Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC) struck a similar note that day when asked by the media about Trump’s “avalanche” of 200 executive actions. “Trump 45 … Trump 47 — there’s one thing I think everyone will notice … the theme: promises made and promises kept.” Sens. Jim Risch (R-ID) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) joined the chorus, praising the president for stopping a wind turbine project and for deploying military troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump already has made progress on half of his major campaign promises, according to the Washington Post. That is quite an admission from a publication that spilled an enormous amount of ink to fact-check his campaign and previous presidency.

Certainly, some of his actions were significant. Trump pulled America out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, exited the World Health Organization, abolished affirmative action in federal procurement, and ended the federal government’s use of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” practices in hiring. Trump also sprang from jail the people incarcerated for their actions on Jan. 6, 2021, and directed agency heads to end telework arrangements as soon as possible.

Not all his executive actions are momentous. One of them required the U.S. flag to be flown at full-staff on Inauguration Day. Other orders would mandate new government buildings to be constructed as “beautiful federal civic architecture,” and require the 20,310′ Denali, in Alaska, and the highest peak in North America, to be called Mount McKinley, after former President William McKinley, and other “national treasures” to be named after “visionary and patriotic Americans in our Nation’s rich past.”

Other executive actions dealt with personnel matters and will not have much effect immediately.

One memorandum transmitted nominations of various undersecretaries to the Senate for consideration. Another one designated certain current bureaucrats to act as the chairs of their agencies until said nominees were approved.

A significant number of Trump’s actions give the appearance of policymaking or problem-solving but may do neither. Trump ordered “the end of the weaponization of government,” which sounds nice but, in fact, would only investigate “the previous administration’s weaponization of the Federal Government against the American people.”

Nothing in the order would prevent current or future administrations from abusing power. There also is his memorandum to “deliver emergency price relief” and defeat the “cost-of-living crisis.” It directs agencies to study ways to lower the costs of housing, healthcare, and other goods and services and to report back to the White House. The president also has ordered the State Department to issue guidance to ensure it carries out an “America First” foreign policy, an undefined term. What any of these actions will achieve is anything but clear.

Certainly, Trump is not the first occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to take such executive actions. Shortly before he left office, President Joe Biden declared that the Equal Rights Amendment was now part of the Constitution and “the law of the land,” never mind that federal courts and the National Archivist have said otherwise.

Similarly, President Barack Obama responded to a mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, school by demanding federal police trace any guns used in mass shootings. That this latter policy had no effect to prevent future shootings was no matter — it gave the appearance of doing something.

And that is a big reason why presidents so often issue toothless executive orders and memoranda, according to University of Michigan Professor Kenneth Lowande, the author of False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age.

“Presidents take action — even when it does nothing to affect policy — because our political system is not designed to let presidents solve major problems,” Lowande writes.

The Constitution fractures governing power among the branches and assigns all legislative authority to Congress. The nation’s chief executive must operate within the powers granted by the Constitution and federal law. “Their first and most direct power,” Lowande writes, “is over the appearance of governing, not governing itself.”

Yet, Lowande points out, the media, public, and even legislators tend to look to the White House for solutions to public problems, which encourages presidents to act even if what they do is pantomime. And in those instances of a president trying to make substantive policy unilaterally, his efforts often get mired in court challenges. The day after Trump issued his executive order ending birthright citizenship, for example, various parties filed against it, and a federal court stayed it.

Trump will appear before Congress on March 4 for what’s effectively a State of the Union address. Quite probably, he will spend time claiming credit for his various actions thus far. Indubitably, he will declare there are other problems the government should fix and that he has solutions. But voters and the media they rely upon would be wise to remember that addressing immigration, the skyrocketing deficit, and other big problems requires the president and legislators to bargain out new legislation. Only then can all promises made be kept.

Kevin R. Kosar (@kevinrkosar) is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and edits UnderstandingCongress.org.