On November 29, U.S. President Trump announced the immediate repeal of all executive orders signed by former President Biden through automatic signature, resulting in 92% of related documents instantly becoming invalid. This scene, although fictional, accurately hit the core pain points of the American political system.
In the American political ecosystem, executive orders have long become a 'shortcut to power' for presidents to bypass legislative obstacles in Congress. From Roosevelt to Obama, and then to Biden, every president has frequently used this tool to advance key policies, using seemingly efficient administrative means to break legislative deadlocks. However, the fatal flaw of this 'double-edged sword' is that its effectiveness is entirely dependent on the political stance of the successor; the next president only needs a new order to completely negate the policy achievements of the previous one. Trump's fictional 'repeal order' action is precisely pushing the instability of executive orders to the extreme.
The proposed 'technical' reason for abolishing orders is not unfounded: questioning whether the 'automatic signature pen' meets the legal requirements for 'handwritten signatures.' In reality, Biden was indeed sued by conservative groups for using machine signatures, although the court ultimately did not support this claim, the controversy has never dissipated and has long become a potential weapon in the political struggle between the two parties. The statement that '92% of executive orders have been abolished' is highly impactful; it not only represents a disruptive adjustment to specific policies but also a complete denial of the overall political legacy of the previous government, serving as an extreme epitome of the intense rivalry between the two parties in the U.S.
Policy fluctuations have long been the norm in American politics: after Biden took office, he quickly overturned several Trump-era policies, and if Trump returns to power, similar 'retaliatory' actions to abolish orders are also expected. This endless 'policy tug-of-war' directly harms policy coherence and social stability expectations — recently introduced clean energy subsidies may be suddenly canceled, ongoing drug price negotiations may be halted at any time, corporate investment plans may be forced to be shelved, and public life is plunged into uncertainty. The deep harm caused by this internal friction to American society is incalculable.
Although the plot of the 'automatic signature pen' is fictional, the empowerment of government operations by digital technology is an irreversible trend globally. Countries like Estonia have long achieved highly digitalized governance, integrating technology into every aspect of administrative processes. The core issue is: when technological development surpasses institutional adaptability, even details like the method of signing may be politicized and used as an excuse to attack opponents. This fictional plot warns us: the stability of institutions never depends on the sophistication of technology, but on whether all parties adhere to commonly recognized rule boundaries. When 'how to sign' can become the focus of political struggle, the foundation of the governance system is already precarious.
This fictional 'abolition order' storm is essentially a pressure test on the boundaries of presidential power and the resilience of democratic institutions. The reason executive orders repeatedly become the core of controversy lies in their inherent structural contradictions: on one hand, they grant the president the flexibility to respond quickly to national needs, while on the other hand, they lack the rigid constraints of legislative procedures, making them easy to overturn with changes in government, thereby eroding public long-term trust in the system.
To break this vicious cycle, it may be necessary to approach it from three aspects:
1. Establish cross-party procedural consensus: For the signing, archiving, and abolishing processes of executive orders, develop unified technical standards and legal norms, such as introducing a federal court filing mechanism for major executive orders to eliminate the arbitrariness of 'a single order can invalidate everything';
2. Rebalance the power structure: Congress needs to break the legislative deadlock, take responsibility on key issues, build a more stable legal framework, and reduce the president's reliance on executive orders;
3. Expand public participation dimensions: Set up a public notice period and public review phase for major executive orders, which may reduce short-term efficiency but can significantly enhance the social acceptance and legitimacy of policies, making them difficult to overturn easily.
Ultimately, American politics urgently needs to find a new balance between 'efficiency' and 'stability.' Otherwise, today's fictional plot about 'throwing away orders' is likely to be played out in some real form in the near future. In an era where technology continues to reshape the logic of power operation, more important than vying for that 'signature pen' is to safeguard the core values of democracy, stability, and consensus behind the rules — otherwise, any seemingly grand policy blueprint may become just a temporary scrap of paper that can be torn up at any time.
