Latest news with #SecureFamiliesInitiative
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Troops and marines deeply troubled by LA deployment: ‘Morale is not great'
California national guards troops and marines deployed to Los Angeles to help restore order after days of protest against the Trump administration have told friends and family members they are deeply unhappy about the assignment and worry their only meaningful role will be as pawns in a political battle they do not want to join. Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions. 'The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn't the kind of national security we signed up for,' said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans. Related: Families arrested in LA Ice raids held in basements with little food or water, lawyers say 'Families are scared not just for their loved ones' safety, although that's a big concern, but also for what their service is being used to justify.' Chris Purdy of the Chamberlain Network, whose stated mission is to 'mobilize and empower veterans to protect democracy', said he had heard similar things from half a dozen national guard members. 'Morale is not great, is the quote I keep hearing,' he said. The marines and the California national guard did not respond to invitations to comment. Trump has taken the unusual step of ordering 4,000 national guard members to Los Angeles without the consent of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, saying that the city risked being 'obliterated' by violent protesters without them. Earlier this week, he also activated 700 marines from the Twentynine Palms base two hours' drive to the east, describing Los Angeles as a 'trash heap' that was in danger of burning to the ground. In reality, the anti-Trump protests – called first in response to aggressive federal roundups of undocumented immigrants, then in anger at the national guard deployment – have been largely peaceful and restricted to just a few blocks around downtown federal buildings. The Los Angeles police has made hundreds of arrests in response to acts of violence and vandalism around the protests, and the city's mayor, Karen Bass, has instituted a night-time curfew – all with minimal input from the federal authorities. At the largest demonstration since Trump first intervened, last Sunday, the national guard was hemmed into a staging area by Los Angeles police cruisers and played almost no role in crowd control. Since then, its service members have been deployed to guard buildings and federal law enforcement convoys conducting immigration sweeps. The marines, who arrived on Wednesday, are expected to play a similar function, with no powers of arrest. Newsom has described the deployment as 'a provocation, not just an escalation' and accused the White House of mistreating the service members it was activating. A widely circulated photograph, later confirmed as authentic by the Pentagon, showed national guard members sleeping on a concrete loading dock floor without bedding, and the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the troops arrived with no lodging, insufficient portable toilets and no funds for food or water. A pair of YouGov polls published on Tuesday show public disapproval of both the national guard and marines deployments, as well as disapproval of Trump's immigrant deportation policies. A Washington Post poll published on Wednesday came up with similar findings, but with slightly narrower margins. Active service members are prohibited by law from speaking publicly about their work. But Streyder, of the Secure Families Initiative, said she had heard dozens of complaints indirectly through their families. She had also seen a written comment passed along to her organization from a national guard member who described the assignment as 'shitty' – particularly compared with early secondments to help with wildfire relief or, during the Covid pandemic, vaccination outreach. 'Both of those experiences were uncomplicatedly positive, a contribution back to the community,' Streyder described the message as saying. 'This is quite the opposite.' According to Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran who runs the Vet Voice Foundation, the feeling was similar among some of the troops being sent from Twentynine Palms. 'Among all that I spoke with, the feeling was that the marines are being used as political pawns, and it strains the perception that marines are apolitical,' Goldbeck said. 'Some were concerned that the Marines were being set up for failure. The overall perception was that the situation was nowhere at the level where marines were necessary.' The advocates said it was important to draw a distinction between the personal political preferences of service members, many if not most of whom voted for Trump last November, and the higher principle that military personnel should not get involved in politics or politically motivated missions that blur lines of responsibility with civilian agencies. 'We tend to be uniquely apolitical, as an institution and with each other,' Streyder said. 'The military is a tool that should be used as a last resort, not a first response… It does not feel that the tool is being calibrated accurately to the situation.' The discontent may not be limited to California. In Texas, where the governor, Greg Abbott, called out the national guard on Wednesday in San Antonio, Austin and other cities expecting anti-Trump protests, guardsmen have a history of feeling poorly treated in the workplace if not outright misused, Purdy of the Chamberlain Network said. After Abbott requisitioned the guard in 2021 to help police the Mexican border – a controversial policy codenamed Operation Lone Star – there were bitter complaints among guard members about the length and nature of an assignment that largely duplicated the work of the federal Border Patrol. Several guardsmen took their own lives. The LA operations are also sparking safety concerns because of complications inherent in pairing military and domestic police officers, advocates say, since they are trained very differently and use different vocabulary to handle emergency situations. In one infamous episode during the 1992 Los Angeles riots – the last time the military were called out to restore order in southern California – a police officer on patrol turned to his marines counterparts and said 'cover me', meaning be ready with your weapon to make sure I stay safe. To the marines, though, 'cover me' meant open fire immediately, which they did, unloading more than 200 M16 rounds into a house where the police had a tip about a possible domestic abuser. By sheer luck, nobody was hurt. CJ Chivers, a New York Times reporter who was with the marines in Los Angeles in 1992 and witnessed the tail-end of this near-calamity, wrote years later of his mixed feelings about the assignment: 'The Marines' presence in greater Los Angeles… felt unnecessary,' he said. 'I'd like to say we understood the context of the role we were given … But domestic crowd control had never been our specialty.' Streyder and the other advocates concurred. 'Domestic law enforcement and the military are entirely separate functions, manned by separate people who have been given separate training, who come from different cultures,' Streyder said. 'As military families, we rely implicitly on that separation being honored and remaining clear.'
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Troops and marines deeply troubled by LA deployment: ‘Morale is not great'
California national guards troops and marines deployed to Los Angeles to help restore order after days of protest against the Trump administration have told friends and family members they are deeply unhappy about the assignment and worry their only meaningful role will be as pawns in a political battle they do not want to join. Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions. 'The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn't the kind of national security we signed up for,' said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans. 'Families are scared not just for their loved ones' safety, although that's a big concern, but also for what their service is being used to justify.' Chris Purdy of the Chamberlain Network, whose stated mission is to 'mobilize and empower veterans to protect democracy', said he had heard similar things from half a dozen national guard members. 'Morale is not great, is the quote I keep hearing,' he said. The marines and the California national guard did not respond to invitations to comment. Trump has taken the unusual step of ordering 4,000 national guard members to Los Angeles without the consent of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, saying that the city risked being 'obliterated' by violent protesters without them. Earlier this week, he also activated 700 marines from the Twentynine Palms base two hours' drive to the east, describing Los Angeles as a 'trash heap' that was in danger of burning to the ground. In reality, the anti-Trump protests – called first in response to aggressive federal roundups of undocumented immigrants, then in anger at the national guard deployment – have been largely peaceful and restricted to just a few blocks around downtown federal buildings. The Los Angeles police has made hundreds of arrests in response to acts of violence and vandalism around the protests, and the city's mayor, Karen Bass, has instituted a night-time curfew – all with minimal input from the federal authorities. At the largest demonstration since Trump first intervened, last Sunday, the national guard was hemmed into a staging area by Los Angeles police cruisers and played almost no role in crowd control. Since then, its service members have been deployed to guard buildings and federal law enforcement convoys conducting immigration sweeps. The marines, who arrived on Wednesday, are expected to play a similar function, with no powers of arrest. Newsom has described the deployment as 'a provocation, not just an escalation' and accused the White House of mistreating the service members it was activating. A widely circulated photograph, later confirmed as authentic by the Pentagon, showed national guard members sleeping on a concrete loading dock floor without bedding, and the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the troops arrived with no lodging, insufficient portable toilets and no funds for food or water. A pair of YouGov polls published on Tuesday show public disapproval of both the national guard and marines deployments, as well as disapproval of Trump's immigrant deportation policies. A Washington Post poll published on Wednesday came up with similar findings, but with slightly narrower margins. Active service members are prohibited by law from speaking publicly about their work. But Streyder, of the Secure Families Initiative, said she had heard dozens of complaints indirectly through their families. She had also seen a written comment passed along to her organization from a national guard member who described the assignment as 'shitty' – particularly compared with early secondments to help with wildfire relief or, during the Covid pandemic, vaccination outreach. 'Both of those experiences were uncomplicatedly positive, a contribution back to the community,' Streyder described the message as saying. 'This is quite the opposite.' According to Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran who runs the Vet Voice Foundation, the feeling was similar among some of the troops being sent from Twentynine Palms. 'Among all that I spoke with, the feeling was that the marines are being used as political pawns, and it strains the perception that marines are apolitical,' Goldbeck said. 'Some were concerned that the Marines were being set up for failure. The overall perception was that the situation was nowhere at the level where marines were necessary.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The advocates said it was important to draw a distinction between the personal political preferences of service members, many if not most of whom voted for Trump last November, and the higher principle that military personnel should not get involved in politics or politically motivated missions that blur lines of responsibility with civilian agencies. 'We tend to be uniquely apolitical, as an institution and with each other,' Streyder said. 'The military is a tool that should be used as a last resort, not a first response… It does not feel that the tool is being calibrated accurately to the situation.' The discontent may not be limited to California. In Texas, where the governor, Greg Abbott, called out the national guard on Wednesday in San Antonio, Austin and other cities expecting anti-Trump protests, guardsmen have a history of feeling poorly treated in the workplace if not outright misused, Purdy of the Chamberlain Network said. After Abbott requisitioned the guard in 2021 to help police the Mexican border – a controversial policy codenamed Operation Lone Star – there were bitter complaints among guard members about the length and nature of an assignment that largely duplicated the work of the federal Border Patrol. Several guardsmen took their own lives. The LA operations are also sparking safety concerns because of complications inherent in pairing military and domestic police officers, advocates say, since they are trained very differently and use different vocabulary to handle emergency situations. In one infamous episode during the 1992 Los Angeles riots – the last time the military were called out to restore order in southern California – a police officer on patrol turned to his marines counterparts and said 'cover me', meaning be ready with your weapon to make sure I stay safe. To the marines, though, 'cover me' meant open fire immediately, which they did, unloading more than 200 M16 rounds into a house where the police had a tip about a possible domestic abuser. By sheer luck, nobody was hurt. CJ Chivers, a New York Times reporter who was with the marines in Los Angeles in 1992 and witnessed the tail-end of this near-calamity, wrote years later of his mixed feelings about the assignment: 'The Marines' presence in greater Los Angeles… felt unnecessary,' he said. 'I'd like to say we understood the context of the role we were given … But domestic crowd control had never been our specialty.' Streyder and the other advocates concurred. 'Domestic law enforcement and the military are entirely separate functions, manned by separate people who have been given separate training, who come from different cultures,' Streyder said. 'As military families, we rely implicitly on that separation being honored and remaining clear.'
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Military families challenge Trump's stricter federal voting rules
A military family organization joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order imposing stricter voting requirements, arguing it would add barriers for troops and families who vote by absentee ballot. And advocates say there are other ongoing efforts at the state level and in Congress that could also undermine the ability of service members and families, as well as overseas citizens, to vote absentee. The executive order shortens absentee ballot receipt deadlines and requires documentary proof of citizenship, which military families say would disproportionately affect their ability to vote. It's already logistically difficult to vote for some troops and families, especially given the frequency of military moves and deployments to remote locations. The biggest effect on military voter participation is likely the new ballot return deadline, said Sarah Streyder, a military wife living overseas who serves as the executive director of the Secure Families Initiative. The executive order, issued March 25, requires absentee ballots to be received by Election Day. The Secure Families Initiative is a plaintiff — along with United Latin American Citizens and Arizona Students' Association — in the lawsuit filed March 31 against a number of administration officials. Related cases have been filed by the League of Women Voters Education Fund, the Democratic National Committee and others. Trump's executive order instructs the Attorney General to take action against states that count 'validly cast absentee or mail-in ballots lawfully cast by Election Day but received after Election Day,' according to the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court for the District of Columbia. States and Congress determine election rules. A number of states allow their local election officials to count absentee ballots from military and overseas citizen voters for a certain amount of days after Election Day. But 33 states do require absentee and mail-in ballots to be returned on or before Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Absentee voters often have to deal with mail delays, and the requirement that ballots be received by Election Day 'is going in the opposite direction of where we want it to go,' Streyder said. 'We want a uniform, across-the board expansion of that timeline.' The president's order, she said, 'erases a state's ability to have ballots continue to arrive and be counted.' 'We consider it a gold standard across all 50 states for absentee ballots to continue to arrive up to seven days after Election Day and be counted, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day,' Streyder added. She noted that the late arrival was the top reason military ballots were rejected by local election officials in the 2020 election. Military absentee ballots could have substantial impact on election, report says The Secure Families Initiative decided to join the lawsuit out of concern for military voters. 'We want to make very clear we're not doing this because of partisan reasons,' Streyder said, noting that the effort is an extension of their ongoing work to advocate for military voters. 'We are a highly mobile voter, affected by delays and changing requirements, all of which are out of our control.' Trump's order, titled 'Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,' notes that federal law establishes a uniform Election Day for federal elections. '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,' the order states. Among other things, the lawsuit challenging the order asks the court for a preliminary injunction and other action to prevent the Justice Department from taking any steps that would prohibit the counting of mail-in and absentee ballots that are 'validly cast under state law.' There is confusion about some of the provisions of the executive order as they apply to military voters and U.S. citizens overseas, Streyder said. While it appears to provide an exemption in one section related to military and overseas citizen voters, it's not clear in other sections, the lawsuit alleges. Military absentee voters, whether they're voting from overseas or another location within the U.S. when they're away from their voting residence, have certain protections under existing federal law. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, commonly referred to as UOCAVA, applies to military members and their family members who are away from their voting residence, as well as U.S. citizens living overseas. Among other things, UOCAVA requires states to transmit absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters who have requested them no later than 45 days before a federal election. The executive order's narrow protection for UOCAVA ballots — to the extent that it exists — wouldn't apply to all military and overseas citizen voters because many don't use the UOCAVA processes to cast absentee ballots and wouldn't be protected by any carveout, the lawsuit alleges. Some military voters use the Federal Post Card Application to request absentee ballots, which makes apparent their UOCAVA status. However, a number of troops and families don't use the FPCA to request their ballots from their local elections offices and wouldn't be protected. Trump claims Dems will cheat using military, overseas ballot system In addition, the new requirement for 'documentary proof of United States citizenship' can create unnecessary barriers for military voters, Streyder said. The executive order imposes narrow documentation parameters. Those living overseas may not have the necessary documentation readily available, even though they are clearly eligible to vote. 'States already have secure eligibility and verification processes,' and the executive order simply adds barriers, she said. One of the documents the executive order cites as proof of eligibility is 'an official military identification card that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.' But current military IDs don't include that information. It's also unclear whether birth certificates would be sufficient documentation, whether the documentation would have to be presented in person, and whether proof of eligibility would need to be produced each time a voter asks for a Federal Post Card Application. The executive order mandates the Defense Department to update the FPCA to require proof of citizenship. If the documentation requirement is put into effect, it would 'seriously undermine the ease of use of the FPCA, which many of these voters use to register or request ballots, and already includes a citizenship attestation,' said Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, president and CEO of the U.S. Vote Foundation. For example, she said, voters living abroad would have to find a way to make a copy of their passport and attach it to the FPCA. 'Sending personal ID documents around in post or online also carries with it a serious risk of identity theft,' Dzieduszycka-Suinat said. 'To our knowledge, to this date, there is not one single known case of actual UOCAVA voter fraud by a UOCAVA voter.' The government responded to the preliminary injunction this week, saying 'it is telling' that none of the plaintiffs in these cases are individually named voters who claim they would be affected if the court doesn't intervene. They also argued the organizations involved in the lawsuit haven't identified by name any voters they say they represent. In addition, the government states, the plaintiffs couldn't point to any actions to implement the executive order that have caused harm. The plaintiffs, including the military family organization, filed a response Wednesday, noting they had learned the executive director of the Election Assistance Commission had written to the states to begin implementing the executive order.
Yahoo
06-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's election order would add barriers for military voters
Military families who are deployed far from their homes will see their process for voting become more complex, risking their possible disenfranchisement, with President Donald Trump's efforts to make certain election policies more stringent. Trump's new executive order — which aims to boost proof-of-citizenship requirements and to pressure states to make other changes to their election practices — comes as military voters are already caught in the middle of legal battles over Republican efforts to toss overseas ballots. A Friday court ruling, for example, has jeopardized thousands of overseas ballots cast in a North Carolina Supreme Court race last year. Trump is now seeking to unilaterally revamp election policies to bring them in line with conservative goals, signing the March executive order that tries to implement policies that Republicans have not been able to achieve legislatively or through the courts. The military vote has long been seen as sacrosanct politically, and 1986 legislation that sought to clear some obstacles service members face passed with broad bipartisan support. However, the unfounded fixation by Trump and his allies on mass election fraud has translated into efforts that could disenfranchise those serving the nation's interests abroad. Critics of the Trump order say members of the military stationed away from their home states may not have easy access to the types of documents the order seeks to require for registering to vote. Even if they do, finding a way to securely transmit those documents to election officials could be difficult. Additionally, Trump is targeting states' practice of counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day if properly postmarked — a practice that is extended to military and overseas voters in nearly three-dozen states. 'This order just doesn't take into account our lived experiences and inadvertently creates unnecessary barriers for folks in the military or overseas,' said Sarah Streyder, a military spouse stationed in the United Kingdom and executive directive of the Secure Families Initiative, a military families organization challenging the order in court. Supporters of Trump's order say the concerns are overblown. 'When you're an American abroad, you don't let your passport out of your sight,' said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation who is a proponent of such requirements. He argued the Pentagon could also order that the military IDs distributed to service members and their families include citizenship information. The Defense Department declined to answer CNN's questions about its plans for implementing Trump's order. The White House did not respond to specific questions about the order, but in a statement, spokesperson Anna Kelly said, 'President Trump cares deeply about our active duty servicemembers and their families, and he wants to ensure the right of every eligible citizen to vote while preserving election integrity.' The key provisions of the Uniformed and Overseas Voting Act, or UOCAVA — the 1986 law that eased the process for military and overseas voters — covers both military members abroad and those stationed domestically who need to vote absentee. Not every unformed service member covered under the law would necessarily have a passport. Trump is seeking to use federal funding and other tools in his arsenal to push states toward his desired election policies. But it is local and state election officials who determine how voting works in their jurisdictions, and the complexities of that state-by-state process is in part why Congress passed the act. The military community accounted for a little less than half of the 1.2 million Americans who were registered under the law in 2020. Still, 4 out of 5 overseas Americans who did not return a ballot in 2020 said it was because they couldn't complete the process, according to survey data released by the Defense Department office that helps military families with voting. 'I've never heard a single election official have anything but tremendous concern for challenges that those serving American interests overseas might be facing until recently,' said David Becker, a former Justice Department attorney who now leads the Center for Election Innovation & Research, which advises election administrators of both parties. With his lack of authority over state election registration rules, Trump's actions to bolster a proof-of-citizenship requirement are aimed at the federal forms that are widely available for Americans to use for voter registration. Trump directed the Defense Department to add a requirement for documents proving one's citizenship to the registration postcard that military families and overseas civilians can use to register. His order identifies a short list of documents that would meet the requirement but does not explicitly say that a birth certificate would be enough. Steyder, of the military families organization, says it shouldn't be assumed that military families would have an easy time getting their hands on those records, particularly given how chaotic the moving process can be for deployments. State election officials are required to honor the federal postcard application only for a calendar year, and the postcard also must be resubmitted every time the voter moves, Streyder said. In 2024, her presidential primary ballot was cast from South Korea, her regular primary ballot was cast stateside as she prepared for another move, and her general election ballot was cast from her husband's current station in the United Kingdom. 'That's three different postcard applications, three different absentee ballots,' Streyder said. Overseas voters can use the registration procedures of their home states, but the postcard is supposed to serve as failsafe for those having trouble navigating the process. In 2020, 764,000 voters used the postcard to register — with one-third of those being uniformed service members. That represented a major increase in use over past elections. Even if those documents are easily at hand, how military voters can submit them to election officials presents its own challenges, since computers and scanners might not be readily accessible where they're stationed. Streyder raised concerns about security vulnerabilities for transmitting sensitive personal information — particularly for those in roles making them a target — if an overseas voter didn't have access to a trusted device. 'This can't be done unless security issues are dealt with,' Becker said. 'And so, if there's not a secure way to send this, it shouldn't be implemented.' The most common reason UOCAVA ballots are rejected is that they arrived after a state's deadline to be counted. Of the ballots cast by military members that were rejected in 2020, almost half were thrown out for that reason. That's despite federal law requiring election officials send out overseas absentee ballots at least 45 days before an election. Though UOCAVA doesn't require it, several states provide overseas and military voters extra time after Election Day for their mail-in ballots to arrive. The legal challengers to Trump's order accuse him of putting those ballots at risk as well. The president exempts UOCAVA ballots from his instruction that the US Election Assistance Commission withhold federal funding from states that count mail-in ballots received after Election Day. But no such exemption exists in a separate, ambiguously worded directive that the attorney general 'shall take all necessary action to enforce' an Election Day receipt deadline for mail-in ballots to be counted. Regardless, von Spakovsky argued the 45 days that UOCAVA provides before Election Day is enough time. But Streyder said that given the lengthy international mail times, even a highly proactive overseas voter who returns their ballot as soon as they receive it may not see that ballot make it back by Election Day. Given the limited time absentee military voters already have to make sure their mail-in ballots make it back in time, they 'do not have as much time to be maximally deliberative and thoughtful and researched,' particularly when developments in the final weeks of the campaign could change their vote. 'And we have the audacity to believe that that's not fair either,' she said. CNN's Haley Britzky contributed to this story.
CNN
06-04-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Trump's election order would add barriers for military voters
Military families who are deployed far from their homes will see their process for voting become more complex, risking their possible disenfranchisement, with President Donald Trump's efforts to make certain election policies more stringent. Trump's new executive order — which aims to boost proof-of-citizenship requirements and to pressure states to make other changes to their election practices — comes as military voters are already caught in the middle of legal battles over Republican efforts to toss overseas ballots. A Friday court ruling, for example, has jeopardized thousands of overseas ballots cast in a North Carolina Supreme Court race last year. Trump is now seeking to unilaterally revamp election policies to bring them in line with conservative goals, signing the March executive order that tries to implement policies that Republicans have not been able to achieve legislatively or through the courts. The military vote has long been seen as sacrosanct politically, and 1986 legislation that sought to clear some obstacles service members face passed with broad bipartisan support. However, the unfounded fixation by Trump and his allies on mass election fraud has translated into efforts that could disenfranchise those serving the nation's interests abroad. Critics of the Trump order say members of the military stationed away from their home states may not have easy access to the types of documents the order seeks to require for registering to vote. Even if they do, finding a way to securely transmit those documents to election officials could be difficult. Additionally, Trump is targeting states' practice of counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day if properly postmarked — a practice that is extended to military and overseas voters in nearly three-dozen states. 'This order just doesn't take into account our lived experiences and inadvertently creates unnecessary barriers for folks in the military or overseas,' said Sarah Streyder, a military spouse stationed in the United Kingdom and executive directive of the Secure Families Initiative, a military families organization challenging the order in court. Supporters of Trump's order say the concerns are overblown. 'When you're an American abroad, you don't let your passport out of your sight,' said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation who is a proponent of such requirements. He argued the Pentagon could also order that the military IDs distributed to service members and their families include citizenship information. The Defense Department declined to answer CNN's questions about its plans for implementing Trump's order. The White House did not respond to specific questions about the order, but in a statement, spokesperson Anna Kelly said, 'President Trump cares deeply about our active duty servicemembers and their families, and he wants to ensure the right of every eligible citizen to vote while preserving election integrity.' The key provisions of the Uniformed and Overseas Voting Act, or UOCAVA — the 1986 law that eased the process for military and overseas voters — covers both military members abroad and those stationed domestically who need to vote absentee. Not every unformed service member covered under the law would necessarily have a passport. Trump is seeking to use federal funding and other tools in his arsenal to push states toward his desired election policies. But it is local and state election officials who determine how voting works in their jurisdictions, and the complexities of that state-by-state process is in part why Congress passed the act. The military community accounted for a little less than half of the 1.2 million Americans who were registered under the law in 2020. Still, 4 out of 5 overseas Americans who did not return a ballot in 2020 said it was because they couldn't complete the process, according to survey data released by the Defense Department office that helps military families with voting. 'I've never heard a single election official have anything but tremendous concern for challenges that those serving American interests overseas might be facing until recently,' said David Becker, a former Justice Department attorney who now leads the Center for Election Innovation & Research, which advises election administrators of both parties. With his lack of authority over state election registration rules, Trump's actions to bolster a proof-of-citizenship requirement are aimed at the federal forms that are widely available for Americans to use for voter registration. Trump directed the Defense Department to add a requirement for documents proving one's citizenship to the registration postcard that military families and overseas civilians can use to register. His order identifies a short list of documents that would meet the requirement but does not explicitly say that a birth certificate would be enough. Steyder, of the military families organization, says it shouldn't be assumed that military families would have an easy time getting their hands on those records, particularly given how chaotic the moving process can be for deployments. State election officials are required to honor the federal postcard application only for a calendar year, and the postcard also must be resubmitted every time the voter moves, Streyder said. In 2024, her presidential primary ballot was cast from South Korea, her regular primary ballot was cast stateside as she prepared for another move, and her general election ballot was cast from her husband's current station in the United Kingdom. 'That's three different postcard applications, three different absentee ballots,' Streyder said. Overseas voters can use the registration procedures of their home states, but the postcard is supposed to serve as failsafe for those having trouble navigating the process. In 2020, 764,000 voters used the postcard to register — with one-third of those being uniformed service members. That represented a major increase in use over past elections. Even if those documents are easily at hand, how military voters can submit them to election officials presents its own challenges, since computers and scanners might not be readily accessible where they're stationed. Streyder raised concerns about security vulnerabilities for transmitting sensitive personal information — particularly for those in roles making them a target — if an overseas voter didn't have access to a trusted device. 'This can't be done unless security issues are dealt with,' Becker said. 'And so, if there's not a secure way to send this, it shouldn't be implemented.' The most common reason UOCAVA ballots are rejected is that they arrived after a state's deadline to be counted. Of the ballots cast by military members that were rejected in 2020, almost half were thrown out for that reason. That's despite federal law requiring election officials send out overseas absentee ballots at least 45 days before an election. Though UOCAVA doesn't require it, several states provide overseas and military voters extra time after Election Day for their mail-in ballots to arrive. The legal challengers to Trump's order accuse him of putting those ballots at risk as well. The president exempts UOCAVA ballots from his instruction that the US Election Assistance Commission withhold federal funding from states that count mail-in ballots received after Election Day. But no such exemption exists in a separate, ambiguously worded directive that the attorney general 'shall take all necessary action to enforce' an Election Day receipt deadline for mail-in ballots to be counted. Regardless, von Spakovsky argued the 45 days that UOCAVA provides before Election Day is enough time. But Streyder said that given the lengthy international mail times, even a highly proactive overseas voter who returns their ballot as soon as they receive it may not see that ballot make it back by Election Day. Given the limited time absentee military voters already have to make sure their mail-in ballots make it back in time, they 'do not have as much time to be maximally deliberative and thoughtful and researched,' particularly when developments in the final weeks of the campaign could change their vote. 'And we have the audacity to believe that that's not fair either,' she said. CNN's Haley Britzky contributed to this story.
