On August 18, 2025, former President Donald Trump made a splash on his Truth Social account, declaring his intention to sign a new executive order aimed at “bringing honesty” to upcoming elections—specifically the 2026 mid-terms. According to Trump, this move is designed to end mail-in voting and swap out voting machines for so-called “watermark paper” ballots. He insists these measures are “good for the country” and necessary to restore faith in the electoral process. But as reported by multiple outlets, including CBS News and legal analysts cited by The Atlantic, the president simply doesn’t have the constitutional authority to unilaterally dictate such sweeping changes to state-run elections.
Trump’s announcement is just the latest volley in a broader campaign that’s been building since his loss in the 2020 presidential election. At a press conference in the Oval Office—flanked by Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky—Trump doubled down, telling reporters the executive order was “being written now by the best lawyers in the country.” He paired his push for “honest elections” with calls for stricter border security, stating that both are essential to defending the nation. “It’s bigger than anything to do with redistricting,” he said, highlighting the central place he sees for election security in his political agenda.
Yet, as The Atlantic points out, the U.S. Constitution is quite clear on this matter. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1—often called the Elections Clause—assigns the power to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections to state legislatures, with Congress as a backstop. The president, legal experts agree, is not in the driver’s seat here. In fact, federal district courts in both the District of Columbia and Massachusetts have already blocked parts of Trump’s March 2025 executive order that attempted to assert federal control over voting procedures.
Despite these legal setbacks, Trump’s strategy appears to be shifting toward leveraging the partisan nature of America’s decentralized election system. With more than 8,000 local jurisdictions, U.S. elections are run by officials who are almost always picked through partisan processes—either elected or appointed. Trump’s latest moves seem designed to make support for his “honest elections” agenda a litmus test for Republican loyalty, especially among state and local election administrators.
Nowhere is this pressure more evident than in Texas, where, under Trump’s urging, Republican legislators enacted an aggressive mid-decade gerrymander in August 2025. According to The Atlantic, GOP leaders demanded that Democratic legislators sign a pledge to remain present for the vote, even going so far as to block one Democrat from leaving the Capitol when she refused. It’s a vivid example of how partisan control over election rules can play out in real time.
Trump’s rhetoric has only grown more forceful. In August 2025, he declared, “VOTING MACHINES… ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER,” and branded mail-in voting a “SCAM.” He has not shied away from using the Department of Justice as a tool to pressure election officials, with reports emerging that DOJ lawyers have explored prosecuting officials who don’t meet the administration’s expectations for computer security protocols. While he can’t pardon state crimes, Trump has shown he’s willing to use the levers of federal power to aid loyalists and punish dissenters.
The consequences of this relentless campaign have already been felt. The aftermath of the 2020 election saw an extraordinary turnover of election officials, many citing burnout, threats, and harassment as their reasons for stepping down. Some, like Colorado’s Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, went further—granting unauthorized access to voting machines in an effort to bolster Trump’s claims of fraud. Peters was ultimately convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison on state charges, a prosecution Trump denounced as a “Communist prosecution by the Radical Left Democrats to cover up their Election crimes and misdeeds in 2020.” His administration even tried to intervene on her behalf, seeking her release from state custody.
While most election officials—regardless of party—have held firm against pressure to manipulate vote tallies or endorse baseless fraud claims, the system’s vulnerability to partisan interference remains a pressing concern. The Presidential Commission on Election Administration’s 2014 report noted the unique American practice of selecting election officials through partisan channels, a feature now being tested as never before.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has also turned its attention to another pillar of American democracy: citizenship itself. On August 21, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) unveiled sweeping changes to the naturalization process, making it significantly harder for legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens. The updated policy tightens the longstanding “good moral character” requirement and introduces new ideological screenings for signs of “anti-Americanism.”
As reported by CBS News, the new rules require a “holistic assessment” of an applicant’s life. This means USCIS officers will look beyond criminal records to examine community involvement, caregiving, education, steady employment, tax compliance, and even minor infractions like reckless driving or aggressive behavior. Conduct that suggests poor character, even if not criminal, will now be scrutinized more closely. Rehabilitation—such as completing probation or repaying taxes—will be considered, but the bar has been raised.
Perhaps most controversially, the policy now includes ideological screening. USCIS will evaluate whether applicants have “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused” anti-American, antisemitic, or terrorist views. “America’s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,” said USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser. “Immigration benefits... remain a privilege, not a right.” Tragesser further emphasized that citizenship is “reserved for the best of the best” and should only be granted to those who embrace America’s culture, history, and language.
Each year, between 600,000 and 1 million immigrants become U.S. citizens, according to USCIS data. But with these new rules, legal experts and immigrant advocates worry that access to citizenship will become more subjective and potentially discriminatory. The lack of a clear definition for “anti-Americanism” has raised alarms about how the rule will be enforced and whether it could be used to target dissent or unpopular views.
These changes are part of a broader pattern. While much of the attention has focused on Trump’s efforts to curb illegal immigration, his administration has quietly rolled back access to legal pathways as well—cutting refugee admissions, axing visa programs, tightening vetting, and expanding social media reviews. The cumulative effect is a system that is not only harder to navigate but also more vulnerable to political winds.
As the 2026 mid-terms approach, the American electoral process is facing unprecedented tests. From the pressure on election officials to toe the party line, to the tightening of the nation’s gates for would-be citizens, the stakes for democracy are high. Whether the courts, Congress, and the public will rise to meet these challenges remains to be seen—but the coming months promise to be anything but dull.
In the end, the resilience of America’s democratic institutions will depend on the courage and integrity of those charged with upholding them—whether they sit behind a ballot box or across the desk from a hopeful new citizen.
