President and 1968 Wharton graduate Donald Trump points to the audience during his campaign rally on June 21, 2024.
Credit: Abhiram JuvvadiIn the first 24 hours since his inauguration, President and 1968 Wharton graduate Donald Trump signed dozens of executive orders, many of which reversed policies from the Biden administration.
The orders reflect Trump's inauguration speech, in which he promised to reverse the "many betrayals" that have occurred and to restore people's faith, wealth, democracy, and freedom.
The Daily Pennsylvanian spoke to Penn professors about the potential consequences of the new policies.
1. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
While onstage at the Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C. for a post-inauguration rally, Trump signed an order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, an international treaty that pledges to reduce carbon emissions. This is the second time Trump has removed the United States from the agreement after Biden rejoined in 2021.
During his inaugural address, Trump said that climate policies under the Biden administration opposed domestic energy goals and led to a “national energy emergency."
Penn Program on Regulation Director and Political Science professor Cary Coglianese wrote to the DP that Trump’s decision to pull out was "inconsistent with international law" and the provisions of the treaty.
"The withdrawal process under the Agreement calls for a one-year period following notice of withdrawal before any country’s withdrawal can be effectuated," Coglianese wrote. "But Trump’s order expressly declares that the United States will withdraw immediately.”
Political Science assistant professor Parrish Bergquist emphasized the danger of the reversal "for the US and ... the world."
“It signals to the world that the US is an unreliable partner on climate energy investment," Bergquist said. “We're ceding leadership to potentially China and to the EU. We're also not investing in clean energy sectors, which also cedes economic power to China, which is already the world's leader in clean technology development."
She also said that Trump's justification for the withdrawal was misleading.
"Countries that are signatories to the Paris Climate Agreement choose their own contributions to global CO2 emissions reductions," Bergquist said. "The US has, under the Biden administration, chosen a particular goal, but it was chosen by our government institutions, and our laws and policies have been designed to try to achieve that goal. So, the Trump messaging that this is some sort of global order imposing itself on the US is just wrong.”
According to Penn's Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action Michael Mann, who also directs the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, the potential repercussions of the withdrawal can be mitigated if "other superpowers like China step up and fill the void left behind by U.S. withdrawal from the climate battle."
Trump also signed an order to halt the operations of offshore wind energy projects, a decision that Bergquist described as "foolish" and "ironic," given Trump's claims of prioritizing the economy.
“Curtailing renewable energy development in the country doesn't make sense economically, and it doesn't make sense environmentally," Bergquist said. "I think prohibiting it is driven by symbolism, and to me, capriciousness rather than some sort of understanding that this is going to make people better off. It won't make the country better off, and it won't make individuals better off.”
2. Exiting the World Health Organization
Trump also initiated the process of withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization for a second time following his initial withdrawal order in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, former President Biden reversed this decision upon taking office in 2021.
Trump appeared excited while signing the order, saying “Oooh, that's a big one,” at the White House.
In a statement, WHO announced its “regret” over the withdrawal and urged the United States to reconsider. The statement also emphasized the eradication of smallpox and the fight against polio as achievements over the past seventy years.
Penn Carey Law School and Medical Ethics & Health Policy professor Eric Feldman wrote in an email to the DP that "relinquishing our participation is not only shortsighted; it is dangerous.”
“As the Covid-19 pandemic made clear, infectious diseases know no borders, and our success in controlling their spread and protecting our population is inexorably linked to our engagement with other nations,” Feldman added.
Penn Medicine’s Division of Epidemiology Director Sean Hennessy highlighted the “profound consequences” of the executive action, “not just for America, but for global health as a whole."
“We're talking about a massive financial hit to the WHO. The United States has been the organization's largest contributor, providing about a fifth of its budget. Without this funding, the WHO's ability to respond to health emergencies will be severely compromised,” said Hennessy.
Hennessy also said that the decision extended beyond financial terms, potentially damaging the relationship between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.
“By severing these ties, we're not only depriving the WHO of crucial technical guidance, but we're also cutting ourselves off from vital global health data and intelligence," Hennessy said. "This isolation could leave us more vulnerable to future health threats, not less.”
The withdrawal could result in a potential rise in misinformation regarding public health, according to Hennessy.
“We're seeing a perfect storm of technological and social factors that are amplifying the spread of false health information," Hennessy said. "Social media platforms continue to be major conduits for misinformation, with studies showing that a significant portion of vaccine-related posts and COVID-19 related content on these platforms contain inaccurate or misleading information.”
Hennessy described the health community as optimistic in dealing with these “challenges,” as it develops “strategies to combat misinformation.”
"We're seeing increased efforts in health literacy education, fact-checking initiatives, and the use of digital technology to promote accurate health information,” Hennessy said.
3. Restricting immigration and ending birthright citizenship
In his inaugural address, Trump said that his highest responsibility is to “defend our country from threats and invasions,” and that his administration will “use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement” to combat illegal immigration.
On his first day in office, the President also issued executive orders temporarily halting refugee admissions to the United States for “at least four months” and declared the state of immigration at the Southern border to be “an invasion.”
Political Science professor Rogers Smith wrote in a statement to the DP that the 14th Amendment does not protect birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. Smith alleged that the amendment also does not give the executive branch authority to determine birthright citizenship.
“President Trump’s executive order is, in my view, unconstitutional,” he wrote.
Smith said that the executive order could prompt legislation on the issue in Congress — which the 14th Amendment gives the power to enforce birthright citizenship — or constitutional debate resulting in a Supreme Court decision on the issue.
“I strongly believe the current policy [of birthright citizenship] should be upheld, as it does far more good than harm,” Smith added.
4. ‘Restoring’ Freedom of Speech and Curtailing Censorship
President Trump also promised to “bring back free speech to America” during his inauguration speech. He immediately signed the “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” executive order, which forbids fact-checking on social media platforms, a tactic the Biden administration endorsed to combat misinformation.
The executive order refers to the fact-checking initiatives as “government censorship of free speech” used to “moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech” that the federal government was not in agreement with.
Political Science assistant professor Jane Esberg, whose research has focused on censorship, told the DP that “the Biden administration's approach to combating misinformation did not amount to government censorship." She cited Biden’s June 2024 Supreme Court victory in requesting the removal of misinformation from social media platforms.
“Dismantling any federal attempts to promote fact-checking and stop the spread of fake news — as Trump's executive order does — is not a good start,” Esberg said. “We will likely see an increase in misinformation on social media, but not as a direct consequence of the EO. Decisions about allowable content still rest with the companies themselves.”
Esberg added that Trump’s orders and statements “are certainly not actions compatible with free speech and a free press.”
History of Education professor Jonathan Zimmerman noted that social media content moderation is multi-faceted.
“I think it's perfectly fair to criticize some of the ways they've done it, but I do think it's a very scary prospect for the government to say they can't do it,” Zimmerman said. “It's ironic that it's coming from the same person who has, for example, threatened to remove the licenses of media companies that criticize him.”
Zimmerman also said that he does not think Trump’s actions are a complete step towards free speech.
“I understand that Trump's order is a nod in the direction of the production of free speech, but given his track record on these subjects, I'm deeply skeptical about it,” he added. “Somebody who calls the media the enemy of the people doesn't strike me as a great champion of freedom of expression.”
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate
