Donald Trump has started his Presidency by signing dozens of executive orders, taking action in areas from energy, to immigration, to withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord. How powerful are these instruments, and how can they be challenged? Bloomberg White House reporter Hadriana Lowenkron joins host Stephen Carroll to explain.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
I'm Stephen Carol, and this is Here's Why, where we take one news story and explain it in just a few minutes with our experts here at Bloomberg. Donald Trump started his presidency with a bang.
Today I will shine a series of historic executive orders. With these actions, we will begin the complete restoration of America and the revolution of common sense.
The next item here is the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty. What is to confident that those are not going to be blocked by the courts?
I don't think they will.
I don't think they can be.
He signed dozens of executive orders, some in front of a crowd of thousands at the Capitol wondering in Washington, and others with reporters watching on in the Oval Office. They covered everything from energy to immigration to withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization. But here's why Trump's executive orders have limits. Our white housed reporter Hedrianna Lowencron joins me. Now for more. Hedriana, First of all, what can executive orders be used for?
Well, essentially, executive orders are really legally binding mandates, and essentially they direct the agencies on how to implement existing federal law. So this is an important distinction.
An executive order only is legal, and of course it can be challenged and we'll get into that later if it's consistent with the law that Congress has passed.
Okay, So my logical next question then is what can't executive orders be used for.
They can't be used to essentially give the executive branch additional power. So this is not their opportunity to try to pass a new law and kind of skirt the current system of checks and balances that we have, which is that Congress has the authority to pass the laws. So this is for them to really interpret the law that has already been given and carry out that to the agencies. And again, they can really be sued and declared illegal by courts if someone affected by that order challenges it and the court says it is inconsistent with a congressional statute.
So let's get into some of those potential challenges then, or maybe checks and balances we could describe them on executive orders. How can these orders be challenged if there.
Is an individual or a party who is directly affected by an order, for example, one of President Trump's executive orders is an attempt to end birthright citizenship. So in the immigrant community, they have the ability to file a law suit and this instance, one immigration group already has filed a lawsuit on Monday evening challenging new order, and the courts can take it up if they agree that there is legal ground and essentially can decide that the order is inconsistent with the current law and in place or what the constitution says.
What about Congress? Does it have a role in checking these sort of executive orders?
So Congress can't overrule whatever the executive order is, but it can undermine the executive branch by then later on passing their own legislation that makes the execution of the order difficult or even impossible. So if there's a new program or an office that the president creates, they could pass a law that would deny funding or do something along those lines, kind of after the act.
We've talked about this long list of executive orders that Donald Trump signed on his first day. Is it normal for a president to do something like that, signs so many executive orders in just the first day.
Absolutely, there really has been a tendency for presidents to issue this story that we're seeing, and particularly when a president comes into office and it's part of a different party than the previous holder of office, which we're seeing here, and that's because a number of the day one actions is actually reversing the actions that their predecessors had ordered. This is something that goes back and forth depending on who is in the executive office, and as such has garnered some criticism for being too easily revoked and the temporary way to pass an agenda.
Well, let's talk a bit more about those criticisms. This isn't necessarily a universally liked instrument of governing.
Right, and sometimes there's a tendency for presidents to focus on executive action if their party doesn't have a majority in Congress and they are unable to get legislation passed through that system. So there has been some criticism for this idea that this is the way to get the agenda passed, skirting the traditional checks and balances of the US system in which Congress is supposed to be the branch responsible for making the laws. So the criticism comes from it being temporary at flipping back and forth, and also this idea that kind of skirts the checks and balances. But again, the importance here in terms of whether the executive orders can be properly done and legally work is they have to be the interpretation of current law. It can't be a new power, or it can't be something that is not already existing as a congressional statue.
Okay, Hedrianna looncron Our, White House Reporter, Thank you very much for joining us for more explanations like this from our team of twenty nine hundred journalists and analysts around the world. Search for Quick Take on the Bloomberg website or Bloomberg Business app. I'm Stephen Caroll. This is Here's why. I'll be back next week with more. Thanks for listening.