What major policies has Trump implemented in his second term and their impacts?
Executive summary
President Trump’s second term has been characterized by an aggressive use of executive power — by late November 2025 he had signed roughly 215–217 executive orders, plus dozens of memoranda and proclamations [1] [2] [3]. Major themes across those actions include immigration and border enforcement, deregulatory rollbacks (especially on energy and environment), reshaping the federal workforce and agencies consistent with Project 2025 proposals, and expanded national security designations such as labeling Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Rapid executive action: volume, sources and legal pushback
The Trump White House has relied heavily on executive orders and memoranda early and often — sources count roughly 215–217 executive orders in 2025 and over 50 memoranda and 100+ proclamations by November 2025 — and legal challenges have followed for many controversial items [1] [2] [3] [6]. Reporting and trackers from Brookings and others highlight systematic regulatory rollbacks and new rules being issued and, in some cases, enjoined by courts; Time and Wikipedia note several orders facing legal challenges or being blocked as potentially violating law [5] [6].
2. Border, immigration and public‑safety policies: stricter enforcement and extraordinary measures
Early orders reinstated a national emergency at the southern border, curtailed CBP One services, directed military planning for deployment, and advanced steps to designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations — reflecting a hardline immigration and border-security emphasis [4]. The White House’s policy statements also promise to end “catch-and-release,” reinstate Remain in Mexico, expand wall construction, and restrict asylum — positions outlined on whitehouse.gov and discussed in trackers [8] [4]. Independent outlets and interest groups have documented administrative reorganizations and staffing changes to implement these shifts, and some of these moves have been subject to litigation or temporary restraining orders [9] [6].
3. Deregulation and energy policy: rolling back climate measures and streamlining permitting
A sustained deregulatory push appears central: the administration has moved to pause or rescind many Biden-era environmental and energy rules and to accelerate permitting for fossil-fuel projects, consistent with White House policy priorities and regulatory trackers from Brookings [8] [5]. Analysts warn of significant changes across environmental, health and labor rules tracked by Brookings; law firms and policy shops note the administration’s freeing of tariffs and deregulatory latitude as well [5] [10] [11].
4. Project 2025 influence: blueprint or convenience?
Multiple sources document substantial overlap between Project 2025 — the Heritage Foundation–linked blueprint — and the administration’s early orders. Time, Wikipedia and The Conversation report that a large share of executive actions “mirror or partially mirror” Project 2025 recommendations, and The Conversation and BBC argue the project has informed policies on abortion funding, federal hiring, and reorganizing agencies [6] [7] [12]. The ACLU frames Project 2025 as a roadmap that threatens civil‑liberties protections and vows litigation against many proposed changes, signaling polarized reactions and organized resistance [13].
5. Institutional shifts: staffing, agency restructuring and “loyalist” hiring
The White House platform and Project 2025 materials advocate large-scale reshaping of the federal workforce, including hiring freezes (except “essential” personnel), creation of loyalty databases and training programs for conservative appointees — moves documented and criticized by BBC and White House materials [12] [8]. Organizations tracking these measures report reductions in oversight offices and personnel (NAFSA notes force reductions in immigration oversight offices), and litigation has temporarily blocked some policies [9].
6. Foreign policy and national security: designations, withdrawals and global consequences
Orders have targeted international institutions (initiating withdrawals or rollbacks on WHO/Paris Agreement actions per lists of rescissions) and reintroduced hardline foreign‑policy steps such as reversing Cuba designations and designating cartels as terrorist organizations [6]. Commentators at Davos and Foreign Affairs note that such moves change U.S. posture globally and risk friction with allies while granting the administration broad unilateral tools [14] [10].
7. Impacts so far and the limits of available reporting
Available sources document administrative intent, lists of executive actions, regulatory trackers and legal pushback, and they quantify orders and memos [1] [2] [5]. However, long‑term effects on economic indicators, migration flows, judicial precedents, or global diplomatic alignments are not yet fully measured in the provided material; available sources do not mention quantified causal outcomes such as GDP or migration changes directly attributable to specific orders (not found in current reporting). Analysts do emphasize the scale of change and forewarn of legal and political battles ahead [10] [5].
Conclusion — competing frames and agendas
Supporters frame this program as decisive governance: rapid executive fixes to immigration, energy and bureaucracy that implement campaign promises [8]. Critics and civil‑liberties groups frame Project 2025 and many executive moves as an organized effort to consolidate ideological control over the federal government and to roll back rights and protections, prompting litigation and congressional oversight fights [13] [7] [12]. Both perspectives are visible in the sources above; the documentary record shows heavy use of unilateral authority, extensive regulatory changes, and active legal and civic pushback [1] [5] [6].