Connect with us

Politics

Trump made many 'Day One' promises. Will he make good on them?

Published

on

Trump made many 'Day One' promises. Will he make good on them?

From the start of his campaign to retake the White House, President-elect Donald Trump promised to go big on his first day back in power.

In a series of early videos outlining his plans and in stump speeches across the nation, Trump said he would use executive orders on “Day One” to bypass the normal legislative process and secure major changes to U.S. policy with the simple stroke of his pen.

He promised to unilaterally upend the long-recognized constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship by signing an executive order informing federal agencies that “under the correct interpretation of the law,” children of undocumented immigrants do not automatically receive U.S. citizenship by being born on U.S. soil.

He said he would “reverse the disastrous effects of Biden’s inflation and rebuild the greatest economy in the history of the world,” place new restrictions on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, halt the transition to electric vehicles in favor of fossil fuels, and use a decades-old public health statute known as Title 42 and the U.S. military to initiate “the largest domestic deportation effort in American history.”

“We will secure our borders and we will restore our sovereignty starting on Day One,” Trump said. “Our country will be great again.”

Advertisement

Trump’s promises have long excited Republicans and set Democrats on edge, but the anticipation has built ahead of his inauguration Monday, especially as media outlets have reported more than 100 executive orders are in the works and conservative members of Congress have said the president-elect intends to move quickly and aggressively — with their encouragement.

President Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in 2019.

(Yuri Gripas / Pool Photo )

“There is going to be shock and awe with executive orders,” Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican and the Senate majority whip, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “A blizzard of executive orders on the economy, as well as on the border.”

Advertisement

Rep. August Pfluger, a Texas Republican, told Fox News Digital that a House caucus he leads — the Republican Study Committee — recently received a briefing on what to expect from Trump’s deputy chief of policy, Stephen Miller. The group “is in lockstep with the incoming Trump administration” and “committed to working around the clock to deliver on the promises we made to the American people, especially when it comes to securing our border and enforcing immigration policies,” Pfluger said.

What Trump’s plans will mean for the nation — and on what timeline — is not entirely clear. Executive orders indicate a president’s intention to take swift action without waiting on Congress, but initiating their underlying policies often takes time, experts said — requiring a president’s Cabinet appointments to win confirmation and his administration to settle in first.

“There’s a lot that’s possible, but not on ‘Day One,’” said Bert Rockman, a professor emeritus of political science at Purdue University and an expert on executive and presidential powers. “The expectation that a lot of things are going to be done right off the bat, above and beyond [Trump’s] mouth, is probably precipitous.”

There is also the matter of legal challenges. During Trump’s first term, his efforts to enact policy through executive orders were repeatedly stymied by litigation brought by California and other liberal states — and those states are already gearing up to challenge Trump’s agenda once more, said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

“We’ve been talking, preparing, planning. We have [legal] briefs on the shelf where we just need to dot the i’s, cross the t’s, press print and file,” Bonta said in an interview with The Times. “We’ve listened to what Mr. Trump has been saying, his inner circle has been projecting, what Project 2025 says in black and white in print, and preparing for all the possibilities.”

Advertisement

Immigrant rights and other advocacy groups have also been preparing for a fight, including in consultation with Bonta’s office and at “Know Your Rights” events throughout the Los Angeles region, said Angélica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA.

“We had a meeting directly with [Bonta] to really talk about the things that we need to do to prepare and to ensure that we defend access to education, access to healthcare — that our schools, our clinics, our courtrooms, our shelters are all safe from [immigration] enforcement, and that we are ready to participate, as we did in the first Trump administration, as plaintiffs if necessary or as ourselves litigating directly against [these] kind of attacks,” Salas said.

Bonta said firestorms that have decimated some areas of L.A. County in recent days are a major part of his focus now and creating new demands on his staff, but that they will not undercut his team’s readiness to defend Californians’ interests against illegal Trump orders.

“We’re ready, we’re prepared,” Bonta said. “We expect the actions to flow on Day One, immediately — and we’re ready for what comes.”

Trump’s transition team did not respond to requests for comment. However, experts noted that Trump and his team are more prepared than they were at the start of his first term. Trump’s process for nominating Cabinet and other administration leaders is well ahead of where it was at his first inauguration, and that will result in a more efficient and successful start to his second term, they said.

Advertisement

In addition, conservative thought leaders — including those behind the Project 2025 playbook — have been contemplating Trump’s return for years, and have no doubt been helping Trump craft orders that are less vulnerable to legal challenges, the experts said.

“He certainly will have a more experienced administrative team — including himself. He’s been president,” said Mitchel Sollenberger, a political science professor at University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of several books on executive powers.

Still, Sollenberger said, “the realities of government are completely different than snapping one’s fingers.”

Executive orders may be unilateral dictates, but they still must follow a prescribed legal process.

Trump may be able to quickly undo executive orders put in place by President Biden — who himself issued a slate of executive orders in the first days of his administration, some to undo past Trump policies — and could issue orders that are more “symbolic” than prescriptive.

Advertisement
Flags in blue and red, one with a man's image and the word Trump

Pro-Trump demonstrators gather outside Manhattan criminal court after the sentencing in Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York on Jan. 10, 2025.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

Trump also could pardon or commute the sentences of his many supporters who were criminally charged and convicted for their role in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — which he repeatedly promised to do on the campaign trail.

However, Trump cannot issue orders that contradict the Constitution or existing laws set forth by Congress. And if he tries to do so, the experts said, he will be challenged in court by advocacy groups and a coalition of liberal states — opening the door for judges to halt his orders from taking effect while the legal battles play out.

California had great success in challenging Trump policies during his first term, filing more than 100 lawsuits against the federal government and winning many. And lawmakers and other leaders in the state have already signaled they are ready to do so again, with Gov. Gavin Newsom scheduling a special legislative session to secure funds for the expected legal fights ahead.

Advertisement

The L.A.-area fires have shifted priorities somewhat, and the special session will now be used in part to address fire needs. But Newsom and other officials have remained adamant that, when called for, they will take the Trump administration to court.

“We will work with the incoming administration, and we want President Trump to succeed in serving all Americans. But when there is overreach, when lives are threatened, when rights and freedoms are targeted, we will take action,” Newsom said recently.

Rockman and Sollenberger said they expect Trump to issue many executive orders. But because such orders are such a heavy and legally fraught lift, they also expect his administration to prioritize — and really come out swinging — on a select handful of orders that they deem most important to Trump’s base.

Orders with “some mass resonance, especially to his base, are the ones that I would expect him to give some priority,” Rockman said. “He’ll try to do the ones that are the most prominent.”

That’s likely to include orders on immigration that speak to border security and Trump’s promise to begin deportations, Rockman said. It may also include efforts to shore up loyalty among the vast federal bureaucracy, including by pushing “Schedule F” — or a plan to replace thousands of career civil servants with Trump loyalists, Rockman said.

Advertisement

Bonta said he also expects Trump to want to “come out with a splash” and to move most quickly, and brashly, on some of his biggest promises, especially around immigration. That includes his promises to end birthright citizenship and begin mass deportations, potentially using the military.

Those are also the sort of measures “that he can’t do” legally, and that California would challenge, Bonta said.

“We know exactly what court we’re going to sue him in and what our arguments are and who’s suing and who we’re suing with and how we create standing,” Bonta said.

The state is also readying responses to Trump challenges to clean-vehicle and other environmental regulations, a proposed ban on mail delivery of abortion pills, a unilateral shuttering of the U.S. Department of Education, the easing of Biden-era regulations on homemade “ghost guns” and other firearms, unlawful orders involving matters such as diversity, equity and inclusion programs or LGBTQ+ rights, the conditioning of emergency wildfire aid for the L.A. area on unrelated conservative demands being met, and more, Bonta said.

Already, Bonta’s office has intervened in court to defend a federal rule expanding healthcare access under the Affordable Care Act to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, recipients, and separately to defend Clean Air Act regulations on vehicle emissions, in anticipation of the Trump administration deciding to not defend the rules itself.

Advertisement

Bonta acknowledged that Trump’s team may have learned from early mistakes during his first term, when the administration lost policy fights because it tried to sidestep legal protocols for executive orders. But Bonta said he is also banking on the fact that Trump’s “desire to be aggressive” will once again cause him to “stumble.”

“He has not demonstrated discipline, he has not demonstrated compliance with the law, he has not demonstrated the willingness to stay within his actual grant of authority as the president of the United States. He reached outside of it many times under Trump 1.0. He used funding that he shouldn’t have used for a purpose it was not allowed for, he didn’t follow the required procedures and processes under federal law. He did it time and time again and we stopped him time and time again in court,” Bonta said. “I expect that again.”

Bonta said that the recent fires in L.A. County have created new demands on his office, but that it remains in “good shape” to handle those demands and any unlawful Trump administration orders simultaneously — in part thanks to millions of dollars in additional funding that he anticipates will be provided by the state Legislature.

“They’re up for the challenge. They want to do it. They’re mission-driven,” Bonta said of his team. “We are definitely busy, but not overly strained and certainly not over capacity.”

Bonta also stressed that fighting Trump’s agenda was not about “political gamesmanship” but “real outcomes for real Californians” that will also save the state money in the long run.

Advertisement

For example, California successfully fought a plan under Trump’s first administration to add a citizenship question to the U.S. Census, which state officials believed would have stoked fear and produced “an undercount that would have cost us billions of dollars,” given that federal funding for states is tied to population, Bonta said. It also fought off costly changes to environmental regulations and a proposed ban on federal public safety grants going to California’s sanctuary cities, he said.

Defending against unlawful immigration measures and attacks on green energy policies this time around will have a similar effect, Bonta said — protecting the California workers and industries that have made the state the fifth-largest economy in the world.

Salas, of CHIRLA, said she lives in the greater Pasadena area and has family and friends in the immigrant community who lost their homes in Altadena. The fires came right after Border Patrol agents launched one of the largest immigration enforcement sweeps in the Central Valley in years in Bakersfield, she noted — compounding fear and “panic” in the community.

And yet, the response has been one of compassion, generosity and resilience, she said — all of which will come in handy in the days to come.

“I see immigrants across my city helping neighbors, standing with each other, cleaning up debris, opening their doors to neighbors that lost their homes,” Salas said. “That’s the immigrant community that I know, and that’s the immigrant community that is willing to stand up for each other — and against this president.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

Published

on

Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

Virginia voters approved a new map that could flip four House seats away from Republicans going into the 2026 midterm elections. It was the latest fight in the national redistricting war.

By Shawn Paik

April 22, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown

Published

on

WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.

Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.

WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?

Advertisement

Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.

She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.

“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”

She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.

Advertisement

The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.

WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?

Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.

Advertisement

Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.

Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.

Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?

Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.

Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.

Advertisement

Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.

Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?

Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.

Warren: I’ll take that as a no.

Advertisement

In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.

She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.

THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO

Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.

Advertisement

Warren: I’m asking a factual question.

Warsh: This body certified the election.

Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?

Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.

Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.

Warren: Just one place where you disagree.

Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.

Advertisement

Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.

Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him

Published

on

Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him

On March 28, a sunny Saturday in southwestern Utah, Jack Hoopes and his wife, Lorna, brought their homemade signs to the local “No Kings” rally.

The couple joined a crowd of 1,500 or so marching through the main picnic area of a park in downtown St. George. Their signs — cut-out words on a black background — chided lawmakers for failing to stand up to President Trump and urged America to “make lying wrong again.”

After about an hour, the two were ready to go home. They got in their silver Volvo SUV, but before pulling away, Jack Hoopes decided to swing past the demonstration, which was still going strong. He tooted his horn, twice, in a show of solidarity.

That’s when things took a curious turn.

A police officer parked in the middle of the street warned Hoopes not to honk; at least that’s what he thinks the officer said as Hoopes drove past the chanting crowd. When he spotted two familiar faces, Hoopes hit the horn a third time — a friendly, howdy sort of honk. “It wasn’t like I was being obnoxious,” he said, “or laying on the horn.”

Advertisement

Hoopes turned a corner and the cop, lights flashing, pulled him over. He asked Hoopes for his license and registration. He returned a few moments later. A passing car sounded its horn. “Are you going to stop him, too?” Hoopes asked.

That did not sit well. The officer said he’d planned to let Hoopes off with a warning. Instead, he charged the 71-year-old retired potato farmer with violating Utah’s law on horns and warning devices. He issued a citation, with a fine punishable up to $50.

Hoopes — a law school graduate and prosecutor in the days before he took up potato farming — is fighting back, even though he estimates the legal skirmishing could cost him considerably more than the maximum fine. The ticket might have resulted from pique on the officer’s part. But Hoopes doesn’t think so. He sees politics at play.

“I’ve beeped my horn for [the pro-law enforcement] Back the Blue. I’ve beeped my horn for Black Lives Matter,” Hoopes said. “I’ve seen a lot of people honk for Trump and for MAGA.”

He’s also seen plenty of times when people honked their horns to celebrate high school championships and the like.

Advertisement

But Hoopes has never heard of anyone being pulled over, much less ticketed, for excessive or unlawful honking. “I think it’s freedom of expression,” he said.

Or should be.

Jack and Lorna Hoopes made their own protest signs to bring to the “No Kings” rally in St. George, Utah.

(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)

Advertisement

St. George is a fast-growing community of about 100,000 residents set amid the jagged red-rock peaks of the Mojave Desert. It’s a jumping-off point for Zion National Park, about 40 miles east, and a mecca for golf, hiking and mountain-bike riding.

It’s also Trump Country.

Washington County, where St. George is located, gave Trump 75% of its vote in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning a scant 23%. That emphatic showing compares with Trump’s 59% performance statewide.

St. George is where Hoopes and his wife live most of the time. When summer and its 100-degree temperatures hit, they retreat to southeast Idaho. The couple get along well with their neighbors in both places, Hoopes said, even though they’re Democrats living in ruby-red country. It’s not as though they just tolerate folks, or hold their noses to get by.

“Most of my friends are conservative,” Hoopes said. “Some of the Trump people are very good people. We just have a difference of opinion where our country is going.”

Advertisement

He was speaking from a hotel parking lot in Arizona near Lake Havasu while embarked on an annual motorcycle ride through the Southwest: four days, a dozen riders, 1,200 miles. Most of his companions are Trump supporters, Hoopes said, and, just like back home, everyone gets on fine.

“Right?” he called out.

“No!” a voice hollered back.

Actually, Hoopes joked, his charitable road mates let him ride along because they consider him handicapped — his disability being his political ideology.

Hoopes is not exactly a hellion. In 2014, he and his wife traveled to Africa to participate in humanitarian work and promote sustainable agriculture in Kenya and Uganda. In 2020, they worked as Red Cross volunteers helping wildfire victims in Northern California.

Advertisement

Virtually his entire life has been spent on the right side of the law, though Hoopes allowed as how he has racked up a few speeding tickets over the years. (His career as a prosecutor lasted four years and involved three murder cases in the first 12 months before he left the legal profession behind and took up farming.)

He’s never had any problems with the police in St. George. “They seem to be decent,” Hoopes said.

A department spokesperson, Tiffany Mitchell, said illicit honking is not a widespread problem in the placid, retiree-heavy community, but there are some who have been cited for violations. She denied any political motivation in Hoopes’ case.

“He must’ve felt justified,” Mitchell said of the officer who issued the citation. “I can’t imagine that politics had anything to do with it.”

And yes, she said, honking a horn can be a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment. “But, just like anything else, it can turn criminal,” Mitchell said, and apparently that’s how the officer felt on March 28 “and that’s the direction he took it.”

Advertisement

The matter now rests before a judge, residing in a legal system that has lately been tested and twisted in remarkable ways.

A pair of hands resting on a traffic citation given for alleged excessive honking

Jack Hoopes’ case is now before a judge in St. George, Utah.

(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)

As he left an initial hearing earlier this month, Hoopes said his phone pinged with a fresh headline out of Washington. Trump’s Justice Department, it was reported, was asking a federal appeals court to throw out the convictions of 12 people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

“We have a president that pardons people that broke into the Capitol and defecated” in the hallways and congressional offices, Hoopes said. “Police officers died because of it, and yet I get picked up for honking my horn?”

Advertisement

Hoopes’ next court appearance, a pretrial conference, is set for July 15.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending