Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections
Record date: 2025-03-28
( printed page 14005) Executive Order 14248 of March 25, 2025 Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1 . Purpose and Policy. Despite pioneering self-government, the United States now fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections employed by modern, developed nations, as well as those still developing. India and Brazil, for example, are tying voter identification to a biometric database, while the
What this record contains
- Federal Register document
- 2025-05523
- Publication date
- 2025-03-28
- Citation
- 90 FR 14005
- Issuing office
- Executive Office of the President
Official record excerpt
( printed page 14005) Executive Order 14248 of March 25, 2025 Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1 . Purpose and Policy. Despite pioneering self-government, the United States now fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections employed by modern, developed nations, as well as those still developing. India and Brazil, for example, are tying voter identification to a biometric database, while the United States largely relies on self-attestation for citizenship. In tabulating votes, Germany and Canada require use of paper ballots, counted in public by local officials, which substantially reduces the number of disputes as compared to the American patchwork of voting methods that can lead to basic chain-of-custody problems. Further, while countries like Denmark and Sweden sensibly limit mail-in voting to those unable to vote in person and do not count late-arriving votes regardless of the date of postmark, many American elections now feature mass voting by mail, with many officials accepting ballots without postmarks or those received well after Election Day. Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. 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. Under the Constitution, State governments must safeguard American elections in compliance with Federal laws that protect Americans' voting rights and guard against dilution by illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error. Yet the United States has not adequately enforced Federal election requirements that, for example, prohibit States from counting ballots received after Election Day or prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote. Federal law establishes a uniform Election Day across the Nation for Federal elections, 2 U.S.C. 7 and 3 U.S.C. 1 . It is the policy of my Administration to enforce those statutes and require that votes be cast and received by the election date established in law. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held in Republican National Committee v. Wetzel (2024), those statutes set “the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.” Yet numerous States fail to comply with those laws by counting ballots received after Election Day. This is like allowing persons who arrive 3 days after Election Day, perhaps after a winner has been declared, to vote in person at a former voting precinct, which would be absurd. Several Federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 1015 and 611 , prohibit foreign nationals from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections. Yet States fail adequately to vet voters' citizenship, and, in recent years, the Department of Justice has failed to prioritize and devote sufficient resources for enforcement of these provisions. Even worse, the prior administration actively prevented States from removing aliens from their voter lists. Additionally, Federal laws, such as the National Voter Registration Act (Pub. L. 103-31) and the Help America Vote Act ( Pub. L. 107-252 ), require States to maintain an accurate and current Statewide list of every legally registered voter in the State. And the Department of Homeland Security is required to share database information with States upon request so they ( printed page 14006) can fulfill this duty. See 8 U.S.C. 1373(c) . Maintaining accurate voter registration lists is a fundamental requirement in protecting voters from having their ballots voided or diluted by fraudulent votes. Federal law, 52 U.S.C. 30121 , prohibits foreign nationals from participating in Federal, State, or local elections by making any contributions or expenditures. But foreign nationals and non-governmental organizations have taken advantage of loopholes in the law's interpretation, spending millions of dollars through conduit contributions and ballot-initiative-related expenditures. This type of foreign interference in our election process undermines the franchise and the right of American citizens to govern their Republic. Above all, elections must be honest and worthy of the public trust. That requires voting methods that produce a voter-verifiable paper record allowing voters to efficiently check their votes to protect against fraud or mistake.
The excerpt is reproduced from the public federal record and may omit later sections, tables, signatures or attachments. Open the official source for the complete text.
Questions for accountability
- What legal authority does this foreign policy action cite?
- Which agencies or officials were directed to act?
- What measurable implementation, cost, deadline or later court action followed?
How to use this page
This is a source-record entry, not a truth-rating by itself. It preserves the action, date and original government publication so it can be connected to later claims, implementation records, court decisions, costs and measurable outcomes. Editorial claim reviews on this site use separate finding labels and explain the evidence for those findings.