Trump Signs Executive Order to Secure Elections, Including Proof of Citizenship
“This will go a long way toward ending [election fraud].”
President Donald Trump signed an executive order that helps secure our elections.
“This will go a long way toward ending [election fraud],” said Trump. “There are other steps we will be taking in the coming weeks and we think we will end up getting fair elections.”
Trump said many have wondered why he would complain about election fraud since he destroyed former VP Kamala Harris in November.
The fact is that Trump wants fair elections no matter who wins.
“Perhaps some people think I shouldn’t be complaining because we won in a landslide, but we’ve got to straighten out our elections,” he continued. “This country is so sick because of the fake elections and the bad elections.”
It has the following provision:
- Requires documentary, government-issued proof of U.S. citizenship on its voter registration forms.
- Conditions federal election-related funds on states complying with the integrity measures set forth by Federal law.
- Directs the updating of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 and security standards for voting equipment — which includes requiring a voter-verifiable paper ballot record and not using ballots in which the counted vote is contained within a barcode or QR code.
- Directs the Attorney General to enter into information-sharing agreements with state election officials to identify cases of election fraud or other election law violations.
- Takes appropriate action against states that count ballots received after Election Day in Federal elections.
- Revokes Biden Executive Order 14019, which turned Federal agencies into Democratic voter turnout centers.
POTUS signs an executive order on election integrity that includes the following provisions:
– Requires documentary, government-issued proof of U.S. citizenship on its voter registration forms.
– Conditions federal election-related funds on states complying with the integrity… pic.twitter.com/6A5zVdOAYn— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 25, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This will bring the cockroaches out in to the sunlight.
They’re already on all the news channels.
We might even hear from Jesse Jackson!
I’m sure that “reverend” Sharpton will call this racist. That will be the signal that he’s afraid of being exposed.
ok sounds really really good however
I thought the states ran their own elections….not the feds …
can someone explain this to me.
I took this as being for Federal elections??
You are correct that Trump cannot force compliance… what he CAN do though is withhold federal money from noncompliant states.
The first time I saw this done was with the 55 MPH speed limit. Montana, as I recall held out for a long time, but finally caved in. In this case perhaps California will be brave enough to decline the money. There might be others as well who will gamble; this measure will require allowing time for compliance measures to be enacted. No Blue State is going to be in compliance in 2028. If the Democrats can win that election this E.O. will be revoked by President (Harris? Newsome? Walz? Sanders?)
Montana started issuing speeding tickets, but they were for the princely some of five dollars. I also believe that they didn’t report these tickets to the insurance companies.
10 miles over is still cheap and a non-points violation.
As I recall they weren’t even called speeding tickets. They created a new offense, with minimal fine and no points, called “ wasting motor fuel.”
The president can’t do that. Only Congress can do that, and even Congress can’t make the cut so big that the state is forced to comply because it can’t afford to stick to its guns and take the cut.
However in this case, as far as I know, Congress has already made these requirements and conditioned funding on compliance, they just haven’t been enforced. Or rather, the provisions Dems like were enforced and the ones they don’t like weren’t. Now Trump is saying we’re going to enforce the whole thing (or maybe only the parts we like).
South Dakota went to court over the federal “request” that states raise their drinking age to 21. The Supreme Court spelled out the criteria I gave earlier, and said that a 5% cut to a state’s federal highway funding is small enough that the state is not being compelled to comply but merely persuaded, so it’s valid. It said that had the cut been too much for SD to afford it would have been unconstitutional. And that only Congress can make such conditions, and it must do so explicitly.
States do run their own elections, but the election process and rules for candidates seeking Federal office is subject to federal law. Federal courts could potentially intervene if a State is not in compliance.
The fed has lots of requirements for elections.
I’ve said this before but before the just gone election I wasn’t aware of just how “corrupt” the entire election process in California is!
I had not realised it was illegal in California to ask for proof of ID for ANY election!
Also didn’t realise it took nearly a month to finalise the votes needed for Democrats to maintain control as well. No, why would it take a month to count votes?
Finally, what was interesting from the last Presidential elections is that California and New York were closer to turning Republican than Florida was to turning Democrat.
Or what? is the question. What happens when states disobey?
One option is not to count the votes from that state, after announcing loudly and repetitively before the election that this is exactly what will happen. That would cure this problem quickly at the state level, a la guillotine.
In a winner take all system, that could be a net win for states with entrenched politicos that don’t want to cooperate because they know they will lose power if they do.
Obviously, the optics would be bad but I’m sure some would run cover for them about protecting the right to vote from “manipulation”
Assuming Congressional buy in I don’t see how in the long term it would be a net benefit for politicians of a refusing State to have their Congressional delegation refused and their Electoral Vote rejected. Sure local.and State level offices wouldn’t be impacted but just a many Senators and Gov see themselves as a potential POTUS lots of city/county officials and State officials see themselves as a potential Congressman or Senator.
I was thinking short term. Remember we are talking about tantrum throwing children who would want to take their ball and go home.
Yeah there will definitely be moaning and wailing from certain quarters but some will fade. Especially, big IF, Congress is on board and willing to refuse to seat Senators or Reps from those States following ’26 midterms and refuse to count their Electoral votes following the ’28 Presidential election. That’s quite the loss of political power at risk for simply being petulant or to ‘resist’ for pure TDS sake.
We will have to wait for Milhouse to finish his research and give us the details, but I don’t believe that the Executive Branch – or either other branch- could interfere in a Federal Election to the extent of refusing to count votes from any state. That’s Banana Republic territory and almost guarantees shenanigans and consequently revolution.
Any punishment has to be finanical.
They can easily withhold funds. More aggressively they can refuse to seat Senators and congresscritters due to potential frqud in the election
The federal government doesn’t count votes. States do. But if a house has a genuine doubt about the validity of a purported member’s election, it can refuse to seat him. It can only do so for that reason. It can’t refuse to seat him because it doesn’t like him, or to make a larger point; but if it’s genuinely unsure he was validly elected it can keep his seat open until someone with a better claim comes along. Obviously if a state’s elections are insecure that’s one reason to doubt its results, but it depends how lopsided they are. If someone’s win is so big that it’s unlikely to have been the result of fraud then I think the relevant house would have no choice but to seat him.
I don’t know what would happen if enough members’ elections were challenged that it’s no longer clear who has a majority in the house. The idea in the constitution seems to be that almost all members would be clearly elected, and thus those members would vote on whether to seat the few whose elections were challenged. That doesn’t work when there are a large number of challenges, because who gets to vote on them?
As for electors, the constitution doesn’t give Congress any authority to decide which electors’ votes to count and which to reject. Congress seized that power (theoretically) when it passed the Electoral Count Act after the 1877 debacle. In that act it not only asserted its power to decide this, but also offered states “safe harbor”, promising that if they abide by certain rules Congress will definitely count their electors’ votes, while if they don’t abide by them there’s no guarantee.
Of course a future Congress could always change its mind and break the promise. And I think John Eastman is probably correct that the whole act is invalid because Congress doesn’t have any power over which electors should be counted.
loss of election funding
This is a positive development, but…
Why is everything that’s been wrong with the United States fixable because the king issues a proclamation? Who is going to hold the legislature’s feet to the fire?
Having been through this in Arizona, I seem to remember that our state got whacked because there was no legislative authority to demand this ID – or perhaps even that there was legislation in existence that actively prevented one from demanding this ID, I frankly don’t remember which.
If Trump can override that, it’s all well and good, but of course the next clown can just reverse everything he did, like Biden did to Trump in his first three days.
Your point is valid in that a temporary king is easily reversible.
Trump is impatient, so maybe (optimistically) this can spur permanent legislative change once proof of practice and increased popularity help spineless jellyfish find their confidence.
Yeah I was thinking these EOs are getting out of hand. The legislative process is slow but we aren’t supposed to operate in this fashion. What one said can do the other can do or undo as well.
Agree, but you’ll notice the Congress is doing nothing as usual.
The legislature is slow because they don’t want to upset the apple cart. By slow walking everything the status quo remains stable. All of the democrats and republicans that were silent during the extended counting to find more democrat ballots will not vote for legislation that codifies President Trump’s XOs.
Arizona got whacked because states are required by federal law to accept not just their own voter registration forms but also the uniform registration form that the federal government supplies. So Arizona could put whatever documentation requirements it liked on its own forms, but it needed the federal government to cooperate by reprinting the federal forms to say that residents of AZ need to supply the following documents.
The federal government refused to do that, and went to court to force the state to continue accepting applications on the federal form that merely has applicants declare under oath that they’re citizens, but does not require any proof.
Now that we have a new president, he can order the forms reprinted. States could still accept their own forms, which could be laxer than the federal one (rather than stricter, as AZ’s was).
By tomorrow some federal judge will install a nationwide injunction
Some states already have Voter ID and WY just added residency requirements, so an injuction will be a challenge.
Good policy idea but how are States supposed to implement this? Gonna purge the voter registration rolls and start over requiring everyone to bring ‘Real ID’ with proof of citizenship to register? Otherwise we just leave the potential unqualified voters in the system. Gonna be a mess.
Everyone has ID already.
Secondly leftists want to use gun registries to track who has firearms. Doesn’t seem a stretch to repurpose the desire to create a gun register out of thin air to instead register voters
Is that ID you claim everyone has based upon presenting a birth certificate, a SSA card, valid Passport and all the other hoops of ‘Real ID’ to obtain it? Lots of illegal aliens have a DL. Many people in Alabama opted for a regular Drivers license not the ‘Real ID’ version due to the hassle. The regular version isn’t valid for ‘federal purposes’ such as entry to Military base, airport security/TSA and so on, it is specifically marked ‘Not valid for Federal Purposes’.
I am all for Real ID and verification of citizenship by everyone. Purge the voter rolls, zero them out. Then require new registration in your month of birth beginning in April of ’25. In April of ’26 open it up to everyone. A little.short term pain for far better elections security which begins with ID and voter registration requirements.
No, not everyone has ID, and about half of Americans don’t have REALID compliant forms of ID, which is what Trump is telling states they should require.
And your argument from gun registries makes no sense. Most states have no such thing. States that wish to create one can require gun owners to register their guns, and make it a crime to possess one that isn’t registered, but there will be massive non-compliance and legal challenges. In any case, that is a very far cry from requiring states to have one, which would be the analogy to what you seem to be suggesting.
As Bette Davis said in All About Eve (1950), “Fasten your seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy night.“
One thing that should be banned is ranked choice voting. An abysmal development since it leads to dem vs dem in states like CA.
On the contrary, it is the best and fairest system and should be required for all elections. Not just for primaries, which shouldn’t even be run by government, but for general elections. No, it doesn’t “lead to dem v dem”, it treats all candidates equally.
Its big advantage is that it doesn’t force people to choose the lesser of two evils, and thus allows two people on the same side of politics to run against each other. It allows MAGA candidates to challenge RINOs, and moderate Dems to challenge socialists, without worrying about splitting the vote. And it allows people to vote their actual beliefs without worrying that by doing so they’ll be putting in someone worse.
One change I’ve thought about was having congresscritters elected at large in a state instead of districting. Why you ask? One, it would prevent redistricting shenanigans that both parties engage in. Two. it might lead to fairer representation. There’s that word again.
I live in MA. It has all democrat critters. Yet 36% of voters vote republican, We have no representation at all. None elected come close to representing my views on at least 85% of issues. Why even bother to vote!
However, if critters were elected at large in the state there might be some chance of at least 1 of 2 republicans being elected and some representation.
Hard pass on doing away with Congressional Districts. Y’all gotta do what it takes to flip the offices. It can be done. Alabama went from a huge d/prog legislative majority, all Statewide offices and every HoR represented by d/prog officials in the 70s to today where it is basically that reverse. Took about two decades of GoP working the grassroots to get close to parity in just running comparative races. Then another decade to get to 50/50 outcomes Statewide, then for the past two decades a growing GoP majority to now GoP dominance.
https://massgop.com/our-party/officials
Probably no coming back from this republican wasteland.
Tough row to hoe. Here’s my perspective for folks trapped behind the lines in Blue jurisdictions… those of us in Red States with more/less competent gov’t and functional delivery of basic services; roads, police/fire, schools and so on are not by and large willing to put additional power in the hands of Federal govt or blow up our functional systems to ‘save’ you with a solution from DC. The power granted to a Trump admin and a GoP majority could be used by the next d/prog Admin and Congressional majority to eff us over and wreck our functional system. From our viewpoint y’all have three broad choices; do the heavy lifting to fix your issues yourself, pack up and move or lay back and take the pain the d/prog inflict. No outside group gonna save you.
At large elections without proportional representation would just mean that the majority take all the seats. At least with districts you can have a situation where the Dems are all in the cities, and rural districts can have R majorities and elect Rs.
Now if you accept proportional representation within a state, that would be very good, except that by raising the stakes it invites more fraud. As it is, there’s very little fraud in House elections, because there’s no percentage in it. The districts where the Dems control the board of elections, and are therefore able to cheat, are already held by Dems anyway, so they have no reason to cheat. So they only cheat in statewide races. Make the House PR within a state and you’ll see the same fraud in House races that you see in statewide races.
dems consider civility as
election interference
A Cultural Marxist Judge will squash this
This will destroy the Democrat organized election fraud apparatus. Break out the popcorn, ’cause the Dem arguments against election integrity will be quite entertaining.
I wouldn’t be surprised for the Dems to argue that all people resident (citizen, legal resident, illegal resident, temporary visitor) in the Nation be allowed to vote.
Including the Fictional, Duplicate, and Dead.
Actually they already are arguing for something similar. No taxation without representation. Anyone who pays federal taxes should/must be allowed to vote in federal elections.
They can argue for it, but currently federal legislation forbids it. Next time they have a congressional majority they can try to pass it, but if the filibuster is still around the GOP will block it, as it did the Dems’ last effort in this direction (HR2, wasn’t it?).
It’s not as if there’s not a good argument to be made for it, or at least for leaving it up to each state’s choice, but Congress has disagreed.
Early in the days of the Republic, many states did allow aliens to vote. So there’s nothing unconstitutional about it.
It was a comfortable win, but not a landslide, but Trump is right insofar as there was still a considerable amount of Dem chicanery in outcomes of downballot races.
I think the Dems decided to take a pass on Kamala because she was so incredibly stupid. Her incompetence in office would have led to a Dem wipeout in 2026, so I think they were looking beyond that to regroup.
“it is worth asking if judges with ties to foreign nations and cultures are the right ones to make decisions affecting the U.S. military or immigration.
It’s worth asking if any judge should be making “decisions” affecting the US military, immigration, or the execution of Presidential duties.”
They are not President.
Agreed. The Judiciary should stay out of the way of the plenary powers of the Executive re Nat Sec, Foreign Policy. The venue shopped Judges are not exercising restraint but instead actively seek to thwart the will of.the People.
Judges shouldn’t be making policy decisions, but it is their job to make process decisions about people’s rights, when those people claim those rights are being infringed.
Every person in the USA who is arrested is entitled to habeas corpus, at least to the extent of establishing that they are what the government claims they are. Even people held as prisoners of war are entitled to a hearing to determine whether they really are that. The courts can never just take the government’s word for it. And if Biden were still the president you would agree. You would never allow him to get away with such things, but you want Trump to be treated differently. That is not on.
All of these Executive Orders by #47 need to be codified in Congressional legislation. The next Dhimmi-crat President (hopefully not taking office until after VP Vance serves two terms) will simply undo them by EO.
another orange harvey special
– five minutes thought
– ignorant of the subject matter
– Designed to get hoots, hollers, and high fives from the MAGA boogerpicks
Guess like BArry Bonds denying steroids, ‘the moron’ has lied so often in the 2020 election, he can’t change course now.
If you only lived in LA, your drool could have saved whole neighborhoods.
On the contrary, Trump has the right idea, the only questions are about implementation.
Leave a Comment