Exclusive: Trump administration plans to use homeland security funds to pressure states into election changes
Exclusive: Trump administration plans to use homeland security funds to pressure states into election changes
Exclusive – The Trump administration is leveraging federal homeland security funding to compel states to implement a range of election modifications, according to internal documents and multiple sources. CNN has obtained these materials, revealing that states could face the loss of millions in grants if they do not adopt the proposed changes. This strategy is part of a broader effort by the administration to address alleged voter fraud and consolidate federal oversight over state election processes.
The Pressure Strategy
As part of its campaign to reduce voter fraud, the administration is targeting election systems through financial incentives. While the president has long argued that voter fraud is widespread, studies indicate it is relatively rare compared to the scale of his claims. The new rules under several homeland security grant programs aim to shift state election practices by mandating specific reforms. These include phasing out electronic voting systems and transitioning to hand-marked paper ballots, which are then tabulated manually. Additionally, states must integrate their voter rolls with a controversial Department of Homeland Security citizenship verification database.
Under the revised guidelines, states that fail to comply with these mandates risk losing 20% of their grant money. The current fiscal year’s grants are projected to exceed $1 billion, serving as a critical resource for state and local governments in preventing terrorism, safeguarding infrastructure, and managing major disasters. While previous grants required at least 3% of funds to be allocated to election security, the new rules impose stricter conditions, including mandatory reforms and penalties for noncompliance.
Mandatory Reforms and Penalties
The administration’s proposed changes target several aspects of state election administration. States must conduct manual audits using methods established by the Trump team and verify the citizenship of all individuals working at polling locations through an approved government system. Furthermore, they are required to submit plans for phasing out voting systems that do not use paper ballots marked by voters themselves. This includes machines that record choices electronically and systems that print paper ballots for counting.
Although most jurisdictions already offer hand-marked paper ballots, approximately 30% of voters across the country reside in areas that rely entirely on ballot-marking devices or direct-recording systems. These technologies, which streamline the voting process, are now under scrutiny. The affected states include Delaware, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, and Los Angeles County, which would be required to transition to the new systems by the end of the year.
DHS grants have become a central tool for the administration to influence state policies. This approach mirrors previous efforts to pressure states on immigration and diversity initiatives. By tying federal funding to specific requirements, the Trump team can incentivize alignment with its agenda, even when those changes may not be universally supported. Courts have already challenged similar strategies, and legal battles are anticipated for this latest proposal.
Legal Challenges and Constitutional Concerns
The Constitution grants states the authority to administer elections, but the Trump administration is attempting to expand federal control through these grants. Critics argue that this maneuver could undermine state autonomy and create additional burdens on election officials. “I expect (the new requirements) will be blocked in the courts,” said David Becker, a former Justice Department lawyer and current election policy advisor. He emphasized that while Congress can enact election regulations, the president has limited authority to impose changes unilaterally without legislative backing.
“Any recipient of federal funding should expect accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent,” said a DHS spokesperson in a statement, noting that the administration views election security as a core national security priority. The spokesperson added that changes to grant requirements or distributions are not official until formally announced through proper agency channels.
The new mandates also require states to run their full voter rolls through the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database. This system, designed to identify noncitizen voters, has faced criticism for its potential to produce false matches and flag eligible voters for removal. Despite these concerns, the Justice Department has sued 30 states for refusing to share voter lists with the federal government using SAVE. The administration’s push to standardize voter verification processes is seen as a way to tighten control over the electoral process.
Implications for State Election Systems
The proposed changes could have significant implications for state election systems. By mandating hand-marked paper ballots, the administration aims to create a more transparent voting process, but critics warn that this may disproportionately affect voters who rely on electronic systems for accessibility. For example, individuals with disabilities or those unfamiliar with manual voting may face challenges in adapting to the new requirements.
Additionally, the transition to the SAVE database raises concerns about data privacy and accuracy. While some states have already adopted the system, others have resisted due to its limitations. The DHS has used these grants to push for broader adoption, arguing that the database enhances election integrity. However, opponents claim it could lead to the exclusion of legitimate voters and create administrative hurdles for state officials.
Broader Context of Federal Pressure
This tactic aligns with a pattern of using federal resources to influence state-level policies. The Trump administration has previously targeted immigration laws and diversity initiatives with similar strategies, often leading to legal disputes. Courts have blocked some of these efforts, highlighting the tension between federal mandates and state sovereignty. Despite these precedents, the administration remains determined to expand its reach into election administration.
The pressure to adopt election changes is part of a larger campaign to reshape how elections are conducted. Through executive orders and demands for voter data, the administration has sought to centralize control over the electoral process. Critics argue that these measures could be used to suppress voter turnout and influence outcomes in key states. The latest use of homeland security funds adds a financial dimension to this strategy, making it more difficult for states to resist without losing essential resources.
As the new guidelines prepare to be distributed, the potential impact on state election systems remains a topic of debate. While the administration frames its actions as a necessary step to ensure election integrity, opponents view them as an overreach that prioritizes political control over voter access. The coming months will determine whether this approach succeeds in reshaping state election practices or faces legal and political resistance that could halt its implementation.