Editorial: Governing by Pen - When Executive Orders Undermine Democracy

When speed overrides debate and the pen rules without consent, democracy pays the price

Natalie C. Frank, Ph.D August 28, 2025

Wikimedia Commons [Public Domain]

One of Donald Trump's first order of business when he took power for the second time was to sign an executive order that weakened Obama care even before Republicans had a way to replace it. It had taken over a decade from the initial discussions, subsequent arguments and changes, until the Affordable Care Act was signed into law and implemented. With one stroke of the pen Trump reversed many of the provisions, impacting over 24 million people.

There’s a surface simplicity to executive orders. One signature and policies shift, sometimes in a moment. Immigration rules are replaced, environmental protection acts are rewritten, tariffs against other countries many of them our allies are put in place and federal regulations are rolled back or completely flipped. To the public, it may feel like decisive leadership. To democracy, it can feel like a betrayal.

Executive orders are designed to be tools, not to replace governance. They are a shortcut meant for emergencies, not intended to be a detour around the democratic process. And yet, in today’s polarized partisan climate, they are used as blunt instruments and at times, weapons. Too often, presidents govern by pen because it is convenient, not because it is necessary. That’s where ethics comes into play.

Let’s be clear: I understand the appeal. Congress moves painfully slowly. Bills die in committees. Filibusters stall legislation. Meanwhile, crises don’t wait. Climate disasters intensify, health emergencies worsen, and inequality skyrockets. Acting fast can feel like the morally right thing to do.

But fast isn’t always ethical. Efficiency can be seductive; it gives the illusion of competence. Yet democracy is not a machine to be fine tuned for speed. It’s a system meant to reflect collective judgment with the people informing their legislators about what is important to them and their legislators fighting for those issues. Acting unilaterally may solve a problem today, but it also wears away the mechanisms that make solutions legitimate and about democracy not .

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: democracy is supposed to be messy. It is supposed to frustrate. Debate, compromise, and dissent aren’t abnormalities; they are features. Executive orders bypass them entirely. They put one person’s judgment above the deliberation of elected representatives as well as the people.

This creates a dangerous precedent. Today’s executive order might protect the environment or expand healthcare. Tomorrow, it could strip people of their rights or consolidate power under a single party or leader. If every policy shift requires only a pen, Congress has no use, accountability fades, and the public no longer trusts their leaders. We may win small victories, but we lose legitimacy. And once legitimacy is gone, democracy itself is next.

The responsible path is not to avoid executive orders entirely. They are sometimes necessary. But they should be used more like a scalpel than a sledgehammer. Orders that enforce or clarify existing law respect democratic principles. Orders that invent new policy on a whim risk undermining the very system they are meant to uphold.

Every president should ask: Am I filling a gap, or am I substituting for Congress? And the public should hold them to the same standard, consistently. Liking an outcome doesn’t make it ethical. If unilateral power is wrong when wielded by a political opponent, it is just as wrong when wielded by your preferred leader.

Urgency is often the ethical argument for executive orders: “I must act now.” But good intentions do not nullify ethical responsibility. Acting quickly may address an immediate problem, but it also sets a precedent. Power exercised today shapes what is acceptable tomorrow. A tool used ethically by one president can become a weapon in the hands of the next.

Democracy requires patience. It requires compromise. It requires frustration. And yes, sometimes doing nothing for the sake of deliberation is the right choice. Short-term efficiency cannot justify long-term destruction of the democratic process.

Executive orders are tempting. They are fast. They are visible. But they are no replacement for the deliberative work that sustains democracy. Governing by pen may feel like leadership. But more often, it is an ethical shortcut that undermines accountability.

America deserves leaders who act decisively when necessary, but who also respect the slow, messy, and essential work of collective decision-making. Speed can solve today’s problem. Legitimacy preserves the country for the long haul. If we prioritize efficiency over democracy, we risk trading our most important civic principle for temporary convenience. And that is a price that's simply too high to pay.