April 1, 2026
EO On Federal Elections, Tax Cuts For Working Families, Trump Dismantling Gender Ideology In Federal Government, And More
On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed EO Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections citing the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (aka HR3295 and PL 107-252 and 52 U.S.C. 20901 et seq.), the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (aka HR2 and PL 103-31 and 52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.), and the Federal Government’s constitutional obligation to guarantee a republican form of Government to every State in the Union, U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 4 (discussed in my October 14, 2025 ANP Article) to order the following:
Section 1 - Purpose and Policy reminds us the right to vote in Federal elections is exclusively reserved for US Citizens. In addition non-citizens are explicitly prohibited from voting in Federal election with criminal penalties for violators (18 USC 241, 18 USC 611, 18 USC 1015, and 52 USC 20511). Both the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintain records that can assist in verifying identify and Federal election voter eligibility. The Federal Government is given the duty under Article II of the US Constitution to enforce Federal law. Enhancing election integrity via US mail requires additional measures. Secure ballot envelope identifiers can provide a reliable, auditable mechanism to enforce Federal law without overburdening eligible voters.
Section 2 - Establishment and Transmission of State Citizenship Lists and Prioritization of Investigations and Prosecutions Related to Election Fraud directs the Secretary of DHS Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Commissioner of SSA to take appropriate action to compile a list of those individuals confirmed to be US Citizens aged 18 or older (at the time of the upcoming Federal election) and who maintain a residence in a US state then provide this list, by state, to the individual states no less than 60 days before the scheduled Federal Election or upon request by a state. It is noted that just because a person is eligible to vote, the person may not be properly registered to vote in the state in which they reside (perhaps by choice or perhaps by an individual state's laws). The AG shall prioritize investigation and prosecution, as appropriate, of individuals and public or private entities engaged in, or aiding and abetting, the printing, production, shipment, or distribution of ballots to individuals who are not eligible to vote in a Federal election.
Section 3 - US Postal Service Rulemaking on Mail-In and Absentee Ballots reminds us that the unlawful use of the US mail in connection with elections is prohibited by Federal Statutes such as 18 USC 1341, 18 USC 1708, 52 USC 10307, and 52 USC 20511. This section directs the Postmaster General to initiate a proposed rule pursuant to 39 USC 401 within 60 days of this order that shall, at a minimum, accomplish the following:
- Ballots be mailed in an envelope that is specifically marked as Official Election Mail
- Bears a unique, automation-compatible, Intelligent Mail barcode that facilitates tracking
- Has passed a mail envelope design review by USPS to ensure compliance with USPS mailing standards, including barcode placement
- Propose provisions that no fewer than 90 days prior to a Federal election, any state may choose to notify USPS if it intends to allow for mail-in or absentee ballots to be handled by USPS. No less than 60 days before an election, a list of voters eligible to vote in a Federal election in the state to whom the state intends to provide a mail-in ballot shall be transmitted to USPS. USPS will process only those official ballots for individuals who are on the submitted list.
- USPS will coordinate with the IG and DOJ for investigation of suspected unlawful use of the mail involving Federal election materials.
- Any final rule shall be issued no later than 120 days of the date of this order.
Section 4 - Implementation shall be done by the Secretary of DHS, Commissioner of SSA, and Postmaster General in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce. The AG will enforce compliance and provide guidance to election officials. The Secretary of DHS shall, within 90 days of the date of this order, establish the infrastructure necessary to compile, maintain, and transmit the State Citizenship List described in Section 2. The Commissioner of SSA shall provide all necessary citizenship and identity data to DHS in support of this requirement consistent with applicable law, the Privacy Act, and all applicable use agreements.
Section 5 - Enforcement shall be handled by the AG and the heads of executive departments and agencies with relevant authority. States and localities should preserve all records and materials, excluding actual ballots cast, evidencing voter participation in any Federal election (including ballot envelopes) for 5 years.
The accompanying Fact Sheet President Donald J. Trump Ensures Citizenship Verification and Voter Eligibility in Federal Elections explains the purpose of the EO is to verify eligibility in Federal Elections, protect the integrity of our elections especially for mail-in balloting, and make elections secure again. The Fact Sheet reminds us that President Trump as repeatedly called upon Congress to pass the SAVE America Act (discussed in my March 19, 2026 ANP Article). The SAVE America Act is currently being held hostage by Democrats in the Senate who do not want to lose their political seats when non-citizens will no longer be allowed to vote in Federal elections.
On March 31, 2026, the White House published the release President Trump’s Working Families Tax Cuts (Which Every Democrat Opposed) Is Delivering Historic Relief announces that new data is showing how this tax season is delivering record-breaking benefits to working families. The average tax refund this year is up nearly 11% exceeding $3,700 per refund. Nearly half of all filers have claimed at least one of the OBBB's tax cuts. Parents of more than 4 million children have claimed Trump Accounts (discussed in my July 16, 2025 ANP Article) on their returns.
Now this additional refund will be going to pay for the increased cost of gas, utilities, food, and other necessities that have happened since the conflict in Iran began.
On March 31, 2026, the White House published the release President Trump Ended Democrats’ “Transgender for Everybody” Insanity reminds us that 2 years ago, the autopen administration desecrated Easter Sunday declaring Easter Sunday as a "trans day of visibility."
- Since beginning his 2nd term in office, President Trump has acted swiftly and decisively to make it official policy that there are only 2 immutable sexes: male and female via EO 14168 Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (discussed in my June 3, 2025 ANP Article).
- President Trump also banned federal funding, sponsorship, or promotion of the chemical and surgical mutilation of minors via EO 14176 Protecting Children from chemical and Surgical Mutilation (discussed in my April 29, 2025 ANP Article).
- President Trump signed EO 14190 Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling (discussed in my April 25, 2025 ANP Article) terminating federal support for "gender ideology" and "equity" curricula in the public school system.
The article goes on to list 8 other ways in which President Trump has acted to "gender ideology" from our Federal government. Many of which have generated lawsuits against President Trump and his administration. One of those lawsuits has made it all the way to SCOTUS.
On March 31, 2026, SCOTUS issued an opinion on Chiles v. Salazar (24-539) in which Colorado made a law (CRS) banning 'conversion therapy' regulating speech based on viewpoint. Colorado defined "conversion therapy" as "any practice or treatment . . . that attempts . . . to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as any "effor[t] to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward individuals of the same sex" CRS § 12-245-202(3.5)(a) while allowing for counselors to provide "[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for . . . identify exploration and development"CRS § 12-245-202(3.5)(b)(II).
Defendant was denied the request for PI by both the district court and the Tenth Circuit. SCOTUS has determined that Colorado's law regulates speech based on viewpoint and the lower courts erred by failing to apply the 1st Amendment rigorously. The courts recognize fraud, defamation, and "fighting words" as restrictive speech whereas the 1st Amendment (discussed in my October 17, 2025 ANP Article) protects the right of every individual to determine for themselves "how best to speak" and laws based on "communicative content" are unconstitutional.
SCOTUS points out that the CRS allows for support of gender ideology but forbids anything that attempts to change "behaviors, gender expressions, or romantic attractions" thereby violating plaintiffs free speech by determining that speech in support of their gender ideology narrative is allowed whereas any speech not in support of their gender ideology narrative is not allowed.
Plaintiff challenged the new Colorado law as "telling her what she may say in talk therapy sessions" and that this violates her 1st Amendment rights. Judge Gorsuch writes:
The First Amendment “envisions the United States as a rich and complex place” where all enjoy the “‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’”
SCOTUS found that Plaintiff engaged in "talk therapy" based on speech and did not "prescribe medication, use medical devices, or employ any physical methods" as part of the talk therapy. Colorado sought to regulate the content of Plaintiff's speech by telling Plaintiff how to speak to patients who sought assistance with gender ideology. They also note this law targets only licensed healthcare professionals. In addition, Colorado's law bans speech based on whether the speech agrees with the state's viewpoint. Judge Gorsuch writes:
The 1st Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in through or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgement that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an "egregious" assault on both of those commitments.
SCOTUS then reversed and remanded the case with 8 of the 9 judges agreeing and Judge Gorsuch writing the opinion. Judge Kagan filed a concurring opinion as well. Of course, the SCOTUS Judge who could not define what a woman is, Judge Jackson, dissented.
It is now Day 46 of the Democrat's Partial Government Shutdown. Congress remains on vacation while the employees in the DHS continue to work without a paycheck. I think Congress should not receive a paycheck during any government shutdown (partial or full).
If Congress is willing to sacrifice the pay of everyday US Citizens, they should also go without pay for as long as they force US citizens to do so.
In addition, I think those US Citizens who are not being paid need to be looking for private sector jobs. This is the 2nd time in less than a year that they have been forced to work without a paycheck. And the Democrats in Congress are responsible. They worked on a bi-partisan funding bill. Once that work was completed and the bill presented for a vote, they decided to vote against the bill they helped craft. This was a purposeful action. They decided that illegal aliens (especially those who commit atrocities against US Citizens) are more important than their US Citizen constituents. And nothing is done to stop their actions. Perhaps citizens in the states these duplicitous Congressional representatives/senators come from can hold a recall election to remove them from Congress?
President Trump's Presidential Actions published in the Federal Register (FR) to date:
- 252 Executive Orders
- 135 Proclamations
- 113 Presidential Orders, Memoranda, Determinations, Permits, and Notices
On March 31, 2026, EO 14398 Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, signed March 26, 2026 (discussed in my March 27, 2026 ANP Article) was published.
I have been asked "Why is it important to track what gets published in the FR"? Because the Presidential Documents do not go into effect when they are signed. They go into effect when they are actually published in the FR. They are also assigned their EO and Proclamation numbers at that time. And, some Presidential Documents are sent straight to the FR for publication and we would not know about them unless we were looking for what the FR published.
LAWFARE lawsuit tracker to date:
- 227 active cases
- 22 suits filed by the Trump Administration
- 17 SCOTUS stays or motions to vacate of lower court orders
- 2 SCOTUS affirmation of lower court order
- 9 suits where judges ruled for the federal government
- 10 suits where judges ruled against the federal government
- 6 criminal prosecutions by the DOJ:
- Representative McIver,
- former FBI Director James Comey, dismissed without prejudice 11/24/2025,
- former National Security Advisor John Bolton,
- (illegal alien) Kilmar Abrego Garcia, ordered released 12/11/2025;
- New York AG Letitia A James, dismissed without prejudice 11/24/2025,
- Congressional candidate Katherine Abughazaleh
In the lawsuit Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War docket # 3:26-cv-01996 (discussed in my March 12, 2026 ANP Article) filed in District Court, N.D. California on March 9, 2026 about Anthropic Listed as Supply Chain Risk where Anthropic sued the Trump administration over the Pentagon listing it as a supply chain risk. In Judge Rita F Lin's order granting motion for preliminary injunction, she provides a brief introduction to the case:
This case touches on an important public debate. Anthropic says its artificial intelligence product, Claude, is not ready for safe use in fully autonomous lethal weapons or the mass surveillance of Americans. If the U.S. government wants to use its technology, Anthropic insists that the government must agree not to use it for these purposes. On the other hand, the Department of War says that it must be the one to decide what functions are safe for its AI tools to perform, not a private company. This public policy question is not for this Court to answer in this litigation. It is the Department of War’s prerogative to decide what AI product it uses. Everyone, including Anthropic, agrees that the Department of War may permissibly stop using Claude and look for a new AI vendor who will allow “all lawful uses” of its technology. That is not what this case is about.
The question here is whether the government violated the law when it went further. After Anthropic went public with its disagreement with the Department of War, Defendants reacted with three significant measures that are the subject of this lawsuit. First, the President announced that every federal agency (not just the Department of War) would immediately ban Anthropic from ever having another government contract. That would include, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts using Claude to design its website. Second, Secretary Hegseth announced that anyone who wants to do business with the U.S. military must sever any commercial relationship with Anthropic. That would mean a company that used Claude to power its customer service chatbot could not serve as a defense contractor. Third, the Department of War designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” a label that applies to adversaries of the U.S. government who may sabotage its technology systems. That designation has never been applied to a domestic company and is directed principally at foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and other hostile actors.
These broad measures do not appear to be directed at the government’s stated national security interests. If the concern is the integrity of the operational chain of command, the Department of War could just stop using Claude. Instead, these measures appear designed to punish Anthropic.
On March 26, 2026, Judge Rita F Lin ordered:
- For the reasons set forth in the Court’s accompanying opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Agencies and all of their agents, officers, employees, representatives, successors, assigns, and all other persons acting for, with, by, through, or under authority from Defendant Agencies, or in concert or participation with Defendant Agencies, are immediately restrained and enjoined, pending final resolution of this action or further order of this Court:
- From implementing, applying, or enforcing in any manner:
- The February 27, 2026 Presidential Directive ordering all federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic’s technology;
- Any and all other agency actions taken in response to the Presidential Directive; From issuing or maintaining any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Presidential Directive; and
- From taking any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Presidential Directive.
- It is further ORDERED that Defendants Department of War and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (together, “DoW Defendants”), and all of their agents, officers, employees, representatives, successors, assigns, and all other persons acting for, with, by, through, or under authority from DoW Defendants, or in concert or participation with DoW Defendants, are immediately restrained and enjoined, pending final resolution of this action or further order of this Court:
- From implementing, applying, or enforcing in any manner:
- The February 27, 2026 Hegseth Directive designating Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security” and directing that no contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the United States military may conduct commercial activity with Anthropic; and
- The March 3, 2026 letter notifying Anthropic of the supply chain designation and the associated determination formalizing that designation under 10 U.S.C. § 3252 (“Supply Chain Designation”);
- From issuing or maintaining any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Hegseth Directive or the Supply Chain Designation; and
- From taking any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Hegseth Directive or the Supply Chain Designation;
- It is further ORDERED that the effective date of the Hegseth Directive and Supply Chain Designation is stayed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705;
- It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file a status report by no later than April 6, 2026, describing the steps taken to ensure compliance with this Order and certifying compliance with its requirements;
- It is further ORDERED that Anthropic will pay a bond of $100 to the clerk of the Court by April 6, 2026.
- This Order restores the status quo. It does not bar any Defendant from taking any lawful action that would have been available to it on February 27, 2026, prior to the issuances of the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive and entry of the Supply Chain Designation. For example, this Order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions.
- This Order is stayed for seven days from its issuance.
So a company produces an AI model that can do certain things; but, the company disagrees with those uses so tells the DoW that they cannot use their product for those purposes. DoW tells the company they will do with the software whatever the software is capable of doing. The company says don't use our product. The DoW says not only will we not use your product, we will make sure your product is not used anywhere within the Federal government and we will make sure any of our contractors do not use your product either.
Seems to me the company needs to modify its software to not do the things they do not want a user to do with it. Simply telling someone "while our product CAN do that, we, as a company, do not want you do use our product in that way" is moronic.
This dilemma reminds me of the time I was teaching a web design class in high school. One of my students went home and created a 'hate' website attacking another student. Then, my student posted, and handed out, flyers around the campus giving the website address. The FBI was called. The FBI investigated. The FBI arrested my student. My student was banned from our school system. My student was banned from using computers and being on the internet. My student had to use mail correspondence to complete his/her senior year. What was my school's response? We will cancel the website course. My response? The student in question learned website design (meaning I effectively taught the class and the student integrated those teachings into their life). The student went home to put the learning into practice. The student did not work on that website while at school. Nor did the student access that website during my class. What this told me is that an ethics component needed to be added to the course curriculum. The school agreed with my assessment and the course was offered again the following year.
Imagine if the creator of a word processing program decides that using said word processing program to write articles with which the designer of the word processing program disagrees. Does that mean the designer has the right to tell you, the user, that you cannot use their word processing program in that way? This judge is saying exactly that. This company, if it does not like the way their software is being used, needs to modify the software so it cannot do the things with which the company disagrees.
I suspect the DoW will appeal this decision.
ANP Fundraiser:
‘Dangerous, Derogatory, Harmful, Unreliable!’
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
