Executive orders

Executive orders are presidential directives that typically instruct federal agencies how to implement and enforce existing laws. They are a legitimate tool of executive governance — every president from George Washington forward has used them. But they are not a blank check. Executive orders cannot create new law, override congressional statutes, or violate constitutional rights. When presidents treat them as though they can, the rule of law suffers.

In recent years, the volume and scope of executive orders has expanded dramatically. Through executive orders, the current administration has pursued a coordinated effort to try to override the Constitution’s delegation of election authority to states and Congress, seize control over election administration, and make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to register and vote. Executive orders have been used to direct mass layoffs and the reorganization of federal agencies — authority that belongs to Congress, not the president. Understanding where executive power ends is not a partisan question. It is a constitutional one. 

An escalating pattern of overreach

The current administration has used executive orders to consolidate power inside of the executive branch and to attempt to govern outside of the bounds of the Constitution. 

The courts as a critical check

Judicial review remains the most effective mechanism for constraining unlawful executive orders. Protect Democracy pursues litigation to enforce those limits — but court victories require time, and damage done in the interim can be lasting.

Building public understanding

Most Americans have limited familiarity with what executive orders can and cannot legally do. Closing that knowledge gap is essential to building the public pressure needed to hold any administration accountable.

Explore this work