Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump budget would cut election agency but boost cybersecurity

President Trump's budget proposal delivered to the Capitol

President Trump's new budget proposal, which would cut spending for the EAC by 14 percent, was delivered the House Budget Committee on Monday.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

President Trump's proposed budget for next year includes a mix of good and bad news for those interested in democracy and elections.

The plan he unveiled Monday would cut spending 14 percent at the Election Assistance Commission, the federal agency tasked with making sure voting machines are reliable and therefore at the center of efforts to prevent foreign hacking. The $2 million reduction for the fiscal year starting in October would come just as the office is starting to recover after a long run of staffing and budget cuts.

At the same time, the budget calls for spending $1.1 billion on cybersecurity through the Department of Homeland Security. This would increase from 1,800 to more than 6,500 the number of network assessments the agency can conduct, including those of "state and local electoral systems," the budget proposal says.


And the budget of the Federal Election Commission, which oversees compliance with campaign finance laws by presidential and congressional candidates, would tick up 2.5 percent to $73.3 million under the Trump budget, about in line with expected inflation. Since September, however, the FEC has not been able to take any enforcement actions because there are not enough commissioners to constitute a quorum.

The EAC is among dozens of domestic agencies and programs that would get reduced or altogether eliminated under Trump's $4.8 trillion election-year proposal, including an 8 percent cut at the Department of Education and a shrinking of the Environmental Protection Agency's current budget by more than a quarter.

The president's plan assumes the deficit will crest above $1 trillion this year but promises the federal books will be balanced 15 years from now, mainly thanks to optimistic assumptions about the economy mixed with cuts to social safety net programs and a reduced American presence overseas.

Having suffered from years of budget cuts and staff turnover, the EAC is just now trying to rebuild itself in the months leading up to the fall presidential election.

Congress nearly doubled the EAC budget to $15.2 million for this year, and over the past two years has approved $805 million in state grants to bolster the security of local election systems. The EAC administers those grants.

State election officials have said they need a steady stream of federal funding to keep up with the costs of maintaining and improving election equipment. But the Trump budget does not call for any additional grant funding for next year.

The budget is more a messaging document than anything else, however. Ultimately, Congress has the obligation to write the line-by-line spending plans for all the parts of the federal government where spending is discretionary. (Spending on Medicare, Social Security and interest on the debt are mandatory and not subject to the annual appropriations process.) In recent years, however, instead of passing individual bills that cover groupings of federal agencies, omnibus budget legislation covering the entire federal government has been worked out in negotiations between Capitol Hill leaders and the White House.

A deal last fall between Trump, the Democratic House of Representatives and the GOP Senate for two years of modest domestic spending increases would be essentially scrapped under Monday's budget.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less