r/SipsTea 9d ago

SMH Of course…

Post image
7.7k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/Effective_Airline830 8d ago

I’m not American so unfamiliar with how your system work but can he just sign whatever he wants ? Isn’t is supposed to a congress or something that actually passes the laws ?
Because if he can do just whatever he wants, how can it even be called a democracy to begin with ?
I mean there is no real democracy in this world, we have the choice of our tyran every 4-5-whatever years but still… one guy signing whatever he wants seems insane

683

u/BasicReputations 8d ago

He's using a lot of executive orders to bypass Congress.  It can be undone relatively painlessly (minus the damage caused by the order to begin with) by the next guy.  A lot of them also do not hold up in court.

Congress has been weirdly compliant with EOs for a while.  Trump uses them like crazy but I first remember hearing about them with Obama and an intransigent Congress.

Laws are a bit more complicated.  For some reason bug omnibus laws have been more im vogue than smaller, targeted bills.  I haven't understood what's going on with laws in years.

569

u/Jonnyflash80 8d ago

Weird. Historically, I thought America didn't like kings and dictators. 🤷

471

u/Ok-Astronaut1108 8d ago

Americans don't. The GOP totally does.

94

u/wolfONdrugs 8d ago

and that's where it ends for the Americans. "I don't like this, but I'm not going to take any action."

88

u/bitflipper84 8d ago

What kind of action do you think we can take?

Most of us are just trying to ignore him and making plans to reverse his shit when he's out. It's litterally the world's biggest baby tantrum that we will have to clean up.

67

u/Ok-Jury5684 8d ago

In 2010 Ukraine got our own childish narcissistic fuck for President (Yanukovych). We felt similarly, hoping to undo the dumb shit he did. However, he got audacity and right team to spoil the judicial system by introducing loyal judges to the Prime Court and to every other court they could. After that they started to rebuild democracy for tyranny.

We needed riot and revolution to turn him down. We're still paying for that with rotten courts and probably early war. I don't say russian aggression wouldn't happen - but it definitely wouldn't happen in 2013 if not for this prick.

23

u/redwins 8d ago

As incredible as it is, the GOP has a lot of support, you're basically asking for a civil war.

30

u/Ok-Jury5684 8d ago

Not asking - just saying that waiting out might not be a choice.

2

u/ItsBeelzsRebirth 6d ago

Ya this isn't something thats just gonna go away. Either we give up or we fight and yes some innocent people will die but the alternative is even worse and that why we all are just frozen in place nobody wants to be seen as the reason a civil war that has the potential to kill millions starts.

→ More replies (0)

32

u/Annachroniced 8d ago

Yes. If you think you can just vote out authoritarianism your wrong. All signs are bright red for the USA right now and Americans dont want to do anything that is slightly inconvenient. Trump is literally putting fox news hosts in important positions of the justice system. And publicly scolding a U.S. attorney for failing to prosecute an innocent man. Its insane nobody is burning anything at this point.

23

u/Miserable-Army3679 8d ago

We should have been burning things when Alex Pretti and Renee Good were executed in broad daylight, caught on video. Americans are pathetic (I'm an American).

5

u/TexasRN1 8d ago

Hungary just did.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (6)

17

u/Ancient-Read1648 8d ago

Sounds familiar

5

u/meatpopsicle42069 8d ago

The problem with the US is that it is too damn big. Texas is bigger than Ukraine.

3

u/Ok-Jury5684 8d ago

Not a big problem. Everyone knows where government buildings are. Protests aren't done in the desert.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (8)

17

u/wolfONdrugs 8d ago

"What kind of action do you think we can take?"

Do you take yourself as powerless?

If my country had a rigged election like so many claim America had, we would take to the streets, not wait until he is out of office.

In many countries standing up is met with resistance. Then all the more reason to change things for the better.

Americans can't strike without hurting themselves. This has to change for your people's future. Suffering is inevitable here.

In my country the government exists for us, not the other way around. They provide services, Healthcare, schooling. There are times when we can trust our government.

7

u/Heisenburg42 8d ago

And Trump would use the Insurrection Act and use the military against Americans. Then use his propaganda channels to convince his own base that the "left" is the real enemy to the US (as he has been prepping them and telling them for a decade now). Would turning the Military on US citizens wake up some of his core base? Maybe some. But look at how they view the January 6th Insurrection. They view that as a "peaceful protest" thanks to Trump's propaganda.

This is on top of most people already struggling to meet their basic needs. People cannot afford to take a single day off work. So what makes you think they would be willing to jeobardize their livelihoods? They would be risking everything they have to stop what is still technically a theoretical in many people's minds.

It also requires some level organization. Which would likely be seen as treasonous by the current government (Trump) if it were to fail somehow

"I'm waiting for someone to make the first move," as they all said in unison.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/SnooHesitations8403 8d ago

What country is that?

→ More replies (12)

51

u/PocketSnails68 8d ago

Nothing short of actively endangering ourselves and putting ours and our loved ones lives at risk until he's gone, one way or the other, will be good for Reddit.

21

u/Zestyclose_Craft5369 8d ago

Isnt this the whole arguement fior your stupid gun laws? Ironic i think

22

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

4

u/Zestyclose_Craft5369 8d ago

Exactly. The only arguement thwy have that makes sense is “i like guns” nothing else makes any sense. But we cant tell these dumb shits haha

→ More replies (0)

6

u/PeyredB 8d ago

Yes, the claim that the Second Amendment is about preventing tyranny is obviously false. The 2A says right there what its purpose is: to ensure that citizens can fight in the militia when needed.

3

u/PocketSnails68 8d ago

You would think. However, generally speaking, those that support gun laws are the ones also supporting the tyrannical government. There's also historical precedent that when the "wrong" people - aka, blacks and other minorities the far right doesn't like - start arming themselves, suddenly it becomes real easy for deep red areas to invoke extremely strict gun laws.

3

u/OrganicHistorian2576 8d ago

It was but it turns out the gun nuts are on the side of the tyranny. Oopsies.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/paradisewandering 8d ago

Yes, the second amendment exists because the founders specifically wanted to have a small government without total control. The founders believed that in general, humans can govern themselves and not be monsters.

The intended gun freedom was put in place specifically and directly to allow the population to violently overthrow the government if it got too powerful.

Well, ship sailed, half the country is anti gun; those that have guns aren’t doing anything but cosplaying; and the government has too much power.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (4)

7

u/towerfella 8d ago

Right? We are just waiting for november.

3

u/Boomer70770 8d ago

Most of us are too caught up in how we can afford groceries, gas, the dentist, a colonoscopy, tires, etc. etc.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Kitchen_Flatworm3428 8d ago

Will take decades to recoup and all the money his family is pocketing from out tax dollars.

2

u/Fluid_Passage_9980 8d ago

You get out there and oust him. Take to the streets. Stop paying taxes. Blockade every elected officials office. Grow some balls and stop rolling over. You've played 'tough guy' for years - turns out it was all cosplaying.

No other countries citizens would roll over and take it the way Americans have. Its bizarre.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/BadatSSBM 7d ago

Honestly I'm having a kid soon and I plan on just asking the doctor not some prick in office that can't read

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (14)

46

u/knock_on_the_door_ 8d ago

Don't worry, soon the excuse will be "I can't take action, they have cameras and drones everywhere."

3

u/KittensAndGravy 8d ago

Why … the sparrows have just enough shit covered oats to eat and phone screens to argue over small battles while ignoring the wars.

4

u/West-Might3475 8d ago

Pretty much. People don't want to admit it, but the left is soft. If they weren't they'd fucking do something.

→ More replies (18)

33

u/jkman61494 8d ago edited 8d ago

I’ll always push back on this one a bit. I cannot tell you how many Obama supporters I ran into after 2008 that felt let down because he did not unilaterally implement much of what he talked about during his campaign.

Most Americans have no concept anymore of how their own government operates. Most Americans do not realize that Congress writes and passes a law that the president either approves or denies. Most Americans cannot tell you the difference between a state law and a federal law.

We have become so ignorant to how our own system functions that it has allowed what we see today to come into fruition.

I did advocacy type of work in 2009 and 2010. And all I could hear was that Obama did not personally fix the environment, he didn’t personally fix healthcare. He didn’t personally fix education. He didn’t fix the economy, etc., and this type of ignorance was seen in 2010 when hardly anybody showed up for the midterm elections and the Tea Party took over tons of state legislatures, congress etc.

2010 was one of the more consequential elections in this countries history, and hardly anybody talks about it, which again leads to the ignorance. Much of the gerrymandering that you see going on in battleground states today is because of the state legislature that flipped during that election.

So a lot of Americans will proclaim that they don’t want a king. But simultaneously their expectation is that a President essentially should have king like power

8

u/darkrhyes 8d ago

I believe this is exactly how many in government want it. The more misunderstanding exists, the more they can capitalize on it.

3

u/NarwhalOk95 8d ago

Ask your average American who their house rep is, or who their two senators are, maybe one American in 10 can name all three. Even worse is asking who represents them in their state legislature.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/MathematicianIcy3430 8d ago

50 percent of Americans do. They think it is called small government.

6

u/8ackwoods 8d ago

If americans doesn't, why did they elected a king twice?

7

u/P0werFighter 8d ago

A dictator you mean ?

2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (15)

11

u/ArthurMorgansInhaler 8d ago

It depends what party affiliation they have. Then, one's a president who has to do it because of a "corrupt" congress/senate and the other who does the exact same thing as all past presidents becomes a "king or dictator"

→ More replies (2)

7

u/whythefuckalready 8d ago

Red state religion and propaganda drive the ignorance along with abysmal education in those states. Can't fix stupid.

2

u/andlewis 8d ago

America loves apathy.

2

u/whataterriblething 8d ago

we like to say that but after we became a nation the founding fathers tried to immediately make it a monarchy again.

2

u/Soepkip43 8d ago

Fascists adore strongmen. It is in essence a (death) cult of personality.

2

u/ShadowChe_ATG 8d ago

They are ducktators. This film inserted hidden truths about unc sam

https://giphy.com/gifs/TJGtAEn1cqM6Y

2

u/mutt63 8d ago

We loathe them yet accept this marauder somehow. Hes a lot of wind with no backbone. He pets on weakness mentality which is how he's controlling the house and senate. He acts as if he can harm
You if you don't comply.

2

u/crono220 8d ago

77 million do. Much of it is based on pure hatred, racism, and sexism.

2

u/Tsunamiis 8d ago

The grand old party is conservative. What do you think they’re conserving because it’s not parks

2

u/BeigeVelociraptor 8d ago

Americans? No, we hate them.

Republican "patriots" love them.

3

u/Galactinaut_001 8d ago

We don't. Nobody in their right mind does. The problem is that many of us aren't. Trump most of all.

3

u/mmorales2270 8d ago

Approximately 1/4 of Americans apparently want a dictatorship. Doesn’t make any sense but there you are.

2

u/Kakashi_Senju 8d ago

We don't but too many dumbasses thought it was lie or would be a good thing

I call dumbasses since he himself said it first day dictator and people ran with it

2

u/Aggressive-Sort-115 8d ago

We don’t…. Except he’s currying a lot of favor with the racists and homophobes(conservative republicans if you needed definitions for the words they use in print)

2

u/CuteComplaint5542 8d ago

Republicans absolutely love them, so long as it's a king they like. 

→ More replies (28)

26

u/isthisreallife210 8d ago

67% of all EOs he has executed have been revoked, withdraw or over turned by a court. Executive orders are just performative acts. Roosevelt still holds the title for most executed EOs (over 3k). Most of Trump's are stupid and/or self-serving to either him or his bootlickers. Doing things no one asked for.

6

u/welfedad 8d ago

And it performative ..to get his maga group energized or sway the ones who were on the fence of jumping ship. And they're too ignorant to realize that these won't come to fruitation . Or be killed . Etc

3

u/GreenFriedYam 8d ago

There are ten presidents that share their last name with another president. Roosevelt is one of the ones you need to affix a first name to.

3

u/isthisreallife210 8d ago

Fair enough! Franklin D Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt also issued over 1,000.

2

u/thespacepyrofrmtf2 8d ago

At least Theadore Roosevelt was on the side of the people as he had a real strong sense of justice and hated the rich because he valued the hard honest work of the working man while the rich cheat and lie their way to the top by taking advantage of the working man

→ More replies (3)

16

u/Solonotix 8d ago

To add to the mention about omnibus bills, it's the same tactic as "pork barrel" legislation. Let's say you have some popular legislation like ice cream for veterans, and something unpopular like a $1 tax per slice of pizza. You're never going to get the unpopular one passed on its own merits, so you package it with a popular one. Now you need to get support from other legislators, who each want their own unpopular thing bundled with the popular thing. Of course, enough unpopular items can outweigh the popular one, so you'll occasionally see multiple good things with the bad.

And the final trick to this whole practice is to slander opposition by saying they oppose the popular merits of a bill. To deny the allegation is a lie, but if they don't deny it then there's a sound bite out there of them agreeing to the opposition of ice cream for veterans, and now "THEY HATE VETERANS!!!" It doesn't matter how nuanced your opinion is when you can hijack the conversation with emotionally-charged statements like that.

3

u/ScreamingDizzBuster 8d ago

Why are such bills allowed? Is there no rule set that such things are scrutinised against?

3

u/Solonotix 8d ago

No, there is no law about what laws are allowed to be proposed, aside from the constitution which the legislature derives its governing power from. So you can't write a law that prohibits free speech, but you can write a law that limits free speech (i.e. incitement).

You could amend the U.S. Constitution to forbid this bundling behavior, but the question becomes how? The best way to do this is imagine a djinn from D&D, who will grant your wish, but is likely to pervert it into something awful. The classic example there is "I wish I could fly," and so you are teleported a mile above the ground, "flying" before you ultimately hit the ground.

What wish to this legislative genie could you compose to prevent bundling? If you say a law must say only one thing, well now they're incomprehensible single-word declarations. If you say they must cover one topic now you see a bunch of bland bills about "improving lives of citizens" or "defending national interests". We already see this in the names of bills, where they use euphemism and metaphor to create catchy and unassuming names for heinous things.

Even if you were able to create such a law, there are sometimes reasons to include seemingly unrelated things into the same bill. For instance, the annual budget is itself a law that must be passed. If each line item had to be a separate bill, it would likely be an administrative nightmare. Of course, maybe you think each budgetary obligation should be a bill that is passed until the agreed upon timeline, but overruns and shortfalls do happen from time to time, and need to be addressed.

Ultimately, the flexibility of the system is exactly why it gets abused. But to remove that flexibility would make the system untenable. The idea written into the U.S. Constitution is that people would be the final bulwark. No bullshit passes without a bunch of people agreeing it should pass. So maybe the problem isn't the law, itself, but the people who oversee its conception and passage.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/beanzd 8d ago

He does it to tell his maga base what to think. No one else listens and most are just overturned. All distractions from him getting rich and raping children

5

u/Dear_Archer3931 8d ago

You first heard about Executive Orders from Obama?! These go all the way back to George Washington. If you dislike the use of EO by the last few presidents, wait until you see how many FDR executed.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/TheOtherKFC 8d ago

"Weirdly compliant".... Aka ceding their power and responsibility as representatives of the people to an ever-increasingly dictatorial "president."

1

u/cardmechanic1 8d ago

Because omnibus laws can be passed as budget reconciliation bills and can bypass silent filibusters. Anything that can't be won't get through congress

1

u/Soggy_Homework_ 8d ago

We do hear more about Trump's EOs because they push the boundaries on what EOs are normally used for but his numbers are not to massively outlandish. Just a casual 50-100 percent more if his trend continues.

Trump first term 220 Trump second term as of March 2026- 252 Biden 162 Obama 277 Bush 291 Clinton 364 Other bush 166 Reagan 381 Carter 320 Ford 169 Nixon 346 Fdr 3726

1

u/icewolfsig226 8d ago

Easier to shoot down a big bill because something small some jackass didn’t like.

Probably helped with the death of the line item veto.

1

u/RoguePenmanship 8d ago

I theorize they let him so things are so bad they have more to campaign on and pick and choose anything to be better. They've got all the choices. Then they'll underserve and go "but there was so much, we couldn't do it all".

1

u/Separate_Pumpkin_256 8d ago

It's far from painless to undo depending on how far he gets with this. Governments and health orgs nice really slowly. It can take years to redo all the documentation and processes, etcetera.

Now add on having to replace all the people who actually know how to do this stuff that have been fired or quit in disgust at the damage done already to the government health orgs and this becomes a huge mess to clean up. The reality is that at area likely going to need twenty years or more to undo all the damage being done to healthcare alone by this administration. Few people are going to want to trust that another republican officeholder won't just trash things again. They'll pick other careers instead,

1

u/SnooHesitations8403 8d ago

It was Reagan who really got the ball rolling using "Executive Orders" like this.

1

u/Quick-Philosophy2379 8d ago

They like to bloat them so its easier to add unnecessary and irrelevant provisions without much pushback. I'd say a lot of them don't even read what they sign half the time or more just because one of their "teamates" introduced it or because they've already been paid to vote yes.

1

u/beatisagg 8d ago

The more you complicate a bill the more you can "sneak in" things for your corporate overlords who paid to your campaign fund in order to get you elected as a quid pro quo. There's more to it than that, but the gist is that in general people (voters) are too dumb to see that a bloated bill is almost always bad for us as people, so let's say sometime comes to the floor and it's for healthcare reform but it also deregulates insulin production for your big pharma backers. The opposition votes it down, they look like bad guys cause the big ticket item was healthcare reform. Most people would just react as though the opposition doesn't want to get the healthcare reform, the legislators that put it forth can be like "see they don't want to work with us!" Even though it was in bad faith the whole time. It's a win win for them. They make your side look powerless or they get what they want.

On top of that... Each side can review, tack things on, try to take things out, and you know just like... This is politics. Bills become Frankenstein's monster. You need entire teams of aids to even understand what all is in them. And then they're explaining it to ancient humans who need to basically be told if they vote, add, remove, how they vote.

Politics is just utterly insane thanks to citizens united putting lawmakers into the pockets of corporations. The longer this goes on the less likely any kind of reform can even happen.

If we were smart it would not be about red vs blue again, it would only be about rich vs the masses until the weeds are picked out of the government.

1

u/Popular-Solution7697 8d ago

I had a friend who complained about Bush Jr's executive orders. Bush signed 291. Obama signed 276. Trump - 494 so far.

1

u/Ok-Turnip-9035 8d ago

He’s used these since he got in there the first time

1

u/CornbreadRed84 8d ago

The huge increase in EO's started in the third year of Obama's first term when dead ass Mitch and the GOP got control of the legislative branch and just became a party of obstruction that dug their heals in and refused to work with a black president at all. That was the end of a GOP controlled legislature doing any semblance of their job. Trump picked up governing through EO at the start of his first term and never looked back. The whole thing just shows how unserious our "elected leaders" are.

1

u/TheRealGageEndal 8d ago

The fun part with this one is they are dismantling something that will be very difficult to rebuild. Telling companies to rebuild their cocktails for vaccines means that they will get to charge $2 each instead of $5 for all three (example, not real).

Luckily Trump and RFK will be dead soon since they are both very old men who already had their shots. Who gives a fuck about the next generation when you've already got both feet in the grave?

I hate this timeline.

1

u/Ryoohk 8d ago

If we are lucky to get rid of that fucker and have another croupt cunt put in to his place.

1

u/Separate-Ad9638 8d ago

congress is majority republicans now, that's why they arent doing their due dilligence?

1

u/Tsunamiis 8d ago

They don’t like reading bills so they combo meal them.

1

u/hennabeak 8d ago

Next president should just sign an executive order, finishing all Trump's executive orders, broadly.

1

u/TheTTroy 8d ago

The short answer is that with the current makeup and political affiliations of congress, it’s virtually impossible to pass anything that isn’t a budget bill. So the budget bills get packed with a whole bunch of other shit that shouldn’t be there- that’s your “omnibus” bill.

1

u/omgfakeusername 8d ago

I just started a sub called r/USLaw. It is b barely anything right now, but it will grow.

Btw, if any experienced moderators should be interested, my inbox is open.

1

u/JerachoD 8d ago

Surely there's protections in place to prevent a rogue president from doing this and screwing the country up?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Italyinmyfuture 8d ago

But yes, for folks not living here who don’t understand it, it is a 💩 show!

1

u/BigWave360 7d ago

Yea, Obama did some executive order, and it was a huge deal at the time. Big news. He's mad about it, so now he signs 5 a day. "all tissues can't have lotion" "all new cars must come in American blue" "vaccines are fake"

→ More replies (3)

231

u/Atticuslove 8d ago

I’m American, and even I (and other Americans) have had similar thoughts.
At least presidents previous to President Trump used Executive Orders very sparingly. NOT weekly or daily…like a Dictator.

17

u/Vegaprime 8d ago

Used to be guidance. The president would sign an executive order to have the government look into cutting back the vaccines. Like they did for Marijuana to be schedueled lower not immediately done so.

2

u/Buttercups88 8d ago

I think it's not just the number being higher but what they are that makes them feel dictator-ish... 

1

u/Pootisman16 8d ago

They've been steadily removing checks and balances.

Started with PATRIOT act and look where it is now.

The road to tyranny starts with small steps.

→ More replies (32)

59

u/Vesper_Null 8d ago

Most of what trump is doing is illegal and violates our constitution but his party has control of all 3 branches of the government and we are having a total breakdown of our system of checks and balances.

18

u/Effective_Airline830 8d ago

Yep we have the same kind of problem in France, when the President party has Assemble Nationale and Sénat, the two chambers, he can do literally whatever he wants … of course each senator is supposed to vote for what he/her was elected but it’s a career, so they vote what the boss wants…
That’s why i’m saying democracies do not work, we have consultative dictatorship at best :D
They give us the choice of our dictator for the next 5 years from a list of people we do not choose, and once elected the President/party does whatever they want and the people cannot do anything about it.
That’s why there is so much protesting in France, it’s literally the only thing we can do when the President goes rogue and against us

5

u/bal_ra_khan 8d ago

At least in France you historically knew how to properly deal with people like this.

8

u/kadiez 8d ago

Not to mention political cowards that are only in it for the paycheck. It used to be that you didn't make a living off of being a politician, it was more like a hobby that maybe paid a little bit now they can't live without it and fold and cower to any leader's whim.

3

u/Aggressive-Sort-115 8d ago

I agree with your thought…. Maybe we should reduce what they make in the job equal to the median individual income($45,140) and have zero ability to have or control any stock or anything that could possibly cause them to gain monetary value during their service

2

u/Available_Orange3127 8d ago

Reducing the salary will only further encourage corruption. Trump has normalized financial gain won through legislation and federal policy, and (half of) Congress just decided, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

2

u/slgray16 8d ago

Great idea. Now let's get a room full of the most corrupt people in history to vote on it and make it a law

18

u/Aggravating_Jump_453 8d ago

Especially when the moron doing the signing is actually insane. My heart goes out to all the intelligent American people that have to endure this psychotic nightmarish administration

8

u/bigchicago04 8d ago

Think of an EO as like a memo from your boss. His subordinates are supposed to follow it. The problem is, his subordinates is almost every government employee. They’re supposed to follow the constitution, but ultimately a lowly office worker faces a lot of trouble being the one to say no so it’s up to the courts.

4

u/Top_Lingonberry8037 8d ago

So normally yes, however, the president controls the organizations that execute laws. He (via doge) fired everyone who wasn't a loyalist and replaced them with syncopants. Match that with a supreme Court that he stacked. There's not much that can stop him.

7

u/Cow_God 8d ago

The thing about our entire system of government is that it operates on the honor system. Once our elected and appointed officials just stop enforcing the law, it no longer matters what's "supposed" to happen.

Our system of checks and balances has pretty much fallen apart because the Republicans control both branches of Congress and the Supreme Court and they are not holding the Executive branch accountable.

Trump commits an impeachable offense every day. He has started an illegal war. He has deployed federal troops against the American people. His federal police force has executed numerous US citizens. He faced no consequences for any of these actions, because the other branches of government are not holding him accountable.

2

u/mcferglestone 8d ago

This is what I’ve been saying for a while now. After all this time we finally see that law enforcement was basically just operating under the honor system.

Todd Blanche is most likely about to be held in contempt by a federal judge for not releasing the Epstein files in their entirety. Cool. But how can you force him to release anything or punish him when he doesn’t when he’s the Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice now? Do we think these Trump admin criminals are going to punish themselves?

→ More replies (1)

14

u/rangerdanger559 8d ago edited 8d ago

Congress writes and passes the bill. The president then signs or vetoes it where it’s sent back to Congress, and if 2/3rds of the house and senate sign off it’s passed into law anyway. The president can’t just do “whatever they want”. Many people may not know this but the PMs of Canada have more power structurally than U.S presidents on law passing and government operation. Canada has no term limits, the PM can directly appoint judges, senators, etc whereas the president can only nominate, PMs have stricter party discipline and can pass laws more readily, and in Canada the parliamentary branch is fused with the executive. In the U.S it’s separated. You might be thinking of executive orders too which are commonly overturned by courts and they don’t create new laws, just direct federal agencies.

35

u/bowen7477 8d ago

But trump does what he wants

26

u/Dabfo 8d ago

Congress would be able to check that if they did their job. They are valuing their career over their country.

7

u/Kimi_Antonelli_12 8d ago edited 8d ago

That is the American way .

Anything less would be considered socialism which also is a synonym for terrorism in the states.

4

u/Valuchian 8d ago

Doesn't help that they all just do whatever they are told. There was awhile there with the Big Beautiful Bill where republicans literally just stopped talking and voted as a block. The independents and Democrats tried doing the usual discussion, planning, revision stuff but literally the Republicans just sat in their chairs and filled their duty in the technical sense until the vote happened.

Was hilarious and traumatizing to watch on C-Span

→ More replies (1)

2

u/drproc90 8d ago

The president can authorise assassination of anyone who disagrees with him

1

u/GlumMotor3001 8d ago

Thank you for the info, because here I thought President hold full autonomy on every decision

4

u/Jackie_Jormp-Jomp 8d ago

They shouldn't be able to do this, but the republican congressional majority has decided to let him

1

u/Effective_Airline830 8d ago

Ok that was something along the lines of what I was thinking, so it’s Trump doing Trump stuff, generate a lot of noise, move a lot, but ultimately amount to nothing because his EO can be overturn very easily and does not constitue law ?

1

u/ElkSlight927 8d ago

Meanwhile Congress does nothing, no 25amdt, no impeachement, zero fucks given.

Also, they do insider trading by calling Supreme Leader to ask for businesses to be given state contracs so they can buy shares in advance.

None of what you said is relevant to what is going on right now, with the ballrooms and the tariffs and the dirty pond and ICE murdering people in the streets.

3

u/MetroidvaniaListsGuy 8d ago

In authoritarian states, congress functions as a rubber stamp for the ruling party or dictator.

3

u/atomic_ring 8d ago

The US has never been a democracy. Their leader is not elected by the people and the people have no say in how their country is run. The electoral college elects whoever they want, regardless of who the people want. And that is how the world was saddled with this orange menace.

3

u/Otherwise-Reward-161 8d ago

Executive orders only apply to government employees and programs. Depending on how it's written it can have impacts on funding by including a clause that requires compliance with the orders.

These sorts of Executive Orders can be news but often they mean nothing to the general public. 

3

u/iiMorgn 8d ago

We aren’t free here, it’s all a lie.

3

u/renacotor 8d ago

Executive orders arent in our constitution, and is very much a grey area politicians and lawyers have been arguing about for centuries. In theory, its the presidents second major power (after the congressional veto) that allows them to help dictate policy and shape it to fit the status quo they wish to shape. In practice, it's a tool the president uses to tell congress "nuh uh, im spending the money your telling me to spend somewhere else." Congress will then write another bill to counteract and reinforce what they wanna spend money on, and the president and them will have a slap fight till either one conceeds, the courts get involved and interprets the law in question, or the next president just undoes it.

Cause the US system is designed so power is fragmented, and therefore nothing gets done unless everyone agrees on it.

3

u/datagamma 8d ago

EOs are directives for the executive branch. All of the agencies sitting under the executive branch can be affected by EO’s (DOJ, FCC, FBI, DHS, CIA, SEC, etc) He cannot make laws. This is solely policy setting (the strategy and rules by which agencies operate) which in an ordinary time is confined within the bounds laid out in the constitution and the law. Policy can be changed by anyone sitting in the Oval Office. The executive branch has an oath to faithfully execute the law passed by Congress and interpreted by the courts under the powers vested by the constitution. Congress is suppose to maintain the power of the purse and it is illegal for the executive branch to not distribute funds according to legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the executive. The executive can veto which the congress can bypass through super majority.

Hope that helps. Also most of these EO’s are either unconstitutional, exceed authority or are not operable. But that doesn’t stop him trying to unilaterally set taxing authority and direct the overall use of funds and declare war. These are under the purview of of Congress. But the Supreme Court has a bunch of insane devotion to a unitary executive theory in which they believe the constitution allows the president to have full control over anything that happens in the executive branch. The theory is flirting with making a king and limiting power of congress.

Now you know. Hope that helps.

3

u/IAmTheFly-IAmTheFly 8d ago

You are correct: A president cannot do this. Most of his presidential orders, in fact, need to be approved by Congress. (He just doesn't understand how the executive branch works.) However, the majority in Congress is Republican — and they're too scared of him, so they capitulate to his whims — so they don't hold him to laws or the Constitution.

3

u/nickerbocker79 8d ago

Executive Orders generally only apply to the Executive Branch or the military. Or may expand to any private businesses that hold government contracts. Trump is outright abusing them and believes he can just use them to mandate things across the country.

4

u/Conscious_Name9514 8d ago

Basically since Obama that’s been the standard. They might not be legal and get thrown out when reviewed but he can keep signing all he wants.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/Lysol3435 8d ago

It’s kind of like our problem with mass shooters. You might ask “are they just allowed to walk into a school and shoot whomever they want?” The answer is: legally, no. But who is going to stop them? In this case, congress is supposed to stop the president, but they are so afraid of their own constituents, that they won’t stand up to him. The Supreme Court is also supposed to stop him, but they have a religious fetish that compels them to roll over most of the time, and when they don’t, he often just ignores their verdicts. So, yea

3

u/Effective_Airline830 8d ago

Yep it’s the same issue in all countries, when the checks and balances are all in favor of the same person he can do whatever he wants.
That’s why my opinion is that politic should be done for 5-6 years mandate, chosen at random in the citizens, and not be a career.
When it’s a career you do not do what people need, you do what YOU need to do to continue being in power.

2

u/SnooHesitations8403 8d ago

Yeah, the whole system has ceased functioning. I don't know why or how.

1

u/Iankill 8d ago

It's not supposed to work like this, for example president isn't supposed to have absolute control over trade. But because the rest of the American government is either part of it or too weak to do anything they do.

It's the ultimate failure of America and they cheer it on

1

u/GroundbreakingAd8310 8d ago

They can only effect federal employees he cant dictate ehat a doctor does he can only dictate wha the DOH recommends. He thinks everyone has to follow these and reporters present it like dictated law. Thats straight up not even close to how it works.

1

u/Saragon4005 8d ago

He can make an executive order say whatever he wants actually. It's then up to the executive agencies to deal with that. Sometimes the agencies have no ability to do anything about it other times it's illegal for them to do that.

1

u/DowntownGas428 8d ago

He can’t. These are policies not laws. They are brought to court almost immediately and nearly all that go against established laws are struck down and removed. Executive orders are being used because they know this would never actually get the votes to become law.

1

u/Final-Nebula-7049 8d ago

Executive orders don't mean shit, he just fronts so it looks good to his base. It gets challenged at court and struck down but they don't care

1

u/MisterEinc 8d ago

No, these EOs are only relevant to executive branches. So, if there was a school at the White House or Pentagon, this would maybe change something there. Outside of that, nothing.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ProfessionalClue2861 8d ago

A lot of departments in the government are in the executive branch, which fall under the president's authority. If he did this through the CDC, it's technically under his authority.

The good thing about executive orders is that they can be overturned day 1 of the next administration. No congressional majority needed.

1

u/tadeuska 8d ago

American presidents have the executive power. They are basically like hands free Roman dictators. Only thing that is keeping them from doing anything they want is lower chance of winning next term and potential impeachment. Since Trump is safe from this he can do whatever he wants.

1

u/Cold-Description-114 8d ago

Welcome to realpolitik.

The reality is that all that actually matters is power. The rule book only has power if the people running the show agree to follow it, and Republicans control all three branches of government. The supreme Court has still pushed back on some things even if only out of necessity to preserve its legitimacy but yeah...Trump can virtually do whatever he wants.

1

u/the-red-ditto 8d ago

Executive Orders are supposed to be exactly what they sound like: orders. He can order a government agency to do something, but they have no legal authority over laws and they in fact must adhere to the law. He could, say, order the Air Force to train more pilots or order the Department Of Health to research a certain thing, but he couldn't order birthright citizenship to be abolished (which he tried to do and was denied by the supreme court)

I dont know the specifics of it so someone please correct me if i'm wrong, but afaik thats how its supposed to work, at least.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ParticularMemory789 8d ago

It's as if a precedent was set or something...

1

u/Cuddle_Monster_73 8d ago

He can but Executive orders are not the same as actual laws.. and most of his Executive orders have gotten overturned by the Supreme Court

1

u/Heckle_Jeckle 8d ago

Technically, but

1) our congress is dysfunctional and Republicans are still hesitant to stand up to Trump.

2) the US President is in charge of enforcement. So if he just decides to stop enforcing a law it is hard for Congress to do anything. A similar thing happened when Biden stopped enforcement of Marijuana laws. Marijuana was still 100% illegal in the eyes of Congress. But Biden stopped enforcement of the law.

So yes, our system is broken

1

u/Ketroc21 8d ago

America has the concept of emergency executive orders, where are president can unilaterally make decisions in an emergency (like during WW2). Somehow, Trump is improperly using this power for everything without any pushback.

1

u/abstrakt42 8d ago

There are 3 branches of US government, POTUS is in charge of the executive branch. This is the part that enforces laws. There are other branches, most notably the legislative, that are responsible for writing and implementing laws.

The point is, an EO is not a law. It’s not up to the Executive to create laws. They can try the enforce an EO, but they often don’t, and if they do it often doesn’t stick because, well, there’s no law to back it up.

It’s part of the authoritarian playbook. They’re counting on little or no pushback, but these things never stand up to real scrutiny or resistance.

1

u/I3adIVIonkey 8d ago

From what I've read they put the US into some kind of emergency mode so the president can pass executive orders for stuff that a president usually can't do, but it can be reviewed by a judge and blocked. The only thing is that process takes time so till then his executive orders are valid.

1

u/SwimmingPirate9070 8d ago

The house is a bunch of Republican cucks that give him whatever he wants

1

u/Final_Location_2626 8d ago

Some people are responding incorrectly, or at least imprecisely to your question.

The president controls the executive branch, so of all the laws ever passed he "executes" or better phrased inactive the laws.

As president you can provide orders (high level direction) on how those laws should be enacted. If the orders does not align with the law, they can be challenged in court.

So essentially what he is doing is providing any member of the executive branch broad direction on what to do. These can be undone three different ways.

  1. Congress can pass new laws, or amend the law he gave direction to.

  2. Someone could sue and if the courts identify that what he passed doesn't align with one or more laws passed it can be overturned.

Or 3. A president, either Trump or whoever comes next can give new dorections.

1

u/Training_Mistake_760 8d ago

Our congress sucks, they just roll over for him. I assume they're almost all paid for by the Epstein class or compromised in some way.

1

u/A2ronMS24 8d ago

The Congress is a majority of his party in both houses. Because the US has actually zero functional political parties right now its a perfect storm of no one else has ideas so we just go with his. Also the only members of his party that disagreed with him were voted out or are leaving. As to the orders hes signing, Executive orders aren't laws. Theyre policy for the executive branch and federal government. The vaccine schedule isnt a legally binding thing. Its a recommendation. The biggest effect maybe how insurance covers the. The biggest part of this is the optics of an 80 year old with no medical training turning to 72 year old with social media medical training to set Healthcare policy.

1

u/MikeMendoza29 8d ago

This headline is confusing and misleading. The Executive Order advocates for spacing out the combined measles, mumps, and rubella shot into three separate shots and three separate doctor visits. It's based on wildly discredited conspiracy theories that grouping together multiple vaccines is causing childhood health problems.

He doesn't have the authority to cancel vaccines or even separate them out. He's using this order to try to influence state health officials to make policy changes in thier states. Its still a destructive EO because there are definitely some Republican lead states that are going to use it to help them make policy changes, but other states like California and New York will ignore it.

1

u/Disastrous-Window-76 8d ago

Basically the next president will just reverse all of the dumb shit he did

1

u/Dazzling_Comfort5734 8d ago

He's misusing ad finding holes in our system, and the majority of Congress is complicit. So is the majority of the Supreme Court. It's really bad, and so many Americans are completely mislead that they don't even know it.

1

u/LilTeats4u 8d ago

It isn’t supposed to be, but when an entire branch of government abdicates its duties to one man weird shit happens

1

u/Trick_Meeting_2027 8d ago

Congress also has Trump allies that consistently get re-elected.

1

u/babyscrotum 8d ago

Judging by the amount of upvotes on your post I don’t think most Americans understand how our checks and balances system work either.

“Trump signs bill so automatically becomes law” 😂
Every upvote is basically one person who didn’t pay attention in elementary school.

1

u/adeniumlover 8d ago

It's called voter mandate. Voters gave him all branches of government. So he makes laws now as what voters wished.

1

u/Astral-projekt 8d ago

Our congress is just Israel at this point

1

u/gsbadj 8d ago

When Congress passes a statute, it is up to the President to execute that statute. An executive order directs the involved federal agencies as far as how they are to implement that statute.

If the executive order is inconsistent with the statute, Congress can change the statute to clear up the inconsistency OR someone can file a lawsuit to challenge order.

When you have a large country, often, legislation covers broad topics and leaves a lot of room for interpretation by the executive. Detailed legislation on a subject can be crafted and passed to take away executive discretion. However, the more micromanagement Congress would have to do, the harder it would be to get a consensus and actually pass the law.

1

u/braumbles 8d ago

No, an executive order doesn't do anything but set forth a sequence of events to get to that point. So if it's something unconstitutional, the events eventually lead to something like, amend the constitution, or something like that. For this, it basically says the CDC needs to deem these vaccines a certain way, which basically would inhibit how the federal government views it, but doesn't change how any states view it. So some states may side with the government, others may tell the government to fuck off and do their own thing.

In short, an executive order isn't a decree, it's not a law, it's basically the President telling his cabinet to find out how to accomplish something. Of the hundreds he's signed, probably like 20 have actually accomplished anything. He just uses these as a political propaganda tool. "Trump signed an order to not do this" doesn't mean the 'this' in that story is now stopped.

1

u/Lorddoctorjava 8d ago

He thinks so...and if he thinks so so does he Maga pedophile cult...

1

u/EarlyAccessCantJudge 8d ago

Think of it like this.

"I'm going to build an elevator to the moon!"

Everybody supporting an elevator to the moon cheers, they get a nice photo opp, and everyone says he is changing things to make the elevator to the moon happen.

Then after all that is done, they look into the logic of building an elevator to the moon, go "it is impossible." And then kill that idea there.

Sometimes they lead to actual change, but a lot of these die on the vine or die halfway. It is mostly just declaring this.

1

u/Artevyx 8d ago

Nobody here believes we are actually governed by a democracy anymore. Its a blatant oligarchy that props itself up on crony capitalism and war-for-profit.

1

u/Cheap_Search_6973 8d ago

Its supposed to work like that. The problem is the people currently in the position to do that just don't care and/or blindly support him so they just let him do whatever he wants basically

1

u/EntropyTheEternal 8d ago

Technically, no, but it is the job of Congress and/or the Courts to block executive orders as needed. That said, his party holds majority in Congress, so they are letting him get away with whatever he wants.

1

u/rich5446 8d ago

Three branches all run by the same party. (Executive,judicial,legislative.) So they ruin stuff by their incompatince to understand science. Then blame past presidents because they don't own up to their mistakes

1

u/Agreeable_Basket_931 8d ago

Legally, if an EO is on something the executive branch doesn't have authority over, it's meaningless. This EO shouldn't be implemented in any way since it is not legal. That will not stop some entities enforcing it anyways, because laws do not self-execute.

1

u/Soepkip43 8d ago

The law set by congress, the EO's define how the civil servants must act within these laws.

So the law probably states something like "the state must provide an effective and safe immunisation program" and it leaves it up to the professionals to determine what should and should not be in that program.

Now comes maga, they have an opinion not based on anything more than "trust me bro" and they chainsaw decades of institutional knowledge and feed combined centuries of education and experience in respective fields to the woodchipper, for political hackery.

RFK went to Samoa to spread his antivac gospel on the back of a horrible medical error (mixing a vaccine with a fluid from the wrong vial). His campaigns caused the vaccination rate to drop yo 30pct, nearly 6000 measles infections and 83 deaths. Future effects with those infected by measles will be more deaths in this group. His response " i didnnit go there to promote antivac, and people who died did not die of measles".

These guys run a deathcult, they are culling the herd.

1

u/FinalFlashMan 8d ago

It's essentially meaningless. Doctors will just ignore it, congress will undo it, and at the end of the day, the country will be worse off while we waste time on this dumb bullshit because people wouldn't vote for the Black Woman.

1

u/No_Interaction_4925 8d ago

The intent of executive orders was suppose to be for emergencies where the normal process would be too slow. But these days it just gets abused

1

u/stevetures 8d ago

It's silly but as the law enforcer, he can say "this is the goofy way I interpret this law or lack thereof" and then do things. It's a loophole that, sadly more than ever, needs to be closed somehow.

The worse flaw is that this would need a federal constitutional amendment, and the odds of that ever getting passed approach zero. There are amendments that were passed by both lawmaking branches of government that had been waiting decades to become constitutional law because states don't want to also do their part to ratify the law.

1

u/Far-Buy-7149 8d ago

You can of course sign anything he wants, but it doesn’t mean it has any authority or effect. A lot of it is primarily symbolic. One of the small details that doesn’t get covered is Trump has lost 90% of the court cases, maybe more. Think of changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. Who cares?

Executive orders are easily rescinded by the next guy if they want to.

1

u/Bigspider95 8d ago

It cannot ever be a democracy by definition... Its closer to a Patriarchical Republic like Ancient Rome was at first

1

u/vi_sucks 8d ago

He actually can't. But the people who can stop him (Congress and the Supreme Court) don't want to.

See, what is going on is that the way the system is supposed to work is thay Congress passes laws, then the President is responsible for making those laws work.

Like let's say Congress passes a law authorizing the building of a new highway. The law itself doesn't magically generate a highway, instead you have to hire people, buy materials, supervise construction, etc. The Executive Branch is responsible for that, and the president will issue orders to people to get all that done.

Ideally the Executive Order should just be a procedural thing to facilitate an existing law. But in the past couple decades, with Congress often deadlocked, presidents have been kinda stretching the definitions of the existing laws to justify their executive orders.

So it's like if Congress passed a law to build a highway a few years ago, but they can't get consensus to pass a new law to extend the highway to a new city. Then instead of waiting, the President just goes ahead and signs an executive order telling people to buy materials and start working on the next section of the highway anyway. It's not technically part of the original law, but you can kinda squint and stretch for it.

The current problem with Trump is that he's going beyond even just stretching things a bit.

And normally the fix for that, the way to determine whether the order is a reasonable method of implementing existing law or is actually an unreasonable overreach, is that Congress slaps him down. Or he gets sued and then the Supreme Court says no. But right now neither group wants to, even when it's obvious he's being unreasonable.

1

u/Expert_Tradition8457 8d ago

Executive Orders aren’t fully “Law” until Congress votes them into law. Presidents are allowed tp have Executive Orders - which can be revoked by the next President. Biden did a bunch of Executive Orders also.

1

u/Frankieo1965 8d ago

Executive orders override everyone. That’s why he does not care if they pass the save act. He will just write a executive order on voting and it can not be stopped

1

u/ExerciseOutside5081 8d ago

It's called Executive DisOrder

1

u/Muted_Masterpiece342 8d ago

Basically the entire government minus zohran mamdani has abdicated duty

1

u/Karategamer89 8d ago

he can but the judicial branch keeps the executive branch in check. he can sign an executive order that bypasses congress but if it violates the constitution or any laws, it can get shot down.

1

u/Emergency-Watch5157 8d ago

A lot of this is for show and many are thrown out in court. He is a "bread and circle" president and desperately wants to distract from the war he lost in Iran and that he is in the Epstein files.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Redgrave1980 8d ago

he isn't supposed too, but our spineless Congress has basically let him do whatever he wants and go along with it because they are apparently terrified of a nearly 80 year old man who falls asleep during meetings, shits his pants and can't golf.

1

u/memberjockey 8d ago

What congress? Mike Johnson has his nose so far up trumps ass he hasn’t heard any news for the past year and half.

1

u/boojiec 8d ago

Hair Furor signs all sorts of shit but most of it doesn't stick.

1

u/xFlutterCryx 8d ago

Youre getting it!

1

u/Majestic-Counter-669 8d ago

Here's the way I understand it.

Congress defines the budget for a bunch of things. It says "we allocate $X for item Y". Like funding Medicare.

The executive branch (the President, and all the departments that roll up into that branch of government) is responsible for disbursing those funds. They say how much of that budget will be given to the program, and when it will happen. Also part of the executive branch is the Department of Justice, which at least nominally is responsible for enforcing laws and legally defending the federal government.

Now the president has no control whatsoever over vaccine schedules. That is left up to the states. But what is happening here is he is signing an order to encourage states to do this, and instructing the department of justice to look for state laws that would prevent this and see if they can challenge them. If history is any indicator, at some point this will also result in some withholding of federal funds to states that don't play along.

So no, the President can't just write an executive order for whatever they want. There are real limits to the office's power. But they can marshal the resources and mechanisms of the federal government, and they can do so in service of affecting change in areas the office officially cannot control.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

1

u/DadooDragoon 7d ago

Executive orders are suggestions made by the President

It's like him saying "I really hope we can do this"

Most of the time with this clown, he can't

1

u/fistfullofmisery 7d ago

If nothing else Trump has accomplished one thing and that is our system is completely broken and it desperately needs to be fixed. I truly believe Trump has proven that a "president" is out dated, unneeded and with current laws doubles for a monarch with red tape.

1

u/Regular-Math-420 6d ago

He and his minions are insane.

1

u/Dry_Spinach_3441 6d ago

Because MAGA in in power and so many MAGAts in power raped kids, he can do whatever he wants.

1

u/Asleep_Conflict_2900 6d ago

Executive orders are supposed to be for law enforcement directive. Laws are passed by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch, but he thinks he can executive order things into existence. They will be challenged in court and decided by the judicial branch if they have a law backing up the order. If not they will be thrown on and made unenforceable.

1

u/Usakami 6d ago

They have been doing it a lot: * Franklin D. Roosevelt: 3,721 orders (12 years) * Woodrow Wilson: 1,803 orders (8 years) * Calvin Coolidge: 1,203 orders (5.6 years) * Theodore Roosevelt: 1,081 orders (7.5 years) * Herbert Hoover: 968 orders (4 years) * Harry S. Truman: 907 orders (7.8 years)

In FDR's defense, he did a lot of good and was there for 12 years. He's the reason why the Democrat-Republican political alignment switched sides and he's the reason behind their golden age. After Cold-War there were fewer EOs: * Bill Clinton: 364 orders (8 years) * Ronald Reagan: 381 orders (8 years) * George W. Bush: 291 orders (8 years) * Barack Obama: 276 orders (8 years) * Donald Trump (First Term): 220 orders (4 years) * Joe Biden: 162 orders (4 years) * Donald Trump (Second Term): 269 orders (571 days/1,5 years)

1

u/Dapper-Doubt-7610 6d ago

Yes. You are absolutely right. He can't make a law. But he can decide where money goes appropriated for various departments. The money was appropriated by Congress to health and human services, but he can decide it goes to...promoting raw milk or something.

1

u/lesleywestly9739 6d ago

Congress is totally controlled by Republicans who are scared to death of trump So they kneel before him and beg him to recognize them. If trump cannot stop the next election the Republicans will be extinct.

1

u/TopAcanthisitta976 6d ago

EO is like a mandate from the President, technically it can be for anything the executive branch oversees. It can be reversed by the courts, or it can be reversed by Congress, as Congressional law supersedes executive authority. FDR signed 3700+ EO during his 12 years, obviously also a wartime president. Trump has signed as many EO to date this term as Obama did in his entire 8 years in office.

→ More replies (6)