Trump's record number of executive orders are testing the limits of presidential power

Before his inauguration, President Donald Trump vowed to sign 100 executive orders on his first day in office. And while he didn't hit that mark on Day 1, the number and breadth of executive actions he's taken so far has been historic, and potentially unlawful. While executive orders have sometimes, controversially, been used as a last resort after a president is unable to garner legislative support to codify their policy goals, Trump has used executive orders to rapidly jump-start his agenda from the get-go, seemingly without regard for any potential obstacles in Congress or the bureaucracy that would otherwise carry these directives out — building on a pattern from his first term.

Since his inauguration on Jan. 20, Trump has signed a record number of executive orders that have already begun to reshape American priorities at home and abroad, setting the stage for his own ambitious policy priorities while also revoking old policies to reverse the course set by former President Joe Biden. This number of executive orders, unprecedented in the modern era of politics, are part of a wider suite of sweeping actions that aim to rapidly dismantle existing institutions and initiatives while establishing a governing framework aligned with Trump's MAGA agenda and his populist base.

These actions serve another purpose too: "Unilateral activities … bolster Trump's image as the indispensable person in charge, the consummate leader, the strongman … And by acting unilaterally, he embodies the essential qualities of a strongman that many in his base desire," explains William Howell, a professor of political science and public policy at Johns Hopkins University.

In doing so, these actions have already begun to test the degree to which unchecked executive power can be wielded to challenge existing institutionalized norms and checks and balances in the government. Many of Trump's actions have triggered confusion within the government and a growing number of legal challenges in opposition. The coming fights will test Trump's relationship with the new GOP majority, a court system that he helped shape during his first term, and the broader public.

Trump's government overhaul is off to a quick start

All told, Trump has signed 54 executive orders in just over two weeks back in office, which is already more than any president has signed in their first 100 days since President Harry Truman (57).

Executive orders are presidential directives to executive branch agencies that tell them how to implement existing laws. And Trump's new executive orders are sweeping in terms of the issue areas they address. Related to the environment, Trump has used orders to declare a national energy emergency, begin a withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, and roll back drilling restrictions on federal lands and waters. On immigration, Trump has signed orders to immediately authorize the removal of anyone in the U.S. without legal status, revamp his efforts to crack down on border security and immigration enforcement, deny birthright citizenship and suspend refugee applications. Several others tackle less traditional topics that may please his allies and the right-wing parts of his base, such as orders to create the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headed by multi-billionaire Elon Musk, eliminate federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and initiatives, and mandate that the federal government only recognize "two sexes, male and female."

In addition to executive orders, Trump has been busily signing memoranda, which are similar in practice to executive orders but are not subject to the same formal requirements for reporting and legal justification as executive orders. Recent presidents have increasingly turned to memoranda in part to downplay their exercise of substantive unilateral action usually associated with executive orders. But while Trump has not shied away from executive orders and public statements about his sweeping actions, he has also made substantial use of memos, particularly in his controversial attempts to overhaul the federal workforce and administrative state.

Altogether, Trump's executive actions have undeniably had massive effects on policy and government operations already. For one, actions led by DOGE — which was formally established by executive order without clear guidelines on its scope or responsibilities — have involved privatizing government functions, dismantling entire agencies or bypassing established regulatory and legal frameworks. Meanwhile, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under Trump's direction, is conducting sweeping raids across the country, while his orders to impose tariffs on Mexico and Canada sent the economy reeling over a potential trade war.

Trump (and his predecessors) have the capacity to wield such influence unilaterally because the administrative state has grown substantially over the last 200 years, beginning with the creation of federal agencies in the 19th century and expanding rapidly with the establishment of major regulatory bodies such as the EPA, FDA and SEC in the 20th century. This growth, driven by both the increasing complexity of modern governance and the expansion of federal responsibilities, has allowed presidents to shape policy not just through legislation, but through the administrative apparatus they control — often in ways that exceed what is outlined in the Constitution.

Still, there are limits to this executive reach and authority, including the threat of revocation by an incoming president, once the outgoing president leaves office — an authority Trump himself has also made unprecedented use of.

Revocations have helped clear the way

Four years ago, Biden entered office and immediately rescinded a record number of executive orders issued by his immediate predecessor. Within his first 100 days, Biden had revoked 42 of Trump's orders, particularly targeting those that had rolled back major environmental regulations and implemented Trump's signature immigration policies, as well as some more symbolic "culture war" policies, such as the order that created the 1776 Commission to promote "patriotic education."

This back and forth from administration to administration poses a challenge for government continuity, but it may be a new norm, as Trump has already doubled Biden's record for revocations, taking aim at some of Biden's signature policies on energy and the environment, DEI and more — along with a handful of policies from earlier presidents.

Revocations are more common when executive orders reflect polarizing or unpopular partisan priorities — and that has been true of many orders issued and subsequently revoked by both Biden and Trump. "Biden's immediate revocation of some of Trump's executive orders was not surprising," said Sharece Thrower, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University who studies executive orders and revocations. "It is also unsurprising that Trump reversed many of Biden's revocations. This is likely to reflect a never-ending game of unilateral pingpong, if the partisanship of presidential administrations continues to go back and forth."

In swift order, Trump has revoked 91 of Biden's executive orders as of publishing — 67 of which were revoked (along with several memoranda) in a single order signed just hours after Trump took office. While a chunk of these 67 revocations ended orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic or more routine presidential actions (such as "providing the orders of succession," which are periodically updated by different administrations to reflect personnel), others signal the administration's expansive and still-unfolding priorities. And in at least a couple of instances, Trump made moves to reinstate his own first-term policies by revoking Biden's orders that had revoked Trump's.

Another major theme of Trump's revocations is his ongoing war against DEI. "The injection of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' (DEI) into our institutions has corrupted them by replacing hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy," Trump's order states. Over a dozen of Biden's executive orders were targeted because they were deemed related to DEI — such as those mentioning "equity," "inclusion," "discrimination," or specific groups like LGBTQ+ people, or racial minorities.

The administration's targeting of anything that could be vaguely associated with DEI extends beyond Biden-era policies, though. In a telling display of how he's already taking the bounds of executive action further than he did in his first term, Trump has also taken aim at pre-Biden policies that he had previously left alone. In his first term, Trump backed down after threatening to revoke a Barack Obama order extending anti-discrimination protections for federal contractors to include sexual orientation and gender identity. This time, though, he didn't waste any time: In one sweeping order, he revoked both Obama's order and the underlying policy first signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, which mandated that all federal contractors and subcontractors implement fair hiring and employment practices with respect to "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." (Trump's order extended its scope beyond the government too, directing agencies to "combat" DEI programs in the private sector as well.)

While presidents do regularly revoke actions from presidents that predate their predecessor, as the chart below shows, this hasn't been a recent norm for them within the first 100 days. But in just his first couple of days in office, Trump revoked not just those two executive orders, but another Obama order related to federal workforce diversity, a Jimmy Carter-era order on environmental protection, and a Bill Clinton order related to environmental justice.

With modern presidents increasingly using executive orders to take a broad range of actions, these revocations serve a key purpose in both style and substance, particularly at the start of a new administration — allowing Biden and Trump each to rapidly undo components of the previous administrations and set the table for their own priorities. "Because a fair bit of policy is achieved via executive action, there are simply more EOs to be revoked. Some of those EOs are substantive, but we've also seen a huge increase in the amount of non-legally binding text in EOs… and so revoking the EOs also takes a stand against the previous president's rhetorical priorities," said Andrew Rudalevige, the Thomas Brackett Reed professor of government at Bowdoin College. "Presidents Trump and Biden both ran on the notion that their predecessor was truly terrible and indeed a threat to the United States… Revoking their EOs is one way to show that you are cleaning house, in a policy sense."

Notably, the rescission of orders doesn't immediately undo their effects, regardless of who does the revoking. For one, orders like Johnson's from 1965 are essentially codified by law today. In other cases, agencies have already implemented policies based on the rescinded orders, creating layers of administrative precedent that could take years to unwind. The same may be true of private industries that have evolved in response to the now-revoked orders, and don't plan to turn back. In short, the removal of an order doesn't immediately reverse its broader effects.

For example, Biden's substantial investment in clean energy may be hard to fully undo. Trump's sweeping Day 1 order on energy targeted what he called the "EV mandate," in what's become a popular talking point for Republicans attacking Biden's policies. Trump's order sets the stage for the elimination of incentives for both the manufacturing and purchase of electric vehicles. But most of these incentives are currently codified in law; and besides requiring congressional action to fully reverse them, the auto industry, having already invested in retooling factories and adopting new technologies in response to these incentives, may be reluctant to pivot abruptly. Rather, we may need to wait and see if Trump's actions help prompt a decline in consumer demand that could inspire an industrywide pivot.

Altogether, the effects of revocations are hard to predict, and undoing policies, in general, also needs to be paired with new policies. On that note, Rudalevige explained, "Since 'repeal and replace' takes work and effort, 'repeal' [alone] seems like a quick and easy option, especially when you don't care about policy continuity or … flatly reject it." With a blitz of repeals issued but many of his new policies still unclear, or stuck in limbo as they are subject to legal or logistical challenges, the future of much of Trump's agenda remains uncertain.

Can he do that?

Executive orders have nearly always been legally ambiguous. The enumerated powers granted to the president in Article II with respect to policymaking are pretty slim, and early presidents didn't read between the lines to extend their influence in this area very often. But over time, and usually in response to crises, presidents have expanded their role in directing U.S. policy by tethering their authority to broad constitutional clauses, like the "Take Care Clause" or "Vesting Clause," which describe the president's duty and powers to execute laws and exercise executive power, respectively.

Usually, executive orders are written in a way that refer to their legal or constitutional authority, and also take into account the public's reaction, in hopes of avoiding a challenge from the courts or Congress, or negative attention from media or the public. "Congress and the courts play vital roles in the politics of unilateral action," Howell told me via email. "When presidents issue directives, after all, the adjoining branches of government have opportunities to respond — whether by writing these directives into law, amending them, or overturning them."

But while there are high-profile instances where the courts have ruled in a way that limit the executive — like in the 1950s, when the Supreme Court ruled that Truman had acted outside his authority when he signed an executive order to seize control of steel mills in the face of a steelworkers' strike during the Korean War — courts have historically upheld, or ignored, executive orders. Howell's research on executive orders through the 1990s found that when orders were challenged by the courts, most were upheld as being within the boundaries of established statutory authority. And even in cases where executive orders do clearly overreach or challenge constitutional limits and the judiciary acts as a check, courts tend to avoid setting firm rules about the balance of power between branches in their decisions.

Most commonly, Howell emphasized, "Congress and the courts do nothing at all" in response to unilateral action. "And over the last century, this silence has created space and momentum for presidents to push ever outwardly on the boundaries of their power."

Trump, Biden and other recent presidents have certainly done so through their expansive use of executive action to both undo and reshape policy. But Trump's actions are charting new territory, and we may soon have clues as to whether that pattern of deference is likely to continue throughout his second term, or whether Trump has overstepped at least some of those boundaries.

So far, several of Trump's orders have been blocked by U.S. District Courts, which means their implementation has been paused and their future is uncertain. Among the most notable, two federal judges have now ordered nationwide injunctions against the order that would end birthright citizenship, which has been challenged by at least six lawsuits. Another federal judge in D.C. issued a temporary restraining order on Trump's memorandum ordering a freeze on all federal grants and loans, and the White House ultimately rescinded the memo, but suggested the work would continue, prompting the judge to require OMB to provide a status report that proves their compliance. And lawsuits have also been filed against Trump's orders that ramp up raids and deportations, such as a suit from a coalition of Quakers arguing that a policy allowing ICE to search churches, which were considered "protected areas" under a now-rescinded Biden-era guidance, infringes on their religious freedom.

Moreover, a lot of these actions are unpopular with the public, which could lead to a different kind of challenge — as Thrower's research finds, the most "durable" executive orders are those that are widely popular (and issued by popular presidents).

One potential check, though, has remained silent so far: the new GOP majority in Congress. Despite the breadth of Trump's unilateral actions, congressional oversight seems nakedly absent — a fact that some argue will only embolden Trump. Some Republicans may be reluctant to confront him publicly, wary of political repercussions, as much of their party applauds these efforts as the president delivering on his campaign promises. If that pattern continues, a true check from the legislative branch may depend on whom voters send back to Washington in 2026.