President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order on Tuesday, March 25, aiming to reshape U.S. elections by mandating proof of citizenship for voter registration, requiring all ballots to be received by Election Day, and imposing new voting system rules.
Signed amid his persistent claims of electoral flaws, the order also threatens to cut federal funding from non-compliant states and seeks to bar foreign nationals from donating to certain campaigns. While ambitious, its broad scope raises significant questions about enforceability, given the Constitution’s delegation of election authority to states, setting the stage for fierce legal challenges.
The order demands that the federal voter registration form require documentary proof of citizenship—like a passport or birth certificate—and directs states to share voter rolls with the Department of Homeland Security and the new Department of Government Efficiency to weed out non-citizens, despite non-citizen voting being a rare, already prosecutable felony.
Trump’s focus on mail voting insists ballots be received by Election Day, clashing with 18 states and Puerto Rico, including California, where postmarked ballots are counted days or weeks later for accuracy—a process critics like Trump argue erodes trust, though evidence of widespread fraud remains scant.
Further, the order targets voting technology, instructing the Election Assistance Commission to revise guidelines within six months, banning QR codes or barcodes in vote counting—a move that could disrupt systems in states like Georgia, where touchscreen machines print QR-coded ballots.
It also aims to block foreign donations, echoing recent state-level Republican efforts against figures like Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, whose funding has backed progressive causes.
Legal experts predict swift pushback from voting rights groups, arguing the order oversteps federal authority and risks disenfranchising voters. Trump, undeterred, promised more actions soon, but with states historically guarding their election autonomy—like California’s slow, meticulous counts or Georgia’s tech reliance—the order’s fate hinges on courts and compliance.
For now, it’s a bold gambit in Trump’s long crusade against perceived election vulnerabilities.