The anxiety that has gripped election officials and legal experts for months culminated late last month when Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at “ensuring citizenship verification and integrity” in federal elections. While the order was framed as a safeguard for the democratic process, the reaction from those who actually manage the ballot box was not one of alarm, but rather a measured sense that the final text was far less aggressive than the rumors had suggested.
Legal analysts and political observers suggest that Trump doesn’t have the power to enact his latest elections scheme because the mechanisms he is attempting to use—executive orders targeting the postal service and federal databases—clash directly with the constitutional division of power. In the United States, the authority to administer elections is primarily delegated to the states, not the presidency.
The order attempts to create a complex workaround to restrict voter access. It mandates that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) coordinate with the Social Security Administration to build a nationwide database of voting-age citizens. To ensure states use this list, the order requires that 60 days before an election, states must submit a list of mail-in and absentee ballot recipients to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). The USPS would then be barred from delivering any ballot to a voter not included on the DHS-verified list.
This byzantine approach is seen by experts as a strategic attempt to bypass the fact that the president cannot simply rewrite state election laws. By targeting the delivery mechanism—the mail—rather than the registration process, the administration is attempting to exert control over who actually receives a ballot, effectively creating a federal filter for state-run elections.
The Constitutional Gap in Presidential Authority
The fundamental flaw in the administration’s plan is the lack of a “switch,” as Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University and former Justice Department official, describes it. While the president possesses significant authority in other spheres of government, the election space is structurally different. The Constitution leaves the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections largely to the states, subject to certain congressional overrides.
Congress has the power to set federal election laws, but it has not done so in a way that supports this executive order. Notably, congressional Republicans have not passed the SAVE America Act, which would have required voters to present proof of citizenship during registration. Without a legislative mandate from Congress, an executive order cannot unilaterally override state-level voter registration and ballot distribution laws.
the president does not have direct, absolute control over the USPS in a manner that would allow it to ignore state election laws to implement a federal screening process. The 60-day deadline for submitting voter lists is also viewed as practically unworkable. Chris Cooper, a North Carolina politics expert, noted that such a rigid timeline would have disenfranchised many voters affected by Hurricane Helene in 2024, as the storm hit just 39 days before the election.
Comparing the Order to Previous Proposals
The final version of the order is a scaled-down version of earlier drafts that had been circulating among election-denial circles. Those earlier versions were significantly more drastic, suggesting the declaration of a national emergency to take over all aspects of the election process.
“This is relatively mild stuff, at least compared to the draft EO that had been floating around from election denier conspiracy theorists that would have Trump declare a national emergency and take over all aspects of elections,” wrote Richard L. Hasen, a leading elections-law expert.
Because the current order relies on a complex chain of DHS and USPS coordination rather than an emergency takeover, it is widely predicted to be found unconstitutional if challenged in court, mirroring the fate of previous attempts to interfere with state-level voting procedures.
Chaos as a Political Strategy
If the order is legally toothless, why issue it? Many analysts believe the goal is not actual compliance, but the creation of chaos. By introducing confusing rules and the threat of ballot interception, the administration may be attempting to intimidate voters into apathy or despair, or simply create a narrative of “irregularity” that can be used to challenge results later.
This “competitive-authoritarian” playbook—where a leader uses the law not to govern, but to confuse and demoralize the opposition—has been seen in other countries. However, recent events, such as the defeat of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, suggest that this strategy can be defeated when voters remain engaged and vigilant.
The danger, as Justin Levitt suggests, is that the most significant vulnerability is the psychological state of the electorate. If voters develop into convinced that the system is broken or that their ballots will not be delivered, they may stop participating entirely. In this scenario, the lack of legal power is replaced by the power of perception.
Potential Risks and Guardrails
Despite the legal limitations of the executive order, experts warn against complacency. Notice other, more direct ways the executive branch could attempt to interfere, such as the deployment of DHS personnel or military assets to polling sites, or attempts to seize ballots after they have been cast.
A recent investigation by ProPublica has highlighted the removal of various administrative guardrails that previously served as checks against efforts to overturn election results. While the executive order itself may be a legal dead conclude, the broader effort to dismantle the norms of election administration remains a point of serious concern for national security and legal experts.
| Step | Action | Intended Agency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Create nationwide citizenship database | DHS & Social Security Admin |
| 2 | Share database with state governments | DHS |
| 3 | Submit mail-in voter lists (60-day lead) | State Governments to USPS |
| 4 | Block delivery of non-verified ballots | USPS |
The current legal landscape suggests that the administration is attempting to use the USPS as a proxy for a power it does not possess. Because the delivery of a ballot is a function of a state’s election law, a federal agency blocking that delivery based on a non-legislated database would likely be viewed as an unconstitutional infringement on state sovereignty.
The next critical checkpoint for this scheme will be the first set of legal challenges filed by state attorneys general or voting rights organizations as the 2026 midterm cycle approaches. These court filings will determine whether the order is a mere symbolic gesture or a viable, albeit legally precarious, attempt to alter the franchise.
Disclaimer: This article provides a journalistic analysis of legal and political events and does not constitute legal advice.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on the balance of federal and state power in the comments below.
