Executive Agreement and Executive Order

Executive Agreement and Executive Order: What’s the Difference?

The executive branch of the United States government is responsible for implementing policies and laws that affect the lives of millions of Americans. Two tools that the President has at his disposal to achieve this are executive agreements and executive orders. While both are issued by the President, they serve different functions and have different legal implications. In this article, we will explore the differences between executive agreements and executive orders.

Executive Agreement

An executive agreement is a legally binding agreement between the President and a foreign government or an international organization. It is often used to establish important diplomatic relationships or to resolve specific issues between countries. Unlike treaties, executive agreements do not require approval by the Senate. However, they still carry the force of law and are legally binding on the parties involved.

Executive agreements can cover a wide range of issues, including economic, political, and military matters. For example, an executive agreement can establish trade agreements between countries, arrange for the extradition of criminals, or provide for mutual defense cooperation. Since executive agreements do not require Senate approval, they can be negotiated and implemented more quickly than treaties.

While executive agreements are legally binding, they are not permanent in nature. The President who negotiated the agreement can revoke it at any time, and Congress can override an executive agreement with a new law. Additionally, executive agreements cannot conflict with existing laws or the Constitution.

Executive Order

An executive order is a directive issued by the President that has the force of law. It is a tool that the President uses to direct the executive branch of the government to carry out specific policies or actions. Executive orders can cover all aspects of government operations, including national security, environmental protection, and social programs.

Executive orders are not mentioned in the Constitution, but they have been used by Presidents since the beginning of the Republic. The legal basis for executive orders is the President`s authority as head of the executive branch to manage and direct the activities of the federal government.

Unlike executive agreements, executive orders do not require the agreement of other countries or international organizations. They are issued solely by the President and are binding on all federal agencies and departments. However, like executive agreements, executive orders can be challenged in court if they conflict with existing laws or the Constitution.

Another key difference between executive orders and executive agreements is that executive orders can be used to create new rights or to change existing laws and regulations. For example, President Obama used an executive order to create the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which provided legal protection for undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children. President Trump later issued an executive order to end the program.

In conclusion, executive agreements and executive orders are two tools that the President can use to achieve his policy goals. While they share some similarities, such as the fact that they can be challenged in court, they serve different functions and have different legal implications. Executive agreements are legally binding agreements between the President and a foreign government or international organization, while executive orders are directives issued by the President that have the force of law and can be used to create new rights or change existing laws. As such, both require careful consideration and scrutiny to ensure that they are in line with the Constitution and existing laws.