In yet another example of activist judges inserting themselves where they don’t belong, a federal judge in deep-blue Washington state has moved to block President Trump’s latest effort to restore basic election integrity—handing Democrats and their allies a temporary win in their long war against commonsense voting safeguards.
On January 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge John Chun issued a sweeping 75-page ruling halting enforcement of key provisions of President Trump’s Executive Order 14248 as it applies to Washington and Oregon. The order, aimed squarely at shoring up trust in federal elections, required proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and mandated that mail-in ballots be received by Election Day—not days or weeks later.
Predictably, left-wing officials cried foul.
Washington and Oregon, two states notorious for lax election rules and universal mail-in voting, sued the Trump administration last April, arguing that the president had no authority to impose such standards. Judge Chun agreed, claiming the order violated “separation of powers” and exceeded presidential authority by touching what Democrats insist is their exclusive turf: elections run with minimal oversight and maximum loopholes.
Citing Supreme Court precedent, Chun wrote that while the Constitution vests executive power in the president, that authority does not make him a “lawmaker.” What the judge conveniently ignored, critics note, is that the president is also charged with ensuring that federal law—including election law—is faithfully executed, especially when states appear unwilling to enforce basic safeguards themselves.
The White House wasted no time pushing back.
“President Trump cares deeply about the integrity of our elections, and his executive order takes lawful actions to ensure election security,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital. “This is not the final say on the matter, and the Administration expects ultimate victory on the issue.”
Democrats, meanwhile, wasted no time celebrating.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown triumphantly declared the ruling a “huge victory,” framing opposition to voter ID and ballot deadlines as somehow synonymous with “the rule of law.” In a not-so-subtle jab, Brown labeled Trump the “Election Denier-in-Chief,” a tired talking point that conveniently ignores years of documented election irregularities, administrative failures, and outright fraud.
Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs echoed the party line, claiming proof-of-citizenship requirements would “suppress eligible voters,” despite the obvious reality that American citizens can easily prove their citizenship—and that elections are for citizens, not anyone who happens to be present.
The Oregon GOP was far less impressed, calling out the ruling for what it is: a direct blow to efforts to ensure that only Americans vote in American elections and that votes are counted on Election Day, not whenever bureaucrats decide to stop opening envelopes.
Conservatives across social media erupted in frustration.
“These judges are being paid off or something—prove me wrong,” one commenter wrote, echoing widespread anger over what many see as a judicial system stacked against election integrity. Another user cut straight to the heart of the issue: “It’s a federal election. Why are states allowed to ignore federal standards?”
That question is exactly why President Trump issued Executive Order 14248 in the first place. While the ruling may delay reform, it won’t stop it. As the administration prepares to appeal, one thing is clear: the fight for secure, transparent, and lawful elections is far from over—and millions of Americans are watching closely.
