Executive Orders - Beneficial or Authoritarian Tools?

The world of governance is incredibly important - it’s how we run our country. A large part of that sphere is the party that is elected into power because their policy and legislative decisions effectively decide how their country will be run. However, to ensure fairness in these bills, a congress with members from multiple parties will debate and discuss all bills and eventually come to a majority vote resulting in either the bill passing or failing. Over the past few weeks, I had been doing research for a debate where I discussed the pros and cons of executive orders (EOs) in the US government, and I thought it would be interesting to write about my findings.

EOs are directives that can be issued by the president without the necessity of congressional debate. While this may seem negative at face value - isn’t congress supposed to ensure that legislation is equitable? EOs exist for a reason as they allow for quick action when congress is gridlocked which is quite common in the bipartisan US congress. Executive orders have also generally had a generally positive historical precedent as presidents have been able to use the tool during emergencies like natural disasters or the Covid-19 pandemic. Some notable examples are the Hurricane Sandy and Katrina responses through EOs 13388 and 13632, the Iranian Hostage Crisis response through EO 12170 and even the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln to prevent the civil war was an executive order. This positive precedent is also partially due to the fact that in the past, federal courts and the supreme court have had the ability to provide injunctions that pause the EOs effect and in some cases strike down an executive order entirely. 

That is not to say that EOs have had their fair share of misuse. In 2017, Donald Trump issued EO 13769 which revoked the legal visas of over 60,000 people from Muslim majority countries; and before that, in 1942 Franklin D. Roosevelt issued EO 9066 which authorised the forced removal of Japanese Americans to internment camps which displaced families and mass discriminated. This proves that while the tool may have historically had a positive precedent, there are plenty of examples of its fallacies as well. A survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism. Is this tool that allows the president to unilaterally dictate policy part of the problem?

“Wise presidents seeking to exercise power effectively over the long term, take into consideration the effects both immediate and longer term, of how others are going to respond and react to the actions that they take.” -  Harvard professor Roger Porter when asked about Executive Orders. This statement provides an interesting perspective as to whether executive orders are beneficial or harmful in the long term - an EO is only as good as the president who wields its power. So while presidents who are cautious and considerate may make decisions about utilising executive power wisely, some presidents may use it to make rash policy decisions for personal or party gain.

In my opinion, after weighing the benefits and the harms of EOs, the executive tool has generally proven to be an effective policy dictator in times of need. However, the tool is being misused and after the supreme court ruling for the removal of the ability for injunctions to be posed by federal courts, something has to change. I believe that in times when an EO is necessary, a president and the executive branch should have the power to convene a smaller emergency congressional meeting allowing for discussion and debate without unilateral decision making.

As a whole, executive orders are a way for presidents to control the executive branch through directives. These directives have had a generally positive history of effectiveness, however, there are concerns around EOs being a somewhat unilateral style of policy making. The power of policy implementation must be left in the hands of someone competent enough to use it effectively, sometimes, the problem is not the tool, but the person using it. One possible solution to the unilateral decision making could be an emergency congressional hearing do discuss policy needs when needed. Executive orders are the go-to way for presidents to enforce legislation quickly and effectively, but the looming threat of authoritarianism because of the way an EOs decision making is unilaterally structured makes it less effective.