Executive Orders Have Become Executive Overreach

Last updated on October 1, 2025

America is no stranger to life under a king. 

In the leadup to the Revolution, the power to enact taxes, rewrite laws, and govern at will, was held by King George alone. The people had no voice. 

So when it came time to build a new government, our founders made one thing clear: no single person would ever hold that kind of power again.

Thus, our Constitution lays out a separation of powers: Congress writes the laws, the courts interpret them, and the president’s job is merely to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” 

Unfortunately, the abuse our founders feared has manifested. Executive orders – never mentioned in the Constitution – were long understood to merely carry out Congress’ laws. But over time, they’ve become legislative tools, letting the president unilaterally create policy with the stroke of a pen.

From FDR’s Japanese internment, to Nixon’s price controls, to Trump’s travel ban, presidents have exercised powers the Constitution never intended for one person.

Today it is clear: executive orders blur the line between president and king and erode the tenets of a thriving democracy. 

Look to the state of Congress. As Trump breaks records on executive orders, while Congress hits new lows, the correlation is no coincidence. Since executive orders let the president enact their agenda without securing votes in Congress, members of the president’s party in the House and Senate feel no need to compromise or pass legislation. After all, they can count on the president to deliver their preferred policies instead. 

Look to Congress themselves. House committee chair Maxine Waters sent a 45-page letter urging the president to issue executive orders on financial services, instead of drafting legislation. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer led a campaign pressuring Biden to cancel student debt, rather than introducing a bill in the chamber he controlled. And 14 bipartisan members implored Trump to boost medical equipment production – even though the group spanned both parties and could have introduced a bill.

Without executive orders holding Congress back, our nation would be better off. Since Congress takes the input of representatives from across the country, the policy results are more well-rounded and reflective of the people’s will – unlike decisions made by a single president.

Political polarization is also indicative of executive orders’ negative impact on democracy. Indeed, as executive orders increasingly take a legislative role, the office of the president is now seen as a cure-all to America’s problems, raising the stakes of every election and deepening polarization. Democrats and Republicans fear that if the other party holds the presidency, there is no limit to the sweeping changes the president could enact through executive orders. 

Take the 2024 election. Biden warned voters that “Your freedom is on the ballot,” and Trump rallied his base, exclaiming, “If we lose this battle, we lose our country.” 

So as executive orders make the presidency seem existential, Americans see it no longer as just a political office – but a symbol of life or death. Nearly one in four Americans believe that political violence is justified, with 400 incidents in 2024 alone.

But democracy depends on compromise – on believing the other side is worth working with. It’s built on respecting one another, accepting gains and losses, and trusting the political process. When both sides believe the other to be morally bankrupt, the shared promise of democracy unravels.

Ultimately, the more power we hand to the president, the less this country belongs to us. And when executive orders have immobilized Congress and divided our citizenry like never before, we are no longer by the people.