Trump pushes to end mail-in ballots and voting machines, signals executive action ahead of 2026 midterms
President Donald Trump, traveling aboard Air Force One to Anchorage on August 15, 2025, announced on his social media platform that he intends to lead a movement to eliminate mail-in ballots and to curb the use of what he described as “Highly Inaccurate, Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial” voting machines. He argued that replacing them with a system featuring watermarked paper would be faster and more definitive in determining election winners. Trump said he would begin by signing an executive order before the 2026 midterm elections, though such an order would almost certainly face legal challenges.
In his post, Trump asserted that the Constitution gives states the power to determine the “times, places and manner” of holding elections, subject to federal acts that regulate the process. He also suggested that states are effectively agents of the federal government in vote counting and that they should follow the federal government’s guidance “for the good of our country.” The Constitution, however, leaves room for state legislatures to decide election procedures, with federal laws and judicial rulings shaping how those powers are exercised.
Trump has long questioned mail-in voting, arguing that it contributed to his 2020 election loss. He has repeatedly raised concerns about fraud, though extensive reviews and studies have found no evidence of widespread irregularities. Officers and experts note that mail-in voting is now widespread and that fraud in mail-ballot voting is rare. Safeguards such as signature verification and barcode tracking are standard features in many jurisdictions.
The president’s latest post follows a separate interview with Fox News in which he said he discussed mail-in voting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin during a meeting in Anchorage last week. According to Trump, Putin claimed that an honest election cannot occur with mail-in voting. Trump also cited Putin’s assertion that no country uses mail-in voting, a claim that critics say oversimplifies the issue and overlooks Russia’s own use of mail-in ballots in its elections.
Russian influence concerns have persisted in U.S. politics, with Western governments and observers criticizing Russia’s 2024 presidential election as not free or fair. The U.S. State Department described the environment as one in which independent voices were marginalized or silenced. In response to Trump’s statements, Fiona Hill, a former top adviser to Trump, noted on CBS News’ Face the Nation that Putin often seeks to manipulate U.S. domestic politics and aims to sow chaos in the American electoral system ahead of midterms.
What this means going forward:
– Legal and constitutional questions loom large. Any executive action would likely face court challenges, and state legislatures have longstanding authority over voting procedures.
– Election-security advocates emphasize that mail-in voting remains a well-used and generally secure option when supported by robust safeguards.
– The broader political context includes ongoing debates about election integrity, federal versus state roles, and how best to ensure public confidence in election results.
Summary:
Trump has signaled an aggressive push to end mail-in ballots and voting machines, proposing an executive order before the 2026 midterms and citing the need for a faster, more definitive voting system with watermarked paper. The move intersects with constitutional questions, ongoing debates about election integrity, and international commentary on how elections are conducted. While Trump’s stance draws criticism from those who warn against undermining established voting practices, proponents argue for stronger safeguards and modernization of the process.
Additional notes:
– If you’re covering this topic, it may be valuable to include how states are currently handling mail-in voting, what safeguards exist in different jurisdictions, and potential legal pathways or challenges to any proposed executive action.
– A balanced piece could also explore historical contexts of attempts to reform voting technology and how they have fared in courts, as well as public opinion on mail-in voting and election security.
Overall, the article highlights a high-stakes policy proposal amid a charged political environment, with potential legal and practical hurdles ahead and a wider discussion about how best to preserve trust in the electoral process.