This article contains a correction.
On March 25, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that, if enforced, would upend voter registration in the United States; block tens of millions of eligible American citizens from registering to vote; and empower the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to review citizens’ voter registration status. Congress is currently considering passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act—but despite a likely vote on the legislation the week of March 31 in the U.S. House of Representatives—President Trump bypassed Congress and tried to unilaterally and unconstitutionally enact documentary proof of citizenship policies through his executive order.
The U.S. Constitution is clear: Article 1, Section 4 dictates that it is only states and Congress that can make or alter the “time, place, and manner” of holding federal elections. The president is bestowed with no such power under the Constitution or applicable statutory law. Despite this, the executive branch is now attempting to set nationwide voting and election administration policies that would, among other things, require Americans to include a copy of documentation proving their citizenship with a voter registration application. The order applies to members of the military as well—including those deployed overseas.
The requirement to include citizenship documentation with a federal voter registration application would impact not only first-time voters but also registered voters updating their registration information—including for address and name changes as well as changes in party affiliation. For a federal election cycle, approximately 80 million American citizens—40 percent of all active registered voters in the country—either register to vote for the first time or update their voter registration information. This means that enforcement of this unconstitutional executive order would impact tens of millions of Americans every federal election cycle.
It’s also vital to note that federal law and the national voter registration form already require Americans to provide identifying information on a voter registration application. Americans must include their license number (driving or nondriving) on the application, and if they do not have a license, the last four digits of their Social Security number (in some states the full number).* It’s critical that Americans understand there are already safeguards and identification requirements for voter registration—but this unconstitutional executive order as well as the SAVE Act would go far beyond these requirements by mandating Americans provide documents that tens of millions of people do not have access to.
Key provisions of the executive order rely on action by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)—an independent bipartisan agency composed of two Republican and two Democratic Commissioners. Congress specifically designed the EAC this way to insulate it from presidential political interference. The agency does not have regulatory authority but, rather, develops voluntary guidelines and resources to provide states support in administering elections. Unlike executive branch agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, the president does not have the authority to direct the actions of independent agencies. In theory, three of the four EAC commissioner would need to vote to approve an update to the national voter registration form or take other measures outlined in the order—actions entirely unlikely with the commission’s bipartisan makeup. It’s also noteworthy that two of the EAC’s current commissioners have been appointed by President Trump: one Democrat and one Republican.
The courts must act swiftly and protect the constitutional right to vote for all eligible American citizens against this power grab, as President Trump’s plans would disenfranchise millions. Some state legislatures, including in Texas, have been working to pass documentary proof-of-citizenship legislation similar to both the SAVE Act as well as this executive order. There is a risk that—even if federal courts ultimately strike down the executive order—secretaries of state who support documentary proof of citizenship laws may move quickly and use this executive order as justification to require voters in their state to provide onerous proof of citizenship when registering to vote. They might argue this allows them to bypass their state legislatures, governors, or any constitutional amendments that could be required to enact such a law. This could lead to drastically more litigation in state and federal courts over the coming months and years—adding to voter uncertainty—while also imposing steep administrative burdens on election officials and further straining state and local budgets.
Now, more than ever, Americans need to hold politicians accountable. However, this executive order seeks to silence millions of citizens—Republicans, independents, and Democrats alike. Elected leaders are being confronted at town halls for pushing deeply unpopular policies that hurt Americans—such as cutting Medicaid and Society Security benefits—and now the administration is trying to choose who can and cannot hold elected leaders accountable with their votes.
Trump’s executive order would require Americans to have a passport
Despite several documents being listed in the executive order, only a U.S. passport could be reliably used to prove an individual’s citizenship status.
The executive order states that a REAL ID, military ID, or other government-issued photo ID could be used if these forms of identification indicate that a person is a U.S. citizen. However, federal law does not require REAL IDs to indicate whether or not a person is a U.S. citizen and legally residing noncitizens are eligible for REAL ID in all 50 states.** The use of REAL IDs to prove citizenship is currently unworkable for Americans nationwide, and only about 56 percent of driver’s licenses in circulation are even REAL ID compliant. Congressional Republicans have proposed legislation that would require REAL IDs to indicate citizenship status, but this has not been passed into law. At a House committee hearing on the SAVE Act last year, Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI)—who currently chairs the Committee on House Administration—even conceded that Americans could not use REAL IDs to prove citizenship for voter registration purposes.
As for military IDs, they do not affirmatively indicate that someone is a U.S. citizen. Noncitizens can serve in the military, and eligible dependents of military members—for example, a noncitizen spouse—are also eligible for military IDs.
It is also critical to note that U.S. birth certificates, naturalization certificates, and tribal IDs are not explicitly mentioned in the executive order as documents that Americans could use to prove their citizenship status. Even the SAVE Act explicitly allows for the documents to be used in combination with other supporting documentation. The executive order’s exclusion of birth certificates as valid proof of U.S. citizenship should be seen as another sign of this administration’s attempts to overturn the constitutional right of birthright citizenship—despite the courts’ multiple moves to stop enforcement of that separate unconstitutional effort.
As a previous analysis from the authors has shown, 146 million American citizens do not possess a passport. Citizens living in red and rural states are less likely to possess a passport, while citizens in blue, coastal states are far more likely.
If this executive order were enforced, most American citizens would need to acquire a passport in order to register to vote or update their voter registration information. Obtaining a passport for the first time costs $165.*** As a previous analysis from the authors has shown, 146 million American citizens do not possess a passport. Citizens living in red and rural states are less likely to possess a passport, while citizens in blue, coastal states are far more likely.
In seven states, fewer than one-third of citizens have a valid passport: West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. In West Virginia for example, 80 percent of U.S. citizens do not have a passport. Under the executive order, this means that about 80 percent of West Virginia citizens—1.4 million people—could not register to vote or update their voter registration information without acquiring a U.S. passport. In a state as populous as Texas, approximately 12.4 million citizens do not have a passport. It’s also only in four states—New York, Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey—that more than two-thirds of citizens have a valid passport. But, even in California—the most populous state in the country with a relatively high passport ownership rate—9.6 million citizens do not have a passport.
Requiring passport possession for voter registration would disproportionately disenfranchise rural, working-class, and lower-income Americans. When broken down by party affiliation, Republicans are also less likely to possess a passport compared to Democrats. The profile of an American citizen most likely to have a passport? A coastal state citizen with a graduate or postgraduate degree, who earns more than $100,000, and identifies as a Democrat. The profile of a citizen who is the least likely to have a passport? A southern rural citizen with a high school education or less, making $50,000 or below, and who identifies as Republican.
And while it’s important to understand the unequal impacts this unfair policy would have, the bottom line is that millions of Americans across the political spectrum would be kept out of the voting booth if they were required to provide a passport for voter registration.
Other mandates in the executive order
In addition to upending voter registration as Americans know it, the executive order would mandate a slew of other policies in an attempt to assert dominance over states and Congress in election policies and administration procedures.
Perhaps most alarmingly, the executive order mandates that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—in coordination with DOGE—review every single state’s voter registration list as well as how states maintain their voter rolls. DOGE—and, by extension, Elon Musk—have absolutely no constitutional or legal authority to oversee how states run their elections or possibly review which citizens belong on a state’s voter rolls. Every single American citizen should be alarmed that the president is mandating that this unaccountable puppet agency review their voter registration status.
As previously noted, the executive order also heavily relies on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for implementation and the president has no authority to direct the agency to take any action. However, given President Trump’s recent unconstitutional firings of other independent agency commissioners, election administration experts have already warned about the potential for similar firings to occur at the EAC if commissioners do not comply with the executive order. This is heightened further by the president’s legally questionable executive order mandating that all independent agencies report to the Office of Management and Budget.
The March 25 voting rights executive order even aims to dictate when states can accept mail-in ballots. Currently—under their respective state laws—17 states and Washington, D.C., accept and count mail-in ballots if they are postmarked on or before Election Day but arrive within a prescribed number of days after Election Day.**** This policy is not inherently partisan and is the law in eight blue states, two purple state, and seven red states.
The policy to count ballots postmarked by Election Day ensures that voters who cast a ballot by mail have up to Election Day to make their decision on who to vote for but still have their ballot counted like all other eligible American citizens. It’s also a policy that is beneficial in large and rural states such as Alaska, where voting by mail is popular and more accessible than voting at an election office but where mail delivery may take longer. Almost immediately following the executive order, the Kansas state legislature was emboldened to override the governor’s veto of a bill eliminating the state’s three-day post-election day period. This policy was adopted with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2017. But during the 2020 presidential election, President Trump claimed without evidence that state laws to accept postmarked ballots after election day amounted to voter fraud. Targeting a policy such as this—which the president has previously personally disliked—also goes to show that executive orders issued under this administration are not in the national interest but rather seem to be in the interest of the president himself.
Conclusion
This executive order, as with the SAVE Act, falsely claims to be about preventing noncitizens from voting. These claims have continued despite widespread evidence that noncitizen voting is virtually nonexistent. In fact, this was reaffirmed in 2018 when President Trump’s own Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity disbanded because it was unable to uncover any evidence of widespread voting by noncitizens.
In states such as Kansas and Arizona—which have enforced state laws requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration—tens of thousands of eligible American citizens have been blocked from the ballot box and hundreds of thousands have been nearly disenfranchised in proximity of an election. In recent local elections in New Hampshire, administered under the state’s new proof of citizenship law, voters reported being turned away from the polls multiple times because they did not have the documentation needed to register, while others did not return to cast their vote after being denied registration.
This executive order must be recognized for what it is: A desperate power grab by an administration that is afraid of the American people.
Despite the proven dangerous impacts of these laws, Congress has continued the push forward on the SAVE Act. And, now, the president has attempted to unilaterally and unconstitutionally enact its policies and grant power to his departments and agencies to oversee how states run elections. All eligible American citizens—not just those that travel internationally—have the right to make their voices heard in elections. The executive branch does not have the power to dictate how states administer elections. This executive order must be recognized for what it is: A desperate power grab by an administration that is afraid of the American people.
*Authors’ note: States have failsafe measures for voters who cannot provide any identifying information on an application such as requiring them to show a form of identification instead when they vote for the first time. This is similar however to voter ID laws many states have at the polls, which also have failsafe and either allow voters to attest to their identity eligible under penalty of perjury or cast a provision ballot.
**Authors’ note: Some reports have indicated that Enhanced Driver’s Licenses (EDLs)—that are only available in five states—could possibly be used to prove citizenship, as they are only given to citizens. However, nothing on the actual card affirmatively indicates the citizenship status of a person akin to the way a passport explicitly states that the passport holder is a U.S. national. Therefore, it is not inherently clear that EDLs could be used to prove citizenship for voter registration purposes.
***Authors’ note: Passport cards would also qualify for proof of citizenship. These cost approximately $65 to attain but only allow for travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
****Authors’ note: As of publication, 17 states and Washington, D.C., accept and count mail-in ballots if they are postmarked on or before Election Day but arrive within a prescribed number of days after Election Day. On the evening of March 25, the Kansas legislature passed a law to no longer accept ballots postmarked by Election Day but that are received after. This policy is the law in eight blue states: California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington. Two purple states: Virginia and Nevada. And seven red states: Alaska, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, West Virginia.
Correction, March 27, 2025: This article has been updated to accurately reflect the first-time cost of a passport and a passport card.