After President Donald Trump had signed the first of nearly 100 promised executive orders, his opponents, scholars and other groups said he had exceeded the limits of his presidential power. Already, the Executive Order on the birthright citizenship is being challenged by groups and 18 states in the U.S., Assistant Editor Bola Olajuwon writes
All modern American presidents had employed a flurry of executive orders to show proof of forward progress in the earliest moments of their tenure — and those efforts have not always been met with unmitigated success.
After his inauguration on Monday, President Donald Trump’s wielding of the presidential pen through executive orders spanned a wide range of American life and United States policy. Each order aimed at showing that he had begun to make good on his campaign promises.
He declared an immigration emergency and will soon surge troops to the southern border. The president also stopped birthright citizenship. He began to dismantle government diversity and inclusion programmes, threatened to impose 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada for failing to meet U.S. immigration standards. Trump also limited the number of genders the government can recognise to two – male and female only.
Trump also signed an executive order initiating the process for the United States to withdraw from the World Health Organisation (WHO). He also wants to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
Bishop urges Trump to ‘have mercy’ on LGBTQ children, immigrants
Discontentment is already trailing Trump’s bid to cut off birthright citizenship among others.
Reacting to the executive orders, the bishop leading Trump’s inaugural prayer service on Tuesday urged Trump to “have mercy” on LGBTQ people and immigrants.
The sermon by the Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, was part of a larger post-Inauguration Day interfaith ceremony at Washington National Cathedral. Trump was seated in the first row alongside first lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance and second lady Usha Vance during the service, a tradition undertaken by presidents of both parties.
“In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now,” said Budde, who was looking directly at the president. “There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families. Some who fear for their lives.”
She added: “They may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbours. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques and synagogues.”
But, when Budde finished her sermon, Trump leaned over to say something to Vance, who shook his head in response.
Later, as Trump was walking through the White House colonnade with his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, reporters asked him what he thought of the sermon. He asked the group, “Did you like it? Find it exciting?” He then added that he “didn’t think it was a good service, no” and said they “could do much better.”
22 U.S. states file suit
The implementation of the orders could be tied up in courts or legislatures for years, including ending birthright citizenship, a right embedded in the Constitution and bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling that grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
Attorneys for 18 states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia, on Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging the president’s executive order, described the announcement on birthright as “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”
The lawsuit, filed by 18 Democratic attorneys general, accuses Trump of seeking to eliminate a “well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle” by executive fiat.
“The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth,” the lawsuit said.
Four additional states filed a similar suit later in the day, asking a federal court to keep the executive order from being implemented or enforced, bringing the total number of states to 22.
Three lawsuits also raised legal questions about his appointment of Tesla founder Elon Musk to run the nongovernmental “Department of Government Efficiency.” The public interest groups behind the lawsuits say the “DOGE” panel violates laws on transparency for government advisory groups.
Canadian PM promises ‘robust’ response
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau yesterday vowed a strong response if Trump slaps 25 percent tariffs on Canadian imports, which the U.S. president signalled, could come as early as February.
“Canada will respond and everything is on the table,” Trudeau told a news conference, adding that Ottawa’s reaction would be “robust and rapid and measured,” but also match dollar for dollar the U.S. tariffs.
Scholz vows to ‘defend free trade’ after Trump tariff threat
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz vowed to “defend free trade as the basis of our prosperity”, a day after Trump threatened to impose tariffs and taxes on trade partners.
“Isolation comes at the expense of prosperity,” Scholz told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “We will defend free trade as the basis of our prosperity, together with other partners.”
“Europe is committed to free, fair world trade,” he added.
WHO ready to cooperate with U.S. as experts express concern
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus voiced the agency’s readiness to cooperate with the U.S. to strengthen global health security.
WHO spokesperson Tarik Jašarević, in an email with USA Today, stressed the importance of the U.S.-WHO partnership, noting that it has “protected and saved millions of lives in America and around the world.”
However, experts are sounding alarm bells over the consequences of the U.S. withdrawal, particularly given that the U.S. has been the largest financial contributor to the WHO since its inception in 1948.
China has reaffirmed its support for the WHO following the Trump decision. Its foreign ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, said WHO’s role in global public health should be strengthened, not weakened.
Okonjo-Iweala calls for calm over tariffs
At the 2025 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala addressed the development on tariffs during a panel discussion held on Tuesday, urging member-states to keep calm. She advised WTO members to observe actual policy implementations before reacting, saying calmness is necessary during uncertain developments.
“I’m concerned, but you can see my attitude and approach is keep calm. Let’s see what policies are actually enacted and implemented before we get overexcited,” she said.
American experts react
Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University, said: “It’s kind of an executive-order shock-and-awe campaign. The shock and awe is to send a message to his critics and most importantly to his voters, his supporters, that he’s back, and that he is going to try to deliver on his campaign promises, and he’s going to do it aggressively.”
Thad Kousser, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego, noted: “He wants to move boldly and immediately. The acceleration of the use of executive orders allows presidents to declare policy victories on day one instead of the first 100 days,” said
Nigerian ex-diplomats, foreign affairs experts weigh in
Former Nigerian High Commissioner to Botswana and former Nigerian Ambassador to Belgium Prof. Alaba Ogunsanwo, and Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Prof. Eghosa Osaghae, have reacted over the executive orders in an interview with The Nation.
Former Vice Chancellor, Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, Prof. Kayode Soremekun and former Nigerian Ambassador to France and Monaco, Akin Fayomi, who was also a former Undersecretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of Studies, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos Prof. Efem Ubi, also spoke with The Nation about the issue.
Osaghe: we are not Americans
The NIIA director-general said the executive orders are American laws and not Nigerian orders.
He warned that those living in the U.S. illegally should know the consequence of their actions.
Prof. Osaghe said: “Anybody who wants to do business with the U.S. must adapt with their laws. If anybody is coming to Nigeria, he or she must not flout our laws. He or she must face the consequence if done. The executive orders are not for Nigerians, other Africans, Indians and others. They are designed to streamline the way things are done in the U.S.”
They are American issues, says Ogunsanwo
Prof. Ogunsanwo described the executive orders as American issues. According to the international relations expert, “Any American President that is elected can issue executive orders. Anybody in living in America can go to court to challenge such orders. If it’s overruled, that is it.
“If another president is elected, he may overrule Trump. That is America; it should not bother us as Nigerians.”
Ambassador Fayomi: it’s premature to assess Trump’s policies
Fayomi submitted that it was rather premature to assess Trump’s policies.
He said: “I don’t care for Mr. Trump and his policies, but it is a surety that many of them, including this one on banning birthright citizenship, will elicit lots of discussions and interrogations as well as numerous legal actions which seem to have started as we speak.
“If someone has a legitimate visa and is given entry into any country, including the United States, that person is not an ‘illegal immigrant’.
“That phrase is reserved for people that come into a country illegally, without documentations, or those that have overstayed their visas, or those that are working illegally even though their visas specifically state that they are not allowed to seek employment in the country.
“There’s the principle of “jus soli”, meaning “right of the soil” in the U.S. Constitution. Unless that aspect is amended, Mr. Trump is just wasting his time on this policy.
“It is too early in the day to assess Mr. Trump’s controversial policies.”
Soremekun: there may be jolt to American economy
Prof. Soremekun said the Trump’s policy of birthright citizenship was not really new.
“A while ago, it was put in place by Britain. But somehow the affected individuals had a way of circumventing the policy. Of course, Nigerians who hope to devolve American citizenship on their unborn children will not like this new policy.
“On the other hand, it could well spawn a better governance policy in Nigeria. For if there is no place to take refuge, this may ensure novel and positive postures here. As for what Americans are saying some of them will welcome it. However, some will be indifferent. But please note that a lot of the low- level and low paying jobs are being done by the immigrants, particularly the illegal ones. So, there may be a jolt to the American economy.
“I fully agree with the move to send back criminal aliens to their respective countries. Such a move will make the country safer for its citizens. But the question, however, remains: Who is a criminal? Such a person must have been tried on the platform of due process, prior to being dubbed a criminal.”
Prof. Ubi: birthright citizenship is U.S. internal policy
Prof Ubi yesterday declared that the birthright citizenship is U.S. internal policy, which none citizens or any other country can’t interfere with.
“On the contrary, the policy doesn’t have any negative impact on Nigeria or any country.
“Nigerians who might be perturbed about the birthright citizenship policy are those who are hoping to go and have their children born there. Remember, UK government also imposed same policy few years ago. Nigerians have adjusted to it. That notwithstanding, the Executive Order of the birthright citizenship is being challenged by 18 states in the U.S., which is the right thing to do.
“According to the Attorneys General of these states, the President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. But let’s wait and see what the future outcome will be. On the issue of criminal aliens, I do not see anything wrong with that if the person being sent back is not a legal citizen of the Unites States. But it will be wrong to send back a bona fide U.S. citizen to his country of origin.
“In fact, President Trump’s Executive Orders such as this undermines U.S. posture of the epitome of a liberal world order. It portrays what we term ‘international hypocrisy’.”
