logo
Opinion - Trump's most absurd executive order yet

Opinion - Trump's most absurd executive order yet

Yahoo29-04-2025
On April 9, President Trump issued an executive order titled 'Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations.' This document has mostly gone under the national radar, undoubtedly due to the ceaseless parade of headline illegalities pouring out of the White House. But the order's legal and practical implications are massive.
Trump purports to rely on a series of Supreme Court rulings to justify ordering agencies to identify and 'begin plans to repeal' what he calls 'unlawful' regulations that are 'often promulgated in reliance on now-superseded Supreme Court decisions.' In short, he claims that any regulations that were put in place before the court issued rulings in a series of controversial cases are now automatically unlawful and must go.
The myriad constitutional problems with this maneuver strike at the heart of the separation of powers. The order is also in line with the Republican Party's pro-corporate 'deregulation' agenda, which prominently began with President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
Given the complexities of our system of government and its reliance on checks and balances and compromise, that agenda could not be fully achieved through lawful means. Then came Trump.
For starters, the federal courts — not the president — have the authority under Article III of the Constitution to decide cases involving questions of federal law, including whether recent Supreme Court decisions undermine the legality of an existing federal regulation. Trump is pretending he has the power to issue a king-like proclamation condemning unidentified federal regulations as unlawful. Not so. He is not a federal judge.
Moreover, Trump's order baldly impedes on the authority of the legislative branch. Regulations are created pursuant to statutes, which fall within the province of Congress. Although regulations function like statutes, the Supreme Court has long upheld agencies' power to enact regulations that function like statutes on the theory that the agencies themselves are creatures of Congress.
So long as Congress includes an 'intelligible principle' guiding how agencies promulgate regulations, the court has concluded that it can give that power to agencies, even though they are housed within the executive branch, which is headed by the president. Because Congress creates agencies and sometimes gives them the power to enact regulations, the legislature has the exclusive power to enact statutes that override those regulations, as well. Trump does not.
A final option for repealing final regulations (which number 3,000 to 4,000 per year) is for agencies themselves to do it. Congress has given agencies a list of procedures they must follow for enacting or repealing regulations. Those procedures are contained in a statute called the Administrative Procedure Act.
Enacting or repealing regulations with the force of law (i.e., the ones that function like statutes) is laborious, requiring the agencies to give notice to and get input from the public, among other hurdles. A decision to enact or repeal regulations is also subject to legal challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act. (See point above about the exclusive role of the courts here.)
So, for Trump to lawfully repeal what he deems 'unlawful regulations,' he must either go through Congress or invoke the Administrative Procedure Act's time-consuming process for repeal. If he chooses that latter route, he must then defend those repeals in the courts, which can take years to resolve. And if he doesn't like the tedium of the Administrative Procedure Act, which has been in place since 1946, he must persuade Congress to repeal or amend it. No Congress has been willing to do this in nearly 80 years, except to enhance executive accountability, as with the 1966 Freedom of Information Act.
Trump's cynical team of lawyers offers a fig leaf of legal justification for this obnoxious turn of events. The 'good cause' exception to the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment process for repealing a regulation. The law basically says that a 'good cause' shortcut is permissible if 'the agency for good cause finds' that compliance with the notice-and-comment process would be 'impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'
Congress included this language mostly for emergencies — if there is a national health crisis involving imported chicken, for example, the Department of Agriculture might decide to invoke the good-cause exception to put rules on the books in a pinch, on the theory that waiting for the full process to play out would put public health at risk. But even if that's the case, agencies usually conduct full rulemakings after the fact in order to make sure that the regulations hit the right mark. Trump's executive order promises no such thing.
To justify the good-cause exception, Trump's order asserts that 'retaining and enforcing facially unlawful regulations is clearly contrary to the public interest.' But this circular reasoning virtually obliterates Congress's careful process for rulemaking altogether. If a president can just declare regulations unlawful, then the good-cause exception can simply swallow up the Administrative Procedure Act's bigger requirements for notice and comment. There is no way Congress intended such a self-defeating result.
What about Trump's power to issue executive orders — doesn't that give him the authority to do this? The Constitution says nothing about executive orders. Article II instead gives the president the 'executive power' and mandates that he 'take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' Trump's order declaring the repeal of 'unlawful' regulations attempts to erase actual laws by presidential fiat. The Supreme Court has long made clear, however, that presidents cannot use executive orders to override or contradict legislation enacted by Congress.
Presidents are not kings. They do not act by edict. Legally, they can only act pursuant to constitutional and statutory law. Trump's action does neither.
For now, it will be up to Trump's loyal Cabinet — and whatever career federal employees still remain — to enact his edict by 'repealing' regulations that evince something on the list of disfavored features contained in the executive order. The courts will be asked to step in, and some will strike down the administration's actions. The Supreme Court justices may or may not back their colleagues on the lower courts, and Trump may or may not abide by those rulings.
But in the meantime, Congress — and the country — must stop treating this as normal.
Kimberly Wehle is author of the book 'Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works — and Why.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump says Beyoncé should be 'prosecuted' for alleged Harris endorsement payment
Donald Trump says Beyoncé should be 'prosecuted' for alleged Harris endorsement payment

USA Today

time23 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Donald Trump says Beyoncé should be 'prosecuted' for alleged Harris endorsement payment

Donald Trump still has a political bone to pick with Queen Bey. The president, who has previously voiced criticism of celebrities who showed support for his election counterpart, Kamala Harris, took to social media on Saturday, July 26, to renew his unfounded claim that pop star Beyoncé was allegedly paid $11 million to endorse Harris' presidential bid. In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, the "Cowboy Carter" songstress made her endorsement of Harris official when she appeared at the former vice president's abortion rights rally in her hometown of Houston in October. She also cleared the usage of her 2016 song "Freedom" for Harris, and the tune became the Democratic nominee's official campaign song. "I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats after the presidential election and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, $11 million dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note...)," wrote Trump in a fiery Truth Social post, also citing alleged endorsement payments to media mogul Oprah Winfrey and civil rights activist Al Sharpton. USA TODAY has reached out to a representative for Beyoncé for comment. "Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out!" Trump concluded. "Kamala and all of those that received endorsement money BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter." Trump's digital tirade comes just two months after he accused the Grammy-winning singer and other celebrities of being paid to publicly support Harris' candidacy. In a May Truth Social post, the GOP president announced plans for a "major investigation" into the Harris campaign's celebrity endorsements. Catch up: Trump calls Beyoncé's endorsement of Kamala Harris 'illegal' Did Beyoncé receive payment for Kamala Harris endorsement? At the time of Trump's original allegations in May, the Federal Election Commission had no record of an $11 million payment to Beyoncé from Harris' presidential campaign. Additionally, the agency does not have rules explicitly prohibiting candidates from paying for endorsements. It is unclear where Trump got the unsubstantiated $11 million figure. The Harris campaign last year rejected a rumor that it paid Beyoncé $10 million for her endorsement that spread on social media shortly after the music star's October 2024 appearance with Harris. Beyoncé's mother, Tina Knowles, also pushed back at the $10 million rumor in a November 2024 Instagram post, calling it "false information" and a "lie." She added that the singer "actually paid for her own flights for her and her team." Oprah Winfrey says she was not paid a 'personal fee' for Kamala Harris rally What has Beyoncé said about Kamala Harris campaign? During her October 2024 appearance at Harris' rally, Beyoncé, who was joined by fellow singer and Destiny's Child alum Kelly Rowland, said "It's time for America to sing a new song" when describing Harris' presidential bid. "I'm not here as a celebrity. I'm not here as a politician. I'm here as a mother," the pop star added. "Your freedom is your God-given right, your human right." Harris has long been a fan of Beyoncé. The California-born politician attended the singer's Renaissance World Tour in 2023 just outside of Washington, D.C., after she gifted Harris tickets. Contributing: Caché McClay, Joey Garrison and Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY

Ohio State University president: Ivy League presidents ‘in survival mode, quite frankly'
Ohio State University president: Ivy League presidents ‘in survival mode, quite frankly'

The Hill

time23 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Ohio State University president: Ivy League presidents ‘in survival mode, quite frankly'

The Ohio State University (OSU) President Ted Carter said on Sunday that he thinks Ivy League schools are in 'survival mode,' when asked about Columbia University's settlement with the Trump administration. In an interview on CBS News's 'Face the Nation,' moderator Margaret Brennan asked Carter whether he's troubled by the 'precedent' that the settlement sets and whether he would have agreed to a similar deal to resolve a hypothetical dispute with the administration. 'I can't speak to those institutions because I'm not leading them,' Carter responded. 'I know both President Shipman and some of the other Ivy League presidents are colleagues, and they're having to do, I think, what I would call, be in survival mode, quite frankly,' he said, referring to acting Columbia University President Claire Shipman. 'We're not going through any of that here at Ohio State, and nor do I think that we will,' Carter added. Columbia agreed to pay $221 million to restore the more than $400 million in federal funding that was blocked by the administration, according to the settlement announced July 21. In cutting off Columbia's funding, the Trump administration originally cited alleged inaction on antisemitism, though Education Secretary Linda McMahon pointed to more ideological motives in an interview after the settlement was announced. 'This is a monumental victory for conservatives who wanted to do things on these elite campuses for a long time because we had such far left-leaning professors,' McMahon said on Fox Business Network. The university, which saw some of the nation's most active pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations amid the war in Gaza, did not have to admit to wrongdoing as part of the deal.

How the U.S.-EU trade deal impacts America's imports overall: Tariff simulator
How the U.S.-EU trade deal impacts America's imports overall: Tariff simulator

CNBC

time24 minutes ago

  • CNBC

How the U.S.-EU trade deal impacts America's imports overall: Tariff simulator

A tariff simulator shows a dramatic drop in global exports to the U.S. as a result of President Donald Trump new trade deal with the European Union. On Sunday, Trump announced a trade deal with the EU, following discussions with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Trump said that the deal imposes a 15% tariff on most European goods to the U.S., including cars. According to the Tariff Simulator by the online data visualization and distribution platform, The Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC), the forecasted global exports to the U.S. in 2027 are expected to drop by more than 46% compared to the average of the last three years, or $2.68 trillion. The forecasted U.S. exports to the world in 2027 are expected to increase by 12% compared to the average of the last three years, or $1.59 trillion. The forecast builds on an extended gravity model designed to anticipate how trade may be reconfigured in response to the announced trade deal between the US and the EU alone. This forecast does not include the impact of all the broad tariff increases set to be imposed on Aug. 1. "While the U.S. is imposing tariffs on the world, the world is not imposing tariffs on each other," explained Cesar Hidalgo, economics professor at the Toulouse School of Economicsdirector for the Center of Collective Learning, and founder of Datawheel, which built the OEC Tariff Simulator. "The point here is that countries will have a natural tendency to rewire their trade relationships away from the U.S. in many of these scenarios, he added. "This is true for most countries, except for Mexico and Canada, which are too integrated with the United States and are unable to rewire as quickly as less integrated countries." Hidalgo explained the tariff impact using Germany as an example, "In the early 2025 scenario where there were no new tariffs, exports from Germany to the US were forecasted to go from $133B (2023) to $155B in 2027. With the 15% tariff framework, exports from Germany to the US are forecasted now to go up from $133B 2023 to $149B 2027," said Hidalgo. "Exports are down with respect to what we would have expected if tariffs would have remained the same as they were on January 1st of 2025." Under the 15% tariff scenario projected by the Tariff Simulator, the U.S. will import more from UK ($22.5 billion), France ($10.2 billion), and Spain ($5.65 billion) and less from China (-$485 billion), Canada (-$300 billion), and Mexico (-238 billion). As a result of the decrease in Chinese exports to the U.S. under this scenario, China is expected to import more from Russia ($70 billion), Vietnam ($34.4 billion), and Saudi Arabia ($28 billion) than the U.S. Chinese imports from the U.S. are expected to drop by $101 billion. Logistics experts have warned for months that even with tariff rates at lower rates than the original "reciprocal" rates announced in April, the products are still expensive. The layering of the tariffs will make many products more expensive to import and companies will forego shipments. Retail executives say the result would be a lack of product diversity on U.S. shelves, something American consumers have grown accustomed to. Andrew Abbott, CEO of niche ocean carrier Atlantic Container Line, says the resolution of the tariff levels will be the deciding factor for some European shippers. "I have seen some ocean bookings of high-value products (construction equipment, agricultural equipment, aerospace, transformers, etc.) have put all bookings on hold," said Abbott. "It all depends on the tariff rate. For example, a U.S. customer buying a $300,000 piece of machinery could potentially have $90,000 in tariffs assessed on it, so this is why some companies are waiting until a tariff rate is definitively set," he said. "Companies bringing in low-valued items, on the other hand, are continuing to order product." Based on trade data compiled and analyzed by the OEC, the bills of lading — the receipts for the containers detailing the product and company information — show IKEA is the top U.S. company importing from the EU at 28%. Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits was next at 9%, followed by Continental Tire (4%), Bosch (4%), Dole Food Co. (3%), and Diageo (2.3%) as the top importers. Examining the top EU exports to the U.S. by product category reveals that furniture leads the list at 11%, followed by rubber tires at 7%, bedspreads at 6%, and wine at 5%.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store