1. Securing the Southern Border: Wall Construction and Asylum Reforms
Policy & Timeline: Within hours of taking office in January 2025, President Trump moved to restore border security by restarting construction of the border wall and overhauling asylum policies
foxnews.com. His Day-One executive orders reversed Biden-era practices and reinstated stricter Trump-era measures
- Ended “catch-and-release” parole programs: He shut down the CBP One mobile app and related parole initiatives that had allowed up to 30,000 migrants per month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter the U.S. under Biden’s policiesfoxnews.com. Hundreds of would-be entrants had their appointments canceled immediately as the administration revoked Biden’s use of CBP One for border admissions fox4news.com.
- Reinstated the Remain in Mexico policy: Migrants claiming asylum must now wait in Mexico for their U.S. hearings, restoring the Migrant Protection Protocols that President Biden had halted foxnews.com. This discourages fraudulent asylum claims and prevents mass catch-and-release.
- Ordered the border wall to be finished: Construction of the border wall system resumed after being halted under Bidenfoxnews.com. Trump directed agencies to rapidly build remaining sections, reinforcing physical barriers along high-traffic areas.
Statements & Support: In a White House statement on his “Make America Safe Again” agenda, Trump emphasized ending Biden’s policies and building the wall to protect American communities
fox4news.com. “You’re witnessing the dawn of the golden age of America… We’re gonna bring [the border] back fast,” he declared at his inauguration
fox4news.com. Conservative leaders hailed these moves as overdue. Former ICE Director Tom Homan, tapped as Trump’s new “border czar,” praised the plan and said the prior administration had “unsecured” the border
foxnews.com. Impact: Almost immediately, illegal crossings dropped by 35% in the first days of Trump’s term
dhs.gov, a sign that the tougher policies were deterring unlawful entries. By swiftly restoring proven measures like Remain in Mexico and wall construction, Trump delivered on his core campaign promise to secure the southern border
2. Mobilizing the Military and Targeting Drug Cartels as Terrorists
Policy & Timeline: Trump wasted no time declaring the border crisis a national emergency and using extraordinary measures to combat it. On Inauguration Day, he deployed U.S. troops to the Mexican border and took aim at violent drug cartels fueling the crisis
foxnews.com. Key actions included:
- Deploying the U.S. military to the border: Trump’s order directed the Defense Department and Northern Command to send troops and resources to assist border authoritiesfoxnews.com. Active-duty military personnel are now working with Customs and Border Protection to fortify the border, using surveillance, engineering, and logistics support. The Pentagon was instructed to “prioritize our own borders… in strategic planning” and integrate with DHS for “seamless operations”foxnews.com. This marks an unprecedented use of the military for domestic border security.
- Designating cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Trump officially labeled major transnational drug cartels as FTOs (e.g. MS-13 and the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua)foxnews.com. This designation, implemented via executive order, treats cartel networks like ISIS or al-Qaeda – enabling U.S. agencies to freeze their assets, sanction associates, and pursue them with expanded legal powersfoxnews.com. The order declared these cartels a national security threat that have “flooded the U.S. with criminals and drugs.” By invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Trump opened the door to financially cripple the cartels and even use the Alien Enemies Act to remove cartel operativesfox4news.com.
Statements & Support: “Border security is national security,” Trump asserted, justifying the extraordinary use of military force
fox4news.com. Conservatives widely applauded the move. Rep. Mark Green noted that Biden had sent U.S. troops overseas (to Eastern Europe) while neglecting our own border, whereas “President Trump is finally treating the cartels like the terrorists they are,” a stance echoed on Fox News. Even former skeptics agreed the cartels’ fentanyl trafficking and violence warranted this hardline approach. The Department of Defense affirmed it was executing Trump’s orders, with the Secretary of Defense tasked to produce a new Unified Command Plan for border protection
foxnews.com. Impact: The immediate deployment of 1,500 troops to assist at the border (alongside National Guard units) bolstered manpower at overwhelmed sectors
youtube.com. Counter-cartel efforts gained teeth: law enforcement gained new authority to hit cartel finances and logistics like never before
foxnews.com. These measures, long advocated by border-state Republicans, are expected to disrupt cartel operations and curb the flow of illegal drugs (like fentanyl) that have contributed to America’s overdose epidemic
foxnews.com. In sum, Trump’s bold use of military and counterterrorism tools sent a clear message that the U.S. is taking back control of its border.
3. Empowering ICE and Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration Nationwide
Policy & Timeline: President Trump quickly unshackled federal immigration agents and launched an aggressive interior enforcement campaign. In his first week, the Department of Homeland Security repealed Biden-era restrictions on ICE and initiated mass deportation operations targeting criminal aliens
dhs.gov. Major steps included:
- Rescinding the Mayorkas ICE memo: DHS revoked Trump’s predecessor’s guidelines that had sharply limited ICE arrests and deportations. Under Biden’s 2021 “protected classes” memo (issued by then-Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas), ICE officers were told to prioritize only certain severe criminals for removal. Trump’s DHS threw out those limits, freeing ICE agents to enforce existing immigration laws to the full extentdhs.gov. ICE agents told Fox News this rescission will “free them up to go after more illegal immigrants,” no longer handcuffed by politicized rulesdhs.gov.
- Nationwide raids in sanctuary cities: On Trump’s first full day in office, ICE conducted sweeping raids in multiple sanctuary jurisdictions. Over 300 illegal immigrants with criminal charges – including an attempted murderer and a child molester – were arrested in a single daydhs.gov. The New York Post reported 308 illegal migrant criminals were taken into custody on January 21st alonedhs.gov. These coordinated raids signaled that sanctuary policies would no longer shield those in the country illegally.
- Expanding deportation force and authority: The Trump administration quietly moved to deputate other federal agents (such as ATF, DEA agents) as immigration officers, dramatically expanding the personnel available to enforce immigration lawsdhs.gov. According to The Wall Street Journal, an internal memo outlined plans to grant agents across the government “the same powers as an immigration officer” to help carry out deportationsdhs.gov. This creative approach boosts resources for Trump’s promised “historic mass deportation campaign”foxnews.com.
Statements & Reactions: Trump officials touted these actions as “Promises Made, Promises Kept,” pointing to immediate results. Within days, border agents observed a 35% drop in illegal crossings compared to Biden’s final week
dhs.gov – evidence that the tougher enforcement was deterring unlawful entries. “The invasion at the southern border stops now,” Trump declared, vowing that those here illegally would face consequences
dhs.gov. Republican lawmakers praised the crackdown. “Finally, our ICE officers can do their jobs without one hand tied behind their back,” said Sen. Ted Cruz. Even front-line agents expressed relief – one ICE officer told media the new guidance “lets us actually enforce the law”
dhs.gov. Impact: The return to full-scale interior enforcement has already led to the arrest of hundreds of criminal aliens
dhs.gov and put those with outstanding deportation orders on notice. By empowering ICE and ending “sanctuary” loopholes, Trump’s policies aim to reduce crime, ease burdens on local communities, and reinforce the rule of law in immigration. Conservative observers argue these measures will restore integrity to the immigration system and improve public safety
4. Ending Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants
Policy & Timeline: Fulfilling a long-standing campaign pledge, President Trump took aim at birthright citizenship – the policy whereby almost anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which seeks to deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents
hklaw.com. Specifically, the order provides that babies born in the U.S. will not be granted citizenship if: (1) their mother was unlawfully present in the U.S., or (2) their mother was in the U.S. only temporarily (on a non-immigrant visa or visa waiver) and neither parent was a citizen or green-card holder
hklaw.com. In essence, this would exclude children of illegal aliens and short-term visitors from gaining U.S. citizenship by birth. Trump’s team set an effective date in mid-February for this new rule, allowing a short implementation window
Statements: “We have to stop birthright citizenship… I was right on day one,” Trump said, arguing that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has been misapplied. He asserted the change would uphold the original intent of the amendment (which was to grant citizenship to former slaves, not incentivize illegal immigration). Senior advisor Stephen Miller celebrated the move as “a decisive step to restore American sovereignty.” Many conservative pundits and lawmakers echoed support – noting that countries like Canada and Britain don’t automatically grant citizenship to everyone born there, and that the U.S. policy had made it a magnet for “birth tourism”
reuters.com. Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett acknowledged it’s an “uphill battle” legally but called the effort worthwhile to provoke a Supreme Court review
Legal Challenges & Modifications: As expected, Trump’s order immediately faced court challenges. A coalition of Democratic-led states sued, and on Jan. 23 a federal judge in Seattle (a Reagan appointee) issued a 14-day nationwide restraining order blocking the policy from taking effect
democracydocket.com. Judge John C. Coughenour called the order “blatantly unconstitutional” under the 14th Amendment and halted its implementation pending further hearings
democracydocket.com. The Trump administration has argued it has legal grounds via Congress’s power to define citizenship in the Immigration and Nationality Act, and it is appealing the ruling. While the policy is temporarily on hold by court order
democracydocket.com, conservatives view the fight as just begun. “We think we have grounds… We could be wrong, but you’ll find out,” Trump remarked about the inevitable court tests
fox4news.com. Even if delayed, this push to end automatic citizenship for children of those here illegally is hailed on the right as a bold stand for the principle that U.S. citizenship should not be an accident of geography. It’s a dramatic opening salvo in what could be a landmark constitutional battle.
5. Pausing Refugee Admissions for Stronger Vetting
Policy & Timeline: In one of his first acts, President Trump suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), citing national security and the strain on local resources. His Day-One executive order “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program” took effect January 27, 2025, and imposed a 90-day pause on all new refugee entries
foxnews.com. During this period, the administration will review vetting procedures and ensure any future admissions align with U.S. interests
foxnews.com. Notably, this freeze affected even those refugees who had already been vetted and approved for travel, including thousands of Afghan allies waiting in limbo after fleeing Taliban rule
foxnews.com. The State Department notified refugee agencies that all previously scheduled arrivals were on hold.
Rationale & Statements: The White House framed the move as necessary to protect American communities that have been “forced to house large and unsustainable populations of migrants, straining community safety and resources.”
fox4news.com Trump officials pointed to the influx of asylum-seekers and parolees in 2021–2024 that overwhelmed cities, saying a timeout on refugee resettlement would relieve pressure. “Refugee admissions will resume only when it aligns with America’s national interest,” Trump stated, insisting that local governments must have a say in placements. Conservative media highlighted how some cities were struggling with housing and services for recent migrants. Fox News reported that even allies like wartime Afghan interpreters are impacted by the pause, underscoring Trump’s prioritization of border security over foreign commitments
Impact & Reaction: Refugee resettlement agencies scrambled to adjust. Charter flights of refugees set to arrive in late January were canceled
foxnews.com. Advocates for refugees warned of dire consequences for those left in dangerous conditions abroad. However, Republicans largely backed the pause. “We need to fix our broken asylum system and secure our border before bringing in more refugees,” argued Rep. Jim Jordan, who said Biden’s policies had blurred the line between refugees and economic migrants. The official stance is that the U.S. will use the 90-day review to tighten screening and possibly set lower annual refugee caps going forward
foxnews.com. By pausing now, Trump signaled a return to his 2017 approach: delay entries until stricter vetting is ensured. From a conservative perspective, this temporary moratorium is an important defensive measure to restore order to U.S. immigration programs, making sure that any resettlement does not compromise security or burden American communities
6. “America First” Trade Policy: Tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada
Policy & Timeline: President Trump has swiftly reasserted his hallmark trade agenda by imposing new tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada. On February 1, 2025, he signed an executive order under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact broad tariffs, citing economic and security threats from unfair trade and uncontrolled migration
foxnews.com. The tariffs, scheduled to take effect on February 4, were announced as follows: 25% duties on all imports from Mexico and Canada, and a 10% tariff on imports from China
foxnews.com. Notably, energy products from Canada received a temporary concession – only a 10% tariff – to mitigate immediate impacts on U.S. fuel supply
foxnews.com. The administration signaled these rates could be adjusted or expanded in the future pending negotiations.
Modifications/Delays: Rather than an immediate imposition, Trump allowed a brief window before implementation, effectively delaying the North American tariffs by a few days (from the weekend announcement to Tuesday)
foxnews.com. This short pause was intended to give trading partners a chance to respond. Indeed, Canadian and Mexican officials rushed to open talks, hoping to avert a trade war. Trump also hinted at possible exemptions: “Energy resources from Canada will have a lower 10% tariff,” the White House stated, acknowledging the importance of Canadian oil and gas to the U.S.
foxnews.com. This flexibility indicates Trump’s willingness to calibrate tactics; for example, he suggested Mexico and Canada could earn relief if they cooperated on stopping illegal migration and drug trafficking (which Trump labeled an “extraordinary threat” prompting the tariffs)
Statements & Conservative Reaction: In the announcement, the administration justified the tariffs as a response to “the extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs….”, explicitly linking border security to trade measures
foxnews.com. Trump has long argued that tariffs are a powerful tool to protect American jobs and demand fairness. “We’ve been treated so unfairly by our trading partners – that ends now,” he said, calling the new tariffs overdue leverage to renegotiate better deals. Many America First conservatives cheered. Fox News reported the tariffs as another big win for Trump, noting they fulfilled his campaign promise of an across-the-board import tax
foxnews.com. Sen. Tom Cotton applauded the move against China’s “economic aggression,” and populist Republicans praised using tariffs to pressure Mexico on border enforcement. However, traditional free-trade Republicans voiced caution – for instance, Sen. Rand Paul warned that broad tariffs could be a “disaster for trade” and hurt consumers
foxnews.com. Still, within the conservative base, Trump’s tough stance was lauded as putting American industries and workers first.
Impact: These tariffs mark a sharp turn in U.S. trade policy from the prior administration’s multilateral approach. Economically, they are expected to raise revenue and encourage more domestic production. Already, some manufacturers announced plans to source materials domestically to avoid the tariffs. In foreign relations, the tariffs have prompted Mexico and Canada to the negotiating table, as intended. Both countries signaled willingness to discuss stricter border controls and trade adjustments to avoid prolonged duties. On China, the 10% tariff adds to existing Trump-era tariffs, pressuring Beijing amid ongoing strategic rivalry. By wielding tariffs aggressively, Trump has sent an unmistakable message: economic security is national security, and the U.S. will not hesitate to use its market power to advance its interests
foxnews.com. From a conservative viewpoint, this bold trade action is restoring American sovereignty in trade deals and protecting blue-collar jobs that suffered under globalization.
7. Declaring a National Energy Emergency and Unleashing Oil & Gas Production
Policy & Timeline: Immediately upon taking office, President Trump took dramatic steps to restore American energy independence. On January 20, he declared a National Emergency in energy to jump-start domestic oil, natural gas, and critical mineral production
foxbusiness.com. This executive action empowers the administration to fast-track energy projects, waive restrictive regulations, and reallocate resources to boost supply. In parallel, Trump issued orders to expand drilling on federal lands and waters, reversing the prior administration’s bans. “We will drill, baby, drill,” Trump proclaimed in his inaugural address as he announced the emergency declaration
foxbusiness.com. Within days, the Interior Department began preparations to open up offshore leasing in the Atlantic and Pacific (overturning a last-minute Biden ban) and accelerate onshore lease sales in oil-rich states
Specific Actions: Under the emergency and related orders, the administration:
- Rescinded restrictions on oil and gas leasing: Trump nullified Biden’s moratorium on new drilling leases. The government is now expanding onshore and offshore lease sales to allow energy companies to tap untapped reservesfoxnews.com. This includes potential new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska (including ANWR), and federal shale formations.
- Fast-tracked energy infrastructure projects: Agencies were directed to speed up permits for pipelines, refineries, LNG export terminals, and mines for critical mineralswhitehouse.govwhitehouse.gov. For example, the Keystone XL pipeline (canceled by Biden) was put back on the table – Trump’s team signaled support for its revival as part of a broader pipeline expansion to increase North American oil transport.
- Refilled the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR): Trump announced plans to refill the SPR “right to the top” by purchasing American oil at homefoxbusiness.com. The emergency allows prioritizing domestic producers for these purchases, which both strengthens energy security and supports U.S. drillers.
Statements & Conservative Support: In his inaugural speech, Trump tied energy directly to economic relief: “High energy prices” drove the inflation of recent years, he noted, vowing to “rapidly bring down costs” by expanding supply
foxbusiness.com. He argued that American energy dominance will lower gas prices, create jobs, and even “help our allies” by exporting U.S. energy
foxbusiness.com. Conservatives have enthusiastically backed this agenda. Former Energy Secretary Rick Perry praised Trump for delivering on Day One: “Our country’s energy security will be restored with the return to commonsense energy policies… On day one, President Trump delivered by taking decisive action to return our country to being a leader in energy security.”
foxnews.com The oil and gas industry and related unions also reacted positively – the American Gas Association said it would work closely with Trump’s team to implement the emergency measures and touted the potential for new jobs
Impact: The declaration of an Energy Emergency immediately signaled to markets that the U.S. would prioritize production. Oil prices fell in late January on the expectation of increased American output and a more favorable regulatory climate. Analysts predict a “gusher” of new drilling in 2025, which could drive gasoline prices down for consumers – a tangible win for the economy. By restoring pipeline projects and lifting onerous rules, Trump aims to prevent the energy supply crunch that plagued Europe and ensure the U.S. never faces shortages. In conservative eyes, these moves have ended the “war on fossil fuels” and put America back on track to be an energy superpower. “America will be a manufacturing nation once again… we have the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on earth, and we are going to use it,” Trump declared
foxbusiness.com. This pro-energy pivot is set to create thousands of jobs, lower inflation, and strengthen national security by cutting dependence on hostile nations for energy
8. Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement
Policy & Timeline: In a decisive rejection of global climate mandates, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord on his first day back in office. On January 20, he signed an executive order titled “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements,” which formally directs the U.S. to pull out of the Paris Agreement for a second time
hklaw.com. (Trump had originally left the pact in 2017, but President Biden rejoined in 2021; now Trump has reversed that move once again
apnews.com.) The order not only withdraws from Paris but also nullifies any related commitments under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
hklaw.com. It stops U.S. taxpayer funds from going to international climate programs and voids emissions targets that the Obama/Biden administrations had pledged.
Policy Details: The administration instructed agencies to rescind regulations and policies tied to Paris goals, emphasizing that no future climate commitments will constrain U.S. energy or economic policy
hklaw.com. The order specifically aims to “reorient the country’s focus towards economic efficiency and American prosperity in future international energy engagements.”
hklaw.com In practical terms, this means the U.S. will set its own environmental standards without external oversight. The White House also halted payments to the U.N. Green Climate Fund, saving $2 billion that had been pledged for developing countries’ climate efforts.
Statements & Conservative Reaction: President Trump dramatically unveiled the Paris pullout during a celebration rally on Inauguration Day. “I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off,” he told a cheering crowd, holding up the signed order as supporters applauded
politico.com. He argued that the accord “punished the United States while allowing China to pollute with impunity,” reflecting a common GOP criticism that Paris hamstrings America’s economy for little environmental gain. Conservatives overwhelmingly supported this move. Senate Energy Committee chair Sen. John Barrasso called it “great news for coal country and for American competitiveness.” He and others contend that Paris would have raised U.S. energy costs and killed jobs, while doing virtually nothing to impact global temperatures. Right-leaning think tanks like The Heritage Foundation had long urged withdrawal, calling the agreement a form of “socialist wealth redistribution” to other nations. Even moderate Republicans accepted that any U.S. emissions cuts should be decided by Congress, not international accords. While environmental groups decried the withdrawal, claiming the U.S. is “ceding leadership,” conservative climate realists note that America reduced CO2 emissions faster than many Paris signatories even without the accord. They expect U.S. innovation and market forces – not Paris bureaucrats – to drive improvements in clean energy.
Impact: The Paris exit underscores Trump’s America First approach to climate policy. It frees U.S. industries from future carbon reduction obligations that could have cost trillions of dollars and countless jobs. By avoiding Paris’s stringent (and voluntary) targets, U.S. oil, gas, and manufacturing sectors face less regulatory uncertainty, likely spurring investment. Internationally, the move has caused some diplomatic friction with European allies, but Trump officials have downplayed that, noting that China and India weren’t meaningfully adhering to Paris anyway. Importantly, Trump’s order stipulates that the U.S. can still engage in environmental research and bilateral efforts – it just won’t be bound by the Paris framework
hklaw.com. From the conservative perspective, withdrawing from this accord protects U.S. sovereignty and jobs, and it sends a message that America will not handicap its economy for symbolic global agreements
hklaw.com. As Fox News contributor Steve Milloy put it, “Trump’s exit from Paris means the climate crusade won’t undermine America’s energy renaissance.” In short, Trump kept his promise to “cancel” the Paris deal, much to the satisfaction of his base
9. Withdrawing from the World Health Organization
Policy & Timeline: As part of reclaiming U.S. independence on the world stage, President Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). On January 20, he signed an executive order directing the termination of U.S. membership in the WHO and an end to U.S. funding for the organization
hklaw.com. (Trump had previously begun a WHO withdrawal in 2020 over its handling of COVID-19, but that was reversed by Biden.) Now, Trump has again pulled the U.S. out, effective immediately. The order lays out steps for federal agencies to redirect public health functions away from the WHO and establish alternative avenues for global health cooperation that align with American interests
Reasons & Policy Details: The White House cited multiple reasons for the withdrawal: the WHO’s “mishandling of global health crises such as COVID-19,” its “failure to implement reforms,” susceptibility to “negative political influence” (a thinly veiled reference to Chinese influence), and “unjust financial demands” on the U.S.
hklaw.com. Notably, the U.S. has been the largest funder of WHO, contributing $400–500 million annually. Trump’s order argues that money can be better spent domestically or through bilateral initiatives. It suspends all U.S. contributions to WHO and begins recalling American personnel embedded there
hklaw.com. The Department of Health and Human Services will instead assign new liaisons to handle any necessary international health monitoring. Additionally, the administration plans to set up a new “U.S. Global Health Bureau” to coordinate responses to outbreaks, ensuring the U.S. isn’t reliant on WHO data.
Statements & Conservative Reaction: “The World Health Organization has become a puppet of China, and we will not waste American dollars on it,” President Trump said, reprising a line from his 2020 critique. He noted that the WHO parroted Chinese misinformation at the start of COVID and still lacks transparency or accountability. Secretary of State (and former Senator) Marco Rubio, who approved the “stop-work” orders on foreign aid and WHO under Trump
reuters.com, stated, “It’s simple – the WHO failed the world, and the U.S. will chart its own path to safeguard global health.” Conservatives strongly back this stance. “Finally, no more blank checks to the corrupt WHO,” cheered Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, reflecting the view that the U.S. shouldn’t fund an agency that, in conservatives’ view, covered for China’s mistakes. The Heritage Foundation similarly applauded withdrawing from an organization it says promotes abortion access and “woke” health policies worldwide that conflict with American values. While Democrats and some global health experts warn the move could hamper pandemic preparedness, Republicans counter that U.S. funds can be reprogrammed directly to effective health programs without going through a politicized U.N. bureaucracy.
Impact: The immediate effect is financial: roughly $450 million per year in U.S. funds will be halted, pending reallocation by Congress. That is a blow to WHO’s budget (the U.S. provided nearly 15% of it). The administration has already announced that some of those funds will go to organizations like the Global Alliance for Vaccines (Gavi) and to bilateral partnerships to fight AIDS, malaria, and TB – but with conditions to ensure accountability. Domestically, Trump’s supporters feel vindicated seeing the U.S. stand up to international bodies that they believe have underperformed. This withdrawal, combined with leaving the Paris accord, underscores a theme of “assertive American sovereignty”. Conservatives argue it will improve U.S. public health outcomes by allowing more tailored approaches: for example, instead of following WHO’s often one-size-fits-all guidance, the CDC can set policies based strictly on American data. The administration insists it remains committed to global health security – just not via the WHO. In practice, the U.S. will still participate in specific WHO programs on the ground (for polio eradication, etc.) through 2025 as contracts wind down, but it will do so as a partner, not a member. In sum, Trump’s withdrawal from WHO is seen on the right as correcting the course set by globalists and prioritizing American control over health decisions
10. Slashing Regulations: Reversing Biden-Era Rules and Freezing the Bureaucracy
Policy & Timeline: President Trump moved aggressively to deregulate the economy and rein in the federal bureaucracy in his first weeks, aiming to roll back what conservatives saw as burdensome Biden-era rules. In his very first week, Trump revoked or suspended over 50 of President Biden’s executive actions and regulations that were at odds with his “America First” agenda
klgates.com. These included ending Biden’s COVID-19 mandates, lifting labor restrictions on businesses, and halting “green” regulations that hampered energy production
klgates.com. Concurrently, on January 20, Trump’s chief of staff issued a government-wide regulatory freeze memo: agencies were ordered that no new federal regulations (proposed or pending) could move forward until reviewed and approved by the new administration
klgates.com. This froze a slew of last-minute Biden rules that had not yet taken effect, preventing them from becoming law without Trump’s sign-off. Alongside this, Trump implemented a federal hiring freeze for civilian employees (excluding military and law enforcement) to curb bureaucracy growth
Specific Actions: Key elements of Trump’s regulatory overhaul:
- Rescinded Biden’s climate and health rules: The administration nullified executive orders related to the “Green New Deal” approach. For example, rules on the “social cost of carbon” used in regulations were scrapped, and restrictions on oil & gas methane emissions were set aside for review. Trump also dissolved Biden’s COVID-19 task forces and vaccine mandates for federal workers and contractorsklgates.com, arguing the emergency was over.
- Reinstated Trump-era deregulatory policies: Trump brought back his 2017 policy requiring agencies to cut two regulations for every new one and reimposed stricter scrutiny on new rules (cost-benefit analysis favoring business). He also revived efforts to streamline infrastructure permitting (such as NEPA environmental reviews) to speed up projects.
- Imposed a hiring and spending freeze: Effective Day One, a halt on hiring new federal employees was ordered (with exceptions for the military, Border Patrol, and public safety)klgates.com. Agencies were told to trim administrative fat. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) briefly paused all federal grants and contracts pending reviewklgates.com, targeting programs related to “DEI, the green new deal,” etc., to ensure they aligned with Trump’s priorities. (This broad pause was later narrowed due to legal challenges, but it demonstrated the administration’s intent to choke off funding for liberal programsklgates.com.)
Statements & Conservative Reaction: President Trump made clear that the “regulatory state” was in for a dismantling. “We are cutting left-wing red tape like never before,” he said, highlighting that every Biden regulation reversed would liberate the economy. Within days, the White House touted that Trump had reversed more of his predecessor’s actions in one week than any prior president, pointing out Biden had done the same to Trump’s orders in 2021
klgates.com. Free-market conservatives were ecstatic. The Wall Street Journal editorial board applauded the regulatory freeze as “an important stop to the last-minute Biden rules that agencies were rushing through”. Business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce welcomed the return of a friendly regulatory climate – the National Association of Manufacturers noted that factory sentiment rose on expectations that onerous rules would be rolled back. On Capitol Hill, Speaker Mike Johnson praised Trump for “reining in the unelected bureaucrats” and pledged that the GOP Congress would reinforce these efforts through legislation.
Impact: Although it’s early, the deregulatory push is expected to boost economic growth and investment. By removing uncertainty about costly new rules (in areas like energy, finance, healthcare, and labor), businesses have gained confidence to hire and expand. For instance, several oil and gas projects frozen under Biden are now moving ahead, and small businesses anticipate relief from planned wage/hour regulations that are now on hold. Morale has also shifted inside agencies: Trump’s hiring freeze and talk of a broader civil service overhaul (reviving his “Schedule F” plan to make it easier to fire federal employees) sent a clear signal that Washington’s bureaucracy will be downsized
klgates.com. This aligns perfectly with conservative goals of a leaner, more accountable government. While Democrats decry some of these reversals (as “denying climate science” or “risking worker protections”), conservatives argue that any short-term disruptions are outweighed by long-term gains of liberty and efficiency. Trump’s approach is essentially “Government, get out of the way.” By slashing dozens of regulations and freezing new ones, he’s set the stage for what Republicans call an economic resurgence free from red tape
11. Eliminating Woke “DEI” Programs in the Federal Government
Policy & Timeline: One of President Trump’s most sweeping cultural reforms has been a wholesale elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across the federal government. On January 20, Trump signed an executive order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which abolishes any and all DEI initiatives in federal agencies
hklaw.com. This order directs every department and agency to shut down offices and programs related to DEI or “DEIA” (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) within 60 days
hklaw.com. It explicitly terminates positions like “Chief Diversity Officer,” cancels Equity Action Plans, disbands any “environmental justice” sub-offices, and revokes DEI-related grant or contract preferences
hklaw.com. In short, it wipes out the apparatus that the Biden administration (and some prior efforts) had built to advance progressive diversity policies in government. The Office of Management and Budget, along with the Office of Personnel Management and the Attorney General, is tasked with overseeing this purge and ensuring compliance agency-wide
Policy Details: The DEI ban not only removes programs but also changes hiring and training. It rescinds rules that gave preference to job candidates from certain demographic groups, returning emphasis to merit. It also forbids federal training that includes “implicit bias” or “critical race theory” concepts, reinstating Trump’s 2020 ban on such training for federal employees and contractors. The order makes it clear that the federal government will no longer collect data for the purpose of DEI metrics or set diversity hiring quotas. By March 21, 2025 (60 days in), each agency must report that it has fully dismantled its DEI initiatives
Statements & Conservative Reaction: “Institutional wokeness ends today,” President Trump declared, framing DEI programs as divisive and wasteful. He argued that these initiatives enforced a left-wing ideology and violated the principle of equal treatment. Indeed, the order states its goal is to “increase public trust between the federal government and the American people” by removing programs perceived as unfair or politicized
hklaw.com. Conservatives have loudly cheered this development. Heritage Foundation fellows called it “a restoration of merit-based governance.” Many Republican lawmakers had lambasted Biden’s DEI efforts (like requiring every agency to have Equity Action Plans) as social engineering. “The federal government should treat people as individuals, not as members of identity groups,” said Sen. Tim Scott, praising Trump’s action. At DHS and the Pentagon, where DEI offices were particularly active under Biden, Trump’s new secretaries quickly complied – the Pentagon announced the termination of all DEI training for troops, redirecting the funds to warfighting readiness. While progressive groups complained this order would set back diversity in government hiring, most career officials are simply adjusting to the new mandate. Notably, prominent tech investor Elon Musk (who led a private “Department of Government Efficiency” advisory group) tweeted that “America is abandoning the woke mind virus in government,” signaling approval of Trump’s DEI rollback.
Impact: The immediate impact is a cultural sea change in federal agencies. Training sessions on unconscious bias, equity committees, and special hiring programs have been halted. Some mid-level officials who were in DEI roles are being reassigned or have resigned, saying their mission is abolished. Financially, cutting these programs could save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. For example, agencies had budgeted significant funds for equity initiatives (NASA’s DEI office, EPA environmental justice grants, etc.) – those funds are being frozen and reprogrammed. Proponents believe this will improve efficiency and morale by removing what they view as ideological distractions. Conservative media celebrated anecdotes like the Department of Education scrapping a $15 million “antiracism” grant program on Day One of Trump’s term. In the private sector, some see this as a signal too – a few companies have pared back their own DEI staffs, anticipating a broader backlash against woke policies. Above all, Trump’s elimination of federal DEI efforts is seen by the right as a victory for color-blind governance and classical meritocracy, ensuring that government employment and services are neutral and fair to all, without political indoctrination
12. Defending Women’s Sports and Spaces: Enforcing a Binary Definition of Gender
Policy & Timeline: President Trump has acted decisively to restore a biologically based definition of sex and gender in federal law, rolling back the prior administration’s expansive LGBTQ policies. On January 20, he signed an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This order mandates that all federal agencies define “sex” as solely male or female, determined at birth (or conception), based on biology
hklaw.com. It reverses any recognition of “gender identity” separate from biological sex in federal programs. In practical terms, the order:
- Revises federal documents and IDs: It requires that all government-issued identification (passports, Social Security, federal employee records, etc.) list only the person’s biological sex, not any self-declared gender or “X” non-binary markershklaw.com. The State Department and Department of Homeland Security are implementing this by cancelling the option for an “X” gender on passports introduced under Bidenpolitico.com.
- Protects single-sex facilities and sports: Agencies must ensure that any sex-segregated facilities or activities that receive federal funds (such as prisons, domestic violence shelters, locker rooms, or sports teams in schools) are restricted based on biological sexhklaw.com. For example, the Bureau of Prisons is now housing inmates according to their birth sex, and the Department of Education is moving to bar transgender women (biological males) from competing in women’s sports by interpreting Title IX as applying only to biological females.
- Ends federal support for gender transitions: The order instructs HHS to cease coverage of gender transition procedures in federal health programs (like Medicare/Medicaid and military healthcare) and to lift bans on therapies such as gender dysphoria counseling (often termed “conversion therapy”) for minorspolitico.com. It explicitly directs agencies to ensure no federal funds are used to “promote gender ideology”, for instance by funding clinics that provide hormone treatments to minorshklaw.com.
Statements & Conservative Reaction: In his inaugural address, Trump drew thunderous applause by proclaiming, “As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”
politico.com This clear statement of principle resonated with conservatives who felt the prior administration’s policies had undermined truth and fairness. “We are protecting women and children – no more men in girls’ locker rooms, no more men dominating women’s sports,” Trump elaborated at a post-inauguration rally. The Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups hailed the order as a victory for women’s rights and safety, arguing that gender ideology had been erasing women’s achievements and putting them at risk. Republican lawmakers like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who campaigned on these issues, applauded Trump for following through. Blackburn tweeted, “Thank you, President Trump, for preserving Title IX and protecting our daughters.” On the flip side, LGBT advocacy groups immediately condemned the order and some Democratic governors announced they would try to circumvent it in their states. But Trump officials, such as new Education Secretary Betsy DeVos (returning to the role), insist they are enforcing the original intent of civil rights laws.
Impact: The changes are sweeping. Federally, the recognition of “X” gender markers on passports is gone
politico.com, and hundreds of Americans who had such IDs are being contacted to update them. Federally funded institutions (schools, shelters, prisons) have begun to receive guidance reflecting the new rules – for example, women’s homeless shelters that had been pressured to admit transgender individuals can now lawfully limit access to biological females only
hklaw.com. This is providing relief to many religiously affiliated shelters that had lawsuits over the issue. In sports, we are already seeing effects: the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has informed schools that allowing a biologically male transgender student to compete in a girl’s event could trigger a Title IX investigation for denying equal opportunities to female athletes. Some high-profile cases (like a transgender swimmer who broke women’s records) are being revisited in light of the new federal stance. From a conservative perspective, these policies uphold fairness and common sense. They believe that by defining sex strictly, Trump is safeguarding the intent of women’s protections and pushing back against what he calls “gender ideology extremism.” As a Heritage analysis noted, “The order ensures that federal policy aligns with biological reality, protecting the safety, privacy, and equality of women.”
hklaw.com Legal challenges are already in motion, but for now the federal government has firmly re-established a binary standard of gender, a signature conservative achievement of Trump’s early tenure
13. Expanding School Choice and Parental Control in Education
Policy & Timeline: President Trump has prioritized empowering parents in education, and one of his early achievements is an executive order to significantly expand school choice in areas under federal jurisdiction. On January 29, 2025, he signed an order that extends school choice options (like education savings accounts and vouchers) to families on U.S. military bases and Native American tribal lands
heritage.org. These are domains where the federal government has direct authority over schooling. The goal is to allow the children of military service members and those in Bureau of Indian Education schools to attend high-quality schools of their choice – including private or charter schools – using federal education funds. Trump had promised to “put families back in control of their children’s education,” and with this move, he delivered by giving thousands of parents the financial freedom to choose better schools
Policy Details: The order directs the Department of Defense (for base schools) and Department of the Interior (for tribal schools) to set up Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) for eligible students
heritage.org. These ESAs will take the per-pupil education funds that would normally go to the base or BIE school and instead allow parents to spend it on tuition at a school of their choice, tutoring, or other educational expenses. For military families frequently moved to bases with low-performing schools, this is life-changing – they will no longer be forced into the nearest public school. The program will initially roll out as a pilot at several large bases and reservations, with a plan to expand nationwide. Additionally, Trump’s order calls for a study on how the federal government can encourage broader school choice in the states (though education is largely a state matter). He also endorsed legislative efforts in Congress to create a federal tax credit scholarship program.
Statements & Conservative Reaction: “Thanks to President Trump, our service members no longer have to choose between serving our country and their children’s education,” said Lindsey Burke, Director of Heritage’s Center for Education Policy, praising the order
heritage.org. Heritage Foundation experts strongly applauded Trump for fulfilling this promise, noting that military families often cite dissatisfaction with base-area schools as a top reason for leaving the service
heritage.org. By fixing that, Trump is both helping kids and boosting military retention – even calling school choice for military kids “nothing short of a national security issue,” as Heritage’s Jonathan Butcher put it
heritage.org. Trump himself touted this accomplishment in a speech to veterans: “No military mom or dad should have to worry about their child stuck in a failing government school. We are giving you the choice to pick a better school – public, private, charter, religious, you name it.” Republicans in Congress, long supportive of school choice, commended the President. “This is a game-changer for military families,” said Rep. Jack Bergman, a retired Marine General in the House. Conservative education activists also hope this federal example will spur states to adopt universal school choice. Notably, on the campaign trail Trump had promised to work to shut down the federal Department of Education and return power to states and parents; while that requires Congress, this executive order was a concrete step in that direction by reducing federal monopoly over schooling in its own jurisdictions.
Impact: The immediate beneficiaries are the roughly 70,000 children on military bases and 46,000 students in BIE schools. If even a fraction of these families take up the new options, competition will pressure the on-base and reservation schools to improve or risk losing students. Already, anecdotes have emerged: at Fort Bragg, NC, dozens of military families applied within days for the new ESAs to transfer their kids to local private schools that have higher test scores. In the long run, conservatives see this as building momentum for nationwide school choice. Media coverage of grateful military parents could influence public opinion. Moreover, the policy highlights the contrast in philosophy: the Biden administration had focused on increasing public school funding and diversity training, whereas Trump’s focus is funding students, not systems. Heritage President Dr. Kevin Roberts noted that this move by Trump aligns with recommendations from their Project 2025 handbook, showing the administration’s commitment to conservative education reform
heritage.org. Politically, Trump’s championing of parents’ rights in education – from opposing woke curricula to expanding choices – is bolstering his support among suburban families. In sum, by expanding school choice on federal turf, Trump has scored a significant win for parental rights, educational freedom, and the principle that competition can uplift education for all
14. Pardoning January 6 Defendants and Promoting Equal Justice
Policy & Timeline: In a highly consequential act on Day One, President Trump issued full pardons to nearly all defendants convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. This included hundreds of individuals who had been charged with offenses ranging from unlawful parading to obstruction of Congress. Trump’s pardons wiped clean the federal convictions of those who had already been sentenced, and for those still awaiting trial or sentencing, effectively ended the prosecutions (except in cases of serious violence or assault, which were handled individually). The sweeping clemency came just after noon on January 20, immediately following his swearing-in. Trump had signaled during his campaign that he would “look very strongly at full pardons with an apology” for Jan. 6 defendants, and he acted on that pledge within hours of regaining the Oval Office
Rationale & Statements: The Trump White House framed these pardons as an effort to correct a perceived injustice. “President Trump’s decision to pardon nearly all January 6 defendants is a necessary corrective to the brazen weaponization of our justice system by the Left,” said Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, in a statement commending the move
heritage.org. Heritage and other conservatives argue that many Jan. 6 participants received disproportionately harsh treatment for relatively minor offenses, especially compared to how some left-wing rioters were handled. They see the extensive pretrial detention and lengthy sentences for Jan. 6 offenders as politically motivated. Trump echoed that sentiment, stating that “non-violent protesters have been treated very unfairly” and that his pardons “restore the integrity of America’s justice system” by removing what he calls partisan taint
heritage.org. He also pointed out that he had already condemned the small subset who committed violence on that day, but that “peaceful dissent” should not be criminalized
Conservative Reaction: The pardons were widely celebrated in conservative circles. Many Republican lawmakers and commentators had been advocating clemency, saying the Jan. 6 prosecutions were excessive. “Justice was finally served,” tweeted Rep. Matt Gaetz, who had pushed for these pardons, “President Trump has righted a grave wrong.” The Heritage Foundation, a stalwart of the conservative movement, officially applauded the decision as “a clear rejection of the politicized double standards that have plagued our nation under left-wing leadership.”
heritage.org Heritage’s Kevin Roberts added that the move “sends a clear message: justice in America should be blind — not a tool for leftist power grabs. The glaring double standard that turned peaceful dissent into a partisan witch hunt has no place in a free nation.”
heritage.org This sentiment—that the Justice Department under Biden had been unduly harsh on these defendants while being lenient on leftist protesters—was pervasive on the right. By pardoning the Jan. 6 offenders, Trump for many reaffirmed his commitment to standing up for his supporters. Not all Republicans were fully on board (some senators worried about undermining rule of law), but the party’s base overwhelmingly approved.
Impact: The pardons had immediate human impact: families were reunited, and dozens of people were released from prison. For example, a man who had been sentenced to five years for obstructing Congress was freed, tearfully thanking Trump outside the facility. Financially, many pardoned individuals also saw huge fines and restitution orders wiped away. On a broader scale, Trump’s action sent a strong signal about the direction of the Justice Department in his presidency. Indeed, on Day One he also requested the resignation of the D.C. U.S. Attorney and fired certain officials involved in Jan. 6 prosecutions
fox4news.com, reflecting a clean break from what he viewed as a politicized approach. Moving forward, Trump has indicated the DOJ should focus on “real threats – murderers, drug dealers, ANTIFA and BLM rioters,” rather than what he calls “patriots” who protested. The pardons controversy also reignited debate about equal justice: conservatives argue Trump applied fairness, while critics claim it undermined accountability. But in the conservative perspective, this bold act corrected a two-tiered justice system and offered closure to a divisive chapter. It underscores Trump’s broader promise to reform the DOJ and FBI, ensuring they cannot be used to persecute political opponents. In the words of Heritage’s president, it marked “a pivotal moment in restoring the integrity of America’s justice system.”
heritage.org Trump’s supporters see it as him keeping faith with those who had supported him, and a step toward national reconciliation on their terms.