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: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

Published

on

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Some of the top rumored Democratic potential candidates for president in 2028 are showing a united front in opposing U.S. strikes on Iran, with several high-profile figures accusing President Donald Trump of launching an unnecessary and unconstitutional war.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump was “dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want.”

“Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice,” Harris said in a statement Saturday following the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout Iran.

“This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world,” she continued. “What we are witnessing is not strength. It is recklessness dressed up as resolve.”

Advertisement

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are leading Democratic 2028 hopefuls who spoke out against U.S. strikes on Iran. (Big Event Media/Getty Images for HumanX Conference; Reuters/Liesa Johannssen; Mario Tama/Getty Images)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered some of his sharpest criticism during a book tour stop Saturday night in San Francisco, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis.

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Newsom said. “He lied to you. So reckless is the only way to describe this.”

“He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here,” Newsom added. “There wasn’t one. He manufactured it.”

Newsom is currently promoting his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” with recent and upcoming stops in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada — three key early voting states in the Democratic presidential calendar.

Advertisement

Earlier in the day, Newsom said Iran’s “corrupt and repressive” regime must never obtain nuclear weapons and that the “leadership of Iran must go.”

“But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people,” Newsom wrote on X.

California is home to more than half of the roughly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States, including a large community in West Los Angeles often referred to as “Tehrangeles.”

DEMOCRATS BUCK PARTY LEADERS TO DEFEND TRUMP’S ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ ON IRAN

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice and “Squad” member, accused Trump of dragging Americans into a conflict they did not support.

Advertisement

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead,” she continued.

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not,” she said, pledging to vote “YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress. (Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Vox Media)

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat often mentioned as a potential 2028 contender, also criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress.

Advertisement

“No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective,” Pritzker wrote on X.

“Donald Trump is once again sidestepping the Constitution and once again failing to explain why he’s taking us into another war,” he continued. “Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict.”

“God protect our troops,” Pritzker added.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails.

“In our democracy, the American people — through our elected representatives — decide when our nation goes to war,” Shapiro said, adding that Trump “acted unilaterally — without Congressional approval.”

Advertisement

JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails. (Rachel Wisniewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people… they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” he said. “But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war.”

Shapiro added that “Congress must use all available power” to prevent further escalation.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also accused Trump of launching a “war of choice.”

Advertisement

“The President has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.”

Buttigieg has been hitting early voting states, stopping in New Hampshire and Nevada in recent weeks to campaign for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who has been floated as a rising national figure within the party, said he lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war and opposed the strikes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people. We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die,” Gallego wrote on X. 

Advertisement

Fox News’ Daniel Scully and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

Related Article

From hostage crisis to assassination plots: Iran’s near half-century war on Americans
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Published

on

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Advertisement

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Advertisement

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Advertisement

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

Advertisement

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

Advertisement

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending