This report is only a summary and editorial regarding the executive orders (“EOs”) signed by the Trump Administration during the last week. EOs are not legislation or court opinions. They do not carry the weight of law, and are merely statements of policy within the executive branch. That is not to say they cannot be cited, or relevant to the application of law, only that they are almost never controlling in a court of law.
EOs are signed and reported on, generally, a week before they are published into the Federal Register. Until such a publication, it can be difficult to know the exact language of the signed EO. For that reason, these reports only include EOs published in the Federal Register. While this can lead to these reports feeling delayed or dated, it is to ensure precision and clarity.
While I am a licensed attorney, this is not paid legal advice. Nothing in this communication is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Unless expressly stated otherwise, nothing contained in this article should be construed as a digital or electronic signature, nor is it intended to reflect an intention to make an agreement by electronic means.
Section 1 sets out that copper is both an essential material to the US and that our smelting and refining capacity lags behind global competitors. It states that the Administration wishes to ensure a reliable, secure, and resilient domestic copper supply chain. Further the EO purports to be an enforcement of 232 of the Trade Expansion Act with regards to imports of copper, scrap copper, and copper derivative products.
Section 2 orders the Secretary of Commerce to investigate under 232 of the TEA to determine the effects on national security of the various imports related to copper. Such determination is to be conducted with the factors set forth in 19 USC 1862(d) regarding national defense.
Section 3 orders the Secretary of Commerce to consult with the Secretary of Defense, Interior, and Energy as well as any other agency heads deemed necessary regarding the national security risks associated with imported copper.
This EO could have been an email to the Secretary of Commerce. There is no decision about investment, halting trade, or other policy action that would actually affect the copper market within the US. Essentially the Administration deemed it necessary to sign an EO asking the Secretary of Commerce to look into copper imports.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act is likely a favorite of the Administration as it bars congress from decreasing or eliminating tariffs implemented by the Administration under the Tariff Act of 1930. Additionally, it allows for the compiling of a report for imports affecting national security. It empowers the executive to take action to ensure the imported commodity is regulated sufficiently to not negatively affect national security. Ultimately, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act only reinforces that this EO is redundant.
With that in mind, this EO is a clear signal to the Administration’s base about their focus on manufacturing and isolationist policies.
This, like many EOs, will simply pad the register. I will not get into the intricacies of US copper imports, because I do not personally care or have the knowledge to do so. If you are interested for some reason in the minutia, I will direct you to this article. It’s not clear the fallout, or even motivation beyond virtue signaling about isolationism, of this EO.
I have no support for this, but I’m going to go ahead and assume the Administration ended the production of the penny to conserve copper. (Despite pennies only being 2.5% copper).
Section 1 calls back to Donald Trump’s prior administration’s goal to increase transparency in healthcare pricing and costs. It directly cites to EO 13877 that required disclosure of price information. It goes on to state, without clear support, that the first EO was a resounding success (a generous reading of history for EO 13877), yet also has left room for more executive action.
Section 2 then says it is the policy of the Administration to:
Section 3 requires the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and HHS to take all appropriate actions to rapidly implement and enforce healthcare price transparency regulations issued pursuant to EO 13877 within 90 days of the signing of the EO.
This is essentially a rerelease of EO 13877, but with a broader scope and less specific goal. While EO 13877 was tied to a limited set of services that were to have defined prices for patients, this EO now just asks for “more transparency”. It’s not clear how, or to whom, this will be applied.
While insurers are mentioned in both EOs, the hospitals and providers bear the brunt of the public ire as a result of how the two EOs have been reported on. That is not to say insurers were not affected by it. Insurers have, for the most part, complied, but are largely left out of the conversation when talking about healthcare pricing.
While this EO appears to simply reiterate a previous EO, it is a good foil to compare Trump’s previous presidency to the current one. Where EO 13877 was limited in scope, had defined goals, and placed actual plans of action to achieve said goals, this EO is so broad as to have no real purpose. It is a good example of the Administration’s MO to provide good sounding initiatives and goals with little to no substance.
EO 13877 was impactful, though whether good or bad remains a debate, and led to some actual rule changes that survived challenges in the courts. It’s not clear how this iteration will improve on its predecessor. It’s unsurprising that the Administration wanted to bring attention to the previous EO, as it was one of the few universal positives from Trump’s previous term, at least in the mind of the public.
Section 1 states that the EO is to commence a transformation regarding federal spending in order to make it transparent and to make government employees accountable to the American public.
Section 2 is just a bunch of definitions.
Section 3 requires agency heads to coordinate with agency DOGE teams to build a “centralized technological system” within the agency to record payments issued by the agency. It details a requirement for justifications to be written for such payments and the agency head’s ability to check such justifications. Further a comprehensive review of the agencies contracting policies are to be done within 30 days. The DOGE teams within the agencies are to take part in such oversight, and are included in almost every step of these processes. Finally the EO requires each agency head to provide a real property report of all real property subject to the agency’s administration.
This EO is a further expansion of the Administration’s direct control of the various executive agencies. It also attempts to instill the DOGE entity as a kind of Administration oversight for spending within the executive branch. This new monitoring and justification of payments within agencies belies a clear misunderstanding of the internal functions of the government and the agencies of the executive branch.
This EO, and the others that spread DOGE through our government, attempt to adopt the CCP’s method of blending party with state. DOGE is able to monitor every function within the government, and report back to the Administration. This may seem redundant, as the president is the head of the executive branch, and functionally already controls these organizations. Such a conclusion is misguided, as the “justification” and “approval” process is a way to monitor the employees in these agencies and ensure loyalty to Trump rather than the government.
While the Administration claims to have the goal of reducing government expenses and bureaucracy, this EO does neither, and in fact increases both. Adding additional personnel to oversee agencies, and every expenditure of said agency, will inevitably increase the expense and bureaucratic bloat of the executive branch significantly. Beyond DOGE itself, requiring a justification for each expenditure, paired with the evaluation of said justification, will also significantly increase government bloat. The delay in spending, which is not to imply that government action was rapid prior to this EO, will cause delays in assistance to the vulnerable and further increase cost of individual projects.
Beyond this hypocrisy regarding efficiency, we are approaching what feels like the beginning of a Ministry of Truth within the government. The “justifications” for spending will likely be used as purity tests, and one of many methods by which to control speech and thought of government workers. When viewed with the firings under Tulsi Gabbard of CIA personnel whose only crime was discussing trans people, it is clear that loyalty to the ideology of MAGA is the ultimate goal of this and similar EOs.
While there is little to be done to fight such an EO, as it is simply establishing policy within the executive branch, it is unclear how impactful it will be. At best, it might simply mean there is a no-show job for some DOGE employee in each agency who simply rubber stamps the extra form each government employee will fill out for a request for payment. At worst, it could mean that DOGE will have access and records of government spending with little oversight as to how they will use or dispense with it. With any luck, the time and expense of actually implementing this EO will result in the Administration quietly ignoring it.