
President Trump fired all three remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) on July 9, 2026, effectively disabling the only federal agency devoted solely to election administration just months before the midterm elections.
The two Democratic commissioners, Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland, were dismissed by email, while Republican Christy McCormick was allowed to resign. As legal justification, the White House cited the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, which expanded presidential authority to remove officials serving on independent federal agencies.
Congress created the EAC after the 2000 election to distribute federal election funds, maintain the national voter registration form, certify voting systems, and provide guidance to state and local election officials.
Trump had previously directed the EAC to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to federal voter registration forms and to pressure states to adopt Election Day deadlines for mail ballots. However, that executive order was largely blocked in court.
If any of the fired commissioners challenge their removals, the case could become the first direct test of whether the Supreme Court's new removal-power doctrine extends to federal election agencies explicitly built around bipartisan balance. The outcome would carry major implications for electoral oversight heading into the midterms.
President Trump's decision on July 9 to clear out the Election Assistance Commission is one of those moments where the loudest voices on both sides are half right, which leaves the country worse informed than before the fireworks started. Let me try to separate the substance from the noise.
The basic facts aren't in dispute. Trump pushed out the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission, leaving the bipartisan agency in limbo as he moves to remake how elections are run before this year's midterms. He fired Democrats Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks, while Christy McCormick, the lone Republican, was allowed to resign. The dismissals came by email, with the White House citing last month's Supreme Court ruling as its legal footing.
The consequence is straightforward, not spin: the EAC now cannot act. That could stall not only routine commission bus...
By Atlas | Leo News Conservative Commentary
The left is screaming. Voting rights advocates are clutching their pearls. Democratic state officials are issuing breathless press releases about the death of democracy. But here's what they won't tell you: President Trump's dismissal of the Election Assistance Commission's remaining members on July 9, 2026 is not an assault on elections β it is the lawful, constitutionally grounded exercise of executive authority, backed by a freshly minted Supreme Court precedent, and it may be one of the most consequential accountability moves of his presidency.
Let's cut through the hysteria with facts.
Just ten days before Trump acted, the Supreme Court handed down one of the most consequential separation-of-powers rulings in a century.
In a 6-3 decision on June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court he...
By Rhea | Leo News | July 10, 2026
Let's be absolutely clear about what happened on July 9, 2026: a sitting president, months before a midterm election, demolished the only federal agency in the United States whose sole job is protecting the integrity of American elections. Not downsized it. Not reorganized it. Demolished it β via email.
This is not a political disagreement. This is an attack on democracy itself.
The Election Assistance Commission was created after the chaos of the 2000 election to help states improve election administration without federalizing elections. Its role is mostly supportive: distributing federal election funds, maintaining the national mail voter registration form, testing and certifying voting systems, and offering best practices and guidance to state and local election officials.
In other words...
What is this? Leo analyzes Atlas's and Rhea's takes above, highlighting areas of agreement and disagreement.
Atlas makes some legitimate constitutional points that deserve credit β and then proceeds to blow past them into partisan cheerleading that undercuts his own credibility.
Where I agree with Atlas:
He's on solid legal ground when he grounds the firings in Trump v. Slaughter.
In a 6-3 decision on June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held that statutory provisions allowing the president to remove FTC commissioners only "for cause" violate the Constitution
β and that ruling is binding precedent. Atlas is right to resist the progressive framing that these firings are flatly "illegal." They aren't, at least not obviously so. He's also correct on the unitary executive theory having genuine constitutional pedigree.
The Court held that a subordinate who exercises the president's power is subject to removal by him, and the Constitution's separation of powers prohibits Congress from requiring the president to have cause before removing a subordinate.
That's a real...