What major legislative or executive actions from Trump have lasting impacts today?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s second-term record to date centers on sweeping deregulatory aims (a “10‑for‑1” rule to eliminate ten rules for each new one) and a torrent of executive orders — Ballotpedia counted 217 EOs, 54 memoranda and 110 proclamations by Nov. 25, 2025 — that reshape immigration, trade, global health and national security policy [1] [2]. Those executive and regulatory moves have already produced court fights, agency reorganizations (including plans to dismantle or absorb USAID), and tariff and trade actions that continue to affect markets and federal operations [3] [4] [5].
1. Deregulation as policy architecture — the “10‑for‑1” machine
The White House launched a formal regulatory rule that requires agencies to repeal at least ten rules for every new rule and to ensure the net incremental cost of new regulations for FY2025 is “significantly less than zero,” signaling an administrative aim to shrink regulatory footprints across sectors [1]. Brookings and other trackers treat this as the organizing principle for wide agency rewrites and for the new Trump term’s deregulatory thrust [6]. Supporters say the standard forces cost discipline; critics warn it risks eliminating long‑standing public‑health, environmental and worker protections — a debate already animating legal and political pushback documented in contemporaneous regulatory trackers [1] [6].
2. Executive orders: volume, scope and legal friction
Trump’s administration has relied heavily on executive action: dozens of orders within days of the inauguration and hundreds over the year, a pace that Ballotpedia catalogs at 217 orders by late November 2025 [2]. The Federal Register and White House pages record revocations of prior EOs, creation of new agencies or offices, and cross‑cutting memoranda that alter federal program priorities [7] [8]. Several orders have already faced litigation or been blocked in court, and observers note many mirror Project 2025 proposals — an explicit policy roadmap embraced by parts of the administration — raising questions about long‑term durability when courts and Congress push back [9] [10].
3. Global health and foreign‑aid realignment — USAID, WHO and legal fights
The administration moved quickly to withdraw or remap global health commitments. Congress members and NGOs documented a purge that reportedly eliminated about 83% of USAID programs and shifted remaining activities under State, while court rulings have already found some freezes exceeded presidential authority even as litigations continue [3]. KFF and other trackers map a cascade of executive actions withdrawing from WHO and changing global health funding flows, producing both immediate operational disruption and ongoing legal and policy uncertainty for aid recipients [11] [3].
4. Immigration and border policy by decree
Executive actions have reshaped border enforcement and asylum procedures: CBP disabled CBP One appointment functions for asylum seekers effective Jan. 20, 2025, and legal analyses from immigration bar groups catalog a raft of early‑term changes to noncitizen processing that have spawned litigation and practitioner guidance [12] [13]. These administrative shifts alter access and processing at ports of entry in ways that depend on agency implementation and the outcome of court challenges [12] [13].
5. Trade, tariffs and market signals
The administration’s tariff EOs and proclamations — including new duties on China, Canada and Mexico in early 2025 and orders to investigate processed critical minerals under Section 232 — have immediate market effects and create new compliance regimes for importers [5]. Financial analysts and market trackers highlight how such executive actions reverberate through energy, manufacturing and technology sectors; conflicts over stacking duties and exemptions continue to be litigated or negotiated [14] [5].
6. National security designations and contested authority
The administration used executive tools to advance high‑profile national security aims, from labeling cartels as foreign terrorist organizations to moves “toward” designating parts of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist entities — actions that the New York Times and others portray as expanding the executive branch’s toolkit but that invite legal and diplomatic challenges [15] [16]. Those orders are consequential because they change military, law‑enforcement and diplomatic options and have already been cited in controversial operational decisions with civilian casualties, according to reporting [15].
7. Political effects and the legislative back‑and‑forth
The aggressive executive agenda helped produce the 43‑day 2025 government shutdown, a political crisis that influenced subsequent appropriations deals and electoral narratives; the shutdown ended when Trump signed a continuing appropriations act on Nov. 12, 2025 [4] [17]. Congressional reactions — from attempted rescissions to lawsuits — illustrate that many actions may endure only so long as courts, Congress and future administrations permit them [4] [17].
Limitations and unresolved questions
This brief relies on contemporaneous trackers, law‑firm summaries and press reporting included in the supplied sources; sources document actions, legal challenges and policy statements but differ on projected effects and legal outcomes [1] [9]. Available sources do not mention the final judicial disposition of many cases referenced here; many items remain subject to litigation or legislative reversal [3] [11].