
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 21: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Marine One at the White House on March 21, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump is traveling to Bedminster, New Jersey and is expected to attend the 2025 NCAA Division I Men’s Wrestling Championship in Philadelphia tomorrow. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Washington, D.C. – In a move set to drastically reshape American voter registration, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that imposes sweeping new restrictions on the voting process. Critics argue that the measure could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters if enacted.
The order mandates proof of citizenship, such as a passport, to vote in federal elections, blocks states from accepting mail-in ballots postmarked before but arriving after Election Day, and grants federal agencies the authority to cut funding to states that fail to comply. Additionally, the order instructs the Department of Justice to aggressively prosecute what the administration describes as “election crimes.”
Will Scharf, the White House staff secretary, characterized the order as “the farthest reaching executive action taken” in American history. The measure echoes a longstanding conservative push to tighten voting laws and align them with the controversial Save American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act currently pending in Congress.
Experts have swiftly raised constitutional concerns, as election oversight primarily falls under state and congressional authority rather than the executive branch. Danielle Lang, a voting rights attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, called the order “lawless” and suggested it oversteps presidential powers.
“The short answer is that this executive order, like all too many that we’ve seen before, is lawless and asserts all sorts of executive authority that [Trump] most assuredly does not have,” Lang stated.
The courts have repeatedly ruled against similar citizenship verification requirements. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Arizona’s attempt to mandate proof of citizenship for federal elections, reaffirming that such changes must be made by the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission. Efforts to introduce such measures have also been legally challenged in Kansas, where a similar law between 2013 and 2016 jeopardized the registrations of 30,000 eligible voters before being struck down.
Critics argue that requiring proof of citizenship would impose a disproportionate burden on millions of Americans. A 2023 State Department report revealed that fewer than half of Americans hold valid passports. Additionally, a Center for American Progress study estimated that nearly 69 million women who have changed their names could struggle to produce matching documentation.
The Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement reported in 2024 that approximately 21 million voting-age Americans—around 9% of the population—lack a current, valid ID. Voting rights advocates warn that such measures will disproportionately affect low-income, elderly, and minority voters.
Despite a lack of evidence supporting claims of widespread voter fraud, Trump justified the executive order as a necessary step toward securing elections.
“Perhaps some people think I shouldn’t be complaining because we won in a landslide, but we got to straighten out our election,” Trump said while signing the order.
Election security officials have repeatedly debunked allegations of widespread fraud. A day after the 2024 elections, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Jen Easterly stated, “Our election infrastructure has never been more secure and the election community never better prepared to deliver safe, secure, free, and fair elections.”
Despite these reassurances, Trump hinted at further measures in the coming weeks, suggesting this executive action is just the beginning of his broader efforts to reshape voting procedures.
The executive order is expected to face swift legal challenges, with opponents arguing that it undermines democratic access and overreaches presidential authority. Whether the courts will strike it down, as they have with similar past efforts, remains to be seen.