The things that trump has done this year
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
President Trump’s second term (begun January 20, 2025) has been marked by a high volume of executive actions — Ballotpedia counts 218 executive orders, 55 memoranda and 112 proclamations as of Dec. 10, 2025 — and a focused agenda on immigration, agriculture, AI, and national security including designation of drug cartels and military actions at sea [1] [2]. Major recent steps include a December executive order targeting price-fixing in the food supply and a December 11 order on AI preemption of state laws; reporting also documents high-profile contentious actions such as military strikes and state-federal legal clashes over National Guard deployments [3] [4] [5] [2].
1. A flurry of executive instruments reshaping federal policy
The Trump administration has relied heavily on executive orders, memoranda and proclamations to implement priorities across immigration, trade, energy and the federal workforce; legal trackers list hundreds of such instruments in 2025, and the Federal Register and White House maintain searchable lists of these actions [6] [7] [8]. Ballotpedia’s tally — 218 EOs, 55 memoranda, 112 proclamations through Dec. 10, 2025 — quantifies how central unilateral presidential directives have been to policy in this year [1].
2. Agriculture and the food chain: $12 billion and an EO on price-fixing
In December the administration announced $12 billion in “farmer bridge” payments and said President Trump signed an Executive Order on Dec. 6 aimed at stopping price fixing, anti‑competitive behavior and foreign influence in the food supply chain, including task forces to investigate seed, fertilizer and farm equipment markets [3]. USDA messaging frames this as emergency relief and structural action after “inheriting” a poor farm economy, while the EO signals a law‑and‑investigation approach to supply‑chain price pressures [3].
3. AI: federal preemption and funding threats to states
On Dec. 11 the president signed an executive order intended to limit state-level AI regulation and to withhold federal broadband funding from states whose laws are judged to stifle U.S. AI competitiveness; the administration framed the move as creating a single federal approval path to avoid 50 divergent regimes [4]. Reuters reports critics warned the order may raise state‑sovereignty questions and implicate the 10th Amendment; the White House defended centralization as a matter of national tech leadership [4].
4. Immigration and border enforcement: broad actions and legal pushback
Multiple administration actions target immigration policy, from a centralized vetting center at USCIS to an EO seeking to narrow birthright citizenship, which has been enjoined and drawn Supreme Court attention in a class action [9]. NAFSA and other trackers show immigration measures have generated lawsuits and injunctions, revealing both the administration’s intent to use executive authority aggressively and the legal limits being asserted by courts [9].
5. National security posture: cartel designations and kinetic operations
The administration designated drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations via an early‑year executive order, a classification the White House has cited to justify military strikes on boats in the Western Hemisphere; reporting attributes at least 80 civilian deaths to those strikes since September, and congressional and media scrutiny has followed [2]. The strikes and the legal rationale behind them have become a focal point for questions about rules of engagement and civilian protection [2].
6. Federal‑state friction and courtroom checks
State officials have pushed back on the administration’s use of federal forces and policies. For example, a judge ordered the administration to end a deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles and return control to the state pending litigation; the ruling reflects growing judicial involvement in disputes over domestic deployments and immigration enforcement [5]. Separately, the AI preemption order drew criticism for potentially overriding state lawmaking [4].
7. Foreign policy activism and diplomatic outreach
Coverage shows the White House engaged directly with foreign leaders and regional security pacts: outreach to China (an invitation to Beijing), negotiations involving Gaza ceasefire frameworks, and energy diplomacy such as LNG deals tied to U.S. exports are all part of an assertive foreign policy track reported in December analyses [2] [10]. These moves signal a mix of traditional diplomacy and transactional trade/security bargains.
8. What reporters and trackers disagree about — and what’s not said
Trackers agree on volume of executive actions but differ on framing: administration sources present the EOs as urgent fixes (USDA, White House); watchdogs and news outlets emphasize legal, constitutional and humanitarian controversies [3] [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive list of every policy outcome, nor do they provide a final adjudication of legal challenges mentioned — those remain in courts (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this summary relies strictly on the provided reporting and official notices; it does not attempt to adjudicate ongoing lawsuits or provide claims beyond what those sources state [3] [1] [4] [2].