In President Trump’s second term, he has been moving fast. He is already passing the overall total numbers of executive orders of Bush, Obama, and himself in his first term, and he looks set to easily pass the overall total of the Biden presidency.
Trump’s executive orders, although limited in overall extent, have been substantive starts in such areas as government efficiency, energy, and immigration.
We need Trump to not respect judges’ attempts to grab the executive power we have delegated to him to use on our behalf.
And we need more of the same. Much more.
Bring On Good Executive Orders
Executive orders that enforce the Constitution and constitutional statutes are exactly what we need given the current congress’s and the next congress’s compositions.
Both now and after the 2026 mid-terms, both houses will consist of large Democratic minorities that are highly Progressive, plus pluralities of Republicans who are moderately to highly Progressive. Together, they form Progressive supermajorities, which we see in action on every budget bill.
Progressive majorities won’t pass anything that’s substantial and good. It’s a strategic error to think that any more-constitutionalist president should be measured by how thoroughly such Progressives enact his recommendations on legislation, and to think that any good statutes would be permanent.
Instead, presidents have the duty to independently interpret constitutionality and only take actions that they interpret are constitutional. These will become lasting, but through a different process than most people envision.
If a president’s actions are right and extensive, they will severely limit governments. This will be popular from the start, and this will bring better results relatively quickly.
A president who severely limits governments will remain popular. Successors who do the same will remain popular. Regardless of whether the president or good successors are impeached and removed, the voters will get to keep returning others who will continue.
In time, new legislators will arrive as reinforcements. That will be when these presidents’ recommendations on legislation will finally get enacted as laws. And starting then, these laws will in fact endure—for a generation at least; and if they limit governments severely enough, then for much longer.
Go Big or Go Home
Fast, extensive change is always best for freedom. This was demonstrated well after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as summarized in the figure.
Figure. Economic freedom of different groups of nations after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Figure: James Anthony. Data: Oleh Havrylyshyn et al.
If a change is initially for the best, then fast, extensive change delivers the greatest overall impact and benefits. In addition, it bypasses the current incumbents and creates the strongest-possible new incumbents. This creates political support for holding the good changes in place for the long run.
If a change is initially for the worse, then fast, extensive change creates the strongest-possible pushback. Soon enough, this brings fast, extensive change for the better, after all.
Prevent Losses
So absolutely, moving fast is best.
Of course some mistakes will get made. It’s excellent that Trump has shown that he will listen to pushback against mistakes. Even so, with very-many actions already in play and with plenty more to come, it’s harder than ever to push back and get heard. It becomes all-the-more important to push back clearly and resolutely.
An even more-excellent way is to steer clear of mistakes in the first place.
To push back here, and to also show here how best to prevent mistakes in the first place while still moving just as fast, here are examples.
- Support of Stargate AI, with uses that may include surveillance and mRNA cancer therapies, is a non-starter if you understand from first principles that the people have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches, and also that no person shall be unduly deprived of life and no competitors shall be unduly deprived of liberty or property.
- Tariffs are non-starters if you understand from first principles that setting tariffs is legislative power, so as an executive, you won’t executively accept and use this power in the first place. This is also best in practice. Tariffs make marginal producers unprofitable. So tariffs reduce supplies, and this increases prices. These increased prices must be paid here, by producers who must buy intermediate products, and by customers. Government people take a bigger cut, making us less free. Returns get unknowable, so producers forgo investment; America’s Great Depression was prolonged by regime uncertainty. Domestic producers grow increasingly uncompetitive and end up losing business and cutting jobs.
- A Bitcoin reserve and a sovereign wealth fund are non-starters if you understand from first principles that there’s no enumerated power to accumulate assets other than for military use, postal use, or national-government occupancy.
- Gaza intervention that ends up bringing new support to Israel’s enemy Hamas and rebuilding it next door is a non-starter if you understand from first principles that our people’s rights are the most secure from war when we maximize our people’s freedom, and then our people add value much faster than coercive potential enemies’ people do.
- No taxes on tips is a non-starter if you understand from first principles that the only revenue source that takes the same proportion of each person’s liberty is a fully-flat tax on labor income.
Good Boundaries, Good Government
Imagine a state-of-the-union message that consists only of (1) a forthright report of the executive branch’s performance on spending and debt in the last year, followed by (2) recommended measures to consider in the next year.
That’s hard to imagine. But it’s just good management, and it’s called for by the Constitution.
Always change fast and extensively. Also, prevent losses. In all things—even just in state-of-the-union messages—hold yourself to constitutional boundaries, and let the chips fall where they may.
America became great because its governments long were severely limited. Bring us back that old-time freedom, and more.
James Anthony is an experienced chemical engineer who applies process design, dynamics, and control to government processes. He is the author of The Constitution Needs a Good Party and rConstitution Papers, the publisher of rConstitution.us, and an author in Western Journal, Daily Caller, The Federalist, American Thinker, Lew Rockwell, American Greatness, Mises Institute, Foundation for Economic Education, and Free the People. For more information, see his about, media, and overview pages.
Copyright © James Anthony
Previous article by James Anthony: Republicans’ Best Plans Distract, Regulate, and Inflate
