Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The first duty of government is to ensure domestic tranquility and defend the life, property, and rights of its citizens.  Over the last 5 weeks, there has been a sustained assault on the life and property of civilians, law enforcement officers, government property, and revered American monuments such as the Lincoln Memorial.  Many of the rioters, arsonists, and left-wing extremists who have carried out and supported these acts have explicitly identified themselves with ideologies — such as Marxism — that call for the destruction of the United States system of government.

Anarchists and left-wing extremists have sought to advance a fringe ideology that paints the United States of America as fundamentally unjust and have sought to impose that ideology on Americans through violence and mob intimidation.  They have led riots in the streets, burned police vehicles, killed and assaulted government officers as well as business owners defending their property, and even seized an area within one city where law and order gave way to anarchy.  During the unrest, innocent citizens also have been harmed and killed.

These criminal acts are frequently planned and supported by agitators who have traveled across State lines to promote their own violent agenda.  These radicals shamelessly attack the legitimacy of our institutions and the very rule of law itself.

Key targets in the violent extremists’ campaign against our country are public monuments, memorials, and statues.  Their selection of targets reveals a deep ignorance of our history, and is indicative of a desire to indiscriminately destroy anything that honors our past and to erase from the public mind any suggestion that our past may be worth honoring, cherishing, remembering, or understanding.  In the last week, vandals toppled a statue of President Ulysses S. Grant in San Francisco.  To them, it made no difference that President Grant led the Union Army to victory over the Confederacy in the Civil War, enforced Reconstruction, fought the Ku Klux Klan, and advocated for the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed freed slaves the right to vote.  In Charlotte, North Carolina, the names of 507 veterans memorialized on a World War II monument were painted over with a symbol of communism.  And earlier this month, in Boston, a memorial commemorating an African-American regiment that fought in the Civil War was defaced with graffiti.  In Madison, Wisconsin, rioters knocked over the statue of an abolitionist immigrant who fought for the Union during the Civil War.  Christian figures are now in the crosshairs, too.  Recently, an influential activist for one movement that has been prominent in setting the agenda for demonstrations in recent weeks declared that many existing religious depictions of Jesus and the Holy Family should be purged from our places of worship.

Individuals and organizations have the right to peacefully advocate for either the removal or the construction of any monument.  But no individual or group has the right to damage, deface, or remove any monument by use of force.

In the midst of these attacks, many State and local governments appear to have lost the ability to distinguish between the lawful exercise of rights to free speech and assembly and unvarnished vandalism.  They have surrendered to mob rule, imperiling community safety, allowing for the wholesale violation of our laws, and privileging the violent impulses of the mob over the rights of law-abiding citizens.  Worse, they apparently have lost the will or the desire to stand up to the radical fringe and defend the fundamental truth that America is good, her people are virtuous, and that justice prevails in this country to a far greater extent than anywhere else in the world.  Some particularly misguided public officials even appear to have accepted the idea that violence can be virtuous and have prevented their police from enforcing the law and protecting public monuments, memorials, and statues from the mob’s ropes and graffiti.

My Administration will not allow violent mobs incited by a radical fringe to become the arbiters of the aspects of our history that can be celebrated in public spaces.  State and local public officials’ abdication of their law enforcement responsibilities in deference to this violent assault must end...."
Issued..
June 26, 2020...
Protecting American Monuments, Memorials......  

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

"...Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse...

Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices..."

Prevenint online censorship

Presidential Removal of IGs Under the Inspector General Act

"Presidential Removal of IGs Under the Inspector General Act


President Trump has recently removed or replaced a number of acting and permanent Inspectors General (IGs), including the Intelligence Community IG, the State Department IG, and acting IGs at the Department of Transportation and Department of Defense. These actions have stirred both immediate concern by some within Congress and a larger conversation on IG independence. While governing statutes provide that IGs are intended to be “independent and objective units” tasked with auditing and investigating agency programs, they are not entirely insulated from presidential influence. In most cases it is the President that both selects and removes IGs, subject to checks on that authority discussed below..."
Inspector General

Executive Order on Prioritizing and Allocating Health and Medical Resources to Respond to the Spread of Covid-19

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) (the “Act”), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy and Findings.  On March 13, 2020, I declared a national emergency recognizing the threat that the novel (new) coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2 poses to our national security.  In recognizing the public health risk, I noted that on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization announced that the outbreak of COVID-19 (the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2) can be characterized as a pandemic.  I also noted that while the Federal Government, along with State and local governments, have taken preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and to treat those affected, the spread of COVID-19 within our Nation’s communities threatens to strain our Nation’s healthcare system.  To ensure that our healthcare system is able to surge capacity and capability to respond to the spread of COVID-19, it is critical that all health and medical resources needed to respond to the spread of COVID-19 are properly distributed to the Nation’s healthcare system and others that need them most at this time.

Accordingly, I find that health and medical resources needed to respond to the spread of COVID-19, including personal protective equipment and ventilators, meet the criteria specified in section 101(b) of the Act (50 U.S.C. 4511(b)).  Under the delegation of authority provided in this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may identify additional specific health and medical resources that meet the criteria of section 101(b)..."

Executive order and allocating health resources

A Budget for America's Future: FY 2021

"Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2021 contains the Budget Message of the President, information on the President’s priorities, and summary tables.

 Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2021 contains analyses that are designed to highlight specified subject areas or provide other significant presentations of budget data that place the budget in perspective. This volume includes economic and accounting analyses, information on Federal receipts and collections, analyses of Federal spending, information on Federal borrowing and debt, baseline or current services estimates, and other technical presentations.

Supplemental tables and other materials that are part of the Analytical Perspectives volume are available at https://whitehouse.gov/omb/ analytical-perspectives/.

Appendix, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2021 contains detailed information on the various appropriations and funds that constitute the budget and is designed primarily for the use of the Appropriations Committees. The Appendix contains more detailed financial information on individual programs and appropriation accounts than any of the other budget documents. It includes for each agency: the proposed text of appropriations language; budget schedules for each account; legislative proposals; narrative explanations of each budget account; and proposed general provisions applicable to the appropriations of entire agencies or group of agencies. Information is also provided on certain activities whose transactions are not part of the budget totals.

Major Savings and Reforms, Fiscal Year 2021, which accompanies the President’s Budget, contains detailed information on major savings and reform proposals. The volume describes both major discretionary program eliminations and reductions and mandatory savings proposals..."
Budget of the U.S.

The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report

"The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.  As described in this executive summary and the report that follows, President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign.  The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election.  To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations:  a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary..."
Trump-Ukraine Impeachment

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate

"Dear Mr. Speaker:     (Dear Mr. President:)

I am transmitting an alternative plan for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems in January 2019.

Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement alternative plans for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems if, because of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,” I view the increases that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate.

Under current law, locality pay increases averaging 25.70 percent, costing $25 billion, would go into effect in January 2019, in addition to a 2.1 percent across-the-board increase for the base General Schedule.  We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases.  Accordingly, I have determined that it is appropriate to exercise my authority to set alternative across-the-board and locality pay adjustments for 2019 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5303(b) and 5304a.

Specifically, I have determined that for 2019, both across‑the‑board pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero.  These alternative pay plan decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce..."
Federal employee pay reduction

The Trump-Putin Summit

"On July 16, 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a summit in Helsinki, Finland. This was the first U.S.-Russia summit since 2010, when President Barack Obama met with Putin's predecessor Dmitry Medvedev in Prague to sign the New START strategic arms reduction treaty.

The Presidents characterized the July 2018 summit as a first step to improving relations. President Trump stated his view that the United States and Russia need "to find ways to cooperate in pursuit of shared interests" and resolve global challenges. President Putin said his goal is to restore an acceptable level of trust and past levels of cooperation on issues of mutual interest.

Media reports have focused on President Trump's remarks about whether or not he believes the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. However, the summit discussions apparently ranged widely and touched on many issues central to U.S.-Russia relations.

Some observers suggest the Trump Administration's efforts at rapprochement are no different than efforts of past Administrations to "reset" relations with Russia. Others point out these past efforts were temporary at best or that rapprochement is not possible until Russia reverses its actions in Ukraine and ceases interfering in U.S. and European domestic affairs, among other hostile activities..."
Trump-Putin Summit

Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations

View President Trump's just released proposal for reorganizing various federal departments.
Federal government reorganization

The June 12 Trump-Kim Jong-un Summit

"On June 12, 2018, President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met in Singapore to discuss North Korea’s nuclear program, building a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, and the future of U.S. relations with North Korea (known officially as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK). During their summit, the first-ever meeting between leaders of the two countries, Trump and Kim issued a brief joint statement in which Trump “committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK,” and Kim “reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” The Singapore document is shorter on details than previous nuclear agreements with North Korea and acts as a statement of principles in four areas:

 Normalization: The two sides “commit to establish” new bilateral relations.
 Peace: The U.S. and DPRK agree to work to build “a lasting and stable peace regime.”
 Denuclearization: North Korea “commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” as was also promised in an April 2018 summit between Kim and South Korean leader Moon Jae-in.
 POW/MIA remains: The two sides will work to recover the remains of thousands of U.S. troops unaccounted for during the Korean War,,:
Trump-Kim Jong-un Summit

Compelling Presidential Compliance with a Judicial Subpoena

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly warned President Trump’s lawyers in a March meeting that if the President declined to participate in a voluntary interview, Mueller could issue a subpoena compelling the President’s testimony before a grand jury. The alleged exchange raises the question of whether a sitting President, consistent with the separation of powers and Article II of the Constitution, may be required to comply with a subpoena for his testimony as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Before addressing this question, it is necessary to define the type of subpoena that may be envisioned by the Special Counsel. Special Counsel Mueller, who has been vested with the powers and duties of “any United States Attorney,” has not been provided independent and unilateral authority to issue generalized subpoenas for testimony. Instead, any subpoena to the President would likely be issued by a grand jury— at the request of the Special Counsel—but under the authority of the judiciary. The subpoena would therefore accurately be framed as an attempt by the judicial branch to compel testimony from the President, giving rise to possible concerns under the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court has not directly confronted the question of compelled presidential testimony; however, the question is not a novel one. It is, in fact, a question that has been the subject of some debate throughout American history and any evaluation of the President’s obligations should be undertaken within that historical context..".
Judicial Subpoena

National Security Strategy of the United States, Dec. 2017

" My Fellow Americans:
The American people elected me to make America great again. I promised that my Administration would put the safe , interests, and well-being of our citizens fi rst. I pledged that we would revitalize the American economy, rebuild our military, defend our borders, protect our sovereignty, and advance our values.

During my first year in office, you have witnessed my America First foreign policy in action. We are prioritizing the interests of our citizens and protecting our sovereign rights as a nation. America is leading again on the world stage. We are not hiding from the challenges we face. We are confronting them head-on and pursuing opportunities to promote the securi and prosperi of all Americans.

Th e United States faces an extraordinarily dangerous world, fi lled with a wide range of threats that have intensified in recent years. When I came into office, rogue regimes were developing nuclear weapons and missiles to threaten the entire planet. Radical Islamist terror groups were fl ourishing. Terrorists had taken control of vast swaths of the Middle East. Rival powers were aggressively undermining American interests around the globe. At home, porous borders and unenforced immigration laws had created a host of vulnerabilities. Criminal cartels were bringing drugs and danger into our communities. Unfair trade practices had weakened our economy and exported our jobs overseas. Unfair burden-sharing with our allies and inadequate investment in our own defense had invited danger from those who wish us harm. Too many Americans had lost trust in our government, faith in our future, and confidence in our values..."
President Donald J. Trump.
National Security Strategy

President Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement Raises Legal Questions: Part 1

"On June 1, President Trump announced his long-anticipated decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement—an international agreement intended to reduce the effects of climate change by maintaining global temperatures “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels[.]” As analyzed in this earlier report and live CRS seminar, historical practice suggests it is within the President’s constitutional authority to withdraw from the Paris Agreement without first receiving congressional or senatorial approval. However, legal questions remain as to how the Trump Administration will implement the withdrawal and what role the United States will play in future international climate meetings. This two-part Sidebar series analyzes legal questions arising from the President’s announcement..."
Paris Agreement

Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Statutory Prohibitions on Federal Control of Education

"EXECUTIVE ORDER

ENFORCING STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the proper division of power under the Constitution between the Federal Government and the States and to further the goals of, and to ensure strict compliance with, statutes that prohibit Federal interference with State and local control over education, including section 103 of the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) (20 U.S.C. 3403), sections 438 and 447 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), as amended (20 U.S.C. 1232a and 1232j), and sections 8526A, 8527, and 8529 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (20 U.S.C. 7906a, 7907, and 7909), it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the executive branch to protect and preserve State and local control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, and personnel of educational institutions, schools, and school systems, consistent with applicable law, including ESEA, as amended by ESSA, and ESEA's restrictions related to the Common Core State Standards developed under the Common Core State Standards Initiative..."
Federal control of education

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response

"A deadly chemical weapons attack in Syria on April 4, 2017, and a U.S. military strike in response on April 6 have returned the conflict—now in its seventh year—to the forefront of international attention. In response to the April 4 attack, some Members of Congress called for the United States to conduct a punitive military operation. These Members and some others since have praised President Trump’s decision to launch a limited strike, with some calling on the president to consult with Congress about Syria strategy. Other Members have questioned the president’s authority to launch the strike in the absence of specific prior authorization from Congress. In the past, some in Congress have expressed concern about the international and domestic authorizations for such strikes, their potential unintended consequences, and the possibility of undesirable or unavoidable escalation.

Since taking office in January 2017, President Trump has stated his intention to “destroy” the Syria- and Iraq-based insurgent terrorist group known as the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL, ISIS, or the Arabic acronym Da’esh), and the president has ordered actions to “accelerate” U.S. military efforts against the group in both countries. In late March, senior U.S. officials signaled that the United States would prioritize the fight against the Islamic State and said that Syrian President Bashar al Asad’s future would be determined by the Syrian people. Nevertheless, in the wake of the April 4 attack, President Trump and senior members of his Administration have spoken more critically of Asad’s leadership, and it remains to be seen whether the United States will more directly seek to compel Asad’s departure from power while pursuing the ongoing campaign against the Islamic State..."
Syrian conflict

U.S. Climate Change Regulation and Litigation: Selected Legal Issues

"On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order to encourage and promote energy development by modifying climate change policies. As the Trump Administration implements its environmental policies, various legal challenges to Obama Administration climate change regulations remain pending before courts. During the last term of the Obama Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration finalized a series of regulations to address emissions from cars, trucks, and their engines that may contribute to climate change. In addition, EPA finalized regulations pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to reduce GHG emissions from stationary sources such as power plants, GHG-emitting oil and gas sources, and landfills. Various stakeholders have challenged a majority of these rules generally contesting the scope of EPA’s authority and its methods for regulating GHG emissions..."
Climate change law

The Trump Administration’s March 2017 Defense Budget Proposals: Frequently Asked Questions

"On March 16, 2017, the Trump Administration released two defense budget proposals—a proposal for national defense (budget function 050) discretionary spending for fiscal year (FY) 2018 as part of the Administration’s Budget Blueprint for federal spending, and a detailed request for additional FY0217 funding for Department of Defense (DOD) military activities.

For FY2017, the Administration is seeking $30 billion for DOD military activities (budget subfunction 051) in addition to the amounts requested by the Obama Administration. Of this amount, $24.9 billion is slated for base budget activities and $5.1 billion is associated with Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

The Budget Blueprint includes a $603 billion request for national defense (budget function 050) discretionary budget authority for FY2018 base budget requirements and $65 billion for OCO. This report addresses several frequently asked questions regarding these proposals..."
Trump 2017 Defense Budget..

Presidential Executive Order Regarding the Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits

"

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

OMNIBUS REPORT ON SIGNIFICANT TRADE DEFICITS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure the informed exercise of the authority over international trade granted to me by law, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1.  Policy.  Free and fair trade is critical to the Nation's prosperity, national security, and foreign policy.  It is in America's economic and national security interests to promote commerce by strengthening our relationships with our trading partners, vigorously enforcing our Nation's trade laws, improving the overall conditions for competition and trade, and ensuring the strength of our manufacturing and defense industrial bases.

For many years, the United States has not obtained the full scope of benefits anticipated under a number of international trade agreements or from participating in the World Trade Organization.  The United States annual trade deficit in goods exceeds $700 billion, and the overall trade deficit exceeded $500 billion in 2016...."
Trade deficits

America First A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again

"A MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
The American people elected me to fight for their priorities in Washington, D.C. and deliver on my promise to protect our Nation. I fully intend to keep that promise.

One of the most important ways the Federal Government sets priorities is through the Budget of the United States.

Accordingly, I submit to the Congress this Budget Blueprint to reprioritize Federal spending so that it advances the safety and security of the American people.

Our aim is to meet the simple, but crucial demand of our citizens—a Government that puts the needs of its own people first. When we do that, we will set free the dreams of every American, and we will begin a new chapter of American greatness.

A budget that puts America first must make the safety of our people its number one priority— because without safety, there can be no prosperity.

That is why I have instructed my Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney, to craft a budget that emphasizes national security and public safety. That work is reflected in this Budget Blueprint. To keep Americans safe, we have made tough choices that have been put off for too long. But we have also made necessary investments that are long overdue.

My Budget Blueprint for 2018:
• provides for one of the largest increases in defense spending without increasing the debt;
• significantly increases the budget for immigration enforcement at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security;
• includes additional resources for a wall on the southern border with Mexico, immigration judges, expanded detention capacity, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Border Patrol;
• increases funding to address violent crime and reduces opioid abuse; and
• puts America first by keeping more of America’s hard-earned tax dollars here at home..."
2018 Federal Budget

Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch

"EXECUTIVE ORDER- - - - - - -

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR REORGANIZING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Purpose.  This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.

Sec. 2.  Proposed Plan to Improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability of Federal Agencies, Including, as Appropriate, to Eliminate or Reorganize Unnecessary or Redundant Federal Agencies.  (a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit to the Director a proposed plan to reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of that agency. 

(b)  The Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to suggest improvements in the organization and functioning of the executive branch and shall consider the suggestions when formulating the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section..."
Reorganizing the Executive Branch