Posting for proof verification and tips!
Ordered field axioms used:
1. $\forall_{a,b\in\mathbb{F}}(0\leq a \land 0\leq b \implies 0\leq ab)$
2. $\forall_{a,b\in\mathbb{F}}(a\leq b \implies a+c\leq b+c)$
Theorem 1: Let $\mathbb{F}$ be a field. If $x\in\mathbb{F}$, then $\forall_{x\neq0}(0<x^2)$.
Proof:
Let $0\leq x$, then $ 0\leq x \land 0\leq x \implies 0\leq x^2$ by axiom (1). We also know that $x^2=(-x)^2$, so that $ 0\leq x \land 0\leq x \implies 0\leq x^2$ and $ 0\leq x \land 0\leq x \implies 0\leq (-x)^2$.
As $0\leq x$, $-x \leq 0$, so then $\forall_x(0\leq x^2).$
Let $x\neq0 \iff x^2\neq0$, then $[x^2\neq0 \land \forall_x(0\leq x^2)] \implies [\forall_x(0\lt x^2)]$$\tag*{$\Box$}$
With this fact, we can move on to the second part; there is no total orering of $\mathbb{C}$ such that it is an ordered field.
Proof:
We know that $i^2=-1<0$, which contradicts the just proven property: $\forall_{x\neq0}(0<x^2)$.
This proof was originally a bit longer, but I saw that some steps were unnecessary or just stating the same thing repeatedly. However, having it reduced to this one line, I can't really believe this would pass as a valid proof... Maybe it's wrong to use the fact that $i^2=-1?$
Proof (2):
We know that $1\neq 0$ and that $1^2=1\times1=1$ by axioms of a field. Thus, by theorem (1) we know that $0\lt 1^2 \iff 0<1$. Then, by axiom (2), we know that $0+(-1) < 1 +(-1)$ and by axioms of a field, we know that this is equivalent to $-1<0$.
We also know that $i^2=-1$ by its definition, and therefore that $-1=i^2<0$. This is a contradiction, as we have already proved in theorem (1) that a square of any number in a field must be positive.
Thus, there is no total ordering for $\mathbb{C}$ such that it is an ordered field.