The United States has weathered immense democratic pressure in recent election cycles. Despite a pandemic, threats of political violence, widespread misinformation, and relentless attacks on the legitimacy of election outcomes, the 2020, 2022, and 2024 federal elections proceeded relatively smoothly. Dedicated election officials, resilient institutions, and bipartisan cooperation all contributed to preserving the integrity of these votes. Yet in 2025, a far more insidious threat looms—this time, from within the federal government itself.
Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has embarked on a systematic campaign to reshape, politicize, and weaken the U.S. election system. Unlike the sporadic abuses of power seen in prior administrations, this second-term strategy is deeply coordinated, legally aggressive, and ideologically driven. What we’re witnessing is not merely political overreach—it is the targeted dismantling of democratic guardrails. From unconstitutional executive orders and data grabs to weaponized federal investigations and the elevation of election deniers to key positions, the integrity of American elections is now under a full-frontal institutional assault.
One of the most alarming signs came in March 2025 when Trump signed an executive order aimed at “modernizing and securing federal elections.” In practice, the order mandated that voters using the federal voter registration form must present U.S. passports or naturalization papers—documents that over 21 million eligible Americans simply do not possess. This effort closely mirrors the SAVE Act, which failed in Congress but is now being forced into effect by executive fiat. Not only is this requirement burdensome and discriminatory—disproportionately impacting low-income, elderly, rural, and minority voters—it also stretches the bounds of executive authority far beyond constitutional limits.
The courts have already intervened in several lawsuits, temporarily blocking parts of this order. Federal judges have expressed concern that the administration is exceeding its authority and encroaching on the domain of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent bipartisan body tasked with overseeing federal election standards. Yet legal challenges alone may not be enough to curb the speed and scope of implementation. The administration is moving fast, counting on legal gridlock and procedural delays to solidify changes before the 2026 midterms.
Beyond voter registration, the same executive order directed the EAC to decertify all previously approved voting equipment standards and develop new ones from scratch. This move effectively nullifies the technological infrastructure relied upon by dozens of states and territories. The implication? States would be forced to rapidly replace their machines, costing billions of dollars and injecting mass confusion into the 2026 electoral timeline. It also feeds the already rampant conspiracy theories about “rigged machines,” paving the way for potentially chaotic hand-counted paper ballot systems—an error-prone and inefficient alternative.
At the same time, the order authorized the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), along with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to obtain and analyze sensitive voter data from state governments. These agencies have demanded access to full voter rolls, voter purge logs, and name-matching algorithms, claiming it’s part of a federal anti-fraud initiative. Yet civil rights advocates and election officials warn that such data access—without transparency, legal guardrails, or clear oversight—opens the door to mass voter suppression and political manipulation.
These fears are not unfounded. Within minutes of DOGE obtaining data access credentials from the National Labor Relations Board, cybersecurity monitors observed attempted logins from Russian IP addresses. Though these attempts were unsuccessful, they underscored the massive national security risks of centralizing sensitive voter information in a newly formed, untested federal agency. Furthermore, DHS has quietly expanded a data-sharing program with several states aimed at identifying “non-citizen voters,” even though prior investigations have repeatedly shown this phenomenon to be statistically negligible.
The administration’s most blatant violations, however, lie in the politicization of law enforcement. Trump has formed multiple task forces within the Department of Justice, such as the “Weaponization of Government Group,” ostensibly to investigate election fraud and government overreach. In reality, these units are targeting Trump’s perceived enemies: journalists, election officials, former federal prosecutors, and even private law firms.
Among those leading these efforts are Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, and FBI Director Kash Patel—all vocal proponents of the “stolen election” narrative. They have made no effort to disguise their intentions. In public speeches and interviews, they’ve vowed to “hold accountable those who helped Biden steal the 2020 election,” describing their work as part of a “second-term reckoning.” The implications for democratic accountability are chilling.
The administration has also moved to punish institutions that helped safeguard the 2020 vote. Executive orders have stripped security clearances from major law firms, such as Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Jenner & Block, for having represented election officials, voting rights plaintiffs, or even investigative committees. Federal agencies have been instructed not to contract with these firms. While several courts have now blocked these actions as blatant violations of First Amendment protections, the chilling effect remains. Smaller firms and advocacy groups are pulling out of election-related litigation entirely, fearing federal retaliation.
Meanwhile, the White House has extended clemency to over 1,500 individuals convicted or charged in connection with the January 6 insurrection. On his first day back in office, Trump issued mass pardons, including to dozens of known organizers and those convicted of assaulting Capitol police. Far from expressing contrition, he praised them as “heroes” and “political prisoners,” and multiple state Republican parties have held rallies to honor them. Some of these individuals are now openly preparing to run for public office.
The message is clear: those who used violence to overturn democratic results are not only forgiven—they are welcome in the new political order. It is a signal that political violence can be rewarded, that loyalty to Trump trumps loyalty to the Constitution. For career election administrators—already facing threats and harassment—this normalization of extremism only intensifies the exodus. In 2024, nearly one-third of local election officials left their positions. That number is climbing. In recent surveys, 59% of remaining officials reported fears of political interference, and 46% said they worried about being prosecuted for simply doing their jobs.
While federal overreach expands, many states are pushing back. Washington and Oregon have filed lawsuits challenging the voting equipment provision. A coalition of secretaries of state is working to resist federal data requests. Some state legislatures have passed laws to protect local election staff from harassment or legal threats. But the battle is asymmetrical. States often lack the resources, legal firepower, or political will to face off against the full weight of the federal government—especially when federal funding is dangled as leverage.
The crisis extends beyond policy and legality. The broader media and information environment is collapsing under pressure. Major social media platforms, fearing federal retaliation, have weakened their enforcement of election misinformation policies. Right-wing outlets amplify election denialism daily, while outlets that attempt to fact-check or provide sober analysis face censorship, demonetization, or legal threats. The erosion of a shared factual reality makes it nearly impossible to build consensus on electoral legitimacy. With every passing week, American democracy becomes more vulnerable—not just procedurally, but socially and psychologically.
The international implications are equally sobering. For decades, the U.S. has portrayed itself as a beacon of democratic values, often criticizing other nations for their flawed elections or authoritarian drift. But allies now watch nervously as the American government itself undermines basic electoral norms. Human rights organizations have sounded the alarm. Authoritarian regimes point to U.S. chaos as justification for their own crackdowns. The loss of American moral leadership on democracy is not just symbolic—it has real consequences on global stability and democratic resilience elsewhere.
Perhaps most dangerous is the erosion of what historians call the “norms of constraint”—the unwritten rules that allow institutions to function with legitimacy. Since the Watergate era, America has relied not only on laws but on mutual respect for constitutional boundaries: the losing party concedes, federal prosecutors operate independently, the president respects state control over elections. These norms are fraying. And once broken, they are incredibly difficult to restore.
Still, all hope is not lost. The courts remain an essential firewall. Civic organizations, journalists, state and local officials, and even whistleblowers inside federal agencies are speaking out. Yet the most important defense lies with the American people. If citizens disengage—out of fear, fatigue, or cynicism—the authoritarian project will continue unchallenged. But if they organize, vote, volunteer, and speak out, the tide can still be turned.
Preserving free and fair elections is not about partisan advantage. It is about protecting the basic premise of self-government—that power flows from the people, not from a palace, a party, or a single man. The stakes in 2026 are not just about which party controls Congress. They are about whether the people still control the government at all.
We stand at the edge of a precipice. The path ahead demands courage—not only from judges and journalists, but from voters, neighbors, and communities. This moment may define whether the United States remains a democratic republic, or becomes something else entirely.
Leave a Reply