WASHINGTON, July 17 - Internal documents and two people familiar with the discussions show that the Trump administration spent more than a year examining the federal agency responsible for testing and certifying U.S. voting systems, pressing it on its handling of the 2020 presidential election and vetting prospective replacements before the White House removed the commission’s leaders last week.
The review, not previously reported, sheds light on Republican efforts to expand influence over federal election administration after Mr. Trump spent years contesting his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden. The Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan agency with a largely technical remit, could figure in the administration’s stated push for election changes ahead of the November midterm elections.
What the commission does and why it matters
The Election Assistance Commission develops voluntary standards for voting technology that states may adopt, oversees testing and certification of voting systems and holds authority to decertify systems - a power it has not exercised in its 24-year history. While U.S. elections are administered by states, the federal agency’s guidance and certification processes shape the technology vendors and protocols used by state and local jurisdictions.
Republicans promoting changes to voting administration say proposed measures will strengthen election security. Democrats counter that some of the measures under consideration could restrict voter access. The White House has not specified the precise role it envisions for the commission in implementing any changes.
Sequence of review and removals
According to the documents and the two people familiar with the deliberations, administration officials spent months scrutinizing the agency’s work related to the 2020 vote and its capacity to protect voting machines. The same officials were simultaneously vetting candidates to replace commissioners.
Last week, the president removed the agency’s two Democratic commissioners and the one Republican commissioner on the commission allowed to stay resigned, leaving the four-member panel without any members after another Republican commissioner left in April. Following the departures, the White House said the president ‘‘reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections.’’
Before the dismissals, administration officials searched for ways to circumvent the commission as they sought to accelerate agenda items that included modifications to voting machine guidance and proof-of-citizenship requirements, according to prior reporting contained in the documents.
The White House did not respond when asked about the documents or its plans to nominate new commissioners. Any individuals nominated by the president would require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
Specific inquiries into the commission’s 2020 statements
The documents show the commission sought a briefing in May 2025 from then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard after she publicly alleged vulnerabilities in voting systems. The commission wrote that it stood ready to assist the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and requested either a classified or unclassified briefing on identified vulnerabilities.
Ms. Gabbard responded on July 3, 2025, saying she welcomed the opportunity to strengthen mutual understanding of election system integrity and national risk posture. Rather than a briefing, an ODNI official, Paul McNamara, replied the same day with a six-page set of questions and critiques that repeatedly referenced the 2020 election.
McNamara focused on the commission’s prior post-election assertion that 2020 had been "the most secure in American history" and questioned the agency’s subsequent update to voting system guidance in early 2021. He queried why the changes were not implemented before the election and described the revisions as a "rapid shift in policy." The commission’s records show the guidance revision process began in 2015 and included multiple rounds of debate and public feedback, and election experts cited in the documents noted that implementing new voting system guidance can take years because of cost and logistical challenges.
Vetting of potential nominees tied to Trump allies
As officials intensified their review of the commission’s work, the White House also began vetting prospective commissioners. Patrice Johnson, who chairs the Michigan Fair Elections Institute and supports Mr. Trump’s election agenda, told officials she sent her resume to the White House in late 2025.
Attorney Cleta Mitchell, known for working with the president’s legal team in efforts to challenge the 2020 vote, told the White House she proposed Johnson as a potential future commissioner. The administration also considered another attorney who participated in efforts to contest the 2020 election, Kurt Olsen. Olsen ultimately took a post with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida in June.
What remains unclear
Documents and accounts show sustained scrutiny of the commission and active vetting of possible nominees, but they do not set out a detailed plan for how a reconstituted commission would operate within broader administration efforts to change election guidance or requirements. The White House’s public statements have revived assertions that U.S. elections are vulnerable and pledged cooperation with states to address alleged technical shortcomings ahead of the midterms, but officials have not outlined specific operational roles for the commission in those efforts.
What is clear from the records is that administration officials raised questions about the commission’s prior public statements on the security of the 2020 election and about the timing and implementation of updated voting system guidance. The documents also show the administration examined a set of potential nominees who have ties to advocates of the president’s election positions.
Implications
The sequence of scrutiny, questions and personnel moves leaves the Commission without sitting members at a moment when the administration has signaled an interest in pursuing election-related policy changes. The potential impact of an unfilled commission or of new appointees on voting system guidance, certification processes and state-level adoption of standards remains a subject of active interest for election officials and other stakeholders.
Those monitoring the developments will be watching for formal nominations from the White House and for responses from the Senate regarding confirmation, as well as for any additional documents or briefings that clarify the administration’s intended role for the commission in the run-up to the midterm elections.