Staff Reports
President Trump wasted no time getting back into the swing of things after his reelection, quickly signing a dizzying array of executive orders on his first day back in the Oval Office. While they might hope to slow him down, the chorus of lawsuits aiming to block his actions seems to be running a close second to his ambitious agenda. In a whirlwind start to what he promises will be a whirlwind administration, Trump signed off on 43 executive orders by the end of the week. That’s 43 chances for various left-leaning factions to throw a legal wrench into the works, and they are not shy about getting in line to file their objections.
The legal opposition to Trump is impressive in its own right, as a staggering 24 lawsuits have already been lodged to contest these Executive Orders. One such suit seeks to derail the Biden administration’s whimsical new app aimed at helping hopeful asylum seekers, which Trump promptly put a halt to with a swift directive aimed at the Department of Homeland Security, effectively putting that application where it belongs—on the shelf.
Number of Trump executive orders nearly matched by lawsuits as judges pause two major ones
Temporary blocks result from multiple lawsuits over plans to halt federal funding and executive order on birthright citizenship.https://t.co/f0XFC8e5wh
— Trump2024_no_matter_what (@TexasTrump2024) February 3, 2025
Among the laundry list of lawsuits, the resistance has targeted Trump’s order to create the Department of Government Efficiency. Apparently, efficiency is a controversial subject in some circles. Another contentious order aims to punish sanctuary cities and states for their stubborn refusal to cooperate with federal immigration laws. And let’s not overlook the seven separate lawsuits challenging his move to redefine birthright citizenship. A federal judge temporarily blocked this endeavor recently, which was brought about by a coalition of four states whose motto appears to be “everyone gets a trophy,” regardless of the merits.
The order in question is titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. If it survives this legal onslaught, it will aim to redefine citizenship in a way that keeps American values intact. However, it seems that even a Ronald Reagan appointee like Judge John C. Coughenour is taking umbrage with it, claiming it’s unconstitutional. A claim that sounds suspiciously like a plea for preserving the status quo in a changing America.
On the topic of federal funding, Trump’s administration faces a new wave of opposition. Two judges have slapped temporary pauses on efforts to freeze federal funding across various programs. In the latest courtroom drama, after one judge in Washington halted the plan just before it would go into effect, another judge from Rhode Island jumped on the bandwagon of judicial activism, siding with a multitude of states clamoring for the cash to keep flowing without interruption.
The validity of these lawsuits remains an intricate legal puzzle, especially considering Trump’s administration decided to backtrack on its funding freeze. This order was intended to put an end to the financial draining caused by various non-profits and diversity programs that many see as wasteful. Trump’s memo boldly stated that taxpayer dollars should focus on strengthening America—not on pandering to woke ideals.
In this high-stakes game of executive chess, Trump makes his moves swiftly while opponents scramble to react with litigation. It appears that while Trump plays to win, his rivals seem more eager to hold the game up with endless legal battles. This high drama will continue to unfold, and one can’t help but think of the old saying: if you can’t win the game, attempt to change the rules.
