Huh. I guess you're right. I looked up the difference and they're more like threats than legally binding. Until they're EO's anyways

Wow I had no idea. Also, guess when they became more of a thing. Obama.

Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and are legally binding. They give presidents the power to create unilateral directives, though they can be overturned if a court rules they’re unconstitutional. Executive orders remain in place until rescinded or modified by a president, reversed by a court or nullified by legislation.

Executive actions, by contrast, bear little weight. They’re not published in the Federal Register and aren’t subject to legal review. But these so-called threats-to-orders often draw reactions as sharp as the responses to orders themselves.

Even Google conflates them.Type “executive action” into the search bar, and the first results offer data on executive orders — using the words as equivalents.

Executive orders — the powerful ones — date back to the first days of George Washington’s presidency. The first executive orders the U.S. State Department officially recorded were Abraham Lincoln’s. Notably, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by executive order.

Executive actions don’t share that lengthy history. They didn't become common until the 2000s, when they were political fodder for President Barack Obama, who issued dozens of the statements during his administration.

Obama’s critics say he issued a record number of executive orders when, in reality, his executive order volume aligned with his predecessors. He signed 276 orders during his eight years in office, according to the Federal Register — not more than 900, as is sometimes suggested. George W. Bush issued 291 during his two terms; Bill Clinton issued 254.