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 in court or legal pleadings, or aren’t relevant to the application of law, only that they are almost never controlling outside of internal executive branch administration.
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.
The preface of this EO evokes Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. This act and its relevance are discussed in the previous week’s Executive Order Weekly Report regarding EO 14220.
Section 1–3 are a timber/lumber themed version of EO 14220.
Section 4 delineates timber and lumber as not processed and processed respectively.
As with EO 14220, this honestly could have been an email, it is just directing executive branch staff to perform a function. However, it is important to read this EO with EO 14226 to understand how it will be used to impact American and Canadian lumber/timber production. Both EOs will be discussed further under EO 14226 below.
Section 1 gives a vague history of English being used as the national language of the United States. This goes on for a while.
Section 2 is some standard definitions of “Agency” and “Agency Head.”
Section 3 designates English as the official language of the United States. It also revokes EO 13166, without affecting services being provided by agencies, and revokes any guidance related to EO 13166.
This EO on its face simply does as it says and makes English the official language of the United States. Government designated official languages are common throughout the world. The best reading of why a country might implement an official language is that there are a number of commonly used languages amongst the population, these languages are used interchangeably without consistency, and such inconsistency leads to issues within the nation. This is why many African nations have made French or English an official language,1 as both languages are widely spoken by different ethnicities that have separate languages. Additionally, the adoption of these languages doesn’t require the rapid development of new words within languages that have not been used within government, business, or other modern institutions.
As one may suspect after the previous example, official languages are incredibly political and are often implemented for hegemonic or even ethnic cleansing goals. Russia and other colonial powers have outlawed the use of native languages in their colonies and subjects under the guise of official language laws. Such enforcement of language stretches back through human history, and to list them all would not be helpful here.
In a modern American context, an official language is far more likely being implemented for cultural rather than logistical reasons. Federal, state, and local governments operate almost entirely in the English language and provide all public facing communications in English. While the United States is a multi-cultural society of immigrants, with a multitude of languages, it would be difficult to identify societal issues stemming from these different languages.
Looking to the text of the EO, section 1 touches on the history of the nation and unity amongst citizens. While there is language as to how a single language is efficient and consistent, the stability derived from the official language would be from a standardization of American culture and experience. Further, it focuses on benefiting those who conform to a monoculture.
The designation of an official language will likely have little effect. Hidden within the EO is the revocation of EO 13166, and a direct attack on government benefits and services provided to non-native English speakers. EO 13166 focuses on increasing accessibility to government services to people who have limited English proficiency (LEPs). It ensures that government agencies provide alternate language materials to LEPs and take steps to prevent their agency from withholding services that would have otherwise been provided to an LEP only on the basis of their language abilities. Dismantling this EO now means that LEPs (overwhelmingly immigrants) will inevitably receive fewer government benefits and services.
Section 1 is a truncated version of Section 1 of EO 14223 plus some complaining about federal regulations.
Section 2 orders the Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate with other agency heads to issue guidance to facilitate increased timber production within 30 days. It also orders the Secretary of the Interior to improve the speed of approving forestry projects within 60 days. Finally, the two Secretaries within 90 days are to submit to the president a plan to set targets for more timber production from federal lands. Finally, it has a number of deadlines for new regulations regarding timber and its domestic exploitation.
Section 3 directs agencies to eliminate undue delays in approving permits for timber production.
Section 4 appears to show deference to the Endangered Species Act and its corresponding Committee, while also demanding they identify what parts of the ESA hinder timber production.
The United States owns a significant amount of wooded land that is either protected or not actively logged. This EO likely will now allow American logging companies to bid for new contracts with the American government. While this may stimulate, or even subsidize, growth in the American logging industry, the clear cutting of these forests will likely have far reaching negative effects. When combined with EO 14224 the Administration is taking action regarding both imports and government assets in regards to timber and lumber production.
While this and EO 14224 are signals to the Administration’s pro-isolationist base, they also set up for a windfall for logging companies in the United States. As with copper, I do not have the knowledge to speak about timber or lumber markets and industry to provide a meaningful commentary. I will direct you to two different articles 1, 2 for such analysis, though this is only a sampling of the myriad opinions and perspectives on these EOs.
In more speculative discussion, these EOs serve multiple purposes for the Administration. The aforementioned virtue signaling to the isolationist base, the “fulfilling of promises” regarding tariffs, and potentially the punishing of Canada. The Administration’s interest in economic dominance, to the point of conquest, of Canada has been explicit since before Donald Trump took office. Timber is a primary import from Canada to America, while America will suffer greatly by any restriction on imports, Canada will suffer as well. The opening of fresh logging on lands owned by the Government will undoubtedly boost American logging companies, though if it will be sufficient to fulfill American lumber needs is suspect. These two EO’s will put serious economic pressure on Canada, not only by potential tariffs but by a stronger American logging industry.
Canadians holding up ‘Elbows Up Canada’ signs. © Justin Tang/The
Canadian Press via AP.
The preface of this EO invokes the International Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, and 3 USC Section 301.
Section 1 amends EO 14193 section 2(h) regarding the Duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321.
This is a pretty precise change to the sweeping tariffs introduced against Canada. It essentially allows duty free imports of commodities in quantities under $800.
It’s likely that this was changed to avoid any public backlash by an average person. Preventing duty free importing would probably be one of the only ways that an average person might actually experience a direct negative feeling from the tariffs that could be easily directed at the administration.
While almost inconsequential on its face, this EO does provide a small insight into the Administration. They are taking precise and intentional measures to make their actions less personal to their supporters. It shows that to some degree, they still care about public opinion, and will adjust to please it.
The same as EO 14226, but it is regarding EO 14194.
See “What it Means” in EO 14193, but it’s about Mexico not Canada.
See “Looking Forward” in EO 14193, but it’s about Mexico not Canada.
The preface of this EO evokes the same laws as the previous two EOs.
Section 1 gets mad at the People’s Republic of China for not reducing fentanyl and other drugs being shipped into America.
Section 2 amends EO 14195 to increase from a 10% to a 20% tariff on Chinese goods.
This EO is pretty straightforwardly about increasing the tariff on Chinese goods from 10 to 20%.
While trump appears to be playing hardball with China, it is interesting to see that even after this escalation, our tariffs on China are lower than those on our allies. The PRC’s response to the Administration’s tariffs has been vocal, but predictable. I would not be surprised if we don’t see some well executed diplomacy and flattery from Xi Jinping towards Donald Trump that results in a capitulation of the tariffs, for little to no concessions.