Trump fires two Election Assistance Commission Democrats, Republican resigns
Trump fires two Election Assistance Commission Democrats and accepts Republican's resignation, dismantling the bipartisan agency just months before midterms.
Objective Facts
On July 9-10, 2026, President Trump fired Democratic commissioners Thomas Hicks and Benjamin W. Hovland by email and accepted Republican Christy McCormick's resignation from the Election Assistance Commission. The move leaves the federal election agency without a quorum, unable to take official action until new members are installed, just as the 2026 election cycle is underway. A White House official justified the removals by stating the president reserves the right to remove officials not "totally aligned" with election security, citing the Supreme Court's recent Slaughter decision that expanded presidential removal powers. McCormick, who had served since 2014, was allowed to resign, while Hicks and Hovland received termination emails from Morgan DeWitt Snow, deputy director of presidential personnel. The Help America Vote Act states the president is supposed to consider Senate leadership recommendations when nominating EAC commissioners; in practice, both parties typically work with the administration to identify nominees.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Mainstream left outlets—NBC News, NPR, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The New York Times-affiliated coverage—reported the firings as a threat to bipartisan election administration and a sign of Trump's broader effort to undermine independent institutions. NBC News and NPR framed the removal as part of Trump's pattern of casting doubt on elections; The Philadelphia Inquirer's reporting stated Trump "seeks to cast doubt on the outcome of the upcoming midterms and impose control over how ballots are counted." Democratic leaders quoted by these outlets used stark language. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told NBC and MS NOW it was a "brazen attempt to seize control of our elections before a single vote is cast," while Sen. Mark Warner told Reuters the move "should concern every American, regardless of party." Commissioners themselves offered critical commentary: fired Democratic commissioner Benjamin Hovland told NBC News the EAC served as "a clearinghouse, sharing best practices between states," and warned that removing it creates "a real risk of self-fulfilling prophecies."
Right-Leaning Perspective
Mainstream right-leaning outlets emphasized the legal authority granted by the Supreme Court's Slaughter decision and the White House's framing of the move as election security. Breitbart characterized the action as Trump's "latest move in the Republican president's effort to expand White House influence over how U.S. elections are conducted," presenting it not as a power grab but as the exercise of newly-clarified executive authority. The article noted the commission was created "as part of the Help America Vote Act, a bipartisan law signed by Republican President George W. Bush in 2002," providing historical context for the Republican position. The White House's statement—quoted uniformly across right outlets—emphasized that Trump reserves the right to remove officials not "totally aligned" with election security, and that the Slaughter decision provides precedent. These outlets did not directly challenge the Democratic framing but instead presented Trump's actions as legally justified and consistent with his stated policy goal of securing elections.
Deep Dive
The firing of the entire Election Assistance Commission reflects a collision between a newly expansive presidential removal power and the institutional design of a bipartisan federal agency. The EAC was created in 2002 in response to the 2000 election crisis, structured with exactly two Republicans and two Democrats to ensure neither party could dominate election administration guidance. That design is now tested by the Supreme Court's Slaughter decision (June 2026), which upheld the president's authority to remove independent agency officials—a reversal of a 1935 precedent. Trump, emboldened by this ruling, dismantled the EAC in a single coordinated action just months before the midterms, a timing that Democrats argue reveals electoral intent rather than good governance. The deeper tension lies in competing theories of election administration. Democrats and voting rights advocates argue that a toothless EAC—unable to certify voting systems, update election guidance, or distribute federal election funds—creates chaos and invites error at the state and local level, where cash-strapped election officials already operate under strain. Defenders of Trump's action counter that new appointees aligned with election security can do the same work more effectively, and that the Slaughter decision establishes the president's authority to ensure executive branch officials share his policy vision. What neither side disputes: the agency is now frozen and will remain so at least through the Senate confirmation process, which is deliberately slow. Republicans control the Senate but even they cannot expedite new confirmations to fill a four-member board before November 2026. The unresolved legal question is whether Slaughter applies at all to election agencies. The Slaughter case involved the FTC, an economic regulator. Election agencies occupy constitutionally fraught territory—they sit at the intersection of federal authority and state control, and their independent structure is meant to insulate them from partisan pressure during election years. If any of the fired commissioners sue, courts will have to decide whether presidential removal power trumps statutory bipartisanship requirements in the electoral context. That test could reshape the architecture of election administration for decades.