Executive orders represent a power which has been utilized by all presidents of the U.S. except William Henry Harrison. This right, while sometimes used for minor events such as the proclamation of holidays and small changes to previously defined rules, can have a significant effect on the country’s law. Therefore, it often attracts the attention of people who believe that it disrupts the separation of powers given to the government’s different branches. The current President, Donald Trump, has issued a total of 63 orders since his inauguration till March 2018. This report will compare President Trump’s use of executive power to that of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and a number of past presidents. Moreover, it will discuss the possible reasons behind the current President’s actions, his relationship with Congress, examine three Executive Orders (EOs) and present a personal opinion about presidents’ powers.
Use of Executive Power: Comparison
As it was mentioned above, almost all presidents used this power and issued many executive orders during their time at the Office. The previous president, Barack Obama, had published 276 orders in eight years. This number is far from the largest one. The record belongs to President Franklin D. Roosevelt who created 3,712 of EOs. Other presidents with many EOs are Woodrow Wilson with 1,803 orders and Theodore Roosevelt with a total of 1,081 orders. These presidents were dealing with rather critical situations connected to the country’s political, economic, or social problems.
For instance, the majority of EOs from President Roosevelt was concerned with World War II. One of the most notorious examples is EO 9066 signed by Roosevelt in 1942. This order created internment camps for Japanese-American citizens due to the recent attack on Pearl Harbor. This decision affected the war and the nations’ population significantly, dividing Asian-Americans for many years and creating a disparity between the groups. The president’s previous EOs were much less discriminatory but also influential. EO 8802, for example, aimed to eliminate discrimination based on one’s race and religious beliefs in the employment of contractors.
Conflicts that happened more recently did not have the same level of devastation. In 2014, the situation in Ukraine was addressed by the President directly through a number of EOs. Several orders from President Obama focused on terrorism and cyberattacks. Thus, EO 13718 moved to strengthen the country’s cybersecurity. EO 13721 was signed to create an international organization that would engage in counterterrorism activities. However, other orders were also concerned with the environment, healthcare, charities, working conditions, and foreign affairs.
While President Trump’s term is still in its early stage, he has already issued a rather significant number of EOs, although much less than Roosevelt and Wilson. Many of these orders became topics of heated debates, including border security and immigration laws. Trump continues to focus on terrorism and domestic affairs. The attention to local manufacturers is especially interesting as Trump decided to govern the entry of foreigners to assist American citizens in improving their businesses.
Use of Executive Power: Reasons
It is possible that Trump’s decision to use his executive power instead of collaborating with Congress lies in the failure of previous actions attempted by the president. Trump’s campaign developed to undo what was done by the previous president may not be in line with the views of Congress. Moreover, this individualistic approach can also be based on President Trumps’ opinion on his position in the government and his active and direct approach. The disagreement between Congress members and the president could provoke the latter to use his other capabilities to enforce his decisions through EOs. In this case, Trump’s strategy may be to weaken Congress to work with it in the future. As the current president previously operated as a businessman, this approach can be the most familiar one to him. Thus, the misunderstanding of his necessity to collaborate with Congress to pass laws and gain more power is present.
Executive Orders Analysis
Example 1: EO 13788
The order “Buy American and Hire American” mentioned above deals with multiple efforts to support local manufacturers and businesspersons by restricting the opportunities of foreigners. According to this order, all entities should hire Americans as opposed to individuals coming to the country with a nonimmigrant visa H-1B and support manufacturers of local products. This order demonstrates the original ideology of Trump’s presidential campaign as it reveals the focus on national businesses and the opposition to foreign workers. While it does not prohibit foreigners from finding jobs, it stresses the importance of making the process of selection more rigorous for non-Americans. Similar laws already exist in the system. Thus, the notion to “buy American” is not new.
Nevertheless, the second part of this EO may be more interesting than the first, as it proposes to make the procedure of applying for an H-1B visa more challenging for both employers and potential workers. Notably, it also uses the word “aliens” while describing foreign candidates, which shows a negative implication of hiring non-Americans. It is possible that some changes in H-1B visa eligibility will affect industries that heavily rely on this program such as educational institutions, healthcare organizations, and technology developers. This EO was not challenged in court.
Example 2: EO 13769
This EO was a more discussed one as opposed to the previous case. EO 13769 called “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” was created as a way to close the borders of the United States to citizens from seven countries that were deemed unsafe by the president. These states included Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. Other changes involved the suspension of USRAP – the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and the closure of borders to Syrian refugees. Upon its creation, the EO was called a “travel ban,” causing the public to protest its decisions and its discriminatory nature. Notably, the ban did not exclusively focus on immigrants and also prohibited regular residents of these countries from entering the U.S. Moreover, prior to the EO’s revision, green card holders were suspended at the border or unable to enter the country as well. During the period when this order was active, many visas were revoked and multiple airports were full of people unsure of whether they can enter the country.
The EO was challenged by the federal court. According to the officials, this EO was not acting in line with some national acts and the U.S. Constitution. First of all, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was taken as the basis to oppose the EO. The ban was deemed discriminatory to people because of their nationality and place of birth or residence. These arguments revealed numerous problems with enforcing this order. Furthermore, some implicit statements written in this EO were challenged by the Constitution’s notions regarding people’s religion and the right to due process. Although the text of the order did not express any religious opinions, many people thought that its focus on Muslim travelers might be discriminatory. This order was later superseded by EO 13780 and Proclamation 9645. Thus, these decisions are still disputed in court. However, the ban has already affected many families and persons who live or have relatives in the mentioned above countries.
Example 3: EO 13780
Following the discussion about the first version of the “travel ban,” one can analyze its second variant under the same name. This EO was issued to replace the previous one, but it contained many similar statements. For instance, it still aimed to suspend the refugee program and lower the number of refugees entering the country. Moreover, the list of countries which were deemed unsafe stayed the same with the exclusion of Iraq. It also gave more details about people who were allowed to visit the U.S. For instance, permanent lawful residents of the U.S. could enter the country. People with diplomatic visas and asylum statuses were exempt from the ban as well. However, the EO was still challenged for the same reasons as its previous version. The third rendition of the ban is active to this day.
Conclusion
In my opinion, this power given to the president may have both positive and negative outcomes. On the one hand, it may provide a source for fast decisions in situations of emergency. For example, some choices made during the times of conflicts can be seen as appropriate, although drastic, measures. Furthermore, many EOs do not affect the country’s development significantly. Some issues may be brought to the center of attention by the president. However, such use of this power can also damage the state of Congress as the main source of new laws. The amount of power given to one person should be limited in a country that values democracy so highly.