American Federalism: March 2025 in Review

“There is no federal system that is commonly viewed as successful…whose people do not think federal.”

D. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (1987 p. 192)

Thinking Federal

The theme of this month’s newsletter is “thinking federal.” What does it mean to think federal? Daniel Elazar, in his classic book Exploring Federalism, explained it this way:

“In the last analysis, the maintenance of federalism involves ‘thinking federal,’ that is, being oriented toward the ideals and norms of republicanism, constitutionalism, and power sharing that are essential to the federal way.”

In March, a number of actions at the federal level forced Americans to confront the reality of executive and state power, and the ways in which our current political culture could benefit from a renewal of a federal political culture.

In some ways, President Trump has made it easier for Americans to “think federal.” On a wide range of issues, his presidency has repeatedly thrust questions of state authority into the national spotlight—sometimes as a result of the “resistance” of governors, attorneys, or federal judges actively, and other times through his own effort to empower states and reduce federal power, either through aggressive deregulation and downsizing of the federal bureaucracy, or in some cases, directly championing a renewed role for the states. Either way, Trump seems to be helping to make the Constitutional boundaries between federal and state governments feel newly relevant.

At the same time, his confrontational and often personal approach to executive power may have negative implications for federal thinking—republicanism, constitutionalism, and power sharing.

70+ days into the Trump presidency, we seem to be stuck in the middle of an ongoing paradox: the Trump administration seems to be helping in some ways to revitalize federalism awareness – thinking federal- while also continuing to erode the norms that sustain the federal way.

Credit: Gallup Opinion Poll March 28, 2025

Is the Honeymoon Over?

Last month, we reported on Trump’s relatively strong approval numbers. Mid-March, Trump’s approval rating began to suffer. By the second week of march, a majority of polls showed a negative net approval (only Rasmussen and RMG show Trump above 50%):

On April 1, the New York Times updated its polling tracker, showing similarly mixed results. A few polls, like the March 26-27 HarrisX/Harris poll, showed President Trump with a +3 positive net approval rating. A number of other polls, including an AP-NORC poll, showed Trump “underwater” by -10 points or more.

Issue Areas Ratings “Underwater”

General polls are helpful but it is probably more useful to look at issue areas. In some top issue areas, the President made gains in March. According to Harvard Harris numbers, Trump made significant gains when it comes to Americans’ “perception of their own financial situation” (up to 33% from 29% in February).

March was not a good month for the President on other key issues.

A March Gallup poll asked Americans to assess how Trump is handling eight different policy issues. Perhaps not surprising (given Trump’s posturing on tariffs and trade with key economic allies) voters reacted negatively, and it began to show up in the polls. While Trump continued to enjoy support on border security (55% approval), the president was “underwater” on these eight issues.

Other polls confirm these negative results. According to Harvard-Harris polling, Trump’s approval on key issues “dropped across the board”:

Read more: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/HHP_Mar2025_KeyResults.pdf

Federalism at a Crossroads

Unfortunately, there is no good or reliable data on how Americans are reacting to Trump’s agenda as it relates to broader Constitutional issues (“thinking federal”). What remains clear is that Americans do not want a King.

In February, for example, we noted that 65% of respondents said it would be “too risky” to give President Trump more power “to deal directly with the nation’s problems.”

When the question was broadened to a future president, numbers went up dramatically.78% agreed it would be too risky to give “any president” or “anyone who occupies the Oval Office expanded power.”

78% agreed it would be too risky to give “any president” or “anyone who occupies the Oval Office expanded power.”

Despite this nearly-universal agreement, party politics is expected to play a role in how Americans think about federalism. In the same February poll, nearly 60% of Republicans said they were comfortable with the idea that Trump could “fix the country’s problems” – if he didn’t “worry so much about Congress and the courts.”

Skunks at the Garden Party

This brings us to another ongoing theme. It is a well known feature of modern politics that federalism is “everyone’s second best friend” (as one of our colleagues likes to put it). Indeed, the pressure to “go along” while one’s party is in power is almost impossible to resist. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to be the proverbial “skunk at the garden party” when their party holds the levers of national power.

Courtesy Federalism Index Project

Federalism Flashpoints

With all this in mind, the Federalism Index Project has compiled a list of the top five areas of concern, worthy of our attention as we move forward in our shared goal of “thinking federal.”

I: Executive Orders

As of writing, the President has issued more than 100 Executive Orders, averaging approximately 1.47 executive orders per day.

1.47 executive orders per day

This number is simply unprecedented.

For context, during his first term, President Trump signed 55 executive orders over the entire year, averaging about 0.15 per day. President Joe Biden issued 42 executive orders in his first 100 days in 2021, averaging 0.42 per day. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, known for his extensive use of executive orders during the Great Depression, issued 93 in his first 100 days in 1933, averaging 0.93 per day.

On executive orders, Trump is now firmly in a league of his own.

To help users keep track of Executive Orders that have Federalism Implications, the Federalism Project has released a new tool, the Trump Executive Order Tracker, designed to help users view, understand, monitor, and learn more about key Executive Actions currently facing legal challenges.
As of March 25, at least 38 Executive Orders have been partially blocked.

II: Spending Power Threats

“Spending power threats” refer to instances where a president or Congress uses the leverage of federal funding (e.g., grants, aid, or appropriations) to compel state or local compliance with federal objectives (often where direct authority is lacking).

This last month, President Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from states and institutions to enforce compliance with high-priority administration policies. Here, we list only three notable instances that have caught media/public attention:

Election Law Compliance: On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration and mandating that all ballots be received by Election Day. The order threatened to withdraw federal funding from states that did not comply with these directives.
Maine’s Transgender Athlete Policies: In March 2025, the Trump administration intensified pressure on Maine to prohibit transgender girls from participating in women’s sports. President Trump demanded an apology from Governor Janet Mills for her opposition to his executive order banning transgender athletes from women’s sports, threatening continued federal investigations and potential funding cuts if the state did not comply. Politico
Educational Institutions and Protest Policies: In early March 2025, President Trump threatened to halt federal funding for colleges and universities that allow “illegal protests.”

Where is the line?

The use of spending power threats raises an ongoing question: Where is the line between legitimate political pressure and compulsion?

Chief Justice Rehnquist in South Dakota v. Dole argued that Congress could threaten to withhold federal funding, but that it could not be “so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.‘”

According to our estimates, the President has publicly threatened to withhold more than 3B funds to states (including $650M to sanctuary states, $150M to Maine, and $2-4B in general noncompliance to other states).

Given the number of lawsuits ongoing, this may be an area where Courts take an opportunity to clarify whether Trump’s “pressure” on states has turned into compulsion.

III: All the President’s Words

In our last newsletter, we introduced a new section on presidential rhetoric. Research shows that political rhetoric has a real impact on democratic principles, including how citizens think about the Constitution and the rule of law.

For example, a study from Notre Dame in 2023 concluded that while occasional “norm-violating rhetoric” may not matter very much on a day to day basis, leaders who repeat and reinforce anti-Constitutional or antidemocratic rhetoric for years at a time will eventually have an impact.

Last month, we noted three examples of Trump’s embrace of the “Imperial Presidency.”

On February 17, President Trump took to Truth Social, echoing Napoleon, with a proclamation: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Trump followed up on this with a renewed flirtation with the notion of a third term—an idea dismissed by some as a provocative jest, but almost universally condemned across different media outlets. A few days later on February 19, the White House X account ratcheted things up again, posting “LONG LIVE THE KING” alongside striking AI-generated image of Trump adorned with a crown.

In March, President Trump appeared to back off some of his more obviously-authoritarian comments. As we noted last month, a continuation of this kind of American rhetoric will eventually hurt him in the polls.

Is that message getting through to the President, though?

Perhaps not. In true Trumpian fashion, he tripled down on the idea of a third term. In a March 30 interview with NBC News, Trump stated that he was “not joking,” while also claiming that there could be “legal pathways” to remain in office beyond 2028 – hinting that his first term “was stolen” and therefore shouldn’t count.

Whether Trump is kidding or not may not matter in the end. As we reported in February, 49% of Americans believe Trump wants to be king of the United States.

Summary

In summary, Presidential rhetoric matters. If the public buys a narrative that states are just cogs in a federal machine, they’ll tolerate—or demand—more centralization. Trump’s comments about a third term may be strategic bluster, aimed at energizing his base and testing institutional limits, but a large swath of the country agrees that the President’s words raise serious concerns about democratic norms and the potential erosion of key constitutional and structural constraints.

for more on the importance of federal political culture, see the Center for the Study of Federalism “Political Culture” project

IV: Congress

While much of the spotlight remains on Trump, a number of bills are currently under consideration that could have significant implications for states and for the federal structure more generally. Using Govtrack as an initial pass, we have narrowed down the top “trending” bills during the last week of March, affecting states:

● H.R. 38: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

● H.R. 1295: Reorganizing Government Act of 2025

● H.R. 899: To terminate the Department of Education.

● H.R. 28: Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025

● H.Con.Res. 14: Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.

More (below) on recent actions in Congress with implications for federalism.

V: The Courts

President Trump’s first 100 days are also putting a spotlight on the Courts – specifically, how or to what extent the current Supreme Court will choose to act as a “safeguard” of federalism and Constitutional structure more broadly.

So far this year, 21 decisions have been released (averaging 3.1 per month since October). 7 decisions were released in March (more below).

Read on to find out more about each area.

Executive Actions

As of writing, the President has now signed 109 Executive Orders.

By comparison, the President had signed ~17 Executive Orders by this point in the first term. This blistering pace of executive action is matched only by the number of legal actions and complaints, also at record levels.

Our “race chart” provides a sense of the unprecedented pace:

Executive Orders – First 100 Days in Office

Overview

In March alone, President Trump signed 28 Executive Orders, 2 memorandums, 2 notices, and 9 proclamations.

Below we provide a selection of executive actions that have clear federalism implications.

For information on executive orders over time, see our “Executive Orders“ primer. For a complete list of all Executive Orders see our new Executive Order Tracker: https://www.federalismindex.org/executive-order-tracker

Agencies (in the Era of DOGE)

Federal agencies create regulations through a structured process known as rule-making, which is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946. In theory, this process helps to ensure transparency, public participation, and accountability in the development of federal regulations.

DOGE

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established via Executive Order 14158 on January 20, 2025, and formalized through EO 14218 on February 19, 2025, represents an ambitious experiment in fixing the federal bureaucracy’s transparency problems, as well as overseeing an administrative restructuring that aims at achieving a $1 trillion reduction in federal spending.

In March, DOGE accelerated its mission, claiming $115 billion in savings (up $10 billion), canceling 257 contracts ($205 million), and targeting 50,000–70,000 additional layoffs.

The pace lags Musk’s $1 trillion goal, and a new poll shows that 58% of Americans do not think Elon Musk and DOGE will hit its goal.

Perhaps more worryingly for its defenders, DOGE continues face heavy political and legal opposition.

March 6, 2025: The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) filed a lawsuit to block DOGE from shutting it down, as reported by Democracy Docket.
March 10, 2025: Democracy Forward and unions filed an amended complaint and motion for emergency relief against DOGE regarding access to Social Security Administration (SSA) data, as noted by Nextgov/FCW.
March 18, 2025: A federal judge ruled that DOGE violated the Constitution by shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The suits against DOGE are part of a larger trend that began in February.

According to Just Security’s litigation tracker, there have been 135 lawsuits against the Trump administration , including those against the actions of DOGE. At this pace, combining various lawsuits and multistate actions, there are now on average 2 lawsuits per day being filed against President Trump and his administration.

2 lawsuits per day at the current rate.

DOGE in the Realm of Public Opinion

At the same time, the idea of DOGE remains popular.

Many Americans still support the overall vision of DOGE, and in a few areas support went up:

For example, more Americans (in March) agreed with the statement that the level of U.S. federal debt is unsustainable, compared to February.
According to Harvard-Harris polling, 83% think the US government should make more moves in the next few years to balance the budget
79% of Americans think that we mostly need to reduce government expenditures (down slightly from 83% in February)
77% continue to agree that we are in need of a “full examination of all government expenditures and contracts”
63% of Americans think that government expenditures are filled with “waste fraud and inefficiency” (up from February)
68% support the goal of cutting $1 trillion of government expenditures (no change from February)

Will DOGE succeed?

A new question, added in March, asks whether the public thinks that Elon Musk and DOGE will be able to reach its $1 trillion goal by the end of the year. In March, 58% of Americans said that they did not think DOGE could hit this goal.

Scalpels and Hatchets

A number of other polls have started to draw attention to some problems with DOGE’s execution of its vision.

An NBC poll (March 7-11) showed that 46% of registered voters thought creating DOGE was a “good idea,” but had “worries about execution.”
A CNN poll (March 6-9) found that 62% of Americans say Elon Musk lacks the “right experience” with 61% saying he lacks the “right judgement” to change government.
In March, President Trump also began to take note of the controversy around DOGE. He appeared to support a more streamlined and transparent process, posting on social media that department secretaries would be in charge of job cuts at their agencies and would use “the ‘scalpel’ rather than the ‘hatchet.’

Where is Congress?

Leaving aside the question of whether DOGE can meet its (popular) goals, these polls reveal important questions about Constitutional structure.

The March polls are suggestive of a larger split, which we began reporting on in February – between those Americans who believe that the Executive branch should lead the charge on cutting spending (42%) versus those who believe that it is the responsibility of Congress (58%).

For now, we can safely conclude that while Americans have reservations about methods and execution, Americans still want DOGE to do more. A poll at the end of March showed that 56% of Americans said DOGE should “do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of the people.”

Federal Register

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has added an average of 742 pages each week to the federal register for a total of 7418 pages so far, with 185 proposed rules and 354 final rules.

Of the 103 proposed rules added in March, only 1 appears to be “significant” in economic impact (likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more).
On March 11th, the EPA announced it will undertake “31 historic actions” in accordance with the deregulatory efforts of the Trump administration.
On March 27th, HHS announced that among other changes, they would reduce their workforce from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees and will consolidate the existing 28 divisions into 15 new divisions.

Here is an updated list of agencies with the most regulatory and deregulatory actions at the advanced state (currently under review):

This next month we’ll be tracking regulations under the Trump administration as well as the efforts by DOGE to increase transparency, reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, and control the deficit.

For more on regulations and how they affect American federalism, see our Regulations primer here
Brookings has a regulatory tracker that provides limited analysis of a few select regulatory and deregulatory changes made by the Trump administration. View the tracker here

Congress

As of writing (March 31st) there are at least 4,218 bills and resolutions currently before Congress. Of these bills and resolutions, 89 had a significant vote in one chamber recently, giving them a “greater than zero” probability of passing.

In March, 5 bills were enacted (including incorporation)
There were at least 27 passed resolutions.
- Congress has introduced 54 resolutions under the CRA to overturn Biden-era regulations, with 2 enacted.

This brings the current total of enacted bills to 9 for this session, compared to 614 last session.

Federalism Implications

Among the resolutions and bills more likely to pass (with more than a zero percent chance of becoming law), here are a few with federalism implications:

H.R. 38: Mandates that all U.S. states recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. Additionally, it seeks to allow the concealed transport of handguns across state lines, provided that both states permit concealed carry.
H.R. 1295: The bill aims to ensure public access to codes and standards that have been incorporated by reference into federal regulations in order to promote transparency and allow individuals to be fully informed about the laws and standards that govern them.
H.R. 899: Calls for the termination of the Department of Education on December 31st, 2026. Learn more here
H.R. 28: This bill seeks to amend Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 by defining sex based solely on an individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth. It mandates that federally funded educational institutions prohibit individuals assigned male at birth from participating in athletic programs designated for women or girls.
H.R.432: The Seventh Amendment Restoration Act would allow individuals to bring their cases against federal agencies to federal courts instead of through agency adjudication.
SJR11: The resolution “nullifies the final rule issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) titled Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources and published on September 3, 2024.”
HJR35: The resolution “nullifies the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule titled Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions and published on November 18, 2024.”

Judiciary

In March, the Supreme Court heard 7 cases, decided 7 emergency applications, and issued 6 opinions. 1 case still does not have a date set for argument.

Pending Cases:

Several high-profile federalism-related cases are still awaiting decisions, likely later in the term (e.g., Oklahoma Charter v. Drummond and Kennedy v. Braidwood).

These cases have upcoming oral arguments in April.

Cases Decided

City and County of San Francisco v. EPA: The Supreme Court issued their decision March 4th. In a 5-4 decision, the Court stated that the Clean Water Act does not permit the EPA to mandate general outcomes, but rather set specific rules for permit holders to follow. This decision underscores the role of states to mandate clean water standards as well as the balance between regulation and states.
Bondi v. VanDerStok: The Supreme Court issued their decision March 26th. In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed a 2022 ATF regulation, stating it can be used to regulate “ghost gun” kits like regular firearms under the Gun Control Act.

Cases Heard

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding a new Louisiana redistricting plan which would create the second majority-Black district. This ruling could have significant implications for other states attempting to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
FCC v. Consumer’s Research: Argument date: March 26. The case challenges whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) administration of the Universal Service Fund (USF) aligns with the nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from transferring its legislative power to another branch without clear guidelines. A ruling against the FCC could restrict federal agencies’ regulatory authority, potentially returning more power to state governments in managing telecommunications policies.

Upcoming:

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond: The Supreme Court is set to review a case from Oklahoma centering on a Catholic online school that is attempting to become the nation’s first religious charter school. Oral arguments set for April 30th.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc: The Supreme Court is set to examine the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) preventative care mandates, specifically whether the federal government’s delegation to expert committees and agencies to determine what services are covered exceeds constitutional limits (Appointment Clause & Non-delegation doctrine). Oral arguments set for April 21st.
Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA: The Supreme Court is set to review if California, under a waiver from the Clean Air Act, can prohibit the sale of gasoline-powered automobiles starting in 2035, pitting federal statutory authority against state environmental regulation. Oral arguments set for April 23rd.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic: The Supreme Court is set to review a case regarding a South Carolina woman’s challenge to the state’s decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. Oral arguments set for April 2nd.

Shadow Docket:

Trump v. Washington, Trump v. New Jersey, Trump v. CASA: These cases involve the federal government’s ability to limit the scope of district court injunctions on states and individuals.
Resorted Teacher Training Funds: Eight states urged the Supreme Court to leave in place an order from a federal judge resorting $65 million in grants that were seized by the Department of Education in response to the elimination of funds allocated to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).

State Supreme Courts

State supreme courts have issued over 2,038 opinions in 2025. That is the equivalent of roughly 22 opinions per day.

These cases cover a variety of topics including:

Voting Rights and Election: Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs, and Bailey v. McKintosh County, Webster v. McIntosh County, McIntosh County v. Webster
Government Structure: Amdor v. Grisham, Wasserman v. Franklin County, and White v. City of Mableton
Civil Rights: State v. Hall, Edwards v. Montana, In re L.E.S ., State v. Rudy Nino Parras, and Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee

State Roundup

Although most attention has been centered on the actions of the Executive, it is worth remembering that states remain the most important site of most legislation. Although it will be tempting to focus on national headlines in 2025, states should continue taking the lead – pushing for balance, coordinating with other states, and taking part in public education on Federalism issues.

In many ways, states continue to be “the first branch of government.”

Utah Bill to Expand Education on Federalism

A bill to expand Utah’s Federalism Commission and provide ongoing education and training on federalism advanced through the state legislature, and is set to take effect May 7, 2025.

Read more on Utah’s efforts here: https://www.deseret.com/utah/2025/02/19/uvu-constitutional-center-bill/

Multistate Lawsuits

States play an important role in “sounding the alarm” on potential violations of state authority and personal liberties.

Thus far this year, there have been 12 multi-state lawsuits against the Trump administration. Some key areas of litigation include: immigration policies, healthcare, environmental regulations, education policies, and census and voting rights.

Federalism scholar Paul Nolette (Marquette University) maintains a searchable list of “Multistate Lawsuits.”

According to the most recent data, there were at least 6 multistate lawsuits filed against various Trump administration policies in March alone. (For context, we estimate that there were 160 multistate lawsuits filed against Trump during his first term, with only 19 of those coming within the first 100 days).

Courtesy of the “State Litigation and AG Activity Database”

Administrative State

States have been actively working on ways to improve and control the “administrative state” in their own state capitals. A recent tool from Ballotpedia is currently tracking 1,168 state bills in areas including nondelegation, judicial deference, executive control of agencies, procedural rights, and agency dynamics.

As of writing, there are currently more than 132,188 bills and resolutions across the 50 state legislatures.

The map below shows the concentration of Administrative State-related legislation activity in the United States.

Get in Touch!

What issues matter to you most?

What policies are you watching in your state? What did we miss?

Let us know by contacting the Phoenix Correspondence Commission – the national federalism commission.

Authors: Andrew Bibby, Johana Linford, and Noah Farnsworth

Order #	Description	Federalism Impact
	This executive order calls for the closure of the Department of Education and emphasizes the importance of local control in education, advocating for increased decision-making authority for parents, states, and local communities to enhance educational outcomes.	EO 14242 criticizes the Department of Education, stating that it “has entrenched the education bureaucracy and sought to convince America that Federal control over education is beneficial.” The order directs the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education,” aiming to decentralize educational authority and return control to states and local communities.
	The order mandates the development of a national resilience strategy, calls for the creation of a national risk register, and directs a review and simplification of federal preparedness and response policies to reduce complexity and enhance efficiency, facilitating better collaboration between federal and state entities.	EO 14239 emphasizes that “preparedness is most effectively owned and managed at the State, local, and even individual levels, supported by a competent, accessible, and efficient Federal Government.” It directs a comprehensive review of federal policies to “enable State and local governments to better understand, plan for, and ultimately address the needs of their citizens”
	The order establishes English as the nation’s official language and mandates that federal agencies primarily use English in official communications, and is consistently used in all government functions and services, with some exceptions for specific purposes like national security or public health.	EO 14224 states that “a nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society.” The order also revokes Executive Order 13166, which previously required federal agencies to provide language services to individuals with limited English proficiency, potentially impacting access to federal programs for non-English speakers.
	This executive order aims to reinstate and enhance the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, facilitating the forgiveness of student loans for individuals employed in qualifying public service roles.	The order directs the Department of Education to revise regulations governing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program to ensure that the definition of “public service” excludes organizations that engage in activities with a substantial illegal purpose. This action aims to align the program with its original intent by preventing organizations involved in unlawful activities from benefiting from federal loan forgiveness incentives
	EO 14238 directs federal agencies to continue evaluating their structures and operations to reduce inefficiencies and redundancies. Agencies are instructed to assess their functions critically, aiming to enhance efficiency and reduce the size of the federal workforce where possible.	The order mandates the elimination of “non-statutory components and functions” within seven governmental entities, including the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), and directs these entities to minimize their statutory functions and associated personnel to the “minimum presence and function required by law.” The reduction of IMLS functions is expected to affect the Grants to State Program.
	The order introduces changes to the federal election process including: proof of citizenship requirement and a ballot receipt deadline. States who do not comply may have federal funding withdrawn.	The order asserts that “free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic.” It directs the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration, stating that the United States has “not adequately enforced Federal election requirements that… prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote.” Additionally, the order mandates that all ballots be received by Election Day, emphasizing that “Federal law establishes a uniform Election Day across the Nation for Federal elections.” The EO has prompted legal challenges from organizations such as the League of Women Voters and the Democratic National Committee, who argue that the provisions could disenfranchise eligible voters, limit state discretion over elections, and exceed presidential authority.