Donald Trump-II: 100 Days           

The (Ridiculous) 100 Day Standard.

President Franklin Roosevelt and Congress set the standard for “100 Day” accomplishments in 1933 with the passage of 86 laws. The first of these, Emergency Banking Relief, passed on March 9, 1933. That was the first day of the Special Session FDR had called on his second day in office. The special session lasted 100 days, which explains the origins of the reference.

Four major bills were passed in FDR's first month. Cumulatively, the laws passed in FDR's first 100 days were sweeping and transformative. They were accompanied by over 90 Executive Orders, many relating to relief of unemployment, conservation work, and regulation of veterans' pension rights.

Ever since 1933, pundits have tallied the action and evaluated the accomplishments of Presidents in the first 100 days of their term. None have come close to the 1933 impact of FDR. The table below shows the number of legislative acts signed into law in the first 100 days for all Presidents taking office after a change in partisan control. (Data prior to 2025 are based on the Statutes at Large.) As a generalization, very few first 100-day enactments have involved significant policy innovations. There have been, to be sure, important innovations after the first 100 days of every Presidential term. This reminds us to keep paying attention after 100 days.

The continuing emphasis of pundits on 100 days is ridiculous and laughable.

YEAR		Public Laws and Resolutions	“designations” of days, weeks, etc.	Disapproval of rules, other actions	Significant Acts
1933		86	1	0	18
1953		33	0	0	1
1961		36	0	0	0
1969		11	0	0	0
1977		23	0	0	2
1981		10	4	0	0
1989		19	10	1	1
1993		24	5	0	1
2001		7	3	0	0
2009		15	2	0	5
2017		24	1	11	0
2021		11	0	0	1
2025*		4	0	2	0

*2025 Data as of 3/20/25

Mandates

President Trump and his supporters have characterized his 2024 election victory as an "unprecedented mandate." At the signing ceremony for the Laken Riley Act, President Trump said, "The American people gave us a clear mandate to save our country, and we won all seven swing States by large margins, historic. Very importantly, we won the popular vote by millions and millions of votes."

Readers can easily examine the comparative statistics on our "Margin of Victory" page. In normal electoral terms it was not a sweeping victory of the sort claimed by FDR in 1933 and 1936, or Ronald Reagan in 1984, or Lyndon Johnson in 1964. But, Trump has had the support of a highly disciplined Congressional party, and a popular base that has been faithful, active, and willing to take action.

As a statistical note, it is true that Trump beat Harris by "millions" of votes--2.3 million. In the swing states the vote was still close.  In fact, a shift of only 230,000 total votes in three states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) would have shifted the election to Harris in the electoral college. In percentage terms, that is a shift of 0.7% of the total swing state vote. 

The 2024 election was in fact rather close.  And it underscores the urgency for the Trump Administration to achieve really remarkable policy reversals in very short order.  Whether those reversals can be consolidated with changes to underlying law is very much an open question. If so, it is unlikely to be done in the first 100 days. So that suggests the need for a dramatic and innovative assertion of presidential discretion.

2025 Explosion

Trump's second term began with an explosion of executive action. This program, and the way it was implemented, seemed to be aimed at nothing less than reversing and dismantling the structure of policy and administration launched in 1933. Unlike FDR, no new legislation of great consequence has been enacted in the first weeks of the second Trump Administration. Aside from a necessary continuing appropriation bill (3/15/2025), the sole substantive enactment was the Laken Riley Act (3/4/2025). The underlying question for the Trump Administration is this: How thoroughly can the existing policy structure be dismantled, consistent with law and the Constitution, without passing new legislation?

Flooding the Zone

Within the first few days, Trump issued more presidential directives [see graph below] than any recent president in the full first 100 days. The language of the directives was combative. Trump’s orders were sweeping and often vague. Appointed officials, current and former (including from Trump’s first term) were variously dismissed, stripped of personal protective details, denied access to Top Secret materials, and targeted for prosecution for alleged crimes (often involving having prosecuting Donald J. Trump or the “January 6 [2021]” rioters). A great deal of detail about the Executive Orders is found below.

Pardons and Commutations

On January 20, 2025, in addition to the flood of orders, President Trump granted commutations to 14 named individuals and pardons to "all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021." These actions made no clear distinction between individuals as to whether they were convicted of violent crimes against law enforcement officers. Observers noted with interest that Vice President-elect Vance had stated in an interview on January 12, 2025, that "If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned."

The Wall Street Journal editorialized that such pardons "would contradict Mr. Trump’s support for law and order, and it would send an awful message about his view of the acceptability of political violence done on his behalf."

DOGE and Elon Musk and Trump

The most effective and disruptive elements of the first 100 days have been achieved through DOGE—the Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE is not a department at all in the conventional sense. In formal terms, it is simply an office in the Executive Office of the President previously known as the United States Digital Service. There appears to be no legislation about the US Digital Service, although it has been funded in appropriations bills.

On 20 Jan 2025, EO 14158—establishes the “Department of Government Efficiency” to implement the President’s agenda “by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”  The order does not mention making personnel and budget decisions.  There is to be an “Administrator” in the EOP who reports to the White House Chief of Staff.  A DOGE Team and team leader is to be placed at each agency.

Many observers think that DOGE has been taking action far in excess of its legal and constitutional authority. This has included shutting off budgetary funding, dismissing employees who may have had full civil service protections, and eliminating agencies.

There has been ongoing controversy about the role actually played in DOGE by Elon Musk. Media on Feb 5 and 6, 2025 (e.g., NYT CBS) reported that a “White House spokesman” (apparently press secretary Karoline Leavitt) revealed that Musk is a “special government employee.” The spokesman reportedly declined to say if Musk had been given waivers against conflicts of interest, given his very broad-reaching financial positions.

The issue is whether Musk is in fact giving direction to DOGE employees and others or whether he is truly merely advisory.

Ethics

On January 20, in EO 14148, Trump immediately revoked Biden’s prior order(s) on ethics EO 13989 (also EO 13990, 14091). As of late March 2025, there have been no documents or orders from the Trump White House articulating guidance and expectations about ethics.

Prior to taking office, the Trump Organization announced the appointment of an outside “ethics advisor” to assure that there was not “even the appearance of any conflict” of interest.

That announcement referred to 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, 207-09. Compensation to Members of Congress, officers, and others in matters affecting the Government.  This statute prohibits bribes (”compensation for representation services”) and also refers to “special government employees.” It places restrictions on the governmental activities of former officials.

The law requires public disclosure of financial conflicts, but allows conflicts for “special government employees” if the appointing official states in writing that the “need for the services outweighs the conflict”

Not cited in that document or in orders is 5 USC Ch. 131: ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT. That act was signed into law on 10/26/1978, by President Carter.  It requires officials to disclose their net worth and income sources and creates Office of Government Ethics as a watchdog agency.

On February 10, 20258 Trump fired the incumbent director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) without stating a cause of action. He named the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Doug Collins, as Acting Director of OGE/

This dismissal was litigated with some initial success, but eventually the outgoing director abandoned the fight.

Trump's Grandiosity

Three remarkable examples:

1. Trump at Governor's Association Meeting at the White House 2/21/2025 [for which no official transcript has been posted as of 3/18/25]. In a heated exchange, Maine Governor Janet Mills, tells the President "I'm complying with state and federal law."  President Trump responds, "We, we are the federal law.  You better do it, you better do it because you're not going to get any federal funding if you don't."
2. On Truth Social, in a commentary on New York City congestion pricing, the President posts: CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING! The White House account on X [Twitter] reposts this with an image of Trump wearing a crown. [See image reproduced here and here.]
3. On Truth Social in mid-February, the President posted "He who saves his Country does not violate any law." Many observers took this to mean that the President felt unconstrained by law in his determination to "save the country."

Territorial Ambition

At the conclusion of the Spanish-American War in 1898, President William McKinley signed the Treaty of Paris (ratified in 1899) which gave the US ownership of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines; Cuba became independent--although strongly subject to US influence (see "Platt Amendment of 1901). In 1900 the US and Britain signed the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty approving joint occuption of an Isthmian canal (i.e., the Panama Canal). He also oversaw the passage of the Hawaii Organic Act making the Hawai'i Islands a US Territory.

Not since McKinley has there been such clearly stated support for territorial expansion on the part of the USA.  That appears to have changed under Trump-II. The examples linked below can be multiplied manyfold through our advanced search page.

1.   On Truth Social and elsewhere there has repeatedly suggested that Canada should become the 51st state.
2.   Trump has proposed that the US should “take Gaza” (also see this pool report) and that Palestinians should be relocated to Egypt or Jordan.
3.   He has announced an intent to acquire Greenland.
4.   He has proposed acquiring mineral rights in Ukraine.
5.   He has renamed the Gulf of Mexico as “The Gulf of America”
6.   He has asserted that the US has rights to control the Panama Canal.

 

MUCH MORE ON EXECUTIVE ORDERS

This graph shows the cumulative number of orders issued by President Trump since taking office in January 2025. It's pretty obvious that he's setting records.

In the past, some observers have interpreted the extensive use of executive orders as clear evidence of presidential abuse of power.

 

Trump-2 Executive Orders in First 100 Days; Comparison to Prior Presidents Taking Office After Change in Party.

Note: "Substantive" Proclamations exclude declarations of "days," "weeks," or "months," such as "Cancer Control Month."

 

Executive Order Topics

• Immigration-Related Actions
• Health-Related Action
• “Gender Ideology”

Justice without fear or favor?

Emergency Decrees

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Free Speech

[In progress]