Trump Executive Orders of Interest

Many of these will be subject to litigation. Similarly to the Harper government’s titles of legislation, the titles have political rather than more neutral language. A selection of the one’s I will be watching in particular and expect considerable commentary and likely legal challenges:

Citizenship

PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP [ACLU and others already submitted a legal challenge, and it appears to be framed more broadly than just women not in the USA legally as it includes temporary residents such as international students and workers. Indian media has particularly flagged impact on H1-B and other visa holders.]

Section 1.  Purpose.  The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.  The Fourteenth Amendment states:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race. 

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.  

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Immigration

PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS

Section 1.  Policy and Purpose.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

(b)  To protect Americans, the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests.  More importantly, the United States must identify them before their admission or entry into the United States.  And the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.

PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAINST INVASION

Section 1.  Purpose.  Over the last 4 years, the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States.  Millions of illegal aliens crossed our borders or were permitted to fly directly into the United States on commercial flights and allowed to settle in American communities, in violation of longstanding Federal laws.

Many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans.  Others are engaged in hostile activities, including espionage, economic espionage, and preparations for terror-related activities.  Many have abused the generosity of the American people, and their presence in the United States has cost taxpayers billions of dollars at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States.  The American people deserve a Federal Government that puts their interests first and a Government that understands its sacred obligation to prioritize the safety, security, and financial and economic well-being of Americans.

This order ensures that the Federal Government protects the American people by faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States.

SECURING OUR BORDERS

Section 1.  Purpose.  Over the last 4 years, the United States has endured a large-scale invasion at an unprecedented level.  Millions of illegal aliens from nations and regions all around the world successfully entered the United States where they are now residing, including potential terrorists, foreign spies, members of cartels, gangs, and violent transnational criminal organizations, and other hostile actors with malicious intent.

Deadly narcotics and other illicit materials have flowed across the border while agents and officers spend their limited resources processing illegal aliens for release into the United States.  These catch-and-release policies undermine the rule of law and our sovereignty, create substantial risks to public safety and security, and divert critical resources away from stopping the entry of contraband and fugitives into the United States.  

We have limited information on the precise whereabouts of a great number of these illegal aliens who have entered the United States over the last 4 years.

This cannot stand.  A nation without borders is not a nation, and the Federal Government must act with urgency and strength to end the threats posed by an unsecured border.

REALIGNING THE UNITED STATES REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM

Section 1.  Purpose.  Over the last 4 years, the United States has been inundated with record levels of migration, including through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).  Cities and small towns alike, from Charleroi, Pennsylvania, and Springfield, Ohio, to Whitewater, Wisconsin, have seen significant influxes of migrants.  Even major urban centers such as New York City, Chicago, and Denver have sought Federal aid to manage the burden of new arrivals.  Some jurisdictions, like New York and Massachusetts, have even recently declared states of emergency because of increased migration.

The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees.  This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.

CLARIFYING THE MILITARY’S ROLE IN PROTECTING THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES

Section 1.  Purpose.  (a)  As Chief Executive and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, I have no more solemn responsibility than protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States along our national borders.  The protection of a nation’s territorial integrity and national boundaries is paramount for its security.

(b)  The Armed Forces of the United States have played a long and well-established role in securing our borders against threats of invasion, against unlawful forays by foreign nationals into the United States, and against other transnational criminal activities that violate our laws and threaten the peace, harmony, and tranquility of the Nation.  These threats have taken a variety of forms over our Nation’s history, but the Armed Forces have consistently played an integral role in protecting the sovereignty of the United States.

(c)  Threats against our Nation’s sovereignty continue today, and it is essential that the Armed Forces staunchly continue to participate in the defense of our territorial integrity and sovereignty.  A National Emergency currently exists along the southern border of the United States.  Unchecked unlawful mass migration and the unimpeded flow of opiates across our borders continue to endanger the safety and security of the American people and encourage further lawlessness.  Accordingly, through this order, I am acting in accordance with my solemn duty to protect and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States along our national borders.

DEI

ENDING RADICAL AND WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT DEI PROGRAMS AND PREFERENCING

Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  The Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military.  This was a concerted effort stemming from President Biden’s first day in office, when he issued Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”

Pursuant to Executive Order 13985 and follow-on orders, nearly every Federal agency and entity submitted “Equity Action Plans” to detail the ways that they have furthered DEIs infiltration of the Federal Government.  The public release of these plans demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination.  That ends today.  Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great.

DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Section 1.  Purpose.  Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers.  This is wrong.  Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being.  The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system.  Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.

This unhealthy road is paved by an ongoing and purposeful attack against the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts.  Invalidating the true and biological category of “woman” improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept.

Accordingly, my Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male. 

Government

RESTORING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CAREER SENIOR EXECUTIVES

Career Senior Executive Service (SES) officials are charged to “ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality,” as required by section 3131 of title 5, United States Code.  SES officials have enormous influence over the functioning of the Federal Government, and thus the well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans.  

As the Constitution makes clear, and as the Supreme Court of the United States has reaffirmed, “the ‘executive Power’ — all of it — is ‘vested in a President,’ who must ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’”  Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 203 (2020).  “Because no single person could fulfill that responsibility alone, the Framers expected that the President would rely on subordinate officers for assistance.”  Id. at 203–04.  

The President’s power to remove subordinates is a core part of the Executive power vested by Article II of the Constitution and is necessary for the President to perform his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Because SES officials wield significant governmental authority, they must serve at the pleasure of the President. 

Only that chain of responsibility ensures that SES officials are properly accountable to the President and the American people.  If career SES officials fail to faithfully fulfill their duties to advance the needs, policies, and goals of the United States, the President must be able to rectify the situation and ensure that the entire Executive Branch faithfully executes the law.  For instance, SES officials who engage in unauthorized disclosure of Executive Branch deliberations, violate the constitutional rights of Americans, refuse to implement policy priorities, or perform their duties inefficiently or negligently should be held accountable. 

RESTORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO POLICY-INFLUENCING
POSITIONS WITHIN THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Section 1.  Purpose.  Article II of the United States Constitution vests the President with the sole and exclusive authority over the executive branch, including the authority to manage the Federal workforce to ensure effective execution of Federal law.  A critical aspect of this executive function is the responsibility to maintain professionalism and accountability within the civil service.  This accountability is sorely lacking today.  Only 41 percent of civil service supervisors are confident that they can remove an employee who engaged in insubordination or serious misconduct.  Even fewer supervisors –- 26 percent — are confident that they can remove an employee for poor performance.

Accountability is essential for all Federal employees, but it is especially important for those who are in policy-influencing positions.  These personnel are entrusted to shape and implement actions that have a significant impact on all Americans.  Any power they have is delegated by the President, and they must be accountable to the President, who is the only member of the executive branch, other than the Vice President, elected and directly accountable to the American people.  In recent years, however, there have been numerous and well-documented cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership.  Principles of good administration, therefore, necessitate action to restore accountability to the career civil service, beginning with positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.

RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP

Section 1.  Purpose.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference.  Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.  Under the guise of combatting “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.  Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

Religious Freedom Arguments Give Rise To Executive Order Battle

As in so many policy areas, partisan gridlock:

Key government policies on religious freedom and discrimination, once set through legislation, are increasingly dictated by presidential orders, meaning they shift capriciously from one administration to the next.

In 2014, advocates for LGBTQ rights cheered when President Obama unilaterally issued an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating in their hiring practices on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Four years later, the Trump administration weakened that order with another unilateral movedirecting that contractors facing a discrimination claim under Obama’s order should be entitled to a “religious exemption.”

The Labor Department then proposed a rule that would give the directive the force of law and permit faith-based contractors to give hiring preference to individuals with particular religious beliefs, such as an opposition to same sex unions or transgender identities.

That time, it was conservatives who were pleased.

Such back-and-forth executive orders are now set to continue under President-elect Joe Biden, who has promised to reverse President Trump’s hiring directives.

Behind the dueling orders is a deep disagreement over the meaning of the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. Conservatives say the right to “free exercise” of religion means people and organizations should be able to act on their religious objections to abortion, same sex marriage, or accommodation policies for transgender individuals.

Others say the First Amendment’s prohibition against the “establishment” of a religion means that religion-based arguments should not be used to justify discrimination or the denial of civil rights or basic human services.

Such conflicts in the past have been resolved through legislative remedies. Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Both measures had bipartisan support, but that consensus has since broken down.

Health care and nondiscrimination became so partisan,” says Holly Hollman, general counsel at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. “We’ve kind of lost our shared definition and commitment to religious liberty in ways that make it harder to legislate.”

The prospect of a divided government in 2021, with Joe Biden in the White House and possibly a Republican-led Senate, means that consensus around religious freedom issues may continue to be elusive.

“Given the gridlock, we’re going to see more unilateral action from the executive branch, whether it be regulatory action or executive orders,” says Ryan Anderson, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who writes often on religious freedom issues.

Following his 2014 order barring discriminatory hiring practices by federal contractors, Obama issued guidance in 2016 that required schools to protect transgender students from harassment and to accommodate their identities with respect to pronouns and bathrooms.

That guidance, however, was rescinded shortly after Trump was inaugurated, when his administration told school districts that the relevant policies were more properly established by state and local authorities.

Three months later, Trump issued a sweeping order “promoting free speech and religious liberty.” The order called for weaker enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which bars tax-exempt religious groups from endorsing political candidates. It also instructed government agencies to consider new regulations to address “conscience-based objections” to the provision of certain health care services, and it directed the Attorney General to issue guidance to all federal agencies on what religious liberty protections require.

Among the agencies responding quickly to the order was the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where a conservative activist, Roger Severino, was put in charge of a “conscience and religious freedom division” under that department’s Office of Civil Rights, which Severino directs.

“Every agency has a civil rights office in the federal government,” Severino noted last month in a video presentation. “Not every agency, until now, had a religious freedom office. And now we do.”

Over the course of his term in office, Trump has taken a variety of unilateral steps to promote a conservative view of religious freedom, many of which a Biden administration might be inclined to reverse.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) have both issued detailed lists of the executive actions they expect to see Biden take in the area of religious freedom, perhaps beginning with a broad order similar to the one Trump issued.

“We would like to see the Biden administration sign an executive order to restore and protect religious freedom for all Americans,” says Rachel Lazer, the AU president, “and make clear that religious freedom should operate as a shield to protect us and not as a sword to license discrimination.”

Some of Trump’s executive actions will be easier than others to reverse. The directive to weaken enforcement of the Johnson Amendment could be countered simply by mandating strengthened enforcement. Other issues could be settled through the courts.

An HHS-issued “conscience rule” that would allow health care workers to refuse to provide medical services that conflict with their moral and religious beliefs has faced several court challenges and is now on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The AU’s Lazer says a Biden administration could simply decline to defend the rule.

“We would expect that the Biden administration would not carry forward with any type of appeal,” Lazer says. “[That] would cut that off at the knees.”

Some of Trump’s directives would be vigorously defended by outside groups, however, particularly where they concern sexuality and marriage.

“There are a variety of religious traditions that hold viewpoints on this question,” says Ryan Anderson, of the Heritage Foundation. “Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, evangelicals, Latter Day Saints, Muslims, and various people who accept the Genesis creation story are going to have strong convictions about male and female.”

Under President-elect Biden, Anderson says, “the government might be asking us to violate those convictions. If we’re going to be pluralistic, how do we navigate those disagreements?”

Even if a Biden administration manages to undo some of the government directives that reflected conservative interpretations of religious freedom principles, other groups could go to court with similar claims, using the same arguments.

“The undoing would give rise to legal challenges,” warns Louise Melling, the deputy legal director at ACLU.

Such challenges are likely to get a more favorable hearing, given the installation of more conservative judges in federal courts across the country and a newly powerful conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The court is clearly in the midst of reconceiving some of our religion statutes and the constitution, I think,” Melling says.

With that prospect, battles over religious freedom are likely to continue, no matter the presidential administration.

Source: Religious Freedom Arguments Give Rise To Executive Order Battle