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 has some broad language about how AI is important and the US should try to educate children about it.
Section 2 states it is the policy of the US to teach AI literacy and proficiency.
Section 3 defines AI for the EO.
Section 4 establishes an educational task force made up of a number of secretaries.
Section 5 creates a Presidential Artificial Intelligence Challenge to encourage education in AI.
Section 6 lays out how the task force is to help promote education with a focus on public-private agreements.
Section 7 orders the Secretary of Education to prioritize teacher training in AI via grants.
Section 8 orders the Secretary of Labor to focus on establishing AI related Apprenticeships.
I don’t know much about AI, but this EO seems to reflect that neither does the Administration. It is incredibly vague and broad about its goals. It also just discusses things that don’t have a point of reference, what would the Presidential AI Challenge be? What is an AI-related apprenticeship?
This seems like a pretty ripe avenue for graft for tech companies and government contractors who wish to use AI as cover for appropriating government funds.
Section 1 states it wants to streamline fragmented workforce development programs.
Section 2 states it is the policy of the US to optimize and target Federal investments in workforce development.
Section 3 orders various Secretaries to review all Federal workforce development programs to consolidate and streamline them.
Section 4 orders various Secretaries to develop a plan to reach and surpass 1 million new active apprenticeships.
Section 5 orders various Secretaries to improve transparency on performance outcomes of thes programs.
This appears to be a move to consolidate the various programs funded through various agencies under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Many of these programs are operated by the states and funded under this act. There are some that are national, and theoretically could be consolidated.
While on its face this EO seems to be a positive in helping create more work opportunities. It more likely is simply virtue signaling to the right’s obsession with trade jobs and apprenticeships. This not so subtly continues in the Administration’s goal to undermine higher education.
Section 1 disparages the Medical and Legal accreditation system in the US.
Section 2 order the Secretary of Education look for reasons to sue schools and accreditors that have DEI programs or standards.
Section 3 lays out new principles of accreditation that sets a list of standards for accreditation organizations to follow. This list includes promotion of intellectual diversity. This section also calls for recognizing additional accreditors to “increase competition and accountability”, and other measures to undermine them.
This EO is a direct attack on the legal and medical education system in America. It is an attempt to control the ideology and remove the independence of these institutions. Accreditation is not only important to reflect whether a school is competent to produce doctors or lawyers, it is a prerequisite for receiving a federal student loan. This means that if a school loses accreditation, it will likely lose a significant amount of attendees and income.
This EO is incredibly dangerous and will likely lead to a clash between the organizations and the government. This EO undermines higher education, student’s abilities to get federal student loans and grants, can be used by Trump to force schools to police the thoughts of their students and professors, and will exacerbate the lawyer and doctor shortage in America.
Harvard University/Source:
Harvard University
Section 1 disparages concepts of equitable discipline in school. It complains of schools incorporating disparate impact analysis in their methods of discipline as were required under Obama and Biden.
Section 2 defines terms for the EO.
Section 3 requires the Secretary of Education to issue new guidance for discipline that no longer uses disparate impact analysis.
Disparate impact discipline is an analysis on a school’s forms of discipline to make sure that it does not overly punish different groups of students. This way discipline in schools is more fairly dispensed.
This EO will likely allow for discipline in schools to negatively affect, most likely minority, children that attend. This is a virtue signal to the right as many blame the issue in American education on teachers’ ability to discipline children effectively.
Section 1, similar to the previous EO, complains of disparity impact liability, though this time it is applied to the application of law broadly.
Section 2 states that it is the policy of the US to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts
Section 3 revokes a number of Presidential acts under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Section 4 orders all agencies to no longer consider disparate-impact liability in their actions and enforcement of the law.
Section 5 orders the AG to initiate appropriate action to repeal or amend regulations under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Section 6 orders the AG and head of the EEOC to close all cases and investigations based on impact-disparate liability.
Section 7 orders the AG and other agencies identify state laws that should be be preempted by federal law to no longer consider disparate-impact liability in there enforcement
Disparity-impact liability is when racial intent may not be present, but the enforcement or consequence of enforcement results in a disparate impact on individuals of a race, color, or national origin group.
To find this there is a three part test:
1. Disparate impact - does the effect fall on a group disproportionately?
2. Justification - if so does the record establish substantially legitimate justification for the policy/practice?
3. Less discriminatory alternative - is there an alternative that would achieve the same legitimate objective but with less of a discriminatory effect?
This EO now orders the government to no longer consider or enforce this concept. Title VI guarantees equal distribution of government benefits based on race, color, or national origin group. This EO specifically targets this section.
We will likely see government benefits and executive action having a greater impact in the white community and less impact in non-white communities. Interestingly, while the Executive can take this action, the EO by no means protects it from a private cause of action for such disparate impact liability. While these suits are rare, a person can sue the government for such a violation, and this EO explicitly orders the government to violate Title VI.
Section 1 talks about how great our offshore mineral resources are.
Section 2 says it is the policy of the US to advance our capabilities and investments in seabed mineral development.
Section 3 directs various Secretaries to take steps to promote undersea mineral development.
Section 4 defines terms for the EO.
This EO means what it says. It is trying to increase US offshore mining.
Whether this EO is more than graft is yet to be seen. However, should the EO actually result in an increase in offshore mining, it is almost guaranteed to harm fisheries and other ecosystems without any regard as to the externalities that will result.
Section 1 talks about how great truckers are and that laws for trucker safety should be followed.
Section 2 states it is the policy of the Administration to support truckers.
Section 3 orders the Secretary of Transportation to create new guidance to require English proficiency.
Section 4 orders the Secretary of Transportation to review state agency policies for issuing CDLs and to take action to ensure federal compliance.
Section 5 orders the Secretary of Transportation to identify additional actions to help truck drivers.
This EO focuses on English comprehension in Truckers, and standardization of licensure.
While simple in purpose and goals this EO has two sinister implications. First it will likely reduce the amount of immigrant truck drivers, a significant portion of the trucker population. English proficiency is important, though the proficiency needed to operate an 18 wheeler and navigate a route in America is likely quite low. The other implication is in finding the other “actions to help truckers”. The Motor Carrier Act regulates almost all aspects of the business of trucking. While it may create some inefficiencies in the market, it almost entirely is because it prevents companies from abusing and taking advantage of truckers. It would be unsurprising if the Administration uses this EO as a foundation to attack this law, and promote the exploitation of American truckers.
Section 1 claims that the prior administration let in unchecked millions of undocumented aliens and that federal, state, and local officials are aiding them in avoiding deportation.
Section 2 orders the AG with the head of DHS to identify sanctuary jurisdictions and provide them notice of potential violations of federal criminal law.
Section 3 orders the identification of federal benefits or funds being provided to these sanctuary jurisdictions. It also orders the AG and head of DHS to use all legal remedies to end the sanctuary status of these jurisdictions.
Section 4 orders the creation of guidance to restrict federal benefits to individuals within a sanctuary jurisdiction.
Section 5 orders the AG and head of DHS to stop the application of laws that favor aliens in criminal charges and sentencing or that allow lower cost for instate tuition to aliens.
This is yet another EO targeting sanctuary cities, counties, and states. It is an attempt to impose federal will onto state and local governments that otherwise are allowed to act in this manner.
While there is no legitimate legal route to end sanctuary jurisdictions, withholding federal funds from these jurisdictions is possible now that the republican held congress has essentially ratified powers of impoundment. The withholding of federal benefits to individuals within a sanctuary jurisdiction is strictly illegal, and should not survive long in the courts. However, by imposing this pressure, it is possible that smaller or less resilient jurisdictions will willingly give up their sanctuary status and thus immigrants of all kinds within them will become vulnerable to this Administration.
Section 1 hypes up law enforcement in America.
Section 2 orders the AG to take the steps to provide more resources to help cops.
Section 3 orders the AG to use federal resources to assist and protect law enforcement officers.
Section 4 orders the increase in the sale of excess military assets to law enforcement. It also orders SecDef to coordinate with AG how the military can be used to combat crime.
Section 5 directs the AG to bring legal action against state and local officials who obstruct law enforcement officers and DEI initiatives.
Section 6 directs the AG and Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize the Homeland Security Task Forces to implement this order.
This EO yet again signals this Administration’s support of law enforcement. While military equipment has been given/sold to police departments for a while now, this EO will make such transfers easier. It also is one in a string of EOs that encourage the federal government to intervene in state matters. Section 4 is especially alarming considering the military is not allowed to act domestically, even in a law enforcement role. Section 5 is of note considering that the Administration has shown a propensity for arresting judges.
This EO will likely suffer greatly in the courts, as it directly calls for multiple illegal actions. In the meantime it will likely be a pretext for the militarization of law enforcement. Additionally this EO signals strongly to bringing police and other law enforcement organizations under the command of the federal executive. Rather than being loyal to their city/county/state, this EO clearly intends for a centralization of command when it comes to law enforcement in America.
Section 1 admits that the Administration's multiple tariffs are confusing and overlap in ways that need clarity.
Section 2 identifies the tariffs that are being addressed.
Section 3 states that where the tariffs identified overlap, they are not additive.
Section 4 says that this order doesn’t lower any of the tariffs identified on their own.
Section 5 orders the guidance for these tariffs to be updated.
This EO clears up some, but not much, of the confusion around tariffs imposed by this Administration. The president has so wantonly applied tariffs to things, industries, and countries that it is hard to determine what a final tariffed amount is on a given item. This EO now tries to cut through this web of dementia based trade policy to tell us that tariffs are not additive and if multiple tariffs could apply to an imported good, only the highest would apply.
Technically this is a form of tariff relief in many ways. This Administration has little tact or plan when it comes to its tariffs so it is unsurprising to see overlap like this without guidance when it occurs. This EO is bordering on comedic considering how much it simply admits that this Administration is both incompetent and short sighted in its actions.
