The president’s executive order, “Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety,” issued on his first day in office, represents a drastic shift back toward a punitive approach to criminal justice. This order repeals the federal moratorium on executions, expands the use of the death penalty, and aims to reverse years of progress that have been made in curbing the state-sanctioned killing of prisoners. This move has sparked significant concern and criticism, especially in light of the evidence that contradicts many of the claims the president made in defense of the order.
False Justifications for Expanding the Death Penalty
In his executive order, the president offers several justifications for bringing back the death penalty and expanding its use. However, these arguments are not supported by the empirical evidence accumulated over the years:
- Deterrence Myth: The president argues that capital punishment serves as a critical deterrent against heinous crimes. However, extensive studies have consistently shown that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime. In fact, it has been shown to have a brutalizing effect on society, increasing violence rather than preventing it. The notion that executions serve as a deterrent is simply not supported by data.
- Racial Bias and Inequity: The president claims that the death penalty benefits American citizens, a statement that perpetuates a troubling narrative. This is, at its core, a dog whistle aimed at inflaming racial tensions. Research consistently shows that the death penalty is disproportionately applied in cases where the victim is white and the accused is a person of color, underscoring the deep racial bias inherent in the system.
- Overreaching Executive Power: In his order, the president asserts that it is necessary to “counteract the politicians and judges who subvert the law by obstructing and preventing” the application of the death penalty. This claim elevates the executive branch above both the legislative and judicial branches, disregarding the principles of separation of powers. The president’s rhetoric falsely suggests that the executive branch should have ultimate authority over legal matters, undermining the role of Congress and the judiciary.
- Disregard for States’ Rights: Another concerning aspect of the executive order is its dismissal of states’ rights. The president directs the Attorney General to assess whether the 37 individuals on federal death row, whose sentences were commuted by President Biden, could be prosecuted and executed under state law. This move undermines the principle that states should have the autonomy to make their own decisions regarding the death penalty.
- Cruel Treatment of Prisoners: The president’s order also calls for the Attorney General to evaluate the conditions of confinement for the 37 individuals whose death sentences were commuted, suggesting that they should be held in conditions that reflect the severity of their crimes. This language is not only troubling but may also lead to violations of the prisoners’ civil rights.
The Ongoing Struggle with Execution Protocols
In a related development, Attorney General Merrick Garland recently ordered the Bureau of Prisons to withdraw its current federal drug protocol, which relies on pentobarbital for executions. Garland expressed concerns about whether this drug could cause unnecessary pain, raising significant ethical and legal issues. Without an official execution drug protocol, the federal government will be unable to carry out any executions.
This move by Garland implicitly contradicts the president’s stance, as the executive order directs the Attorney General to ensure that states with capital punishment have a sufficient supply of lethal injection drugs. This could lead to further complications and potential violations of prisoners’ rights.
The Administration’s Broader Agenda: Transgender Rights Under Fire
In addition to its focus on the death penalty, the administration has also taken aim at transgender rights. In a separate executive order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” the president outlines policies that undermine the rights of transgender individuals, particularly in the context of federal prisons.
The order mandates that the Bureau of Prisons revise its policies on medical care for transgender inmates, specifically prohibiting the use of federal funds for any medical procedure or treatment aimed at altering an inmate’s appearance to align with their gender identity. Additionally, the order directs agencies to house transgender women with men in correctional facilities, a policy that disregards the safety and dignity of transgender individuals.
A Dangerous Path Forward
The president’s executive order on the death penalty, alongside his broader agenda on transgender rights, represents a troubling reversal of progress. While the death penalty has been slowly declining across the U.S., with more commutations than executions in 2024, this executive order seeks to revive a practice that has been widely criticized for its arbitrariness, racial bias, and potential for wrongful convictions. The evidence against the death penalty is overwhelming, and expanding its use only exacerbates the flaws within the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, the president’s attacks on transgender rights demonstrate a broader pattern of undermining civil liberties and human dignity. As the nation continues to grapple with these issues, it is crucial to remain vigilant and committed to advocating for justice, fairness, and equality for all people, regardless of race, gender identity, or the crimes they are accused of committing.
As the debate over the death penalty continues to evolve in the U.S., 2025 marks a critical year with the imminent return of federal executions and the scheduled execution of several individuals across states. The situation has become even more urgent following former President Trump’s executive order on his first day in office, titled “Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety.” This order reinstates the federal moratorium on executions, expands the scope of the death penalty, and is viewed by many as an attempt to reverse the progress made in reducing the use of capital punishment in recent years.
Trump’s Executive Order: A Setback for Death Penalty Reform
The executive order signed by President Trump has significant implications for the federal death penalty system. Issued on January 20, 2025, the order repeals the previous federal moratorium on executions, which had been in place under the Biden administration. It also broadens the application of the death penalty, which many see as an effort to reintroduce the punitive approach that had been steadily declining in the U.S. over the last few decades.
Under Trump’s order, 13 executions are scheduled across six states in 2025, with the first set to take place in South Carolina this Friday. This marks a grim milestone as the state plans to execute Marion Bowman, one of the 13 individuals slated for execution this year. While these 13 executions are spread out across six states, the reality is more complex—particularly in Ohio, where the state has not carried out an execution since 2018. The state has faced ongoing challenges in obtaining lethal injection drugs, which is expected to stall the planned executions for the five individuals scheduled to die there.
A Shifting Tide: Commutations Outpace Executions
One of the most notable trends in recent years is the decline in both death sentences and executions in the U.S. In 2024, the country saw more than twice as many death row commutations as executions. A total of 52 individuals had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment last year, a significant increase compared to the 25 executions carried out nationwide. This trend signals a growing shift toward reconsidering the use of the death penalty, with states and the federal government slowly but surely taking steps to reevaluate their stance on capital punishment.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center’s (DPIC) annual report, both death sentences and executions remain at historically low levels. In 2024, fewer than 30 people were executed, and fewer than 50 were sentenced to death, a pattern that has persisted for the past decade. The ongoing reduction in capital punishment reflects the waning public support for the death penalty, particularly among younger generations who are increasingly skeptical of its fairness and efficacy.
The Ongoing Struggle in Texas
Despite the declining use of the death penalty in many parts of the country, Texas remains a stronghold for capital punishment. The Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (TCADP) has highlighted in its 2024 annual report that while the number of executions in the state has decreased, the system remains deeply flawed and disproportionately impacts people of color. Texas’ capital punishment system continues to be criticized for its arbitrary application and racial biases, which have led to wrongful convictions and unfair sentences.
“Even as the use of the death penalty remains historically low in Texas, it continues to be imposed disproportionately on people of color and is highly dependent on geography,” the TCADP states. This persistent inequality, paired with the potential for wrongful convictions, calls into question the morality and fairness of continuing to use the death penalty in the state.
The Supreme Court and the Future of the Death Penalty
In addition to state-level developments, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions will play a significant role in the future of the death penalty. One case that has raised concerns is Hamm v. Smith, in which criminal law specialist Robert Sanger suggests that the Supreme Court may be planning to weaken the landmark ruling of Atkins v. Virginia. This 2002 decision barred the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities, a crucial ruling that has protected vulnerable individuals from facing the death penalty. The outcome of Hamm v. Smith could potentially erode these protections, further complicating the already flawed system of capital punishment.
A Growing Movement for Abolition
As the national conversation about the death penalty intensifies, advocacy groups and legal experts are increasingly calling for its abolition. From the arbitrary nature of sentencing to the racial disparities that persist, the flaws within the death penalty system are undeniable. Many activists argue that the growing evidence of wrongful convictions, along with the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, should compel lawmakers and the public to consider alternatives to state-sanctioned executions.
The road ahead is uncertain, but as more states move toward limiting or abolishing the death penalty, it’s clear that there is a growing movement to end this practice. While some states may continue to uphold the death penalty, the rest of the country is increasingly pushing for reforms that emphasize rehabilitation and restorative justice over retribution.
Sustainable Action Now remains committed to shedding light on issues of justice and fairness, particularly as they pertain to human rights. The movement to end the death penalty is an important aspect of that mission, and we encourage continued efforts to bring about a future where no one is subject to this irreversible punishment. As we reflect on the events of this month, we must continue to ask ourselves: is this really the kind of society we want to be?