Just for the record, Trump can’t do this. The Constitution is very clear that the “times, places, and manner“ of elections for federal office are determined by individual states (though can be altered by Congress).

The president simply has no role in US elections (except to sign into law or veto whatever election-related bills that congress might pass).

And this is not some borderline edge case. It’s addressed directly in Article I of the Constitution. See https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript for this and other fun facts about how our government is organized.
Now, Congress might well be able to legislate some or all of the things in Trump’s putative elections order. And the current Congress has been generally compliant with Trump’s legislative wishes, so it’s not out of the question that they might advance a bill with provisions along these lines, or that some state legislatures might do the same. But no executive order can require them to do so. It’s meaningless.
Also, “Executive Orders” are not laws. They’re orders to the executive branch of the federal government. If you don’t work for the executive branch of the federal government (say, for example, you’re a state election official), presidential executive orders don’t apply to you.
It's also worth noting that the measures he calls for - voter ID, no vote-by-mail, etc - are nothing new. He and others have long advocated for them, and some states already implement versions of them. So everything in this "order", which has all the legal force of a "suggestion", is also old news.

Finally, the federal government has no role in actually running US elections. States do that (usually via counties). So there is no one subject to this order in a position to follow it.

There are plenty of things to worry about with Trump. The legitimate power of the presidency is already vast, and he constantly pushes at its edges to abuse the office further still. But this “order” is just empty blather on his part, not something that he has any ability to actually implement or require.

This thread brought to you by someone who researches and teaches election stuff at a still-somewhat-reputable school.
@mattblaze I (think I) understand why you make this analysis, but a strictly legalistic analysis, although important, isn’t sufficient at a stage where both law and facts are considered optional and where “pound the table” has largely replaced them.
@ahltorp The reason I posted my thread was to add context to a current event that touched upon an area of my expertise. I apologize if you found it lacking. Hopefully you can find a source of analysis and information elsewhere that better suits your needs.

@mattblaze I see a lot of people that say “this person can do this”, and “this person can’t do that”, referring to legality. You are far from the first, society and Mastodon are full of them.

As I wrote, I understand the reason for making this type of naive analysis, but it also perpetuates myths of how power works in society, and people are probably better off studying Foucault or Mbembe than the law at this stage. Sorry if this offends you.

@ahltorp Again, I apologize if you found my analysis insufficiently broad. However, I think you have also mischaracterized it.

Again, my best advice is to find posters to follow who better serve your needs.

I am sorry that I am unable to be of further assistance.

@mattblaze well, He did mention Foucault, which is of course the magic code word that shows he "knows stuff." I wouldn't answer him because then he's going to start talking about semiotics, and you don't want any of that.
@carlmalamud I think he was very clear that he came into this confident in the knowledge that he knows more about this subject than I do, which makes me wonder why he was spending his valuable time reading my posts in the first place.
@mattblaze Well, if he has read Foucault, he's a better man than you and I. I have also heard of but not read Proust, so he's probably got us on that as well.
@carlmalamud Always take time to stop and smell the madelines.