Donald Trump announced on his social media platform, Truth Social, that he plans to move against mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of the midterms in 2026.
Trump expressed plans to issue an executive order that would ban mail-in ballots and the use of certain voting machines. He also said that voting machines are “highly inaccurate” and cost more than watermarked paper ballots.
There is no evidence of this claim.
Most American voters already use paper ballots and counting ballots by hand has been shown to be less accurate and more expensive than using machines.
“We’re going to start with an executive order that’s being written right now by the best lawyers in the country to end mail-in ballots because they’re corrupt,” Trump said later Monday, during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. “And it’s time that the Republicans get tough and stop it because the Democrats want it. It’s the only way they can get elected.”
The declaration is sharp pivot from what the president initially expressed about mail-in voting. Ahead of the 2024 election, Trump urged his supporters to use mail-in voting because Democrats are more likely to vote by mail since the 2020 election cycle. However, many red states have placed restrictions on the practice.
egal experts say President Donald Trump has no constitutional authority to dictate how states conduct their elections, despite his recent suggestions he could move to restrict voting by mail or ban certain voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University, told NPR that the Constitution grants Congress — not the president — the power to regulate federal elections.
“There’s really nothing that the executive branch can do on its own in terms of direct mandates,” Morley said.
Richard Hasen, a UCLA law professor, said any changes would require congressional approval.
“Unless the president has some theory under which he could try to ban certain kinds of voting machines or mail-in ballots by enforcing existing federal law, he would need the cooperation of Congress,” Hasen said. “Which I think he’d be unlikely to get.”
Founders’ Intentions
David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the Founders intentionally kept the president out of election administration.
“Hamilton foresaw, and made clear in Federalist 59, that a democracy must diversify power over elections to protect itself from an overzealous executive,” Becker said. “Therefore, power over elections would reside with the several states.”
Practical Hurdles
Even if Trump issued an executive order, implementation would face lawsuits and logistical hurdles, experts said.
Matt Germer of the right-leaning R Street Institute noted that banning mail-in ballots or specific machines would force states to overhaul systems on short notice.
“It would be a huge undertaking, and I think realistically it’s highly unlikely that he could end voting by mail or restrict particular machines in time for 2026,” Germer said.
Barbara Smith Warner, executive director of the National Vote at Home Institute, agreed, saying eliminating mail-in voting so close to an election would be nearly impossible.
“Efforts to eliminate this are ignoring the facts and are really just trying to undermine confidence in our elections overall,” she said.
Echoes of 2020
Hasen added that Trump has already attempted to interfere in elections by seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 race, so it “would not be surprising” if he tried again.
“Now is the time for states, courts, and others to prepare to ensure the 2026 elections are conducted with fairness and integrity,” Hasen said.
