Response Center

This order instructs DOJ to compile a list of "sanctuary jurisdictions," strip them of funding, and take vague "measures" against them if they do not fall in line.

This Executive Order relies on the unsupported assertion that immigration constitutes an "invasion" to claim claim the authority for DOJ and DHS to identify and punish so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions. There is no legal definition of a "sanctuary" or "welcoming" city or state; it usually refers to jurisdictions that decline to use their own local law enforcement resources to carry out federal immigration enforcement, which states and localities have the right to do. However, this EO defines "sanctuary" jurisdictions as those that "obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws," and incorrectly claims that this constitutes a "lawless insurrection" against the federal government. The EO instructs DOJ to maintain the list of sanctuary jurisdictions, and inform all jurisdictions on the list of their designations. It unlawfully instructs executive branch agencies to strip designated jurisdictions of federal funding, and potentially to target them for prosecution under federal harboring, obstruction, conspiracy, and RICO statutes. It also encourages other undefined "measures" and "action" by DOJ and DHS. Finally, DHS is instructed to develop rules to prevent ineligible noncitizens from receiving public benefits through private organizations like nonprofits, and DOJ is instructed to sue states that provide in-state tuition at state colleges and universities to state residents who lack U.S. citizenship.

A USDA official gave agency staff just one day to identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change from USDA-operated websites.

On January 30, USDA Director of Digital Communications Peter Rhee directed his staff to identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change by the end of the following day. The USDA subsequently removed numerous webpages containing vital public resources and information about climate-smart agriculture, forest conservation, climate change adaptation, investment in clean energy projects in rural America, and more. Organizations focused on farming and the environment sued to challenge the removal of these websites. On May 12, 2025, the government agreed to restore the data to government websites and to provide updates to the court on their progress and next steps.

This order reconstitutes the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to focus on maintaining "unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance."

The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) was first convened by President George W. Bush to provide advice to the President on science policy. Instead of prioritizing "evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data," like previous versions of the PCAST, President Trump's PCAST is directed to ensure that the United States maintains "unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance." While this might sound reasonable in the abstract, this order is an attempt to insert right-wing ideology into the PCAST. The order asserts, without basis, that the pursuit of scientific truth in America is now under threat from "ideological dogmas that prioritize group identity over individual merit, enforce conformity at the expense of innovative ideas, and inject politics into the heart of the scientific method." Trump's PCAST will be co-chaired by Elon Musk, creating an additional conflict of interest for Musk.

The memo gave most civil servants 9 days to resign from their jobs and supposedly be paid through September 2025, or face the possibility of losing their jobs without compensation.

On January 28, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a memo that gave most civil servants until February 6 to resign from their jobs and supposedly be paid through September 2025, or face the possibility of losing their jobs without compensation. The memo followed a return-to-office directive that had already put many federal workers in difficult positions and indicated that most of the federal government would be downsized through restructurings, realignments, reductions in force, furloughs, and reclassification to at-will employment status. In short, the offer to people who deliver vital programs and protections for the American people was stark: if you don't take this deal, you may lose your job with nothing. After issuing an initial temporary restraining order that paused the deadline for civil servants to respond, a district court judge allowed the program to proceed, and OPM, without notice or warning to any federal workers, terminated the program on February 12.

This order directs federal agencies to interpret and enforce federal laws in ways known to prevent eligible citizens from voting.

In this Executive Order, the President directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require certain documents (such as a birth certificate or U.S. passport) as proof of U.S. citizenship for federal elections. It directs the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and Elon Musk's DOGE to identify "unqualified" voters, and for certain other federal agencies to "assess" a voter's citizenship before providing a voter registration form to applicants for public assistance. The order also directs the Attorney General to enforce voting laws to limit states from using absentee or mail-in ballots and directs the EAC to condition federal funding to pressure states to adopt a uniform federal standard as to what constitutes a vote. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and as a result, noncitizen voting is nearly nonexistent. However, because most Americans don't have passports and many adult women don't have citizenship documents that match their name if they changed their name after marriage, this Executive Order would functionally deny many citizens their right to vote. Several parts of this order were preliminarily enjoined on April 24, 2025, in League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Executive Office of the President, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

This order issues a new Civil Service Rule that would make it easier to fire civil servants and shrink the federal workforce.

This order means that even high-performing new federal employees (known as probationary employees) will be automatically fired at the end of their first or second year unless agency political leadership takes action to keep them. The new rule applies to all probationary federal employees across the entire government (except those who have been recently transferred, promoted, or assigned for the first time to a supervisory or managerial position). It requires agencies to actively affirm that probationary employees advance the public interest and should continue in the federal service before finalizing their appointments. Otherwise, employees will be terminated at the end of their probationary period. Currently, probationary workers may only be laid off due to performance or conduct, but the order adds the needs and interests of the agency as a reason for possible termination, potentially inserting ideology into the process. The order instructs political appointee agency heads, rather than the usual career employee supervisors, to make that determination, leaving new federal employees' continued employment at the discretion of political appointees