(ABC 6 News) — On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed a number of executive orders, laying out his plans for everything from immigration, to energy, to American involvement abroad.

Experts say the impact of these orders won’t be clear for sometime, but regardless, there are problems and potential in many of them.

One of President Trump’s prime focuses in his first actions was immigration – an already complex issue his administration has a history of making more complex, according to Julia Decker.

Decker is the policy director for the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, and worked removal cases during Trump’s first term.

“You’d have a case that was sort of in this particular posture,” she said, “and then Friday evening comes along and the entire Department of Homeland Security changes its policy.”

Trump’s latest decisions mostly involve policies along the southern border, something that isn’t often an issue here in Minnesota.

However, other decisions, like the ending birthright citizenship or suspending programs for refugees and asylum seekers could have implications for people already in the U.S.

Some of whom may have been here for years already.

“Those types of programs, as well as people who may be in some type of temporary status or simply don’t have status and don’t have a criminal record that would have previously made them a priority for ICE enforcement, a lot of those things are changing right now,” Decker said.

Some of those orders are already facing legal challenges.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has joined a number of other states suing Trump over his attempt to end birthright citizenship.

Another focus of the President’s actions involves pulling out of the World Health Organization.

The order says the reasoning lies in the W.H.O.’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic,” “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms,” and how it “continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States.”

Dr. Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said there’s some merit to those criticisms.

“The fact that the United States pays almost 20% of the going cost of running the WHO by itself says that the world needs to kick in more,” he said.

However, despite that outsized funding, the U.S. has long enjoyed the benefits of the organization’s efforts – something it may lose by withdrawing support.

“I think this decision’s gonna result in an ever increasing number of infectious disease challenges coming out of low and middle income countries that are not going to get addressed,” Dr. Osterholm said. “That will in turn mean more of these outbreaks here in the United States because we have a very fluid world.”