I believe that the section title “Partisan Gerrymandering and Restricting Abuse” has a typo. I believe that it should be “Partisan Gerrymandering and Redistricting Abuse.” Otherwise a wonderful piece of work.
Although Wilson comes in 3rd for number of executive orders issued, after Hoover and FDR.
Also, current tally is that Trump’s executive orders still are lower than Clinton’s. TBD if that changes by the end of his term.
But they are also not taking into account that many executive orders on both sides in current political climate is to undo executive actions by predecessor. For example, President Biden revoked 62 of Trump's executive orders in his first 100 days, while President Trump, upon his return to office in 2025, rescinded 78 of Biden's actions on his first day alone. And then the question becomes, how many executive actions in Trump’s first term were to undo action taken by Obama? And so on down the line…
I wouldn’t call undoing actions as “authoritarian overreach.” A bad precedent? Sure, but that ship has already sailed, as you point out.
The number of Executive Orders is not really a good metric to determine use or abuse. They are used for many things, and are often not really necessary, so the numbers vary considerably
No — standing alone they do not. It is the content that matters. So just comparing numbers without content analysis is misleading, which is precisely what I was responding to.
“President Trump is on pace to issue approximately 275 EOs this year, one of the highest rates in American history, and more than five times greater than his first term. “
While you do go to mention the content of a few executive orders you find concerning, you clearly thought it important to mention the number of executive orders issued by Trump so far and to compare it to the rates of other Presidents and to his first term.
But now you are still saying that the numbers without content don’t matter!
That was part of my point as well though— a number of executive orders from each consecutive President is to undo executive actions of their predecessor. Not sure how far back we can trace this… but I would not consider undoing previous executive orders as any sort of “expansion” of powers.
The intelligence apparatus is getting angry about Trump and his cabinet doing the things to them that they used to do with impunity to whomever they felt like harming.
Competitive authoritarianism" - elections persist but the field is tilted. Your framework is rigorous. But consider the why: power increasingly flows not from consent but from possession of secrets. Kompromatocracy. The institutional checks don't fail randomly - they fail selectively, protecting certain people. The dog that didn't bark. Sherlock Holmes understood: silence is evidence.
Read it word for word and explored the links. And the outside reading. The outside reading has outside reading! Going down the cognitive psychology rabbit hole. Heuer's work has held up over time: from bounded rationality to mental models, the concepts are still prevalent in current literature. I'm impressed by how little these concepts have changed over time. That's a testament to Heuer. I would argue (and perhaps Heuer would have agreed with me) that not only do we all have lenses through which we interpret stimuli and our world, but that 1) the content of that lens or lenses speaks volumes about the mental health of that person, and 2) the ability to recognize a lens and attempt to alter it requires a very robust constitution. I say this because people with fixed delusions are very stuck with mental lenses--all stimuli are seen through the lens of the fixed delusion. The rigidity of such lenses is, in my opinion, a potential marker of mental health. I don't know if anyone else shares this opinion or of it is my own. Anyway, thanks a lot, now I've got a reading list a mile long and am spending my off-time in the FOIA Reading Room...
Talk about a must-read!
I believe that the section title “Partisan Gerrymandering and Restricting Abuse” has a typo. I believe that it should be “Partisan Gerrymandering and Redistricting Abuse.” Otherwise a wonderful piece of work.
As is typical the IC is behind at least 17 years. BHO accelerated the Executive overreach begun by Lincoln and Wilson.
Indeed.
Although Wilson comes in 3rd for number of executive orders issued, after Hoover and FDR.
Also, current tally is that Trump’s executive orders still are lower than Clinton’s. TBD if that changes by the end of his term.
But they are also not taking into account that many executive orders on both sides in current political climate is to undo executive actions by predecessor. For example, President Biden revoked 62 of Trump's executive orders in his first 100 days, while President Trump, upon his return to office in 2025, rescinded 78 of Biden's actions on his first day alone. And then the question becomes, how many executive actions in Trump’s first term were to undo action taken by Obama? And so on down the line…
I wouldn’t call undoing actions as “authoritarian overreach.” A bad precedent? Sure, but that ship has already sailed, as you point out.
The number of Executive Orders is not really a good metric to determine use or abuse. They are used for many things, and are often not really necessary, so the numbers vary considerably
If executive orders are not a good metric to use, then why did you use them in this report?
Your very first piece of “evidence” that we are heading towards an authoritarian state is the number of executive orders issued by Trump!
And now, you tell me they don’t really mean anything when I point out that past Presidents used executive orders more?
No — standing alone they do not. It is the content that matters. So just comparing numbers without content analysis is misleading, which is precisely what I was responding to.
Also, you say:
“President Trump is on pace to issue approximately 275 EOs this year, one of the highest rates in American history, and more than five times greater than his first term. “
While you do go to mention the content of a few executive orders you find concerning, you clearly thought it important to mention the number of executive orders issued by Trump so far and to compare it to the rates of other Presidents and to his first term.
But now you are still saying that the numbers without content don’t matter!
Get your story straight.
That was part of my point as well though— a number of executive orders from each consecutive President is to undo executive actions of their predecessor. Not sure how far back we can trace this… but I would not consider undoing previous executive orders as any sort of “expansion” of powers.
Why do you think President Biden revoked some of Trump‘s executive orders during his first term? Have you read them?
Here they are.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/initial-rescissions-of-harmful-executive-orders-and-actions/
The intelligence apparatus is getting angry about Trump and his cabinet doing the things to them that they used to do with impunity to whomever they felt like harming.
Exactly.
A long, close assessment of where America is at...Must read!
Competitive authoritarianism" - elections persist but the field is tilted. Your framework is rigorous. But consider the why: power increasingly flows not from consent but from possession of secrets. Kompromatocracy. The institutional checks don't fail randomly - they fail selectively, protecting certain people. The dog that didn't bark. Sherlock Holmes understood: silence is evidence.
andrewcarolan.com/books
So after all that, what do the people do? NOTHING??
Guaranteed grounds for Impeachment.
Read it word for word and explored the links. And the outside reading. The outside reading has outside reading! Going down the cognitive psychology rabbit hole. Heuer's work has held up over time: from bounded rationality to mental models, the concepts are still prevalent in current literature. I'm impressed by how little these concepts have changed over time. That's a testament to Heuer. I would argue (and perhaps Heuer would have agreed with me) that not only do we all have lenses through which we interpret stimuli and our world, but that 1) the content of that lens or lenses speaks volumes about the mental health of that person, and 2) the ability to recognize a lens and attempt to alter it requires a very robust constitution. I say this because people with fixed delusions are very stuck with mental lenses--all stimuli are seen through the lens of the fixed delusion. The rigidity of such lenses is, in my opinion, a potential marker of mental health. I don't know if anyone else shares this opinion or of it is my own. Anyway, thanks a lot, now I've got a reading list a mile long and am spending my off-time in the FOIA Reading Room...