News
Trump Is Trying to Gain More Power Over Elections. Is His Effort Legal?
President Trump pushed on Tuesday to hand the executive branch unprecedented influence over how federal elections are run, signing a far-reaching and legally dubious order to change U.S. voting rules.
The executive order, which seeks to require proof of citizenship to register to vote as well as the return of all mail ballots by Election Day, is an attempt to upend centuries of settled election law and federal-state relations.
The Constitution gives the president no explicit authority to regulate elections. Instead, it gives states the power to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, leaving them to decide the rules, oversee voting and try to prevent fraud. Congress can also pass election laws or override state legislation, as it did with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Yet Mr. Trump’s order, which follows a yearslong Republican push to tighten voting laws out of a false belief that the 2020 election was rigged, bypasses both the states and Congress. Republican lawmakers in Washington are trying to pass many of the same voting restrictions, but they are unlikely to make it through the Senate.
The order’s most eye-catching provisions are the requirements of proof of citizenship and the return of mail ballots by Election Day.
But the order, which threatens to withhold federal funding from states that do not comply with it, includes a range of other measures.
It seeks to give federal agencies, including the Elon Musk-led team known as the Department of Government Efficiency, access to state voter rolls to check “for consistency with federal requirements.” It aims to set new rules for election equipment, which could force states to replace voting machines that use bar codes or QR codes. And it instructs the U.S. attorney general to hunt for and prosecute election crimes.
Is this legal?
Probably not all of it, legal experts say — and voting rights groups and state attorneys general are already signaling that they will file challenges.
Several experts predicted that provisions of the order might well be found unlawful, though they said that others, like directions to Mr. Trump’s attorney general and other cabinet members, fell within legal bounds.
“It’s an attempt at a power grab,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The president has been seen in the past as having no role to play when it comes to the conduct of federal elections, and this attempt to assert authority over the conduct of federal elections would take power away from both an independent federal agency and from the states.”
What parts might be challenged?
A central question surrounds Mr. Trump’s attempt to use the Election Assistance Commission, a federal agency that Congress created in 2002 to help election officials with their work, to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement.
Currently, Americans may register to vote in federal elections either through their state or by using a federal form created by the E.A.C. The form includes a box that registrants check to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are U.S. citizens, but it does not require documentation as proof.
The executive order would force the E.A.C. to change that process to require a passport, state identification that includes citizenship information or military identification.
Legal experts dispute that Mr. Trump has the authority to force the agency, which Congress designated as “independent” and which includes two commissioners from each party, to take any action.
“He can ask nicely,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of constitutional law at Loyola Marymount University who served in the Biden administration. “But he thinks he’s got a power that, at least so far, he does not have. It would take a change in the law and the Supreme Court affirmatively approving a radical expansion of power of the executive.”
Legal experts say the provision requiring all ballots to arrive by Election Day also probably exceeds the president’s legal authority, particularly the threat to withhold federal funding from those states that do not comply. (Seventeen states currently allow mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive soon afterward.)
“If the president is basically usurping the power of the purse by imposing limits on these grants that Congress itself did not impose, that could be the basis for constitutionally challenging these conditions,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School.
Mr. Trump’s attempt to force states to turn over voter data to Mr. Musk’s team and federal agencies recalls a similar program from the first Trump administration, a commission on “election integrity” led by Kris Kobach, who is now the Kansas attorney general.
The commission sought data from all 50 states, but 44 of them refused to comply. The Republican secretary of state in Mississippi told the commission to “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.”
What is the potential impact on voters and elections?
If the full order were to stand, it could potentially disenfranchise millions of Americans and cost state and local governments millions of dollars.
About 21.3 million people do not have proof of citizenship readily available, according to a 2023 study by the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting rights and democracy group. Nearly four million people do not have the documents at all because they were lost, destroyed or stolen. The executive order does not allow for birth certificates to prove citizenship.
It is also unclear whether women who have changed their surname after marriage will face new hurdles in proving their citizenship.
The order could also lead election officials to throw out sizable numbers of ballots that arrive after Election Day. For example, in Nevada’s two largest counties in the 2022 general election, about 45,000 ballots arrived after Election Day and were counted, according to state data. In Washington State, Kim Wyman, a Republican former secretary of state, estimated that “about a third of the ballots in any given election” arrived on the Wednesday or Thursday after Election Day.
The order could put states in deep budget holes, as well. Many states, including the battlegrounds of Georgia and Pennsylvania, use voting machines with bar codes or QR codes. Replacing them would cost millions of dollars that the order does not provide.
Republicans won in 2024. Why do they want to change voting laws?
Mr. Trump has made specious claims about voter fraud for decades, but since his 2020 election loss and the 2021 Capitol riot, he has pushed the issue to the center of Republican politics.
Even though voter fraud is exceedingly rare, nearly every speech of Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign included false claims that noncitizens were voting in American elections. He also railed against mail voting, even as Republican groups successfully pushed more of the party’s voters to cast ballots that way.
Jason Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project, a conservative advocacy group tied to the activist Leonard Leo, said the executive order was simply enforcing laws already passed by Congress. He referred to a ruling from a federal appeals court that found that Congress’s selection of a federal Election Day meant all voting must be completed by that day, with no late-arriving ballots permitted.
“The executive order is acting well within the four corners of those existing laws, so we’re not breaking new ground in terms of legal authority,” Mr. Snead said. “We’re not breaking new ground in terms of the relationship between the federal government and the states.”
News
Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants
A demonstrator holds a sign during International Overdose Awareness Day on Aug. 28, 2024 in New York City.
Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images
The Trump administration sent shockwaves through the U.S. mental health and drug addiction system late Tuesday, sending hundreds of termination letters, effective immediately, for federal grants supporting health services.

Three sources said they believe total cuts to nonprofit groups, many providing street-level care to people experiencing addiction, homelessness and mental illness, could reach roughly $2 billion. NPR wasn’t able to independently confirm the scale of the grant cancellation. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) didn’t respond to a request for clarification.
“We are definitely looking at severe loss of front-line capacity,” said Andrew Kessler, head of Slingshot Solutions, a consultancy firm that works with mental health and addiction groups nationwide. “[Programs] may have to shut their doors tomorrow.”
Kessler said he has reviewed numerous grant termination letters from “Salt Lake City to El Paso to Detroit, all over the country.”
Ryan Hampton, the founder of Mobilize Recovery, a national advocacy nonprofit for people in and seeking recovery, told NPR his group lost roughly $500,000 “overnight.”
“Waking up to nearly $2 billion in grant cancellations means front-line providers are forced to cease overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, and peer recovery services immediately, leaving our communities defenseless against a raging crisis,” Hampton said. “This cruelty will be measured in lives lost, as recovery centers shutter and the safety net we built is slashed overnight. We are witnessing the dismantling of our recovery infrastructure in real-time, and the administration will have blood on its hands for every preventable death that follows.”
Copies of the letter sent to two different organizations and reviewed by NPR signal that SAMHSA officials no longer believe the defunded programs align with the Trump administration’s priorities.
The letter points to efforts to reshape the national health system in part by restructuring SAMHSA’s grant program, which “includes terminating some of its … awards.”
According to the letter, grants are terminated as of Jan.13, adding that “costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable.”
The National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors sent a letter to members saying it believes “over 2,000 grants [nationwide] with a total of more than $2 billion” are affected. The group said it’s still working to understand the “full scope” of the cuts.
This move comes on top of deep Medicaid cuts, passed last year by the Republican-controlled Congress, which affect numerous mental health and addiction care providers.
Kessler told NPR he’s hearing alarm from care providers nationwide that the safety net for people experiencing an addiction or mental health crisis could unravel.
“In the short term, there’s going to be severe damage. We’re going to have to scramble,” he said.
Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, said the SAMHSA grants pay for lifesaving services.
“From first responders to drug courts, continued federal funding quite literally save lives,” LaBelle said. “The overdose epidemic has been declared a public health emergency and overdose deaths are decreasing. This is no time to pull critical funding.”
Requests for comment from SAMHSA and the Department of Health and Human Services were not immediately returned.
This is a developing story.
News
Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate
new video loaded: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate
transcript
transcript
Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate
Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.
-
“Open it. Last warning.” “Do you have an ID on you, ma’am?” “I don’t need an ID to walk around in — In my city. This is my city.” “OK. Do you have some ID then, please?” “I don’t need it.” “If not, we’re going to put you in the vehicle and we’re going to ID you.” “I am a U.S. citizen.” “All right. Can we see an ID, please?” “I am a U.S. citizen.”
By Jamie Leventhal and Jiawei Wang
January 13, 2026
News
Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power
Top Justice Department officials defended Lindsey Halligan’s attempts to remain in her position as a U.S. attorney in court filings Tuesday, responding to a federal judge who demanded to know why she was continuing to do so after another judge had found that her appointment was invalid.
The filing, signed by Halligan, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, accused a Trump-appointed judge of “gross abuse of power,” and attempting to “coerce the Executive Branch into conformity.”
Last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak, who sits on the federal bench in Richmond, ordered Halligan to provide the basis for her repeated use of the title of U.S. attorney and explain why it “does not constitute a false or misleading statement.”
Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond to his order and brief on why he “should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification as United States attorney” after she listed herself on an indictment returned in the Eastern District of Virginia in December as a “United States attorney and special attorney.”
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie had ruled in November that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was invalid and violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and she dismissed the cases Halligan had brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The statute invoked by the Trump administration to appoint Halligan allows an interim U.S. attorney to serve for 120 days. After that, the interim U.S. attorney may be extended by the U.S. district court judges for the region.
Currie found that the 120-day clock began when Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert was initially appointed in January 2025. Currie concluded that when that timeframe expired, Bondi’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney expired along with it.
The judge ruled that Halligan had been serving unlawfully since Sept. 22 and concluded that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” had to be set aside. That included the Comey and James indictments.
In their response, Bondi, Blanche and Halligan called Novak’s move an “inquisition,” “insult,” and a “cudgel” against the executive branch. The Justice Department argued that Currie’s ruling in November applied only to the Comey and James cases and did not bar Halligan from calling herself U.S. attorney in other cases that she oversees.
“Adding insult to error, [Novak’s order] posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers,” the Justice Department wrote.
In his earlier order, Novak said that Currie’s decision “remains binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”
The Justice Department called Currie’s ruling “erroneous”: and said that Halligan is entitled to maintain her position “notwithstanding a single district judge’s contrary view.”
On Monday, the second-highest ranking federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Robert McBride, was fired after he refused to help lead the Justice Department’s prosecution of Comey, a source familiar with the matter told CBS News. McBride is a former longtime federal prosecutor in Kentucky’s Eastern District and had only been on the job as first assistant U.S. attorney for a few months after joining the office in the fall.
Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who was a member of President Trump’s legal team, and joined Mr. Trump’s White House staff after he won a second term in 2024. In September, Halligan was selected to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor abruptly left the post amid concerns he would be forced out for failing to prosecute James.
Just days after she was appointed, Halligan sought and secured a two-count indictment against Comey alleging he lied to Congress during testimony in September 2020. James, the New York attorney general, was indicted on bank fraud charges in early October. Both pleaded not guilty and pursued several arguments to have their respective indictments dismissed, including the validity of Halligan’s appointment, and claims of vindictive prosecution.
-
Montana4 days agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says
-
Technology1 week agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Delaware6 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX6 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Dallas, TX1 week agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Education1 week agoVideo: This Organizer Reclaims Counter Space
-
Virginia4 days agoVirginia Tech gains commitment from ACC transfer QB
-
Iowa1 week agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star