WASHINGTON — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Friday from enforcing part of an executive order directing the government to withhold federal election funds to states that do not alter their voting procedures in line with the president’s demands.

Judge John H. Chun, of the U.S. District Court in Seattle, wrote in a 75-page opinion that threats aimed at states that declined to make several changes President Donald Trump outlined violated the separation of powers and impeded states’ ability to administer their own elections. “The Constitution assigns no authority to the president over federal election administration,” he wrote.

The ruling landed as yet another blow to the White House’s attempts to impose its will on state election practices, after several other judges previously found other parts of the executive order unlawful since it was issued in March.

In his ruling, Chun, a Biden appointee, took aim at the executive order’s provisions tying its objectives to federal funding. Those included conditioning federal funds on changes to state voter registration forms that would require voters signing up to offer “documentary proof” of their citizenship.

Among other things, the executive order also sought to require that states finish tallying votes on Election Day and disallow any ballots that trickle in after. It further directed the Election Assistance Commission to enact new standards, such as requiring a “paper record” of all ballots counted.

Judges in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts had previously found other elements of the order illegal, blocking the proof of citizenship requirement as well as the prohibition on counting ballots beyond Election Day. In each case so far, judges have shown deep skepticism of federal attempts to compel changes in election procedures at the state level, finding that much of the executive order appeared to exceed the president’s authority.

While no judge has struck down the executive order in its entirety, the addition of Chun’s decision Friday left much of it blocked.

The Trump administration has appealed both of the previous rulings.

Since returning to office, Trump has revived a familiar list of grievances about election administration in the United States, proposing changes in the name of combating voter fraud despite scant evidence of election fraud at any meaningful level.

Voting and civil rights groups have warned in several recent elections that attempts to unconditionally enforce voter identification requirements, for example, can disenfranchise eligible voters who lack a valid passport or driver’s license.

The president, who has a long history of making unfounded claims about election fraud, despite repeated dismissals of election fraud cases in federal court, has seized on other tactics to influence the electoral landscape before the midterm elections this year. At Trump’s behest, several red states took steps last year to redraw their congressional districts to advantage Republican candidates, setting off a nationwide arms race over election maps.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

—

By Zach Montague

c.2026 The New York Times Company