The Trump Effect: How his executive orders could change North Carolina
by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press March 5, 2025
Upon taking office, President Donald Trump wasted no time before issuing a series of wide-reaching executive orders impacting federal funding, immigration, diversity efforts and environmental work.
Now, some North Carolina lawmakers are falling in line while others are planning how to fight back.
For state Senate Minority Leader Sydney Batch, Trump’s “frenetic” pace is nothing more than a distraction. Batch, a Democrat, would rather focus on state issues. Talk to her if an executive order isn’t blocked by the courts.
Still, in today’s political environment, state and local conversations increasingly mimic the national rhetoric. Such is the case in North Carolina, where Trump’s impact can already be seen through copycat legislation, funding cuts and policy shifts.
Trump and Musk
With Trump’s backing, Elon Musk’s newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency — more commonly known as DOGE — has opened a Pandora’s box of unprecedented cost-cutting measures.
First on the block was the U.S. Agency for International Development, which provides aid to countries pursuing democracy, struggling with poverty or recovering from disaster. Then came proposed funding limits to the National Institutes of Health, which supports medical research.
Next could be the U.S. Department of Education.
After that, it’s anyone’s guess.
State Sen. Sophia Chitlik, D-Durham, said the threat of losing funding at any moment influences countless industries.
“I would argue that it affects every major industry in our nation,” she said.
North Carolina is home to a pair of USAID’s biggest contractors: RTI International and FHI 360. Funding cuts may amount to a loss of 1,500 jobs, Chitlik said.
According to Batch, many of the state’s farmers could struggle from cuts, too, because they send much of their crops abroad through USAID programs.
Medical research at stake
A Trump executive order would cap NIH funding for indirect expenses at 15% of the grant amount. Indirect expenses pay for staff, maintenance and safety measures among other related needs. Current practice involves case-by-case negotiations between NIH and research groups.
Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill receive rates above 55% for indirect costs as top-15 recipients of NIH funding. Lost funding, if Trump wins in court, could put 25,000 North Carolina jobs at risk, Chitlik said. But more than the potential brain drain of researchers leaving North Carolina to pursue funding elsewhere, critical research may be lost, she added.
“I have been in touch with constituents who are literally on the verge of major breakthroughs in cancer, whose work has been completely disrupted,” Chitlik said. “I mean, we’re talking about innovation, destroyed jobs, destroyed human potential, destroyed by this instability.”
Environmental funding frozen
The Inflation Reduction Act, former President Joe Biden’s landmark environmental legislation, is also now frozen under the new administration.
According to an organization called Climate Power, North Carolina invested over $20 billion in new clean energy projects since the bill’s passage — a total of over 17,000 jobs that have revitalized rural communities.
The exact implications of the frozen funding remain unclear, but are sure to be damaging to North Carolina’s carbon neutrality goals, said Democratic Sen. Graig Meyer, who represents Caswell, Orange and Person counties.
State lawmakers take after Trump
North Carolina Republicans, inspired by Musk’s DOGE, have launched efforts of their own to cut down on alleged waste and fraud in government spending. So far, the House Oversight Committee has requested the state treasurer, secretary of revenue, state controller, secretary of transportation, state budget director and DMV commissioner testify as part of that effort.
In the meantime, Trump is reportedly drafting plans to eliminate the Department of Education in favor of leaving educational policy to the states.
While he technically needs Congress to do so, he’s unlikely to garner enough opposition to thwart his plans. In early March, most members of the agency received emails offering them a $25,000 buyout.
Chitlik is worried about early childhood education cuts, considering 17% of North Carolina children live below the poverty line, according to 2023 Kids Count data.
Additionally, Meyer is concerned about the fate of Title I funding for high-poverty schools and special education services overseen by the Department of Education.
“Title I funding is one of the largest pieces of economic redistribution that the federal government has — taking money from rich communities and giving it to poor communities through their schools,” Meyer said. “And so that means that in many of your redder states and redder areas, if you get rid of or cut that funding, you’re hurting the Trump base disproportionately.”
FEMA’s fate could hurt Western NC
The Federal Emergency Management Agency could also be on the chopping block.
When Trump visited Western North Carolina to survey Helene damage, he mentioned major reform to the federal disaster agency, suggesting states should play larger roles in recovery.
Nobody is entirely sure what he means, Meyer said. But he added that mayors in the region are feeling neglected and may be reaching a breaking point as they wait for federal and state funding to reach them.
DEI’s funeral comes to North Carolina
With a stroke of a pen, Trump signed the death warrant for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts across the federal government.
Now, North Carolina Republicans are looking to do the same on the state level. On Monday, Senate President Phil Berger filed Senate Bill 227, which would eliminate DEI in public education.
Under the proposed legislation, educators could not teach certain “divisive concepts” relating to race and sex. Also, banned would be DEI training, offices and hiring practices.
Last week, the North Carolina Legislative Black Caucus spoke out against the bill and Trump’s actions.
Democratic state Sen. Kandie Smith, who represents Edgecombe and Pitt counties, said anti-DEI efforts promote a false narrative that embracing diversity, equity and inclusion means lowering standards and hiring unqualified candidates.
“But the truth is, it expands opportunities without lowering standards because talent and opportunity are equitably distributed,” Smith said.
NC Republicans further Trump immigration mandate
By voting Trump into office, North Carolina Republicans argue that residents stamped their approval on his immigration agenda, federally and statewide.
First, it would require state law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
Second: It would charge the state budget office to determine whether non-citizens are getting public benefits they are ineligible to receive.
Third: It would incentivize counties and cities to comply with laws banning them from acting as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants by removing their immunity from civil lawsuits if a foreigner commits a crime within their borders.
And finally, it would ban University of North Carolina institutions from restricting immigration enforcement in any way.
The bill takes the “necessary next steps” after last year’s House Bill 10, which required county sheriffs to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said bill sponsor Sen. Buck Newton, aRepublican representing Greene, Wayne and Wilson counties.
The ties that bind
So far, Democratic Attorney General Jeff Jackson has sued Trump over four executive orders and actions alongside his counterparts from other states.
But if North Carolina Republicans have their way, Jackson won’t be able to join suits for much longer.
Senate Bill 58 would ban the attorney general from fighting against any presidential executive order in court.
State Sen. Timothy Moffitt, a Republican representing Henderson, Polk and Rutherford counties, is sponsoring the bill. For the past several decades, Moffitt said the General Assembly has given executive officers too much authority.
“We need to control that,” he said. “One person shouldn’t have ultimate power or too much power or too much ability to do at will.”
State Sen. Mujtaba Mohammed, D-Mecklenburg, said that North Carolinians voted for Jackson and Trump, which suggests they do want the checks and balances of a divided government.
“Today might be politically convenient for you to go after a Democratic attorney general,” Mohammed said. “We have a Republican in the White House. But imagine if this was a different scenario, where you had Kamala Harris as president with executive orders, and you had Dan Bishop as our attorney general. Would you want to tie Dan Bishop’s hands?”
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
