Fulfilling promises from the start

Amid his second inaugural festivities, President Donald Trump wasted no time in getting to work. After signing a flurry of executive orders (some were signed from the stage at the Capitol One Arena), he settled in at the White House by signing a stack of executive orders and pardons. In doing so, the president returned to the issue that launched his first campaign for the Republican nomination back in 2015: immigration.

In all, President Trump signed more than 100 executive orders, at least 10 of which dealt with immigration and the border. Some of the orders repealed Biden-era immigration policies while others simply reinstated policies from his first term, such as enhanced vetting of foreign nationals, and the Remain in Mexico policy, which requires asylum-seekers to wait outside of the United States while their cases are considered. He also paused refugee resettlement in the United States for three months.

Other executive orders carried the ball farther down the field. Starting from the premise that “an essential feature of any sovereign nation is the existence of territorial boundaries and the inherent authority to decide who and what may cross those boundaries,” one order declared a national emergency at the border, a move that will allow the president to expedite and redirect funding for border security measures such as the border wall, detention facilities, and more border agents.

Additionally, President Trump directed his administration to make recommendations for designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move that will empower law enforcement to aggressively counter and deport members of MS-13 and Tren de Aragua. These two orders work in tandem with a third: the use of the U.S. military to enhance border security. Most notably, the president declared an end to birthright citizenship, the notion that simply being born on American soil entitles a person to the rights of American citizenship, regardless of the legal status of one’s parents. The executive order applies not only to the children of illegal aliens but also to the children of legal aliens present in the country under temporary visas.

What should we make of these executive orders?

First of all, the orders are simply smart politics. On the one hand, President Trump is making good on campaign promises to secure the border and deport those who are here illegally. Fulfilling such pledges demonstrates to his supporters that his second term will not be a return to the status quo. More than that, recent surveys show that 66% of Americans support deporting migrants who are in the country illegally. Thus, these orders are consistent with the grain of popular opinion.

On the other hand, these orders set the stage for showdowns with blue state governments and sanctuary cities. Will Democratic officials want to be on the open borders side of attack ads in 2026? Given the bipartisan support for the Laken Riley Act (which requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain undocumented individuals who have been arrested, charged, or convicted of other crimes), it appears that at least some Democratic politicians recognize the way that the winds are blowing.

Second, by acting through executive orders, President Trump is flexing his executive muscles and showing Congress, the American people, foreign governments, and migrants that he will be proactive in addressing the immigration issue. Declaring a state of emergency unlocks money for stricter enforcement efforts such as the border wall and more agents, rather than waiting for Congress to appropriate more funds. It also paves the way for the use of the National Guard at the border and thus works around promises from Democratic state governments to oppose his efforts. Reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy without formal negotiations with the Mexican government signals a willingness to act unilaterally when necessary.

Third, and perhaps most significantly, the executive order ending birthright citizenship provokes both a constitutional question and a national identity question. The constitutional question is whether the 14th Amendment guarantees the world the right to birthright tourism. Is a simple presence in the United States at the time of birth sufficient to grant someone citizenship? What does the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment mean?

While liberal journalists and Democratic politicians act as though the issue is settled in favor of birthright tourism, there are strong arguments for the notion that birthright citizenship is contrary to the original intent of the amendment. At the same time, it’s unclear whether such fundamental definitional questions can be settled by executive order apart from congressional action. By ending the practice in this manner, President Trump invites legal challenges that could end up before the Supreme Court.

However, President Trump’s executive order doesn’t merely raise a constitutional question; it also raises a national question. What is America exactly? Is it merely an economic zone? Is it simply a matter of geography, such that if you find yourself on American soil, you are entitled to the rights of citizenship? Or is America a nation and a people with a shared history, culture, and attachment to a place that can be defended against encroachment and invasion?

Finally, President Trump’s immigration orders pose a question for the American people. As he ends Biden-era policies that expedite migrant entry and sets the stage for deportation efforts, how will the American people respond when media outlets show image after image of tearful migrants being detained and removed from the country? Will the American people have the fortitude to resist the manipulation of our pity and empathy by journalists and activists who wish to sabotage the president’s efforts to secure our nation’s borders? The polls show that a significant majority of Americans favor the president’s goal. But will we have the stomach for his means?

Day One has come and gone, and only time will tell.