Trump clears out Election Assistance Commission, citing Supreme Court ruling on firing power

President Donald Trump fired two Democratic members of the Election Assistance Commission on Friday and accepted the resignation of the panel's lone Republican, leaving the federal body that oversees voting-system certification and national voter registration forms with zero commissioners ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The White House justified the move under the Supreme Court's recent Trump v. Slaughter decision, which restored broad presidential authority to dismiss officials serving on independent agency boards. The firings mark the latest in a series of personnel actions across the federal government in which the administration has moved to replace appointees it views as obstacles to its policy agenda.

Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland, both selected by congressional Democrats, were removed. Christy McCormick, the commission's Republican member, resigned. A fourth commissioner, Republican Donald Palmer, had already departed voluntarily earlier this year. The result: an independent election body created by Congress now sits empty, with no announced replacements.

The White House rationale

A White House official framed the action in blunt terms. As Breitbart News reported, the administration told the Associated Press:

"The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America's elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted. The Slaughter decision gives the President precedence to do so."

That statement ties the EAC firings directly to the administration's broader election-integrity push, which has centered on concerns about non-citizen voting. The White House has argued that the commission failed to act with urgency on the issue as midterm elections approach.

Trump himself, in an Oval Office interview with Breitbart News last month, said the Trump v. Slaughter ruling "more than made up" for his disappointment over the Supreme Court's separate decision upholding birthright citizenship. The president clearly views the new firing authority as a powerful tool, and he is using it.

What Trump v. Slaughter changed

The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling, handed down June 29, overturned longstanding precedents that had restricted a president's ability to remove officials from independent agencies without cause. The New York Post reported that Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that neither Congress nor the courts may saddle a president "with those with whom he cannot work."

The decision effectively gutted the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, which for nine decades shielded independent board members from at-will presidential removal. Newsmax noted that Roberts had been chipping away at that framework for years, writing in a 2020 opinion that "the President's removal power is the rule, not the exception." In oral arguments last December, Roberts went further, calling Humphrey's Executor "a dry husk."

The case originated with Trump's firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter. But its reach extends far beyond the FTC. The administration had already dismissed members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission before the ruling came down. The Slaughter decision gave those earlier moves retroactive legal footing, and opened the door for actions like Friday's EAC purge.

This pattern of asserting executive control over personnel is not limited to regulatory boards. The administration has also dismissed members of the National Science Board as part of a broader effort to align federal agencies with White House priorities.

What the EAC actually does

The Election Assistance Commission is not a household name. Created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, it serves as a national clearinghouse for election administration information. It certifies voting systems, distributes federal grants to states for election infrastructure, and maintains the national mail voter registration form.

It does not run elections. It does not count ballots. But it sets standards and distributes money, and critics on the right have long argued that the commission has been slow to address vulnerabilities in voter registration systems that could allow non-citizens onto the rolls.

The firings were carried out by email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office. The New York Post obtained the text of the notice sent to commissioners: "On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission is terminated, effective immediately."

No ceremony. No negotiation. Just a message in the inbox.

A broader pattern of personnel confrontations

The EAC action fits squarely within the administration's strategy of testing, and now exercising, its expanded removal authority across the federal government. Just The News reported that the White House has adopted what it describes as a "zero-tolerance" approach to safeguarding elections from fraud and abuse, and views the EAC firings as part of that posture.

The confrontations have not always gone smoothly. Earlier this year, Trump sent a letter to Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub purporting to remove her from her position. Weintraub, a Democrat, refused to leave, claiming the removal was not legal. The White House responded through principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields: "Our message to Ellen Weintraub is simple: you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."

That standoff unfolded before the Slaughter ruling. With the Supreme Court now firmly behind broad presidential removal power, the legal ground has shifted decisively in the administration's favor.

Personnel battles have extended well beyond election-related agencies. The administration's removal of a top Army general in Europe drew mixed reactions even from Republican lawmakers, illustrating the political complexity of asserting executive authority over entrenched officials.

Trump also fired more than a dozen inspectors general within his first week in office, moves that drew accusations of overreach from Democrats. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland called the broader pattern a "political purge," a characterization the White House has rejected.

The non-citizen voting question

The stated trigger for the EAC firings, the commission's alleged failure to address non-citizen voting, sits at the center of one of the most contentious election-integrity debates in the country. Trump previously issued an executive order requiring government-issued proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, though a federal judge blocked that order.

The administration has not detailed specific EAC actions or inactions on non-citizen voting that prompted the firings. The White House statement spoke in broad terms about alignment with election-security goals. Whether the commission actually "dragged its feet" on the issue, or whether it simply lacked the statutory authority to act as aggressively as the administration wanted, remains an open question.

What is clear is that the EAC now has no commissioners, no announced replacements, and no public timeline for reconstitution, all with midterm elections approaching. The commission's staff presumably continues day-to-day operations, but major decisions, including voting-system certifications and grant approvals, typically require a quorum of commissioners.

The administration's willingness to leave the body vacant suggests it views the current EAC structure as more hindrance than help. That posture echoes earlier personnel decisions in which the White House moved officials out of roles where it felt they were not advancing the president's agenda.

What comes next

Several questions remain unanswered. Will the administration nominate new commissioners, or does it prefer the EAC to remain dormant? Can the commission's career staff maintain essential functions, particularly voting-system certification, without a seated board? And will any of the removed members mount a legal challenge, as Weintraub did at the FEC?

The Slaughter ruling makes any such challenge far more difficult. The Supreme Court's six-justice majority did not leave much ambiguity. Roberts's opinion treated the president's removal power as a core constitutional prerogative, not a privilege that Congress can parcel out or restrict.

For conservatives who have long argued that unaccountable bureaucrats wield too much power, the ruling, and the EAC firings, represent a significant correction. Independent agencies were designed to operate with some insulation from political pressure. But that insulation can also become a shield for inertia, ideological drift, or outright resistance to the elected president's priorities.

The administration has made clear, across multiple agencies and departments, that it will not tolerate officials who sit on their hands while the president pushes an agenda voters endorsed at the ballot box.

The real test

Whether the EAC's absence creates practical problems before November will depend on how quickly the administration acts, or whether it acts at all. Leaving the commission empty could become a liability if states need federal guidance or certification approvals in the final months before the midterms.

But the political logic is straightforward. The administration believes the EAC was not doing its job on election integrity. The Supreme Court gave the president the authority to do something about it. He did.

When an agency charged with protecting elections can't be trusted to take non-citizen voting seriously, the real question isn't why the president fired the commissioners. It's what took so long.