Eliminate mail voting - Trump’s plan now has a White House update

The White House this week fielded questions about President Donald Trump’s controversial new proposal to “eliminate” mail-in voting and voting machines across the United States before the 2026 midterm elections—a move that, if attempted, would ignite fierce legal and political battles with state governments and voting rights advocates.

At Tuesday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was pressed by reporters on how such a plan could be executed given that elections are primarily administered by state authorities, not the federal government.

The line of questioning followed Trump’s Monday announcement that he intends to issue an executive order targeting both mail-in ballots and electronic voting systems, which he has long claimed—without evidence—fuel election fraud.

On his Truth Social platform, Trump declared that he would spearhead a movement to abolish mail-in ballots entirely, while also phasing out voting machines, which he labeled “highly inaccurate,” “very expensive,” and “seriously controversial.”

Instead, he advocated for what he called “accurate and sophisticated watermark paper ballots”, insisting such a system would restore confidence in American elections.

“At the end of the evening, we will know exactly who won and who lost,” Trump wrote. “This effort will be strongly opposed by Democrats, because they cheat at levels never seen before. But we will sign an executive order to bring honesty to the 2026 midterm elections.”

The former president also argued that states serve merely as “agents” of the federal government in counting and certifying election results, suggesting that under his authority, the federal executive branch could compel states to comply with new election procedures.

That assertion, however, is highly disputed by constitutional scholars and is expected to face immediate legal challenges if Trump attempts to enforce it.

When asked during the briefing how exactly Trump plans to eliminate mail-in voting given the constitutional role of states in conducting elections, Leavitt offered a measured response.

“When Congress comes back to Washington, I’m sure there will be many discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill and also our friends in state legislatures to ensure that we’re protecting the integrity of the vote,” she said.

Leavitt emphasized that Trump’s objective was not to restrict voting but to make it easier for eligible citizens to cast ballots while making it harder for bad actors to cheat.

She pointed to past efforts, particularly in 2024, to tighten election security and underscored that safeguarding “election integrity” remains a top priority for the administration.

“The president wants to make it easier for Americans to vote and harder for people to cheat in our elections,” she continued. “I won’t get ahead of myself for Hatch Act reasons regarding the next election, but I can assure you this is a priority for the president.”

Trump’s stance on mail-in ballots is not new. Since 2020, he has repeatedly claimed that widespread use of vote-by-mail systems enables mass voter fraud, despite the fact that extensive studies and court cases have found virtually no evidence of systemic fraud connected to mail-in ballots in the United States.

Voting rights organizations argue that Trump’s proposed changes are part of a broader Republican strategy to restrict ballot access, especially for communities that rely heavily on mail-in and absentee voting, including military personnel, elderly voters, rural residents, and Americans living overseas.

Marcus W. Robinson, a senior spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), told Newsweek that Trump’s promise is “legally baseless” and warned that it “threatens the voting rights of millions of Americans, including military families and voters abroad.”

Mail-in voting has deep roots in American history. The practice dates back to the Civil War, when states first passed laws to allow Union soldiers stationed far from home to cast absentee ballots from the battlefield.

Over the 20th century, absentee voting expanded to serve voters who were traveling, ill, or otherwise unable to make it to polling places.

In recent decades, several states—including Oregon, Washington, and Colorado—moved to adopt universal mail-in voting systems. In these states, every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail, which can then be returned by post or deposited at secure drop boxes.

These systems are widely regarded as convenient, cost-effective, and secure, though they remain politically polarizing at the national level.

Globally, mail-in voting is neither rare nor controversial. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), more than 60 countries around the world allow some form of postal voting.

• In Germany and Switzerland, mail ballots are broadly available to all voters.

• In France and Japan, absentee voting is more restricted, usually reserved for citizens living abroad or those unable to attend polling stations in person.

• Safeguards differ: many countries require voter ID checks, witness signatures, or other verification measures to secure the process.

Neighboring Canada also provides nationwide mail-in voting through a program administered by Elections Canada. Any registered voter can request a “special ballot,” which can be returned by mail or dropped off in person, even by Canadians living abroad or serving in the armed forces. 

Beyond mail-in ballots, Trump’s plan also targets electronic voting machines, which he has derided as untrustworthy. He claims they are prone to manipulation and unnecessarily costly compared to paper ballots.

Election officials, however, counter that voting machines—particularly those that produce voter-verifiable paper trails—are efficient, accurate, and secure.

They note that paper ballots are not immune to fraud or tampering and that large-scale hand counts are far slower and more resource-intensive than Trump suggests.

Experts also stress that replacing voting machines nationwide would cost billions of dollars, create logistical chaos, and leave states scrambling to adjust their systems in time for 2026.

Trump’s plan faces enormous legal hurdles. Under the U.S. Constitution, states are granted the authority to oversee their own elections, including determining how ballots are cast and counted.

While Congress and the federal government can set certain standards, the federal executive branch does not have unilateral power to dictate election procedures to the states.

Any attempt to enforce such sweeping changes by executive order would almost certainly trigger lawsuits from states and advocacy groups, with challenges likely fast-tracked to the courts.

Legal scholars predict that Trump would have little chance of prevailing, though his efforts could still create uncertainty and confusion around the 2026 elections.

Politically, the move is bound to deepen partisan divisions. Republicans may rally behind the push as part of a broader message on “election integrity,” while Democrats are likely to frame it as an attack on democratic participation and a dangerous expansion of federal authority.

Trump’s announcement also fits into his long-running narrative that Democrats win elections by cheating and that America’s electoral system is rigged.

Despite numerous audits, investigations, and lawsuits—many initiated by Trump’s own allies—no evidence has been found of widespread fraud that could alter national election outcomes.

Still, Trump’s rhetoric resonates with large segments of his base, many of whom remain convinced that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

By pledging to overhaul the mechanics of voting, Trump is not only promising reform but also reinforcing his brand as the figure determined to “save American democracy” from corruption.

As the 2026 midterms draw closer, the debate over how Americans should vote will remain central to national politics. Whether Trump’s executive order ever materializes—or survives the inevitable legal battles—is uncertain.

What is clear is that the fight over mail-in voting, absentee ballots, and voting machines will once again place election integrity at the forefront of the national conversation.

For millions of Americans, from overseas military families to elderly voters who rely on absentee ballots, the stakes are deeply personal. For Trump and his allies, the fight is about restoring what they view as public trust in elections.

For his opponents, it is a thinly veiled effort to make voting harder, especially for groups less likely to vote Republican. In the coming months, lawmakers, state officials, and the courts will all play critical roles in shaping the outcome.

What began as a Truth Social post has already ignited a nationwide debate—and with Trump at the center, the controversy is unlikely to die down anytime soon.