Your voting rights are critical in running a democracy. Each state is responsible for running elections. Do you want to give up your state’s control of elections?

President Trump issued Executive Order 14248 in March 2025 to impose federal control over voter registration and election procedures, including proof of citizenship, but many of its provisions have been blocked or are under legal challenge.

Overview of the Executive Order

On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”, aiming to assert presidential authority over federal elections. The order sought to:

• Require proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration using the national form

• Mandate federal agencies to review state voter registration files
• Restrict mail-in ballots and impose hand-counting of ballots
• Direct the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to revise voting machine guidelines and rescind prior certifications
• Threatened states with federal lawsuits or funding losses for noncompliance.

The order mirrored provisions in the SAVE America Act, which passed the House but faced hurdles in the Senate, and Trump indicated he might issue the executive order if the legislation stalled.

Legal Challenges and Court Actions

The executive order has faced extensive litigation:

• Section 2(a), requiring proof of citizenship for federal voter registration, was blocked by multiple federal courts as unconstitutional.
• Section 2(b), directing federal agencies to access state voter files, is partially underway in 11 states, but courts have ruled that states are not required to comply.
• Section 2(d), mandating federal agencies to assess citizenship before providing voter registration forms, was blocked by courts.
• Courts have consistently emphasized that the Constitution assigns election authority to states and Congress, not the president, making unilateral federal control over elections legally questionable.
• Several federal judges have issued injunctions against the order, and ongoing litigation continues in multiple states, including Washington, Oregon, California, and D.C.

Political Context and Controversy

Trump and his allies have promoted the order as a measure to prevent voter fraud, including claims of foreign interference in the 2020 election, though intelligence assessments found no evidence of widespread manipulation. The order has been criticized as:

• Voter suppression, potentially affecting millions of Americans who lack passports or other required documents
• Overreach of presidential authority, attempting to nationalize election procedures traditionally managed by states

By ALI SWENSON and GARY FIELDS

Updated 5:49 PM EDT, March 26, 2025

WASHINGTON (AP) — With the stroke of his pen, President Donald Trump restructured the way Americans can register to vote and when they can cast their ballots. Or did he?

After the president signed his executive order Tuesday calling for broad election changes, such as proof of citizenship for voter registration and an Election Day return deadline for mailed ballots, election officials, state attorneys general and legal experts said it would face legal challenges for encroaching on state powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

The order is “unlawful,” Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in a statement.

“This cannot be done through executive action,” said David Becker, a former U.S. Justice Department attorney who leads the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said he expects his state and other states will challenge the executive order, just as they have several of Trump’s other actions. He said he’s never seen a president threaten the integrity of state election rules as Trump did through his order.

The Trump administration says it has the authority to require the changes to secure U.S. elections from voter fraud, which the president falsely claims is widespread and responsible for his 2020 election loss. A decision about the order’s legality will ultimately rest with the courts.

As he signed the order, Trump teased that there would be more action to combat voter fraud “in the coming weeks.” Asked about the order on a podcast on Wednesday, Trump doubled down on his threat to withhold federal funds from states that don’t comply and reiterated his frequent election falsehoods.

Here’s a closer look at the legal obstacles for Trump’s far-reaching executive order:

The president has limited authority to regulate elections

Trump’s order calls for dramatic changes to voter registration and election procedures. For one, it requires states to ensure that all ballots are returned by Election Day – not simply postmarked by that day – or risk losing federal funding.

But the authority he’s claiming goes beyond what’s outlined in the Constitution, several election law experts said. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution says states get to determine the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run.

Elections in the U.S. are unique because they are not centralized. Rather than being run by the federal government, they’re conducted by election officials and volunteers in thousands of jurisdictions across the country, from tiny townships to sprawling urban counties with more voters than some states have people. The Constitution’s so-called “Elections Clause” also gives Congress the power to “make or alter” election regulations, at least for federal office, but it doesn’t mention any presidential authority over election administration.

Becker said when there is a nationwide problem with voting that needs to be solved, such as a particular group of voters being denied the right to vote, “it’s always done through Congress.”

“Look, the Constitution was very clear: The president is not king,” Becker said. “The president doesn’t get to establish executive orders that affect the states with the swipe of a pen. If he wants to affect funding, he has to go through Congress to do that.”

Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights program at the Brennan Center for Justice, called the executive order “statutorily and constitutionally” illegal. As an example, he pointed to the provision requiring documentary proof of citizenship, which he said violates the National Voter Registration Act.

It’s not the first time a president has issued an election-related executive order. In 2021, former President Joe Biden issued one directing federal agencies to take steps to promote voting access — earning him criticism from Republicans who argued it was unconstitutional and exceeded his authority. Trump rescinded that order earlier this year.

The order claims questionable power over an independent agency

Trump’s order instructs a bipartisan, independent agency, the Election Assistance Commission, to amend its federal voter registration form and its guidelines for voting systems. It says the commission should then rescind certification of voting equipment that doesn’t meet its chosen standards.

But because the EAC was established by Congress to be independent, “the president can’t just dictate to the EAC what they do,” said Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy and partnerships at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

Trump’s directives to the EAC come as he has sought to consolidate power over other independent agencies, including the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

In a blog post, Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, described the executive order as an “executive power grab” that “would severely shift power over federal elections into the hands of the presidency” if it survives a court challenge.

A representative from the EAC didn’t immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

Expect to see lawsuits over voter disenfranchisement

Even if courts eventually rule that Trump’s order can stand, parts of it could face additional legal challenges if they prevent eligible voters from casting ballots.

Millions of Americans don’t have appropriate documents readily available to prove their citizenship, even though they are U.S. citizens. For example, in recent town elections in New Hampshire, which recently passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement, some women didn’t have proper documentation because they had changed their last names when they married.

The order also says the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Government Efficiency, the government cost-cutting initiative led by Elon Musk, will be able to obtain and review each state’s voter registration lists and potentially sensitive voter data, under subpoena power.

Xavier Persad, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he could foresee a “faulty data review that would undoubtedly lead to eligible voters being improperly flagged for potential removal from the voter rolls and for potential criminal prosecution.” Just the threat of that outcome would intimidate voters and suppress turnout, he said.

“We won’t let this stand,” Persad said. “We will definitely see the administration in court.”

Legal challenges are on the horizon

Along with the ACLU, the Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause said they were reviewing the order for possible challenges. A stronger pledge came from the prominent Democratic election and voting rights attorney Marc Elias, who posted online on Tuesday, “We will sue.”

State election officials and attorneys general had mixed responses, with several Republicans applauding the order and its promise to share federal citizenship data with states to help them identify noncitizens on their voter rolls.

Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican who has gained a national profile for pushing back against baseless election conspiracy theories, said in a statement that Trump’s order “makes points that states should have been doing for years.”

But the top law enforcement officials in some Democratic-led states said they were evaluating options to defend their states’ election laws and processes.

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, said his office is reviewing the order, noting that his state would be particularly impacted as one that votes entirely by mail.

“I don’t think any serious lawyer looking at it thinks the order is legal,” he said. “Voting systems for generations have been the purview of states and counties to govern.”

___

Swenson reported from New York. Associated Press writers Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, and Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about the AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

ALI SWENSON

Swenson covers politics and the information landscape for The Associated Press. She is based in New York.

Can you see the threats to your state rights? If the federal government can control elections, corruption in the Federal government can corrupt the entire country. If states control elections, it is more difficult to control them. Corruptors would need to corrupt each separate state.

You need to vote in the midterm election. Voting by mail is safer.