Sharece Thrower, Vanderbilt University

Before his inauguration, Donald Trump promised to issue a total of 100 or so executive orders once he regained the presidency. These orders are expected to reset government policy on everything from immigration enforcement to diversity initiatives to environmental regulation. They also aim to undo much of Joe Biden’s presidential legacy.

Trump is not the first U.S. president to issue an executive order, and he certainly won’t be the last. My own research shows executive orders have been a mainstay in American politics – with limitations.

What is an executive order?

Though the Constitution plainly articulates familiar presidential tools like vetoes and appointments, the real executive power comes from reading between the lines.

Presidents have long interpreted the Constitution’s Article 2 clauses – like “the executive power shall be vested in a President” and “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” – to give them total authority to enforce the law through the executive branch, by any means necessary.

One leading way they do that is through executive orders, which are presidential written directives to agencies on how to implement the law. The courts view them as legally valid unless they violate the Constitution or existing statutes.

Executive orders, like other unilateral actions, allow presidents to make policy outside of the regular lawmaking process.

This leaves Congress, notoriously polarized and gridlocked, to respond.

Thus, executive orders are unilateral actions that give presidents several advantages, allowing them to move first and act alone in policymaking.

How have they historically been used?

Every U.S. president has issued executive orders since they were first systematically cataloged in 1905.

In March of 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized President Obama’s use of executive orders.

“Executive orders sort of came about more recently. Nobody ever heard of an executive order. Then all of a sudden Obama – because he couldn’t get anybody to agree with him – he starts signing them like they’re butter,” Trump said. “So I want to do away with executive orders for the most part.”

Little in this statement is true.

Obama signed fewer orders than his predecessors – averaging 35 per year. Trump issued an average of 55 per year.

Against conventional wisdom, presidents have relied less on executive orders over time. Indeed, modern presidents used drastically fewer orders per year – an average of 59 – than their pre-World War II counterparts, who averaged 314.

Executive orders have been used for everything from routine federal workplace policies like ethics pledges to the controversial 2017 travel ban restricting entry into the United States.

They have been used to manage public lands, the economy, the civil service and federal contractors, and to respond to various crises such as the Iran hostage situation and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Presidents often use them to advance their biggest agenda items, by creating task forces or policy initiatives and directing rulemaking, the process for formally translating laws into codified policy.

Limitations in their use

Why don’t presidents always issue executive orders, a seemingly powerful policy device? Because they come with serious constraints.

First, executive orders may not be as unilateral as they seem. Drafting an order involves a time-consuming bargaining process with various agencies negotiating its content.

Second, if they are issued without proper legal authority, executive orders can be overturned by the courts – although that happens infrequently.

Trump’s 2017 travel ban faced several legal challenges before it was written in a way to satisfy the court. Many of his initial orders, on the other hand, didn’t face legal scrutiny because they simply requested agencies to work within their existing authority to change important policies like health care and immigration.

Congress is another barrier, as they give presidents the legal authority to make policy in a certain area. By withholding that authority, Congress can deter presidents from issuing executive orders on certain issues. If the president issues the order anyway, the courts can overturn it.

Legislators can also punish presidents for issuing executive orders they do not like by sabotaging their legislative agendas and nominees or defunding their programs.

Even a polarized Congress can find ways to sanction a president for an executive order they don’t like. For example, a committee can hold an oversight hearing or launch an investigation – both of which can decrease a president’s public approval rating.

Congresses of today are equipped to impose these constraints and they do so more often on ideologically opposed administrations. This is why scholars find modern presidents issue fewer executive orders under divided government, contrary to popular media narratives that present executive orders as a president’s way of circumventing Congress.

Finally, executive orders are not the last word in policy. They can be easily revoked.

New presidents often reverse previous orders, particularly those of political opponents. Biden, for instance, quickly revoked Trump’s directives that excluded undocumented immigrants from the U.S. Census.

All recent presidents have issued revocations, especially in their first year. They face barriers in doing so, however, including public opinion, Congress and legal limitations.

Regardless, executive orders are not as durable as laws or regulations.

Constraints on Trump

Some of Trump’s executive orders, particularly those focused on the economy, will require legislation since Congress holds the purse strings.

Though Trump inherits a Republican House and Senate, their majorities are marginal, and moderate party dissenters may frustrate his agenda. Even so, he will undoubtedly use all available legal authority to unilaterally transform his goals into government policy.

But then again, these directives may be undone by the courts – or by the next president with the stroke of a pen.

This is an updated version of a story originally published on January 26, 2021.

Sharece Thrower, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tricia Wachtendorf, University of Delaware and James Kendra, University of Delaware

As wildfires swept through neighborhoods on the outskirts of Los Angeles in January 2025, stories about residents there helping their neighbors and total strangers began trickling out on social media.

Accounts of Hollywood stars clearing streets for emergency vehicles to get through and raising money for fire victims were widely circulated. But there were many other examples of less-famous people helping older neighbors to safety, and even showing up with trailers to evacuate horses.

Businesses, including fitness centers, opened their facilities so evacuees could shower or charge their phones. Organizations that routinely work with homeless populations quickly mobilized their members to help ensure people living on the streets and in camps could get to secure, safe locations away from the fires and hazardous air quality.

Disasters, by definition, overwhelm local resources, making civilian responders like these essential. Sixty years of research at the University of Delaware’s Disaster Research Center and by others examining the social aspects of disaster has repeatedly shown effective disaster management requires mobilizing community resources far beyond official channels.

Often the response happens through local groups that form in response to a clear need in the community and with shared skills and interests. And this is exactly what we are witnessing in Los Angeles.

Civilians helping often number in the thousands

The number of those who step up to help during disasters varies by event, but it can be tremendous.

Following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, over 6,800 volunteers worked with the Red Cross on the response. That same year, volunteers responding to the Kobe earthquake in Japan logged more than 1 million person-days of activity, a measure of the number of people times the hours they contributed.

In an in-depth study of the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center attacks , we interviewed local residents who used their retired fireboat to pump water for the firefighters at ground zero. Operators of tug, ferry and tour boats in and around New York City immediately responded to quickly evacuate 500,000 people in the area from danger. In fact, the majority of the boats involved belonged to private companies. Other volunteers queued evacuees and organized supplies and rides to get people home.

Over 900 people, most acting in unofficial capacities, were awarded medals or ribbons for their efforts in just the marine response after the World Trade Center attack.

A survey of residents after the 1985 Mexico City earthquake found that nearly 10% of local residents volunteered in the first three weeks of the response. Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, in California, a survey of residents in Santa Cruz and San Francisco counties found that two-thirds of the public were involved in response activities.

However, much of the work local residents contribute during and after disasters goes unaccounted for in official reports.

There is no mechanism to quantify the full extent to which a neighbor or a complete stranger helps someone flee from peril. Yet when people are trapped and minutes count, research shows it is family, friends and neighbors who are already on the scene and are most likely to save lives. It’s often everyday citizens who also take on immediate tasks such as debris removal. Providing a phone, a car, a place to do laundry, or a little bit of elbow grease can fill a gap and let firefighters and other formal responders focus on critical operations.

Getting the right help to where it’s needed

Every study of a large-scale disaster conducted by the Disaster Research Center has revealed some level of emergent, informal helping behavior.

The lack of public understanding about the large number of local residents already involved, often including disaster victims themselves, can lead to an influx of outsiders eager to help. Their arrival can actually pose challenges for the disaster response.

When too many people show up, or when people try to operate outside their areas of expertise, they can put themselves and others at further risk. Communities often need supplies, but unsolicited goods of the wrong kind or at the wrong time can create more problems than they solve.

So, what can you do to best support these local efforts?

Making a financial contribution to a trusted disaster response or local organization can go a long way to providing the support communities actually need. Organizations such as the American Red Cross or Feeding America, or local community-based groups that routinely work in the area, are often best suited to help where it’s needed the most.

Skilled help will be needed for the long term

Also, remember that disasters don’t end when the emergency is over. Survivors of the Los Angeles-area fires face years of confusing and frustrating recovery tasks ahead.

Offering help after the immediate threat has passed – particularly skilled help, such as experience in construction or expertise in managing insurance and FEMA paperwork – is just as important.

For example, after fires in 1970 destroyed hundreds of homes in the San Diego area, local architects, engineers and contractors donated their time and skills to help people rebuild. Their work was coordinated by a local architect and member of the Chamber of Commerce to ensure projects were assigned to reputable volunteers.

As we recognize the important ways that neighbors and strangers helped those around them, the broader community can support wildfire victims by responding to offering the right help as recovery needs emerge. Just about every skill that is useful in calm times will be needed in these difficult months and years ahead.

Tricia Wachtendorf, Professor of Sociology and Director, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware and James Kendra, Director, Disaster Research Center and Professor, Public Policy & Administration, University of Delaware

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jesse Rhoades, University of North Dakota and Rebecca Rhoades, University of North Dakota

The U.S.’s return to the Moon with NASA’s Artemis program will not be a mere stroll in the park. Instead it will be a perilous journey to a lunar location representing one of the most extreme environments in the solar system.

For the Artemis program astronauts, walking on the Moon will require new ways of thinking, the latest technology and innovative approaches to improve boot and spacesuit design.

The Apollo program’s journeys to the Moon 50 years ago were all to the milder, equatorial regions of the lunar surface, where the coolest temperatures reached -9 degrees Fahrenheit (-23 degrees Celsius).

In contrast, the Artemis missions are designed to take astronauts to the Moon’s extreme polar regions, where temperatures can reach -369 degrees Fahrenheit (-223 degrees Celsius). Apollo-era equipment designed for short-term stays in a moderate zone will not be enough for extended stays in this new, more hostile region.

At the University of North Dakota we focus on biomechanics, the study of human movement. Our research explores the effects of extreme environments on human movement patterns and gait, and our lab conducts research that we hope will one day help astronauts explore the Moon while protecting their body.

New boots for the Moon

Of all the equipment astronauts need to explore the Moon, one of the most critical pieces is the boots they’ll use for extravehicular activity – when they step outside their spacecraft and bounce across the lunar landscape. These boots have to hold up to the harsh environmental conditions unique to the lunar south pole.

Since the lunar poles are much colder than other lunar regions, the boots will need to retain heat effectively. The current iteration of the lunar boot uses a rigid thermal plate, which is typically integrated into the sole of the boot. The plate is solid and does not bend or flex. These plates were not used during the earlier Apollo missions.

While it’s necessary to keep astronauts’ feet warm, this addition to the boot prevents the footwear from flexing. The stiff sole restricts the foot’s natural movement, specifically the joint at the big toe, called the the metatarsophalangeal, or MTP, joint. The MTP joint bends and flexes to facilitate normal walking and running gait patterns.

The windlass mechanism

As you walk, the MTP joint allows your big toe to extend forward. Extension of the big toe triggers a mechanism in the foot that converts the flexible landing foot to a ridged pushing foot when you’re about to push forward to step. This mechanism allows the foot to become rigid and support your body weight through your step. Kinesiologists call this mechanism the windlass mechanism.

The windlass mechanism isn’t well studied – particularly under lunar gravity. If this mechanism is vital for walking around on the Moon, it could be a problem that the boots keep an astronaut’s feet from bending.

There are a million little details that have to go right for a Moon mission to succeed – how much flex is in the sole of the boots explorers use is just one that could ultimately influence their health on the Moon.

While an astronaut should be fine over the short term – days or weeks – once astronauts are staying on the Moon for months, they could develop a foot injury that might affect other parts of the body.

Kinesiologists like to examine the human body as a kinetic chain. This is to say, if you hurt part of your lower body, your upper body takes on the load of many of its functions. An issue that begins in the foot may affect the way a person walks and stands, causing further injury up the kinetic chain, through compensatory mechanisms.

So, the kinetic chain describes how an injury in the lower body could cause chronic injury in several other joints further up the body.

As NASA works on sending astronauts back to the Moon, researchers will need to learn more about lunar gait to understand how the foot reacts while moving around under lunar gravity. What they learn will aid designers as they continue to perfect spacesuit designs.

Jesse Rhoades, Associate Professor of Education, Heath & Behavior, University of North Dakota and Rebecca Rhoades, Researcher in Education, Health & Behavior, University of North Dakota

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.