UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (5/22/25): Part III: Everything You Need to Know About the EXECUTIVE Branch of the U.S. Government

Episode Date: May 22, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. Lately, there’s been a lot of debate—and confusion—about the separation of powers, checks and balances, and whether certain branches are overstepping their authority. I created this three-part series to help cut through the noise and give you a clear, unbiased look at how each branch is supposed to function, what powers they actually hold, and how they’re meant to keep each other in check. In today's episode, we're diving into the executive branch of the U.S. government. Intro (0:00) Fundamentals of the Executive Branch (2:07) Powers of the Executive Branch and How Checks and Balances Apply (6:50) History and Evolution of the Executive Branch (23:50) How the Executive Branch Affects Our Everyday Lives (33:34) Fun Facts (36:23) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, May 22nd, and today we're talking all about the executive branch. In case you haven't been able to tune in to the last few episodes, this is part three of a three-part series all about the US government. Last Thursday, I released an episode all about the legislative branch. On Monday, I released an episode all about the legislative branch, on Monday I released an episode all about the judicial branch, today's episode will be all about the executive branch. After listening to all three episodes, you will be more knowledgeable than the average American when it comes to the US government and how it works. This is a stat I have repeated in every episode, but I think it's important. In 2022, less than half of US adults, 47%, could name all three branches of the US government. My goal with this three-part series is that

you listen to all three episodes and feel confident in your knowledge about the three branches, what their powers are, how they check on each other, and how each branch has evolved since the country's founding. I also want you to know how each branch affects you and your everyday life. So we'll start with the foundational fact that I have repeated in every episode and that is this. There are three branches of the government, the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. Together they run the country. Simply put, the legislative sets the laws, the judicial interprets the laws, and the

executive carries out the laws, the judicial interprets the laws, and the executive carries out the laws. There's obviously, though, so much more that goes into it than just that. That's just the absolute basic principle that I think is very important to understand. In today's episode, like I said, we'll focus solely on the executive branch, which includes the presidency, the vice presidency, the federal agencies and departments, the president's cabinet, and more. Now as far as why I'm doing this, as I've said in every episode so far, I think it's really important that we're all aware of how these branches of government coexist with one another and what the roles of each branch are. The founders of this country designed a system with three branches and each branch has distinct powers,

but also mechanisms in place so that each branch can check and balance one another. So let's kick this episode off with a few of the fundamentals when it comes to the executive branch. Whereas Article 1 of the Constitution established the legislative branch and Article 3 established the judicial branch, it was Article 2 that created the executive branch. The Constitution has seven Articles total, and the first three are what formed the three branches of the U.S. government. So that tells you where the Framers' priority was when they were drafting the Constitution. Within the Executive, we have the President, the Vice President, the President's Cabinet, the 15 Executive Departments,

the agencies within those Executive Departments, the executive office of the president, and various committees, boards, and commissions. So let's start at the top with the president. The president not only serves as the president and head of the executive branch, but also the commander-in-chief of the military. To run for president, one has to be at least 35 years old at the time of inauguration, must have been a resident of the Military. To run for president, one has to be at least 35 years old at the time of inauguration, must have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years at the time of inauguration, and must be a natural-born citizen of the United States. Those are the only three requirements. The next person in line is the Vice President, who serves under the President and as

the presiding officer of the Senate. The vice president becomes president if the president can no longer do his job. And the vice president has the same eligibility requirements as the president. The only other constitutional mandate is that no one that is constitutionally ineligible to be president can be eligible for vice president.

From there, we have the president's cabinet. So the cabinet consists of the heads of the 15 executive agencies. So the 15 executive agencies include the Justice Department, Commerce Department, Agriculture Department, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, Health and Human Services Department, Education Department, Housing and Urban Development Department, Transportation Department, Defense Department, Housing and Urban Development Department, Transportation

Department, Defense Department, Department of the Interior, Labor Department, State Department, Treasury Department, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The heads of each of those departments are called secretaries, and that's who makes up the president's cabinet. The exception here when it comes to title is the Justice Department. The head of the DOJ is called the Attorney General of the United States. So those 15 people make up the President's Cabinet. These cabinet members advise the President on issues within their respective departments and they help carry out decisions and orders from the President within their department. So if the president says, let's just say, you know, I'm instructing the Education Department to enforce Title IX against so-and-so university, the Education Department is responsible for doing that. The secretary,

I should say, of the Education Department. Now, within these departments you have hundreds of federal agencies. So within the Department of Health and Human Services, you have the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, etc. Within the DHS, you have ICE, you have Customs and Border Protection, you have the Secret Service, TSA, etc. So on and so forth for every department. What that means is the heads of each department oversee the federal agencies within it. Then you have the Executive Office of the President, or the EOP. The EOP is different than the president's cabinet

in that it consists not of department heads, but instead of the president's advisors and other White House staff. Think of people like the press secretary, those who work in the office of management and budget, or those who work in the White House military office. The Senate still has to confirm certain members of the EOP, like the head of the office of management and budget, but certain members of the EOP, like the head of the Office

of Management and Budget, but most members of the EOP are appointed with full presidential discretion, like the press secretary. Currently, the EOP employs roughly 4,000 people. And then finally, within the executive branch, we have these various boards, commissions, and committees. So federal advisory boards and commissions are groups of experts in a particular subject matter that are brought together by the executive branch to provide advice and recommendations to the president, agency heads, or other staff. There are roughly a thousand boards or commissions across the government and they exist within those 15 departments we talked about.

As examples, within the DHS, we have the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee, the Data, Privacy, and Integrity Advisory Committee, the Faith-Based Security Advisory Committee, and more. Within the Defense Department, we have the Army Education Advisory Board, multiple different boards of visitors, the Board of Coastal Engineering Research, and others, so on and so forth throughout the departments. So all of those components together make up the executive branch. Now I want to talk about the powers that the executive branch has and how those powers are checked and balanced by the other two

branches. Starting with the president. Per the constitution, the president has certain core constitutional powers. The first is leading the military. The president can order military action without a formal declaration of war, but Congress still holds the power to declare war. So that's one check. Another check on the president's military authority is Congress's control of military funding, or funding in general, but for the president's sake, military funding. general, but for the president's sake, military funding. There are ways for the president to get around this through things like the Presidential

Drawdown Authority, but those workarounds are limited. Another check on the president's military authority is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the president to 1. notify congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and 2. limits unauthorized military action to 60 days. now whether presidents have abided by that law is a whole other thing. okay basically every president since 1973 has ignored it but it's supposed to serve on as a check on the president's military authority. Next, the president has the power to veto bills. Okay, that's another core constitutional power. However, Congress can override a veto with two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate. In fact, presidents will sometimes threaten to veto bills to influence

what's included or not included in a bill, but the override power prevents presidents from having total influence. Another core constitutional power is presidential nominations and appointments. Presidents have the power to appoint federal judges, justices, cabinet members, ambassadors, and other top officials, but the Senate must confirm them by a majority vote. If a president's nominee is rejected, the president has to find someone else. Another core constitutional power is negotiating treaties and foreign policies. The president has the power to do this himself, but the Senate must ratify these treaties with a two-thirds vote. And Congress can always pass laws that

contradict agreements with other countries, so that's another check on the president's treaty authority. Presidents also have the pardon and clemency power. They can pardon people for federal crimes. They can commute sentences for federal crimes. This is one power that cannot be checked. Neither Congress nor the courts have a say when it comes to pardons. Pardons cannot be challenged nor can they be overturned. The president also has the power to issue executive orders. We talk about executive orders a lot on this show. Executive orders are directives for federal officials. They are not laws. I want you to think of it like this. The president is the head of the executive branch, so he gets to direct those that

work under him. That is what an executive order is. So perhaps an executive order directs the HHS to conduct a review of a certain policy, or maybe an executive order directs the DOJ to investigate a certain matter. The boss is telling his subordinates what to do. Executive orders can also serve as ways to interpret laws. They don't create law, but rather interpret law. And they'll say how the law should be carried out. So as an example, with the current administration,

we've been seeing this push to end DEI programs and get biological males out of female sports. So one executive order says that the word sex in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean the sex assigned at one's birth and that biological males cannot play on women's sports teams. So the DOJ will now take that interpretation of Title IX

and use it to enforce Title IX violations against schools and universities that are not abiding by that definition of sex. That's an example of how an executive order interprets law but doesn't create law. There are a couple of checks on this executive order authority. For one, courts can strike down executive orders as unconstitutional or exceeding authority. Two, Congress can pass laws to override or limit executive actions. Now,

before we move on to the powers of the Vice President, I do quickly want to differentiate between executive orders and proclamations, which are two different kinds of presidential actions or executive actions, often thought of as the same thing. An executive order, as I mentioned earlier, is a directive issued by the president for the federal government. It instructs federal employees on how to act. A proclamation, on the other hand, is an announcement of policy. They're usually symbolic or ceremonial, but they can also have legal effects. So for example, a ceremonial proclamation would be a proclamation celebrating a holiday or even creating a new holiday. Like there's a ton of every holiday there's a proclamation, okay? A more legally binding proclamation though would be

one that actually changes policy. For instance, in 2018 Trump issued a proclamation that imposed a 10% tariff on imported aluminum using his authority under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president, by proclamation, to restrict imports if they threaten national security. So this was a proclamation and not an executive order because the law that was used specifically delegated the president proclamation authority, but it's more legally binding than a ceremonial proclamation because it immediately triggered tariffs, right? It wasn't just recognizing a holiday. So note that proclamations are not the same as executive orders because they're not directives. Proclamations are not directives for the federal

government, whereas executive orders are. So those are just different types of executive action that, again, can be checked by both Congress and the courts. I've already given you a lot to digest, so let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the powers of the vice president as well as the federal departments and agencies and how those are checked. as well as the federal departments and agencies and how those are checked. The Hot Honey McCrispy is so back at McDonald's. With juicy 100% Canadian-raised seasoned chicken, shredded lettuce, crispy jalapenos,

and that completely craveable hot honey sauce, it's a sweet heat repeat you don't want to miss. Get your Hot Honey McCrispy today. Available for a limited time only at McDonald's. What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? available for a limited time only at McDonald's. What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered.

Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. Welcome back. Before we took a break, we covered the powers of the president and how they're checked by the other two branches of government. Now I want to touch on the powers of the vice president, which by the way is not a very powerful position as you will see as we go through this. Under the constitution, the vice president

has two primary responsibilities, to serve as the presiding officer of the Senate and to take the place of the president if need be. Nowadays, the presiding officer of the Senate role is mostly ceremonial, but it does include a very important power, which is to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

So when the Senate is deadlocked, 50-50, on a particular piece of legislation, the vice president can break that tie. Most recently, we saw Vice President Vance do this for Defense Secretary Hegseth's confirmation. Vice President Vance has broken two ties in the Senate so far. Vice President Harris cast 33 tie-breaking votes during her four years. That is something that is becoming more common because of just like the increased polarization and narrow majorities, there's more of a need for these tie-breaking votes. Outside of the roles explicitly set forth in the Constitution though, the Vice President has taken on

the roles explicitly set forth in the Constitution, though, the Vice President has taken on other roles over time. So these include serving as an advisor to the President, serving as a spokesperson for the administration, giving speeches, serving as a liaison to Congress, things of that nature. As far as actual powers go, though, the Vice President's formal powers are pretty limited. It can be a highly influential role, but not necessarily a powerful one. Now let's talk about the powers of executive agencies. So executive agencies like the EPA, FDA, FCC, and SEC can issue rules and regulations that have the force of law. That is their main power. These rules interpret and implement laws passed by Congress. So as an example, in April of last year, the FTC finalized a rule that banned most non-compete agreements nationwide.

To do this, the FTC classified non-competes as unfair methods of competition, which it's authorized to regulate under the FTC Act. Now, Congress never passed a law specifically banning non-compete agreements, but because the FTC was granted authority by Congress to regulate practices that hinder competition, the FTC was able to issue this rule once it determined non-competes to be an unfair method of competition.

Note though, that a federal court in Texas struck down that rule after it found that it had exceeded the FTC's authority. And that's actually a perfect way to illustrate the checks and balances at work, right? Now both Congress and the courts have a few ways they can check federal agencies. For one, Congress can use the Congressional Review Act to overturn a new federal rule so long as it's within a certain time frame. Congress can also rewrite the underlying law that the agency rule is based upon to either

narrow or expand the agency's authority. Congress can also control the agency's budget. So at times Congress has withheld funding for certain EPA initiatives. That way, even if the agency has legal authority, lack of funding from Congress can make it practically impossible for the agency to act. And then finally, Congress can conduct oversight hearings to ensure that these agencies are acting within the scope of their authority. When it comes to the courts, courts can strike down any agency rules that exceed the agency's authority or rules that are deemed to be arbitrary and capricious. As an example, the Supreme Court in 2022 limited the EPA's authority to broadly regulate emissions without clear congressional oversight. And actually, last year, there was a pretty big change, very big change, I should say, when it came to the rulemaking power of federal

agencies and the checks and balances. So until last year, whenever an agency rule was challenged in the courts, prior Supreme Court precedent known as the Chevron Doctrine said that the court should defer to the agency's interpretation of a law when reviewing an agency rule, so long as the agency's interpretation of the law was reasonable. In other words, agency rules were more likely to be upheld. But last year, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron Doctrine and said that it's the courts who are to interpret ambiguities in the law, not these agencies, and that no special deference should be afforded to the agencies when courts are reviewing these legal ambiguities. That decision was a controversial one. Some people felt as if

the court was giving itself too much power in situations that it doesn't have specialized knowledge in, whereas others felt it was always meant to be the courts who were the interpreters of law. So that was a big turning point when we talk about the checks and balances that the judicial branch has on the executive branch. Now another big power that the executive branch carries is its investigative and enforcement authority. Congress has a similar authority, but the authority looks a little different in the executive. In the executive, certain agencies like the DOJ, FBI, IRS, and FTC have investigative

and enforcement powers, which allows them to not only launch investigations and issue subpoenas and impose fines and penalties and all that, but specifically the DOJ can prosecute federal crimes. That investigative and enforcement authority is checked by both Congress and the court. So Congress can call agency officials to testify before it about certain investigations and it can also pass laws that limit how these

executive agency investigations are conducted. The courts can review the legality of investigations and prosecutions as well, and courts also have the authority to suppress evidence or dismiss a case if need be. Finally, let's talk about diplomatic and immigration matters because this is a hot topic right now. So certain federal departments and agencies like the State Department, DHS, and the US Citizenship and Immigration Service,

all part of the executive branch, carry out things like visa approvals, border enforcement, refugee admissions, and diplomatic efforts. The way that this is checked by Congress is through immigration quotas and criteria, controlling diplomatic funding, and amending immigration laws. So Congress sets the requirements for immigration.

Congress controls the funding for humanitarian aid and other diplomatic funding. Congress makes and amends the immigration laws. The executive agencies just carry out the laws and spend the funds that Congress gives it. The way the judiciary checks this diplomatic and immigration authority of the executive is by reviewing any challenges and overturning any measures that are found to be unlawful. So I can give you a few very recent examples of how checks and balances work in this regard. Since January, we know ICE has been conducting nationwide arrests of individuals that are

in this country without proper legal authorization. ICE then detains those individuals and in some cases, deports them. ICE is completely within its legal right to arrest and detain anyone in violation of federal immigration laws. At the same time, here in the United States, we also have something called habeas corpus. It goes all the way back to the Constitution and what it has been interpreted by the courts to mean is that anyone detained by the U.S. government has a legal right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. So although ICE is within its legal right to arrest and detain individuals that have violated

federal immigration law, the government must provide those individuals with a chance to challenge their detention. Now, we also have something called due process. This one's more explicit in the Constitution. It's similar. Over time, courts have interpreted due process to mean that every single person in the United States has a right to be heard, meaning anyone on US soil that has been arrested or detained has a right to a hearing before a judge. Accordingly, while ICE is within its authority to arrest and detain individuals who have violated federal immigration law, ICE cannot deport those individuals

without giving them an opportunity to be heard. That is per current law in the United States. Can the law change down the road? Sure, but that's per current law. So when one is deported without that opportunity to be heard, they sue. They sue the executive branch for exceeding its authority and failing to abide by the Constitution, and it goes to the courts. Whatever the court says, the administration has to abide by, right? So

if the court says, hey bring that person back, the administration has to bring that person back. Now the administration can delay bringing the person back by filing appeals and getting what's called a stay on the court's decision, but at the end of the day, if the appeals are exhausted and the courts have ordered the administration to return that individual, the administration must abide by that. I'll give you one more example related to immigration.

So Congress passed a law back in 1798 called the Alien Enemies Act, something we've been talking a lot about. The law gave the president the authority to, so Congress gave the president the authority to detain and deport citizens of enemy nations in times of war or invasion and bypass due process. Recently, the president invoked this law for the purpose of detaining and deporting suspected Trende Aragwa gang members. The rationale is that the Trende

Aragwa gang has invaded the United States and therefore the president has the lawful authority under this you know law passed by Congress to detain and deport any suspected Trende Aragwa gang member without affording them due process. But as with anything in the law, there is debate as to what constitutes invasion and whether Trende Aragwa can be considered an enemy nation because it's a gang, it's not a nation. So now it'll go to the courts to interpret this 1798 law and try to figure out what the founders of this country intended for it to mean and how it applies today. So far some district courts have found that the president exceeded his authority

in invoking this law and have blocked him from deporting any additional suspected gang members. The administration will take the issue all the way up the court system until the Supreme Court takes up the case, assuming it decides to take it up. If the Supreme Court says that what's happening today is not an invasion and or Ty Aragwa cannot be considered an enemy nation, the president has exceeded his authority and he cannot lawfully deport suspected Trendy Aragwa gang members under this law. On the contrary, if the Supreme Court finds that what's happening today is an invasion, the president is within his authority to detain and deport suspected Trendy Aragwa gang members without due process.

And we talked about this in the episode about the legislature, but the Supreme Court has the ultimate and final say. So hopefully through these examples you can see how, you know, all three of these branches are just constantly checking on each other. Let's now walk through the history and the evolution of the executive branch starting at the beginning. When the United States declared independence in 1776, the founders were deeply suspicious of centralized power, especially executive power. Why? Because they had just broken away from a king, okay? So they were like, we're not doing that again. In fact, under the Articles of Confederation, which was America's first governing document before the Constitution, there was no separate executive branch. Congress was the one running the show.

Because there was no separate executive branch, there was no president. There was just a presiding officer over Congress with limited powers. So consequently, the federal government could pass laws, it just couldn't enforce the laws. It also couldn't collect taxes or regulate trade. So naturally, this led to a bit of chaos and dysfunction and by the mid-1780s it was clear that the setup just wasn't working. So at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates debated whether to even have a single executive. Some were worried about creating another king while others argued that without

a strong executive the country would be vulnerable. The result was a compromise. A single president with carefully defined powers and checks. Article 2 was born. Article 2 specifically lays out the role of the president, the exclusive powers of the president. So the president, as we talked about earlier, is to serve as the commander in chief of the military. He has the power to negotiate treaties with Senate approval. He has the power to appoint judges and other officials. He has the authority to enforce laws passed by Congress and the ability to veto legislation. As we know, George Washington became the first president shortly after this in 1789, and he set crucial precedents. He formed the first cabinet, he stepped down after two terms, and he respected Congress's role in lawmaking. Remember, at the time,

the judiciary didn't really play a big role in the government, so most of the power belonged to the president and to Congress. It was crucial that they respected one another. Throughout the 1800s, the presidency remained relatively constrained. Congress was the dominant branch and that is the way the framers wanted it in the beginning. But in moments of crisis, the executive slowly grew. Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 despite constitutional questions about presidential authority. Andrew Jackson expanded presidential power by vetoing more bills than all previous presidents combined,

and also by presenting himself as a direct representative of the people. And Abraham Lincoln used extraordinary executive powers during the Civil War, including suspending habeas corpus, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, and expanding the military without first obtaining congressional approval. So each of these moments marked a shift towards a stronger executive during national emergencies specifically. And that's a shift we will continue to see play out over the course of the next 200 plus years into current day. In the early 1900s, presidents began to act more assertively, even in peacetime. Theodore Roosevelt saw the president as a bully pulpit and believed that the president had

a duty to act unless explicitly prohibited by law. So during his presidency, he expanded national parks, he broke up monopolies, he intervened in labor disputes. Then Woodrow Wilson led the country through World War I and promoted a more active executive role in global affairs. And then in the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt, FDR, led the country through World War II, further centralizing power in the White House, and launched the New Deal, which drastically expanded federal power and led to the creation of many, many, many new executive agencies, including the Public Works Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Administration, the Social and

not Social, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission. I mean so many agencies. In fact, it was FDR that created the executive office of the president that we know today. So by the mid-1900s, the presidency had evolved into this centralized and powerful institution that oversaw a massive federal bureaucracy. Following World War II, United States presidents gained even more power, especially in foreign affairs. Harry Truman committed troops to Korea without a formal declaration of war, and United States presidents gained even more power, especially in foreign affairs. Harry Truman committed troops to Korea without a formal declaration of war, and Lyndon B.

Johnson and Richard Nixon expanded presidential power during the Vietnam War and in domestic surveillance programs. This led to what scholars called the Imperial Presidency, meaning a president acting without adequate congressional oversight. Now, after the Watergate scandal in the 70s, Congress started a pushback on the executive a bit. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which is aimed at limiting the president's ability to deploy military forces without congressional approval.

It also passed the Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which limited the president's power to withhold funds appropriated by Congress. So Congress was trying to rein in the executive's power. This was until September 11th, 2001. We all know what happened. And we will talk about how 9-11 shifted Congress's relationship with the executive when we come back from a quick break. The new BMO VI Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks.

More points. More flights. More of all the things you want in a travel rewards card and then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO VI Porter MasterCard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bmo.com slash VI Porter to learn more. Welcome back. Continuing on with the evolution of the executive branch. The attacks on September 11th, 2001 fundamentally changed the presidency. So Congress passed the Patriot Act, which expanded surveillance powers. It also

created the Department of Homeland Security, which was established to coordinate domestic security efforts and plays a huge role nowadays. And President Bush relied on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which allowed US military action in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere without new declarations of war from Congress. So this was a return to the crisis presidency that we saw earlier where national security concerns allowed for broad executive action. Not only that, but presidential power expanded to include warrantless surveillance and enhanced

interrogation techniques, sometimes even torture, which sparked constitutional and human rights debates. President Obama came in in 2009 and successfully passed the Affordable Care Act, which was the biggest piece of legislation during his presidency. But after the Affordable Care Act passed, congressional cooperation decreased, partisanship increased, and he started increasingly, in response to this, started increasingly using executive actions to get past this congressional gridlock, primarily after the 2010 midterms. One example of this is DACA, right? Obama launched DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,

through executive action. And many of Obama's actions ended up getting challenged in the court, which led to many legal battles and court battles, which really increased judicial oversight when it came to administrative actions. So this era really underscored how presidents used executive tools when Congress wasn't cooperating and how the courts serve as a check on that power. This is something we are still very much witnessing today. Then came President Trump during Trump's first term. He continued on Obama's path of executive action and placed a strong emphasis on this, especially on issues like immigration, trade

and regulatory policy. Executive orders were used to implement a range of initiatives, including the travel ban, tariff policies, the border wall construction. At the same time, the administration emphasized deregulation, so attempting to roll back existing agency rules across various areas, healthcare, environmental protection, financial oversight, et cetera. And at this time, communication on social media really became a hallmark of the presidency. It changed how the public and the media engaged

with the executive branch. Also, like Obama's administration, Trump faced a ton of legal challenges and that's something that's still happening right now. So then after Trump's first administration, President Biden came in during the pandemic and he followed in the footsteps of his predecessors by using this executive action to address not only the short-term emergency that was the pandemic, but also long-term policy goals as well. Biden's early executive orders addressed issues like public health, climate change, immigration, racial equality. And then at the same time, so before President Trump and his first administration was focused on deregulation,

Biden came in and he was focused on, having these agencies revisit and revise rules on environmental protections, workplace safety, student loan policy, all of those things. Efforts like student loan forgiveness were initiated through agency interpretations of existing laws. And we know that led to high profile Supreme Court review.

And ultimately these interpretations getting shut down. Again, another example of an of an executive action to bypass Congress, which ultimately led to a fight in the courts. So the Biden era continued this reliance on administrative action and ongoing judicial review. And like I said, not much has changed. I mean, just in President Trump's first 100 days, we've seen hundreds of agency actions and executive orders and tons of those are

being challenged in the courts. So one trend we have definitely seen in the last 20 years or so as executive action has grown, so has judicial involvement. Courts are now regularly reviewing whether presidents and agencies are acting within their authority, whether it's DACA, Student Loan Forgiveness, DOGE, the Alien Enemies Act, I mean the list goes on. But it's all part of this, you know, evolution of the executive branch. For the final segment of today's episode, before we get into some fun facts, I want to talk about the real-world impacts of the executive

branch, how the executive branch affects UNI, because I think it's easier for us to see how the courts and Congress shape our everyday lives because they're the ones making and interpreting the laws that you and I have to abide by. But it's a little harder to see the connection we have to the executive branch in our everyday lives because the connection isn't so direct. So let's start with something like travel. If you've ever traveled by plane, you've been searched and screened by TSA. That is a part of the executive

that is under the Department of Homeland Security. The Federal Aviation Administration or FAA, this is under the Department of Transportation within the executive. That's who regulates airline safety and air traffic control. So if you've ever seen a new rule about flight cancellations or how airlines have to treat

their passengers, it's likely coming from a federal agency within the executive branch. Next time you get a cash refund because your domestic flight was delayed for more than three hours, that's the executive branch. The executive branch also plays a role in the food we eat and the medicines we take. The FDA regulates what ingredients are allowed in our food, how medications get approved, whether certain products get recalled. The nutrition labels you see on the food packaging, that is the executive branch. When it comes to our jobs, the Department of Labor and OSHA help regulate things

like workplace conditions, minimum wage enforcement, and overtime protections. If your employer is required to follow certain safety protocols or labor standards, it's usually because of regulations enforced by executive agencies. Student loans, this is one I'm sure we're all familiar with, but if you've had to take out a federal student loan, that's handled by the Education Department. The Education Department also sets guidelines for civil rights in schools. It distributes

federal education funding. It enforces laws in schools. Taxes and refunds. The IRS, part of the Department of Treasury, manages your tax returns, processes your refunds, enforces federal tax laws. So when you receive a tax refund, that's the executive branch in action. The environment, the EPA issues rules about pollution levels, clean water standards, and emissions from your cars and from factories. So if you live in a place with smog alerts or drinking water advisories, the EPA is likely involved in that. And then finally, when natural disaster hits,

the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA handles relief efforts. Similarly, when there's a public health crisis, the CDC and HHS are both part of the executive branch. They're the ones managing the federal response to that crisis. So while the legislative branch makes the laws and the judicial branch interprets the laws, it is the legislative branch makes the laws and the judicial

branch interprets the laws, it is the executive branch through its departments and agencies that are actually carrying them out in the real world. Whether it's public safety, food safety, economic policy, immigration, or travel, the executive branch is intertwined in so many aspects of our everyday lives that we don't even realize. Okay, so we've covered a lot. We've talked about the fundamentals. We've walked through the executive powers, checks and balances, the history and evolution

of the executive, and how the executive plays a role in our everyday lives. So let's finish with something fun and talk about some fun facts as my favorite part. First, did you know that the president's annual salary is $400,000? In the early days, the annual salary of the president was 25,000, which would be equivalent

to about $4.5 million today, but the current salary of $400,000 has been in place since 1999. President Washington only vetoed two bills during his entire presidency. He felt the veto should be reserved for clearly unconstitutional laws, not just political disagreements. For security reasons, presidents and former presidents are not allowed to drive on public roads. Even after they leave office, they are chauffeured by the Secret Service, usually for life. The last president to drive

regularly in public or on public roads was Lyndon B. Johnson, who drove on his Texas ranch. Invoking the 25th Amendment, three presidents have briefly transferred power to their vice presidents while under anesthesia for colonoscopies. These presidents were presidents Reagan, George W. Bush, and Biden. In each case, the vice president was technically acting president for a few hours. Since the country's founding, executive orders have skyrocketed in use, so President Washington only issued eight executive orders total. So far in Trump's current presidency, he has signed more than 150. Biden signed a total of 162 in his four years.

Obama signed a total of 276 in his eight years. Clinton signed 364 in his eight years. And FDR signed the most most 3,725. Granted, he was president for just over 12 years. But between 1901 and 1933, we actually saw an uptick. This was before FDR took office. So President Theodore Roosevelt signed 1,081 during his eight years. President Woodrow Wilson signed 1,803 during his seven years. President Calvin Coolidge signed 1,203 during his six years. And President Hoover signed just over 1,003 during his four years. After FDR's record-breaking presidency, the numbers did go back down to the hundreds. Next

one, as we talked about earlier, the executive office of the president did not exist until 1939. It was created by FDR. Before that, the presidents had significantly smaller staffs. President Lincoln, for example, only had a personal secretary and a messenger. Now the executive employs millions. And this last one, you probably know, but it still blows some people's minds. Did you know that the president can win the electoral college and therefore win the presidency while losing the popular vote? It has happened five times in history, most recently in 2016,

when Trump won the presidency over Clinton, despite Clinton winning the popular vote, and in 2000, when Bush won the presidency over Gore, despite Gore winning the popular vote. And that is what I have for you. I really hope you've enjoyed this three-part series. I hope you walk away with so much more knowledge than you had coming into it. If you learned a lot, please, please, please share these episodes with your friends or your family members or both. You can never share it with too many people. I think we could all stand to be a

little bit more informed about our government here in the United States. So please do that. As always, thank you for being here. Have a fantastic weekend, and I will talk to you next week.