Trump's plan for future elections

President Trump signed an expansive executive order that would 'rig elections in his favor'

(Image credit: Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

published 8 April 2025

President Trump's "oh-so-fragile ego" compels him to "cast any vote won by an opponent as fraudulent," said Chris Brennan in USA Today. So it's no surprise that he signed an expansive executive order last week that would "rig elections in his favor." Most significantly, the order directs the Election Assistance Commission—a small federal agency— to require citizens who register to vote via a federal form to show proof of citizenship. That would put more than 21 million mostly low-income Americans who lack a passport or other approved document at risk of disenfranchisement. Trump's order "addresses no pressing problem in America," said The Washington Post in an editorial. "Voting experts have routinely demonstrated that illegal voting by noncitizens is exceedingly rare." Georgia, for example, audited its voter rolls last year and found only 20 noncitizens among its 8 million voters. Trump's order also takes aim at mail-in voting, which he has repeatedly claimed unfairly cost him the 2020 election, with a threat to pull federal election funding from the 18 states that count mail ballots sent before but received after Election Day.

Several lawsuits have already been filed against Trump's "amateurish order," said Noah Feldman in Bloomberg, and they're likely to win a block. For starters, the president has no authority over the EAC, an independent body created by Congress in 2002. Secondly, the National Voter Registration Act, a "binding federal law," says you can prove citizenship simply by checking a box saying so under threat of perjury—so you don't need a passport or Real ID driver's license to vote. Sure, the order contains "worrying and legally murky" aspects, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. But there are also "useful presidential prerogatives," including better equipping states to verify voter registration lists and telling the attorney general to prioritize enforcement of voting laws. Still, the Constitution explicitly vests the states with the power to set the rules for federal elections. Both Democrats and Republicans "should be wary of nationalizing voting, if only because neither wants the other in charge."

Trump's order isn't really about election policy, said Ari Berman in Mother Jones. The goal is to sow doubt among Americans about the sanctity of the vote. And even if Trump loses in court, "the order could have dangerous ramifications." A defeat would serve as a pretext for Trump "to make more bogus claims of voter fraud and attempt to overturn future elections." Our democracy is on very shaky ground.