In March 2025, just two months into Donald Trump’s second term, the president signed a radical executive order intended to impose sweeping changes on the United States’ system of elections. The Republican, however, lacked the legal authority for such a power grab, and his policy was rejected throughout the judiciary.
A year later, in March 2026, the president nevertheless did it again, signing another order in which he purportedly gave himself sweeping authority over the country’s elections systems. One part of the radical scheme proved especially important: As part of a plan to address a problem that does not exist, the Republican administration set out to create a database of citizens, which the U.S. Postal Service would then use to limit mail-in voting.
Even for a White House known for audacity, the plan was breathtaking: The USPS was prepared to tell states that if they failed to turn over their voter rolls to the federal government, their mail-in ballots wouldn’t be delivered. Complicating matters further, the Postal Service was prepared to only deliver ballots that met certain criteria, creating an additional and complex administrative burden on state and local election officials.
Democratic-led states and voting rights advocates, not surprisingly, launched a furious legal fight, arguing (accurately) that Trump’s plan was an unconstitutional power-grab that would disenfranchise countless Americans, all while needlessly undermining the democratic process.
Lower courts rejected the scheme, but much of the political world waited with bated breath as an uncomfortable question lingered: Would Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices allow Trump’s plan to be implemented? Late Monday, we received an answer. MS NOW’s Jordan Rubin explained:
The Supreme Court on Monday denied the Trump administration’s bid to halt a Boston judge’s order that blocked the federal government from implementing mail-in ballot restrictions for the midterms.
Over dissent from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the court issued a brief order that said the government “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.”
As Rubin’s report noted, this was not a final ruling on the merits, but it allows lower court ruling to stand as the case continues to be adjudicated. With just seven weeks remaining before Election Day 2026, the practical effect of the high court’s order is simple: Trump’s proposed voting restrictions won’t be implemented, at least not this year.
As the dust settles and democracy advocates exhale, I think there are a few angles to keep in mind.
The first is that the president’s plot failed, and his policy won’t be implemented, but if his goal was to sow confusion and undermine public confidence, he might very well be satisfied with where things stand with 49 days left in the election cycle.
Most Americans struggle to keep up with the day-to-day developments of the political and legal worlds, and after months of “Trump targets mail-in voting with new restrictions” headlines, it’s easy to believe many voters won’t know what to think as they make plans to cast ballots in the coming weeks.
Democratic leaders, state and local officials, and democracy advocates should expect to invest some time and energy into reassuring the public that voting by mail is safe, secure, effective and most importantly, legal.
The second element to keep in mind is that Trump’s setback was important, but it was part of a larger crusade. As The New York Times reported:
Just days before the Supreme Court blocked Mr. Trump’s mail ballot order, the Justice Department sent threatening letters to at least 30 top election officials across the country, escalating a fight to gain access to private voter data and election records.
Federal agents are scouring voter rolls managed by states for noncitizens, despite a lack of evidence of widespread fraud. Mr. Trump’s homeland security secretary recently pushed for an investigation into whether a commonly used voting machine can be trusted, casting doubt on digital voting systems.
The White House lost a major battle, in other words, but the broader offensive against voting and election administration is still ongoing, right now.
And third, while seven justices told Trump and his team what they didn’t want to hear about the 2026 election cycle, the 2028 election cycle will be here before you know it, and there can be no doubt that the president and other GOP officials will target it with all kinds of proposed restrictions. Watch this space.
The post Trump’s radical plans for the midterms aren’t over, despite key Supreme Court setback appeared first on MS NOW.
