The Trump administration removed the remaining Democratic members of the Election Assistance Commission on Thursday, leaving the independent federal agency with zero sitting commissioners for the first time ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The move came after Republican Commissioner Christy McCormick had already resigned, and it drew immediate condemnation from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who called it a "brazen attempt to seize control of our elections."
The White House defended the action by citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, which expanded the president's authority to remove commissioners from independent agencies. An unnamed White House official told the Washington Examiner that the president "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 EAC certifies voting systems, distributes election grants, and provides guidance to state and local election officials. It describes its own mission as helping "election officials improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process." With no commissioners in place, the agency's operational future is an open question, one that matters more with each month that passes before voters head to the polls next year.
Schumer wasted no time framing the removals as a political power grab. In a statement released through Senate Democrats, the New York Democrat tied the firings directly to remarks he attributed to Trump about Republicans needing to "take over the voting."
"Donald Trump said Republicans should 'take over the voting.' Today, he took another step toward doing exactly that. Firing every remaining member of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission months before the midterms is a brazen attempt to seize control of our elections before a single vote is cast. He is gutting the independent agency that certifies voting systems and helps election officials run secure elections."
Schumer added that "Senate Democrats will fight this power grab at every turn" and insisted that "the American people, not Donald Trump, will decide the 2026 election."
This is familiar terrain for the Senate minority leader, who has repeatedly organized Senate Democrats against Trump administration initiatives touching election policy and executive authority. The rhetoric is dramatic, but the underlying question is narrower than Schumer's language suggests: Does the president have the legal authority to remove these commissioners, and is there a legitimate policy reason to do so?
The White House says yes on both counts. The Slaughter decision expanded presidential removal power over independent agency commissioners, a legal shift that gives the administration firm footing. The unnamed White House official stated plainly that "the Slaughter decision gives the President precedence to do so."
That ruling represents one of a series of Supreme Court victories for the Trump administration on questions of executive authority. The administration has moved to reshape federal election oversight bodies as part of a broader push to align agencies with its election integrity priorities ahead of the midterms.
The White House official also said the administration has been working "across all agencies and local partners to safeguard elections from fraud and abuse" in preparation for 2026. That language mirrors the president's repeated public warnings that the midterms could be plagued by fraud unless Congress passes the SAVE America Act.
The SAVE America Act would require documented proof of citizenship to register to vote and mandate that voters present photo identification at the polls. Trump has withheld his signature on other legislation to pressure the Senate into acting on voter ID requirements, a sign of how central the issue is to his midterm strategy.
Democrats have criticized the bill, arguing it could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. They contend that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and that Trump's repeated claims of widespread election fraud remain unsubstantiated.
But the administration's position is straightforward: if the agencies responsible for election security are staffed with officials who do not share the president's commitment to tighter safeguards, the agencies cannot fulfill that mission effectively. Whether one agrees with that logic depends largely on whether one believes election integrity is a real and pressing problem, or a manufactured one.
Not all the criticism came from the left. Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican, also took aim at the removals. Duncan accused Trump of seeking to eliminate oversight of his own administration's oversight apparatus.
"When you wake up every day and you just want everybody to call you king, elections are always going to feel inefficient."
Duncan added: "Donald Trump wants to eliminate oversight of his administration's oversight, and that's what this is about."
Duncan's record, however, places him squarely in the wing of the GOP that has clashed publicly with Trump on election-related matters since 2020. His criticism is consistent with his prior positioning and does not represent a broader Republican revolt against the EAC removals.
The more telling detail is the silence from most other Republicans. The administration acted with clear legal authority under Slaughter, and the broader GOP has shown little appetite for defending an agency that many conservatives view as part of the federal election bureaucracy's sprawl.
The EAC's core functions include certifying voting systems, distributing federal election grants, providing guidance to state and local officials, and protecting election equipment. It also works directly with election workers on the ground. Those functions do not simply vanish because the commission has no members, but the agency's ability to act on new certifications, issue new guidance, or distribute grants could be severely limited.
Several questions remain unanswered. The names of the removed Democratic commissioners have not been publicly identified. The specific mechanism of their removal, whether by letter, executive order, or some other process, has not been disclosed. And it is unclear whether the removed commissioners have responded publicly.
Perhaps most important: there is no clear public timeline for appointing replacements. The administration has signaled its intent to align election agencies with its priorities, but broader election integrity efforts, including DOJ lawsuits over voter roll accuracy, suggest the White House sees the EAC as one piece of a much larger project.
Meanwhile, Schumer has launched his own election-focused efforts in the Senate, which Trump himself has characterized as an attempt to interfere in the midterms. The political battle lines over who controls the rules of the game are now drawn clearly on both sides.
Schumer wants voters to see the EAC firings as a threat to democracy itself. The White House wants them seen as a necessary step toward election security. Both sides are speaking past each other, and past the voters who simply want confidence that their ballots will be counted honestly and accurately.
The administration has the law on its side, courtesy of the Supreme Court. It has a stated policy rationale. And it has a political mandate from voters who listed election integrity among their top concerns. Whether the EAC removals advance that cause or merely create a vacuum will depend on what comes next, specifically, whether the White House moves quickly to seat new commissioners who can keep the agency's essential functions running.
Leaving the commission empty for months would hand Schumer exactly the talking point he wants. Filling it with competent, reform-minded commissioners would prove the point the administration says it is making.
When your opponents accuse you of dismantling oversight, the best answer isn't an empty chair, it's a better one.
