{"id":236,"date":"2026-06-29T15:10:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T15:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236"},"modified":"2026-06-29T15:10:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T15:10:00","slug":"whats-up-with-trumps-mail-in-voting-executive-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, refusing to grant a preliminary injunction to halt President Trump\u2019s executive order targeting mail-in voting, didn\u2019t rule that the directive was likely lawful. Instead, he ruled that it was too early to tell\u2014because the administration simply hadn\u2019t done anything yet.<\/p>\n

Read more Lawfare Daily: The Trials of the Trump Administration, June 26<\/a><\/p>\n

Within days, almost as if the ruling had served as a convenient reminder, it did.<\/p>\n

Originally, experts interpreted the March 2026 executive order on mail-in voting (not to be confused with the March 2025 executive order on voting) as an effort to create federal lists of eligible voters that would dictate who received a ballot in future elections. But the text of the order didn\u2019t exactly resemble this master plan so much as it did, to borrow the chief executive\u2019s own phrasing in an entirely unrelated matter, \u201cconcepts of a plan.\u201d<\/p>\n

The order consisted chiefly of two directives: one to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct \u201cState Citizenship Lists\u201d derived from federal databases, and the other to the United States Postal Service (USPS) to initiate a rulemaking to create \u201cState Absentee and Mail-in Participation Lists\u201d indicating whose mail-in and absentee ballots USPS would carry. That rulemaking was also supposed to include a provision specifying that states should submit to the USPS their own lists of voters to whom they intended to provide mail-in or absentee ballots.<\/p>\n

The logical assumption was that these three separate lists would effectively merge into one. The USPS, if it complied with the order, would cross-reference the state lists with the DHS list in order to produce the crucial list in this conversation; that is, the one that would determine whose ballots were eligible for transmission by mail and whose were not. Yet this remained only an assumption. The order itself mentioned only three separate lists with no requirement for how they would interact\u2014or even that they would interact at all. The proof of the pudding was always going to be in the rulemaking.<\/p>\n

Now, not only has the USPS published its proposed rule, but the DHS has also disclosed multiple memos detailing implementation thus far. Finally, on Thursday, June 25, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that many of its central provisions were unconstitutional. Taken together, these developments make it easier to assess how insidious and illegal the executive order will prove to be. They also offer insight into what exactly the administration is trying to accomplish\u2014both less and more, it turns out, than what the order technically demands.<\/p>\n

Mailing Lists<\/strong><\/p>\n

The USPS issued its proposed rule on \u201cBallot Mail for Federal Elections\u201d on June 2, characterizing the initiative as \u201cregarding the preparation of ballot mail for federal elections to facilitate the enforcement of federal law.\u201d The notice opened a 30-day public comment period, to conclude on July 2, after which the USPS may, or may not, revise its rule at any point prior to publication.<\/p>\n

The rule actually stops short of many opponents\u2019 worst fears: While it would require states to submit to the USPS lists of individuals to whom they\u2019re mailing ballots, and while it would also require the USPS to return final lists of enrolled individuals to the states, the proposal is very clear that \u201cthe Postal Service would not change the information provided by [states] when compiling the lists.\u201d The rule also asks for initial lists from states 30 days ahead of an election rather than the 60 days mentioned in Trump\u2019s original order, and it would allow states to modify the enrollees list \u201cuntil the last day that ballots may be mailed out to individuals under state law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the rule, the USPS would also \u201cidentify new standards\u201d for the design of \u201coutbound and return ballot envelopes,\u201d to ensure that each sports an official \u201cElection Mail\u201d logo as well as a \u201cuniquely serialized Intelligent Mail barcode\u201d to facilitate tracking. Many jurisdictions have already instituted these or similar standards, which are regarded as modern-day best practices.<\/p>\n

All of this may assuage some concerns about the degree to which the federal government is intent on meddling with state elections. But it doesn\u2019t\u2014or shouldn\u2019t\u2014resolve every one.<\/p>\n

The USPS purports to find authority for the rule in 39 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 401 and 404, which authorize the agency to adopt regulations \u201cas may be necessary in its execution\u201d of its assigned functions and grant it general and specific powers to further those functions. The proposal pairs federal statutes regarding false information in voting registration or voting with a statute authorizing the USPS to investigate crimes involving \u201cthe use of the mails\u201d to assert that the new rules fit the regime \u00a7\u00a7 401 and 404 sketch out. Of course, whether providing voting lists, forcing states to submit lists of their own in a specified format, and mandating changes to voting mail design all really qualify as postal functions is a matter of debate. The order\u2019s opponents say the statutes the USPS cites have nothing to do with elections; its supporters counter that voting by mail has more than enough to do with the mail\u2014and illegal voting by mail has to do with investigating mail crimes.<\/p>\n

Other fundamental issues remain: While states would ostensibly have autonomy over who appears on ballot transmission lists, under the rule, the USPS would still refuse to transmit ballots to anyone not on those lists, contrary to its statutory universal service obligation. What\u2019s more, by forcing states to conform to a stringent set of technical specifications handed down by the executive to have mail-in and absentee ballots transmitted to anyone at all, the USPS would encroach on the authority to control elections that the Constitution assigns to the states and Congress\u2014in what opponents of the order say is not only a violation of the separation of powers but also a of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.<\/p>\n

The USPS\u2019s insistence that states will retain control over who appears on the list of voters to whom it will transmit ballots seems calculated to head off this argument; there\u2019s also the fact that the USPS isn\u2019t purporting to require the states to do anything. Still, Postmaster General David Steiner left no room for confusion in his testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on June 23: The USPS won\u2019t transmit mail-in ballots for a state if the state doesn\u2019t give the federal government its voter list. \u201cWe would tell the state that we need the manifest,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

There are logistical problems, too. Those technical specifications may be best practices and may already have been implemented by many jurisdictions. But they haven\u2019t been put into place by all jurisdictions, because for many smaller\u2014typically more rural\u2014localities, the lift is preclusively high. The executive order doesn\u2019t indicate any source of funding to assist them. To the extent that states do comply, the USPS will have in hand a trove of information about not only who is eligible to vote but also who voted, barcode by barcode. On June 18, the government filed a notice in court disclosing the records system it intends to build to support its proposed rule.<\/p>\n

What will the USPS do with this system? The rule offers a hint: The mail-in and absentee participation lists generated by the USPS based on states\u2019 submissions \u201cwill help determine adherence to federal law and facilitate law enforcement efforts. For example, the provided lists will evidence how many ballots have been mailed, and allow law enforcement officials to compare the total number of mailed ballots to the total number of received ballots to detect potential issues meriting further investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anyone familiar with the original executive order likely won\u2019t find this surprising. Not only did it threaten to withhold federal funding from states \u201cnoncompliant\u201d with a host of statutes related or tangentially related to illegal voting, but it also directed the attorney general to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of \u201cindividuals and public or private entities engaged in, or aiding and abetting, the printing, production, shipment, or distribution of ballots\u201d to ineligible recipients. An election records retention requirement in the order would surely help along those investigations, too.<\/p>\n

Apparently, the administration believes the USPS lists will prove instrumental in sussing out irregularities. But the Postal Service won\u2019t be able to do that alone.<\/p>\n

A Listless Department of Homeland Security<\/strong><\/p>\n

The USPS rule focuses almost entirely on the USPS, but it\u2019s impossible to comprehend its effects without also considering the second entity at the center of the March 2026 executive order: the Department of Homeland Security.<\/p>\n

In recent weeks, the DHS has taken significant steps toward implementation\u2014and backsteps, too. Initially, in a June 5 filing, the DHS said it had approved a recommendation from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to create the State Citizenship Lists that the order describes. This recommendation came in two parts. First, the USCIS would allow states to submit their entire voter rolls to its SAVE system\u2014originally designed to help states ascertain the immigration status of people applying for benefits\u2014to verify the citizenship of those on the rolls. Second, the USCIS would create a registry of citizenship-related data incorporating its own records with information from the Social Security Administration and the Department of State that states could access.<\/p>\n

The proposal, much like the USPS\u2019s, didn\u2019t claim to tell states they had to submit their voter rolls to SAVE or had to consult the new database and update their registration lists accordingly, perhaps because such a mandate would be too obviously unconstitutional. Somewhat perplexingly considering the executive order involved not one, not two, but three lists, the memo didn\u2019t explain how the DHS would create a list at all. It did, however, articulate a connection that the USPS\u2019s own pending rule left unspoken\u2014stating that the DHS was considering working with the USPS \u201cto integrate USPS datasets from Mail-In and Absentee Ballot Participation Lists\u201d to \u201cidentify anomalies that may suggest voter fraud or misuse.\u201d<\/p>\n

Throwing an already complicated matter into further confusion, the DHS retracted portions of this update within days. The government indicated in a June 8 filing that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin had signed a superseding memo saying never mind about the SAVE database, or, more exactly, \u201cExecutive Order 14,399 does not direct that approach, and the new memorandum no longer includes that discussion.\u201d This may have been calculated to forestall the inevitable complaint that the Trump administration\u2019s overhaul of SAVE for the revised purpose of verifying citizenship is illegal on multiple fronts\u2014which is exactly what a federal judge in D.C. ruled on June 22 in a case unrelated to the executive order.<\/p>\n

Read more \u2018Nihilistic Violent Extremism\u2019 Isn\u2019t a Thing, and I\u2019m Tired of Pretending It Is<\/a><\/p>\n

The new filing focused instead on what the Department of Justice called a \u201ctechnological method\u201d of establishing a \u201cmechanism\u201d by June 30 \u201cfor States to receive secure, state-focused citizenship-related information from\u201d USCIS, the Social Security Administration, and the Department of State. The filing also mentioned building a public-facing portal for citizens to access further down the line. And that USPS coordination? Those talks, the filing emphasized in a presumable attempt to play to judicial skepticism about ripeness, are merely \u201cpreliminary conversations\u201d about data-sharing arrangements that \u201care not directed by\u201d the executive order and \u201cwould be contingent upon whether USPS issues a final rule.\u201d<\/p>\n

This filing somehow managed to provide less rather than more information than the previous iteration about what precisely the DHS was planning. Later that week, however, the described memo itself appeared on the docket\u2014too late, inconveniently, for the plaintiffs in the case to incorporate it into their opening brief in their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The memo tells a fuller story.<\/p>\n

The executive order requires the DHS to build its \u201cState Citizenship List\u201d capability by June 30, but doing so completely by the deadline without running afoul of privacy and other laws isn\u2019t feasible. (It\u2019s worth asking whether it would ever be feasible, on any time frame.) The memo reveals this has led to an interim measure: the aforementioned portal for states to access and download \u201ccitizenship related data elements, such as name, date of birth, and relevant agency identifiers.\u201d Looking forward, the DHS \u201cwill continue to work to generate from the information contained in this portal a consolidated list \u2026 to provide to state election officials no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled election.\u201d<\/p>\n

The DHS locates authority for its project in 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1373, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. These laws involve (among other things) sending and receiving immigration status to and from states, though largely for federal benefits purposes; the last of them requires the DHS to respond to federal, state, and local inquiries to verify citizenship status \u201cfor any purpose authorized by law.\u201d Whether any of these statutes is sufficiently related to voting or voter registration to overcome the Privacy Act\u2019s prohibition on disclosures that aren\u2019t authorized by federal law is dubious\u2014and made more so by the reality that the lists, as even the government concedes, are sure to be inaccurate.<\/p>\n

But practically, the memo makes it clear: The lists are coming; they\u2019re just not here yet.<\/p>\n

When (or Where) Will the Courts Come In?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The lists, of course, are coming only if the government gets its way in court. The odds are, or ought to be, long. Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution, after all, reserves regulation of the time, place, and manner of elections for the states, with a secondary role for Congress\u2014which hasn\u2019t authorized anything similar to what the government is aiming to accomplish. These and other barriers to the order\u2019s survival are described in a previous Lawfare<\/em> piece on the executive order published soon after its signing.<\/p>\n

Judge Nichols declined earlier this month to grant a preliminary injunction against the executive order on the grounds that\u2014when his order was issued\u2014the directive hadn\u2019t yet been carried out, and therefore the plaintiffs hadn\u2019t yet been harmed. \u201cThe Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,\u201d he wrote. \u201cPlaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur.\u201d<\/p>\n

The steps both agencies have now taken may move the lawsuit closer to ripeness in his eyes, but it\u2019s unclear they move it close enough. In any event, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the voting rights groups who joined in its lawsuit have filed an appeal with the D.C. Circuit, where briefing is scheduled to be complete by July 6. A date for oral argument has not yet been set, but the case is proceeding on an expedited basis.<\/p>\n

Up the coast, things are different in Massachusetts. Judge Talwani ruled on June 18 that challenges to the executive order from voting rights groups and 23 states and D.C. couldn\u2019t proceed as they related to future elections after this fall, but could proceed as they related to the midterms. She took a different view than Judge Nichols, writing that the organizations and states had shown that preparation for the election is already underway by necessity; they can\u2019t simply wait for implementation without the order having an effect on them in the interim.<\/p>\n

Then, on June 25, she granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the challenge from the states and D.C., finding the executive order\u2019s central provisions ultra vires and unconstitutional\u2014and enjoining the government from giving them effect with respect to the midterms in the suing jurisdictions.<\/p>\n

Judge Talwani said the order\u2019s directive to the USPS \u201cto compile its own Lists of individuals eligible to vote by mail\u201d and prohibit transmission of a ballot completed by anyone not on those lists was an impermissible infringement by the executive branch on the states\u2019 power to determine voter eligibility. She noted that Congress may well have empowered the USPS to adopt rules necessary to execute its functions\u2014but that it hasn\u2019t enacted any laws that delegate \u201cauthority to control mail-in voting to USPS.\u201d And she declared the directive that the USPS mandate all states use a specific mail-in ballot inconsistent with the rulemaking procedure Congress created for the agency, because it would be impossible to follow it properly in time for the election.<\/p>\n

Talwani also wrote that the State Citizenship Lists detailed in the order will \u201cnecessarily be incomplete\u201d due to the legal restrictions of the Privacy Act and the practical limitations of federal records that don\u2019t always track name or residence changes. Crucially, she ruled that the DHS has no statutory or constitutional authority to compile not merely a citizenship database, but tailored lists that include individuals who meet the states\u2019 particular residence requirements for voting eligibility.<\/p>\n

The portion of the order devoted to enforcement, Talwani ruled, similarly exceeded the executive\u2019s authority. While the government argues \u201cno legal significance, criminal or otherwise\u201d attaches to states\u2019 decision of whether to heed any lists transmitted to them, she explained that where \u201cthe President seeks to have the Attorney General and DOJ rely on\u201d the lists \u201cto reduce voter fraud,\u201d the lists function at minimum as \u201ca threatened enforcement mechanism that will chill local election officials from complying with legal obligations to ensure that all eligible citizens might vote.\u201d Effectively, they\u2019re an attempt by the administration to create a new criminal offense. Talwani said the order\u2019s election records retention requirement was \u201cmerely precatory\u201d; it can serve as a suggestion for states, but it can\u2019t bind them.<\/p>\n

What precisely will happen next to the executive order is still a matter of speculation\u2014but what has happened already at least makes it informed <\/em>speculation. The universe of possibilities begins with the administration prevailing in court at least on some provisions of the order. The Justice Department will almost certainly appeal Talwani\u2019s decision (as well as any forthcoming ruling from her in the parallel challenge from voting rights groups, if it goes the same way)\u2014just as voting rights groups are appealing Nichols\u2019s decision in favor of the government. The matter may well end up in the Supreme Court eventually. The Justice Department\u2019s chances could depend in part on whether future judges who hear the case consider the order itself, as Talwani has done, or only its implementation, as Nichols appears to believe is appropriate.<\/p>\n

After all, the implementing agencies didn\u2019t do what everyone expected them to: that is, attempt to force states to rely on the federal government\u2019s citizenship lists in determining who can vote, or reject states\u2019 determinations of whom to send ballots to by refusing to transmit them via the USPS. So far, the DHS hasn\u2019t even created State Citizenship Lists, including information about residence requirements, at all. There\u2019s a chance, slim as it may be, that a court will find the DHS can draw up at least some form of list so long as it does it in compliance with privacy and other laws (a gargantuan caveat), or that the USPS can, too\u2014though for the aforementioned constitutional and statutory reasons, the agency almost certainly or refuse to carry certain pieces of mail to and from people who aren\u2019t on them.<\/p>\n

If all the administration does is create a series of lists, that could still cause harm: by leading election officials to provide information for those indices or even wrongly withhold ballots from eligible voters who aren\u2019t on them because they\u2019re confused or intimidated, or simply because they want to. Twelve red states, for instance, motioned to intervene in the states\u2019 challenge before Judge Talwani, stating \u201ca concrete interest in receiving the resources\u201d the order directed be provided to them. (The potential for the order indirectly to cause disenfranchisement in this fashion could itself be a basis for the courts to strike down the order; Talwani rejected its enforcement provisions on a similar theory.)<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also the other course of action the notices and memos regarding the order clearly contemplate: That, even if the lists don\u2019t end up changing who is or isn\u2019t able to vote, they will serve a purpose after those votes have been shipped off for tabulation\u2014because by cross-referencing who received or sent a mail-in ballot with who the federal government thinks should have received a mail-in ballot, the administration can point to supposed irregularities that would support claims of election fraud.<\/p>\n

The second possibility is that the administration loses eventually, but it doesn\u2019t lose in time for the midterms. The Justice Department could successfully forestall a decision until the plans the USPS and the DHS are currently considering have been fully implemented, or at least long enough for states to have taken significant steps to comply with the tentative regime. That could simply mean providing lists along with substantial voter information to the USPS, or it could mean setting themselves up to send ballots only to those the DHS\u2019s database indicates ought to be eligible. That eventuality could lead to the same alarming outcomes for the midterms as above.<\/p>\n

The third possibility is that the administration loses, and loses fast enough that no information reaches a federal actor who doesn\u2019t have it already, and no state adjusts its administration of the election, from envelope-formatting to voter eligibility, from what it otherwise would have been. Even then, this administration has a tried and true tactic for making the most of failures before the judiciary: If they lose, they can always say they tried to save the election\u2014but those cowardly judges on corrupt courts wouldn\u2019t let him.<\/p>\n

Read more The Week That Was<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Agency actions and court decisions make it easier to understand how insidious, and how illegal, the EO will turn out to be.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":235,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-executive-branch"],"yoast_head":"\nWhat\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order? - National Consumer Reports<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order? - National Consumer Reports\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Agency actions and court decisions make it easier to understand how insidious, and how illegal, the EO will turn out to be.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"National Consumer Reports\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-29T15:10:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0\"},\"headline\":\"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-29T15:10:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236\"},\"wordCount\":3699,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/efd4a17addb0a363da307283b20b056e.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Executive Branch\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236\",\"name\":\"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order? - National Consumer Reports\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/efd4a17addb0a363da307283b20b056e.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-29T15:10:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/efd4a17addb0a363da307283b20b056e.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/efd4a17addb0a363da307283b20b056e.jpg\",\"width\":900,\"height\":600},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=236#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"National Consumer Reports\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order? - National Consumer Reports","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order? - National Consumer Reports","og_description":"Agency actions and court decisions make it easier to understand how insidious, and how illegal, the EO will turn out to be.","og_url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236","og_site_name":"National Consumer Reports","article_published_time":"2026-06-29T15:10:00+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#\/schema\/person\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0"},"headline":"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order?","datePublished":"2026-06-29T15:10:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236"},"wordCount":3699,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/efd4a17addb0a363da307283b20b056e.jpg","articleSection":["Executive Branch"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236","url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236","name":"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order? - National Consumer Reports","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/efd4a17addb0a363da307283b20b056e.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-29T15:10:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#\/schema\/person\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/efd4a17addb0a363da307283b20b056e.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/efd4a17addb0a363da307283b20b056e.jpg","width":900,"height":600},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=236#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"What\u2019s up with Trump\u2019s Mail-In Voting Executive Order?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/","name":"National Consumer Reports","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#\/schema\/person\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com"],"url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=236"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/235"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}