Special Poll
President Donald Trump’s recent executive order to overhaul how U.S. elections are conducted is stirring deep concern among state and local election officials, who warn it could cause widespread confusion and disrupt preparations for the 2026 midterms.
The sweeping order includes a number of controversial changes among them, a requirement for documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, the decertification of certain voting systems, and tighter ballot deadlines. Election officials across the country, already grappling with reduced federal cybersecurity support, now face the possibility of navigating costly equipment changes and unclear legal obligations.
In Connecticut, Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas expressed cautious optimism that the state’s newly purchased $20 million ballot scanners will still be acceptable under Trump’s directive. However, she voiced concern for other states that may have recently upgraded their systems, only to now be forced to replace them. “It’s not like states have millions and millions of dollars they can just throw around every few years,” Thomas said. “If that equipment becomes unusable, there’s no remedy in the order.”
The lack of clarity around Trump’s directive is compounding the challenge. Legal challenges are expected, and the timeline for implementation remains uncertain. “I have no idea what the timeline is for anything in this executive order,” said Joseph Kirk, an election official in Bartow County, Georgia. “I need answers soon because I have voters to take care of.”
Trump’s order sharply criticizes how elections are currently run and claims the U.S. should model its system more closely after foreign nations. It also revives false claims of widespread voter fraud, which he has repeated since his 2016 and 2020 campaigns despite no credible evidence supporting those allegations. State-level audits and investigations in 2020 repeatedly confirmed the integrity of the election, even in battleground states where Trump lost.
The executive order includes a mandate for all voter registrants to provide physical proof of U.S. citizenship. While Republican-led states and some federal lawmakers have supported similar proposals, voting rights advocates are raising red flags. Millions of Americans, especially those without passports or easily accessible birth certificates, could face hurdles under the new rule. Women who have changed their names through marriage would likely need additional documentation, creating bureaucratic obstacles and opening the door to widespread disenfranchisement.
David Becker, a former Justice Department attorney and head of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the order would require states to build new systems to collect, store, and verify citizenship data without additional funding. “You don’t wave a magic wand and do that,” Becker said. “It creates a brand-new bureaucracy in every single state.”
Officials are also sounding the alarm about public confusion. Kate Sweeney Bell, who oversees elections in Marion County, Indiana, noted that her state already has restrictive voting laws and low turnout, but said other states will struggle. “It’s going to be a rough few election cycles,” she said, adding that voter education efforts would need to be massive.
Legal challenges could delay the rollout of the order’s requirements, potentially leaving voters and officials in limbo. “If election officials don’t know what the rules are, voters definitely won’t understand them,” said Ryan Macias, an expert on voting systems. “That creates distrust and erodes confidence in the results.”
Another part of the order directs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to revise its standards and potentially rescind certifications for voting machines that use barcodes or QR codes, except those used for voters with disabilities. This could lead to major changes in voting systems again, without any federal funding to support the transition.
Mark Lindeman of Verified Voting warned that changing systems is not a quick process. States must secure funding, go through procurement, wait for manufacturers to deliver, and then train poll workers. “If multiple states are trying to replace their systems at once, we don’t know if the manufacturers can meet that demand,” he said.
Trump’s order marks a significant and sudden federal intervention into what has long been the domain of the states. Critics argue it risks undermining both the logistical preparedness of election officials and the public’s trust in a system that relies on consistency, transparency, and local control. As implementation remains uncertain and legal battles loom, officials say time is running out to preserve the stability needed for a fair and functional 2026 election.