Repeat off

1

Repeat one

all

Repeat all

New executive order could disenfranchise millions. Trans people might be particularly at risk.
March 27 2025, 08:15

The president has signed an executive order that, if implemented, would disenfranchise millions of voters.

The order, entitled Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections falsely claims that U.S. elections are threatened by “illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error.” Election security experts say that such issues are actually very rare.

Related

President signs order against law firm for challenging his trans healthcare ban
It’s just his latest attempt to hassle law firms that oppose his illegal and unconstitutional actions.

The order would force Americans to provide proof of U.S. citizenship — like a U.S. passport or REAL ID driver’s license — if they register to vote or update their registration information. The move could disenfranchise an estimated 9% of U.S. citizens of voting age (or 21.3 million people) who don’t have proof of citizenship readily available, the Associated Press reports.

Insights for the LGBTQ+ community

Subscribe to our briefing for insights into how politics impacts the LGBTQ+ community and more.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

This provision — which is similar to the aims of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a proposed piece of Republican legislation — could also make it more difficult for transgender people to vote in national elections since the president has instructed the federal government to no longer recognize trans people’s gender identities on passports, even if they supply state-issued identity documents listing their correct gender identity. Critics also say the provision could disenfranchise married women whose new names may not match federal citizenship documents.

The president’s order would also force states to update their own voter registration logs — a tactic that Republicans have used to remove thousands of legally registered voters for not voting in recent elections or not updating recent changes in address.

The order directs the unofficial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use federal databases to review state voter registration lists. If the federal assessment conflicts with state voter rolls or states refuse to comply with the order, the order states that the DHS can acquire the state rolls by subpoeana.

The order also seeks to block states from accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day, regardless of when the ballots were mailed — 18 states and Puerto Rico accept such ballots. Last, the order directs federal agencies to cut funding and investigate any state that refuses to comply with its provisions.

In a statement, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold called the order “unlawful,” adding, “It would prevent eligible Americans from exercising their sacred right to vote … [and] is weaponizing the federal government and trying to make it harder for voters to fight back at the ballot box.”

Danielle Lang, a voting rights lawyer at the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, told The Guardian, “This executive order, like all too many that we’ve seen before, is lawless and asserts all sorts of executive authority that he most assuredly does not have.”

Court challenges to the order will undoubtedly come swiftly, seeing as the Constitution largely gives Congress and states power over setting voter regulations. The American Civil Liberties Union has already pledged to sue over it.

The president’s attempt to revise the federal election system is also especially suspect considering his long history of baselessly claiming that the last elections against him were rigged, even before he knew the outcomes. In 2016, he falsely claimed that thousands of illegal immigrants voted for his opponent.

In 2020, he claimed that an unprecedented nationwide conspiracy of vote rigging (that only occurred in the states he lost) caused him to lose the election, even though he and Republicans were unable to prove this in over 60 court cases challenging the election’s results.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.


Comments (0)