Politics
America Prepares For Trump’s 100 Executive Actions. Is The U.S. Heading Toward Corporate Dictatorship And Will These “Mandates” Lead To Violence And Tension Within America?
Trump’s 100 Executive Actions
President-elect Donald Trump intends to start his second White House term with a bang through a flurry of executive orders and directives that leave no doubt a major transformation is underway. Convinced he has an election “mandate” from American voters, Trump is planning to surpass the century mark in executive actions over his first few days of office after getting sworn in as the 47th president on Monday ― a moment he’s called a “liberation day for America.”
For many Americans, especially those on the political left, these “mandates” will draw sharp criticism. These actions are controversial and will likely lead to unrest and major demonstrations within the country. Immigration, in particular, is expected to be a flashpoint, inviting lawsuits and fierce debates. Forget what the world thinks—this is about to be an internal showdown.
“Shock and awe,” Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., recently predicted after Republican members of Congress received a preview of the activity to come.
Likewise, it could be a busy few days and weeks of signatures from Trump, who has also promised “major pardons” for people convicted for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Let us take a look at all the key mandates and what they imply.
1) Reinstating Title 42
On the immigration front, Trump has talked about a series of orders he would issue on “Day 1” to seal the U.S.-Mexico border, where illegal crossings have in recent weeks fallen to record lows.
That includes executive action to revive Title 42 authority to quickly expel asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Title 42 is an emergency public health law that both the Trump and Biden administrations used during the COVID pandemic to justify turning back migrants and asylum-seekers who crossed the border illegally. Biden ended the policy in 2023.
The Take – Title 42 is a section of the United States Code that allows the expulsion of individuals from the country if they have recently been in a place with a communicable disease. It was enacted as a public health measure, but its application in immigration policy has drawn significant attention and controversy.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invoked Title 42 during the COVID-19 pandemic to block migrants from entering the U.S. by land. Migrants were expelled either to Mexico or their home countries, bypassing traditional immigration processing.
Crucially, Title 42 did not permit migrants to apply for asylum, effectively suspending a key right protected under U.S. and international law.
The policy applied broadly to all migrants arriving at the U.S. border from Canada or Mexico, regardless of their country of origin. However, it exempted certain groups such as lawful permanent residents, their families, members of the armed forces, and individuals holding valid travel documents.
The stated rationale for implementing Title 42 was to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, specifically COVID-19, by reducing the number of people held in congregate settings like border patrol stations.
However, its use has been criticized. Research suggests that Title 42 did not contribute to a better-managed border or significantly curb the spread of disease. Public health experts argued that it placed the health and well-being of migrants at risk by expelling them to potentially unsafe environments without adequate health precautions. The policy led to an increase in cases of unauthorized re-entry as expelled migrants repeatedly attempted to cross the border.
Reinvoking Title 42 raises critical questions about its effectiveness, ethics, and broader societal impact
- Critics argue that Title 42 was used less as a legitimate public health measure and more as a border enforcement tool to bypass established immigration laws.
- Its reimplementation could blur the lines between public health policy and immigration control, setting a concerning precedent.
- Title 42’s blanket expulsions deny migrants the opportunity to seek asylum, a right enshrined in U.S. law and international agreements.
- Expelling migrants without due process could place vulnerable individuals—including families, children, and those fleeing persecution—at significant risk.
- Many migrants expelled under Title 42 face dangerous conditions in their home countries or in Mexico, including exposure to violence, exploitation, and inadequate healthcare.
- The policy’s lack of provisions for health screenings or safeguards has been criticized as counterproductive to its stated public health goals.
- Reinvoking Title 42 could fuel xenophobic sentiments and polarize public opinion on immigration further.
2) Mass Deportations
One of Donald Trump’s signature campaign promises was the execution of “mass deportations” of immigrants living unlawfully in the United States. As President-elect, Trump has made it clear that he plans to use a combination of expanded immigration authority and military force to carry out his vision. These proposals have already sparked significant opposition, particularly from Democrats who are concerned about the potential human rights violations and the impact on communities.
The Take – As Trump gears up to return to the White House, he has demanded that Mexico do more to curb the growing flow of migrants heading toward the U.S. border. However, in an unexpected twist, Trump may find some support in an unlikely place – Mexico itself.
Just a few decades ago, Mexico had a more welcoming view toward migration, with many Mexicans themselves seeking better opportunities in the U.S. Whether it was for work or to escape violence, the idea of going to “El Norte” was seen as a chance for a better life. But in recent years, the demographics of migration have shifted dramatically.
While Mexicans were once the primary group migrating to the U.S., this trend has been overtaken by Central Americans, Haitians, Venezuelans, and migrants from various other regions. This changing dynamic has shifted the perspective of some Mexicans, leading to a more cautious or even hostile view of migrants, particularly those transiting through their country to the U.S.
A United Nations refugee agency survey, published in October, revealed that nearly a third of Mexicans believe migrants should only be allowed to transit rapidly through Mexico to the U.S., while 13% advocated for a closed border and deportations. These sentiments are in sharp contrast to the U.S., where 55% of respondents in a Gallup poll expressed a desire to see immigration decreased.
Interestingly, while U.S. Border Patrol agents have apprehended over half a million Mexican nationals at the border in each of the last two years, Mexicans themselves are now struggling with immigration concerns. With the surge of migrants from around the world, many Mexicans are now facing the same challenges the U.S. has long dealt with, such as how to provide for migrants who arrive with limited resources and language barriers.
In this context, it’s worth noting the irony of the situation – two neighboring countries, each with their own complex migration issues, are simultaneously engaged in efforts to limit immigration. Migration is, after all, a global phenomenon, with people fleeing from war, conflict, and poverty in search of a better life. The reality of this shared challenge should be an impetus for cooperation rather than division.
3) Ending Birthright Citizenship
One of Donald Trump’s boldest promises during his presidency was to end birthright citizenship — the practice that automatically grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Trump has pledged to take action on this on his first day back in office, and while he has suggested that he could achieve this through executive order, such a move is likely to spark a major legal battle, given the constitutional implications.
Birthright citizenship is grounded in the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War.
Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship through executive action would challenge this settled legal principle. However, such a move would likely be met with immediate legal challenges, given the constitutional protections provided by the 14th Amendment.
If Trump finds that executive action cannot bypass these constitutional constraints, he would likely need to pursue a formal amendment to the Constitution, a far more difficult route. Changing the Constitution would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures.
Trump’s proposed change aligns with his broader stance on immigration. He has long argued that birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration and puts an unnecessary strain on U.S. resources. His agenda includes an executive order that would prevent federal agencies from granting automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who entered the country unlawfully.
Instead, his plan would require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for the child to automatically gain citizenship.
The Take – Despite these proposals, the notion of ending birthright citizenship remains highly controversial. The Supreme Court has affirmed birthright citizenship multiple times, and many constitutional scholars argue that the 14th Amendment’s protections are clear and unambiguous. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has described Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship as an “unorthodox view,” unsupported by the majority of constitutional experts.
Should Trump push forward with his plans, it would likely set the stage for an intense legal showdown over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the broader implications for U.S. immigration policy.
4) Border Wall
One of Donald Trump’s key promises for his second term is to restart the construction of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico. This was a central element of his first term agenda, but the Biden administration halted the project upon taking office.
Under Trump, around 452 miles of barriers were built along the southern border, although only 40 miles of that was new construction, with the remainder replacing or upgrading existing fencing. Trump’s plan to finish the wall is one of the first policies he has pledged to enact, signaling a return to his hardline stance on immigration.
In addition to the border wall, Trump has also promised to expand the use of the 287(g) program, a federal initiative that allows local law enforcement to take on certain immigration enforcement responsibilities. This program was a hallmark of Trump’s first term, as it gave local police more authority to assist in identifying and detaining undocumented immigrants. Although President Biden campaigned on ending such agreements, immigration activists have criticized him for not fully following through on this promise, claiming that the Biden administration has not dismantled these partnerships to the extent expected.
The Take – Trump’s broader immigration policy has been framed as a response to the ongoing challenges posed by illegal immigration and its associated issues. But his proposals come with significant implications for both the U.S. and its neighbors, particularly in terms of trade relations.
5) Tariffs
On the trade front, Trump has promised to impose hefty tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, with the aim of addressing what he perceives as unfair trade practices and the growing threat of crime and drugs entering the U.S. from these countries.
Trump has stated that on his first day back in office, he would sign an executive order to implement a 25% tariff on all products from Canada and Mexico, in addition to a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, building on the tariffs that were already imposed during his first term.
Trump’s rationale for these tariffs is rooted in the claim that “thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing crime and drugs at levels never seen before.”
The Take – However, while addressing illegal immigration and drug trafficking is critical, Trump’s claims about the rise in crime appear to be at odds with reality. Violent crime in the U.S. actually declined for the third consecutive year in 2023, including decreases in murder, rape, and assault, according to FBI data released in September. This discrepancy raises questions about the justification for such aggressive trade measures.
The proposed tariffs, however, are not without their own consequences. While they may seem like a straightforward way to address perceived issues, they could have far-reaching economic effects, both in the U.S. and globally.
First, tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico could significantly raise prices on a range of consumer goods, from food products to electronics, exacerbating inflation. The agricultural sector, in particular, could face a serious downturn, as it heavily relies on migrant labor for tasks that many Americans are unwilling to do. Increased tariffs would make agricultural products more expensive and could lead to labor shortages, further straining the U.S. economy.
Additionally, the tariffs on Chinese products could escalate into a broader trade war, potentially destabilizing global markets and worsening the already fragile geopolitical climate. Trade wars could disrupt supply chains, increase costs for American consumers, and harm industries that depend on global trade.
6) TikTok and National Security Concerns
Donald Trump’s stance on TikTok has been a major point of contention, and his plans for the social media app are shaping up to be one of his early actions if he returns to office.
After the Biden administration signed bipartisan legislation in April requiring ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to sell off its U.S. assets, Trump is aiming to reverse that course. The law would have effectively banned TikTok unless a sale occurred, citing national security risks associated with potential Chinese government access to user data and the spread of misinformation.
Trump, however, wants to ensure TikTok continues to operate in the U.S. under his leadership. He has committed to issuing an executive order on his first day in office to extend the period before the sell-or-ban law goes into effect, offering a window for negotiations that would allow TikTok to stay active. He also emphasized that companies helping to keep the app running during this period would not face penalties.
The Take – Despite these plans, it’s important to note that Trump’s previous attempt to ban TikTok through an executive order in 2020 was unsuccessful, facing legal challenges and pushback from both tech companies and civil rights groups.
While the concerns over data privacy and national security remain central to this issue, Trump’s new approach appears to be focused on keeping the app alive and operational while trying to navigate the geopolitical concerns tied to its ownership. This pivot shoes the ongoing tension between national security concerns and the economic and cultural influence of popular tech platforms like TikTok.
7) Energy Policy
On the energy front, Trump is set to continue his pro-oil agenda, which he championed during his first term with the slogan “drill, baby, drill.” Even though U.S. domestic oil production is already at an all-time high, Trump has promised to roll back several of Biden’s policies aimed at reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels and combating climate change.
One of his first actions as president would be to overturn Biden’s ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Trump also intends to reopen drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area that has been the subject of significant environmental debates for years.
In addition to these moves, Trump plans to create a new National Energy Council, tasked with overseeing the U.S.’s path toward energy dominance. This council would be led by Doug Burgum, former governor of North Dakota, and would focus on promoting domestic energy production, particularly from fossil fuels.
The Take – However, the reality of this energy agenda is complicated by the growing concerns about climate change. President Biden has emphasized the need to protect coastal communities and ecosystems, citing the risks of irreversible damage from offshore drilling. With 2024 being the hottest year on record, scientists point to the burning of fossil fuels as a key contributor to the climate crisis, making Biden’s stance on protecting the coasts part of a broader effort to transition to a clean energy economy.
While Trump’s policies would likely increase oil and gas production, they also come at a time when the global focus is shifting toward reducing carbon emissions and addressing the environmental impacts of fossil fuel consumption. The debate between short-term energy independence and long-term environmental sustainability will continue to be a central issue as Trump moves forward with his plans to expand domestic drilling.
8) Eliminating the ‘Electric Vehicle Mandate’
One of Donald Trump’s key promises upon returning to office is to eliminate the “electric vehicle mandate” that was introduced by the Biden administration. This mandate, enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requires auto manufacturers to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles starting in 2027.
The Biden administration’s goal has been to accelerate the transition to clean-energy electric vehicles (EVs), with projections indicating that by 2032, auto manufacturers may produce anywhere from 20% to 56% of new vehicles as electric. This move is part of a broader effort to combat climate change and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, with the auto industry seen as a major contributor to global carbon emissions. The mandate is a cornerstone of Biden’s green agenda, which seeks to reduce the U.S.’s carbon footprint and promote sustainable transportation.
Trump’s vow to undo these efforts marks a clear departure from the Biden administration’s vision for a clean-energy future. He has argued that the electric vehicle mandate is overly restrictive and would stifle innovation and harm the U.S. auto industry. Trump’s position aligns with his broader skepticism of environmental regulations that he believes could hinder economic growth and job creation. However, the ramifications of eliminating such a mandate could be far-reaching, both in terms of the environment and the broader transition to clean energy.
The Take – If Trump succeeds in rolling back the electric vehicle mandate, it could slow the momentum toward cleaner, greener transportation in the U.S.
One of the most significant concerns is that without the mandate, automakers may lack the necessary regulatory pressure to invest in electric vehicle technology. While many manufacturers are already transitioning to EVs, the absence of such a mandate could lead to delays in meeting emission reduction goals and reduce the pace of innovation in the electric vehicle sector.
This would also undermine efforts to meet global climate targets, as transportation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. The environmental benefits of EVs—such as lower emissions, reduced air pollution, and decreased reliance on fossil fuels—would be diminished if the mandate were to be eliminated.
Furthermore, this rollback could have significant economic implications. The electric vehicle market is growing rapidly, and the U.S. is in competition with other nations to dominate this emerging industry. If the U.S. were to scale back its EV push, it could lose its competitive edge in the global market, particularly as other countries like China and the European Union continue to invest heavily in clean-energy technologies.
The Impact on Tesla – For Elon Musk and Tesla, the potential elimination of the electric vehicle mandate poses a particularly thorny issue. Tesla has been a leader in the EV market, with Musk often positioning his company at the forefront of the global transition to clean energy. Tesla’s success has been built on the premise that EVs will become the future of transportation, and its growth is closely tied to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
It could potentially impacting Tesla’s market share and growth prospects. Musk has frequently stated that government policies should support the transition to EVs, and any efforts to dismantle such policies would likely frustrate him. However, Musk has also shown a remarkable ability to adapt to changing political and regulatory environments, having steered the shifting sands of both the Trump and Biden administrations.
9) Ending Natural Gas Export Ban
Trump has expressed his intention to end the Biden administration’s pause on issuing new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects, a key component of his broader energy agenda. By doing so, he aims to increase U.S. energy exports, enhance domestic production, and challenge what he sees as unnecessary restrictions on fossil fuels.
The Take – The move to ramp up natural gas exports could provide short-term economic benefits, especially for energy companies and workers in states with significant natural gas resources.
However, this policy runs counter to global efforts to combat climate change. While Trump’s push for energy independence and job creation may resonate with certain sectors, the global transition to renewable energy could undermine the long-term viability of such investments.
Increasing natural gas exports may contribute to higher global emissions and limit the U.S.’s ability to meet climate targets. With the growing urgency of addressing climate change, this decision could be viewed as a step backward in the fight for a sustainable future.
10) ‘Transgender Lunacy’
Trump’s proposed actions on Day 1, including signing executive orders to restrict transgender rights—such as preventing transgender people from serving in the military, participating in public school activities, and playing in women’s sports—represent a controversial and divisive approach to social issues.
The Take – While Trump’s position on transgender rights is in line with the more conservative factions of the Republican Party, it disregards the fundamental rights and dignity of transgender individuals. Such measures are likely to stoke division and resentment, and would significantly harm an already vulnerable community.
Restricting transgender participation in public life could undermine social progress made over the last few decades. As we’ve seen with past social issues, it’s clear that equality and inclusion should be prioritized over divisive rhetoric that fuels discrimination. Trump’s policy proposals here are not only a human rights setback but also an example of culture war politics that may distract from more pressing national concerns.
11) DEI in the Federal Government
Trump has signaled his intention to reverse Biden’s policies promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the federal government. He aims to end what he calls “Marxist” policies and eliminate initiatives that focus on diversity and inclusion in federal hiring practices.
The Take – Ending DEI initiatives would have serious implications for the federal workforce, particularly in ensuring that marginalized groups have opportunities to thrive within government institutions.
These policies aim to correct systemic inequalities and bring an environment of inclusivity, which are crucial for building a more equitable society. Removing such policies could be seen as an attempt to roll back progress on civil rights. The impact could extend beyond government employment to broader societal norms, reinforcing the idea that diversity is not an asset but a burden. Such a move would likely meet significant resistance from civil rights organizations and advocacy groups.
12) In-Person Work for Federal Employees
Trump has signaled that his administration would direct federal employees to return to working in-person, arguing that remote work policies are inefficient and costly. He has also suggested firing federal workers who refuse to comply.
The Take: While there’s a valid argument about the benefits of in-person work—such as fostering collaboration and improving productivity—the reality is that many workers have thrived in remote environments, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mandating a return to office work without considering individual circumstances could alienate skilled employees, particularly in a post-pandemic world where flexible work arrangements are highly valued.
It also risks wasting resources on office spaces and commuting, which could have been better allocated elsewhere. Trump’s position may appeal to traditionalist views on work but could ultimately prove counterproductive if it stifles the work-life balance that many federal employees now expect.
13) End Funding to ‘Radical Left NGOs’
Trump has pledged to stop federal funding to “radical left NGOs,” a vague category that could include any number of nonprofit organizations that oppose his policies. This follows a pattern of Trump’s attempts to restrict funding for groups that promote progressive causes, particularly those related to abortion and reproductive rights.
The Take: Cutting funding to NGOs, particularly those working on issues like human rights, climate change, and social justice, could have dire consequences. Many NGOs play a vital role in providing essential services and advocating for marginalized communities, both domestically and abroad. While there may be concerns about specific groups, blanket cuts could undermine the U.S.’s credibility as a global leader in promoting democracy and human rights.
Moreover, NGOs often serve as watchdogs, ensuring that government actions are held accountable. By targeting these organizations, Trump would risk further eroding trust in the federal government and its commitment to international cooperation and social progress.
Civil Unrest, Violence….
The potential for any political mandate or policy to lead to civil unrest or even a civil war is a serious and complex issue- but we saw it in the form of Jan 6 Capitol Riots.
The mandates discussed here, such as those related to transgender rights, diversity and inclusion policies, energy policies, and social issues like the electric vehicle mandate or natural gas export restrictions, are deeply divisive topics that could indeed escalate tensions in a country already struggling with political polarization.
The more these issues are used to deepen divides between different political and social groups, the more likely it is that public unrest could grow. In the case of Trump’s policies on transgender rights, for example, it could heighten existing culture wars, pushing people to take extreme stances on either side, potentially leading to violent clashes or civil disobedience. Similarly, attacks on diversity and inclusion initiatives could spark protests and counter-protests, further polarizing the public.
Likewise, extreme ideologies, whether on the far-left or far-right, could become emboldened in response to such mandates. Groups that feel their values are under attack may resort to violence or armed resistance. For instance, restrictions on transgender rights or calls to limit civil rights for marginalized groups could provoke extreme reactions from those who view such policies as oppressive.
If policies are implemented without considering the societal impact or if they overstep legal and constitutional bounds, they could create institutional breakdowns. If certain sectors of society—such as the military, federal agencies, or even state governments—refuse to comply or take direct action against the mandates, it could set off a chain of events that might destabilize governance and lead to conflict.
However, it’s worth noting that the United States is a well-established democracy with strong institutions that can mediate and absorb much of the tension. Still, the potential for extreme conflict cannot be ruled out, especially if dialogue and compromise break down entirely – rest is all up to Donald Trump and his incoming team!
