Weeks before every president’s inauguration, significant, unchecked policies are passed by the previous president. In the process of passing the torch to the next president, the “lame duck” president often makes orders that advances their party’s goals, hindering the next president’s ability to make meaningful change.

These executive orders, while included in the Constitutional power given to each president, are counterproductive and directed at sabotaging the next administration. Presidents use their last days in office as an excuse to get away with controversial decisions without electoral consequences, such as the passing of mass pardons and serious policy shifts. In order to encourage government efficiency and prevent the abuse of presidential power, there must be safeguards in place that limit extreme policies in each president’s last days.

In the final weeks of former President Joe Biden’s final term, the abuse of power by a lame duck president was exemplified. Biden carried out 19 executive orders before the inauguration of new President Donald Trump, including several pardons, additional student loan debt relief, prolonged protection against deportation for several immigrants and the removal of medical debt from credit reports. 

These policies, while beneficial for U.S. families, were aimed at limiting the goals of the Trump administration during their next term. Unlike the policies that Biden passed, the Trump administration has little interest in resolving the medical and student loan debt issues, and also aims to deport 11 million immigrants. Regardless of your political views, these executive orders will make it more difficult for the Trump administration to accomplish its goals, hurting government efficiency as speed bumps are added to the transfer of power. 

This strategy of transferring power isn’t unique to one political party or candidate, either. For years, lame duck presidents have attempted to restrain the opposing political party from accomplishing their goals, which will simply continue in the future if a limit is not placed on their presidential power. 

Former President Bill Clinton’s actions are another example of this harmful practice, as in his last days in office in 2001, Clinton issued an executive order banning the development of roads on 58.5 million acres of land. This impacted the Bush administration’s ability to increase logging and expansion in the U.S, which was one of the administration’s main goals. This issue has remained a problem for decades, limiting government efficiency at every single transfer of power.

Not only that, but last minute, controversial executive orders are typically only passed by lame duck presidents because there are no consequences after the election is over. For example, if Biden was to pardon his son in the middle of his term and then run again for president, public scrutiny would have ruined any chance of a victory. Instead, when presidents have nothing to lose because their career is over, voter backlash is essentially nonexistent, representing a lack of credibility and a lack of representation as public opinion no longer dictates their actions. 

Presidents should still have the power they kept throughout the majority of their term. Completely eliminating their power in the months leading up to the transfer of power would be extremely unproductive and unconstitutional. Instead, institutions need to be put in place to ensure that controversial last-minute policies aren’t passed, and that presidents face appropriate consequences for the abuse of power in their last days.

For example, the Sunset Act of 2024 and similar laws would be effective at resolving this dilemma. Sunset clauses for executive orders ensure that lame duck presidents can’t limit the efficiency of the next administration by putting an expiration date on policies. If the policies aren’t approved by the next administration and no further legislative action is taken, they cease to be effective. 

Another solution that would limit abusive presidential power in the last days of an administration would be a bipartisan committee that puts a judicial check on last minute policies. A committee could evaluate the legality and ethics of controversial executive orders, creating consequences for arbitrary orders and encouraging fair transfers of power in the future.

Executive orders in the last months of lame duck administrations have plagued American politics for decades, reducing government efficiency and hurting presidential credibility. In order to solve the issue and ensure a fair, coherent transfer of power, there must be institutions and laws put in place that curb problematic, last minute executive orders.

As his term came to a close, former President Joe Biden issued a flurry of executive orders, which President Donald Trump claimed were aimed at blocking his agenda. These eleventh-hour actions have raised questions about limiting the executive power of lame-duck presidents. However, regardless of the intent behind Biden’s orders, limiting an outgoing president’s power would be a dangerous and unnecessary action.

The foremost reason such a step would be unnecessary is that a lame-duck president’s power is, in effect, already limited. For the most part, this is caused by the president’s party losing seats in Congress during the midterms. 13 of the last 19 midterm elections saw losses in both the House and the Senate for the president’s party. Such losses hinder the president’s ability to carry out their agenda as they face partisan resistance from Congress. 

There are numerous instances of this impact in recent memory. For example, when former President Barack Obama attempted to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The vacancy had opened in Obama’s final year in office, but hours after it was announced, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that he would consider any nomination by Obama to be “null and void.” He stated that the new justice should be decided by the next president, elected later that year. The Republican-held Senate refused to conduct the necessary hearing to confirm the nomination, and Merrick Garland never became a Supreme Court justice.

This tension between Congress and the president creates a de-facto limitation on the presidential power of most lame-duck presidents. An existing effectual limitation isn’t the only reason this is a bad idea though. It’s a measure that would be virtually impossible to implement.

Where do you draw the line to begin with? Does it start on election day when the president still has three months left in his term or at some arbitrary line? How would it work with a second-term president like Trump? He’s a lame-duck president from day one; does that mean he doesn’t get the same powers he did in his first term? If a lame-duck president is one who’s decidedly not getting another term, then there would be no real difference between Trump’s position now and after the 2028 election. There just isn’t a way to make a concise rule that encompasses everything.

A limitation of powers could also result in unnecessary inefficiency. What happens when there’s a national emergency during the lame-duck period? If it necessitates a congressional vote to give back the president’s full capabilities, that takes away valuable response time. The world won’t stop just because the president is less powerful. If anything it would make foreign powers more likely to move against US interests, endangering national security. The president needs to be capable of responding to threats with necessary haste and strength in order to ensure the safety of the nation. 

Furthermore, a measure like this one would never be able to pass. The president in power would do everything they could to ensure their power wasn’t limited. Even if it got through Congress initially and to the president’s desk, it would assuredly be vetoed. While Congress does hold the power to overrule a presidential veto, it requires a two thirds majority. In a Congress which, according to Reuters, is on track to be the most divided ever, such a majority is beyond unlikely. 

Even in the situation where a limitation bill shakes out, it sets a dangerous precedent, opening the door for partisan attacks. If presidential power is limited like this, it gives future politicians the precedent to limit it again. With how polarized Capitol Hill is right now, it’s hard to believe that kind of power won’t be used to attack political opponents.

While it can be frustrating to see a sitting president take preemptive measures against their successor, taking action to limit such power is dangerous and unrealistic. If a lame-duck president’s power is to be obstructed, it must happen by way of the ballot.