In typical situations, evaluating a president’s effectiveness just one week into their term would be hasty: The amount of data is merely insufficient. However, through a whirlwind of intense actions, President Donald Trump has provided a distinct signal regarding the path his administration intends to follow on multiple pivotal policy matters. Therefore, while numerous initiatives will require time (and in certain instances, judicial review) to assess, he has accomplished enough within the first week to merit an initial report card on his endeavors.
My benchmark for evaluation is the entirety of Catholic moral doctrine, as expressed through the four foundational elements of the Church’s social doctrine: the respect for human dignity, unity of humanity, support of social frameworks, and the collective good. Considered collectively as a cohesive doctrine, these principles offer a thorough guideline for assessing the president’s conduct and communication. This does not constitute an assessment of the president’s character, which I continue to believe is problematic. Instead, my aim is to analyze various significant policy statements and actions. Any favorable assessment is in spite of, not due to, the president’s nature.
Variety, Fairness and Inclusion — Score: A-
As I have mentioned before, the expansion of DEI initiatives in recent years has been an abject failure. Instead of confronting historical injustices in a just and equitable way, they have been utilized as instruments of racism and trans-ideology to advance a radical leftist agenda.
Their impact has eroded efficiency and civic camaraderie in educational institutions, government agencies, and corporations. As a doctrine, DEI is an insult to the tenets of both equal respect and the collective welfare. Therefore, President Trump’s sweeping executive order Abolishing DEI initiatives within the federal government is a beneficial — and indeed, essential — move towards a sensible approach to hiring, retention, and advancement in workplaces, and away from detrimental indoctrination in educational institutions.
I assign the president an A-, however, because the elimination of DEI programs does not resolve valid worries regarding the enduring impact of historical political and legal systems that have favored certain individuals while marginalizing others. It is feasible to both dismantle existing racist, sexist, and misogynistic DEI initiatives and to tackle the lingering repercussions of former systems. It appears that the Trump administration has overlooked the latter aspect. This lack of subtlety by the new administration is a persistent motif, as the following grade indicates.
Migration and Return — Grade: C+
Catholic social teaching firmly asserts two principles related to immigration. To begin with, individuals possess a legal entitlement to immigrate. Secondly, nation-states are granted a legal authority to manage immigration. These concepts are not in opposition. Instead, they create a dual-step analytical framework for developing and assessing immigration and repatriation policy. However, the sequence in which they are addressed is crucial. The authority of a nation-state to control its borders ought to support an individual’s right to immigrate, rather than the reverse. We start with the respect for human dignity and create national policies that align with that dignity and the collective welfare.
President Trump receives merely a C+ on this issue due to his reversed order. He deserves praise for his assertive actions to expel individuals who have immigrated unlawfully and have engaged in violent offenses. There’s no logical counterargument to this. However, it appears that the president has not taken into account the dignity of certain individuals facing deportation nor the common good of the United States. He is employing a chainsaw to tackle a problem that necessitates a scalpel. It is early, indeed. However, the approach of the Trump immigration and repatriation policy requires adjustment. No, the United States cannot function as a refuge for habitual expatriate offenders. Yet it ought to be a sanctuary for those fleeing political and religious persecution. Until the Trump administration clarifies this difference, it will not improve its standing.
Transgender Belief System — Rating: A+
On the first day of the new administration, the president released a comprehensive, multifaceted executive order boldly and unquestionably proclaiming that the United States is bringing an end to the absurdity of transgender ideology. According to the EO, the stance of the United States is that there exist only two sexes. These are characterized by the two types of gamete-producing organs and are unchangeable. A man cannot transform into a woman, and a woman cannot transform into a man. Consequently, the EO provides comprehensive directives to all federal agencies, mandating that they immediately discontinue any policy or program that does not align with this undeniable fact. Two significant consequences arise from this.
Initially, federal funds will be withheld from any public institution — whether federal, state, county, or municipal — that fails to remove transgender ideology from its programs. This will have an instantaneous effect on the allocation and misappropriation of federal tax dollars. Aside from federal agencies, the administration has minimal direct authority over state and local administrations. However, it can sway policies in the non-federal sector through financial leverage. The transgender executive order accomplishes this quite efficiently.
Secondly, the transgender EO issues clear directives to safeguard the private areas of girls and women, countering the sexist policies of the Biden administration. Restrooms, locker rooms, shelters for abuse victims, shower facilities, prisons, and sports teams will be categorized by biological sex rather than gender “identity.” In line with these updated policies and measures, the Trump administration abolished a minimum of 12 EOs or policy directives from the detrimental Biden era.
Abortion and Life Matters — Status: Incomplete
Between Jan. 20 and 25, the Trump administration had either stated or taken minimal action regarding the safeguarding of unborn life. However, alongside the March for Life in Washington, D.C., the quiet was broken.
Initially, the president released a pre-recorded message expressing support for the participants in the march, praising their ethical dedication to safeguarding unborn life. Next, Vice President JD Vance made an in-person appearance to speak at the march and delivered a compelling address championing unborn life, young children, and families. Finally, President Trump provided a full pardon to 23 pro-life activists who had been sentenced under the malicious FACE Act. (His subsequent action ought to be to present a bill abolishing this harmful statute.) Fourth, on Friday afternoon, President Trump restored the “Mexico City policy,“which prohibits federal tax funds from supporting NGOs and other global organizations that carry out or endorse abortion. All of these are positive advancements.”
The grade remains incomplete, nevertheless, due to the absence of explicit indications that corrective actions are underway. For instance, the president could have signed an EO stating that federal funds will not be utilized to support Planned Parenthood or comparable abortion providers. Even though such an EO may encounter legal challenges, it would convey a strong message that the era of taxpayer-funded abortions is nearing its conclusion, assuming that it truly is. On this matter, the president needs to deliver a clear announcement and put forward legislation that aligns with it.
Cumulative Grade: B
Determining an overall grade is challenging, particularly due to the numerous factors to weigh. However, regarding these four points, the administration merits praise and motivation to remain steadfast. This marks an excellent beginning for the new presidency, despite my ongoing concerns about the individual in the position.
