Legal experts disagree on whether these orders are constitutional, and there remains uncertainty about their effectiveness.
According to the U.S Constitution, Congress has the power to control federal spending. This ignited widespread debate on whether Trump's action was constitutional or not.
National Public Radio released a transcript of their conversation with Andrew Rudalevige, chair of the department of government and legal studies at Bowdoin College in Maine. According to Rudalevige, Trump's orders on the payroll tax, student loans, and housing seem legitimate. He said while signing orders on the issues mentioned above, the President appears to be relying on powers granted to the executive branch over time by Congress, powers that can be used in times of war or national emergency. With regards to unemployment funding, where the President said that the states would pay 25% of the $400, he did not elaborate on who would cover the 75% of the money. According to him, the 75% would require a congressional appropriation.
However, some legal experts have countered that Trump's actions are not unconstitutional. Professor Daniel Hemel of the University of Chicago Law School said that they are not unconstitutional, although they may prove ineffective.
Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and any final decision on the constitutionality of these executive orders will be made by a federal court. However, no legal challenge has been brought at this time.