Flights being canceled for refugees is so unbelievably sad. We as Americans are so lucky to not know what it feels like to flee danger and be turned away. A lot of these policies feel devoid of any humanity.
I agree. This is so sad! My brother and his wife are foster parents to 6 refugees from all over the world. 3 of them are disabled and never would have survived in their home countries. They have all been a huge blessing to our family. 3 of them are in college now and all of them are healthy and thriving. We live by the motto of where much is given much is required.
I have been helping an Afghan family for 3 years, that worked for our government in Afghanistan, came here on Parolee status, now have their green cards and are now terrified.
This is so sad. Praying they will be safe. I am worried about my foster nieces and nephews too. The oldest got her citizenship a few months ago but the rest just have green cards.
I didn’t realize the details of this EO until I read an article on the topic today. It was devastating. The refugees whose flights were canceled spent so much time being vetted, and now they return to their home country where they face potential retribution by their government. And some of the refugees were children waiting to be reunited with family members 😭
It's hard to keep up right now forsure, thank you for summarizing so eloquently! Was there any forward progress on keeping children safe from school shootings? Truly not sure what President Trump's answer is to this issue but it certainly can't go unaddressed. I have three daughters, the oldest is about to be in kindergarten, and this is what keeps me up at night.
His answer is more guns. He doesn’t care about keeping kids safe in schools.. He cares about supporting the NRA. You aren’t going to see any action on this from a Republican majority. None.
From what I can tell, the office of gun violence prevention, which was created in the last year or two, was shut down. The page is no longer available on Whitehouse.gov.
If you can, please volunteer with or follow these orgs: Moms Demand Action, and Everytown for Gun Safety. They are working to end gun violence.
The comment above from Chelsea is correct — the Trump admin has apparently disbanded the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and taken down that webpage. This office was created to keep guns out of the hands of abusers, enhance background checks, invest in children’s mental health, etc. The Trump admin cares more about $ from NRA than saving the lives of children.
I agree with you that it *shouldn't* go unaddressed but what makes you think an unapologetic pro 2A president is going to do anything about that? He has famously said that people need to "get over it" with regard to school shootings. His VP said they are a "fact of life". The Republican majority Congress is bought and paid for by the gun lobby so they aren't going to do anything. The conservative Supreme Court won't do anything. We don't need to get over it or accept it as a fact of life but we certainly can't count on the conservative majority to do anything about it. :(
I also have 2 young children that will be entering the school system in the next several years and gun safety is one of my top issues when I vote. I call my congressman’s office on a regular basis asking him to support gun safety bills too. One would think that having a president that was the victim of gun violence himself would lead to some action around gun violence but I believe he will be prioritizing the pro-gun agenda above all.
Cassidy, Thank you for calling your congressman’s office. You can also work with your local and state lawmakers and Moms Demand Action to make a difference at your state and local level.
As bad as it is in MO, we have still kept so many more bad bills from passing. You can, too!
I do! Albeit not as much as I like to but with 2 small kids and a full time job I have to accept my resources are limited. I also follow March Fourth which is a group trying to support a bill that would ban assault weapons.
Thank you for this, but I could only read about 1/4 of it. Very little of this helps anyone. Most of it outright hurts people I care about. I need to limit my news consumption. I am filled with rage an a daily basis. I need to figure out a way to act instead of sitting still and raging.
Meanwhile, Trump went off on Marian Budde the pastor at the National Cathedral. She dared to implore him to show compassion. For that she got called "nasty". Any women who dares to stand up to his bully BS is "nasty". I guess I am back to being a nasty women through and though.
I feel the same way. I cannot watch the news outside of a few minutes of my local news in the morning. During his first term, I was glued to the TV because I HAD to know everything he was doing. This time, it feels so much more cruel and inhumane. My heart cannot handle it. I’m a 67 white woman in the SF Bay Area in California so many of his policies will not impact me directly. But I fear for my grandchildren and the world they will inhabit. It will take decades to undo his damage if we even get the chance.
I appreciate Sharon bringing on both Gabe Fleisher and Isaac Saul. Along with Sharon, they are a powerhouse of information of historical and present day politics. I follow both Gabe and Isaac thanks to Sharon. I feel I receive some of the best non-partisan information, that is humanly possible, from these three sources. To all three of you, especially Sharon for introducing me to them, a heartfelt thank you!
I saw that too. Biden's $35 insulin cap and $2000/year cap weren't impacted. The order did require Medicare/Medicaid to stop looking at ways to lower drug costs.
Thank you for the summary. I'm not surprised at all at this happening so quickly. That was the whole point of Project 2025, to hit the ground running. Most of these items, I find quite appalling, but not surprising. The idea of the wealthiest person in the world having an office in the White House is deeply disturbing to me, among all the other broligarchs on display at the inauguration.
This is a great piece by Gabe; thanks for the thorough breakdown. I do wish the guest author posts had more of an intro up front so we can get to know them more and so it's more clear which posts are written by others vs written by Sharon.
Agree! My default is to thank Sharon, but I want to give credit where credit is due. I think having Gabe as a contributor is wonderful, and I hope he (and other guests) continue to be invited.
Thank you for this summary of part of his actions. I would appreciate a look into the specifics of his wiping out of Biden’s policies regarding containing medical costs and encouraging medical research. I- and many younger friends- struggle with the ongoing costs of cancer. There are trials for cancer vaccines in the pipeline that exist because of Biden. It is difficult to know how his policies will affect those. The 2000 cap on medication has helped so many Americans. It’s heartbreaking that this cap could also be erased.
The summary of what you have explained make clear some basics- trump 2.0 will functionally cost America enormously. He is increasing- by hugely amounts- bureaucracy and increasing payments to his oligarch friends.
I wish you would’ve also commented on the executive orders that are going to affect the ACA and Medicare prices which are going to impact millions of us.
It's only day three and I've already got friends and family who are negatively impacted by some of these EOs. I see nothing positive, just hateful, petty and childish actions to undo what his predecessors did simply because he doesn't like them, and to put us at odds with the rest of the world. As John Donne said, "No man is an island," and neither is any country. Now I have to worry even more about the safety of my transgender friends, about my friends who will lose their federal jobs or have an expensive relocation due to having to work in the office, and about friends who are legally here but fear Gestapo-like action because of their brown skin and "foreign" last names. These actions affect everyone.
I am particularly interested in the implications for officially only recognizing two sexes. What does this mean for transgender and intersex folks?
And concerning the border, how heavy of a military presence can there expected to be? What will it look like for U.S. border cities and for legal points of exit/entry?
Thank you, Gabe - great summary of his first day (and I very much appreciate the links!). Some of these I like, some I don't, and some I'm not yet sure about the impact of or don't know enough about. It will be interesting to see how the court cases play out.
One thing I learned about the link you provided on birthright citizenship is that most countries *do not* offer unrestricted birthright citizenship like the US: there are 195 countries and only 33 offer it. Trump's EO seems more in line with those countries:
'In contrast to jus soli [unrestricted birthright citizenship], nearly every other country on Earth offers jus sanguinis, which grants citizenship as long as one parent (or sometimes both parents) are citizens. Examples of this include Poland (both parents), Andorra (mother), Bahrain (father) and Iran (father). This is sometimes referred to as establishing citizenship through inheritance rather than residence.'
It was a busy first day for Trump, and as you said, 'Get ready for a busy four years.' (And thank you Sharon for having Gabe contribute to Preamble!)
I studied birthright citizenship about a decade ago (when I gave birth to my daughter in France and all my American friends asked me why she didn't have French citizenship), and if you look at it on a map, it quickly becomes clear that it's a legacy of colonization. Most all of the countries (essentially North and South America) that were colonized by Europeans have birthright citizenship because it was set that way to encourage more settlers to come. As a country where >97% of the population comes from immigrant origins, this is part of our legacy. Not to say it couldn't use some reform or change - just explaining why the *number* of countries seems low. https://maint.loc.gov/law/help/birthright-citizenship/global.php
Thank you for sharing this link. I appreciate people sharing resources and writings about this topic, as it is not one I've given a lot of thought to or spent considerable time reading about until now.
Oh good, silver linings. By your every other country logic, we should soon expect executive orders ushering in healthcare for all and common sense gun regulations.
I wasn't using 'every other country logic', I was pointing out something I didn't know about birthright citizenship around the world. And I didn't weigh in on whether I think that's a good thing or not, I was observing 1- that the US is among a minority of countries that offer it and 2- that a majority of countries have restricted citizenship laws.
Attributing Trump’s reasons for the EO on birthright citizenship to “bringing us in line with other countries,” vs his more clearly stated policies against immigrants generally just seems like unnecessary justification. It’s in the U.S. constitution and it’s been established law ever since; it’s not a quick little policy to be tweaked in order to put us on par with others. This should be a proposed constitutional amendment, not a president’s whim based on his dislike of immigrants.
If you can believe it, I'm a person that is regularly decrying comments sections for their lack of nuance. So I get your sentiment here. My concern doesn't come from your observation in and of itself, it comes from not acknowledging the context of birthright citizenship being within our constitution and our founding.
I want to be sure I'm understanding what you're saying: are you saying your concern is that I, in my comment where I expressed learning about birthright citizenship policies around the world via a link Gabe shared, did not acknowledge that birthright citizenship is in our constitution?
I push back that it was 'within our founding' - unless I'm misinterpreting what you mean by this. It was the 14th amendment, added to the Constitution after the Civil War in 1868, under the presidency of the US's 17th president, Andrew Johnson.
Fair enough - I was incorrect with using "founding". I read your statement that, "Trump's EO seems more in line with those other countries," as a tacit agreement or acceptance of the EO as the correct move, and my response was a rebuttal that an EO is not the avenue for changing an amendment, whether you agree with the EO or not. It seems clear there were things lost in translation between the two of us, and I apologize if my assumptions caused offense.
Ah got it, thank you for the clarification about where you were coming from. I absolutely do not think an EO is the avenue for changing a constitutional amendment (or honestly, for modifying the constitution in any way).
Thank you for sharing this. I saw an interview with someone from Cato on The Hill yesterday, but hadn't read this. It's an EO that is getting - understandably - considerable news coverage and commentary.
I'm afraid I don't put much faith in the Cato Institute. I have a bit of trouble with libertarianism and the involvement of dark money via the Koch family. I would like to be wrong.
I like to read things from a variety of sources. While the Cato Institute might employ those with leanings towards the libertarian and conservative view points they are highly rated with Ad Fontes. I do find the perspective here interesting and one I agree with. Even if our political leanings differ.
I'm torn on this. I think it's OK for babies born to people who have been living here and intend to stay to get birthright citizenship. However, I do not believe that tourists should get it. There's a thing in China called birth tourism, where they just come here to have the baby and then go home, but their kid gets the citizenship bonus.
Flights being canceled for refugees is so unbelievably sad. We as Americans are so lucky to not know what it feels like to flee danger and be turned away. A lot of these policies feel devoid of any humanity.
I agree. This is so sad! My brother and his wife are foster parents to 6 refugees from all over the world. 3 of them are disabled and never would have survived in their home countries. They have all been a huge blessing to our family. 3 of them are in college now and all of them are healthy and thriving. We live by the motto of where much is given much is required.
I love that motto! So many people seem to have forgotten that we are all just human beings. We all deserve peace.
I have been helping an Afghan family for 3 years, that worked for our government in Afghanistan, came here on Parolee status, now have their green cards and are now terrified.
This honestly breaks my heart. Nobody should have to live in fear like this.
This is so sad. Praying they will be safe. I am worried about my foster nieces and nephews too. The oldest got her citizenship a few months ago but the rest just have green cards.
I didn’t realize the details of this EO until I read an article on the topic today. It was devastating. The refugees whose flights were canceled spent so much time being vetted, and now they return to their home country where they face potential retribution by their government. And some of the refugees were children waiting to be reunited with family members 😭
So sad and wrong. At least let the ones in who already had been approved.
It's hard to keep up right now forsure, thank you for summarizing so eloquently! Was there any forward progress on keeping children safe from school shootings? Truly not sure what President Trump's answer is to this issue but it certainly can't go unaddressed. I have three daughters, the oldest is about to be in kindergarten, and this is what keeps me up at night.
His answer is more guns. He doesn’t care about keeping kids safe in schools.. He cares about supporting the NRA. You aren’t going to see any action on this from a Republican majority. None.
He's more worried about renaming the Gulf of Mexico and taking over Greenland than keeping kids safe in schools. Sorry to disappoint you.
From what I can tell, the office of gun violence prevention, which was created in the last year or two, was shut down. The page is no longer available on Whitehouse.gov.
If you can, please volunteer with or follow these orgs: Moms Demand Action, and Everytown for Gun Safety. They are working to end gun violence.
The comment above from Chelsea is correct — the Trump admin has apparently disbanded the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and taken down that webpage. This office was created to keep guns out of the hands of abusers, enhance background checks, invest in children’s mental health, etc. The Trump admin cares more about $ from NRA than saving the lives of children.
I agree with you that it *shouldn't* go unaddressed but what makes you think an unapologetic pro 2A president is going to do anything about that? He has famously said that people need to "get over it" with regard to school shootings. His VP said they are a "fact of life". The Republican majority Congress is bought and paid for by the gun lobby so they aren't going to do anything. The conservative Supreme Court won't do anything. We don't need to get over it or accept it as a fact of life but we certainly can't count on the conservative majority to do anything about it. :(
I also have 2 young children that will be entering the school system in the next several years and gun safety is one of my top issues when I vote. I call my congressman’s office on a regular basis asking him to support gun safety bills too. One would think that having a president that was the victim of gun violence himself would lead to some action around gun violence but I believe he will be prioritizing the pro-gun agenda above all.
Cassidy, Thank you for calling your congressman’s office. You can also work with your local and state lawmakers and Moms Demand Action to make a difference at your state and local level.
As bad as it is in MO, we have still kept so many more bad bills from passing. You can, too!
I do! Albeit not as much as I like to but with 2 small kids and a full time job I have to accept my resources are limited. I also follow March Fourth which is a group trying to support a bill that would ban assault weapons.
Addressing school shootings was not part of Trump's agenda that he ran on. Do not look for any action on this.
Thank you for this, but I could only read about 1/4 of it. Very little of this helps anyone. Most of it outright hurts people I care about. I need to limit my news consumption. I am filled with rage an a daily basis. I need to figure out a way to act instead of sitting still and raging.
Meanwhile, Trump went off on Marian Budde the pastor at the National Cathedral. She dared to implore him to show compassion. For that she got called "nasty". Any women who dares to stand up to his bully BS is "nasty". I guess I am back to being a nasty women through and though.
I feel the same way. I cannot watch the news outside of a few minutes of my local news in the morning. During his first term, I was glued to the TV because I HAD to know everything he was doing. This time, it feels so much more cruel and inhumane. My heart cannot handle it. I’m a 67 white woman in the SF Bay Area in California so many of his policies will not impact me directly. But I fear for my grandchildren and the world they will inhabit. It will take decades to undo his damage if we even get the chance.
Mary…. I could have written this. I agree completely ! The only difference is I’m a 70 year old white woman in the VERY RED state of SC.
I am a 57 year old while woman in the very red state of Tennessee, but I love a lot of gay and trans people. And several immigrants.
I appreciate Sharon bringing on both Gabe Fleisher and Isaac Saul. Along with Sharon, they are a powerhouse of information of historical and present day politics. I follow both Gabe and Isaac thanks to Sharon. I feel I receive some of the best non-partisan information, that is humanly possible, from these three sources. To all three of you, especially Sharon for introducing me to them, a heartfelt thank you!
You neglected to mention removing the $2000 cap on prescription drugs which hurts so many people.
This has additional information on the impact of Trump's rescinding of Biden's medicare EO: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-medicare-executive-order-explained-2018138
Basically, Trump's EO has the potential to increase out-of-pocket expenses, but the larger affect is the halted research for reducing costs.
This wasn’t affected by Trump’s actions this week. According to MoNews (Moshe).
I saw that too. Biden's $35 insulin cap and $2000/year cap weren't impacted. The order did require Medicare/Medicaid to stop looking at ways to lower drug costs.
That is unfortunate that was discontinued.
Thank you for the summary. I'm not surprised at all at this happening so quickly. That was the whole point of Project 2025, to hit the ground running. Most of these items, I find quite appalling, but not surprising. The idea of the wealthiest person in the world having an office in the White House is deeply disturbing to me, among all the other broligarchs on display at the inauguration.
lol @ broligarchs. I'll be using that!
What action was taken on the economy?
This is a great piece by Gabe; thanks for the thorough breakdown. I do wish the guest author posts had more of an intro up front so we can get to know them more and so it's more clear which posts are written by others vs written by Sharon.
Agree! My default is to thank Sharon, but I want to give credit where credit is due. I think having Gabe as a contributor is wonderful, and I hope he (and other guests) continue to be invited.
Thank you for summarizing the first day, much of it saddens my heart.
Thanks for all the research and simplifying this for us. We appreciate you so much!
Thank you for this summary of part of his actions. I would appreciate a look into the specifics of his wiping out of Biden’s policies regarding containing medical costs and encouraging medical research. I- and many younger friends- struggle with the ongoing costs of cancer. There are trials for cancer vaccines in the pipeline that exist because of Biden. It is difficult to know how his policies will affect those. The 2000 cap on medication has helped so many Americans. It’s heartbreaking that this cap could also be erased.
The summary of what you have explained make clear some basics- trump 2.0 will functionally cost America enormously. He is increasing- by hugely amounts- bureaucracy and increasing payments to his oligarch friends.
I wish you would’ve also commented on the executive orders that are going to affect the ACA and Medicare prices which are going to impact millions of us.
It's only day three and I've already got friends and family who are negatively impacted by some of these EOs. I see nothing positive, just hateful, petty and childish actions to undo what his predecessors did simply because he doesn't like them, and to put us at odds with the rest of the world. As John Donne said, "No man is an island," and neither is any country. Now I have to worry even more about the safety of my transgender friends, about my friends who will lose their federal jobs or have an expensive relocation due to having to work in the office, and about friends who are legally here but fear Gestapo-like action because of their brown skin and "foreign" last names. These actions affect everyone.
Thank you Sharon!!! It’s deeply concerning to me that he’s also granting top secret security clearances to unnamed persons who have not been vetted.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/21/politics/trump-temporary-security-clearances
I am particularly interested in the implications for officially only recognizing two sexes. What does this mean for transgender and intersex folks?
And concerning the border, how heavy of a military presence can there expected to be? What will it look like for U.S. border cities and for legal points of exit/entry?
Thank you, Gabe - great summary of his first day (and I very much appreciate the links!). Some of these I like, some I don't, and some I'm not yet sure about the impact of or don't know enough about. It will be interesting to see how the court cases play out.
One thing I learned about the link you provided on birthright citizenship is that most countries *do not* offer unrestricted birthright citizenship like the US: there are 195 countries and only 33 offer it. Trump's EO seems more in line with those countries:
'In contrast to jus soli [unrestricted birthright citizenship], nearly every other country on Earth offers jus sanguinis, which grants citizenship as long as one parent (or sometimes both parents) are citizens. Examples of this include Poland (both parents), Andorra (mother), Bahrain (father) and Iran (father). This is sometimes referred to as establishing citizenship through inheritance rather than residence.'
It was a busy first day for Trump, and as you said, 'Get ready for a busy four years.' (And thank you Sharon for having Gabe contribute to Preamble!)
I studied birthright citizenship about a decade ago (when I gave birth to my daughter in France and all my American friends asked me why she didn't have French citizenship), and if you look at it on a map, it quickly becomes clear that it's a legacy of colonization. Most all of the countries (essentially North and South America) that were colonized by Europeans have birthright citizenship because it was set that way to encourage more settlers to come. As a country where >97% of the population comes from immigrant origins, this is part of our legacy. Not to say it couldn't use some reform or change - just explaining why the *number* of countries seems low. https://maint.loc.gov/law/help/birthright-citizenship/global.php
Thank you for sharing this link. I appreciate people sharing resources and writings about this topic, as it is not one I've given a lot of thought to or spent considerable time reading about until now.
This is great additional insight! Thanks!
Oh good, silver linings. By your every other country logic, we should soon expect executive orders ushering in healthcare for all and common sense gun regulations.
I wasn't using 'every other country logic', I was pointing out something I didn't know about birthright citizenship around the world. And I didn't weigh in on whether I think that's a good thing or not, I was observing 1- that the US is among a minority of countries that offer it and 2- that a majority of countries have restricted citizenship laws.
Attributing Trump’s reasons for the EO on birthright citizenship to “bringing us in line with other countries,” vs his more clearly stated policies against immigrants generally just seems like unnecessary justification. It’s in the U.S. constitution and it’s been established law ever since; it’s not a quick little policy to be tweaked in order to put us on par with others. This should be a proposed constitutional amendment, not a president’s whim based on his dislike of immigrants.
I wasn't justifying it. I was observing it. There's a difference. But once again, the comments section of Preamble is where nuance goes to die.
If you can believe it, I'm a person that is regularly decrying comments sections for their lack of nuance. So I get your sentiment here. My concern doesn't come from your observation in and of itself, it comes from not acknowledging the context of birthright citizenship being within our constitution and our founding.
I want to be sure I'm understanding what you're saying: are you saying your concern is that I, in my comment where I expressed learning about birthright citizenship policies around the world via a link Gabe shared, did not acknowledge that birthright citizenship is in our constitution?
I push back that it was 'within our founding' - unless I'm misinterpreting what you mean by this. It was the 14th amendment, added to the Constitution after the Civil War in 1868, under the presidency of the US's 17th president, Andrew Johnson.
Fair enough - I was incorrect with using "founding". I read your statement that, "Trump's EO seems more in line with those other countries," as a tacit agreement or acceptance of the EO as the correct move, and my response was a rebuttal that an EO is not the avenue for changing an amendment, whether you agree with the EO or not. It seems clear there were things lost in translation between the two of us, and I apologize if my assumptions caused offense.
Ah got it, thank you for the clarification about where you were coming from. I absolutely do not think an EO is the avenue for changing a constitutional amendment (or honestly, for modifying the constitution in any way).
You are learning quickly 🥲
A take on birthright citizenship from the Cato Institute what spurred its creation and why it's good. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/birthright-citizenship-american-idea-works
Thank you for sharing this. I saw an interview with someone from Cato on The Hill yesterday, but hadn't read this. It's an EO that is getting - understandably - considerable news coverage and commentary.
I'm afraid I don't put much faith in the Cato Institute. I have a bit of trouble with libertarianism and the involvement of dark money via the Koch family. I would like to be wrong.
I like to read things from a variety of sources. While the Cato Institute might employ those with leanings towards the libertarian and conservative view points they are highly rated with Ad Fontes. I do find the perspective here interesting and one I agree with. Even if our political leanings differ.
Thanks for the added info on birthright citizenship. I wasn’t aware and it’s good for context.
I'm torn on this. I think it's OK for babies born to people who have been living here and intend to stay to get birthright citizenship. However, I do not believe that tourists should get it. There's a thing in China called birth tourism, where they just come here to have the baby and then go home, but their kid gets the citizenship bonus.