Skip to main content

Your Questions Answered: Trump’s First 100 Days


In the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term, we’ve seen a whirlwind of executive orders, policy proposals, and media commentary that have left many of us questioning the future of our democracy. It can be hard to separate what’s truly important, what’s fact, and what can be done to safeguard our rights. We believe that an informed public is a powerful one, and we're here to help you understand the policies shaping our country,

Since January, our legal and advocacy experts have been breaking down the implications of Trump’s executive orders. These actions seek to roll back DEI efforts, attack birthright citizenship, target trans people, and attempt to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. We’ve also explained unlawful threats, such as Trump’s attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act, use outdated laws to deport millions, and silence speech that challenges his discriminatory agenda. In addition, we shared materials about what your rights are, how to exercise them, and what to do if they’re violated.

We know you have questions, and we have answers. Below, you’ll find answers to five of the most pressing questions we’ve received about Trump’s first 100 days in office. This is the first in our ongoing series, “Your Questions Answered,” where we bring your questions about civil liberties and civil rights issues directly to ACLU experts.

Trump issued a flurry of executive orders that targeted not just our civil liberties, but entire communities. Is this legal?

An executive order is a written directive, signed by the president, that orders the government to take specific actions. Executive orders cannot override federal laws and statutes.

Importantly, the Constitution has a set of checks and balances written into it so that no one branch of the government is more powerful than the other. The president can’t use an executive order to sidestep those checks and balances. Trump, or any president, is misusing executive order authority if the president orders the government to take actions that are not authorized by the Constitution or are in violation of federal laws. That’s when the courts must step in to safeguard our rule of law.

An executive order can be lawful and still cause harm, especially when it threatens important civil liberties or civil rights. At the ACLU, we have more than 100 years’ experience holding powerful entities, like the executive branch, to account. Already during this administration, we’ve explained how Trump’s most recent executive orders rolling back DEI efforts, attacking birthright citizenship, and targeting trans people are unlawful. We’ve also filed more than 20 lawsuits against the Trump administration’s policies.

–Chris Anders, director of Policy and Government Affairs, Democracy and Technology

One of Trump’s first executive orders alleged to address sex discrimination, but in effect is an attack on transgender people. How does this order harm the LGBTQ community?

On his first day back in office, President Trump signed a far-reaching executive order requiring federal agencies to discriminate against transgender people by denying who they are and threatening the freedom of self-determination and self-expression for all.

Trump’s signed order states: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” The order defines terms like “man” and “woman” based on whether a person “at conception” belongs “to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” or that “produces the small reproductive cell.”

Trump’s order then directs federal agencies to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations” using his cramped definitions, including designating sex on passports and other federal identification documents, or determining where transgender people are confined in federal custody. The order also includes a sweeping mandate to all agencies to “end the Federal funding of gender ideology.” The ACLU sued.

–Gillian Branstetter, LGBTQ communications strategist

Part of Trump’s “war on woke” is to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in schools and federal offices. Can he do that?

Programs labeled as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) encompass a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and schools. Trump’s executive orders targeting these programs conflate lawful efforts with discrimination, weaponizing enforcement to bully institutions into abandoning critical programs and taking steps to try to eliminate protections against discrimination by government contractors. However, no court has declared DEI efforts inherently illegal, and President Trump cannot override decades of legal precedent.

In employment, properly designed DEI programs are not only legal under federal and state civil rights laws and long-standing legal precedents; they are also necessary to ensure compliance with those laws. Programs labeled as DEI ensure that no one is excluded from opportunities because of their race, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Many of these initiatives are not focused on selecting specific candidates for hire — they aim to create fairer processes.

Schools, too, are required to comply with federal and state civil rights laws that ensure educational opportunities are provided on an equal basis. This means reviewing policies and practices to ensure they don’t unnecessarily foreclose opportunities based on race or other protected characteristics. Schools must also work to foster a climate where all students can access and thrive in their educational pursuits. Now, more than ever, educational institutions must resist intimidation and reaffirm their commitment to identifying and removing barriers to equal opportunity.

–ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program

Communities are fighting back against Trump’s unlawful attempts to deport our neighbors. What legal rights do individuals have when speaking out about Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, Trump’s policies, or other immigrants’ rights issues?

You have the right to share truthful, lawfully obtained information about law enforcement and tell people about their legal rights — even if they’re in trouble. You can also advocate for changes to laws without fear, as long as you follow certain guidelines.

Specifically, you have the right to tell people their legal rights even when the person has broken, or is breaking, a law. Telling people about their legal rights includes identifying people’s rights and explaining them, offering practical advice about one’s demeanour when interacting with law enforcement, and suggesting specific words one can say to invoke one’s rights or to understand whether one is under arrest.

You can also advocate for what you believe in, including whether laws should change. This is political speech protected by the First Amendment. You can say that you think current policy is unjust, you can advocate for specific alternatives, and you can talk about the impacts you are seeing on the people and communities around you. You can also talk about illegal activity. For example, you can say, “I think this is a bad law and that people shouldn’t be punished for violating it.” That is true even if the government believes you are thereby encouraging or advocating for illegal activity — as long as you are not intentionally advocating for imminent and likely unlawful action or intentionally offering help to someone on how to commit a specific, unlawful act.

–Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...
Post a Comment
Read more

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...
Post a Comment
Read more