Earlier this month, President Trump gave a prime-time address designed to generate anxiety and suspicion about election results, and to use that distrust to gain direct control over the way we vote. Despite claiming to have evidence that our elections have been compromised (he didn’t), Mr. Trump used the address to urge the passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

Mr. Trump does not seem to have succeeded in building support for the SAVE Act (Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska came out against it the day after the speech, and another Republican senator, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, has vowed to block it), but he still hopes to use it as a campaign issue this fall, and if the Republicans keep control of Congress, it could become law before the 2028 presidential election. 

Mr. Trump has been touting the SAVE Act as a means to prevent noncitizens from voting—which almost never happens anyway. (It has since been reported that a computer glitch caused the state of New Jersey to automatically add about 6,600 noncitizens to its voter rolls when they applied for driver’s licenses in 2023 and 2024. About 400 noncitizens have cast votes since then, presumably thinking they were eligible to do so, but Gov. Mikie Sherrill says there is no evidence that they changed any election outcomes.) The SAVE Act would require all voters to present identification such as a passport or birth certificate, in person, to register to vote, to update their registration and to submit their ballot. Common forms of identification like driver’s licenses would not be accepted. The United States already has an extremely secure election process, and in attempting to fix an inconsequential problem, the SAVE Act would actually make it harder for many citizens, including women and people who live in poverty, to vote. Strict voter ID laws also disproportionately harm voters of color.

According to the Center for American Progress, “Because documentation would need to be presented in person, the legislation would, in practice, prevent Americans from being able to register to vote by mail; end voter registration drives nationwide; and eliminate online voter registration overnight.” Mail-in voting would be limited as well. Those who cannot afford the $165 to order a passport, or who cannot take time off work to travel to an office where they can register to vote in person, would essentially be prevented from voting. The SAVE Act thus institutes what amounts to a poll tax for those who do not have the specific identification the bill requires.

The SAVE Act also would unduly burden as many as 69 million women whose birth certificates no longer match their current legal name, making them invalid as voter identification. Perhaps not coincidentally, the idea that women should lose the right to vote altogether has made its way from the far-right fringe to appearing in mainstream outlets like The New York Times, which reported in April on proponents of “household voting”—that is, allowing only the male head of a family to vote. Further, this is all coming on the heels of the Supreme Court’s dismantling of the Voting Rights Act and the subsequent gerrymandering of congressional districts that have the effect of weakening the power of votes by Black citizens. 

The question seems to be this: Do we have an obligation to make voting easier for all eligible citizens, or is any restriction justified in trying to prevent noncitizens from voting?

Pope Francis urged us to consider the following questions in our evaluation of any policy proposal: “What will it accomplish?… What are the risks? What are the costs? Who will pay those costs and how?” (“Laudato Si’,” No. 185). These questions are crucial for evaluating policies that vilify people or engender animosity toward the “other.” From my perspective, the language of white supremacy, xenophobia and misogyny is rampant throughout the Trump administration, and we should be wary of the immigrant being used as a boogeyman to drum up support for voting restrictions. 

Making it more difficult for women, people of color and those in poverty to vote is directly opposed to the principle of the preferential option for the poor, and it makes it less likely the government will consider the common good in policymaking. The right of women and others to express our convictions in the public realm—and, I would add, in the church, too—is critical to the flourishing of all. As Pope Leo XIV reminds us in “Magnifica Humanitas,” “It is the State’s responsibility to ensure cohesion, unity and the proper organization of civil society, so that the common good can be pursued with everyone’s contribution” (emphasis mine) (No. 63). 

Perhaps concern for election security could instead spark a conversation around ways to automatically enroll citizens of voting age. Beginning last year, young men have been automatically enrolled in the Selective Service System (the database of men eligible for the military draft, should it be reinstated) through the use of other federal and state data. There is no reason we cannot implement a similar automatic voting registration system that would alleviate most voting hindrances. But that is unlikely in an administration that seems to prioritize military power over participatory democracy.

Election integrity is certainly an important goal, but there is no reason to trust this administration on the issue. We have seen Mr. Trump, time and time again, attempt to subvert election results, including through the violent insurrection on his behalf on Jan. 6, 2021 (which Mr. Trump has tried to erase through blanket pardons). The Trump administration has used hyperbolic or unfounded claims to try to wrest control of elections from state governments and to intimidate states over the legal results of past elections. Mr. Trump has also effectively dismantled the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission, whose very purpose is to assist states in making elections and vote counting more secure.

There are many resources available for those concerned. Protect Democracy offers ideas for maintaining free and fair elections and deterring the federal consolidation of power, and—with Over Zero—developed the resource Community Resilience in the 2026 Election. Faiths United to Save Democracy, in which Georgetown’s Center on Faith and Justice (where I work) is a key organizer, helps secure missing voter IDs and supports get-out-the-vote efforts, in addition to training clergy and lay people to provide a peacekeeping presence at polling stations. The author Maria J. Stephan cites other resources in the fight to preserve democracy in her recent article at America.

As we approach the midterms, let’s be vigilant about threats to our democracy, countering the xenophobic, racist and misogynistic lies that distract us from building the common good together.

[Also read: “How Catholics have defended free elections—and why they must do so again.”]

Kathleen Bonnette works at the Center on Faith and Justice at Georgetown University, where she also teaches theology. She is the author of (R)evolutionary Hope: A Spirituality of Encounter and Engagement in an Evolving World (Wipf and Stock).