Implementation
The executive branch relies on the delegation of authority and the assignment of tasks to carry out the president’s orders. Implementation, however, is rarely immediate. It may take time to mobilize resources and establish priorities. Adopting regulation may take years especially when agencies must revoke the regulatory actions of prior presidents. There may also be unexpected delays when Congress or the Federal Courts intervene.
The Executive Branch, Congress, and Federal Courts
As the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, presidents direct the actions of executive departments and agencies through the delegation of authority and the assignment of tasks. The implementation of their instructions would seem to be a matter of course. Yet, as Robert Durant, a Public Administration and Policy scholar, observed, the president’s “administrative initiatives are only the ‘starting gun’ for battle” (2009).
Some agencies may have the necessary resources to implement the president’s orders while others may lac the capacity. Even when agencies have the capacity to respond, it may take time to mobilize their resources. Agencies may have competing deadlines or in some cases, may be reluctant to act.
Another important factor is that the president does not act alone. Congress may support or impede agencies from implementing the president’s directive through legislation or funding. Legal challenges to presidential directives may delay or prevent an agency’s ability to implement a directive.
Below are examples that show how the duration of implementation within the executive branch may vary based on agency capacity.
There are also examples that show how Congress may support or impede the implementation of presidential directives and how the Federal Courts may allow or halt implementation of the president’s directive.
Implementation
The Executive Branch
Variations in Implementation
-
President Nixon
President Nixon’s EO 11452 establishing the Interagency Advisory Council for Urban Affairs was implemented quickly but had a very short duration. The President appointed Daniel Patrick Moynihan Executive Secretary and Advisor to the President on January 23, 1969, the same day he issued the EO. The President presided as Chairman at their first meeting on March 17, 1969. However, in late 1969, the President curtailed the Council’s independence, and placed it under the Domestic Council within the EOP. He terminated the Council in EO 11541 issued on July 1, 1970.
-
President Clinton issued EO 12892 on January 20, 1994, to clarify and expand the Leadership and Coordination of Fair Housing in Federal Programs by Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. However, a framework for fully enforcing the federal government’s obligations was not put into place until 2015 when the Department of Housing and Development (HUD) promulgated a comprehensive Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule which gave local jurisdictions, public housing authorities, and community stakeholders the process and data needed to identify and redress local barriers to fair housing and equitable opportunity. That framework was rescinded by President Trump in 2020. President Biden proposed a new rule on February 9, 2023, proposing a streamlined Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing which HUD withdrew in January 2025. President Trump published an interim final rule, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2025, that only requires entities to certify they have taken steps “rationally related to promoting fair housing.”
-
President Trump issued a Memorandum on January 23, 2017 committing the United States to withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement. On January 30, 2017, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) issued a letter to signatories of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPP”) that the United States had formally withdrawn from the agreement per guidance from the President of the United States. The letter emphasized the commitment of the United States to free and fair trade, and encouraged future discussions on “measures designed to promote more efficient markets and higher levels of economic growth.” The USTR was tasked with pursuing bilateral trade negotiations with the parties to the TPP which was initiated but no bilateral agreements were signed with former TPP signatories during President Trump’s administration.
-
President Trump issued EO 13771 on January 30, 2017 to Reduce Regulation and Control Regulatory Costs. Agencies were required to eliminate two existing regulations for every new significant regulation issued and to offset the costs of any new regulations by finding offsetting deregulatory actions. According to the Final Accounting for Fiscal Year 2020 by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) , collectively the federal government met the two primary goals established and defined in EO 13771 by (1) implementing more than the established goal of two deregulatory actions for every new regulatory action, and, (2) achieving net savings. However, according to a report by the General Accountability Office (GAO), OIRA’s progress reports did not provide an overall assessment of the effect of the EOs on the relative proportion of regulatory and deregulatory actions issued by executive branch agencies.
Implementation
Congress
Congressional Support
Clinton
President Clinton issued EO 12857 Budget Control on August 4, 1993 to create a mechanism to monitor total costs of direct spending programs, and, in the event that actual or projected costs exceed targeted levels, to require that the budget address adjustments in direct spending levels. The EO also served as a negotiating agreement to gain the necessary votes in the Senate to pass the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-93). The EO established a Deficit Trust Fund in the Treasury to guarantee that new revenues and net budget savings achieved by OBRA-93 were used exclusively for redeeming maturing debt obligations of the Treasury that were held by foreign governments. The order was scheduled to take effect upon enactment of OBRA.
Carter
President Carter issued Presidential Directive (PD) 9 on March 30, 1977. In the directive, President Carter authorized the continuation of electronic surveillance in Berlin of foreign and American citizens, contrary to a decision by the Courts in Berlin Democratic Club v. Rumsfeld, 410 F.Supp. 144 (1976)). Meanwhile, Congress was working on advancing legislation to grant additional foreign surveillance authority to the President but in the interim, President Carter issued EO 12036, United States Foreign Intelligence Activities on January 26, 1978, that required that restrictions on intelligence gathering be implemented in regulations approved by the Attorney General. Months later, President Carter obtained the much needed authority he signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.) into law on October 25, 1978.
Congress Denies Support
Obama
When President Obama issued EO 13492, Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities on January 22, 2009, he anticipated congressional support for closing Guantanamo Bay. The Democrats held a 59–41 majority in the United States Senate when counting Independents who caucused with them. Similarly, in the House of Representatives, the Democrats enjoyed a 257–178 advantage. A series of missteps on the part of the administration regarding the disposition of detainees in the legal system and a failure to inform Congress, incentivized consensus from both parties to include a provision in annual appropriations or defense authorization enactments that barred the use of funds to construct or modify a facility in the United States to house detainees who remain under the custody or control of the Department of Defense. Congress has repeatedly passed legislation restricting the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, effectively hindering the full implementation of EO 13492 to close the facility.
Trump
President Trump issued Executive Order 13767 Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements of January 25, 2017 which ordered among other tasks, the construction of a physical wall on the southern border, The initial funding request from the Trump administration for the border wall was $5.7 billion and a prolonged government shutdown occurred due to the impasse between Congress and the administration regarding the funding of the wall. Congress ultimately allocated $1.375 billion for border fencing, a much smaller amount than the $5.7 billion requested, and intended it for specific projects, not the comprehensive wall envisioned in the EO. President Trump sought to gain additional monies when he issued Proclamation 9844 declaring a national emergency at the Southern border by repurposing funds from the Department of Defense and other sources. Congress passed two joint resolutions terminating the national emergency of February 15, 2019 (H.J.Res.46 and S.J.Res.54) which the President vetoed. The use of funds was challenged in eight separate lawsuits challenging the President’s constitutional authority to transfer funds. The Supreme Court however, allowed the construction to proceed while the cases went forward on the merits.
Implementation
The Federal Courts
The Federal Courts
Federal Courts hear legal challenges to the president’s directives. They may be based on the president’s underlying constitutional or statutory authority. Presidents are also challenged on the statutory interpretation of the law. Parties may seek to prevent the president’s executive action from being implemented by seeking a temporary restraining order or an injunction while the case proceeds in the federal courts on the merits.
The President Wins
Nixon
Inflation was on the rise when President Nixon issued EO 11615 on August 15, 1971. The objective was to stabilize the economy by ordering a ninety-day freeze on wages, rents, and prices. The President relied on his authority delegated by Congress under the 1970 Economic Stabilization Act (ESA) that authorized hm to effectively combat inflationary pressures. Amalgamated Meatcutters sued seeking a judgment that the ESA and EO 11615 were unconstitutional and an injunction preventing EO 11615 from being implemented. A three-judge panel for the District of Columbia Federal District Court denied the injunction and upheld the President’s authority pursuant to the ESA and the EO 11615 which allowed the implementation to move forward (Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Work v. Connally, 337 F. Supp. 737)
Trump 1.0
In 2017, President Trump sought to suspend entry into the United States for 90 days of foreign nationals from seven countries identified by Congress or the Executive as presenting heightened terrorism-related risks. After issuing two EOs (EO 13769 and EO 13780), each of which was legally challenged, President Trump issued Proclamation 9645 on September 24, 2017. The proclamation was challenged with the plaintiffs claiming the President had exceeded his statutory authority and religious discrimination under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 majority that the Proclamation did not violate the president's statutory authority. Regarding the Establishment Clause, the majority found the Proclamation did not favor or disfavor any particular religion. Many majority-Muslim countries were not subject to restrictions and some non-majority-Muslim countries were subject to restrictions which supported the government's contention that the Proclamation was not based on anti-Muslim animus and was instead based on “a sufficient national security justification.”
The President
Wins and Loses Temporarily
Trump 2.0
.On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14242 with the objective of effectively dismantling the Department of Education and returning authority to the states. On March 13, 2025, the Attorneys General of twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the Department of Education and the Trump administration to halt a planned Reduction in Force (RIF), which would reduce the department’s staff of 4,133 by approximately 1,378. On May 22, 2025 a Massachusetts Federal District Court Judge granted a preliminary injunction and on June 4, 2025, a federal appeals court denied the administration’s request to overturn the injunction. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction and the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 majority to grant a stay of the preliminary injunction that had blocked the administration’s plans to dismantle the Department of Education allowing the firing thousands of department employees while litigation on the merits proceeds.
Trump 2.0
Nearly twenty nationwide injunctions were issued against presidential directives during the first hundred days of the second Trump Administration including EO 14169 issued on January 20, 2025. The EO effectively froze the distribution of all U.S. foreign aid by ordering a 90-day pause in “foreign development assistance” with the Secretary of State issuing stop-work orders for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance grants. The AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition sued claiming that the suspensions harmed their work and employees and exceeded the President’s scope of authority in violation of the Constitution. On February 13, 2025, a Federal District Court Judge for the District of Columbia issued a Temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Trump administration to halt the blanket suspension of foreign aid funding but not the the implementation of other provisions in EO 14169. The Government’s appeal of the decision was rejected by the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, On Mar. 10, the same Federal District Court Judge granted a preliminary injunction ordering the government to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance for work performed before Feb. 13, but he did not reject the State Department’s review and termination of thousands of foreign aid contracts for work after that date. This is a temporary loss because the case is still ongoing.