Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Order, Sparks Controversy
Washington, D.C., April 25, 2025 – A federal judge has struck down key parts of President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, igniting a firestorm of debate over election integrity, executive authority, and judicial power. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, in a 120-page ruling, declared that the Constitution grants Congress and the states—not the president—the authority to regulate federal elections, halting Trump’s attempt to mandate documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms. The decision, celebrated by voting rights groups, has been decried by Trump supporters as a “judicial coup” undermining efforts to secure elections.
The executive order, signed on March 25, 2025, directed the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent bipartisan agency, to revise the federal voter registration form to require documents like passports or REAL ID-compliant licenses proving citizenship. It also instructed federal agencies to assess citizenship before offering voter registration forms at public assistance offices. Trump’s administration argued the measures were necessary to prevent noncitizen voting, a claim critics say is unfounded, citing studies showing such incidents are exceedingly rare. The order aligned with the Republican-backed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which seeks similar requirements but has not passed the Senate.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling, issued on April 24, 2025, blocked these provisions, asserting that Trump’s directive violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires only a sworn attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury. She argued that the president lacked authority to override Congress’s legislative process or direct an independent agency like the EAC. “No statutory delegation permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order,” she wrote. The decision also paused a requirement for federal agencies to verify citizenship before providing registration forms, citing potential voter disenfranchisement.
Voting rights advocates, including the ACLU and the League of Women Voters, hailed the ruling as a victory for democracy, warning that Trump’s order could disenfranchise millions, particularly low-income voters, people of color, and women with name changes, as only about half of Americans hold passports, and 9% lack readily available proof of citizenship. Critics like the Brennan Center’s Sean Morales-Doyle called the order “illegal at many levels,” emphasizing that election regulation is a congressional and state prerogative.
Conversely, Trump supporters, echoed by White House spokesman Harrison Fields, condemned the ruling as judicial overreach, arguing that proof-of-citizenship requirements are “common sense” to ensure election integrity. Posts on X reflected this sentiment, with users like @BufordTDawg and @ktrhnews labeling the decision a “bullshit” power grab by unelected judges, while others, like @LauraLWorley, clarified that the ruling focused on constitutional authority, not the merit of citizenship verification. The Trump administration vowed to appeal, signaling a protracted legal battle.
As Congress debates the SAVE Act, the ruling underscores deep divisions over election security and executive power. While some provisions of Trump’s order, like data-sharing to identify noncitizens, remain intact, the fight over voter registration rules is far from over.
