During the election campaigns made many lofty promises such as implementing his immigration rhetoric, imposing 100% tariffs on BRICS member countries, ending the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Palestine conflict, cutting bureaucracy by 70%, mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, imposing universal tariffs of 10% to 20% on imports and suggested imposing higher tariffs on specific countries like China. Additionally, he pledged to reduce military aid to Ukraine, reassess NATO contributions. On abortion, Trump supported state-level decision-making and hinted at pursuing legal actions against political opponents.
When asked how he intended to implement these promises, Trump’s standard reply in most cases was through the issuance of executive orders. However, deep down, he likely understood that issuing executive orders on every issue, conflict, or situation is not that straightforward. While executive orders are and will remain an extremely powerful tool for the President, they come with significant limitations.
For instance, the President cannot issue an executive order that contravenes the U.S. Constitution or violates the principle of separation of powers among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches; curbing the freedom of speech, media or religion. In short, executive orders must be grounded in the Constitution or statutory authority, and they cannot create new laws or override congressional powers.
The authority for the U.S. President to issue executive orders is derived from the Constitution, primarily Article II. The Executive Power Clause (Article II, Section 1) vests executive authority in the President, while the Take Care Clause(Article II, Section 3) mandates the President to ensure federal laws are faithfully executed, allowing orders to manage their implementation. Additionally, the Commander-in-Chief Clause (Article II, Section 2) provides authority for orders related to military and national security.
In plain language, the scope of the U.S. President’s executive orders manage and direct the operations of the federal government, however, they cannot create new laws, go against existing laws passed by Congress, or directly affect private individuals unless tied to federal programs or contracts.
Congress and the Supreme Court each have the powers to overturn or invalidate a presidential executive order. Congress can counter an executive order by passing new legislation that nullifies or overrides it, requiring a simple majority in both chambers. If the President vetoes this legislation, Congress must secure a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to override the veto. Alternatively, Congress can use its power of the purse to block the implementation of an executive order by withholding or restricting the necessary funding, effectively limiting its impact without direct legislative action. The Supreme Court can invalidate an executive order through judicial review, typically in response to a legal challenge. The Court examines whether the order exceeds the President’s constitutional authority, conflicts with federal statutes, or violates fundamental constitutional rights. These checks ensure that executive orders remain within constitutional and statutory limits.
Though a few of President-elect Trump’s promises such as immigration enforcement, prioritizing deportations and using the military for civilian law enforcement is limited by the Posse Comitatus Act. Similarly, targeted tariffs under national security grounds, and foreign policy decisions like adjusting NATO contributions or reducing military aid to Ukraine, can also be implemented through executive orders. However, the President’s power for investigations against political opponents could face legal and ethical challenges.
There are other promises which are beyond the scope of executive orders such as state-level abortion laws, broad tariff policies affecting all imports would require congressional approval and significant changes to immigration laws, such as altering legal criteria for status or deportation, require legislative action.
If President Trump adopts the legislative path, most of his promises might not see the daylight during his four years tenure due to their complexity and predefined lengthy path. The process would begin with introducing the bill in the congress, followed by committee reviews, debates, and possible amendments, which can take weeks to months. Once approved by the committee, the bill would move to floor debates and votes in the House and Senate. If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee would reconcile them before final votes and the President’s signature. In a fast-tracked scenario with strong party support, the process could take 1-3 months, but contentious legislation, especially if subject to a Senate filibuster requiring 60 votes to overcome, could take 6-12 months or stall indefinitely.
Like abortion bill, Trump’s other promises would as well require a lengthy path. Mass deportations and securing the U.S.-Mexico border, could take 1-3 years. Trade policies, including universal tariffs of 10%-20% or 100% tariffs on BRICS countries, could take 1-5 years, as broader measures would need congressional approval and face global resistance. Reducing bureaucracy by 70% would require significant legislative and administrative reforms, likely taking 4-8 years.
The Foreign policy goals such as ending the Russia-Ukraine war and resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict, could take years to decades or remain unresolved. Overall, implementation would span 4-8 years for most promises, with some outcomes taking longer or remaining uncertain.
The true measure of any promise lies in its fulfillment. Donald Trump, a master showman, made numerous lofty promises during his campaign, many of which he likely knew could never be fully realized within a four-year term. Yet, with the flair of a seasoned actor, he delivered these pledges with unshakable confidence, captivating his supporters and igniting their hopes. He painted a vision so grand that it seemed, to his followers, that upon taking the reins of the most powerful nation in recorded history, he would transform his words into action with the wave of a magic wand. Deep down, Trump must have known the complexities and limitations that awaited him, but his ability to connect emotionally with his audience and sell a dream—no matter how unattainable—was enough. It wasn’t just the promises; it was the way he made his supporters believe in them that carried him to victory, proving once again that in the realm of politics, perception often trumps reality.
Donald Trump made grand promises to be implemented by executive order, during his campaign. Many of which he likely knew could not be fully realized within a four-year term. Yet, with the charisma of a seasoned showman, he delivered them with unshakable confidence, captivating his supporters and igniting their hopes. He made it seem as though, upon taking the reins of the most powerful nation in history, he could transform his vision into reality with a magic wand. While the complexities of governance may have tempered these ambitions, his ability to make people believe in his promises was enough to carry him to victory.
Writer is Press Secretary to the President(Rtd), Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France and Former MD, SRBC. He is living in
Macomb, Detroit, Michigan
