Trump Promises New Executive Order to Enforce Voter ID in Federal Elections—What to Know

‘Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. No exceptions!’ President Donald Trump said, promising ‘An Executive Order To That End.’

President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Aug. 26, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

President Donald Trump said on Aug. 30 that he would be making another push into federal election rules, promising to sign an executive order that would require voter ID to vote.

“Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. No exceptions!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “I Will Be Doing An Executive Order To That End!!!”

Trump also reiterated earlier calls to end mail-in ballots, although this time he didn’t say whether they would still be the subject of any executive action.

“Also, No Mail-In Voting, Except For Those That Are Very Ill, And The Far Away Military. Use paper ballots only!!!” he wrote.

The move, like Trump’s promise to push for an end to mail-in ballots, could push the limits of his presidential authority, as states have long been allowed jurisdiction over their own elections.

Here’s what to know.

Voter ID

Voter ID laws, which require voters to present a form of identification, have long been a hot button issue at the national level.

Currently, state laws vary on the topic. Some states have strict laws, requiring a photo ID to vote, while others that require photo ID permit some flexibility. Some states require only some proof of identity, without photo requirements. Others don’t require ID at all.

A man checks the ID of a voter before giving them a ballot at an early voting location in Fairfax, Va., on Sept. 18, 2020. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

Trump and other Republicans have called for the adoption of voter ID for years, describing the measure as a common sense move to ensure that only citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections and arguing that forgoing such requirements increases the likelihood of fraud.

Many Democrats have criticized these laws, arguing that they limit lower-class citizens’ access to the ballot box because of barriers such as the cost associated with obtaining voter ID.

Speaking about the issue in July, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested that voter ID laws would limit turnout from poor, minority, and Democratic voters.

Republicans have noted that photo identification is required in various other areas of life, such as driving, employment, and buying alcohol.

What the Constitution Says

Historically, states have been granted broad discretion over how both state and federal elections are handled, although some laws—such as the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and laws setting a uniform date for federal elections—regulate the process.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution grants states the power to choose the “Times, Places and Manner” of their elections, although Congress is granted the power to regulate the time or manner.

Experts have told The Epoch Times they’re skeptical about Trump’s authority to make broad changes to election laws without congressional sign-off.

“The President has no power to dictate to states how they conduct national elections,” Rick Pildes, political science professor at New York University, told The Epoch Times in response to a question about Trump’s call to ban mail-in ballots in all but a handful of cases.

Instead, Congress would likely need to approve such changes through legislation. Although Trump has encouraged reforms, Republicans’ effort to impose proof of citizenship requirements to vote has stalled in the Senate.

The U.S. Capitol on Sept. 2, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The House in April passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require voters to produce documents to confirm their citizenship status to register to vote.

The bill has foundered in the Senate, where it would need the support of at least seven Democrats to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

In a statement following the House passage of the bill, Schumer called the bill an “outrage,” saying it would “coerce states into instituting policies that would effectively prevent millions of American citizens from voting, stymie automatic voter registration, and derail in-person voter registration drives.”

Previous Actions

In March, Trump signed an executive order seeking to impose photo ID requirements at the time of voting.

He said the changes were intended to safeguard “free, fair, and honest elections” against what he described as “fraud, errors, or suspicion.”

“The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” Trump wrote in the order.

Trump stated in the document that his goal was to ensure the enforcement of federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. Section 1015 and Section 611, which prohibit foreign nationals from registering to vote in federal elections.

He said that several states have, for years, failed to properly vet the citizenship status of registrants, and he accused the Department of Justice of failing to “prioritize and devote sufficient resources” to the issue.

Legal Challenges

Trump’s previous effort at modifying election law has seen challenges in court, and judges have expressed skepticism about the president’s authority to mandate such changes.

In April, the Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against the order, and a judge temporarily blocked its proof-of-citizenship provisions.

Elias Law Group, which represented Democrats in the case, alleged that the executive order would “disenfranchise eligible voters by adding illegal and unnecessary barriers to the voter registration process.”

“The Constitution couldn’t be clearer—it’s Congress and the states, not the President, who determine how federal elections are conducted,” a representative of the firm said in the statement.

In June, District Judge Denise Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts also granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the order, siding with 19 attorneys general who had sued the administration.

Casper initially ordered a nationwide ban on implementation of the order. After the Supreme Court in June issued a ruling limiting nationwide injunctions, she amended the ruling to apply only to the 19 states that had filed the complaint.

It’s unclear how Trump’s new move to address the issue will be structured, given the legal challenges the March executive order has faced.