The day after President Trump’s inauguration, I wrote a post where I tried to keep up with all of the president’s executive actions. I planned on updating the post on a monthly basis as a way to seperate the wheat of what he does from the chaff of what he says.
Then I discovered the POTUS Tracker, a website developed by Luke Wines that combines a running summary of executive actions, memoranda, and proclamations (helpfully pointing out which ones have been suspended due to a lawsuit) with a map of where the president is currently located and the official White House schedule. Because this did what I planned on doing but in a much more visually appealing way, I decided to scrap my “monthly update” plans.
While the POTUS Tracker is incredibly useful, I found its (I’m assuming AI-automated) summaries to take the words of the president’s executive orders, memoranda, and proclamations at face value, and if there’s anything humanity has learned about this president’s words (and usually any president’s words), it’s that they are not be trusted.
To that end, in the middle of February 2025, I created a ChatGPT Scheduled Task to run every Friday morning. The task sends ChatGPT to read all of the president’s executive orders for the given week, create a summary of the action, and then append to it “an analysis written for a radical left-wing audience that is skeptical of the president’s authoritarian leanings, while at the same time not allowing the analysis to skew towards propaganda or group think.”
ChatGPT reviews the president’s weekly executive orders through a radical-left lens—skeptical of authoritarianism, yet resisting propaganda and groupthink.
This post contains the output of that scheduled task.
As you read through, you’ll see the the format of the analyses are basically rote: This [blank] does [blank], followed by a contrarian statement. My intent in sharing the output is not to highlight ChatGPT’s writing skills or lack thereof. It’s to kickstart a reader’s bullshit detector when it comes to this president’s official actions.
February 14-20, 2025
1. Executive Order: Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy
Analysis: This order aims to shrink the federal government by eliminating certain agencies and advisory committees deemed unnecessary. While reducing bureaucratic bloat can be beneficial, critics may view this as a move to dismantle institutions that provide essential public services and oversight. The lack of transparency in determining which entities are “unnecessary” raises concerns about the potential erosion of public accountability and the consolidation of power.
2. Executive Order: Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Regulatory Initiative
Analysis: This directive seeks to rescind regulations considered unconstitutional or overly burdensome, emphasizing a strict interpretation of federal authority. While streamlining regulations can promote efficiency, there is apprehension that this approach may undermine protections related to the environment, public health, and worker rights. The broad criteria for rescinding regulations could be used to justify the rollback of essential safeguards, favoring corporate interests over public welfare.
3. Proclamation: 80th Anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima
Analysis: Commemorating historical military events honors those who served; however, some may interpret this as an attempt to bolster nationalist sentiments and justify increased military spending. In the context of rising global tensions, such proclamations might be perceived as a means to distract from domestic issues and rally support for authoritative policies under the guise of patriotism.
4. Executive Order: Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders
Analysis: This order terminates funding for programs perceived to support unauthorized immigration. While fiscal responsibility is important, framing immigration through a punitive lens can exacerbate xenophobia and ignore the complex socio-economic factors driving migration. Critics argue that this approach undermines humanitarian commitments and may lead to increased marginalization of vulnerable populations, all while expanding the enforcement apparatus of the state.
5. Executive Order: Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
Analysis: By mandating increased presidential oversight of independent regulatory agencies, this order centralizes executive power, potentially compromising the autonomy of agencies designed to operate free from political influence. This consolidation may lead to the erosion of checks and balances, enabling the executive branch to unilaterally shape policy without adequate oversight, which is a hallmark of authoritarian governance.
6. Executive Order: Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization
Analysis: While expanding reproductive health services is positive, the administration’s support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) may be viewed with skepticism if not accompanied by broader healthcare reforms. Without addressing systemic issues like healthcare affordability and access, this action could be seen as a superficial measure that benefits a select few, rather than a commitment to comprehensive reproductive rights for all individuals.
7. Executive Order: Radical Transparency About Wasteful Spending
Analysis: Promoting transparency in government spending is commendable; however, the term “radical transparency” may be a rhetorical device to justify cuts to social programs under the pretext of eliminating waste. There is concern that this initiative could selectively target programs that do not align with the administration’s agenda, reducing support for marginalized communities while leaving larger, less efficient expenditures unaddressed.
8. Proclamation: President George Washington’s Birthday, 2025
Analysis: Celebrating foundational historical figures is customary, yet the emphasis on President Washington may be leveraged to evoke a return to traditionalist values. This could serve to reinforce a narrative that prioritizes a specific interpretation of American identity, potentially marginalizing diverse perspectives and justifying policies that consolidate power under the guise of preserving heritage.