Predicting the future of international relations is always a risky endeavor. History shows that even the most confident forecasts can fall flat. For instance, the last Pentagon propaganda pamphlet on ‘Soviet Military Power’ was published in 1991 – the year the USSR ceased to exist. Similarly, the Washington-based RAND Corporation’s 1988 scenario on nuclear war included the Soviet Union engaging Pakistan over Afghanistan in 2004. Nevertheless, the urge to anticipate the future is natural, even necessary. What follows is not a prediction, but an attempt to outline reasonable expectations for the state of the world in 2025.
Ukraine
US President Donald Trump’s bid to secure a ceasefire along Ukraine’s battle lines will fail. The American plan to “stop the war” ignores Russia’s security concerns and disregards the root causes of the conflict. Meanwhile, Moscow’s conditions for peace – outlined by President Vladimir Putin in June 2024 – will remain unacceptable to Washington, as they would effectively mean Kiev’s capitulation and the West’s strategic defeat.
The fighting will continue. In response to the rejection of his plan, a frustrated Trump will impose additional sanctions on Moscow. However, he will avoid any serious escalation that might provoke Russia into attacking NATO forces. Despite strong anti-Russian rhetoric, US aid to Ukraine will decrease, shifting much of the burden onto Western European nations. While the EU is prepared to step in, the quality and scale of Western material support for Ukraine will likely decline.
On the battlefield, the tide will continue to shift in Russia’s favor. Russian forces are expected to push Ukraine out of key regions such as Donbass, Zaporozhye, and parts of Kursk Region. Ukraine will mobilize younger, inexperienced recruits to slow Russia’s advances, but this strategy will lead to limited success. Kiev will rely increasingly on surprise operations, such as border incursions or symbolic strikes deep into Russian territory, in attempts to demoralize the Russian population.
Domestically, the US and its allies may push for elections in Ukraine, hoping to replace Vladimir Zelensky – whose term expired in the middle of last year – with General Valery Zaluzhny. While this political reshuffling might temporarily strengthen Kiev’s leadership, it will not address the underlying challenges of economic collapse and deteriorating living conditions for ordinary Ukrainians.
United States
Despite a peaceful transfer of power, Trump’s second term will remain fraught with tension. The risk of attempts on his life will linger. Trump’s foreign policy, while less ideological than Biden’s, will focus on pragmatic goals. He will:
Keep NATO intact but demand higher financial contributions from European members.
Shift much of the financial responsibility for Ukraine onto the EU.
Intensify economic pressure on China, leveraging Beijing’s vulnerabilities to force unfavorable trade deals.
Trump will also align closely with Israel, supporting its efforts against Iran. Tehran, already weakened, will face harsh terms for a nuclear deal, and a refusal may prompt US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Trump is likely to meet Putin in 2025, but this will not signal a thaw in US-Russia relations. The confrontation between the two powers will remain deep and enduring. Trump’s strategy will prioritize America’s global dominance, shifting the burden of US commitments onto allies and partners, often to their detriment.
Western Europe
European nations, wary of Trump’s return, will ultimately fall in line. The EU’s dependence on the US for military and political leadership will deepen, even as European economies continue to act as donors to the American economy. Over the past three decades, Western European elites have transitioned from being national actors to appendages of a transnational political system centered in Washington. Genuine defenders of national interests, such as Alternative for Germany or France’s Rassemblement National, remain politically marginalized.
Russophobia will remain a unifying force in Western European politics. Contrary to popular belief, this sentiment is not imposed by the US but actively embraced by EU and UK elites as a tool for cohesion. The Russian military operation in Ukraine has been framed as the first stage of an imagined Russian attempt to “kidnap Europe.”
In 2025, Germany’s new coalition government will adopt an even tougher stance toward Moscow. However, fears of a direct military clash with Russia will deter other European nations from deploying troops to Ukraine. Instead, Western Europe will prepare for a new Cold War, increasing military spending, expanding production, and fortifying NATO’s eastern flank.
Dissent within Europe will be suppressed. Political opponents of the confrontation with Russia will be branded as “Putin’s useful idiots” or outright agents of Moscow. Hungary and Slovakia will remain outliers in their approach to Russia, but their influence on EU policy will be negligible.
Middle East
After significant military victories in 2024, Israel, with US backing, will attempt to consolidate its gains against Iran. The US-Israeli strategy will involve combined pressure, including military actions, against Iranian proxies like the Yemeni Houthis and efforts to deepen ties with Gulf Arab monarchies under the Abraham Accords.
While Russia signed a treaty with Iran in January 2025, it does not obligate Moscow to intervene militarily if Tehran is attacked. Thus, a full-scale Middle Eastern war involving Russia and the US remains unlikely. Domestically, Iran faces uncertainty as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, now 86, nears the end of his leadership.
Russia’s influence in the Middle East will wane as its military presence diminishes. However, logistical routes connecting Russia to Africa will remain a strategic priority.
East Asia
US-China tensions will continue to rise, fueled by American efforts to contain China’s economic and technological ambitions. Washington will strengthen alliances in Asia, particularly with Taiwan and the Philippines, to counter Beijing. While an armed conflict over Taiwan or the South China Sea remains possible, it is unlikely to erupt in 2025.
Russia’s partnership with China will grow stronger, though it will stop short of a formal military alliance. From a Western perspective, this relationship will increasingly resemble an anti-American coalition. Together, Russia and China will push back against US global dominance in geopolitical, military, and economic spheres.
Russia’s near abroad
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko is expected to secure another term in January 2025, cementing his alignment with Moscow. Meanwhile, Russia will work to stabilize its relations with Kazakhstan, though Moscow’s lack of a compelling vision for Eurasian integration could come back to bite.
The year 2025 will be marked by strategic instability, ongoing conflicts, and heightened geopolitical tensions. While Russia has achieved notable successes in recent years, it must guard against complacency. Victory is far from assured, and the world remains nowhere near equilibrium. For Moscow, the path forward will require resilience and a clear focus on long-term goals. Peace will come, but only through continued effort and eventual victory – perhaps in 2026.
Donald J. Trump, 45th & 47th President of the United States
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United State from 2017 to 2021. He won the 2024 election as the nominee of the Republican Party and is now the president-elect of the United States. He is scheduled to begin his second term on January 20, 2025, as the nation’s 47th president and will be the second president in American history to serve nonconsecutive terms, with Grover Cleveland being the first.
Russell Thurlow Vought (born March 26, 1976), or Russ Vought is an American former government official who was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from July 2020 to January 2021. He was previously deputy director of the OMB for part of 2018, and acting director from 2019 to 2020.
Sebastian Gorka & Alex Wong, Senior National Security Staff
Doug Collins, Secretary of Veteran’s Administration(VA)
Paul Douglas Collins (born July 28, 1951) is an American basketballexecutive, former player, coach and television analyst in the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played in the NBA from 1973 to 1981 for the Philadelphia 76ers, earning four NBA All-Star selections. He then became an NBA coach in 1986, and had stints coaching the Chicago Bulls, Detroit Pistons, Washington Wizards and Philadelphia 76ers. Collins also served as an analyst for various NBA-related broadcast shows.[1] He is a recipient of the Curt Gowdy Media Award. In April 2024, Collins was elected to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame class of 2024 by the Contributors Committee.[2]
President Donald Trump announced on July 28, 2019, that he intended to nominate Ratcliffe to replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence.[8][9] Ratcliffe withdrew after Republican senators raised concerns about him, former intelligence officials said he might politicize intelligence, and media revealed Ratcliffe’s embellishments regarding his prosecutorial experience in terrorism and immigration cases.[10][11][12][13]
Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
• Is Bessent Compromised By Association with Soros & Rockefellers? • Scott Bessent, who will lead the Treasury Department, previously worked at George Soros Fund Management from 1991 to 2000, and then again as Chief Investment Officer from 2011 to 2015. During this period, he made a significant bet against the British pound, contributing to Soros’ famous “breaking of the Bank of England” and earning billions for the firm. The London office was led by Peter Soros, George Soros’ nephew, who has been named by Epstein’s former butler, Alfred Rodriguez, as having been involved in Epstein’s s*x trafficking activities. Bessent is also on the Board of Trustees at Rockefeller University, alongside prominent figures in the globalist establishment. ~ Shadow of Era
Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce
Howard William Lutnick (/ˈlʌtnɪk/; born July 14, 1961[1]) is an American businessman, who succeeded Bernard Gerald Cantor as the head of Cantor Fitzgerald. Lutnick is the chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald and BGC Group. After losing 658 employees, including his brother, in the September 11 attacks, Lutnick also survived the subsequent collapse of the towers on the ground, and has since become known for his charity efforts through the Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund, which helps to aid families of victims of the attacks and natural disasters. He was a fundraiser for Donald Trump’s 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns, as well as a vocal proponent of Trump’s proposal to implement broad tariffs. In November 2024, President-elect Trump announced that he intended to nominate Lutnick as secretary of commerce. He was also co-founder of DOGE.
To Be Determined, Administrator of the SBA
Image Here…
Wikipedia:
Brendon Carr, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Brendan Thomas Carr (born January 5, 1979) is an American lawyer who has served as a member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since 2017.[7] Appointed to the position by Donald Trump, Carr previously served as the agency’s general counsel and as an aide to FCC commissioner Ajit Pai. In private practice, Carr formerly worked as a telecommunications attorney at Wiley Rein.[8]
Carr supports changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Actand opposes net neutrality protections.[9][10] Carr is noted for his support for banning TikTok on national security grounds.[11][12] He is an opponent of content moderation on digital platforms, saying he would seek to “dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights.”[13][14] He authored a chapter in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, the blueprint document of Heritage Foundation‘s Project 2025, which outlines proposed policies for a future Donald Trump administration. In office, Carr has been noted for being unusually vocal about public policy issues for a regulatory appointee, accusing House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff of overseeing a “secret and partisan surveillance machine”.[15]
• Restore Net Neutrality& Equalize the Internet Playing Field
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, Ph.D., Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Jayanta “Jay” Bhattacharya (born 1968) is an American professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University. He is the director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. His research focuses on the economics of health care.[2][3][4] In 2021, Bhattacharya was opposed to lockdowns and mask mandates as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[5][6] With Martin Kulldorff and Sunetra Gupta, he was a co-author in 2020 of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19restrictions on lower-risk groups to develop herd immunity through widespread infection, while promoting the fringe notion that vulnerable people could be simultaneously protected from the virus.[7][8][9] The declaration was criticized as being unethical and infeasible by Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization.[10]
• Co-Author of The Great Barrington Declaration
Dr. Dave Weldon, Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
•Mission to Examine the Causes of Chronic Illness • “The greatest perpetrator of misinformation during the COVID pandemic has been the United States government … Public health officials were intellectually dishonest. They lied to the American people.” ~ Marty Makary, MD, MPH • Author of Blind Spots
Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, US Surgeon General
Janette Nesheiwat (born 25 August 1980) is an American physician who is the nominee for United States surgeon general.[2] Nesheiwat has served as an assistant medical director of CityMD[3] and is currently a medical contributor on Fox News.[4]
• Getting Flak for Her Previous Vaccine/COVID Positions. ~ Dr. Simone Gold • Trump’s pick for Surgeon General, Janette Nesheiwat, praised Facebook for censoring anti-vaccine information & accounts like mine and RFK’s specifically, adding that she will “hope and pray” other social media companies do the same. Pick someone else. ~ Elizabeth Health Nut News
Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior
Douglas James Burgum (/bɜːrɡəm/BUR-gəm;[1] born August 1, 1956) is an American businessman and politician serving since 2016 as the 33rd governor of North Dakota.[2][3] He is among the richest politicians in the United States and has an estimated net worth of at least $1.1 billion. He is a member of the Republican Party.[4] Burgum was born and raised in Arthur, North Dakota.
When Perdue’s term ended on January 3, 2021, Loeffler ascended to be the senior senator from Georgia, a position she held for just under three weeks until Warnock was sworn in. Loeffler aligned with President Donald Trump in her time in the Senate, touting a “100 percent Trump voting record” during her campaigns.[3][4] After the November 2020 election, Loeffler and Perdue claimed without evidence that there had been unspecified failures in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and called for the resignation of Georgia secretary of stateBrad Raffensperger, who rejected the accusations.
She later supported a lawsuit by Trump allies seeking to overturn the election results,[5] and also announced her intention to object to the certification of the Electoral College results in Congress.[6] After the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Loeffler announced that she would withdraw her objection to the certification of the electoral votes and later voted to certify. Loeffler was chosen by president-elect Trump to co-chair his inaugural committee in his upcoming second presidency, along with Steve Witkoff.
Linda Marie McMahon (/məkˈmæn/; née Edwards; born October 4, 1948) is an American politician, business executive and retired professional wrestler. She was the 25th administrator of the Small Business Administration from 2017 to 2019. McMahon has been nominated to lead the Department of Education under the second Trump administration.
McMahon, along with her husband, Vince McMahon, founded sports entertainment company Titan Sports, Inc. (later World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.) where she worked as the president and later CEO from 1980 to 2009. During this time, the company grew from a regional business in the northeast to a large multinational corporation. Among other things, she initiated the company’s civic programs, Get R.E.A.L. and SmackDown! Your Vote. She made occasional on-screen performances, most notably in a feud with her husband that culminated at WrestleMania X-Seven.
On April 15, she was named chairwoman of America First Action, a pro-Trump Super PAC. On November 19, 2024, McMahon was nominated by Donald Trump to serve as Secretary of Education.[2]
Vivek Ramaswamy, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)
Musk was born in Pretoria, South Africa, and briefly attended the University of Pretoria before immigrating to Canada at the age of 18, acquiring citizenship through his Canadian-born mother. Two years later, he matriculated at Queen’s University at Kingston in Canada. Musk later transferred to the University of Pennsylvania and received bachelor’s degreesin economics and physics. He moved to California in 1995 to attend Stanford University, but never enrolled in classes, and with his brother Kimbal co-founded the online city guidesoftware company Zip2. The startup was acquired by Compaq for $307 million in 1999. That same year, Musk co-founded X.com, a direct bank. X.com merged with Confinity in 2000 to form PayPal. In 2002, Musk acquired US citizenship, and that October eBay acquired PayPal for $1.5 billion. Using $100 million of the money he made from the sale of PayPal, Musk founded SpaceX, a spaceflight services company, in 2002.
In 2004, Musk was an early investor in electric-vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.), providing most of the initial financing and assuming the position of the company’s chairman. He later became the product architect and, in 2008, the CEO. In 2006, Musk helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was acquired by Tesla in 2016 and became Tesla Energy. In 2013, he proposed a hyperloop high-speed vactrain transportation system. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligenceresearch company. The following year Musk co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company developing brain–computer interfaces, and The Boring Company, a tunnel construction company.
In early 2024, Musk became active in American politics as a vocal and financial supporter of Donald Trump, becoming Trump’s second-largest individual donor in October 2024. In November 2024, Trump announced that he had chosen Musk along with Vivek Ramaswamyto co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a new advisory board which aims to improve government efficiency through measures such as slashing “excess regulations” and cutting “wasteful expenditures”.
• Mission to Dismantle the Regulatory State & Cut Wasteful Spending
AMERICA FIRST AGENDA BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
Restore Border Security & Immigration Including Mass Deportation of Illegal Aliens
Declare War on Drug Cartels (Including Big Pharma & Global Actors)
Declare War on Child Trafficking & Establish Death Penalty for Convicted Human Traffickers
Halt Federal Funds for Any State or Local Government Defying Federal Immigration Law (End Sanctuary Cities)
Halt Federal Funds for Inappropriate Curricula Including Critical Race Theory, DEI, Transgender & Anti-American Political Content Taught in Schools
End Mutilation of Youth Through Gender Transitions; Cease Funding Any Sex & Gender Transition
Halt Federal Funding for Any Abortion Procedure or Organ Harvesting of New-Born Infants
Private Right of Action for Victims to Sue Doctors; Civil Rights Violations; Cease Funding to School Districts
End Electric Vehicle Mandates; Making Them Voluntary Not Mandatory
Restore Fundamental Protection of Free Speech & All Constitutional Rights; Prohibit Any Future Collusion Between Government & Private Sector to Deprive Citizens of Rights
Dismantle Needless Bureaucracy & Regulations
Dismantle or Overhaul All Weaponized Government Agencies Via Schedule F (Firing Incompetent or Corrupt Staff By Executive Order)
Clean Out All Corrupt Actors in National Security, Defense & Intelligence Apparatus
ESTABLISHING NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS& LEGISLATION
Founding Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)with Mission to Dismantle the Regulatory State & Cut Wasteful Spending)
Restore Economic Prosperity for All
Restore Energy Independence By All Means Necessary Including Fracking, Drilling & Green Energy
Restore Tax Incentives for Small Businesses
Cap Credit Card Rates at 10%
Founding The American Academy (Full Spectrum of Human Knowledge for Free Online; Bachelor’s Degree Available)
Department of Education Appoints New Accreditors for All Colleges/Universities to Qualify for Federal Funding (Restore Meritocracy in Our Educational Institutions)
Eliminate the Federal Income Tax & Replace with Tariffs On Imports
Allow IRS Deduction Up to $10k Towards Homeschooling Per Child
Become #1 Energy Producer in the World & Restore Energy Independence
Repeal of the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act
Restore FAIR Act for Equal Time in Broadcasting
Revoke Licenses & Funding for Propaganda Media (Including NPR)
Reintroduce 28th Amendment with Required That All Laws Applied Equally to Citizens & Congress
Propose ? Amendment for Term-Limits on Elected Officials in Congress
Restore Net Neutrality To Equalize the Internet Playing Field Once Again
Donald Trump formulates his political course using memes. Strategies, programs and action plans are then drawn up by people around him. But the impetus comes from the main character’s pronouncements.
That’s why we hear the US president-elect promise to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. It sounds unrealistic, to say the least, but it reflects his desire. Which is obviously a conscious one. Which means it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
It’s a pointless exercise to speculate on the basis of leaks and anonymous comments from people – supposedly – close to Trump about what he really has in mind. In all likelihood, he doesn’t yet know himself what he will do. What matters is something else: how Trump’s approach to Ukraine will differ from that of the current presidential administration, and whether he even understands rapprochement.
With regards to the first of these, the difference is stark. President Joe Biden and his team represent a cohort of politicians whose views were shaped by the end of the Cold War. America’s ideological and moral righteousness – and its unquestioned power superiority – determined not even the possibility, but rather the necessity of world domination. The emergence of rival powers that could challenge certain elements of the liberal world order has been met with fierce resistance.
That’s because this setup didn’t allow for any deviation from its basic principles and refused to allow for compromise on fundamental issues. Russia’s actions in Ukraine are seen as an encroachment on the very essence of the liberal order. Hence the call for Moscow’s “strategic defeat.”
Trump stands for a change in positioning. Instead of global dominance, there will a vigorous defense of specific American interests. Priority will be given to those that bring clear benefits (not in the long term, but now). Belief in the primacy of domestic over foreign policy, which has always characterized Trump’s supporters and has now spread throughout the Republican Party, means that the choice of international issues is going to be selective. Preserving the moral and political hegemony of the US is not an end in itself, but a tool. In such a system of priorities, the Ukrainian project loses the destiny it has in the eyes of the adherents of the liberal order. It becomes a pawn in a larger game.
Another peculiarity of the president-elect is that even his detractors largely admit that he doesn’t see war as an acceptable tool. Yes, he’ll use hard bargaining, muscle-flexing and coercive pressure (as practiced in his usual business). But not destructive armed conflict, because that is irrational. Trump doesn’t seem to have a twisted heart when he talks about the need to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine and Gaza.
Now let’s look at his methods. Trump’s previous term offers two examples of his approach to regional conflicts. One was the ‘Abraham Accords’, an agreement that facilitated formal relations between Israel and a number of Arab countries. The second was the meetings with Kim Jong-un, including a full-fledged summit in Hanoi.
The first was the result of shuttle diplomacy by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The powerful financial interests of America, the Gulf monarchies and Israel led to a series of shady political deals. The current situation in the region is many times worse than it was then, but it cannot be said that the arrangements have collapsed. The framework is still in place. But such a foundation can hardly be considered a model. The system of relations in the Middle East is very special, and the scale of the Ukraine conflict is incomparably greater.
The second example is negative. Trump hastily tried to shift the systemic confrontation by resorting to a spectacle. The bet was on pleasing the ego of the interlocutor – the first North Korean leader to meet with a US president. It didn’t work, because beyond that there was no idea how to solve the real complex problems.
However, we can’t simply project the legacy of 2016-2020 onto the period ahead. Trump has gained some experience. His environment is different now, and his electoral mandate is what he could only have dreamed of back then. There is more room for maneuver than before, but not enough for the genuine concessions needed for a comprehensive agreement with Moscow.
It is in Russia’s interest to remain calm, and to refuse to react to any provocations. Yes, objectively the situation is changing. But now everyone will be talking about the fact that a window of opportunity has opened for a short time, and we must not miss this chance. In crises like the Ukrainian one, there are no simple solutions or easy “shortcuts.” Either this window is a gateway to new stable relations – and it cannot be forced open, but will need a careful approach. Or it’s a portal to an even more brutal struggle, because it births yet another disappointment.
Based on his campaign trail statements, President-elect Donald Trump is poised to sign a flurry of executive orders as soon as he regains power on Jan. 20, 2025.
He will become only the second former U.S. president to return to office after losing a reelection bid. President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, served as the 22nd and 24th president in the late 1800s.
Trump, a Republican who served as the 45th president, will become the 47th president, after defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the Nov. 5 election. She became a replacement candidate for the Democratic Party after President Joe Biden, the 46th president, dropped out of the race on July 21.
Throughout Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, which he began in late 2022, Trump stated that he plans to begin tackling numerous issues on “day one,” ranging from border security to the economy.
He has repeatedly made pledges that would make for a busy first day in office in 2025.
In late 2023, Trump joked with a Fort Dodge, Iowa, audience about his eagerness to begin signing documents on Inauguration Day.
“I may even have a very tiny little desk put on the 20th stair” of the U.S. Capitol, where he could begin signing documents immediately after taking the oath of office,” Trump said.
It’s anyone’s guess how many executive orders Trump might sign during his new administration’s first day—which will be a short one. His second presidential term begins when the day is half over.
Under the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, executive power transfers to the newly elected president every four years at noon on Jan. 20.
New presidents are also likely to sign other documents, such as Trump’s proclamation designating his first day in office, Jan. 20, 2017, as a “National Day of Patriotic Devotion.” The proclamation’s intent was “to strengthen our bonds to each other and to our country—and to renew the duties of Government to the people.”
But executive orders are among the most important documents a new president can sign.
These orders, which have been used by almost every U.S. president, carry about the same weight as federal law. And they remain in effect unless Congress overrules them, a court overturns them, or a future president revokes them. These orders also signal what the new president’s priorities will be.
When Biden took office in 2021, he signed nine executive orders on his first day. One of them reversed an immigration and border security executive order that Trump signed on Jan. 25, 2017, the fifth day of his first term in office.
In contrast, Trump penned just one executive order on Inauguration Day 2017; that order focused on reducing the financial burdens of the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.
Here are a few of the many executive orders and initiatives that Trump has pledged for his upcoming term.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order as Vice President Mike Pence and chief of staff Reince Priebus look on at the White House on Jan. 20, 2017.
Top Priority: Border Security and Immigration
In the spring of 2024, Trump said border security and immigration would be foremost on his second term agenda.
“Day one, my act one will be to close that border,” he said at the time.
Since then, Trump has made immigration-related pledges numerous times.
An order closing the border would be “done in the first hour of the first day” under his new administration, Trump said during an October campaign stop.
“On day one, I will launch the largest deportation program … in the history of our country,” he said at one of his final campaign events in Pittsburgh on Nov. 4, the day before the election. “I will rescue every city and town that has been invaded … and we will put the vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail.”
Trump’s 2017 executive order on border security, signed on Jan. 25, 2017, directed the Department of Homeland Security to close the border and to take several other immediate steps, including building more sections of the U.S.–Mexico border wall and adding 5,000 Border Patrol agents.
That initial order also called for revamping the way that the government handled illegal immigrants’ asylum claims, detentions, and deportations.
Economy and Energy
When it comes to the economy, Trump says reducing the cost of energy is key to lowering the prices that people pay for essentials such as gasoline and groceries.
He has pledged to implement policies that encourage the production of fossil fuels. “We will frack, frack, frack, and drill, baby, drill,” Trump said during an Oct. 29 speech in Allentown, Pennsylvania. He said he would encourage those processes beginning on day one, but it was unclear whether an executive order would be used for that purpose.
However, Trump did say he would sign an executive order “directing every federal agency to immediately remove every single burdensome regulation driving up the cost of goods.” He made that pledge on Oct. 31 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, promising “emergency price relief” for all Americans.
Trump also said he would create a new cabinet position focused on “doing everything in the federal government’s power to reduce the cost of living.”
People shop at a grocery store in Columbia, Md., on Jan. 7, 2024. President-elect Donald Trump says he will focus on reducing the cost of living for Americans.
Taxes, Credit Card Rates
Trump told a crowd in Mint Hill, North Carolina, “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again.”
He continued in that Sept. 25 speech: “We will have no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security. … And while working Americans catch up, we are going to put a temporary cap on credit card interest rates at 10 percent.”
A few members of Congress have been working on no-tax-on-tips proposals for some time; Trump likely would need to work with Congress on these initiatives.
Funds Halted for ‘Inappropriate’ Curricula
More than a year ago, at the Pray Vote Stand Summit in Washington, on Sept. 15, 2023, Trump said, “On day one, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.”
He has reiterated that stance many times since.
Order to End ‘Mutilation’ of Youths
In a policy video posted to social media on Jan. 31, 2023, Trump outlined a wide-ranging plan to halt “chemical, physical, and emotional mutilation of our youth.”
“On day one, I will revoke Joe Biden’s cruel policies on so-called ‘gender-affirming care’—ridiculous—a process that includes giving kids puberty blockers, mutating their physical appearance, and ultimately performing surgery on minor children,” Trump said.
“I will sign a new executive order instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age.”
Trump also said he would ask Congress “to permanently stop federal taxpayer dollars from being used to promote or pay for these procedures and pass a law prohibiting child sexual mutilation in all 50 states.”
The Supreme Court is now considering the constitutionality of Tennessee’s ban on such procedures for minors; many other states also passed similar laws that have faced court challenges.
Trump also said, “I will support the creation of a private right of action for victims to sue doctors who have unforgivably performed these procedures on minor children.”
“The Department of Justice will investigate Big Pharma and the big hospital networks to determine whether they have deliberately covered up horrific long-term side effects of sex transitions in order to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients,” he said. The investigation would also probe whether pharmaceutical companies or others “have illegally marketed hormones and puberty blockers which are no way licensed or approved for this use.”
In addition, his education department would warn school districts, “If any teacher or school official suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body, they will be faced with severe consequences, including potential civil rights violations for sex discrimination and the elimination of federal funding.”
Parents will no longer be “forced to allow their minor child to assume” a different gender, he said.
Vickie L. Cartwright, superintendent of Broward County Public Schools, helps children find books to be given out for summer reading at Riverside Elementary school in Coral Springs, Fla., on Feb. 14, 2022.
Trump said he plans to “promote positive education about the nuclear family, the roles of mothers and fathers, and celebrating rather than erasing the things that make men and women different and unique.”
The president-elect also would plan to ask Congress to declare that “the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female, and they are assigned at birth.”
“No serious country should be telling its children that they were born with the wrong gender … under my leadership, this madness will end,” he said.
Trump’s statement followed the UK’s decision to close its only child transgender clinic. That decision was made in mid-2022, after an independent review raised safety concerns about the treatment of children suffering from “gender dysphoria,” a disconnect between a person’s sex and perception of gender. The clinic closed earlier this year.
Reversing the Electric Vehicle Mandate
The Biden administration has pursued policies intended to reduce Americans’ reliance on fossil fuels such as gasoline. Those policies included an executive order that “sets an ambitious new target to make half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 zero-emissions vehicles, including battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric, or fuel cell electric vehicles,” the White House said in August 2021.
That order was intended to “save consumers money, cut pollution, boost public health, advance environmental justice, and tackle the climate crisis.”
Critics, such as Sen. Steve Hinebauch (R-Mont.), see the policy as detrimental to farmers, ranchers, and citizens, “especially with the lack of reliability and affordability of these vehicles,” he wrote in an opinion article.
Trump has repeatedly pledged to immediately terminate Biden’s mandate on electric vehicles.
“Not everybody should have an electric car,” Trump said at a Sept. 27 town hall in Warren, Michigan, adding that consumers should be able to choose whether they want to buy all-electric, hybrids, or all-gasoline-powered vehicles.
An electric car at a charging station in Chicago on May 21, 2024. Trump said he would terminate the Biden administration’s mandate on electric vehicles.
Protection of Free Speech
Shortly after Trump announced his candidacy in 2022, he unveiled his plan for protecting free speech.
“Within hours of my inauguration, I will sign an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with any organization, business, or person, to censor, limit, categorize, or impede the lawful speech of American citizens,” he said.
“I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as mis- or dis-information.”
Trump also said he would identify and fire “every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship.”
Dismantling Bureaucracy
In March 2023, Trump released a 10-point plan“to dismantle the ‘deep state’ and reclaim our democracy from Washington corruption.”
The first point of the plan calls for reissuing his 2020 executive order that restores the president’s authority to “remove rogue bureaucrats,” he said in a video.
The 2020 order would have created a “Schedule F,” to make it easier to terminate certain government employees. The new category would encompass positions that are “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character and that are not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition.”
However, Trump left the White House before provisions of that order could take effect. “This would have been a revolutionary change, a complete remake of Washington and all politics as usual,” Jeffrey A. Tucker, founder of a nonprofit group that examines public policy, wrote in a 2022 column.
Trump, in his 2023 video, vowed to revive that 2020 order and “clean out all of the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.”
Trump in a 2023 speech, vowed to revive his 2020 order to make it easier to remove certain government employees, saying that he would combat corruption in Washington.
“The departments and agencies that have been weaponized will be completely overhauled,” Trump said. “So that faceless bureaucrats will never again be able to target and persecute conservatives, Christians, or the left’s political enemies, which they’re doing now at a level that nobody can believe even possible.”
It was unclear whether additional aspects of the 10-point plan could or would be handled through executive orders.
Among other things, the plan includes establishing “a Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” which would declassify and publish documents about “spying, censorship, and corruption.”
More recently, Trump also said he would endorse high-tech entrepreneur and free-speech proponent Elon Musk’s proposal to form a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which would aim to streamline government operations and save taxpayers’ money. Musk, who supported Trump’s candidacy, would be at the helm.
On July 1, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents and former presidents enjoy “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for “conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority,” setting guidelines for which acts in former President Donald Trump’s federal election case can remain in the indictment but leaving large amounts of litigation for the district court.
The case, which has been on hold since December 2023, is unlikely to proceed to trial before the November election but may soon see a flurry of legal activity.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Clarence Thomas adding his own concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barret concurred in part, noting several lines of legal disagreement with the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who also penned a separate dissent.
Trump Case Will Continue
The Supreme Court has given the case back to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, where Judge Tanya Chutkan will have to determine whether several of President Trump’s actions in the indictment were, essentially, official or unofficial.
“Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, and the very significant constitutional questions that it raises, the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis,” the opinion reads.
Both the district and circuit courts completely rejected assertions of presidential immunity, so there has been no briefing on whether actions in the indictment were official or unofficial.
“That categorization raises multiple unprecedented and momentous questions,” the opinion reads.
When Judge Chutkan rejected the motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity last year, the appeals court fast-tracked the appeal, rejected the motion, and also fast-tracked the appeal process to the Supreme Court.
All case proceedings were paused in the meantime, and Judge Chutkan had taken the case—originally scheduled for March 4—off her calendar. At the time, the judge still had a number of motions to rule on, including a major ruling on what evidence and arguments could be used at trial.
Now Judge Chutkan will have to sort out what actions must be removed from the indictment before the case can continue. This may not necessarily be a quick process; as court filings by both parties have shown, the defense and prosecution have clashing theories as to whether certain acts were official or unofficial.
Prosecutors have acknowledged that some of the acts in the indictment were indeed the official acts of a president, and it has largely been expected that special counsel Jack Smith may trim down the indictment so as to proceed with the case with minimal holdup.
Supreme Court Sets Some Guidelines
The special counsel has charged former President Trump with four counts of conspiracy and obstruction for his actions to challenge the 2020 election results.
Crucially, the Supreme Court decision does not throw out any of these charges.
However, several actions involved in some of the charges may need to be tossed. The majority opinion finds that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts. This immunity does “not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress,” and unofficial acts taken while in office receive no immunity at all.
President Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr, and state attorneys general discuss protections from social media abuses at the White House on Sept. 23, 2020. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
The court ruled that President Trump’s conversations with the acting attorney general were core conduct subject to absolute immunity.
It also ruled that his conversations with the vice president about the counting of the votes were part of his official duties, thus subject to presumptive, but not absolute, immunity—finding that Judge Chutkan should now assess whether prosecution of these actions intrudes on the authority and functions of the executive branch, and prosecutors will have to rebut the presumption of immunity if so.
The court then found that President Trump’s conversations with state officials and other parties require more fact finding as to whether the actions were official or not—another task for the district court.
It offered similar guidance regarding President Trump’s speech on and leading up to Jan. 6, 2021. Some speech falls within the outer perimeter of official responsibilities, but there are contexts in which presidents speak unofficially, the majority opinion reads.
The Supreme Court also ruled that courts “may not inquire into the President’s motives” while considering whether an action was official or unofficial, as this “highly intrusive” line of inquiry could expose official conduct to judicial examination, a violation of the separation of powers.
The court remanded the case for the district court to “carefully analyze” whether the indictment’s remaining allegations are free from official acts and ruled that testimony or private records probing the president’s or his advisers’ official conduct may not be used as evidence at trial.
Court Tosses Impeachment Theory
Although the Supreme Court ruling could be read as a win for the former president (he posted on social media shortly after the decision, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY”), the court rejected his attorneys’ legal theory.
Former President Trump’s attorneys had argued that presidents must be impeached before they are subject to prosecution on those same actions and that former President Trump’s acquittal in the Senate thus precluded prosecution, warranting dismissal of the indictment.
The high court majority had instead relied on views of the framers of the Constitution regarding the separation of powers to reach their opinion and dismissed the impeachment argument as one with little constitutional support.
However, the court agreed with the Trump attorneys in that “the ‘bold and unhesitating action’ required of an independent Executive” must not be chilled.
Majority Emphasize Need for Strong Executive
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that the Framers of the Constitution had the vision of a strong executive. Unlike the other two branches, the president is “the only person who alone composes a branch of government,” he wrote, citing his previous opinion from an unrelated Trump case.
The court—and the Framers—have held an “energetic executive” to be crucial to national security, good government, and the safeguarding of liberty.
Prosecutors and dissenting judges had argued that the criminal justice system inherently includes safeguards that would prevent the wrongful prosecution of a president or chilling effects that may stem from this possibility.
The majority held that this was not protection enough, as the mere prospect of prosecution may “distort Presidential decisionmaking” and cause “undue caution,” effectively undermining the independence of the executive branch.
“The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions under ‘a pall of potential prosecution’ … raises unique risks to the effective functioning of government,” the opinion reads.
Demonstrators and protesters gather with members of the news media in front of the Supreme Court to wait for it to announce its last decisions for this session in Washington on July 1, 2024. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
4 Justices Say Official Acts Can Sometimes Be Unconstitutional
All nine justices recognized immunity for a president’s exercising of “core constitutional powers,” but four found the majority’s test to be far too broad.
Justice Barrett, in her partly concurring opinion, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, in a dissenting opinion, wrote that there may be cases in which official acts are unconstitutional or criminal and should be subject to prosecution.
Justice Barrett wrote in favor of a narrower test for immunity, with a two-step process to determine the validity of criminal charges for official acts. The first is determining whether the criminal statute applies to the president, and the second step is to determine if that prosecution imposes any danger of intruding on the powers of the executive branch.
Justice Sotomayor wrote that the court’s ruling gave the appellant even more immunity than he asked for, finding no support for immunity from criminal prosecution outlined in the Constitution.
The dissenting opinion, joined by two other justices, takes a reproving view of President Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, and, as outlined in the indictment, also the majority opinion.
Justice Sotomayor wrote that the challenge of exercising core constitutional powers, such as the president’s veto power, was never challenged in the indictment. As the majority defines “core immunity,” “all sorts of noncore conduct” could be shielded from criminal prosecution, she wrote, including “nightmare scenarios” such as ordering the military to carry out an assassination of a political rival, organizing a military coup, or taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon.
Similar scenarios were discussed during oral arguments, and Justice Samuel Alito expressed skepticism, cautioning judges not to slander the military in presenting these hypotheticals.
Voters cast ballots in Georgia’s primary election at a polling location in Atlanta on May 21, 2024. The Supreme Court decision may affect former President Trump’s case in Georgia, as some of the acts listed in the indictment overlap with the federal case. (Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)
Case May Return to Supreme Court
This case may yet end up in the Supreme Court on another appeal.
Trump attorneys can be expected to challenge unfavorable district court rulings on whether certain acts were official or unofficial, and Judge Chutkan still has several pending motions to rule on—including other motions to dismiss the indictment.
An additional complication that could arise for prosecutors is the fact that Mr. Smith is prosecuting a second case against former President Trump in the Southern District of Florida, where a federal judge is set to rule on whether Mr. Smith was constitutionally appointed. Should the judge determine that he wasn’t and that the special counsel has no authority to prosecute, an appeal could end up before the Supreme Court, affecting both cases.
Ruling May Affect Georgia Election Case
Former President Trump was indicted in a similar case in Georgia. In the state case, he and 18 others were charged with racketeering for their actions in challenging the 2020 election results, and some of the acts listed in the indictment overlap with the federal case.
While the federal case charges no alleged co-conspirators, the state case also charges former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark for actions that he has argued were part of his official duties.
That case is currently on hold, as the Georgia Court of Appeals has agreed to review the trial court’s decision to not disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting the case over alleged misconduct.
Should the appeals court rule quickly after it hears oral arguments in October and then decide not to disqualify the district attorney, prosecutors will still need to revisit the indictment to remove any official acts before proceeding with the case.
Liberty International News 