[Image Credit: Reba Saldanha/AP]
On a crisp Tuesday, March 11, 2025, a sign for new voter registration stood prominently outside Pinkerton Academy in Derry, New Hampshire. It marked yet another chapter in the unfolding narrative of American democracy.
United States President Donald Trump recently issued a directive of great consequence. In a move that has sparked widespread debate, he signed an executive order mandating that Americans provide proof of citizenship to cast their vote. The President insists that this measure is crucial to “rectify” what he perceives to be pervasive election fraud.
The executive order, signed as cameras clicked away, tasks the Election Assistance Commission with ensuring that prospective voters furnish a US passport or another form of valid government identification when registering to participate in federal elections.
Moreover, the order dictates that all ballots must be received by election day, instantly impacting the handling of mail-in votes arriving post the closing of polls. Trump expressed optimism that this would “hopefully” curtail election fraud. He reiterated his contested assertion of winning the 2020 presidential election with a “landslide.”
“At least this will go a long way toward ending it,” Trump remarked with conviction as he enacted the order from the White House. “There are additional steps we plan to implement in the upcoming weeks, and we anticipate achieving fair elections as a result.”
With a resolve grounded in his perspective, he elaborated, “This country is so sick because of the election, the fake elections, and the bad elections, and we’re going to straighten it out, one way or the other.” This directive is the latest in Trump’s prolonged history of railing against alleged electoral fraud, often spotlighting voting by non-citizens—a practice both illegal and statistically scarce as substantiated by numerous studies.
His challenges to adverse election outcomes, especially his 2020 loss to former President Joe Biden, have been marred by unsubstantiated allegations of broad voting discrepancies.
The President’s decree encounters fierce resistance from Democrats and progressive factions. They contend that such Republican-led initiatives could disenfranchise disadvantaged groups like poorer and older voters who might struggle to obtain documents like passports and birth certificates.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, a progressive advocacy group, vocally criticized Trump’s order. She termed it a “blatant attack on democracy” and an “authoritarian power grab,” forecasting its detrimental impact. “Donald Trump’s executive order would compromise our election systems, suppress the votes of millions of Americans, especially voters of color, and pave the way for still more Trumpian false claims of election fraud,” Gilbert articulated in her statement.
Echoing similar concerns was Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California who runs the Election Law Blog. Hasen also condemned the move, highlighting the likelihood of millions of eligible voters being disenfranchised.
“This would prevent only a tiny amount of noncitizen voter registration but stop millions of eligible voters who do not have easy access to documents such as passports from registering to vote,” Hasen pointedly remarked on his blog. “The aim here is voter suppression pure and simple,” he concluded.
Amidst this backdrop, questions loom large: Is this action truly a safeguard for free elections, as asserted by its proponents, or is it a strategic maneuver cloaked in the guise of electoral integrity? The conversation continues as citizens grapple with the implications.
