Attempting to Rewrite Election Rules and Interfere with Election Administration via Executive Order
In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that aims to overhaul and exert partial control over significant parts of the nation’s election systems. The order includes several provisions; here we highlight three.
First, the order purports to direct the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — an independent, bipartisan agency that assists states with election administration — to mandate that voters show a passport or other, similar document proving citizenship when they register to vote using the federal voter registration form.
Second, it attempts to force the EAC to amend its guidelines to rescind all previous certifications of voting equipment based on prior standards and, if appropriate, to re-certify voting systems under amended guidelines, which are to include provisions from the executive order. Eleven states and Washington, D.C., require their systems to be federally certified. And even states that do not require federal certification typically incorporate federal guidelines and testing and use voting systems that have been federally certified. Yet currently, just one voting system on the market complies with the standards issued prior to the executive order, and it was only certified on July 7, 2025. Replacing machines could cost states billions of dollars.
The president’s attempt to interfere with voting systems is not novel. In his first term, he tried to direct the attorney general, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to seize voting machines. He was unsuccessful. Yet now there are signs that the federal government may already be attempting to interfere with voting systems, beyond anything expressed in the executive order. A DHS official and an individual claiming to work for the administration have asked election officials in Colorado for access to their voting equipment.
Third, the order calls on the administration’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and DHS to obtain state voter files and other records kept by election officials, including voter list maintenance records. The DOJ has already requested voter lists from at least nine states, and at least two have provided them. Unredacted voter files and voter list maintenance records can contain sensitive private information about U.S. citizens. Other records may contain information that is subject to access controls for security reasons. Relatedly, the order mandates that states have access to federal citizenship data for voter list maintenance purposes; DHS recently overhauled and expanded the scope of its program for states to identify supposed noncitizens on the voter rolls.
Each of these provisions is analyzed in turn.
Attempting to Impose a “Show Your Papers” Requirement on Voters
Impact: If implemented, the requirement to show a citizenship document to register to vote when using the federal form would undermine voting and disrupt election administration in multiple respects. The “show your papers” provision, which overlaps significantly with the policy laid out in the deeply unpopular SAVE Act (which has stalled in the U.S. Senate), could block millions of American citizens from voting. According to research by the Brennan Center, more than 21 million citizens do not have a birth certificate, a passport, or naturalization papers readily available.
Why It’s Wrong: A president has no right to rewrite the country’s election rules or regulate federal elections on his own. As a federal court recently put it, “The Constitution vests none of these powers in the President.” In issuing the order, the president claimed extraordinary unilateral authority to regulate federal elections and usurp the powers of Congress, the states, and the EAC, an independent, bipartisan federal agency.
Status: The order was challenged in five lawsuits across the country. Two courts have blocked some provisions while litigation proceeds, including those directing the EAC to add a requirement to show a passport or naturalization document to register to vote in federal elections. The same reasoning — that the president lacks authority to compel the EAC to act — would apply to other parts of the order that have not yet been carried out. Litigation is ongoing.
Meddling with Election Equipment
Impact: The president’s directive in the executive order undermines faith in elections and voting machines and provides pretext for election deniers to discredit outcomes in the future. Any attempt to access voting machines by the administration makes this risk more pronounced. It may also encourage states to opt for hand-counting ballots, an error-prone process that can cause certification delays.
Why It’s Wrong: The president does not have the authority to regulate elections, including voting equipment guidelines. Nor does he have the power to direct the EAC, an independent agency, in any manner, as a federal court recently affirmed. And though certain federal agencies have authority to offer technical assistance or issue guidelines for voting equipment, none has authority to take exclusive custody of voting equipment for inspection. States also have rules on who can access equipment. In Colorado, for example, once someone other than an election official or other authorized person accesses a voting system, use of the equipment can be prohibited.
Status: Washington and Oregon have challenged the executive order’s provisions purporting to amend voting system guidelines. That litigation is ongoing. And though the EAC has drafted voting system guidelines pursuant to the order, the agency still must follow several steps under federal law before the guidelines can be implemented, including consulting with advisory boards of nonpartisan experts and posting the guidelines for public comment.
Accessing Sensitive Voter File Data
Impact: The administration could abuse voter file access to claim fraud and erode public trust in elections; it could also pressure state officials to target groups of voters and carry out unwarranted voter purges. Any disclosure of sensitive personal information puts individuals and groups at risk of being intimidated or doxed. And mishandling voter file data could expose U.S. elections to political and foreign interference.
Why It’s Wrong: DOGE has a track record of mishandling sensitive data. For example, within minutes after it gained access to the National Labor Relations Board’s systems in March 2025, someone with a Russian IP address made several attempts to access the database using one of the department’s newly created accounts. Those attempts were blocked, but the fact that foreign adversaries were able to immediately make such attempts indicates that election systems and the data they hold risk being compromised when left in the hands of DOGE. And for its part, DHS has previously failed to fulfill its privacy obligations.
Status: Depending on how DOGE or DHS uses or discloses data, it may run afoul of federal law, including the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. In some states, giving voter records to the federal government without written consent from voters would also be a violation of state law; in others, redaction would be required.