In the 25 days since his inauguration, President Donald J. Trump—like every president before him—has issued a plethora of Executive Orders. Trump’s orders, however, range from renaming national landmarks to nullifying birthright citizenship, despite its protection under the 14th Amendment, in stark contrast to the more measured and conventional directives of his predecessors, who primarily focused on administrative adjustments, policy refinements, or expansions of existing frameworks. They did not make sweeping attempts to unilaterally redefine constitutional rights and national identity.
Furthermore, Trump has repeatedly disregarded the constitutional balance of power, openly defying congressional spending plans and bypassing legislative approval to fund his initiatives, particularly regarding border security and mass deportations. He has also challenged the authority of the Supreme Court, ignoring or attempting to circumvent court rulings that constrain his executive power. This pattern of governance signals a disregard for the foundations of American democracy. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Loyalist Executive Staff that his administration poses a significant threat to the institution of democracy, jeopardizing the rights of marginalized communities and undermining the constitutional protections that guarantee internal security for the United States.
As the 2024 presidential campaign intensified, details of President Trump’s immigration agenda began to surface. In July, former ICE director and Heritage Foundation member Tom Homan vowed to “run the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen” if Trump returned to office. At the September presidential debate, Trump amplified his anti-immigrant rhetoric when he falsely claimed that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating dogs and cats. His statement was met with bipartisan condemnation, including from Ohio’s Republican Governor Mike DeWine, but was nonetheless defended by Vice President J.D. Vance as a necessary rhetorical tool to spur policy change. These moments, along with many others, made it clear that Trump wasn’t just intent on vilifying immigrants but had every intention of actualizing his sentiments in everyday life.
Despite these clear warning signs, many dismissed Trump’s rhetoric as political bluster, with over 77 million Americans choosing to check the box next to his name on their ballots. That assumption was quickly shattered. Just three days after Trump’s election, Homan was appointed border czar, signaling that mass deportations were not just a campaign slogan but an imminent reality. Calls for large-scale removals did not subside; they grew louder, reinforcing that the administration was intent on transforming anti-immigrant sentiment into concrete policy.
Already, Trump has made headlines for various orders sparking controversy. Some of the most shocking executive orders, already facing legal battles, pertain to immigration, as he declared a national emergency at the southern border. Jan. 20 and 21 saw Executive Orders declaring a more “enhanced vetting” of visa applications, border security, asylum, refugee programs, and birthright citizenship. While these orders stem from Trump’s “America First” campaign promises, the reality is an unjust, poorly defined, and erratic national deportation policy.
As headlines illustrate, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) has begun rapid enforcement of deportation orders against undocumented immigrants accused of crimes. This hatred of immigrants, even those with birthright citizenship, is sending waves through the divisive American society we live in and sparking a visceral fear in the lives of millions of lawful, hardworking immigrants.
Trump’s orders undermine California’s identity as a sanctuary state, and locally, we are seeing confrontations in Los Angeles’s school districts and throughout the Loyola community. Although no ICE raids have been conducted in our Pico-Union community to date, the constant fear felt within Loyola’s walls is legitimate. This fear extends beyond the school, as undocumented members of our community face a grim uncertainty.
We have already seen baseless cuts to Title I, a federal fund for low-income students, justified by a fictitious perception of DEI, and cancellations of immigrant court hearing dates, all lifelines to the most marginalized communities.
More profound are the Jesuit Catholic foundations that further scrutinize the administration’s moral qualms. With Loyola’s mission to cultivate Christ-centered young men for and with others, we lose a sense of the Graduate at Graduation principles that hang in nearly every room on Loyola’s premises. When we cannot anchor ourselves to the foundation St. Ignatius envisioned, we risk abandoning the principles that call us to act with compassion, justice, and solidarity. Without this moral compass, our commitment to serving the most vulnerable—immigrants, refugees, and marginalized communities—becomes hollow, and our identity as men for and with others is fundamentally weakened.
Ultimately, these executive orders do more than just fulfill campaign promises; they fracture communities, instill fear, and undermine the very ideals of a nation built by immigrants.
While California and local communities continue to resist these policies, the uncertainty faced by undocumented and documented individuals alike remains an inescapable reality. The question then becomes not just how directives will be enforced but how society will respond. Will we allow fear to dictate our future, or will we stand in solidarity with those most vulnerable?