Donald Trump’s potential return to the presidency raises questions about his governing strategy, particularly given the slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the likely need for bipartisan support in the Senate for major legislative initiatives. Historical precedent, specifically his previous term, suggests a preference for executive orders to swiftly enact his agenda, bypassing the often lengthy and uncertain legislative process. This approach allows for immediate action on high-priority issues, appealing to his base and demonstrating decisive leadership. However, the efficacy and legality of these orders can be challenged, as demonstrated by the legal battles surrounding his ”Muslim Ban” during his first term.
Trump’s previous presidential term provides a case study in the limitations of executive power. Despite Republican control of both chambers of Congress, he failed to deliver on key campaign promises like repealing the Affordable Care Act (”Obamacare”) and constructing a complete wall on the US-Mexico border. These legislative failures highlight the complexities of the American political system, even when one party holds a majority. While he succeeded in withdrawing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris Agreement on climate change via executive orders, these actions primarily involved reversing previous executive actions rather than enacting complex new policies.
This experience suggests that Trump might prioritize executive orders to achieve rapid policy changes, potentially focusing on highly publicized actions with symbolic value for his supporters. Speculation centers on a flurry of executive orders within the first 100 hours, or even the first day, of his potential presidency. These orders could target immigration, a central theme of his campaigns, potentially initiating deportations and restricting entry to the US. However, the scale and feasibility of these actions remain uncertain, given economic concerns about labor shortages and potential legal challenges.
Immigration is likely to be a central focus of Trump’s early actions, given his repeated campaign promises of mass deportations. While the specific details remain unclear, his rhetoric suggests a focus on highly visible actions designed to appeal to his base. However, practical considerations, such as the economic impact of large-scale deportations, might temper the implementation of these policies. The potential conflict between campaign rhetoric and practical governance is a recurring theme in Trump’s political career.
Beyond immigration, other areas ripe for executive action include pardons for individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol riot, deregulation of oil and gas exploration, and the imposition of tariffs on imports. These actions align with Trump’s established policy positions and can be implemented relatively quickly through executive orders, bypassing the need for congressional approval. His focus on these areas underscores a preference for unilateral action and a willingness to challenge established norms and international agreements.
While executive orders offer a pathway to rapid policy changes, their long-term impact and legality can be uncertain. The ”Muslim Ban” exemplifies the potential for legal challenges and public outcry against executive overreach. Furthermore, the reliance on executive orders can further polarize the political landscape and undermine the role of Congress in policymaking. The balance between executive authority and legislative processes remains a central tension in American governance, and Trump’s potential presidency would likely test this balance once again.
