This interview originally aired on "In the Moment" on SDPB Radio.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's record for most executive orders signed in the first 100 days has been shattered.
Roosevelt signed 99 orders. Donald Trump signed 142.
Our Dakota Political Junkies explore what, if anything, we can take from a president's first 100 days, as well as what the latest polling data says about how his actions are viewed by the public.
David Wiltse, Ph.D., is a professor of political science at South Dakota State University. And Lisa Hager, Ph.D., is an associate professor of political science at SDSU.
____________________________________________________________
The following transcript was auto-generated and edited for clarity.
Lori Walsh:
Can you predict or foreshadow anything at the first 100 days to start very slowly or start very quickly?
David Wiltse:
No, not really.
Lisa Hager:
Yeah, no, I mean that's really tough to get a lot accomplished in that time period.
David Wiltse:
At least when it comes to Congress and the legislative agenda of the president, just giving them a hundred days to squeeze through any bit of legislation is really difficult, and that's one of the reasons why political scientists have often kind of scoffed at putting too much stock in this a hundred-day measure.
Lori Walsh:
All right. So without putting too much stock in it, are there things you have noticed that strike you as a departure?
David Wiltse:
Oh, yes. Many, many things.
Lori Walsh:
Where would you like to begin?
David Wiltse:
Where we see the departure here is completely outside of that, just the relationship between the president and Congress, well, there's nothing really going on there. That's very atypical of previous presidencies. But where we really see the departure is the uses of executive order, hostility towards the courts and to other institutions of governance, particularly the bureaucracy. And there we just see just a laundry list of things that's been different with Trump's second term than just about any other president in the modern presidency.
Lori Walsh:
Okay. So in his first 100 days, President Trump has signed 142 executive orders. He has rescinded 111 previous presidential executive orders, almost all of them from Joe Biden. Biden by comparison, had done 42 executive orders in his first 100 days, and you mentioned FDR, he was at 99 executive orders in his first 100, but there's a fragility to the executive order, Lisa. If President Trump can come in and within 100 days can get rid of 111 executive orders from previous presidents, most of them from his most recent predecessor, then the person who replaces Donald Trump can do the same.
Lisa Hager:
Right, exactly. The only time we can really see some real movement with respect to executive orders is when you have Congress actually responding with a statute, but as we know right now, nothing is really going on too much with respect to Congress on these issues.
Lori Walsh:
All right. Five bills signed into law, which is not a great amount, but Congress is spending most of their time approving the appointees at this point. How is that going? Does that seem like a departure to you, Dave?
David Wiltse:
No, I mean he's had a pretty good success record actually. There's been a few that-
Lori Walsh:
More success though than the past? It seems to me like it's more successful. I keep hearing Senator John Thune saying, "Hey, we are going to get these appointees up and running." And that they are moving through a committee at what some people think is breakneck speed.
Is that a political talking point or is that true?
David Wiltse:
I think it's partially a political talking point, but it's also a product of how we've changed the confirmation process and the so-called nuclear option.
I don't know if we use that with the regular Cabinet appointees, but we've gotten rid of the supermajority requirements on these, so it's just easier for a president to get his nominees through if he's got the Senate on his side.
Lori Walsh:
All right. So are there areas in this first 100 days where the administration has faltered in your mind? Big missteps?
David Wiltse:
Make a list.
Lori Walsh:
Okay.
David Wiltse:
I don't know if you call them missteps, but just some of the things that he has done, particularly when it comes to international trade, just tremendously damaging and just causing chaos right now in the economy. I mean we now have the lowest of level of economic confidence since May of 2020, and that was a pretty tough time in May of 2020 as I recall given all the uncertainties out there with COVID.
And we're looking at the same degree of uncertainty just with all these tariffs coming up, going away, coming up again, and going away. It's insane.
Lori Walsh:
And self-inflicted.
David Wiltse:
It is. COVID was exogenous, it was something that happened to us. Any president was going to be dealing with a crisis. That's all there is to it. And you were going to see that kind of turmoil because we had no idea how that thing was going to unfold.
But all of this was self-inflicted. And to kind of tie together what we were talking about with executive orders and the use of executive prerogative, the real danger here is most of these tariffs, most of these trade restrictions that we have were put in place by Congress, and the president has taken them down through emergency action, and President Trump has been very active in declaring little emergencies here and there, so he can use existing statute to make these sorts of things.
And so now we have a situation where presidents are setting policy that needs to be very consistent, very stable, and it's just not happening. So presidents will be able to come in and just kind of rip these things apart if these precedents are allowed to stand or if Congress doesn't change the law and Congress needs to probably in this case.
Lori Walsh:
What do you mean Congress needs to change the law?
David Wiltse:
Well, this particular use of tariffs through a national emergency, right?
Lori Walsh:
Okay, sure.
David Wiltse:
It's all done under the auspices of existing statute, but Trump is really pushing this, the definition of what is an emergency and what he can do unilaterally.
Lori Walsh:
All right. Lisa, what would you add to that?
Lisa Hager:
Yeah, I mean I would agree with Dave on that. I think some of these other areas where we're potentially seeing some missteps having to do with how certain aspects of his agenda are being handled. So while many folks who voted for Trump are happy to see the work that DOGE is doing and some of the work with respect to dealing with those folks who are undocumented here in the United States and deportations, the way in which these things are actually taking place are then causing a lot of issues in the short term, so you're seeing courts push back with respect to deportations, you're seeing issues arise where DOGE comes in and starts cutting things and then realizes after the fact, oh wait, we actually need some of these folks doing this work.
So those are also some of the issues that we're seeing that are just disruptive to the political system and society as a whole.
David Wiltse:
And let's not forget what's going on in the Department of Defense and Department of State when it comes to the chaos that is in both those institutions right now, especially right now in the DOD under Pete Hegseth.
Lori Walsh:
So back to the federal layoffs, tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, and we're not really very certain about the cost savings. At some point there will be a reckoning with how much was really spent and saved from DOGE, won't there? What does that look like in the future? Somebody has to care about the layoffs and whether or not they really saved money regardless of what you felt about the value of the services.
Or is it just the headline is the important thing, the receipts are the important thing, the ticker type tally of how much money was cut is the message and nothing else matters. Does the content matter?
David Wiltse:
No. I mean the money was never the point here. Are there some savings? Yes. Is it going to have even the smallest dent in the overall budget deficits that we're running? No.
This was all about generating the headlines. It was all about coming in, giving the impression that they are taking action, that they are clearing out the bureaucracy.
Think about some of these things that Musk is just insistent upon, that there are these dead people who are having federal jobs, there are dead people who are taking social security benefits, that it's just rife with fraud. None of this is true, none of it is based in fact.
It is all about the performance, and that's what really matters here. And in the end, a lot of these people are probably going to get their jobs back if they haven't gone on to something else. A lot of these firings will be challenged and successfully challenged in the courts because again, they're really pushing the bounds of civil service law in order to take these cuts.
Lori Walsh:
More than 200 lawsuits right now that we've been able to track so far, and that number seems to shift depending on who's tracking them. But it looks pretty stable that it's more than 200 lawsuits. And that's not even counting the student visa, the F1 lawsuits as well.
David Wiltse:
And if the administration had its druthers, they would probably hire back the bulk of these positions, maybe not the same people, but at least those positions but under a new classification that gives the president that ability to hire and fire them at will.
Lori Walsh:
All right, his approval rating is at 42% now. But when you look at internally in that polls, and Dave, I'm going to specifically ask you about this, and Lisa, because you do so much polling.
The average might be low, but you also look at 87% approval from Republicans on how he's handling immigration and only an 11% approval from Democrats. Overall that hits 44%. Independents are at 37% approval. And that's just on the topic of immigration.
That's not even the economy, which his numbers are pretty low there. How do you unpack those polls and find the relevance in them?
David Wiltse:
Well, the important thing to keep in mind when you're looking at historical trends in polling on presidential performance, whether it's approval rating or performance in a particular area, is that polarization has really kind of messed up any kind of long-term comparisons.
So Republicans are just reflexively giving Trump high numbers across the board. Even in regards to the economy, he's still doing pretty well amongst Republicans, and Democrats are just reflexively against. And what this means is that presidents now have a pretty hard ceiling and a pretty hard floor in terms of approval ratings, either overall or in a particular area of policy.
Now, people are probably a little more or less likely to go above that ceiling or below that floor when it comes to particulars, but not much. So he has this built-in core of support of about 40%. 40% of the American people are going to look at virtually anything that he does and say, "Yeah, works for me." And about 40% are just going to be absolutely opposed no matter how well he might be doing in a particular area.
Lori Walsh:
Do his policy advisors care about the polling? How can they use that polling to really show what direction the country should move in?
David Wiltse:
I don't want to try to peer into their minds, but they don't have a reelection to contend with.
And honestly, I don't know what the president's long-term ambitions are here. I don't know if he wants to make a big policy stamp on his administration or if he just wants to be able to say, "Here is my legacy. I made an impact." And if it's the latter, I don't think they're going to care at all.
Lori Walsh:
So Lisa, if we're not looking at how polling numbers might translate to votes, and we're not looking at how polling numbers might be used to adjust policy in any particular way, when people are upset with what the executive branch is doing, whose responsibility is it to get involved? Is that Congress that provides the check, "Hey, we appropriated this money, we're not going to let you divert it to a different cause?" Is it the courts that are just reflecting whether or not this is a violation of constitutional protections or administrative rules? Who resolves the problems or it just rolls forward?
Lisa Hager:
Congress does have better luck historically when we're talking about issues relating to domestic policy. And so if they are able to actually pass some legislation that would impact how the president is able to interact and make policy in these different areas, then that can be beneficial if and when it actually comes before the courts. The courts give the president a lot less leeway when it comes to domestic policy. Foreign policy is a completely different story. The president really doesn't have much checks by way of Congress. We can just see that with how ineffective the War Powers Resolution has been.
Congress being able to do that, it's also just lawsuits in general, even if it's not something related to what Congress is doing in terms of a policy-based response. And so we have seen some of that, even just when we're looking at the immigration issues where the courts are the ones pushing back.
The interesting thing we're seeing is then that we have criticism of the courts, which has increased definitely more recently, but we're seeing a conversation about judges and really what's at the heart of the independence of the Judicial Branch where folks are complaining essentially that we have these unelected judges who are making these decisions that thwart Trump and his agenda.
Lori Walsh:
So anything else that stands out to you in this first hundred days that you think we'll be talking about a hundred days from now, Lisa?
Lisa Hager:
I think we'll still be talking about quite a few of these issues, to be honest. I think as issues with the US economy continues to drag on, I think some citizens will become less and less willing to be supportive of Trump's agenda, so we could see some pushback with respect to that. I expect things to be remotely the same when it comes to issues like DOGE and probably immigration depending on what entirely shakes out with respect to different court decisions and compliance with those court decisions.
Lori Walsh:
Dave, how about you?
David Wiltse:
Well, Lisa's right on the economy, no question there. Just see how things spin out, out of control perhaps, but we're going to see continued instability there, particularly when it comes to the impact of trade. The other thing that really is brewing and is just a ticking time bomb is what's going on inside the DOD. I mean, this has just been an absolute clown car for the last hundred days beyond anything that was predicted, and it's only a matter of time before some of these very serious security breaches are going to get people killed. And I think that is the only thing that is going to really force some rethinking about leadership at the Pentagon right now.
Lori Walsh:
Let's close with a race in South Dakota for governor. And many people are speculating that Congressman Dusty Johnson wants to leave Washington and come back here, perhaps take a shot at the governor's mansion in Pierre. What's his pathway for being in D.C. and being a representative and then trying to figure out the timing, the fundraising, the building support to go maybe up against an incumbent in a primary? Lisa?
Lisa Hager:
I would say all the campaigning questions are probably best for Dave here on this question, but I do think that it's very easy for Congressman Johnson to just make the transition in general.
He's done a very good job in terms of maintaining his presence here in South Dakota. I mean, all members of Congress do, to be quite honest. They make sure that they're present in their states and districts, but I think he's done a good job with respect to that. When he's here back in the state, he's very visible. It's definitely possible to go from the House to the governor's mansion. We saw that with Governor Noem. So it's definitely something that's possible. I think there's a path here.
I think the question just becomes what the primary scene looks like and what Congressman Johnson wants to do on that front. I know that there's already some talk about a variety of different folks, and if I saw correctly, I believe state legislator John Hansen has already declared that he's throwing his hat in the ring. So kind of just what Johnson wants to do in terms of that primary raise.
Lori Walsh:
What would you add, Dave?
David Wiltse:
Well, I think he could do an even better job than Kristi Noem did in just transitioning parts, and Noem did a very good job at it.
But Johnson has always been consistently one of the most popular politicians in the state, and it's all a matter of how he's going to look to the Republican primary constituency.
And I think a lot of that really has to do with how much influence Trump is going to have within the party at that particular point in time. If Trump still has a lot of political capital, and he can really push the primary constituency towards another candidate, it'll be harder for him, but he probably is best poised for this right now.
