The Washington, D.C. Swamp is in damage control mode. They’re worried sick about Trump gutting the Swamp.
That’s why the Deep State has a scandalous plan waiting for Donald Trump.
Donald Trump completing the most incredible political comeback in American history with his win over Kamala Harris is noteworthy in and of itself, the real work is only just about to begin. If anything, it’s going to be much harder than the first term he had in office because now everyone knows he truly means business.
The RINOs will have their claws out ready to chop away at the legs of the Trump administration to prevent any real change from reaching Washington, D.C. and the political class. The Democrats are going to be like a wounded animal in the corner, ready to do whatever it takes to stay alive. The establishment in general is on high alert right now.
Deep State Wants To Revoke Trump’s Ability To Sign Executive Orders?
The suggestion to ban presidential executive orders, made by former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson during a Sunday appearance on NBC News, raises serious concerns about the potential undermining of the constitutional powers granted to the executive branch. Johnson’s comments came in response to President-elect Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans, which were central to his campaign platform. While Johnson’s concerns about the specifics of executive orders are valid, proposing a blanket ban on their use is a significant misstep that could severely limit the president’s ability to effectively govern and execute his constitutional duties.
During his campaign, Trump pledged to take swift action on immigration, promising to shut down the U.S. southern border and initiate a large-scale deportation operation. However, Johnson, when asked by NBC’s Kristen Welker about the potential consequences of such executive actions, took issue with the method of enacting policy through executive orders, particularly in the context of Trump’s planned immigration overhaul.
“So, first of all, somebody should pass a law banning executive orders on day one,” Johnson remarked. “Because the reality is executive orders drafted by transition teams without the input of the affected agency before the cabinet secretaries are even confirmed are not great ideas.” This suggestion, though well-intentioned, overlooks the fundamental role of executive orders in enabling the president to act swiftly and decisively, particularly when faced with urgent issues that require immediate attention.
The U.S. Constitution grants the executive branch significant powers, including the authority to issue executive orders, which have long been a tool for presidents to direct the operations of the federal government. While the use of executive orders should indeed be carefully considered, banning them altogether would severely curtail the president’s ability to fulfill his responsibilities, particularly in matters of national security and public safety. This is especially pertinent in the case of Trump’s immigration policies, where immediate action could be necessary to address what he considers urgent national security threats.
Johnson’s critique extended to the substance of Trump’s proposed immigration actions. He pointed out that some of the most controversial executive orders from the Obama administration, such as the travel ban, were flawed in their rushed implementation. He also referenced the ongoing issue of Guantanamo Bay, an area where executive actions did not yield the intended results. This reinforces the notion that executive orders should not be issued without careful consultation and consideration of their broader impacts. However, the solution is not to ban them outright but rather to ensure a more thoughtful and deliberative process in their creation and implementation.
The idea of mass deportation, a key component of Trump’s immigration agenda, also came under scrutiny. Johnson expressed skepticism about the feasibility of such a plan, emphasizing that deporting all undocumented immigrants would be a monumental task that would take far longer than a single presidency could accommodate. “This idea of mass deportation, that would be the equivalent — if you tried to deport everyone in this country who’s undocumented — of the population of two New York cities, which could not happen in my lifetime,” Johnson explained. He urged that enforcement priorities should focus on criminals, national security threats, and recent border crossers, rather than targeting long-term residents who have committed no crimes.
Johnson’s position aligns with the practical realities of immigration enforcement, acknowledging that resources and personnel are limited and should be directed where they are most needed. “An administration, whether it’s Trump or [President Joe] Biden or [former President Barack] Obama, has to have enforcement priorities,” Johnson asserted. “Start with the criminals, start with the national security threats, recent border crossers.” This framework for prioritizing enforcement aligns more closely with effective and humane immigration policy.
Moreover, Johnson, who served alongside Tom Homan, Trump’s nominee for “border czar,” recognized the complexity of the issue. “Tom Homan knows that. I know he knows that because he used to work for me, and I’d rather see ERO go after the criminals versus somebody who’s been in this country 12 years, committed no crimes, has children who are U.S. citizens,” he noted. This view encapsulates the reality of enforcement and the need for a nuanced approach that balances security concerns with the rights and realities of long-established immigrant communities.
Trump’s immigration policies, including his pledge to revive the “Remain in Mexico” program, increase Border Patrol agents, and re-establish the travel ban, continue to draw sharp criticism. Democratic-led cities and states, including Denver, have already vowed to resist these efforts, demonstrating the deep division that exists over immigration policy. Nonetheless, while the use of executive orders may be contentious, banning them would be a far more dangerous proposition, undermining the executive branch’s ability to act within the scope of its constitutional authority.
While Jeh Johnson’s concerns about the rapid, unchecked use of executive orders are not without merit, banning them entirely would be an overreach that infringes upon the constitutional powers granted to the president. Executive orders are a critical tool for the president to execute the law and respond to pressing national issues. Rather than banning them outright, the focus should be on ensuring that they are used judiciously and in a manner that respects the constitutional framework of checks and balances.
Be sure to stay right here on the Conservative Column for breaking news reports and commentary.
