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.
Section 1 lays out that since a single child, named Jocelyn Nungaray, was murdered on June 17, 2024 by two Venezuelans who were undocumented and allegedly1 members of the Tren de Aragua gang, they should rename the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge to the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge.
Section 2 is the actual order to rename the refuge under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.
The plan reading of this text is enough to understand its tangible effects. The refuge has been renamed.
This refuge, a small wetland to the east of Houston, Texas, has little relevance to the death of Jocelyn Nungaray. She lived in Houston, and allegedly loved nature. However, Donald Trump’s attempt at immortalizing her with the name change, is a far more narcissistic and selfish move than it appears on its face. During his campaign, Donald Trump was fond of waiving about her death to scare Americans about undocumented migrants. I will not comment on the circumstances of her death or her murderers, though an article with a summary is included for reference. There is little more to say about this EO other than Donald Trump has now not only used the poor victim’s name for his own gain, but now has forever associated her with his corrupt administration.
Section 1 reads like a really petty burn book entry about Perkins Coie LLP, a law firm that has worked with political candidates and in lawsuits against the government. It connects them to Hillary Clinton, an unfounded conspiracy regarding election fraud, and George Soros. It mentions, but fails to cite, a case in which Perkins Coie attorneys were sanctioned for an unethical lack of candor. It calls out a diversity initiative of the firm for being racist. It then uses this claim of bigotry to say that the firm has ceded all right to have any security clearance.
Section 2 then directs the DNI and other relevant departments to withdraw any security credentials of Perkins Coie. It then directs all agencies to cease any possible benefit given to Perkins Coie.
Section 3 reiterates that the firm is bigoted and assisted in election fraud and therefore directs that all agencies terminate any contracts with Perkins Coie.
Section 4 directs the EEOC to target Perkins Coie for unfair business practices.
Section 5 bars Perkins Coie employees from entering federal buildings and bars the hiring of Perkins Coie employees.
Breaking the EO into parts, it is quite a mess of insults and attacks on Perkins Coie. While the government is not required to work with any particular law firm, and may choose who it employs, but this EO is far beyond such a simple decision. The removal of security clearances in such a sweeping motion is unconventional, as is the explicit direction to the EEOC to target the firm for unfair business practices. The barring of Perkins Coie employees from federal buildings likely will not survive a hearing. The allegations of racism could form the basis of a claim of defamation, though whether the firm will bring this claim is not likely.
Taken holistically, the EO clearly is a targeted attack at a firm that was working against Trump’s interests. Trump’s allegations are the most perverse twisting of reality, in order to gloss over the naked aggression he is presenting against Perkins Coie. There was no unethical or illegal behavior while representing Hillary Clinton in 2016. Their involvement with the Steele Dossier also was neither unethical nor particularly unique as far as opposition research. Any representation of Satan’s direct incarnation, George Soros, was neither unique nor in some way resulting in unlawful overturning of laws, voter registration related or otherwise. While ethics violations are nothing to be scoffed at, at a firm the size of Perkins Coie one of their many attorneys being sanctioned is not uncommon nor surprising.
Perkins Coie have already filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of this EO. The barring of Perkins Coie employees from federal property is almost certain to be overturned. Defamation and breach of contract are likely other claims that they could be successful with. This is of course little comfort, as it is clear the Administration will be used in any way possible to harass and harm this law firm. The direction to the EEOC being so public, likely indicates a myriad of other actions taken by the government against Perkins Coie.
Perkins Coie is a capable and well managed firm, seeing how they and the judiciary react to this authoritarian and draconian will likely be a good template of what to do, or how brutal the Administration will be. If Perkins Coie is lucky, the US Government will get tired and move on, if not we might see just how willing Donald Trump is to twist his power to punish his enemies.
On a personal level, I understand that attorneys as a group are not loved by the public, and do not make sympathetic victims. However, I am disturbed by this action, and the Administration’s actions against other firms. Attacking a firm and officers of the court for performing their duties to their client is abhorrent, and should be condemned fully by the legal community. To see their statement and see updates of their ongoing case with the government, they have provided a statement and page on their website.
Section 1 tries to cover for the Administration having no spine and backing down from actually implementing the tariffs that they tried to implement against Canada.
Section 2 designates the goods under the terms of general note 11 to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), including any treatment set forth in chapter XXIII of chapter 98 and subchapter XXII of chapter 99 of HTSUS as related to the USMCA to not be subject to the additional duties under 2(a) or 2(b) of EO 14193. It also lowers the potash tariff from 25 to 10%.
This is an uncharacteristically dense EO with changes to the sweeping tariffs the Administration initiated against Canada. Reading through the three links included in the paragraph above can make your eyes go crossed and leave you wondering what is even being changed. A guiding rule is that goods that are covered under the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USCMA) are not subject to the 25% tariff imposed by the Administration. It also reduces the tariff of potash, an important component of fertilizer, from 25% to 10%.
As with most of the negotiations initiated by Donald Trump, the Administration is quickly trying to back down the country from implementing the policies that he comes up with off the cuff. This delay is likely being implemented in order to create space for a negotiation of a more favorable trade agreement for the US than the USMCA. This is a high goal, as the USMCA is largely to the United States’ favor, and crafted mostly by the prior Trump Administration. While I have studied the NAFTA2 and USMCA from a legal perspective, I will withhold any specific analysis of these treaties for a different article.
This is not the first, nor will it likely be the last, time we see this Administration fail to follow through with a threat when met with the cold light of day and the red light of the stock market in response to the President’s reckless language.
Should the tariffs resume as of April 2, 2025. There is little doubt that every corner of the American and Canadian economies will suffer greatly. Both economies, thanks to the NAFTA and USCMA, have become integrated such that neither is in any position to assume the specialties of the other. Currently there are highschool classes that have covered the concept of Comparative Advantage this semester. Hopefully one of their students will share their notes with the White House in time to prevent too much harm.
Section 1 is equally as mewling and pathetic as the one in EO 14231, but about Mexico.
Section 2 is also a Mexican themed version of Section 2 in EO 14231.
Please see the “What it Means” section of EO 14231.
Please see the “Looking Forward” section of EO 14231. Any use of the word “Canada” replace with “Mexico” in your mind.
Section 1 gives a very poor explanation of what Bitcoin is. It also points out that the US government holds a significant amount of crypto due to civil forfeiture and taking assets of criminals.
Section 2 establishes the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.
Section 3 directs the Secretary of the Treasury to establish an office to administer and maintain the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.
Section 4 requires all agency heads to provide an accounting of the digital assets under their agency’s control.
The EO is, by itself, inoffensive and, in a vacuum, be something that would benefit the US Government. While a discussion of the value, viability, and use of digital assets are all up for debate, they are discussed neither in the EO3 or this report. Regardless, the US Government is in possession of as much as $19 billion in digital assets, mostly bitcoin. These digital assets, before this EO, were not held centrally nor with consistent record keeping. The Treasury department holding and maintaining them could be the right step for the US Government to protect its assets.
That being said, whether proper procedures and safety measures will be taken, and whether proper recording methods will be observed, are yet to be seen. This EO in no way guarantees that such a reserve will be little more than a slush fund for the Administration, or a grand prize for enterprising hackers.
My understanding of digital assets is only slightly above the average person’s and I will not attempt to discuss the benefits or detriments of them generally or individually. However, this strategic reserve does not require much understanding of digital assets to understand the issues that surround it.
First, security of these digital assets is not clearly something within the capabilities of the Treasury or any ad hoc department they form to do so. Digital assets are notorious for their vulnerability to hackers and clandestine operations.
Second, there is no clear value to the nation for this strategic reserve. The strategic oil and bullion reserves are regarding commodities that have uses within the economy and can be used to help smooth spikes in these markets as well as protect the needs of the United States government for these commodities. There’s little clear use for digital assets held by the United States Government, other than to potentially sell and use the funds gained by doing so.
Third and most concerning, while there is no directive here for the Treasury to purchase digital assets, there is nothing preventing it from doing so at the Administration’s direction. Should the Administration impound funds from other departments, they could then use that money to buy digital assets. While there technically is an exchange of goods, and now the government has an asset, they are speculative and hold no real intrinsic value. This means that large holders of digital assets could offload them for real US dollars, and leave the crypto market entirely. This turns every digital asset into a potential rugpull, at the American taxpayer’s expense. There are few other actions throughout history that are so nakedly paying the wealthy directly from the government coffers. There should be no mistake, even if the language of this EO might speak to a digital reserve that could serve some purpose, the only likely outcome will be corruption with a shiny crypto sheen of paint.
Section 1 gives a brief history of the PSLF Program. It then claims the Biden Administration abused the PSLF program. It talks about Donald Trump’s duties as the president, most unrelated to student loans, and how this EO is connected to them.
Section 2 then directs the Secretary of Education to revise the PSLF to prevent any potential beneficiary of the PSLF to receive loan forgiveness if they help undocumented migrants, terrorists, child abusers (trans health care), illegal discrimination (DEI), or violating state tort laws (protesting).
In an especially cruel move, the EO will prevent any person working in the government or approved non-profit under the PSLF program from receiving loan forgiveness if they work in a field that offends the Administration. The categories are broad enough that it will likely mean a significant number of people enrolled under PSLF will not receive loan forgiveness. If a doctor working in a hospital in a sanctuary city provides health care to an undocumented migrant, the employees of a government agency partook in a DEI program, a person who works for the government or non-profit protests outside of work, or a person says in a private conversation that trans children should receive healthcare, or a person stated that they believed that Palestinians deserve sympathy, they could be refused loan forgiveness due to this EO.
This in conjunction with the Administration’s shuttering of the Department of Education, it is likely that we are seeing attempts to preserve as many student loans as possible. Some have speculated that this is simply the Administration believing any forgiveness would be a loss. By keeping the loans, in their view, the US Government is retaining an asset and the income derived from it. Others have argued that the retaining of these loans is to at some point in the future off load them to a private owner.
Regardless of the intent, the PSLF beneficiaries enrolled in the program under specific terms, and the unilateral changes made to those terms by the Administration likely cannot be applied to them. While the executive branch may take measures to prevent the forgiveness of these loans, it is possible that a court will rule that even if the forgiveness is not granted by the executive, the enrolled person is entitled to such forgiveness. Likely this would result in those people leaving their position, continuing to paying their monthly minimum, then once a new regime is elected who is favorable to student loans, sue for overpayments.
