New US president Donald Trump issued a flurry of executive orders on his first day back in the White House with directives hitting trade, energy, international relations and government reform as part of his ‘America First’ agenda.
Lindsay James, investment strategist at Quilter Investors, said: “Donald Trump’s inauguration in the US brought few surprises. The dollar slipped slightly as his wide-ranging executive orders saw specific tariffs avoiding his focus for now.
“New orders included pardoning January 6th defendants, tightening immigration and border security, shoring up his power base by reclassifying many civil service roles as ‘political hires’ to make them easier to fire and pulling the US out of the World Health Organization.”
Below, Trustnet examines some of the key executive orders investors should watch, looking at how these policy changes could reshape the economic and investment landscape in the coming years.
America First Trade Policy
Trump’s ‘America First Trade Policy’ executive order prioritises the US economy and national security. It mandates the secretary of commerce to investigate the causes of the nation's persistent trade deficits in goods and to recommend measures, such as a global supplemental tariff, to address these imbalances. Additionally, it directs the secretary of the Treasury to explore the feasibility of establishing an External Revenue Service to collect tariffs and other trade-related revenues. The United States Trade Representative is tasked with identifying unfair trade practices by other countries and suggesting appropriate remedies. Furthermore, the order initiates a review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in preparation for its 2026 evaluation, assessing its impact on American workers and businesses.
While the executive order reflects Trump’s commitment to bolstering domestic industries, it raises several concerns. Implementing tariffs could provoke retaliatory measures from trading partners, potentially escalating into trade disputes that may harm international relations and economic stability. Establishing an External Revenue Service introduces bureaucratic complexities and may lead to inefficiencies in tariff collection. Moreover, frequent reassessments of trade agreements like the USMCA could create uncertainty for businesses relying on stable trade policies, potentially deterring investment and disrupting supply chains.
For investors, industries reliant on international supply chains may face increased costs due to potential tariffs, affecting profit margins and operational strategies. Companies engaged in export activities could encounter new trade barriers, impacting their market access and revenue streams. Additionally, there’s the potential for fluctuations in currency values and shifts in global trade dynamics.
Unleashing American Energy
The ‘Unleashing American Energy’ executive order declares a national energy emergency to boost US oil and gas production. This order aims to accelerate approvals for energy projects, including pipelines and power plants, and reverses previous restrictions on oil and gas exploration in regions such as Alaska. Additionally, the order seeks to eliminate the electric vehicle (EV) mandate, promoting consumer choice in vehicle purchases, and withdraws the United States from the Paris Climate Accord.
Critics say accelerating fossil fuel projects and lifting environmental regulations may lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change and potentially causing long-term environmental harm. Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord could isolate the US from global climate initiatives, affecting international relations and collaborative efforts to combat environmental challenges. Moreover, removing the EV mandate might slow the adoption of cleaner transportation alternatives, hindering progress toward sustainable energy solutions.
The fossil fuel industry could experience growth due to reduced regulatory constraints, potentially leading to increased profitability for companies involved in oil and gas exploration and production. Conversely, renewable energy sectors might face challenges as policy shifts favour traditional energy sources, potentially affecting market dynamics and investment opportunities. Additionally, automotive manufacturers focusing on electric vehicles may need to reassess their strategies in response to changes in regulatory support.
Establishing and Implementing the President's ‘Department of Government Efficiency’
With the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Trump wants to slash federal spending while reducing the size of government and the size of the federal fiscal deficit. The United States Digital Service will be renamed the United States DOGE Service (USDS), creating a temporary organisation within it led by Tesla chief executive Elon Musk. Each federal agency is required to form a DOGE Team, comprising at least four members, to collaborate with USDS in implementing the president's efficiency agenda. One focus is on upgrading software, network infrastructure and IT systems to ensure interoperability and data integrity across agencies.
Concerns include the ambitious timeline, with the US DOGE Service Temporary Organization set to terminate on 4 July 2026, as this may pressure agencies to expedite complex technological overhauls. The appointment of Musk, primarily known for his private sector ventures, to lead a federal initiative has also sparked discussions about the appropriate role of private industry leaders in public administration.
Investors could watch companies specialising in information technology and software development, as they may find new opportunities in government contracts to modernise federal systems. However, the focus on reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies and potential regulatory changes could impact industries reliant on existing government structures.
Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization
Trump also signed an executive order initiating the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This decision reinstates the 2020 withdrawal process, which had been reversed in 2021 on the first day of the Biden administration. There will be an immediate pause on US funding to the WHO, the reassignment of US personnel working with the organisation and the identification of alternative partners to undertake activities previously managed by the WHO.
The US has historically been a significant contributor to the WHO, providing substantial funding and expertise, but critics argue that this withdrawal could undermine global health initiatives and diminish the US’ influence in international health policy. Halting financial support may impede the WHO's capacity to address health crises, such as infectious disease outbreaks and vaccination programs. Additionally, the absence of US participation could weaken collaborative efforts essential for global health security and pandemic preparedness.
For investors, this move may affect opportunities in the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors. Companies engaged in global health projects may face uncertainties due to changes in international collaborations and funding structures. The withdrawal could also influence regulatory environments, particularly for firms involved in vaccine development and distribution.
Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements
Trump’s ‘Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements’ executive order directs the US to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and other related international climate commitments. It also rescinds the US International Climate Finance Plan, instructing the Office of Management and Budget to release previously frozen funds within 10 days. The order emphasises prioritising economic efficiency and American prosperity in future international energy agreements.
The executive order has raised several concerns. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement may diminish the US’ influence in global climate discussions and hinder collaborative efforts to address climate change. The decision could also strain diplomatic relations with allies committed to environmental initiatives. Furthermore, the rescission of financial commitments under the International Climate Finance Plan may impact developing nations relying on US support for climate adaptation and mitigation projects.
The order signals a reprioritisation of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations at the federal level. A knock-on effect could be companies reassessing their commitment to ESG, potentially affecting corporate sustainability initiatives and reporting practices. As federal support for environmental policies wanes, businesses might encounter increased scrutiny from stakeholders advocating for sustainable practices. This environment could influence investment decisions, particularly for those emphasising ESG in their portfolios.