Does Trump's Executive Order win a Banana Republic Award?

The controversial election-focused executive order issued by President Trump on March 25 begins by pointing out better election practices in Canada, India, Brazil, and other nations than in the US. But it is Trump’s order itself that best illustrates how far we have fallen behind democratic standards. In none of the countries mentioned, or any other major democracy in the world, would the head of government change election rules by decree, as Trump tried to do on Tuesday.

The main ideas—proof of citizenship to register to vote and no mailed ballots received after election day—are not unreasonable in principle, though there are compelling practical arguments for why more harm than good could result. But with election rules the “who” often matters most, not the “what.”

Trump is the leader of a political party that will fight for control of Congress in 2026, an election likely to be close, and very important for the President. The leader of one side in a competition has no business unilaterally changing its rules—that’s why executive decrees changing elections only happen in tinpot dictatorships, not democracies.

Trump’s announcement earned the immediate response it deserves: no, the US does not allow presidential election decrees either. The Constitution is very clear that the states and Congress determine the time, place, and manner of elections, not the President. Trump’s decree will be challenged in court, where almost certainly it will be overruled. If not, America is in deep trouble.

The “who” also matters when it comes to the issue of directing executive branch agencies, another point raised in the order. Trump calls for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and Homeland Security to investigate state voter rolls and punish uncooperative states, but doing so would directly violate the guiding legislation of at least the EAC. Here too, if courts do not reaffirm that federal agencies must answer to their legislative mandate—not the president’s bidding—we are in very dangerous territory.

Looking beyond the US constitution to larger democratic norms, as the order encourages us to do, the underlying principle here is that democracy depends on political actors not unilaterally determining election rules, or deploying organs of state to control elections. Most democracies, including many cited in the order, prevent that temptation from ever arising by having national election commissions manage elections fully independently from the political branches. There, questions like how to verify voter identity and count mailed ballots are decided by people who don’t have a direct stake in the outcome.

Independent national election management is not in the cards for the US, but the concept behind it— elections run free from manipulation by parties or their leaders—should be. The risk of manipulation of our elections is growing as political pressure intensifies on the decidedly not independent individuals who currently manage elections as secretaries of state and state election board members. All of our peers have found a better way. We should too.