EO 14164: Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety
ANALYSIS: Executive Order 14164 (issued January 20, 2025) is titled “Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety.” It was one of the first actions of the new administration, aiming to reverse the prior moratorium on federal executions and aggressively use capital punishment as a crime deterrent. Below is an in-depth analysis of its policy details, legal implications, ties to Project 2025, and the critiques and concerns it has raised.
CONCLUSION: Referenced in Chapter 17: Department of Justice (Gene Hamilton), which says a conservative administration should do “everything possible” to carry out capital sentences and not allow officials to obstruct lawful executions. The EO affirms it is U.S. policy to implement capital punishment fully.
Policy Details
Purpose: The order asserts that capital punishment is an “essential tool” for deterring and punishing the most heinous crimes. It condemns officials who “subvert and undermine” death penalty laws – specifically criticizing President Biden for allowing a DOJ moratorium on executions and commuting many federal death sentences in late 2024. The EO frames these actions as defying the law, mocking justice, and denying closure to victims’ families. The overarching goal is to “restore” the federal death penalty and signal a tough-on-crime approach in contrast to the previous administration.
Key Provisions: Executive Order 14164 contains several substantive directives outlining how this policy will be carried out:
Mandating Pursuit of Capital Punishment: The Attorney General is instructed to seek the death penalty in all eligible cases of serious violent crime. Section 3(a) declares that DOJ “shall pursue the death penalty for all crimes of a severity demanding its use.” This represents a broad directive to apply capital charges whenever legally possible, significantly expanding its use.
Special Categories – Police Killers and Undocumented Offenders: Section 3(b) requires federal prosecutors to always seek federal jurisdiction and capital charges for two categories of crimes: (i) any murder of a law enforcement officer, and (ii) any capital-eligible crime committed by an undocumented immigrant. In such cases, prosecutors must pursue the death penalty “regardless of other factors.” This elevates offenses against police and crimes by those in the country illegally as top priorities for federal capital punishment.
Encouraging State Executions: The order extends its reach to state-level justice. It directs the Attorney General to urge state attorneys general and local prosecutors to bring state capital charges for heinous crimes – especially for the two categories above – even if a federal trial did not result in a death sentence. In essence, if the federal government fails to secure a death sentence, states are encouraged to prosecute the offender under state law to seek execution.
Reversing the Federal Moratorium: The EO effectively ends the federal execution moratorium instituted under the prior administration. It instructs the DOJ to revise its policies and manuals accordingly. Any internal guidelines (such as former Attorney General Garland’s July 2021 memo pausing federal executions) are to be superseded so that lawful death sentences can resume.
Response to Commutations: In a pointed rebuke of late-2024 clemency actions, Section 3(e) addresses the 37 federal death-row inmates whose sentences were commuted to life without parole by President Biden in December 2024. The order directs the DOJ to review the imprisonment conditions of these individuals and ensure they are held in especially harsh conditions “consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes”. It also has the DOJ examine whether any of these individuals can be charged with state capital offenses (for example, under state murder statutes) despite their federal commutations, and to recommend such action to state authorities.
Supporting State Executions: Section 4 commits federal support to states that still use capital punishment. The Attorney General must “take all necessary and lawful action” to ensure those states have a supply of lethal injection drugs needed to carry out executions. This addresses the drug shortages that have hindered executions in many states. Additionally, the AG is instructed to act on any pending state requests under 28 U.S.C. § 2265, a law that certifies state capital-case review processes and can expedite federal habeas appeals.
Challenging Legal Barriers: In Section 5, the order goes so far as to target judicial precedents. The Attorney General is directed to seek the overruling of Supreme Court decisions that limit capital punishment. Although no cases are named in the text, it clearly refers to established precedents that restrict the death penalty’s application (for example, bans on executing certain categories of offenders or for certain crimes – discussed further below).
General Violent Crime Directive: Beyond the death penalty, Section 6 instructs the DOJ to prioritize prosecuting violent and transnational crime to protect communities. It calls for coordination with state and local law enforcement and urges local prosecutors to align with the federal focus on serious crime. This reinforces the administration’s broader “law and order” agenda in tandem with the death penalty emphasis.
Scope: Taken together, EO 14164’s provisions dramatically reshape federal criminal justice priorities. It not only resumes federal executions but expands when and how aggressively capital punishment is sought. The order asserts federal authority in areas traditionally handled by states (promoting state-level death penalty cases) and even seeks to influence the judiciary and the pharmaceutical supply chain to facilitate executions. Its scope is sweeping – from high-level policy (reversing moratoriums, challenging court rulings) to granular details (prison conditions for specific inmates, DOJ manual revisions). In short, this executive order’s reach extends across federal and state lines in an effort to maximize the use of the death penalty nationwide.
Legal Implications
Legal Basis: The order cites the President’s authority under the Constitution and federal law to direct executive agencies. A president does have broad power to guide DOJ policy and prosecutorial priorities. Directing the Attorney General to seek certain penalties or devote resources in particular ways is generally within executive discretion, as long as it does not violate independent legal limits. For example, presidents routinely set enforcement focus areas (e.g., emphasizing certain crimes). Here, President Trump is using that authority to make capital punishment a top priority. However, while the power to prioritize exists, some provisions push into legally untested territory, raising potential constitutional and statutory issues.
Potential Constitutional Challenges: Several aspects of EO 14164 could face court challenges on constitutional grounds:
Conflict with Supreme Court Precedents: Perhaps the most glaring issue is the order’s intent to expand the death penalty to crimes and offenders currently protected by Supreme Court rulings. The EO itself urges the DOJ to get those rulings overturned. For instance, Project 2025 and the order advocate applying capital punishment to “particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children.” But the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana (554 U.S. 407) held that imposing the death penalty for crimes like child rape where the victim is not killed violates the Eighth Amendment. Similarly, other precedents forbid executing juveniles (Roper v. Simmons, 2005) or people with intellectual disabilities (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002). Until or unless the Supreme Court reverses those decisions, any attempt by DOJ to seek death sentences in such cases would be unconstitutional and struck down by courts. In effect, the administration can signal its desire to broaden capital punishment, but it cannot legally implement those expansions under current law. This tension sets the stage for potential legal battles if federal prosecutors actually pursue a death sentence barred by precedent (e.g. for a non-homicide crime) – it would invite immediate appellate reversal and constitutional challenge.
Equal Protection and Due Process Concerns: The directive singling out undocumented immigrants for special treatment (always seeking death if they commit a capital-eligible offense) raises legal red flags. One expert noted it would be “unprecedented and contrary to established law” for prosecutors to categorically seek the death penalty in every case involving an undocumented defendant. While immigration status is not a classic protected class like race or religion, courts could scrutinize a policy that explicitly makes a defendant’s citizenship/immigration status a deciding factor in charging. Defense attorneys might argue this violates Equal Protection by arbitrarily enhancing punishment based on an offender’s status rather than the crime’s facts. At the very least, it breaks with the tradition of individualized case-by-case discretion in capital prosecutions. The DOJ’s own manual and past practice require careful consideration of mitigating factors before seeking a federal death sentence – a blanket rule for a whole subgroup of defendants could be seen as arbitrary and capricious, or even unconstitutional, if it results in disproportionate targeting.
Eighth Amendment – Conditions of Confinement: Section 3(e)’s call to impose harsher prison conditions on the 37 inmates whose death sentences were commuted is another potential legal minefield. Punishments in the U.S. are subject to the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. As Yale law professor Miriam Gohara observes, “The punishment is being incarcerated. The punishment is not the condition of confinement. That’s not legal.” Intentionally making prison conditions more severe as an additional punishment for certain individuals goes beyond any court-imposed sentence and could be deemed cruel or unusual. In practice, many of those inmates are already in maximum-security facilities (often confined in severe conditions by default). Further worsening their treatment (e.g. prolonged solitary confinement or otherwise “intolerable” conditions) solely because their death sentences were commuted would almost certainly provoke constitutional challenges. Such actions might violate inmates’ rights and would be scrutinized under precedents that require humane treatment of prisoners.
Federalism and Double Jeopardy Issues: The EO’s encouragement for state prosecutions after federal commutations also raises legal and ethical questions. Ordinarily, once a President commutes a federal death sentence to life, that decision is final for the federal case. Here, the new administration is attempting an end-run by having states consider charging those same individuals. Thanks to the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, a state can legally prosecute someone even if the federal government already has (it’s not double jeopardy because the state is a separate sovereign) – for example, a murder can violate both federal and state law. However, this scenario is highly unusual and fraught. Many of those cases are decades old, and state statutes of limitations or evidentiary issues could pose obstacles. Moreover, as the Death Penalty Information Center notes, it’s unlikely that local prosecutors would devote resources to re-prosecuting crimes from 20-30 years ago when the offenders are already serving life without parole. While legally permissible in theory, such re-prosecutions might be seen as undermining the spirit of clemency and could face public opposition or court challenges (defendants might argue due process issues if evidence has deteriorated with time, etc.). In sum, this aspect, while legally possible, sits at the edge of conventional practice and could spark significant litigation if pursued.
Separation of Powers: The President overtly criticizes judges in the text of the order for “subverting” the law by blocking executions. While an executive order cannot change how judges rule, the instruction to the DOJ to seek overturning court precedents is notable. There’s nothing improper about the DOJ advocating for reversal of past decisions in its court briefs – administrations often do change legal positions. But it underscores a confrontational stance toward the judiciary on the death penalty. If the DOJ takes extreme steps (for example, trying to rush executions despite court stays), that could provoke separation-of-powers showdowns. However, the order does contain a standard clause that “this order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law”, signaling that agencies must still obey court orders and statutes.
Impact on Existing Law and Policy: EO 14164 immediately reverses the course set by the previous administration on capital punishment. Under President Biden, the federal government had effectively halted executions: in July 2021, Attorney General Garland imposed a moratorium pending review of execution protocols and none were carried out thereafter. Additionally, as noted, Biden exercised clemency to empty most of federal death row in his final weeks. All of these moves are rebuked and countermanded by the new order. The DOJ will now discard the moratorium, rewrite its execution procedures if needed, and potentially attempt to adopt faster timelines (e.g., through §2265 certifications to speed up appeals).
The EO’s directive to obtain lethal injection drugs for states could clash with existing laws or practices too. Many drug manufacturers refuse to sell execution drugs, and some states have passed secrecy laws or explored alternative methods (like firing squads) because of drug scarcity. The federal government assisting in procuring drugs might involve legal questions about drug regulation, contracts, or even international law (if importing chemicals). It remains to be seen how DOJ would “ensure” drug supplies – possibly by coordinating with compounding pharmacies or by litigating against companies’ restrictions. Any aggressive action here could result in litigation from pharmaceutical companies or human rights groups.
In summary, much of EO 14164’s content faces significant legal limitations under current law. The administration can order DOJ to be more aggressive in seeking death sentences and to resume executions, which is within its power. But to fulfill the broader vision (executing child rapists, undoing commutations, mandating death for all cop-killers or undocumented offenders), it would need changes in law or new Supreme Court rulings. The order itself acknowledges it must be carried out “consistent with applicable law”– a tacit admission that parts of it cannot override existing legal boundaries. This sets up a likely struggle: the executive branch pushing the envelope on capital punishment, constrained by the courts and practical realities.
Connection to Project 2025
Project 2025 is a conservative policy blueprint that heavily informed this executive order. In fact, Executive Order 14164 aligns so closely with recommendations from Project 2025 that many phrases appear lifted nearly verbatim. Project 2025 (specifically the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership” 2025 transition manual) is a 920-page roadmap compiled by former Trump officials and conservative think-tank experts, detailing how a future administration should implement right-wing policies across every agency. The Department of Justice chapter (Chapter 17, authored by Gene Hamilton) contains the seeds of EO 14164’s death penalty policy.
On page 554 of Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership, the authors explicitly call for a crackdown on violent crime through capital punishment. The blueprint states: “Enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable… providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither for the victims’ families nor for the defendant.” It urges that “The next conservative Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes—particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children—until Congress says otherwise.” This is a direct policy prescription to restart federal executions and expand the use of capital punishment, which is exactly what EO 14164 does.
The executive order’s content mirrors these Project 2025 recommendations point for point. For example:
“Obtain finality for the 44 prisoners on federal death row” (Project 2025) became the order’s mandate to ensure executions are carried out and not stalled by moratoria or commutations. Indeed, EO 14164 specifically reacts to the commutation of 37 death-row inmates and looks for ways to still hold them accountable to capital justice.
“Pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes… particularly involving violence and sexual abuse of children” is reflected in the order’s directive that the Attorney General seek the death penalty in all severe cases and focus on especially heinous crimes. The Project 2025 text even notes this should continue “until Congress says otherwise,” implying an executive branch push as far as the law allows. EO 14164’s Section 5, in turn, seeks to remove legal barriers by urging Supreme Court precedent changes, showing the administration’s willingness to challenge Congress and courts on the issue.
The Project 2025 chapter was authored by Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, and it also emphasizes prioritizing violent crime and undoing perceived “progressive” influence in DOJ. Likewise, EO 14164 not only addresses the death penalty but includes a broader instruction (Sec. 6) to refocus DOJ on violent crime and away from leniency – again echoing the Project’s themes.
POLITICO’s analysis of early 2025 executive orders found dozens of instances where Trump’s directives aligned with the Project 2025 blueprint, often quoting its language almost exactly. The death penalty order is a prime example: POLITICO highlighted the Project’s recommendation to “do everything possible” to enforce capital sentences side-by-side with Trump’s order stating it is the policy of the U.S. to ensure capital punishment laws are faithfully implemented. Both Project 2025 and EO 14164 share the identical goal of reinvigorating capital punishment as a tool of federal law. In effect, Project 2025 provided the ideological justification and policy roadmap, and upon taking office in 2025 the administration translated that into concrete action via EO 14164. It’s also worth noting the personnel connection: Project 2025’s influence is bolstered by the fact that key figures involved (e.g. Pam Bondi, listed in the Project as a supporter and now Trump’s nominee for Attorney General) are in positions to implement these ideas. Bondi, as Florida’s AG, was a vocal proponent of the death penalty and criticized Biden’s commutations as “abhorrent”. Now in the DOJ, she would be carrying out the very policies she and the Project advocated.
In summary, the death penalty push in EO 14164 is directly traceable to page 554 of Project 2025’s manual. The executive order fulfills Project 2025’s call to “restore” capital punishment, aligning perfectly with the initiative’s goal of a more punitive justice system. This connection illustrates how Project 2025 has served as a playbook for the administration’s early actions, embedding the Heritage Foundation’s conservative vision into actual governance.
Negative Impacts and Criticisms
Executive Order 14164 has provoked significant debate, with experts, civil rights advocates, and legal observers raising numerous concerns about its implications. Key critiques include questions about its practicality, legality, and moral consequences:
Lack of Feasible Implementation: Many commentators note that the order, while bold in language, is “short on details” about how its sweeping mandates will be carried out in reality. Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, observed that “much of it sounds more like campaign rhetoric than policy” and that it omits crucial specifics on overcoming legal and logistical obstacles. For example, the EO demands ensuring a supply of lethal injection drugs for states, but doesn’t say how to achieve this despite pharmaceutical companies’ boycott of execution drugs. Securing these drugs may require controversial steps (compounding pharmacies, importation, or legal force) that the order doesn’t delineate. This vagueness leads experts to suspect that parts of the EO are more symbolic than actionable – intended to send a message of toughness, even if actual implementation stalls due to bureaucratic and legal barriers.
Constitutional and Legal Obstacles: Legal experts have been quick to point out that several directives in EO 14164 cannot be executed under current law. The ACLU and other civil liberties groups warn that many Project 2025 proposals (death penalty included) are “outright unconstitutional,” requiring the courts to be rolled back or ignored.
. The mandate to expand capital punishment to crimes like non-homicide child abuse “comes despite” the Supreme Court’s ruling prohibiting exactly that. Any attempt to apply the death penalty in those instances would trigger immediate legal challenges (appeals courts would overturn such a sentence per Supreme Court precedent). Thus, critics argue the EO is on a collision course with the Constitution unless the Supreme Court’s composition or mind changes. The order’s call to “overrule” certain precedents underscores that it can’t achieve its goals without judicial intervention. In practice, this means years of litigation – for instance, if DOJ charges a defendant with a capital offense for a crime that currently isn’t death-eligible, the case would likely become a high-profile Supreme Court battle. This uncertainty is a concern in itself, suggesting the EO injects instability and politicization into the justice system.
Targeting Undocumented Immigrants: The singling-out of illegal immigrants for capital prosecution has drawn fire for perceived xenophobia and legal dubiousness. By prioritizing death sentences based on a defendant’s immigration status, the policy is seen by critics as politically motivated “othering” rather than sound criminal justice. Robin Maher noted it would be unprecedented to automatically seek death in every case of an undocumented defendant – something that contradicts the principle of individualized justice. Immigration advocates and civil rights experts might argue this provision is less about deterring crime and more about demonizing a group of people (since there’s no evidence that non-citizens commit more capital crimes requiring such special treatment). It could also chill jury pools or raise bias concerns in trials. Overall, this aspect is criticized as a legally untested and ethically fraught experiment, one that could invite equal protection challenges or at least public backlash for perceived discrimination.
Clemency and Punishment Concerns: Perhaps the most visceral criticisms center on the EO’s approach to those whose death sentences were commuted. Ordering harsher imprisonment conditions has been described as vindictive and likely unlawful. Legal scholars like Prof. Gohara argue that deliberately worsening someone’s prison conditions as punishment crosses a line – “That’s not legal”, as it effectively imposes an extra-judicial penalty. Human rights advocates would likely label this cruel and unusual, noting that U.S. courts have limited extreme solitary confinement and other harsh treatments. Additionally, undermining clemency is seen as troubling: Clemency (pardons and commutations) is a constitutional power meant to be final. While the EO cannot undo Biden’s commutations, urging states to re-prosecute those cases has been called “vengeful” by observers. The Death Penalty Information Center pointed out the practical futility as well – state prosecutors are unlikely to retry decades-old cases where inmates are already serving life terms. In short, this measure seems more like a political statement of outrage at Biden’s actions than a realistic plan, raising concerns about the politicization of justice. It also sends a chilling message: that each administration might try to nullify the clemency mercy of the previous, injecting partisanship into what used to be acts of grace.
Broader Ethical and Public Safety Debates: Beyond legalities, moral and policy critiques of the death penalty itself have resurfaced in response to EO 14164. Opponents argue that “reviving the federal death penalty” is a regressive move that ignores long-standing concerns about capital punishment. The order was denounced as a “moral travesty” in one op-ed, with the writer calling Trump’s zeal to expand executions “a clear signal of… deepening depravity.” While that is strong language, it reflects the view of many human rights organizations: state-sanctioned killing is seen as fundamentally wrong. Critics point to the risk of executing innocent people – a very real issue given that over 200 death row inmates were exonerated between 1972 and 2024 (many after spending years awaiting execution). They emphasize cases in which federal death row prisoners had claims of innocence or serious mental illness, suggesting the blanket pro-execution stance fails to account for these complexities. The EO’s aggressive posture, they warn, could lead to irreversible errors if innocence or unfair trial issues are overlooked in the rush to “obtain finality.” Additionally, civil rights leaders note the death penalty’s racial disparities – historically, racial minorities have been sentenced to death at disproportionately high rates, and a policy accelerating executions could exacerbate these injustices. These arguments portray the EO as harmful not only to individual rights but to the integrity of the justice system, potentially eroding public trust.
Public Reaction: Public opinion on the death penalty is mixed, and the EO has elicited varied reactions. Law-and-order advocates and some victims’ families have praised the administration for “standing up for victims” and enforcing punishments that they feel are just. The order itself claims that capital punishment “continues to enjoy broad popular support.” Indeed, roughly half of Americans still support the death penalty for murder, according to recent polls. However, there is also a strong and vocal segment of the public opposed to capital punishment. In recent years, several states have abolished the death penalty or imposed moratoriums, reflecting a trend away from executions. For those Americans, EO 14164 is a step backward. Protests by anti-death-penalty activists and statements by groups like the ACLU, NAACP, and Amnesty International have condemned the order. They argue that it tarnishes America’s human rights record and moves counter to the global trend (over 100 countries have outlawed capital punishment). The fact that the U.S. federal government had a de facto halt on executions which this EO ended has been highlighted in media – illustrating a sharp policy whiplash. Even some who support the death penalty in principle have reservations about parts of the EO, such as the idea of overriding juries (by re-trying commuted cases) or pressuring states. Thus, the public reaction is divided, but the negative backlash from civil liberties and human rights communities has been pronounced, framing the EO as an overreach driven by ideology rather than evidence-based crime policy
In conclusion, Executive Order 14164 achieves a core political promise – reinstating the federal death penalty and projecting a tough stance on crime – but it comes with substantial controversy. Legally, it pushes against the constraints of current law, ensuring that courts will be a battleground if the administration tries to follow through on its more extreme provisions. Politically and socially, it has energized supporters of capital punishment while alarming opponents who see it as extreme. As the administration moves to implement this order, expect intense litigation, state-federal tussles, and continued public debate over whether expanding the death penalty truly “protects public safety” or undermines the values of justice and fairness.
Sources:
Executive Order 14164, “Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety,” full text
(American Presidency Project archive).
Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership (Heritage Foundation, 2023), Ch. 17 “Department of Justice,” p. 554 – policy recommendations on enforcing capital punishment
Brennan Center for Justice – Analysis of Project 2025’s criminal justice proposals and Trump’s adoption of them
POLITICO – “37 ways Project 2025 has shown up in Trump’s executive orders” (Feb. 5, 2025), noting EO 14164’s alignment with the Heritage blueprint
Death Penalty Information Center – “Trump Issues Order on the Death Penalty” (News, Jan. 21, 2025), summarizing EO 14164 and its context
The Marshall Project – “Trump’s New Order to Expand the Death Penalty Misses Key Details” (Jan. 22, 2025), legal experts’ commentary on the order’s content and challenges
ACLU – “Project 2025, Explained” (2024), critique of the initiative’s threats to civil liberties
IDN-InDepthNews – “Reviving the Death Penalty Is One of Trump’s Greatest Moral Failures” (Feb. 7, 2025, opinion) for perspective on moral and human rights criticisms
Federal legal statutes and cases: 28 U.S.C. § 2265 (state capital case certification process)
; Kennedy v. Louisiana (554 U.S. 407) banning death for child rape
; other relevant Supreme Court precedents on capital punishment limitations
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1 . Purpose. Capital punishment is an essential tool for deterring and punishing those who would commit the most heinous crimes and acts of lethal violence against American citizens. Before, during, and after the founding of the United States, our cities, States, and country have continuously relied upon capital punishment as the ultimate deterrent and only proper punishment for the vilest crimes. Our Founders knew well that only capital punishment can bring justice and restore order in response to such evil. For this and other reasons, capital punishment continues to enjoy broad popular support.
Yet for too long, politicians and judges who oppose capital punishment have defied and subverted the laws of our country. At every turn, they seek to thwart the execution of lawfully imposed capital sentences and choose to enforce their personal beliefs rather than the law. When President Biden took office in 2021, he allowed his Department of Justice to issue a moratorium on Federal executions, in defiance of his duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States that provide for capital punishment. And on December 23, 2024, President Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 most vile and sadistic rapists, child molesters, and murderers on Federal death row: remorseless criminals who brutalized young children, strangled and drowned their victims, and hunted strangers for sport. He commuted their sentences even though the laws of our Nation have always protected victims by applying capital punishment to barbaric acts like theirs. Judges who oppose capital punishment have likewise disregarded the law by falsely claiming that capital punishment is unconstitutional, even though the Constitution explicitly acknowledges the legality of capital punishment.
These efforts to subvert and undermine capital punishment defy the laws of our nation, make a mockery of justice, and insult the victims of these horrible crimes. The Government's most solemn responsibility is to protect its citizens from abhorrent acts, and my Administration will not tolerate efforts to stymie and eviscerate the laws that authorize capital punishment against those who commit horrible acts of violence against American citizens.
Sec. 2 . Policy. It is the policy of the United States to ensure that the laws that authorize capital punishment are respected and faithfully implemented, and to counteract the politicians and judges who subvert the law by obstructing and preventing the execution of capital sentences.
Sec. 3 . Federal Capital Punishment. (a) The Attorney General shall pursue the death penalty for all crimes of a severity demanding its use.
(b) In addition to pursuing the death penalty where possible, the Attorney General shall, where consistent with applicable law, pursue Federal jurisdiction and seek the death penalty regardless of other factors for every federal capital crime involving:
(i) The murder of a law-enforcement officer; or
(ii) A capital crime committed by an alien illegally present in this country.
The Attorney General shall encourage State attorneys general and district attorneys to bring State capital charges for all capital crimes with special attention to the crimes described in Subsections (i) and (ii), regardless of whether the federal trial results in a capital sentence.
(d) The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to modify the Justice Manual based on the policy and purpose set forth in this Executive Order.
(e) The Attorney General shall evaluate the places of imprisonment and conditions of confinement for each of the 37 murderers whose Federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden, and the Attorney General shall take all lawful and appropriate action to ensure that these offenders are imprisoned in conditions consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes and the threats they pose. The Attorney General shall further evaluate whether these offenders can be charged with State capital crimes and shall recommend appropriate action to state and local authorities.
Sec. 4 . Preserving Capital Punishment in the States. (a) The Attorney General shall take all necessary and lawful action to ensure that each state that allows capital punishment has a sufficient supply of drugs needed to carry out lethal injection.
(b) The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to approve or deny any pending request for certification made by any State under 28 U.S.C. 2265.
Sec. 5 . Seeking The Overruling of Supreme Court Precedents That Hinder Capital Punishment. The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to seek the overruling of Supreme Court precedents that limit the authority of State and Federal governments to impose capital punishment.
Sec. 6 . Prosecuting Crime to Protect Communities. (a) The Attorney General shall appropriately prioritize public safety and the prosecution of violent crime, and take all appropriate action necessary to dismantle transnational criminal activity in the United States.
(b) To ensure the fullest protection of American communities from violence, the Attorney General shall encourage state attorneys general and district attorneys to adopt policies and practices aligned with subsection (a). Federal law enforcement should coordinate with State and local law enforcement where possible to facilitate these objectives.
Sec. 7 . General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
