What major policies has Donald Trump enacted in his second term and their impacts?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
President Trump’s second term has been defined by rapid executive action—roughly 218–220 executive orders through 2025—and an aggressive deregulatory agenda that reached across immigration, environment, national security and administrative law [1] [2] [3]. Key initiatives include attempts to limit birthright citizenship and expand travel bans (currently subject to litigation), a sweeping 2025 National Security Strategy reshaping foreign-policy priorities, and large-scale regulatory rollbacks tracked by Brookings’ regulatory tracker [4] [5] [3].
1. Executive orders and the pace of governing: frenetic use of presidential power
The second Trump administration has relied on executive instruments at an unprecedented rate, signing roughly 218 executive orders in 2025 according to the Federal Register and Ballotpedia’s count of 220 EOs plus dozens of memoranda and proclamations, with more than 140 issued in the first 100 days per contemporaneous trackers [1] [2] [6]. Legal observers note many of these orders mirror the conservative blueprint Project 2025 and that several have prompted immediate court challenges or injunctions [6] [7].
2. Immigration: stark rescissions, a birthright-citizenship fight and expanded travel bans
The administration moved quickly to revive and expand hardline immigration measures from Trump’s first term: it enacted new statutes such as the Laken Riley Act, revived prior enforcement priorities, sought to curtail birthright citizenship through an executive order now blocked by lower courts and under Supreme Court review in Barbara v. Trump, and signaled plans to broaden travel restrictions to more than 30 countries according to reporting on DHS statements [4] [8]. These actions have generated legal fights and international concern; NAFSA and Reuters reporting document both agency reorganizations like a centralized vetting center and litigation over the birthright-citizenship order [4].
3. Deregulation and administrative overhaul: wholesale rollback tracked by analysts
Brookings’ regulatory tracker records a broad deregulatory push across energy, health, labor and other domains, cataloguing delayed, repealed and newly issued rules as agencies implement the administration’s agenda [3]. Analysts — and firms such as Holland & Knight and Davis Polk monitoring the orders — describe a coordinated effort to remold federal agencies, including staffing changes inspired by Project 2025 recommendations to replace career specialists with loyalists [3] [9] [7] [10]. Critics argue this undermines institutional independence; proponents say it eliminates “burdensome” regulations [7] [3].
4. Foreign policy and national security: an “America First” rewrite
The administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy marks a deliberate departure from post–Cold War consensus, emphasizing economic nationalism, skeptical transatlantic language and a reorientation toward perceived internal and strategic threats; think tanks and experts called it a sea change and urged caution about its framing of Europe and China [5] [11]. Commentators at the Economist and Foreign Affairs flagged incoherence and risky civil‑military relations, while Stimson Center analysts detailed how the NSS reframes U.S. diplomacy and defense priorities [12] [13] [11].
5. Social policy and culture: Project 2025’s imprint and contested rollbacks
Project 2025 has acted as a blueprint for many early moves, from pro‑life directives to curbs on diversity initiatives; reporting shows about two‑thirds of early executive actions mirrored Project 2025 proposals, and advocates within the administration pushed for broader cultural and institutional changes [7] [6]. The Conversation and BBC trace the blueprint’s influence on personnel decisions and policy design, while also noting the White House did not adopt every recommendation wholesale [7] [14].
6. Legal pushback and limits: litigation, injunctions and congressional friction
Multiple high‑profile orders have been enjoined or immediately challenged; the birthright‑citizenship EO is an explicit example already enjoined and now before the Supreme Court [4]. Time and other trackers indicated rapid judicial scrutiny of many early orders, and analysts warn that sustained litigation and congressional oversight could either blunt or crystallize the administration’s changes [6] [13].
7. Effects and uncertainties: practical impacts vs. what reporting does not yet say
Available sources document policy actions, legal challenges and expert reaction but do not quantify definitive long‑term economic or social outcomes of these policies; Brookings tracks rule changes and think tanks evaluate strategy, yet measured impacts on immigration flows, emissions, markets or civil‑military relations are not fully reported in the current set of sources [3] [11]. Independent outlets differ on tone: some emphasize strategic clarity, others incoherence and risk [5] [12].
Sources cited: Federal Register executive order listings and counts [1]; Ballotpedia executive orders summary [2]; NAFSA tracking of immigration actions including birthright citizenship and vetting center [4]; Brookings regulatory tracker of deregulatory activity [3]; Project 2025 analysis and influence by The Conversation and BBC [7] [14]; National Security Strategy analysis from GovFacts, Stimson Center and commentary in Foreign Affairs and The Economist [5] [11] [13] [12]; reporting on legal challenges and order mirroring by Time/Wikipedia trackers referenced in archived summaries [6].