During the first few weeks of the Trump presidency, the new president has made the most news with his executive actions. Relying on executive orders and presidential memoranda, the White House has tackled issues including health care, immigration, housing policy, regulations and more. Some of those actions have sparked outrage among the president's opponents and even among some Republicans.

It is important, though, to put President Donald Trump's executive actions into context and discuss the benefits and challenges of uses of presidential power.

First, it's a myth that Trump is using executive actions with unprecedented speed. His predecessor, Barack Obama, used a combination of different executive actions with similar speed in the early days of his administration in 2009. Of course, not all actions are created equal, and it is clear, Trump has used many of these actions to make significant changes in major areas of policy. In many cases, he is using these actions to advance promises he made explicitly and frequently on the campaign trail. Obama tackled big issues by the stroke of a pen, as well, and that is often the prerogative of new presidents seeking to deliver for their voters.

Second, policy disagreement over Trump's actions does not make them illegal or unconstitutional. Most of Trump's actions have been unquestionably within the scope of his authority. Those actions have been meaningful; they have marked significant policy change. And, most important, he has had constitutional or statutory cover to take those actions.

Democrats lament some of these choices. Some advocacy organizations have been appalled by Trump's moves. Even the business community has voiced concern over issues like trade and immigration. That dissent should be part of a broader policy conversation and competition of ideas. However, those disagreeing with the president should not lob charges of illegality or unconstitutionality on every issue.

Not all of Mr. Trump's actions are clearly consistent with the law, however. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is now in the spotlight while it considers the appropriateness of the president's immigration order barring visitors from seven majority Muslim countries. Issues over discrimination on the basis of national origin and the possible relief entitled to individuals who have already secured visas rest at the heart of this legal challenge.

Cartoons on President Donald Trump View All 941 Images

The president's commitment to restrict funding to sanctuary cities also raises questions about violations of individual funding program requirements as well as 10th Amendment concerns. Just because the president takes an action, doesn't make it legal, and Trump – like every president – is seeing those battles play out in federal courts.

In the early weeks of the Trump administration, the biggest story has been an administrative failure. Trump's unique approach to the presidency and very public use of executive actions has shown the limits of his effort to turn institutions upside down. The administration's failure to vet an immigration executive order through the agencies that would be affected by it or expected to implement it ensured that unintended consequences were likely. In addition, failure to inform many of those agencies about the coming order left them unable to ask for guidance on implementation prior to its taking effect. That ensured serious implementation challenges.

The creation of the order in a White House with an extraordinarily thin knowledge of complex areas of public policy made certain that the order would create serious policy conflicts, such as barring military translators or college professors to enter or re-enter the country. American public policy is complicated and policymaking channels exist not to hinder the president's power but to make sure that policies can be carried out to full effect. The Trump administration must take a lesson from the fallout of the immigration order so that the businessman president can limit future managerial failures.

Finally, Trump needs to realize that his use of executive actions risks alienating Congress. The Republican president is in a beneficial position legislatively. His party controls both chambers of Congress. That allows him an easier path to push through a legislative agenda and make policy changes more permanent than an executive action allows. Congress expects to play a significant role in this process as well.

There is little evidence that the president is actively seeking to alienate Congress. However, the president has talked publicly about an infrastructure package, a health care replacement, tax reform and a host of other issues, without providing much detail or pushing for specific proposals to be introduced in Congress. Each of these major initiatives will require legislative activity, and the president's attention must shift away from show-and-tell-style photo ops at executive action signing ceremonies and focus on lawmaking.