Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court paused lower court order on SAVE citizenship database — The Supreme Court, over the dissent of its three liberal justices, paused a lower court order and allowed the administration to resume using its overhauled SAVE database while litigation continues. The SAVE system links Social Security data with state voter rolls for citizenship verification. A federal judge had found in June that the overhaul violated the Privacy Act and other federal laws. When Texas ran all 18 million of its voters through SAVE, the system flagged 2,724 people; nearly 20 percent were confirmed as citizens and reinstated. Federal law prohibits systematic voter purges within 90 days of federal elections. The Court's majority acknowledged this limit but stated citizenship checks remain permissible in that window and each state decides whether to use SAVE.
• U.S. Supreme Court rules Trump administration may resume voter suppression database for voter removal — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Trump administration can resume using its voter suppression database to help Republicans remove voters from the rolls. The decision permits the federal government to conduct individualized voter inquiries using the modified SAVE program during the 90-day quiet period before Election Day, though the Court acknowledged this "limits the potential impact" of the ruling. The Court has scheduled a separate case, Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, for December argument to consider the scope of the quiet period and whether states may conduct systematic noncitizen removal during that window.

Supporting reports

• Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects Trump administration suit against Michigan for voter roll access — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's lawsuit against Michigan seeking access to state voter rolls. This ruling continues a pattern in which courts have struck down Trump's attempts to obtain voter rolls in all nine cases on which there has been a ruling. The administration has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia to compel surrender of voter rolls.
• U.S. District Judge Denise Casper permanently blocks Trump's March 2025 election executive order — U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently blocked much of Trump's March 2025 executive order attempting to gain power over elections. The ruling prevents implementation of provisions that would have centralized election authority in the executive branch.
• Federal judge permanently barred proof-of-citizenship registration order — On Wednesday, June 25, Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently barred the proof-of-citizenship registration order, writing that the Constitution gives the president no specific power over elections. The ruling struck down a key element of the administration's effort to federalize election administration.

Supporting reports

• US Postal Service proposes rule requiring states to surrender voter mail-ballot lists — The US Postal Service, under Postmaster General David Steiner, issued a proposed rule requiring states to hand over lists of voters who requested mail-in ballots and associated barcodes to the postal service. Steiner stated that the postal service would refuse to deliver mailed ballots in states that declined to comply. All 47 Democratic senators sent a letter warning the rule would disenfranchise millions of voters and risked abuse and inaccuracies that would prevent eligible voters from casting ballots.
• Postmaster General announces USPS will not deliver election mail in states refusing to surrender voter rolls — Postmaster General David Steiner testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that under a new Trump administration rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to surrender their voting lists to the federal government. Senator Gary Peters clarified that the proposed rule coerces states to comply with federal voting requirements or lose mail-in voting access.
• USPS proposes rule to withhold election mail — The Postmaster General testified that under a new proposed rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to provide their voting lists to the federal government. This rule is seen as a coercive measure to enforce compliance with federal demands.

Supporting reports

• Trump demands Republicans pass restrictive voting bill via budget reconciliation — President Trump posted on Truth Social demanding congressional Republicans immediately advance a $350 billion reconciliation bill that would fund defense spending and include the Save America Act, a restrictive voting measure. The Save America Act would impose new voter ID requirements, mandate states share voter rolls with the Department of Homeland Security, and create legal liability for election officials. Trump's demand splits Republicans; some senators including Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins publicly objected to using budget reconciliation for defense funding, citing fiscal instability concerns.
• Trump demanded Congress pass $350 billion military reconciliation bill — President Trump posted on social media demanding that Republicans in Congress pass a $350 billion military reconciliation bill, characterizing it as a "GENERATIONAL Investment in our Military, even bigger than President Reagan's" and stating it was "the ONLY path to the full $1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR Military Budget our Warriors need in order to build THE ARSENAL OF FREEDOM." He emphasized the bill could pass without any Democratic votes and demanded action "ASAP" with "No games, no delays, and no weak compromises."
• Trump demanded Congress pass SAVE America Act restricting voting — President Trump posted on social media demanding that Republicans in Congress pass the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote and end mail-in ballots except for illness, disability, military service, or travel. Trump framed the measure as necessary to "protect our Elections for Generations to come" and "to secure the NATION for our children and grandchildren."
• Trump demanded Republicans pass $350 billion military buildup and SAVE America Act — Trump made extreme demands that Republicans pass an additional $350 billion for his military buildup and the SAVE America Act to suppress voting. The demands were part of his effort to force Republicans to do his bidding and reflected his determination to consolidate power.
• Trump Demands Additional Military Funding and Voting Restrictions — President Trump called on Congress to approve an additional $350 billion for the military and to pass the SAVE America Act, which includes measures to require proof of citizenship for voting and restrict mail-in ballots. He emphasized the urgency of these demands in a social media post.

Supporting reports

• Alabama appeals federal court's map ruling to Supreme Court — Alabama's state leadership has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the federal district court's decision blocking the 2023 congressional map. The appeal seeks to overturn the lower court's finding of intentional racial discrimination and would allow the state to eliminate the second majority-Black congressional district. The appeal signals Alabama's refusal to accept the court's determination of unlawful vote dilution.
• Federal court blocks Alabama's 2023 congressional map for intentional racial discrimination — A federal district court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map was tainted by intentional race-based discrimination against Black voters, violating the 14th Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court ordered Alabama to continue using the court-ordered map from the 2024 election cycle, which resulted in the election of Rep. Shomari Figures in the new congressional District 2. Alabama has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, seeking to eliminate the second majority-Black district.

Supporting reports

• Tennessee governor redraws congressional map eliminating majority-Black district — Tennessee's governor called a special legislative session and signed a new congressional map that divides Memphis and eliminates the state's only majority-Black congressional district. The action was taken in response to the Louisiana v. Callais decision, which weakened Section 2 protections against racially discriminatory redistricting.
• Tennessee Republican lawmakers approved congressional map dismantling majority-Black district — Tennessee Republican lawmakers approved a new congressional map that breaks apart Memphis and Shelby County, eliminating Tennessee's only majority-Black congressional district. The map splits Black voters across three majority-white districts, positioning Republicans to hold all nine of Tennessee's congressional seats after the midterms. This action follows the Supreme Court's April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory maps.
• Tennessee House speaker removes all Democrats from committees — On May 12, 2026, Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton removed all House Democrats from standing committees, citing their protests against the mid-decade redistricting as disruptive to legislative processes. This action effectively stripped representation from nearly 2 million Tennesseans, including all Black elected officials in the state legislature.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act; states initiate emergency redistricting — On Wednesday, April 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that severely weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act, eliminating key protections against racial discrimination in voting maps. In immediate response, Louisiana postponed its May primaries, and multiple southern states—Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee—initiated or announced special legislative sessions to redraw congressional districts. Florida's Republican-controlled legislature passed new maps delivering four additional seats to Republicans. Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee announced plans to follow suit, with governors and Republican officials explicitly targeting majority-Black districts for dilution.
• Supreme Court decision weakened Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory congressional maps. Within days of the ruling, several Republican-controlled states moved to redraw or revisit congressional maps, including Tennessee, which signed a new map, and Alabama, which asked the Supreme Court to revisit a court order requiring a map with two largely Black districts.
• Supreme Court narrowed Section 2 of Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais ruling — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Louisiana v. Callais that Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district (represented by Congressman Cleo Fields) constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The majority, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to create the district, eliminating a compelling reason to consider race in redistricting. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned the ruling renders Section 2 "all but a dead letter" and permits states to "systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power" without legal consequence. The decision shifts the legal standard from results-based to intent-based scrutiny, requiring plaintiffs to prove discriminatory motive rather than demonstrating discriminatory effect.
• Supreme Court ruling weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Louisiana v. Callais that significantly weakened how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be used to protect voters of color in redistricting cases. For decades, Section 2 has been a central tool for communities to challenge maps and election systems that dilute minority voting power. The Court's ruling gave Republican-led states new grounds to attack majority-Black districts before the midterms.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 in Louisiana v. Callais decision — On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that significantly narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory congressional maps. Justice Kagan's dissent warned the ruling "renders Section 2 all but a dead letter." The decision prompted immediate action by Republican-controlled states to redraw maps, including Louisiana suspending House primaries, Tennessee redrawing its map to eliminate its only majority-Black district, and Alabama petitioning the Court to reconsider a prior order requiring two majority-Black districts.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require states to create majority-minority congressional districts. The decision makes it substantially harder for voters of color to challenge electoral maps that dilute their political power. Within days, Louisiana's governor suspended the state's primary election to redraw congressional maps, and Alabama filed to reinstate maps a lower court had previously struck down for diluting Black votes.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais ruling — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v Callais on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require states to draw majority-minority congressional districts. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito affirmed that Louisiana's maps violated the equal protection clause but rejected the use of Section 2 to mandate such districts. The ruling opens the door for Republicans to eliminate majority-minority districts across the South, immediately threatening Black lawmakers Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures in Alabama, who may lose their seats after redistricting in 2028.
• US Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act Section 2 in Louisiana redistricting case — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that effectively neutralizes Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last major provision preventing racial discrimination in voting. The majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, rewrote the legal test for Section 2 claims to require proof of intentional racial discrimination—a nearly impossible standard—and added new restrictions preventing consideration of race in alternative redistricting maps. The decision permits states to draw districts that dilute minority voting power under the guise of partisan goals.
• US Supreme Court ruling in Callais v. Landry weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The US Supreme Court issued the Callais v. Landry decision, which substantially weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring litigants to prove racial motivations in redistricting rather than allowing challenges based on discriminatory effect. The ruling permits Republican-controlled state legislatures to use partisan gerrymandering as cover for racial vote dilution, particularly targeting concentrated Black voters in urban areas. The decision eliminates protections that had enabled Congress to achieve record racial and ethnic diversity, and threatens to reverse decades of voting-rights gains.
• Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6–3 to declare Louisiana's majority-minority congressional district unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment, ruling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision overturned decades of precedent recognizing that states could create majority-minority districts to remedy historical exclusion of Black voters and ensure Black representation. The ruling eliminated a key enforcement mechanism of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
• Supreme Court gutted voting rights protections for Black-majority districts — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that eliminated protections for Black-majority districts established under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decision reversed years of congressional effort to safeguard minority voting power. Following the ruling, Republican-dominated southern state legislatures began redrawing district lines to dilute the votes of Black Democrats, effectively weakening the electoral power of Black communities.
• Supreme Court issues decision in Callais v. Louisiana — The Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Callais v. Louisiana on April 29, 2026. The article indicates this ruling is significant enough to warrant substantial analysis but does not provide details of the holding, reasoning, or outcome within the text provided.
• Supreme Court makes Louisiana v. Callais decision immediately effective — The U.S. Supreme Court made its April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais immediately effective, rather than waiting the standard 32 days for finalization. The decision struck down Louisiana's creation of a second congressional district designed to enable Black voters to elect a representative of their choice under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, finding the race-conscious district creation unconstitutional. The immediate effectiveness allowed Louisiana to redraw maps before its primary election, which was already underway.
• Supreme Court rejected majority-minority district interpretation in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais rejecting the longstanding interpretation that states may create majority-minority districts to guarantee Black representation in government. The right-wing justices in the majority declared Louisiana's construction of a majority-minority district unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment, characterizing it as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling continues the Court's dismantling of voting rights protections.
• Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that significantly weakens the Voting Rights Act, allowing for increased gerrymandering practices that could disproportionately affect minority voters. This ruling is expected to lead to widespread changes in how electoral districts are drawn, potentially impacting the fairness and representation in future elections across the United States.
• Supreme Court weakened Voting Rights Act provision — The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling effectively weakening a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that has prohibited racial discrimination in voting for six decades. The decision will allow Republicans to redraw congressional maps in the South, potentially netting the GOP 19 additional House seats compared to 2024 maps and potentially causing the largest drop in Black representation in Congress ever. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned the decision renders the provision "all but a dead letter" with "far-reaching and grave" consequences.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport (24-781) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport. Docket number(s): 24-781.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Louisiana v. Callais (24-109) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Louisiana v. Callais. Docket number(s): 24-109.
• Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act, enabling Republican-controlled states to pursue aggressive gerrymandering of congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling removes a key federal constraint on partisan map-drawing and follows the Court's 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which barred federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims. Together, these decisions have eliminated judicial oversight of extreme partisan maps.
• Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on Wednesday, April 30, 2026, that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act, particularly Section 2, which had allowed plaintiffs to challenge electoral maps drawn in racially discriminatory ways. The ruling eviscerated protections codified during the civil rights era. Voting rights advocates, including Ashley K Shelton of Power Coalition for Equality and Justice and Anneshia Hardy of Alabama Values, responded by pledging to shift their strategy toward state-level litigation, grassroots organizing, and coalition-building across state lines to restore voting protections.
• Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v Callais eviscerates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — The U.S. Supreme Court, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, ruled that Louisiana's attempt to create a second electoral district giving African American voters proportionate representation constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismantles a 40-year-old tool used to prevent dilution of minority voting power. The ruling overturns Congressional intent expressed in the original 1965 statute and subsequent reauthorizations, marking the culmination of decades of legal assault on voting rights protections by Roberts and Alito.
• US Supreme Court rules race-based redistricting unconstitutional in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v Callais on April 30, 2026, prohibiting states from using race-conscious redistricting to protect minority voting power. The ruling effectively dismantles Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring proof of intentional racial discrimination rather than discriminatory effect. Multiple southern states, including Louisiana, have already begun redrawing congressional maps to reduce Black voter representation ahead of the November midterm elections.
• Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that race-based redistricting claims require proof of intentional racial discrimination — The Supreme Court's six Republican-appointed justices ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that plaintiffs challenging district lines as racially discriminatory must prove that lawmakers intentionally based their decisions on race rather than partisanship. The decision effectively removed federal court oversight of partisan gerrymandering and opened the door for southern states to redraw maps to shift 10–15 seats from Democrats to Republicans by targeting minority voting power.
• Supreme Court struck down Louisiana congressional map with majority-Black district — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais invalidating Louisiana's congressional redistricting map that included a second majority-Black district. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to create the district. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent characterized the decision as demolishing the Voting Rights Act and rendering Section 2 a dead letter. Within hours, a request was filed to expedite the judgment to allow the state legislature to redraw lines before the 2026 midterms.
• Supreme Court decision in Callais v. Louisiana gutting Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The Supreme Court issued a decision Wednesday striking down core protections of the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2. The ruling established that Section 2 violations now require a "strong inference" of intentional discrimination rather than evidence of discriminatory impact on minority voters. The decision immediately triggered chaos across voting rights litigation nationwide, with courts pausing proceedings, state officials moving to dismiss cases, and election administration disrupted as the legal standard for challenging discriminatory maps and election rules became substantially harder to meet.
• Supreme Court Decision in Louisiana v Callais — On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in the case of Louisiana v Callais, effectively weakening the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, declared a new 2024 electoral map unconstitutional because it diluted the voting power of white Republican voters, despite previous lower court rulings that supported the creation of a second majority-Black district in Louisiana. This decision has been criticized for undermining protections for Black voters and is seen as a significant step back for racial equality in electoral opportunities.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v Callais, effectively dismantling Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which had been used to ensure minority voters receive fair treatment in district drawing. The decision weakens Black voters' power to elect their own representatives and triggers renewed state-level efforts to enact voting rights protections. Nine states already have state voting rights acts; eleven others have introduced bills to create their own versions in response.
• Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act in 6-3 ruling — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act, eliminating federal protections for voting rights that Congress had established. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that the decision "will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity."

Supporting reports

• The Save America Act: A Modern Day Poll Tax — The Democracy Docket article discusses the implications of the Save America Act, which is characterized as a modern-day poll tax. The act is critiqued for potentially restricting voting rights and access, drawing parallels to historical poll taxes that disenfranchised voters. The article emphasizes the importance of monitoring such legislative actions as they can significantly impact democratic participation and election fairness.
• Trump administration executive order restricting mail-in voting challenged in federal court — A coalition of civil rights groups filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts on Thursday challenging an executive order Trump signed on Tuesday that restricts mail-in voting. The order instructs the federal government to create a list of eligible voters in each state and directs the US Postal Service to transmit mail-in ballots only to people on that list. The plaintiffs argue the order violates the Constitution's separation of powers, Article I Section 4 (state control of elections), the Voting Rights Act, and the Privacy Act. This is Trump's second attempt to unilaterally alter voting procedures; a previous order was largely blocked by a federal judge last year.
• Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections — President Trump issued an executive order directing creation of lists of US citizens eligible to vote in each state and requiring the US Postal Service to refrain from sending mailed ballots to anyone not on those lists. The order drew immediate condemnation for apparent unconstitutionality and swift threats of legal action from voting rights advocates.
• Trump issues executive order on voter eligibility lists and mail ballot restrictions — President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to compile a national voter file and restricting mail-in ballot use. The order requires USPS to establish rule-making for a process prohibiting mail-in ballots unless voters are on a federal approval list. Election law experts and Democratic officials immediately challenged the order as unconstitutional, citing the Constitution's grant of election authority to states. Multiple lawsuits were announced within hours of signing.
• Trump signs executive order restricting mail-in ballots and directing national voter file compilation — President Trump signed an executive order attacking mail-in voting, directing the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to create a federal list of verified U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state. The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to send mail-in ballots only to voters on the list and to mark each ballot with a unique barcode. It threatens states refusing to cooperate with loss of federal funding and directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate anyone wrongfully distributing mail-in ballots. Election law experts and Democratic officials immediately challenged the order as unconstitutional.
• Trump signed executive order restricting mail-in voting — The White House published a fact sheet characterizing the Trump administration's policies on transgender issues as dismantling "woke" initiatives. The document claims the administration declared two immutable sexes as official policy, banned federal funding for gender-affirming medical care for minors, ended federal support for "gender ideology" curricula, enforced sex-based sports eligibility, reinstated military service standards based on biological sex, eliminated gender ideology from service academies, directed enforcement of single-sex spaces based on biological sex, ended gender self-identification on federal documents, and redirected billions in grants. The fact sheet attributes policy changes to multiple health systems and sports organizations.
• White House issued fact sheet on Trump administration policies regarding transgender-related healthcare, military service, and education — The White House published a fact sheet on March 31, 2026, describing an executive order signed by President Trump that directs the Secretary of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to compile state citizenship lists of eligible voters, requires the Postmaster General to establish secure ballot procedures through USPS, and directs the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute election officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters and to withhold federal funds from noncompliant states. The fact sheet frames the order as strengthening election integrity and preventing non-citizen voting.
• White House issues fact sheet on executive order requiring citizenship verification for federal elections — On March 31, Trump signed an executive order directing the administration to compile lists of verified eligible voters in each state and requiring USPS to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters on state-approved absentee lists. On April 21, 37 Democratic senators warned that the order illegally transforms USPS into an election administration agency. State attorneys general filed suit on April 22, and senators introduced the Absentee and Mail Voter Protection Act to nullify the order. Election law experts called it unconstitutional.
• Trump's mail-voting executive order drew legal challenges and legislative response — On Tuesday, March 31, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order framed as an "election integrity" measure that directs the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to create a national voter list, orders the Postal Service to send mail-in ballots only to those on the list, and instructs the Attorney General to withhold federal funds from "non-compliant" states and cities. Legal experts and voting rights advocates say the order is unconstitutional and likely to be blocked by courts, as the President lacks authority over elections—a power reserved to states and Congress.
• Trump signs executive order restricting mail-in voting and directing creation of national voter list — Trump signed an executive order at 5:00 PM requiring the federal government to compile a list of US citizens eligible to vote in each state and mandating that ballots be sent only to those on each state's approved mail-in ballot list. The order threatened to withhold federal funding from states that disobey. The Postal Service was directed to monitor mail-in ballot distribution for federal elections.
• Trump signed executive order restricting mail-in voting nationwide — President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit state citizenship lists to election officials, requiring the Postal Service to implement unique ballot identifiers (barcodes) on mail-in ballots, and instructing the Attorney General to prioritize investigation and prosecution of election officials and others involved in issuing ballots to non-citizens. The order mandates DHS establish infrastructure within 90 days and USPS complete rulemaking within 120 days to enforce these requirements across federal elections.
• Trump issues executive order on citizenship verification and mail-in ballot tracking for federal elections — President Trump signed Executive Order 14399 on March 31, 2026, directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to state election officials a "State Citizenship List" derived from federal citizenship, naturalization, and Social Security Administration records. The order requires the U.S. Postal Service to initiate rulemaking within 60 days mandating that all outbound ballot mail bear unique Intelligent Mail barcodes and "Official Election Mail" markings, with states required to submit lists of eligible mail-in voters to USPS at least 60 days before elections. The order directs the Attorney General to prioritize investigation and prosecution of state and local election officials and others involved in issuing ballots to ineligible individuals. The USPS must issue final rules within 120 days.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14399 directing federal citizenship verification and mail-in ballot tracking for federal elections — Trump signed an executive order on March 31 to restrict mail-in voting by creating a list of eligible US citizen voters in every state and prohibiting the US Postal Service from sending absentee ballots to voters not on state-approved lists. The order threatens to withhold federal funding from states that refuse to comply. States including Oregon and Arizona have challenged the order, arguing it violates the Constitution.
• Trump signs executive order restricting mail-in voting

Supporting reports

• Trump demands SAVE America Act as condition for DHS funding — Trump posted on Sunday that he would not agree to any DHS funding proposal unless Democrats also supported the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship in addition to ID, end mail-in voting, and attack transgender rights. The act is characterized as a voter suppression measure; voting by undocumented immigrants is already virtually nonexistent and illegal, and mail fraud occurs in only approximately 0.000043% of mail-in ballots. Republicans plan to use budget reconciliation to pass the measure without Democratic support, potentially removing more than 21 million Americans from voter rolls.
• Trump signed executive order imposing proof-of-citizenship voting requirement — On March 25, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections" instructing the Election Assistance Commission to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form and requiring the Secretary of Defense to impose the same requirement on military and overseas voter forms. The order lists passport, military ID, or government-issued ID indicating citizenship as valid proof, effectively requiring most people to use a passport—which only about half of Americans possess. The order also directs the Attorney General to challenge states that count mail-in ballots received after Election Day and instructs federal agencies to review state voter rolls for fraud.
• Trump Advocates for the SAVE America Act — Trump publicly supported the SAVE America Act, which aims to impose stricter voting requirements, including proof of citizenship and the elimination of mail-in voting. This act is seen as a voter suppression measure, despite the low incidence of mail-in voting fraud.
• Trump Demands Changes to DHS Funding Negotiations — Trump pressured Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster to pass legislation funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without Democratic support, while also insisting on the inclusion of the SAVE America Act, which would impose stricter voting requirements and limit mail-in voting.
• Trump demanded Senate add SAVE America Act to DHS funding — On Sunday, March 27, President Trump demanded that the Senate add the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act to the DHS funding measure. The act would require proof of citizenship to register and vote, severely restrict mail-in voting, and require states to surrender voting lists to a federal database (the SAVE system) used to screen for noncitizens. The Brennan Center estimated the act would remove at least 21 million Americans from voting rolls, with the SAVE database showing false-positive rates as high as 14%.

Supporting reports

• DHS uses SAVE tool to identify noncitizen voters — DHS has been using an electronic tool called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE), previously used to check eligibility for public benefits, to find noncitizen voters in a database made up of confidential data from different government agencies. That information includes confidential data from the Social Security Administration, accessed by the Department of Government Efficiency. Republican secretaries of state in twenty-seven states have agreed to use SAVE to check their voter rolls.
• SAVE system makes persistent errors identifying naturalized citizens — The SAVE system makes "persistent mistakes," frequently assessing naturalized citizens as noncitizens. The system automatically refers those individuals to DHS for possible criminal investigation, and in certain states, individuals have had to prove their citizenship to be reinstated as voters. County clerk Brianna Lennon of Boone County, Missouri, stated the system is "not ready for prime time" and she will not risk the security and constitutional rights of voters for bad data.
• ProPublica reported federal voter-verification tool misidentifies citizens as noncitizens — ProPublica reported that a federal tool designed to identify noncitizens on voter rolls is consistently and incorrectly marking U.S. citizens as noncitizens, particularly those born outside the United States. This tool is the same system that states would be required to use under the GOP's SAVE America Act, which passed the House this week. Research from Kansas showed that when a similar version was implemented, approximately 40 ineligible voters were purged while 31,000 legal citizens were prevented from registering—a ratio of 775 legal voters lost for every 1 ineligible voter.

Supporting reports

• SAVE Act Threatens Voter Disenfranchisement — The SAVE Act, currently under consideration, would require all voters to prove their citizenship, potentially disenfranchising women who have changed their names due to marriage, transgender individuals, and others. While the act may face challenges in the Senate, its passage could lead to significant barriers to voting for many citizens. Advocacy groups are urging the public to contact elected officials to oppose this legislation.
• Congressional Republicans advance restrictive voter eligibility bill — Congressional Republicans have fast-tracked the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a restrictive anti-voting bill based on Trump's baseless claims of widespread voter fraud by noncitizens. The bill would instantly disenfranchise millions of eligible voters by imposing citizenship verification requirements that exceed constitutional and statutory protections.
• Republicans advancing Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — Republicans are advancing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and to vote. Only five states—Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington—have "enhanced" driver's licenses meeting the requirement; in all other states, voters would need either a passport or a birth certificate. Approximately half of Americans lack a passport, others lack birth certificates, and the names of married women who took their husband's last name and transgender Americans would not match their birth certificates. The Brennan Center for Justice found that if the measure passes, approximately 21 million Americans could lose their votes. The bill also calls for state officials to purge voter rolls.
• Republicans propose voter suppression legislation — The Republican Party is advancing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register and vote. This legislation could disenfranchise approximately 21 million Americans who lack the necessary documentation.
• White House issued fact sheet promoting the SAVE America Act and voter ID requirements — The White House issued a fact sheet asserting that voter ID requirements are "overwhelmingly popular" across all demographics and calling on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which the document states requires photo ID and implements "critical measures to protect federal elections from fraud and abuse." The fact sheet cites polling data from Pew Research Center (83% support), Gallup (84% support), and quotes from CNN and NBC anchors, and characterizes Democratic opposition as "placing partisan politics above the clear will of the American people."
• SAVE America Act passed House with narrow margin — The SAVE America Act passed the House of Representatives on February 11, 2026, by a vote of 218 to 213. The bill requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and would affect not only first-time registration but also routine voter registration updates. Evidence from Kansas, which implemented a similar proof-of-citizenship law, showed that the documentary requirement prevented approximately 31,000 eligible citizens (12 percent of all applicants) from registering to vote, blocking far more citizens than noncitizens. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and documented to be exceedingly rare.
• House Passes Restrictive Election Bill — The Republican-controlled House passed the SAVE America Act, which imposes strict voter ID requirements and mandates frequent voter roll purges. Critics argue it disenfranchises millions, particularly women and minorities, by requiring proof of citizenship that many lack. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it faces opposition.
• House Passes SAVE Act Requiring Citizenship Proof for Voting — The Republican-controlled House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, legislation requiring proof of citizenship—such as passports or birth certificates—for voters to cast ballots. The Center for American Progress notes that approximately half of Americans lack a valid passport, and 69 million women cannot use birth certificates to prove citizenship due to name changes upon marriage. The bill also eliminates mail-only registration, mandates photo ID in all states, and requires states to conduct voter roll purges every 30 days. The measure now moves to the Senate.
• House passes SAVE America Act — The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act passed the House on Wednesday. The measure would require voters to show either a passport or birth certificate with matching names to register and would require states to purge their voting rolls every month. The bill must overcome a filibuster to pass the Senate.
• House passes SAVE America Act restricting voting for Americans abroad — The House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, which imposes in-person citizenship verification, proof of state residency, and repeated photo ID and citizenship document submission requirements at registration, ballot request, and voting stages. The bill would effectively prevent millions of eligible Americans living abroad—including military service members, diplomats, and expatriates—from voting. The measure centralizes voter eligibility authority in the federal executive, departing from two centuries of state election administration.
• House passes Save America Act, restricting voting access nationwide — The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Save America Act on February 12, 2026, by a vote of 218–213, with one Democratic defection. The bill requires proof of citizenship at voter registration, imposes a strict nationwide photo ID requirement (excluding student IDs), and significantly curtails mail-in voting. Implementation would be immediate, forcing states to rapidly realign voting systems. The bill faces a difficult path in the Senate and is expected to face federal court challenges.
• House passed SAVE America Act requiring use of flawed voter-verification system — The House passed the GOP's SAVE America Act this week, which would require states to use a federal voter-verification tool that ProPublica documented as consistently misidentifying U.S. citizens as noncitizens. The tool has a documented error rate that results in approximately 775 legal voters being disenfranchised for every 1 ineligible voter prevented from registering.

Supporting reports

• Louisiana v Callais case scheduled for oral arguments on Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Louisiana v Callais on October 15, a case challenging Louisiana's creation of a majority-Black congressional district required under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The case will determine whether such majority-minority districts violate the 14th or 15th Amendments. Legal experts predict the court may strike down the Voting Rights Act's majority-minority district provision on "color-blind" grounds, potentially enabling Republican-run states to gerrymander districts and affecting the 2026 midterm elections.
• Oral arguments in Louisiana v Callais on Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on 15 October in Louisiana v Callais, which challenges whether Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is constitutional. Louisiana is accused of creating a second majority-Black congressional district to comply with the act's minority representation provisions, which the state argues violates the 14th and 15th Amendments. The case will determine whether the Voting Rights Act's core protections for racial minorities remain enforceable or whether the Court will further restrict voting rights protections.
• US Supreme Court hears Louisiana v Callais, case that could gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — The US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on October 15, 2025, in Louisiana v Callais, a case challenging the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The dispute centers on Louisiana's redrawing of a congressional district to create a second majority-Black district after Black voters sued under Section 2. White voters are now challenging that district as an unconstitutional race-based gerrymander. The Court has invited briefing on whether the district violates the 14th and 15th Amendments. A ruling striking down or severely limiting Section 2 would eliminate the primary remaining tool for challenging racially discriminatory voting practices nationwide.
• Supreme Court hears arguments in Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases challenging a federal court decision that struck down Louisiana's racial gerrymander and required the state to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The right-wing majority indicated opposition to the use of race in redistricting to comply with the Voting Rights Act, suggesting such remedies are unconstitutional. A ruling against Section 2 could eliminate more than a dozen Democratic-held districts in the South and fundamentally alter the balance of power in the House of Representatives.
• Supreme Court re-heard case on Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The Supreme Court re-heard a case that could further undercut the 1965 Voting Rights Act by dismantling Section 2, the law's main safeguard against racially discriminatory redistricting. If the justices strike down Section 2, Republicans could gain 19 new safe U.S. house seats, enough to lock in one-party control of the House of Representatives for a generation.
• US Supreme Court hears arguments on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana electoral districts case — The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The case involves Louisiana electoral districts. Voting rights activists, predominantly Black, gathered outside the Court to protest, invoking the legacy of civil rights leaders and warning that weakening the Voting Rights Act would reverse decades of progress. Legal advocates including Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued on behalf of Black voters, expressing confidence that the law and the justices' own precedent support their position.
• US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Callais v Louisiana, case challenging Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in Callais v Louisiana, a case in which Louisiana, non-African American voters, and the Trump administration challenge Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits electoral maps that dilute minority voting power. The conservative majority appeared sympathetic to weakening or eliminating this provision. The case centers on Louisiana's 2024 congressional map that created a second majority-Black district following a prior Voting Rights Act lawsuit. A ruling against Section 2 could set a precedent making redistricting lawsuits based on race considerably harder to bring.
• US Supreme Court oral arguments signal intent to narrow Section 2 of Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared poised during oral arguments on October 16, 2025, to weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as applied to redistricting. The case, Louisiana v Callais, involves Louisiana's sixth congressional district, which was redrawn to create a second majority-Black district following a successful Section 2 challenge by Black voters. White voters and the Trump administration challenged the map, arguing that race-conscious redistricting violates the 14th and 15th Amendments. A ruling narrowing Section 2 could strip minority voters of a key tool to challenge discriminatory district lines and potentially cost Democrats around a dozen House seats.
• Supreme Court hears arguments in Louisiana v. Callais — The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, which challenges a federal court decision that found Louisiana's congressional district map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by racially gerrymandering Black voters. The case could determine the future of majority-minority districts and the enforcement of voting rights protections. The right-wing majority of the Court indicated a potential shift away from previous understandings of race in redistricting.

Supporting reports

• Trump directs Commerce Department to conduct new census excluding undocumented immigrants — President Trump posted on social media instructing the Department of Commerce to begin work on a new census based on 2024 election data and explicitly excluding undocumented immigrants from the count. Trump lacks constitutional authority to change the decennial census timing or to exclude any persons from enumeration; the Constitution mandates a census every ten years and requires apportionment based on "the whole number of persons in each State." The announcement signals administration awareness that their policies are unpopular and that they anticipate losing House control in 2026 without systemic manipulation.
• Trump instructed Department of Commerce to conduct new census excluding undocumented immigrants — President Trump issued an instruction to the Department of Commerce to begin work on a new census based on 2024 election data and excluding people in the country illegally from the count. The action would affect federal funding allocation, House apportionment, and electoral vote distribution among states. Constitutional and legal experts note that the Constitution requires the census to count "whole persons," courts previously blocked Trump's citizenship question in his first term, and mid-decade census authority is limited by statute to funding purposes only in years ending in 5. The feasibility and legality of Trump's directive remain uncertain.

Supporting reports

• Trump announces plan to end birthright citizenship via executive order — Following the Supreme Court's Trump v. CASA decision, President Trump announced to reporters his intention to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship, claiming the Fourteenth Amendment was based on a misinterpretation of law and rooted in a fabricated historical narrative about the Civil War ending in 1869 and a case filed on that exact day concerning "babies of slaves."

Supporting reports

• Trump announces plan to end birthright citizenship via executive order — Following the Supreme Court's Trump v. CASA decision, President Trump announced to reporters his intention to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship, claiming the Fourteenth Amendment was based on a misinterpretation of law and rooted in a fabricated historical narrative about the Civil War ending in 1869 and a case filed on that exact day concerning "babies of slaves."

Supporting reports

• House Republicans advance Save Act bill requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration — House Republicans are preparing to vote on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, eliminate online and mail registration, mandate voter roll purges based on incomplete data, and impose criminal penalties on election officials who register people without required documentation. The bill targets a nonexistent problem—there is no evidence noncitizens are voting in meaningful numbers—and would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, including naturalized citizens, young voters, people who changed names after marriage, and tribal residents. Election officials from both parties have warned implementation would be costly, difficult, and potentially ineffective.

Supporting reports

• Trump signs executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration — President Trump signed an executive order on March 25 requiring documentary proof of citizenship to be added to federal voter registration forms. States that do not comply face federal funding cuts. White House staff secretary Will Scharf characterized the order as "the farthest-reaching executive action taken" in the country's history. Multiple states have announced they will challenge the order as an unconstitutional federal overreach. The order targets the same nonexistent problem of noncitizen voting that the Save Act addresses.
• Trump executive order directs EAC to amend federal voter registration form — President Trump's March 25 executive order "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections" instructs the Election Assistance Commission to amend the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship documentation, such as a passport. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 21.3 million eligible Americans lack readily available proof of citizenship, meaning the requirement could disenfranchise millions of voters despite noncitizen voting being extremely rare.
• Trump executive order threatens to withhold federal election funding from states — Trump's March 25 executive order threatens to withhold federal election funding from states that count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if those ballots were mailed before Election Day. Over a dozen states allow this practice. The order also instructs the Secretary of Defense to add proof-of-citizenship requirements to military and overseas voter registration forms and directs the EAC to decertify all previously certified voting machines.
• White House issued fact sheet on executive order directing election integrity measures — The White House published a fact sheet on March 25, 2025, describing an executive order signed by President Trump that day. The order directs federal agencies to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration, mandates state access to federal databases for citizenship verification, prioritizes prosecution of non-citizen voting, conditions federal election funding on state compliance with citizenship verification and paper ballot requirements, and directs the Attorney General to enforce voter-list maintenance and prevent non-citizens from election administration roles.
• White House signed Executive Order 14248 on election integrity requirements — The White House signed Executive Order 14248 on March 25, 2025, directing federal agencies to enforce citizenship verification in voter registration, require paper ballots with voter-verifiable records, enforce Election Day ballot receipt deadlines, prevent non-citizen voting, coordinate with states on voter list maintenance, prosecute election crimes, and secure voting systems. The order mandates the Election Assistance Commission amend voting system guidelines within 180 days and condition federal funding on state compliance with citizenship documentation and ballot receipt requirements.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14248 requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, enforcing Election Day ballot receipt deadlines, and directing federal agencies to verify voter eligibility and prosecute election crimes. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14248 on March 25, 2025, establishing federal election-integrity policies. The order mandates documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration; requires states to reject ballots received after Election Day; directs DHS, DOJ, and SSA to share citizenship and eligibility databases with election officials; authorizes DOJ to withhold federal funds from non-compliant states; requires voting systems to produce voter-verifiable paper records; and directs cessation of prior administration voting-access initiatives. The order invokes federal statutes governing election administration and citizenship verification.
• Trump signed executive order on election integrity requiring citizenship documentation and voter list maintenance — President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 25, 2025, titled "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections." The order directs federal agencies to enforce existing election laws, including requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration, mandating states maintain accurate voter rolls, restricting mail-in ballot counting to Election Day, and requiring paper ballots with voter-verifiable records. It tasks the Election Assistance Commission, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Social Security Administration with implementing citizenship verification, voter list audits, and prosecution of election crimes.
• Trump signed executive order on election laws — Trump signed an executive order making changes to election laws, including requiring proof of US citizenship on voter registration forms. States that don't comply with the directive could lose federal funding. The order also directs the attorney general to take action against states that count ballots received after election day in federal elections. The order also gives DOGE access to state voter lists, which could result in voter purges.
• Trump signs executive order requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration — Donald Trump signed a far-reaching executive order on March 26, 2025, that fundamentally alters U.S. voter registration processes by requiring documentary proof of citizenship (such as a passport) to vote in federal elections. The order amends the federal voter registration form, empowers federal agencies to cut funding to non-compliant states, instructs the DOJ to prosecute alleged "election crimes," and seeks to block states from accepting mail-in ballots after election day. Legal experts and voting rights advocates warn the order could disenfranchise tens of millions of eligible voters and faces constitutional challenges.
• Trump signed executive order on voter citizenship requirements — President Trump signed an executive order that would, if enforceable, dramatically change U.S. elections and restrict voting rights for tens of millions of Americans by imposing new citizenship verification requirements. Legal analyst Marc Elias of Democracy Docket characterized the order as "confused, rhetorical and—in places—nonsensical. It asserts facts that are not true and claims authority he does not possess. It is not meant to be taken seriously or literally. Rather, it is the empty threat of a weak man desperate to appear strong."
• Trump issues executive order on election integrity titled "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections" — President Trump issued an executive order titled "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections" that asserts presidential powers over election administration, including restricting which ballots states can count and granting DOGE unspecified authority to review state voter rolls. The order lacks constitutional or statutory basis, as election regulation authority rests with state legislatures and Congress, not the president. Election law advocates announced plans to challenge the order in court.
• Trump issues executive order on voting rules and mail ballot administration — President Donald Trump issued an executive order on voting on Tuesday, March 26, 2025, that directs states to change rules for accepting mail ballots and empowers the Department of Government Efficiency to subpoena state records to investigate voter fraud claims. The order represents a direct federal intervention in state election administration that exceeds the scope of Biden's 2021 voter registration executive order, which Republicans had challenged as unconstitutional federal overreach.
• Trump signed an executive order affecting U.S. elections — President Trump signed an executive order that aims to change U.S. elections by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. This order has been criticized as confusing and nonsensical, with experts suggesting it is not meant to be taken seriously. The order could potentially disenfranchise millions of Americans and raises concerns about voter access and election integrity.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration attempts to end birthright citizenship — The Trump administration is pursuing an executive order to end birthright citizenship, despite facing legal challenges from 22 state attorneys general. The administration argues that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and plans to take the issue to the Supreme Court. This move is part of a broader effort to reshape immigration policy.
• Trump signed executive order ending birthright citizenship — On his first day in office, Donald Trump signed an executive order to end the constitutionally recognized right of birthright citizenship in the United States. This order has led to legal challenges, including a case filed by Monica, a pregnant immigrant from Venezuela, and other plaintiffs. The order's implementation was temporarily blocked by a judge in Seattle, who deemed it "blatantly unconstitutional." The order's ambiguity has caused confusion and concern among immigrants and legal experts about its implications for children born to parents in the U.S. unlawfully or temporarily.
• Trump issues executive order attacking birthright citizenship — President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship in the United States. This action has been met with widespread disapproval, with 59% of poll respondents opposing the move. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration from implementing changes to birthright citizenship, but the White House intends to continue its efforts.
• Trump ends birthright citizenship — On his first day in office, Trump targeted automatic citizenship for US-born children of both undocumented people and some legal immigrants. The order specifies that it would limit birthright citizenship if a person's "mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth", or "when that person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary." Birth