance reverses previous clean energy commitments. Executive orders eliminating the electric vehicle mandate, expanding oil drilling, and promoting energy exploitation through federal land exploration reflect a rollback of climate-focused policies. The creation of the National Energy Dominance Council indicates an agenda prioritizing economic growth over environmental sustainability.

7. Miscellaneous. Healthcare transparency, chronic disease initiatives, and IVF access remain outliers in an agenda otherwise defined by deregulation and conservative restructuring. The release of assassination records and water management directives hold symbolic significance but remain secondary to broader policy shifts.

Changed International, Multilateralism, and Economic Role in the World

While the full implications for both allies and rivals will take time to materialise, some of the overarching themes of the president’s executive orders are already clear. In a far more combative approach to both rivals and allies, the executive orders provide for a world where its most powerful country will not lead the free world, nor will it challenge bad actors, unless it aligns with its direct interests in either case. The underlying principle appears to be the utilisation of American power to extract value from both allies and rivals and to ensure that it cannot be challenged in doing so at home or abroad.

Thus, the executive orders accelerate American disengagement from global governance structures, reducing involvement in multilateral institutions and shifting towards a more transactional mode of diplomacy. The rejection of international legal oversight through ICC sanctions and the suspension of foreign aid aligns foreign policy with a more unilateral, interest-driven approach.

A retreat from global institutions reflects a broader rejection of cooperative international frameworks. Withdrawals from the Paris Treaty, WHO, UNHRC, and UNRWA, alongside a review of multilateral commitments, signal a shift toward sovereignty-first policymaking. These moves deprioritise diplomatic alliances in favour of direct economic and security negotiations.

Protectionist and retaliatory trade policies, including tariffs on key partners, and deregulation of strategic industries, reshape the local and global economic landscape. The move towards a sovereign wealth fund and a relaxed regulatory environment signal an inward-focused economic strategy, fostering domestic growth while challenging traditional economic alliances and supply chains.

The Trump presidency has chosen a quite different model for the exercise of American power in the world. Whether his advances American power or uses it up is a matter for further analysis and discussion.

Conclusions

According to the Pew Research Center’s 2023 poll, only a small minority of Americans highlight strengths in the US political system, such as its system of checks and balances (12%), democratic freedoms (9%), and the right to vote (8%). In contrast, a significant majority express deep dissatisfaction, with most Americans either unable to name any strengths or explicitly stating that the system has none. This suggests that few Americans perceive the system of checks and balances as an effective safeguard in governance.

The power of executive orders to implement change depends on whether America has a robust system of checks and balances. Those that have faith in the system and disagree with the scope and degree of change implied by these executive orders believe or hope that the current executive orders are performative and will be overturned in Congress or the courts. For the executive branch to seize control of all three branches of the US government, it would require a systematic erosion of checks and balances and the consolidation of power across the judiciary, legislature, and federal agencies. This would have involved appointing sufficient numbers of loyalists to the courts, undermining judicial independence, and expanding the Supreme Court to secure rulings in the executive’s favour. In Congress, it would necessitate sufficient numbers of loyal legislators, leveraging emergency powers if necessary to bypass legislative authority, and neutralising opposition such that their efforts are ineffective. Internally, the executive would need to expand its authority by ruling through executive orders, ensuring federal agencies are headed by loyalists and purged of opposition, discrediting protective institutions, and having the ability to deploy the military for domestic enforcement.

While a transformation that upsets the balance of power between the presidency, Congress and the judiciary would provoke constitutional crises and resistance, a determined administration in control of the military, intelligence services, policing and judiciary might be well placed to address opposition using emergency powers and legal loopholes to entrench its dominance. Analysts and observers will need to determine the extent to which they believe the incumbent administration has achieved changes to judicial autonomy, legislative independence, and executive constraints, and have thereby rearchitected the power structure of America, and achieved such ‘imperial’ style control.

The first month and a half under the new Trump administration, the flurry of executive orders across a wide range of policy areas, and critical foreign policy decisions related to its relationship with America’s previous allies and rivals, collectively suggest that this Trump administration is likely to make far ranging changes compared to his first term. These executive orders indicate that the President will act decisively, aggressively and unilaterally to fulfil an ambitious agenda that is set to radically alter both America’s trajectory and the world’s, across a number of important dimensions from global security to climate change to international trade. The next moves are the other branches of government’s, the political opposition’s and the international community’s to make. This will not be easy as the executive branch continues its changes. How the power struggle plays out in America and between America and its players will form the content of the geostrategic game of chess that will play out over the next four years, and possibly beyond this too.

The Leader: Endnotes