What's the REAL reason Trump is vowing to ban mail-in voting nationwide?

The promised executive order is plainly unconstitutional, unpopular (even in red states), and bad strategy — unless you're teeing up your next election "fraud" claims

Between the federal takeover of DC and Europe’s leaders descending on the White House to discuss a path to peace in Ukraine, the president had time yesterday to make a rather random Truth Social post promising an executive order to “end” mail-in voting and voting machines in time for the 2026 midterms.

This isn’t just a bad idea — it’s unconstitutional and illegal.

States run elections and set most of the rules — per our constitution and well-established court decisions — and Congress also sets some rules that are tied to federal funding. There’s really no place for any president to unilaterally seize this power by executive order.

The federalism brick wall

The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives states the lead on the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to alterations by Congress — not by the executive. For presidential races, Article II says states decide how electors are chosen. Both lines point to the same place: Governors and legislatures, not the Oval Office, control how Americans cast ballots. An executive order trying to erase a state’s mail-ballot rules runs headfirst into that text.

Courts have already said “nope” this year

In April, thanks to our strategic litigation partner Campaign Legal Center, a federal judge blocked key parts of Trump’s earlier elections executive order — specifically the piece that required documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, something managed by the states. The ruling put that mandate on ice while the case proceeds, and it did so because the president can’t short-circuit Congress or the states. Expect the same fate for any mail-ban order.

Let’s not forget about the military

By federal law, every state must provide absentee voting for service members, their families, and citizens abroad in federal elections. Any blanket attack on “mail ballots” instantly hits military and overseas voters, which is both bad policy and fundamentally unfair.

Why this backfires in red states

Such a ban has pretty much zero chance of passing Congress, as it would require 60 votes in the Senate. But the president could apply significant political pressure on red state governors and legislatures to pass state-level bans. But such a move would be like a snake eating its own tail:

• Voting by mail is how many conservatives vote, too. States like Arizona, Utah, and Texas (among many others) have long, successful histories with mail-in voting. Voting by mail is popular.

• Older voters rely on mail more — and lean right. Americans 65+ are the likeliest to vote by mail. And in 2024, older voters formed the core of Trump’s winning coalition, per AP VoteCast and AARP’s post-election analysis. Make it harder for them to use a familiar method, and you’re hurting your own side’s turnout.

What this really is… the faux fraud drumbeat returns

We’ve seen this movie. Sweeping claims of fraud, sweeping gestures about bans, and — when the dust settles — courts, career election officials, and even Trump’s own former cybersecurity team saying there’s no evidence of widespread fraud and that our elections are secure.

Reviving the fraud narrative now helps pre-explain any 2026 losses as “rigged,” not rejected. It’s grievance pre-baked into the storyline, and how the president can explain to himself and his die-hard supporters that their agenda isn’t unpopular (although his tanking poll numbers among the coalition that returned him to the White House would suggest otherwise) — the other side just cheated.

At the end of the day, it just doesn’t make good strategic sense for either party to shrink the electorate to the people who can stand in line for hours on a Tuesday — especially when all signs point to Democrats having far higher enthusiasm for voting in the 2026 mid-terms. That, along with this move just being flat-out unconstitutional, is the biggest clue that this is really about teeing up fresh claims of fraud.

And let’s not forget…

Election security and oversight already exist. States use layers like signature verification, ID or witness rules, and “cure” processes so legitimate voters can fix small mistakes. The Election Assistance Commission literally publishes best-practice manuals for mail-ballot security. The system is not perfect (no human system is), but it’s robust and continuously audited — without torpedoing voters’ access. And we must remember that exhaustive investigations of election fraud claims, by the first Trump Administration, found that our elections were safe a secure. That’s still true — and we’ll do everything we can so that it remains that way.