Joining me now to discuss the executive orders and what it all means for America is CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig.
Ellie, how are you, buddy? How's everything going? Man?
Great to see if Stephen A. We are in a By the way, world's record has just been set. Donald Trump just set the record for most executive orders ever issued on inauguration day, twenty six of them. So I know we're not going to go through all twenty six, but no president has ever come in on day one and issue twenty six orders before. So happy to be here and help you walk through which ones are most important.
First day of his term in office twenty six executive orders. First of all, I think when you think about that, what alarms you most about that? What should alarm Americans most about such executive power as being exercise so early?
Well, I think, broadly speaking, just the blunt exercise of executive force like that. I mean, look, obviously the president has a lot of power, but these eos executive orders are always controversial. I mean Barack Obama came under a lot of heat and criticism because he issued what turned out to be far less than Donald Trump. But people at the time said, while he's trying to become a king, he's trying to just waive his magic scepter and make
things happen. And now Donald Trump is doing that. And then some now executive orders, as we'll discussed, they're not necessarily bad or evil, and they have to go through a legal process. In fact, we're already seeing court cases on some. But what's clear to me is Donald Trump is taking office and as promised, I guess, and true to form, right from day one, he is taking the position I'm the president, I'm going to do what I please.
Let's get right into the wheeze of some of these order. To start with birthright citizenship, Trump wants to redefine birthright citizenship is defined by the fourteenth Amendment. The Trump order asserts that a child born in the United States is not a citizen if a the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but not temporary but only temporarily, and b the father is
not a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The order also forbiduous agency's form from issuing any document recognizing such a child as a citizen or accept any state document recognizing citizenship this order is already being challenged in federal court. As you pointed out, break this down for US Elie.
Yeah, So, what Donald Trump is trying to do here really is reverse one hundred and fifty years of American law. Under the Fourteenth Amendment passed in eighteen sixty eight just after the Civil War ratified, it says that any person who is born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen.
And just to make sure it was clear, Congress passed the law saying the same thing, and the US Supreme Court had a case in eighteen ninety eight where they said the same thing. What Trump is trying to do here is sort of change and really tweak the definition so that it does not apply to somebody who's here I legally and has children here. But that's just contrary
to what it says in the Constitution. And not surprisingly, Stephen, just yesterday a federal judge, so two days after Trump got sworn in, a federal judge said hang on and put this on what we called an injunction. He put it on hold. And a couple things about what happened in court yesterday one the judge tore into the government lawyers for Trump. He said something like, this is one of the most ridiculous legal motions I've ever seen, that
you're trying to change what birthright citizenship means. The other thing is, now, as I'm telling you that, you're probably thinking it must be an Obama or a Biden appointee to the bench. So rego Ronald Reagan appointed judge exactly, and this guy had no patience for no credence to the argument Trump's lawyer was making it all.
That's actually a reason to be hopeful, because you've got somebody that was appointed by Ronald Reagan who is disagreeing with such a thing that gives us an editor of minds as to what our country is supposed to be about in terms of being a nation of laws. Let's go to the whole DEI issue, diversity, equity and inclusion. Trump's executive order gives executive branch departments and agencies sixty days to eliminate diversity equity and inclusion programs, including.
All chief Diversity officer jobs.
It also terminated a sixty year old executive order setting anti discrimination requirements government agencies in contract is Meanwhile, a separate memo effectively put all federal DEI offices on immediate leave, pending their elimination. What do you make of.
This, Ellie?
You know, Stephen, I'm not sure there's much that can be done about this in the courts, because here's the thing with executive orders. They apply to the executive branch of the federal government. So the President cannot issue an executive order that tells Congress what's to do, tells the courts what to do, or really even tells the states what to do, although the FEDS can sort of control
federal funding based on what the states do. But this to me is, you know, whether you agree or disagree with the substance of it, what an executive order legally can do, which is say, okay, our new policy within the federal executive branch. That's all the agencies, White House, doj you know, EPA on down the line, we are going to have DEI initiatives. We're not going to have DEI initiatives. So I don't know that there's much chance
of offending that in court. But I will say, and you mentioned this, if the executive orders cross the line and start to discriminate against forbidden areas race, gender, sex, that kind of thing. Then we can get into court challenges. But just saying we're gonna get rid of DEI officials, I'm sure someone will challenge it in court, and without getting into whether it's good or bad to have these things, I'm not sure that there's gonna be a way to overcome that. EO.
My issue with this eliot is that how they're trying to define DEI. They're trying to define DEI programs as basically handouts, you know, and essentially we want to do away with all of that. And I'm like, they don't pay any attention to why it came into existence to begin with. I use examples like the Rooney rule in a national football right go, even.
Affirmative action from the sixties.
Yeah, you can lament its existence, but what provoked its existence? To me, that's never ever been discussed. Okay, that's where I'm at with it. Let me go on to the subject to term limits, because I know I couldn't wait to ask you about this one. One of President Donald Trump's top congressional allies, Tennessee Representative.
Andy Ogill's, introduced.
A resolution last night that would allow the commander in chief of third term. What the hell is going on here, Ellie.
I didn't even know that until you told me that. I guess you could see in my reaction. Yeah, look, this is a pipe dream, this is not There is a way this could happen. It's called amending the US Constitution.
Right.
The constitution limits presidents to two terms. If we are going to amend the constitution, I guess you can add a third term. But the process to amend the constitution, Stephen, is almost impossible. We last did it, by the way, in nineteen ninety three, I think it's been a long time. You would need to get two thirds of the House of Representatives, two thirds of the Senate, and then three quarters of the state so thirty eight of the fifty states would then have to approve it. So this thing
is doa dead on arrival, no chance. But Steven, to your prior point, also understand a lot of what's happening with these EO executive orders, with these congressional movements. They're politics. I mean, some of these are symbolics. Some of them are specifically symbolic. We're going to change the names of what we call mountains or Gulfs or whatever, but even something like birthright, Saidizenship. I don't believe that Donald Trump believes he's going to win that. I don't know that
he cares though. I think he's trying to make a point. Ear have the fight and say, you know, look, I went I wanted to do this for you, but the courts struck me down. Stupid being courts. Yeah, so this third third term is I'm not going to bet on that happening. Well.
See, the thing that bugs me out about at Elie is this. These are conservatives that are making this proposal. Who is dogged more than anybody else about.
Us living according to the tenets of the Constitution. Wouldn't that be them?
But our constitution clearly calls for a two term limit. And nevertheless, here's a Republican representative trying to propose such a thing, which to me is just it just reeks of hypocrisy. Last one here would be the JFK to RFK and the MLK files.
Trump signed an.
Executive order that call for the release of all classified documents related to the assassinations of John F.
Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Junior.
Meanwhile, the family of MLK offered their response to President Trump's decision to release the files related to the assassination of the Civil Rights Icon nearly sixty years ago, and here is a quote from the family. Today, our family has learned that President Trump has ordered the classification of the remaining records pertaining to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert F. Kennedy, and our father, Reverend Doctor
Martin Luther King Junior. For us, the assassination of our fathers a deeply personal laws that we have endured over.
The last fifty six years.
We hope to be provided the opportunity to review the files as a family prior to its public release. Ellie, first of all, what do you make of this particular executive order calling for the release of these classified documents and what's the reasoning behind it?
Well, first of all, legally there's nothing that can be done to stop that. But I totally agree with you. If you're going to do this a you have to start with the families. You have to respect the wishes of the people who were murdered. I mean, their children and grandchildren are still with us. Second of all, you at least have to honor the request to let them see the files first. What's behind it? I mean, this is just something that I think Trump is doing, you know,
out of populist instinct. People want to see it. People are going to see it. I don't think any of these files, by the way, are going to have some sort of no pun intended smoking gun that's going to change our view of what happened. But look to me, you know, this is one of those things that's within the very very broad powers of the presidency. Heck knows, I would never do this. I would never want to do anything to upset the surviving families of an assassination.
But you know, look, the guy just won the election. This is within his purview.
I will say this, though.
There's a lot of noise and then you hear that there's something he wanted to do during his first term, but both the CIA and the FBI both discouraged him or tried to discourage him from doing so. So I'm wondering what role does that play in his thinking. Could it expose something about the CIA, could it expose something about the FBI? And is that what President Donald Trump wants in light of what he's had to deal with from his first term and since he's departed from office
the last four year. When it came to the the agencies, I'm wondering what role that may have played in motivating him to want to do this.
Yeah, it could be.
Look, the CIA and the FBI can certainly weigh in with the president say hey, you're you know, sir, we do not recommend this, but it ultimately it's Trump's choice. But you're right, Steven. I mean Donald Trump has adopted a very anti law enforcement posture throughout his campaign, but especially you know, the last several months. And he comes into office, and what's the first thing he does. He
pardons all all of the January sixth rioters. There was it seemed like he was maybe going to pardon the non violent people, comes in and pardons everyone with one fell swoop, even though JD. Vance had said a couple of days before obviously he said, quote, you shouldn't pardon the violent people. But yeah, look, there may It wouldn't surprise me at all if there's some sort of anti law enforcement, anti what he would call the deep state type sentiment behind this move.
Let me transition to sports before I let you get on out of here because I know I'm told you are a Philadelphia Eagles fan for the National Football League?
First of all, is that true? And secondly, do you have one of this weekend?
Very true? I when I was a kid, I grew up in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, South Jersey, and I was all about the Phillies. I wasn't really I found the Eagles boring until you're gonna know what this is, until what happens in the mid eighties that makes everyone go, holy crap, this is exciting.
What did the Eagles do well? They went to the Super Bowl and lost to the early eighties or a night after eight coaching him?
After that?
Who was the guy? Who was the guy who would have captured a ten year old's attention?
Like, holy r Cunningham, you got it.
When they drafted Randall Cunningham, all of a sudden, I was in. I mean I was riveted by nobody was doing the things you were. I mean you were right, Nobody was doing the things this guy was doing. He was so spectacular that Monday night game against the Giants where they knocked him down, he still threw the TV. So I've been all in on the Eagles ever since then, like any good Philly fan, I'm terrified beyond reason. So I guess I'm I'm you know, I know they're favored
by six points, six and a half points whatever. I said that rationally, but but our in our nature, we have to be pessimistic and nervous until it's over.
Well, you should be worried.
That's what it'd be a wise day for your brother, Jade and Daniels is no joke.
He's no joke.
I'm still picking the Eagles to win myself, and I'll talk about that a little bit later, but I'm telling you right now, this brother can make a difference, make no mistake about it. Ellie Honak Legal Analysts for seeing that right here on the Stephen the eatex MIC sure appreciate you, buddy. Thank you so much for coming on and taking time out of your business schedule.
All appreciate it.
Always great to be with you. Thanks