From attempting to end birthright citizenship to creating a “Department of Government Efficiency,” Trump’s early moves are testing the boundaries of executive authority, with some likely to survive legal attacks and others that may require review by the Supreme Court.

Here are the top executive orders that could soon or are currently facing legal threats and the extent to which they could endure difficulties or proceed with relative ease in the months ahead.

Birthright Citizenship in the Crosshairs

Trump’s executive order to curtail birthright citizenship, signed immediately after his inauguration, ignited swift legal contests.

Attorneys from 15 states and the city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, calling the order a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”

The lawsuit argues that the president lacks the authority to “rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute” and warns that the move jeopardizes the constitutional principles rooted in the 14th Amendment. Under the order, federal agencies are directed to stop issuing citizenship documents to U.S.-born children of undocumented mothers or temporary visa holders if the father is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.

In a similar lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups in New Hampshire federal court, the plaintiffs argued that roughly 150,000 children born annually to noncitizen parents could lose access to essential services like healthcare and education.

“They will all be deportable, and many will be stateless,” the lawsuit stated.

On his first day back, Trump issued a broad range of immigration-related orders, including reinstating the “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers, designating cartels and migrant gangs as foreign terrorist organizations, ending the CBP One government app used by migrants to schedule appointments at ports of entry, and much more.

Berkeley Law School professor John Yoo said Tuesday he believes many of Trump’s immigration orders will prevail but warned ending birthright citizenship will probably “have to go to the Supreme Court.”

“I think Trump might lose. I think the odds are against him winning on that one,” the law professor said during a virtual panel with the Federalist Society on Tuesday.

However, Yoo said the focus by litigants against the birthright citizenship order could provide a distraction that may divert “energy” away from Trump’s efforts to secure his other immigration objectives.

“A lot of the other executive orders on immigration are going to sail through because the opponents are going to, I think, focus on birthright citizenship, maybe one or two other ones, but they may not have the energy and the scale to challenge all of them,” Yoo said.

DOGE and Legal Transparency

The creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, headed by Elon Musk, has also faced swift legal pushback just moments after Trump was sworn in, with now at least three lawsuits against its formation.

Trump’s plan to streamline government operations through mass firings and efficiency measures has raised questions about transparency and legal compliance.

Nonprofit organizations and government watchdogs argue that DOGE’s formation violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The suits were filed by progressive consumer watchdog Public Citizen, the American Public Health Association, and National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm. 

Public Citizen and other plaintiffs contend the initiative lacks transparency and could “advance private interests in federal decision-making.”

Adding to the controversy over DOGE, the executive order formalizing its creation challenges Congress’s authority to establish official government departments, a position the Trump administration may also have to defend in forthcoming cases over DOGE’s legality.

TikTok Ban and Divestiture Challenges

Trump issued an executive order temporarily halting the enforcement of a federal ban on TikTok to explore resolutions, such as a joint U.S.-China ownership structure. The order, however, may raise significant legal and constitutional questions.

Legal experts point out that Trump may not be able to unilaterally overturn laws passed by Congress, and the deadline for ByteDance to divest TikTok had already passed. Private companies like Apple and Google could face astronomical fines, possibly in the trillions of dollars, if they continue hosting the app without compliance.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) warned of “ruinous liability” for companies that violate the ban, even as Trump’s administration seeks alternative solutions. Meanwhile, China hawks have criticized Trump’s proposal for ByteDance to retain partial ownership of TikTok, calling it a “compromise of national security.”

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a supporter of Trump who did not agree with the divestment law not being enforced by former President Joe Biden or Trump by the Jan. 19 deadline, said his state is looking into options to ensure the Chinese-backed app is not stealing data from any residents in his state.

Knudsen said he is “not going to have a lot of appetite in challenging” Trump executive orders but said, “The TikTok one is probably the one I’m looking at the most closely.”

“I think it’s pretty astounding to argue that somehow the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives the Chinese Communist Party the right to collect sensitive user information on Americans. But you know, maybe that’s just me, though,” Knudsen said during the FedSoc panel.

Expect some orders on DEI, climate, and health to be relatively safe from challenges

One of Trump’s first orders of business was the announcement that he plans to dismantle all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives within the federal government.

“President Trump has the equal authority to say, no more DEI seminars, no more DEI trainings, no more DEI offices unless, and he admitted this, unless Congress has specifically paid for it, specifically create an office,” Yoo said, noting he does not see anything as “legally controversial” about those efforts.

Trump on Monday also withdrew from various climate and global health partnerships.

On his first day, he signed orders withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accords, citing their failures to address crises effectively and protect U.S. interests.

Yoo suggested he believes withdrawing from WHO and the climate agreement is “perfectly constitutional.”

“The president has the authority to terminate treaties and international agreements, and they have regularly used executive orders to do so.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Yoo pointed to a case during the Carter administration when it terminated a defense treaty with Taiwan in a case known as Goldwater v. Carter.

“Sen. Goldwater stopped him and said, ‘You need Congress’s approval.’ And the Supreme Court said, ‘We can’t decide this as a political question,’” Yoo said, expressing confidence that withdrawals from WHO and the climate agreement would be upheld if any challenges were filed against them.