Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that would supposedly "require proof of U.S. citizenship" for anyone registering to vote in federal elections. While the media coverage of this order included important expert context explaining its dubious legality, these vital facts were buried far too deep in the reporting.
The executive order, titled "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," is sweeping in its claims. It demands the Election Assistance Commission require documentary proof of citizenship to register, orders states to count ballots only through Election Day, threatens to pull federal funding from non-compliant states, and directs various agencies to conduct voter roll purges.
What's somewhat frustrating about the coverage is that major outlets did include expert voices pointing out that Trump lacks the authority to do these things — but you'd need to read well past the headlines and opening paragraphs to find it.
For instance, The New York Times quotes Rick Hasen, a political science professor and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA, who explains that Trump has "no authority to dictate how states ran their elections" and that what he's ordering the Election Assistance Commission to do is "either contrary to law or at best disputed." But this crucial context doesn't appear until the fifth paragraph, after readers have already been told that Trump signed an order to "require proof of U.S. citizenship."