The EAC Should Safeguard Elections – Not Control Them.

June 18, 2025

In another blow to President Trump’s election agenda, a second judge issued a preliminary injunction on June 13 – blocking some of the President’s most extreme plans to overhaul our elections. This decision paused one of the most controversial parts of President Trump’s executive order: directing the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require Americans to show a passport or birth certificate proving their citizenship when they register to vote.

This directive to the EAC raises multiple concerns:

First, proof of citizenship is a policy with a proven track record of creating chaos and stripping American citizens of their ability to vote.
Second, the president has no authority whatsoever over the EAC.

While numerous courts have blocked the president’s EAC directives from taking effect, the fight to maintain state control over elections is far from over.

A Bipartisan Commission, Not a Political Weapon

After the chaos in Florida coming out of the 2000 presidential election — including confusing ballots, outdated machines, and inaccurate voter rolls — Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002.

One of HAVA’s key provisions was the creation of the EAC. The EAC is an independent, bipartisan agency charged with setting voluntary voting system guidelines. They also certify voting machines, and conduct annual audits of the use of federal funds for election administration. The EAC’s stated mission is to “help election officials improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process.”

The EAC was also created to serve as a national clearinghouse for best practices and standards for voting machines. This is why EAC commissioners must have deep expertise in election administration or the study of elections. Current EAC commissioners have decades of experience, from administrating local and state elections to prosecuting voting rights violations for the Department of Justice.

Importantly, the EAC created the Local Leadership Council in 2021, made up of two election officials from each state. The council serves as an advisory board and provides direct feedback around local election administration. This reflects the fact that the EAC’s mission is not to enforce mandates from on high. Instead, its role has always been to support—not supplant—state control over elections.

Trump’s Executive Order: Governing Without Congress

In March, President Trump issued a sweeping executive order that laid out his vision for radically reshaping U.S. election policy. The order included directives to the EAC to:

Require Americans to show a passport or birth certificate when registering to vote using the federal voter registration form. Many Americans do not have access to these documents.
Withhold federal election funding from states that accept mail ballots received after Election Day or that don’t require proof of citizenship; and
Force the EAC to de-certify voting machines in use across the country – and prohibit the EAC from recertifying them unless they meet standards that are currently unmeetable.

These policy directives are not only exclusionary, costly, and burdensome for voters – they also represent an unconstitutional attempt to bypass the authority of Congress and the state election administrators. Let’s examine these directives, one by one:

First, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) sets specific standards for the federal voter registration form. It requires that voters typically provide a drivers license number or social security number that can be used to verify citizenship. Additionally, it requires voters to swear under penalty of perjury that they are in fact citizens. Notably, the NVRA does not require voters to show a passport or birth certificate. Any changes to the federal voter registration form require multiple levels of review. These include input from the states, internal administrative review, opportunities for public comment, and bipartisan approval.

Second, the EAC’s funding authority is governed by federal law passed by Congress – not the executive branch. That means tying federal funding to compliance with Trump’s new requirements likely violates the constitutional separation of powers.

Third, revising the certification criteria isn’t a quick or simple process. Trump’s order to rescind certifications and ban certain machines would upend years of work by election officials. And it would end up costing states millions of dollars they do not have. The EAC has yet to certify any voting machine currently in operation as meeting Trump’s proposed standards for certification.

The Courts Serve as a Check on These Illegal Efforts – For Now

Many states and voter advocacy organizations are challenging these illegal efforts by the executive branch to unilaterally set election policy. And, the courts are blocking these illegal orders from taking effect. This is a clear example of our checks and balances working as they should be.

In March, a federal judge ruled that some aspects of Trump’s executive order exceeded presidential authority. In the decision, the court invoked the separation of powers mandated by the U.S. Constitution as a centerpiece of American democracy:

“The States have initial authority to regulate elections. Congress has supervisory authority over those regulations. The President does not feature at all.”

In June, a second federal judge made a similar argument about the executive order, arguing that the Constitution “gives power over federal elections to Congress, and, in acting on that authority, Congress established the EAC to prescribe rules and regulations for elections.”

The Judge also acknowledged the potential harm to voters and election officials alike:

“The challenged sections of the Executive Order would burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs to revamp voter registration procedures and would impede the registration of eligible voters, many of whom lack ready access to documentary evidence of citizenship (e.g., U.S. passport and other forms of identification that reflect citizenship).”

In response to these lawsuits, the EAC has so far stayed within the bounds of its authority. It has not implemented Trump’s directives or made sweeping changes to election policies.

However, this may not be the case for long. On July 2, the EAC will hold a meeting to discuss potential revisions to existing voting guidance. This comes despite the fact that the executive order conflicts with federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

State Lawmakers Are Running with Trump’s Agenda

Despite the executive order’s shaky legal footing, state lawmakers are taking cues. In the months immediately following the order, we’ve seen a wave of related, damaging state bills fast-tracked through state legislatures.

It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote federally and in all 50 states. Despite this, in 2025 alone, 27 states considered proof of citizenship bills. In the same vein, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAVE Act in April. Fortunately, the Save Act is stalled in the Senate and only one state (Wyoming) passed a proof of citizenship requirement that applies to all registrants. The Wyoming law, moreover, is not as strict as most proposals, as it allows registrants to fulfil the requirement using REAL IDs, military documents, and tribal IDs.

But clearly, this issue isn’t going anywhere. Proof of citizenship legislation cleared at least one committee in 10 states in 2025 – which is equal to the previous three years combined. We anticipate similar bills will re-appear in 2026 – encouraged by President Trump’s order and false narratives about noncitizen voting.

Given the stakes, defending the independence of our election systems is more important than ever. The EAC must remain what Congress intended it to be: a nonpartisan, expert-led resource for states—and not a vehicle for presidential overreach.