The First Batch of Trump’s Executive Orders: How Good Will They Be for Jobs and the Economy?

After his inauguration, President Donald Trump let little grass grow under his feet.  Soon enough to make inclusion in “Tracking Trump’s executive orders:  What he’s signed so far” (Avery Lotz, Axios.com), released around 9am Eastern Time on Wednesday or 45 hours into his presidency, he had released 29 of them.  The two seeking to end birthright citizenship, ensconced in our Constitution, were stillborn, and in fact were blocked by a judge yesterday. 

Otherwise, what effect will his acts have on our employment and prosperity? 

In assessing their probable effects, I took “jobs” to mean the number of full-time positions for all wanting them, regardless of pay.  For “the economy” I figured their probable impact on a family near the 50^th percentile of American affluence, perhaps a family of four with $70,000 annual household income and an ordinary house or apartment, and access to reasonable lifestyle choices.  I judged the remaining 27 orders either positive, neutral, or negative on both, without attempting to assess the degree, so each would end up with two scores, +1, 0, or -1 on employment and the same on prosperity.  Here are the values I assigned, within the nine groups Lotz put them into.

There were four in the “immigration” section.  To Trump’s naming ““certain international cartels” and organizations” as terrorist, I assigned no effect on jobs or the economy.  On suspending refugee resettlements I gave a plus on jobs, since more would stay available, but a minus on the economy, as it would lose relatively low-paid workers.  For similar reasons I attributed the same to the flights canceled for those from Afghanistan, and to the end of “parole programs.”  Overall, this section ended at +3 for jobs and -3 for the economy. 

The two orders Trump issued under the “Remain in Mexico” heading, canceling border crossing appointments and empowering “officials to “repeal, repatriate or remove any alien engaged in the invasion” of the southern border,” drew my same assessment, making the section total +2 for jobs and -2 for the economy, for a running total of +5 and -5.

The next, “energy and environment,” broke the pattern.  I considered freeing up Alaska coastal areas for energy production positive for both jobs and the economy.  For mirror-image reasons, though, his stopping “approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects” would be negative for both, meaning no net effect here, with the overall totals of +5 and -5 staying the same.

Trump had three executive orders pertaining to climate-related policies.  Withdrawing from the Paris Climate broke even.  Allowing “application reviews for liquefied natural gas export projects, which were paused” precipitated a gain for jobs but no change for prosperity.  His revoking “a 2021 Biden executive order that set a goal for 50% of US vehicle sales to be electric by 2030,” meaning that liquid fuel vehicles would replace some future ones, had no net effect.  Overall, this section added +1 for jobs and no change to the economy, getting us to +6 and -5.

Five of the executive orders were “targeting DEI and transgender Americans.”  None of the five had any effect on employment.  Since prosperity is not only what tangible things people can get but the range of other choices they have and can implement, I assigned detractions for his proclamation that “sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality” and his eliminating policies that “widened sex discrimination protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.”  Those were offset by prosperity improvements, to my way of thinking, from ordering the Federal Aviation Administration “”to immediately return to non-discriminatory, merit-based hiring,”” and the “compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations” among others.  With the executive order moving toward banning transsexuals in the military having no required action and therefore no impact, the section did the same:  jobs still +6 so far, the economy still -5.

Two more were in the “other executive orders affecting federal workers.”  The first, mandating “a full-time return to in-office work for federal employees” and instituting “a hiring freeze on government positions,” got a minus for jobs on the second part and nothing on the first.  The other, “which could make it easier to fire civil servants deemed disloyal,” caused a drop in prosperity and no change to jobs.  That makes this section minus 1 for each, bringing us to +5 and -6.

There were also two in the “health executive orders” group.  Leaving the World Health Organization meant a cut in prosperity, with no effect on employment.  Rescinding “a 2022 Biden order to lower the cost of prescription drugs” I evaluated as the same.  The running totals here stand at +5 and -8.

The final category, covering “TikTok extension, DOGE and more executive orders,” included seven more.  “Ensuring government agencies do not “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen”” was worth a gain only to prosperity.  “Ordering a review of trade practices and agreements,” and revoking various security clearances, had no effect on either.  “Formally establishing the Department of Government Efficiency,” which could turn out to be the best Trump change, was worth increases in both jobs and the economy.  The remaining three, “suspending the TikTok ban for 75 days,” saying that “federal buildings should “respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage”” and the silly “renaming,” if people actually follow that, of Denali and the Gulf of Mexico, had no effects.  That brings the final total up to a gain of 6 for jobs, and a loss of 6 to the economy.

Is declining prosperity at the expense of jobs, as strange as that sounds, what we can expect from Trump’s current term?  Probably it is.  The issue on which he campaigned, and with which he may be most closely associated, tariffs, would also clearly help the number of American jobs but hurt American prosperity, as people not employed in those areas will be paying more.  Although we do not know whether these orders will be sustained, their general, overall direction is clear.  That will probably be matched by Trump’s legislative initiatives. 

Accordingly, we will probably be looking at lower unemployment but higher prices.  That combination means, disappointingly to many, that interest rates should not go down; if they do, we would be risking both a superheated jobs market and even more resurgent inflation.  So, although Trump has been wishing for lower interest rates, it will be his policies that prevent that.  Such is ironic – but many other things about the next four years will also be.