Following his inauguration on 20 January, President Donald Trump embarked on a far-reaching effort to change the way that the United States government functions, principally through Executive Orders (EOs). On the day of the inauguration, President Trump signed 26 EOs; he had signed 46 by the end of January. While the use of EOs is not unique to this administration, the powers claimed by the President in many of these orders are nearly unprecedented in US-American history. The EOs that have ordered the government to halt disbursements of funds appropriated by Congress have relied on claims of executive power to intervene in the budgetary process that far exceed what has been permitted under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974. EOs halting the disbursement of congressionally appropriated funds for services provided by states (such as Medicaid) and official development aid distributed by agencies such as USAID were suspended through emergency orders granted by federal courts, but not before they generated destructive levels of uncertainty for the agencies affected. The lack of response from Congress to this erosion of its constitutionally mandated powers has signalled the majority’s willingness to cede these powers to the executive branch.
The President has also delegated a great deal of policy-making power to a newly established agency called the Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE). This agency is functionally led by businessman Elon Musk, although his only formal role in the US government is as an advisor to the President. The vast powers to intervene in government departments that President Trump has delegated to this agency have generated significant problems for democratic accountability and have introduced damaging levels of arbitrariness in the functioning of the government. 

Many of the EOs have been challenged in legal proceedings, contributing to further uncertainty about the content of the law and US government policy until these cases are resolved.

Sources: Federal Register, Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio, American Broadcasting Company News, Just Security

On 20 January, President Trump issued an executive order commuting the sentences of 14 people convicted of crimes related to the January 6 riots (members of extremist organizations Proud Boys and Oath Keepers) and granted pardons to the rest of January 6 defendants (which exceed 1,500 people), including people charged or convicted of violence against police and media and seditious conspiracy. Across the political spectrum, politicians and experts have denounced the blanket pardons for their incompatibility with accountability and the rule of law. 

Before leaving office, President Biden pre-emptively pardoned the members and staff of the congressional committee that investigated the January 6 riot (as well as Capitol and D.C. police who testified), and General Mark Milley and Dr. Anthony Fauci. He also pre-emptively pardoned five members of his family, citing the risk of them facing politically motivated prosecutions.

Sources: The White House, The Washington Post, NBC, Reuters, CNN, Biden White House Archive (1), Biden White House Archive (2)

On 29 January, President Donald Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law. This piece of legislation establishes that undocumented migrants who are charged with crimes that involve injury or death, but also non-violent crimes such as shoplifting, should be detained and deported by federal officials, even without a conviction. It also enables state attorneys general to file lawsuits against federal government immigration enforcement policy (for example regarding the release or decision not to detain certain undocumented migrants, such as non-violent offenders). Named after a nursing school student killed by a Venezuelan migrant, the piece of legislation received bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, although it was opposed by a majority of Democrats. It received widespread criticism, as due process guarantees and presumption of innocence are not duly considered in its provisions, and for the impact it will have on community members, including DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients. 

Sources: U.S. Congress, AP News, ACLU, NPR, CNN

President Donald Trump has moved to significantly restrict immigration and the right to seek asylum. Through executive orders, the Trump administration has declared the situation at the southern border to be a national emergency, directing the armed forces to repel undocumented migration (along with trafficking in persons and narcotics). The orders further call for the evaluation of visa programs, significantly restrict access to legal status and humanitarian protection, ending parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, whose legal status is now uncertain. They also suspend refugee resettlement and most decisions on applications for refugee status. Executive orders that in the previous administration sought to facilitate the reunification of migrant families have been rescinded. The move to restrict birthright citizenship, excluding children born to undocumented migrants has been particularly controversial. Rights organizations, local officials and religious organizations have filed lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of these orders.

Sources: NBC, ProPublica, Just Security 

Executive orders issued in January determine that the US policy will be to only recognize the male and female sex, rejecting the concept of gender identity. Government-issued identification and paperwork will no longer reflect a person’s gender identity and federal agencies have been directed to issue guidance ‘protecting sex-based distinctions’ and access to single-sex spaces in settings such as prisons (where gender-affirming care will no longer be supported), detention centres and shelters. A specific order further prevents transgender people from serving in the military.

Additional executive orders have ended 'diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility’ (DEIA) programs, which have been characterized by the Trump administration as illegal discrimination. This includes the termination of all DEI, DEIA and ‘environmental justice’ positions and of the hiring of federal officials pursuant to DEI. The orders have been challenged before the courts, and in the interim have created a great deal of uncertainty for those affected by the orders. 

Sources: NBC, Just Security

An executive order issued by President Donald Trump on 20 January instructs the Attorney General not to enforce a divest-or-ban legislation regarding social media platform TikTok, for 75 days. Legislation enacted in April 2024, expressly classified TikTok as a “foreign adversary controlled application”, citing national security and data-collection and privacy. The platform petitioned for review before the Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit, challenging the constitutionality of the legislation on First Amendment grounds. After the D.C. Circuit denied the petition, TikTok appealed to the Supreme Court. On 17 January, the Supreme Court upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, reasoning that Congress’s worries regarding national security over the platform’s data collection and relationship to China did not violate TikTok’s First Amendment rights. However, President Trump’s executive order has enabled the app to continue functioning in the United States.   

Sources: The White House, U.S. Supreme Court, CNN, New York Times

On 21 November, the House of Representatives passed the “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages” bill. Among other aspects, the bill would enable the Treasury Secretary to strip tax-exempt status from non-profit organizations that are deemed to support terrorism. The fact that Treasury would not have to disclose the reasoning or evidence in support of its decisions, and that non-profits would have 90 days to provide evidence to disprove accusations against them, has raised concerns over potential due process violations, including shifting the burden of proof. Experts and hundreds of civil society organizations worry that, if passed, the bill would have a chilling effect on civil society, news outlets, universities and any other tax-exempt organizations, in addition to considering many of its provisions redundant, as support for terrorism is already a felony in the United States. The bill has now been received in the Senate for discussion.

Sources: U.S. Congress, ACLU, AP News, The Conversation, Council on Foundations

On 5 November Donald Trump was elected president after winning 312 electoral votes (and 49.9 per cent of the popular vote), compared to the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris’s 226 electoral votes (and 48.4 per cent of the popular vote). The latest data suggests voter turnout was high, at 63.8 per cent, but lower than the 2020 election (66.8 per cent).

The Republican Party won a majority in the Senate, with 53 out of 100 seats. Republicans further won a slim majority in the House of Representatives, with 220 seats to the Democrats’ 215. Women’s representation in Congress has not significantly changed. The number of women in the Senate is expected to be maintained at 25, and in the House between 124 and 127 representatives will be women (currently, 127 representatives are women).

Sources: AP News, CNN, NY Times, Carnegie Endowment, NPR, U.S. Census Bureau

On 1 July, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution. The decision was delivered regarding the charges brought against him for conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Court’s conservative majority determined that immunity for the exercise of core constitutional powers is absolute, while other acts carried out in an official capacity are protected by at least presumptive immunity. According to the Court, such immunity is necessary for both the separation of powers and the effectual working of the executive branch. It added that former presidents are not immune regarding unofficial acts. In the election subversion case, the Court concluded that allegations in the indictment related to discussions with Justice Department officials are covered by absolute immunity; most others are protected by presumptive immunity, but the determination of whether they involve official or unofficial acts must be considered by the District Court. The ruling further severely restricts the ability of prosecutors to present evidence. Dissenting justices and many constitutional experts strongly criticised the ruling for placing the president above the law and out of reach of accountability.

Sources: Supreme Court of the United States, Washington Post, Brennan Centre, NPR

On 13 July, former President Donald Trump was targeted and injured in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally held in Pennsylvania. A supporter seated behind Trump was fatally shot and two others were wounded. According to officials, the gunman, who was killed by a Secret Service agent responding to the attack, did not have an evident political leaning or ideology. Although officials did not rule out domestic terrorism, a motive for the assassination attempt has not been disclosed. The attack prompted harsh criticism of the Secret Service, whose director resigned on 23 July, amidst fallout from the security failures at the rally.

Sources: Politico, CNN, The Washington Post

A federal jury in Florida found that Chiquita Brands, a transnational fruit company, is liable for the killings (that took place between 1997 and 2004) of eight people in Colombia at the hands of the paramilitary group United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (Auto Defensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC), and ordered the payment of damages. The jury considered that, by making payments to AUC, Chiquita had acted contrary to Colombian law and provided substantial assistance that constituted a foreseeable peril to community members. The lawsuit was filed after the company pleaded guilty in 2007 to making payments to the AUC, which was considered a terrorist organization by the United States government. The company has stated it plans to appeal the verdict, and has claimed that payments were necessary at the time to protect its employees.

Sources: NPR, CNN, BBC, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Transnational Litigation Blog

President Joe Biden issued an executive order that, starting 5 June, blocks people from making asylum claims at the US-Mexico border, unless arrivals fall below 1,500 a day for a week, and a two-week waiting period has passed; the number of arrivals has not fallen below that level since 2021. The executive order will allow authorities to expedite the deportation of people who cross the border in an irregular way. People will still be able to request an appointment at a legal border crossing through the CBP One app and the limitation does not include unaccompanied minors or victims of trafficking. Advocacy organizations and legal specialists have argued that the asylum ban is contrary to international law, particularly refugee law and international human rights law, as it prejudges claims to asylum as unlawful and places people in serious risk of harm. 

Sources: Reuters, Human Rights Watch, ACLU, Homeland Security

In a case involving a challenge by fishing companies to Department of Commerce regulation, the Supreme Court overruled a 1984 precedent known as the Chevron doctrine, through which courts were to defer to an administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of a law in cases where Congress’s language led to ambiguity. Instead, the Court’s majority determined that courts should employ their own independent judgment when weighing whether an agency’s actions are considered an overreach or if it is acting according to its statutory authority. It added that although an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous law may hold informative value, it should not constrain the courts. It further considered Chevron deference to be irreconcilable with the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling effectively curbs federal agencies’ power to regulate and could lead to numerous legal challenges against the executive agencies that regulate areas such as health and the environment.  

Sources: Supreme Court of the United States, CNN, The New York Times,  Reuters