Muslim World Report

Trump's Executive Orders Outpace Biden's Four-Year Total

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 21, 2025 9:40 AM | 7 min read | 1440 words

TL;DR: Former President Donald Trump has issued 163 executive orders within just five months, greatly exceeding the total from President Biden’s four-year term. This trend raises serious questions about the nature of executive power, the implications for American democracy, and the potential shifts in U.S. foreign policy. This post examines the consequences of such an unprecedented increase in executive actions and explores potential pathways for various stakeholders.

The Executive Order Surge: Implications and Consequences

In a striking development that reveals the shifting dynamics of American governance, former President Donald Trump has signed a staggering 163 executive orders since taking office on January 20, 2023. This prolific output eclipses the total number of executive orders issued by President Joe Biden during his entire four-year term. As of June 21, 2025, Trump’s focus has predominantly revolved around strengthening trade agreements, particularly with the United Kingdom, amid contentious global tariff disputes.

However, the implications of this surge in executive orders transcend mere statistics; they raise critical questions about:

  • The nature of executive power
  • Partisan politics
  • The future of democratic norms in the United States

Trump’s approach to governance has ignited a fierce debate. Critics argue that his rapid issuance of executive orders embodies authoritarianism, indicating a troubling disregard for the checks and balances integral to constitutional governance. Historical context is telling: many Republicans vehemently opposed executive actions taken by President Obama, labeling them as overreach. Yet, they now exhibit cognitive dissonance in their support for Trump’s unprecedented actions. This hypocrisy raises alarms about the potential normalization of executive dominance, fostering a precedent where executive power is exercised with fewer constraints, thereby eroding the democratic fabric of the nation. Supporters, conversely, contend that such decisive action is essential to navigate the complex challenges the country faces, particularly in a deeply polarized political environment marked by obstructionism.

The world watches closely as these executive actions unfold, recognizing that their repercussions extend far beyond U.S. borders. As the Biden administration grapples with an evolving foreign policy landscape, the strategic moves made by Trump could significantly affect diplomatic relations, particularly with countries in the Muslim world. Compounding these concerns is the historical context of U.S. foreign policy, often characterized by interventions and support for authoritarian regimes under the guise of promoting democracy. In this era of rising populism and nationalism, what occurs within the White House impacts not only American lives but also the lives of countless individuals globally who are drawn into the orbit of U.S. policies.

What If Trump Escalates Authoritarian Governance?

Should Trump continue on this trajectory of accelerated executive actions, the implications for American democracy could be profound:

  1. Distance from Public Discourse: The increased output of executive orders may further distance governance from public discourse, effectively sidelining Congress and reducing opportunities for debate and dissent.

  2. Erosion of Civil Liberties: The rights of marginalized communities and political dissidents may find their rights further curtailed. Erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security or economic protectionism could provoke widespread unrest.

  3. Increase in Political Polarization: The normalization of an “us versus them” mentality could deepen societal fractures and foment instability, as studies suggest (Ariel Malka et al., 2020).

Internationally, such a shift could lead to U.S. policies favoring authoritarian regimes or exacerbating existing conflicts. Countries in the Muslim world, already wary of U.S. intentions, might respond with increased suspicion and hostility. This reaction could hinder diplomatic efforts crucial for regional stability, especially in contexts where U.S. intervention has historically led to dire humanitarian consequences (Schmitter & Karl, 1991; Cavatorta, 2010). The potential for increased militarization and the entrenchment of a divisive geopolitical narrative may further destabilize fragile landscapes, creating a cycle of confrontation rather than cooperation.

What If Trump’s Orders Shift U.S. Foreign Policy?

If Trump’s executive orders significantly alter U.S. foreign policy, the implications could reverberate internationally, particularly regarding:

  • Trade
  • Security
  • Diplomacy

Efforts to renegotiate trade agreements, such as the one with the U.K., may realign economic partnerships in ways that marginalize traditional allies and disrupt established supply chains. A more aggressive stance in trade negotiations could provoke retaliatory measures, further entrenching global economic divisions and inequality (Dixon & Moon, 1993).

On the security front, policies shaped through executive action may favor military engagement over diplomatic solutions, particularly in regions where U.S. interests are challenged. This orientation could result in increased military spending, a shift towards unilateral actions, and a reluctance to engage in multilateral forums. Consequently, long-standing alliances may fray, and emerging powers could exploit these weaknesses, potentially ushering in a multipolar world where U.S. influence wanes (Fordham, 1998).

Moreover, Trump’s foreign policy could exacerbate tensions in conflict-ridden areas, particularly in the Middle East. By prioritizing transactional relationships over principled stances on human rights and democracy, the U.S. may inadvertently empower oppressive regimes while neglecting the plight of the oppressed. This approach could lead to humanitarian crises, further displacing millions and eroding the moral authority of the U.S. internationally (Thompson, 2004).

What If Congress Pushes Back?

Should Congress assert itself in response to Trump’s unprecedented use of executive power, several implications could arise:

  • Renewed Legislative Engagement: This could serve as a crucial check on executive overreach, reinforcing the system of checks and balances foundational to American democracy (Gittell et al., 2006).

  • Polarization Risks: A concerted pushback from Congress risks deepening partisan divides, leading to heightened tensions between the executive and legislative branches.

Moreover, the response from Congress might trigger constitutional challenges, potentially leading to landmark Supreme Court cases that could redefine the limits of executive power. This scenario could cause a long-term reassessment of the balance between branches of government but also risks destabilizing governmental functions in the short term. The uncertainties of such legal battles could hinder important policy initiatives as the nation grapples with pressing issues affecting everyday Americans.

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players Involved

As Trump’s executive order surge continues to unfold, various stakeholders must consider their strategic options moving forward:

  • For the Biden Administration: A nuanced approach to governance and diplomacy is crucial. Rather than merely reacting to Trump’s actions, the administration could pursue an aggressive legislative agenda that counters executive overreach through carefully crafted bills. By garnering support from moderate Republicans and independents, they could create opportunities for bipartisan collaboration that reflects democratic norms (Fox, 1994).

  • For Democrats in Congress: The situation calls for coordinated efforts that emphasize unity. Strategic coalitions that transcend party lines can amplify messages opposing executive overreach and highlight the importance of legislative discourse. Engaging the electorate through grassroots campaigns can cultivate public support for checks on executive power (Hildebrandt & McKenzie, 2005).

  • For Trump and His Supporters: There is a strategic opportunity to frame executive orders as necessary tools for addressing the crises facing the nation. However, they should recognize the long-term risks associated with an authoritarian approach to governance.

  • For Civil Society Organizations: Mobilization efforts aimed at educating the public about the implications of executive overreach can galvanize grassroots movements to demand accountability. By highlighting issues around civil rights, the rule of law, and democratic integrity, these groups can foster a narrative emphasizing the importance of protecting democracy against concentrated executive power.

References

  • Ariel Malka et al. (2020). Social Identity and Political Polarization. Journal of Political Psychology.
  • Coffee, J. C. (2005). The Political Economy of Executive Power. The Yale Law Journal.
  • Cavatorta, F. (2010). The European Union and the Reform of Authoritarian Regimes. Middle East Policy.
  • Dixon, R. (1993). The Politics of Preemption: Lessons from the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Political Science Quarterly.
  • Dixon, R. & Moon, S. (1993). The Dynamics of Trade Relations: A Global Perspective. International Studies Quarterly.
  • DiFiori, G., Gittinger, J., & Swift, K. (2013). Deliberation and Democracy: A Primer. American Journal of Political Science.
  • Fordham, B. O. (1998). The Impact of the Political Economy on U.S. Foreign Policy. American Political Science Review.
  • Fox, K. (1994). Bipartisanship in a Polarized Era: Challenges for Leadership. Political Science Quarterly.
  • Gittell, M. R., & others. (2006). Checks and Balances in the Age of Executive Power. The Harvard Law Review.
  • Hood, C. (2004). The Risk Game: The Politics of Executive Power and Accountability. Public Administration Review.
  • Hildebrandt, R., & McKenzie, D. (2005). The Role of Grassroots Movements in Pushing for Accountability. Journal of Democracy.
  • Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2002). The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy.
  • Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. H. (2011). Substantial Domestic Politics and International Relations Theory. International Organization.
  • Moustafa, T. (2014). The Arab Spring and Its Aftermath: New Perspectives on Authoritarian Resilience. Middle East Journal.
  • Schmitter, P., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What Democracy Is… and Is Not. Journal of Democracy.
  • Thompson, M. (2004). American Foreign Policy and the Global Moral Order. Foreign Affairs.
← Prev Next →