Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In the United States, democracy is held sacred, yet the question lingers uncomfortably: who really governs this nation—Congress, the embodiment of representative debate, or the president, who issues executive orders at a breakneck pace? Nowhere is this tension more alive than in the story of migration—both of people and of power itself—whose routes are shaped by promises, implemented under seal, and tested by the courts.
When Donald Trump took the oath for his second term in January 2025, the air crackled with urgency, a promise that the long stalemates of Congress would no longer stall America’s progress. In just 147 days, he signed his 163rd executive order—already surpassing the 162 orders President Biden issued in his entire four-year term. By the end of August, that tally had climbed to 198. Coupled with his 220 first-term orders, he had, in fewer than five years, issued more directives than any modern president. Only Franklin D. Roosevelt surpassed his total—and FDR’s presidency spanned a global depression and climate of war. The executive pen, once a tool of occasional recalibration, had become Trump’s primary method of governing, as if power itself had picked up suitcase and migrated swiftly from Congress to the Oval Office.
Many of these orders moved along the path of public endorsement. Campaign promises that had galvanized voters—slashing immigration, limiting foreign trade, remodeling federal architecture—were delivered with immediate force. Endorsed by rallies and ballots, these promises took shape: tariffs were imposed, immigration enforcement tightened, Washington’s monuments and streets cleaned up, and classical architecture mandated for new federal buildings. It was governance by immediate mandate, enacted before Congress could deliberate.
Yet these rushed crossings hit legal checkpoints. One order targeted birthright citizenship—stripping citizenship from children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. Courts swiftly struck back: judges across the country blocked it, arguing the constitutional protections of the 14th Amendment could not be overturned with a signature. Federal circuits remain divided, the issue escalated toward the Supreme Court, stalled in multiple hearings—a charge halted gate by gate.
Another directive aimed at expanding “expedited removal,” allowing deportations without judicial hearings for immigrants anywhere in the country. The Justice Department warned of expedited processing for up to a million deportations per year. But a district judge ruled that violating due process would be unconstitutional, and several states filed lawsuits. Detention centers overflowed, protests erupted, and the eruption of legal action forced a partial retreat. Trump’s rapid implementation had collided with America’s entrenched legal norms.
These legal battles multiplied. Orders banning transgender individuals from military service, cutting funding for gender-affirming care, and revoking passports with non-binary markers were met with court injunctions. Judges held fast to equal protection and free speech, labeling some orders as discriminatory. The result: a patchwork where federal policy differed starkly across regions, depending on the rulings in local courts. Democracy, in its procedural wisdom, slow-marched through lawsuits and hearings.
But even as rolling injunctions slowed or blocked dozens of orders, Trump’s economic narrative flickered bright. In the second quarter of 2025, U.S. GDP growth was revised to 3.3 percent—above the initial 3 percent estimate and marking a dramatic rebound from a 0.5 percent contraction in the first quarter. Consumer spending rose, AI investments surged, and stock indices climbed to new highs. The economy, for the moment, seemed to reward a government that governed swiftly. The Federal Reserve, sensing softening labor data, eyed interest-rate cuts. Consumer confidence, bolstered by job stability and spending, contributed to this upward trend.
Yet cracks appeared below the surface. Analysts warned of stagflation risks—tariffs pushing prices higher even as growth slowed. The OECD revised U.S. growth expectations downward, and economists cautioned that Trump’s economic rebound was fragile, driven by temporary factors like inventory shifts rather than sustainable demand.
On the geopolitical front, Trump touted himself as a peacemaker, claiming to have ended multiple wars—from conflicts in Africa to Asia. The reality was murkier: several of the cited wars continued, deals remained incomplete, and analysts called his claims exaggerated. At home, however, aggressive immigration enforcement, trade wars, and detention centers like “Alligator Alcatraz” symbolized executive power in action—power that enforced campaign promises but also fractured international goodwill.
Even policies aimed at improving the capital’s image became flashpoints. A White House order created a “Washington Safe and Beautiful” task force, deploying Park Police and the National Guard to clean encampments, scrub graffiti, and restore order around monuments. Soon after, another directive mandated classical architecture in new federal buildings—a symbolic reclaiming of civic aesthetics. Critics saw it as symbolism over substance, an aesthetic takeover rubber-stamped without consensus.
Behind the symbolic momentum lay legal resistance and civic concern. Immigration centers were sued by environmental groups and tribal nations, courts ordered facilities dismantled, and resistance grew across states, courts, and civil society. Difficult public policies had been enacted swiftly—but their permanence remained in question.
This generational tension—between unchecked executive speed and slow democratic process—was the hallmark of a nation on edge. Trump’s rapid delivery on campaign promises demonstrated both the power and peril of executive orders as tools for public mandate. Speed can enact change—but velocity alone is not governance.
Ultimately, the American story of migration—from promises to policy, from the Oval Office to the courtroom—asks a foundational question: Can democracy thrive when its channels are bypassed? Executive orders are powerful locomotives: they move policy quickly, visibly, sometimes effectively; but without democratic gears, they risk derailment.
In the end, Trump’s second term became the most vivid demonstration of that balance. His rapid implementation of executive orders did enable him to fulfill campaign promises, ease trade tensions, reshape government aesthetics, and catalyze economic growth—however briefly. Yet courts stood as gatekeepers, injunctions blocked orders, cities resisted, and allies questioned U.S. reliability. Power migrated swiftly—but settling it into the republic requires democracy’s architecture: deliberation, legitimacy, and institutional consent. As America moves forward, the question remains: will swift power prove foundational—or fleeting?

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In the United States, democracy is held sacred, yet the question lingers uncomfortably: who really governs this nation—Congress, the embodiment of representative debate, or the president, who issues executive orders at a breakneck pace? Nowhere is this tension more alive than in the story of migration—both of people and of power itself—whose routes are shaped by promises, implemented under seal, and tested by the courts.
When Donald Trump took the oath for his second term in January 2025, the air crackled with urgency, a promise that the long stalemates of Congress would no longer stall America’s progress. In just 147 days, he signed his 163rd executive order—already surpassing the 162 orders President Biden issued in his entire four-year term. By the end of August, that tally had climbed to 198. Coupled with his 220 first-term orders, he had, in fewer than five years, issued more directives than any modern president. Only Franklin D. Roosevelt surpassed his total—and FDR’s presidency spanned a global depression and climate of war. The executive pen, once a tool of occasional recalibration, had become Trump’s primary method of governing, as if power itself had picked up suitcase and migrated swiftly from Congress to the Oval Office.
Many of these orders moved along the path of public endorsement. Campaign promises that had galvanized voters—slashing immigration, limiting foreign trade, remodeling federal architecture—were delivered with immediate force. Endorsed by rallies and ballots, these promises took shape: tariffs were imposed, immigration enforcement tightened, Washington’s monuments and streets cleaned up, and classical architecture mandated for new federal buildings. It was governance by immediate mandate, enacted before Congress could deliberate.
Yet these rushed crossings hit legal checkpoints. One order targeted birthright citizenship—stripping citizenship from children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. Courts swiftly struck back: judges across the country blocked it, arguing the constitutional protections of the 14th Amendment could not be overturned with a signature. Federal circuits remain divided, the issue escalated toward the Supreme Court, stalled in multiple hearings—a charge halted gate by gate.
Another directive aimed at expanding “expedited removal,” allowing deportations without judicial hearings for immigrants anywhere in the country. The Justice Department warned of expedited processing for up to a million deportations per year. But a district judge ruled that violating due process would be unconstitutional, and several states filed lawsuits. Detention centers overflowed, protests erupted, and the eruption of legal action forced a partial retreat. Trump’s rapid implementation had collided with America’s entrenched legal norms.
These legal battles multiplied. Orders banning transgender individuals from military service, cutting funding for gender-affirming care, and revoking passports with non-binary markers were met with court injunctions. Judges held fast to equal protection and free speech, labeling some orders as discriminatory. The result: a patchwork where federal policy differed starkly across regions, depending on the rulings in local courts. Democracy, in its procedural wisdom, slow-marched through lawsuits and hearings.
But even as rolling injunctions slowed or blocked dozens of orders, Trump’s economic narrative flickered bright. In the second quarter of 2025, U.S. GDP growth was revised to 3.3 percent—above the initial 3 percent estimate and marking a dramatic rebound from a 0.5 percent contraction in the first quarter. Consumer spending rose, AI investments surged, and stock indices climbed to new highs. The economy, for the moment, seemed to reward a government that governed swiftly. The Federal Reserve, sensing softening labor data, eyed interest-rate cuts. Consumer confidence, bolstered by job stability and spending, contributed to this upward trend.
Yet cracks appeared below the surface. Analysts warned of stagflation risks—tariffs pushing prices higher even as growth slowed. The OECD revised U.S. growth expectations downward, and economists cautioned that Trump’s economic rebound was fragile, driven by temporary factors like inventory shifts rather than sustainable demand.
On the geopolitical front, Trump touted himself as a peacemaker, claiming to have ended multiple wars—from conflicts in Africa to Asia. The reality was murkier: several of the cited wars continued, deals remained incomplete, and analysts called his claims exaggerated. At home, however, aggressive immigration enforcement, trade wars, and detention centers like “Alligator Alcatraz” symbolized executive power in action—power that enforced campaign promises but also fractured international goodwill.
Even policies aimed at improving the capital’s image became flashpoints. A White House order created a “Washington Safe and Beautiful” task force, deploying Park Police and the National Guard to clean encampments, scrub graffiti, and restore order around monuments. Soon after, another directive mandated classical architecture in new federal buildings—a symbolic reclaiming of civic aesthetics. Critics saw it as symbolism over substance, an aesthetic takeover rubber-stamped without consensus.
Behind the symbolic momentum lay legal resistance and civic concern. Immigration centers were sued by environmental groups and tribal nations, courts ordered facilities dismantled, and resistance grew across states, courts, and civil society. Difficult public policies had been enacted swiftly—but their permanence remained in question.
This generational tension—between unchecked executive speed and slow democratic process—was the hallmark of a nation on edge. Trump’s rapid delivery on campaign promises demonstrated both the power and peril of executive orders as tools for public mandate. Speed can enact change—but velocity alone is not governance.
Ultimately, the American story of migration—from promises to policy, from the Oval Office to the courtroom—asks a foundational question: Can democracy thrive when its channels are bypassed? Executive orders are powerful locomotives: they move policy quickly, visibly, sometimes effectively; but without democratic gears, they risk derailment.
In the end, Trump’s second term became the most vivid demonstration of that balance. His rapid implementation of executive orders did enable him to fulfill campaign promises, ease trade tensions, reshape government aesthetics, and catalyze economic growth—however briefly. Yet courts stood as gatekeepers, injunctions blocked orders, cities resisted, and allies questioned U.S. reliability. Power migrated swiftly—but settling it into the republic requires democracy’s architecture: deliberation, legitimacy, and institutional consent. As America moves forward, the question remains: will swift power prove foundational—or fleeting?

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : During the Biden administration, India was elevated from an ordinary bilateral trade partner to a “strategic partner” and “most favored nation” in Washington’s eyes. The U.S. envisioned India as a counterweight to China’s growing influence, pouring political, economic, and strategic support into New Delhi. India was projected as the next global manufacturing hub, with U.S. industries encouraged to set up production plants there and bring their goods back to America, giving India unprecedented access to U.S. markets and raising its global profile. However, this sudden rise inflated India’s ego, making it more assertive and, at times, confrontational—not only with its neighbors like Pakistan and Nepal but also with China and even Western partners.
Confident of Washington’s protection, India began flexing its muscles globally. Its defiance became clear during disputes with the European Union and the U.S., especially after the Ukraine war began. Despite India bypassing sanctions, buying discounted Russian oil, and reselling refined products at a profit, the Biden administration imposed no penalties. For Biden, the calculus was strategic: build India’s economy, enhance its military strength, and position it as a democratic bulwark against China in the Indo-Pacific. Even when India refused to align with Western sanctions on Russia, the administration remained lenient, prioritizing long-term objectives over immediate disagreements.
This approach shifted dramatically with Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025. Viewing U.S.–India relations through a transactional lens, Trump rejected the idea of indulging India unconditionally. He saw India’s growing trade surplus, hidden tariff barriers, and its lucrative energy trade with Russia as a fundamental imbalance. Within months, Trump reversed nearly all the privileges extended under Biden and demanded that India halt Russian oil imports, stop reselling petroleum products to the U.S. and Europe at inflated prices, and lower its exorbitant tariffs on American goods. India refused, defending its “strategic autonomy” and rejecting Washington’s demands outright.
Trump’s response was swift and uncompromising. Starting with a 10% tariff on Indian goods, he escalated it to 15%, then 35%, and finally imposed a sweeping 50% blanket tariff by August 27, 2025. This single policy move crippled India’s position in the U.S. market, rendering billions of dollars’ worth of exports uncompetitive. Indian goods worth $48 to $58 billion annually—including textiles, apparel, seafood, gems, jewelry, furniture, machinery, and metals—became prohibitively expensive. Analysts estimate India could lose up to 43% of its U.S. exports, nearly $40 billion annually, hitting its manufacturing and employment sectors hard. These tariffs marked a decisive recalibration of U.S. policy, reducing India from a privileged strategic partner back to a transactional trading ally.
While the rift between Washington and New Delhi has damaged India’s position, it has created a historic opening for Pakistan. With India’s access to U.S. supply chains disrupted, Pakistan is uniquely positioned to fill the gap. In 2024, Pakistan’s total trade with the U.S. stood at $7.2 billion, with exports accounting for $5.1 billion and growing steadily. By fiscal year 2024–25, exports to the U.S. rose further to $5.83 billion, driven by textiles, apparel, leather products, surgical instruments, and home furnishings. Now, as U.S. buyers seek alternatives to Indian suppliers, Pakistan’s competitive advantages—cheaper costs, quality production, and reliability—make it a natural beneficiary.
Adding to Pakistan’s momentum is the July 2025 Pakistan–U.S. Trade and Energy Deal, signed just weeks before Trump’s final tariff decision. This landmark agreement reduced tariffs on key Pakistani exports, including textiles, leather goods, surgical instruments, agricultural products, and IT services, giving Pakistan a clear pricing edge over India. The deal also paved the way for U.S. investment in Pakistan’s energy sector while strengthening bilateral trade ties. In return, Pakistan aligned closely with U.S. policy objectives, including observing restrictions on Russian oil imports and enhancing counterterrorism cooperation. Pleased with Pakistan’s support, Trump publicly praised Islamabad’s contributions to regional stability, especially its assistance in capturing high-profile terrorists and facilitating U.S. intelligence operations.
Pakistan’s diplomatic prudence has further strengthened its standing in Washington. Unlike India, which openly defied U.S. requests while doubling down on Russian oil imports—reportedly worth $34 billion annually—Pakistan avoided any actions that could conflict with Western sanctions. Its neutral stance on energy, combined with extensive cooperation on security, made it a more trusted partner in the region. The growing relationship was symbolized by an unprecedented White House meeting between President Trump and Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, signaling elevated strategic confidence.
The implications of these developments are profound. With Indian products now priced out of the American market, billions of dollars’ worth of trade opportunities have opened across multiple sectors—especially textiles, jewelry, seafood, furniture, and machinery. Pakistan can capitalize on this shift by rapidly mobilizing its industrial base, investing in capacity expansion, and ensuring supply chain efficiency. By targeting these sectors and aggressively marketing its competitive advantages, Pakistan could capture a significant share of the U.S. market previously dominated by India.
This moment calls for a coordinated national effort. The government must work with exporters, industry leaders, and the Pakistani diaspora in the U.S. to identify priority sectors and align strategies for substitution. Incentives for new investments in high-demand industries, compliance with international quality standards, and guaranteed reliability in fulfilling large-scale orders will be critical to success. By filling this gap effectively, Pakistan could double or even triple its exports to the U.S. within a few years, creating a ripple effect across other Western markets, particularly Europe, which often follows U.S. trade patterns.
Time, however, is of the essence. Trade realignments happen quickly, and other regional players like Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Indonesia are also competing to replace India’s share. Pakistan must act decisively to strengthen its production capacity, maintain consistent quality, and streamline export processes. The government’s role in facilitating infrastructure improvements, reducing regulatory bottlenecks, and supporting exporters with favorable policies will determine whether Pakistan can fully exploit this opportunity.
In the broader context, India’s inflated confidence, cultivated during years of indulgence under the Biden administration, has collided with Trump’s economic realism. By challenging India’s trade advantages and energy autonomy, Trump has reshaped the dynamics of South Asian commerce, weakening India’s grip on U.S. markets and opening the door for Pakistan. For Islamabad, this is more than a commercial opportunity—it is a strategic chance to redefine its economic partnership with the United States, expand its global trade profile, and accelerate long-term industrial growth.
The window is open but will not remain so indefinitely. If Pakistan acts with agility, coordination, and vision, it can transform this disruption into a turning point for its economy, positioning itself as the primary South Asian beneficiary of U.S. trade and reshaping regional economic dynamics for years to come.