(Click here to get to the good stuff on President Trump’s executive orders)
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 (sometimes slightly edited) output of that scheduled task.
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.
Editor’s Note: With ChatGPT 5.2, I settled on the following for the prompt to drive this post. It now reads:
“You are a radical-left political analyst who is objectively concerned about the Trump Administration’s preferences for right-wing authoritarianism, fascistic tendencies, anti-democratic principles, militant nationalism, and white supremacy. Every Friday at 9 AM Eastern Standard Time, you go to the White House’s list of Executive Orders, follow the links to each executive order issued between the previous Friday and the current Friday, read through them with your radical-left critical lens, and provide me with a one- or two-sentence objective summary of the Executive Order with no snark so readers can, without bias, understand the purpose and scope of the order. Followed by your radical-left critical analysis of the order. Your analysis should be written in a heartfelt yet clear-eyed tone that communicates to all patriots (not nationalists) how this particular order aligns (or doesn’t align) with the fundamental principles of liberal democracy. Follow that with a one- or two-sentence verifiable citation from a reputable third party that supports or extends your analysis.”
Executive Actions from December 13, 2025 – December 31, 2025
163. Providing for the Closure of Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on December 24, 2025, and December 26, 2025 (Dec 18 2025)
Analysis: This order declares December 24 and December 26, 2025, as days when most executive departments and agencies will be closed, effectively extending the holiday period for federal employees. No radical-left-wing analysis required.
Third‑Party Note: No reason to give a note.
162. Ensuring American Space Superiority (Dec 18 2025)
Analysis: This executive order outlines a national strategy for space exploration and security, emphasizing enhanced coordination of federal space policy and explicitly framing U.S. competition with global rivals as a central objective. From a radical left perspective, casting space policy in terms of “superiority” and geopolitical rivalry reinforces a militarized and nationalist approach to science and exploration. It channels public funds into empire‑style posturing rather than equitable scientific cooperation, heightens securitization of space technologies, and sidelines democratic governance or international collaboration on space policy. This logic aligns with the broader trend of weaponized techno‑nationalism that prioritizes dominance over shared human progress.
Third‑Party Note: The Council on Foreign Relations explains that the executive order “blends a collection of forward-leaning policies, a fulsome support for nuclear power in space, and tight deadlines. But to succeed, space policy must also facilitate setting practical rules-of the-road for space safety supported by all countries…The new policy is incomplete without a sustained strategy to collaborate with other countries to set up practical rules. In fact, U.S. leadership in space is hampered by the country’s spurning of efforts at cooperation with those otherwise willing to work with Washington.“
161. Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research (Dec 18 2025)
Analysis: This order directs federal agencies to lower barriers to research on marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD) by adjusting their legal classification and promoting scientific study. While this appears to expand medical research access, a radical left critique notes that framing cannabis policy solely through a research lens avoids addressing the punitive drug enforcement regime that disproportionately incarcerates Black and Brown people. It preserves harmful structures while offering narrow research flexibility, channeling reform energy into science logistics rather than ending criminalization or investing in community‑centered drug support services.
Third‑Party Note: According to High Times (because where else would you go to get a stoner’s take on something), “the executive order does not deliver any immediate legal relief to cannabis businesses, and it does not unlock the benefits many people assume come with Schedule III. The most obvious beneficiaries…are pharmaceutical companies developing FDA-approved cannabinoid drugs, federally compliant manufacturers with the capital to pursue DEA registration and clinical trials, and research institutions operating squarely within the federal system.”
160. Designating Fentanyl as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (Dec 15 2025)
Analysis: This order categorizes fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction,” drastically heightening law enforcement and security responses to its production and distribution. From a radical left perspective, this militarized framing turns a public health crisis into a security threat, escalating punitive policing and border enforcement rather than supporting harm reduction or treatment infrastructure. It resonates with failed War on Drugs strategies that disproportionately harm marginalized communities and expands the security state under the guise of combating substance abuse.
Third‑Party Note: According to lawfaremedia.org, the statutory text behind WMD designations “requires more than mere toxicity. It requires a ‘weapon that is designed or intended to cause death’…[but] fentanyl is not designed or sold as a weapon[;] traffickers do not intend to kill their customers[; and statutory] language connotes a mode of delivery characteristic of chemical weapons: dispersal into an environment to affect those present, rather than the voluntary consumption model of drug transactions… This new order leaves many open questions [and] the practical stakes are significant: expanded prosecutorial tools, enhanced financial forfeiture powers, and possible legal justification for increased federal military intervention in domestic and international affairs. The order tests the boundaries of these authorities and highlights tensions between executive policy priorities and statutory constraints that could produce litigation refining the boundaries of presidential power and the statutory expression of weapons of mass destruction.”
Executive Actions from December 06, 2025 – December 12, 2025
159. Protecting American Investors from Foreign-Owned and Politically-Motivated Proxy Advisors (Dec 11 2025)
Analysis: This order directs the SEC, FTC, and Labor Department to aggressively review and potentially rewrite rules, guidance, and enforcement practices governing proxy advisory firms like ISS and Glass Lewis, with a focus on their foreign ownership, alleged conflicts of interest, and support for shareholder proposals on racial equity, board diversity, and climate action, and contemplates treating them as ERISA fiduciaries subject to tougher standards. From a radical‑left perspective, the move fits neatly into the broader right‑wing backlash against ESG and DEI, portraying any attempt to push corporations on climate risk or structural racism as illegitimate “politicization” while ignoring how corporate management and large asset managers already wield enormous unaccountable power. By weaponizing nationalism against “foreign‑owned” advisors and tightening the screws on those who back climate and equity resolutions, the order chills shareholder democracy and shields entrenched corporate interests, notably fossil fuel and anti‑labor firms. It redistributes influence upward to executives and mega‑funds, reinforcing oligarchic control over capital markets under the banner of protecting ordinary investors.
Third-Party Note: Financial press and governance analysts point out that the order is part of an escalating conservative campaign against ESG investing, singling out ISS and Glass Lewis for their support of climate and diversity proposals and directing regulators to revisit proxy rules in a way that could curb such activism, even as business lobbies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cheer the effort as a way to strip “politics” out of shareholder voting. See reporting from Reuters, the Financial Times, and the Chamber’s own statement.
158. Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (Dec 11 2025)
Analysis: This order declares U.S. AI dominance a core national goal, creates a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force to sue states over AI laws deemed “onerous,” directs Commerce and other agencies to identify and undermine conflicting state AI regulations, and contemplates conditioning federal broadband funds on state compliance while pushing Congress to preempt state rules with a national framework. From a radical‑left angle, it is a textbook centralizing power grab that uses “innovation” and the AI arms race with China as cover to kneecap democratic experiments in algorithmic accountability, civil‑rights protections, and worker safeguards in states like Colorado and California. By branding anti‑discrimination and transparency obligations as “ideological bias,” the order sides squarely with large tech firms and hostile culture‑war politics, while threatening to punish states financially for trying to protect residents from opaque, high‑risk systems. The result erodes federalism and local self‑government, weakens checks on surveillance and exploitative automation, and nudges AI governance toward a corporate‑friendly, low‑regulation “Wild West” that is structurally at odds with robust liberal‑democratic oversight.
Third-Party Note: Reporting from outlets such as the Washington Post and Reuters highlights that the order empowers DOJ to challenge state AI laws in court and threatens to pull future broadband funding from states with strict AI rules, while critics warn it could create a “lawless Wild West” that privileges big‑tech interests over democratic regulation and civil rights protections. See for example coverage in the Washington Post and Reuters
157. Addressing Security Risks from Price Fixing and Anti-Competitive Behavior in the Food Supply Chain (Dec 06 2025)
Analysis: This order creates Food Supply Chain Security Task Forces to investigate price fixing and other anti‑competitive practices in sectors like meat processing, seed, fertilizer, and equipment, with a special focus on foreign‑controlled firms and alleged national security risks, and authorizes both enforcement and potential criminal prosecutions. From a radical‑left perspective, targeting price fixing is fine, but wrapping antitrust in a food‑security and foreign‑threat narrative leans into economic nationalism instead of confronting decades of deregulation and consolidation driven by U.S. agribusiness and trade policy. The order can justify selective enforcement against foreign or politically disfavored companies while leaving domestic monopolies and abusive labor practices intact. It also follows an administration that already dismantled a broader pro‑competition agenda, so the sudden antitrust zeal looks more like nationalist optics than a structural challenge to corporate power.
Third-Party Note: Legal and policy analyses note that the order significantly accelerates antitrust scrutiny across the food supply chain and explicitly situates it within a national and economic security framework that singles out foreign‑controlled companies in meat, seed, fertilizer, and equipment markets, underscoring how competition policy is being folded into a broader nationalist agenda rather than a neutral consumer‑protection project.
Executive Actions from November 22 – December 05, 2025
156. Launching the Genesis Mission (Nov 24 2025)
Analysis: This order creates the “Genesis Mission,” a DOE-led national program to build an American Science and Security Platform that unifies federal scientific data, high-performance computing, and AI “foundation models” to accelerate research, innovation, and national security capabilities. In radical-left terms, it is a Manhattan Project style bid to fuse public science, national labs, and private AI firms into a centralized techno-nationalist complex aimed at “technological dominance” rather than democratic stewardship of science. The order hardwires national security priorities into AI research, normalizing dual-use, militarizable AI infrastructure while leaving questions of labor impact, environmental cost, and public oversight to the margins. Framing AI as a race the United States must “win” against rivals reinforces an arms-race mentality that sidelines global cooperation, civil liberties, and community consent in favor of elite technocratic control and corporate-state alignment.
Third-Party Note: Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies observe that the Genesis Mission is explicitly framed as this generation’s “Manhattan Project,” designed to double U.S. scientific productivity while strengthening national security and restoring technological leadership against China, underscoring how AI research is being folded into great-power competition rather than purely public-interest science.
155. Designation of Certain Muslim Brotherhood Chapters as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (Nov 24 2025)
Analysis: This order directs the Secretaries of State and Treasury to assess and, if warranted, formally designate specified Muslim Brotherhood chapters (notably in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists, and to act on those designations within tight timelines. A radical-left critique acknowledges that some Brotherhood-linked groups have engaged in or supported violence, but warns that this kind of executive-driven labeling in a charged political climate blurs lines between armed factions and broader Islamist political movements. It risks feeding Islamophobic narratives at home, legitimizing guilt-by-association attacks on Muslim civil society, and aligning U.S. policy with authoritarian regimes that treat all Islamist opposition as “terrorist.” The broad, symbolically loaded move hands the executive sweeping power to blacklist with limited transparency, threatening academic freedom, charitable giving, and political organizing, and eroding the pluralistic space that liberal democracy is supposed to protect.
Third-Party Note: 81 Civil, Human Rights, and Faith Based Groups signed a letter noting that they are “deeply concerned that such a designation could lead to the stigmatization and targeting of American Muslim civil society, including non-profits, charities, religious organizations, and activists. Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, even in part, will likely have a chilling effect on Muslim civic life and scholarship, empowers anti-Muslim activists who frame mainstream Muslim institutions as suspect through guilt by association, and risks undermining U.S. relationships with allies where Brotherhood-affiliated parties are part of normal political life.
Executive Actions from November 14 – November 21, 2025
154. Modifying the Scope of Tariffs on the Government of Brazil (Nov 20 2025)
Analysis: This order amends a prior tariff‑imposing order by removing certain agricultural products from additional duties on Brazil after negotiations, with effect for goods on or after Nov 13. From a radical‑left lens: the invocation of a “national emergency” regarding a trading partner (Brazil) and the imposition of broad extra tariffs reflect the use of economic coercion and sovereign power in a way reminiscent of unilateral sanctions regimes; this raises concerns about democratic oversight of foreign‑economic policy, asymmetric power over less‑wealthy nations, and the instrumentalisation of trade policy in service of nationalistic geoeconomic aims rather than inclusive global standards.
Third‑Party Note: From an editorial published by the Peterson Institute For International Economics: “My wife pointed out that the tariff relief granted to the American consumer was presented as a welcome benefit from the administration but that the tariff exemptions are from a levy put in place by the administration itself, which the president claimed he had the discretion to impose. Having access to untaxed or lower taxed food is now a privilege afforded by the White House….No procedure is required—no public hearing or opportunity to be heard, no consultation with committees of Congress—before a tariff is now raised or lowered on the goods of any country. The president’s power over tariffs appears to be currently absolute.”
Executive Actions from November 01 – November 13, 2025
153. Fostering the Future for American Children and Families (Nov 13 2025)
Analysis: This executive order directs the Department of Health and Human Services to modernize state‑level foster care systems, mandate the use of predictive‑analytics tools and an online resource platform, expand educational and training vouchers for youth exiting foster care, and explicitly enhance partnerships with faith‑based organizations. On its face the order purports to improve outcomes for vulnerable youth, but by deeply embedding faith‑based organizations, private sector technology platforms, and algorithmic tools into welfare systems, it risks weakening democratic accountability, privatizing social welfare, and introducing surveillance‑based classification of youth. The faith‑based partner emphasis may privilege religious actors and sideline secular universal rights frameworks, enabling moral gatekeeping of access to care. Meanwhile, reliance on AI tools in child‑welfare threatens algorithmic bias and could entrench punitive oversight under guise of “matching” and “outcomes,” shifting power away from public democratic institutions toward private tech/faith actors. That raises serious liberal‑democratic concerns about equitable treatment, transparency, and the role of dissent or oversight.
Third-Party Note: In the U.K., The Guardian reported that “independent fostering agencies are making millions via public funding from councils to provide placements for foster children, while foster carers struggle to pay bills…It raises concerning issues around commodification and children becoming these units for profit-making.” Meanwhile, a Note in the NYU Law Review found that “By favoring certain religious viewpoints over others, permitting religion to dictate who receives government benefits and services, and imposing burdens on third parties (particularly LGBTQ prospective parents and youth), religious exemption laws [in the foster system] ignore the line between church and state in violation of the Establishment Clause.”
152. Modifying Duties Addressing the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People’s Republic of China (Nov 04 2025)
Analysis: This executive order reduces the additional ad valorem duty on certain Chinese‑origin imports tied to the synthetic‑opioid (fentanyl) supply chain from 20 % back to 10 %, following commitments from the People’s Republic of China to tighten export controls of precursor chemicals. The move is nominally a public‑health/anti‑drug measure, yet it treats China as a quasi‑enemy state, framing trade in national‑security terms and activating extra‑legal tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Such framing militarizes trade policy and normalizes broad tariff‑and‑sanctions regimes that bypass democratic oversight and global regulatory norms. The re‑reduction of the tariff suggests bargaining rather than systemic reform, embedding trade coercion rather than addressing root causes of addiction, inequality, or pharmaceutical accountability. It also reinforces the authoritarian notion of “national security” as justification for heavy state intervention in commerce and surveillance of global supply chains, setting a precedent for unilateral economic warfare.
Third-Party Note: Back in March, The Lancet argued that tariff-based border-control measures are likely to fail to address the root drivers of the opioid epidemic and may even exacerbate inequities in access to treatment: “Evidence from the USA Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) shows that tariff-based border control measures are ineffective against fentanyl trafficking, as synthetic drug supply chains operate through flexible, transnational networks that readily bypass such restrictions...This ineffectiveness…exemplifies the ‘Iron Law’ of prohibition, whereby intensified enforcement could trigger the emergence of more potent substances.”
151. Modifying Reciprocal Tariff Rates Consistent with the Economic and Trade Arrangement Between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (Nov 04 2025)
Analysis: This executive order continues the suspension of a previously‑higher “reciprocal tariff” rate on imports from China, maintaining a baseline reciprocal duty rate (e.g., 10 %) until at least November 10, 2026 as part of a broader U.S.–China trade arrangement. The policy underscores a shift away from multilateral trade governance toward unilateral tariff regimes that treat trade–deficits as security threats. While framed as “fair trade”, it embeds nationalist economic policy, pitting states in adversarial economic warfare rather than cooperative regulation. It strengthens the executive branch’s discretionary power over trade, undermining congressional legislative checks and international treaty commitments (e.g., through the World Trade Organization (WTO)). By prioritizing bilateral leverage and aggressive tariffs, it aligns with authoritarian governance logic — using economic coercion instead of democratic negotiation — thus threatening liberal‑democratic norms of open markets, transparency, and multilateral accountability.
Third-Party Note: A law-firm analysis flags this as part of a “temporary easing, not policy reversal,” noting that the baseline reciprocal tariff will remain and underlying authorities stand, which reinforces the critique that this measure embeds nationalist economic coercion under the guise of diplomacy.
Executive Actions from October 18 – October 31, 2025
No executive orders for these weeks.
Executive Actions from October 04 – October 17, 2025
150. Ensuring Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring (Oct 15 2025)
Analysis: Establishes stricter vetting and loyalty assessments for federal employees. Framed as ensuring “accountability,” it builds on previous executive orders to extend executive control over the civil service, threatening bureaucratic neutrality and edging toward ideological enforcement (new hires must “align with the priorities of the Administration” — this applies to postal workers and accountants as much as it does to lawyers). Such concentration of power risks turning the administrative state into a tool of political conformity.
Third-Party Note: Brookings Institution cautions that politicizing federal hiring undermines institutional independence and weakens democratic checks on executive overreach.
See previous pages for previous quarters