'0 for 21': Trump’s 'losing streak' proves the limits of his authority

U.S. President Donald Trump reacts at the end of the State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 24, 2026. REUTERS KEVIN LAMARQUE

Over the course of his second administration, President Donald Trump’s Justice Department has gone to federal court nearly two dozen times in its quest to seize state voter rolls, which many experts suggest is part of an effort to meddle with the upcoming midterms. But try as they might, his attorneys strike out every time. This “losing streak,” writes Casey Burgat, professor of politics and legislative affairs at George Washington University, proves that Trump doesn’t have the authority that he thinks he does.

As Burgat explains, “On August 6, a judge in Washington D.C., dismissed the DOJ’s attempt to compel D.C.’s Board of Elections to turn over its voter registration list, including sensitive information like dates of birth and driver’s license numbers. That ruling gave the Trump administration a record of 0 for 21 in federal courts across the country in their quest for state-level voter databases.”

According to Burgat, “21 federal district courts have outright dismissed the DOJ’s cases on the merits, meaning that judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents have all looked at the DOJ’s claims, evidence, and legal grounding and ruled they are so lacking that they didn’t need to hear any more. One of these cases has already been appealed by the DOJ, and the federal appeals court judge upheld the dismissal.”

Burgat argues that “twenty-one losses and zero victories is incredibly telling, especially since federal access to state voter rolls has clearly been such an important campaign for the DOJ (and Trump, for that matter).” As of August, with the midterms less than 100 days away, “48 states have received requests from the administration for their complete voter databases. For 30 states plus Washington D.C., those requests have escalated into full lawsuits in an attempt to compel the states to hand them over. A few states — notably GOP-friendly states — voluntarily handed over their data, and Oklahoma ‘settled’ its lawsuit with the DOJ by doing so. But plenty of others, including conservative states, have outright refused.”

While the Trump administration claims it needs voter rolls to prevent fraud, critics say that the president is trying “to prevent free and fair elections,” and that the voter rolls could be used for disenfranchisement and to other nefarious ends. Others argue that it’s simply a matter of privacy. As Kentucky’s Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams declared, “I will not voluntarily commit a data breach” by handing over voter information to the DOJ.

So far 21 federal courts have sided with critics, and according to Burgat, “The judges aren’t contending that state voting rolls can be inaccurate, nor are they arguing that the DOJ isn’t a key player in enforcing federal election laws. But they are saying that the DOJ does not have the authority to compel states to hand over protected voter information that the states themselves created.”

In an effort to bolster federal control over elections, Trump has been desperately pushing Republicans to pass the SAVE Act. As Burgat explains, “Trump needs the law because he knows — and the lawsuit losses are reminding him — that only Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate federal elections. Only a Congress-passed bill can require states to provide voter data to D.C. or establish national voter-ID rules. Congress, so far, has proven unwilling or unable to turn Trump’s demands into statute. So the administration has tried to squeeze some of that authority out of laws already on the books. Judges, however, have interpreted those statutes to mean that the power the administration seeks simply isn’t there.”

As Burgat concludes, “Hidden beneath the DOJ’s losing streak is an important reminder about federalism, especially when it comes to elections in the US. Federal elections are purposefully decentralized. State and local governments are tasked with carrying them out in adherence to the federal protections and requirements Congress has deemed necessary. As we’ve seen, it can be a messy arrangement, but one that protects all of us from a federal government — and president — who wants to take over the process. And as 21 courts have reminded him, if Trump wants his executive branch to run elections, that authority can come from only one place: the United States Congress.”

From Your Site Articles