Postmaster General David Steiner confirmed this week that the U.S. Postal Service will no longer deliver mail ballots in states that refuse to provide sensitive voter data to the federal government, sparking backlash from Democrats and voting rights groups ahead of November's general election.
The Trump administration has been pursuing a crackdown on mail-in voting through an executive order issued in March that directed the agency to propose a rule requiring states to provide a list of eligible voters at least 60 days before any federal elections. However, a federal judge blocked the proposal Thursday after nearly two dozen Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit challenging the measure.
What the Left Is Saying
Celina Stewart, chief executive officer of the League of Women Voters, said Steiner's statement creates a credibility issue for the Postal Service and called voting access a fundamental right that should not be treated as suspicious behavior. She argued that the Postal Service exists to serve the public, not to function as a data pipeline for political agendas.
Democratic lawmakers were swift in their condemnation. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said neither Trump nor the postmaster general is allowed to restrict access to the ballot box, including by restricting vote by mail. He emphasized that mail voting is safe, secure, and reliable, calling the decision halting the USPS rule-making a victory while pledging continued vigilance against attempts to take over elections.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) called the proposed rule blatantly illegal and said it could reduce participation in democracy. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon (D) described the proposal as extremely problematic on multiple levels, noting that implementing such changes 132 days from general elections would create significant challenges for election administrators nationwide.
David Becker, founder and executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the proposed system would be impossible to implement by November and appeared almost designed to create chaos. He argued the status quo has worked well for more than 150 years of mail balloting and that neither Steiner nor the Postal Service possesses expertise in assessing voter eligibility.
What the Right Is Saying
Steiner defended the measure at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, saying it was intended to ensure that the right ballots are going to the right people. He argued states would want the information to confirm that ballots they think they're sending out are actually reaching eligible voters.
The White House stood by the legality of the executive order through spokesperson Abigail Jackson, who said President Trump is committed to ensuring Americans have full confidence in election administration, including accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters. She cited the Civil Rights Act, National Voting Rights Act, and Help America Vote Act as giving DOJ authority to ensure states comply with federal election laws mandating accurate state voter rolls.
Trump has been a frequent critic of mail-in voting since his 2016 presidential campaign and has pushed claims of fraud without evidence, becoming more vocal following his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. He has referred to the practice as mail-in cheating despite having voted by mail himself in a Florida special election.
Steiner noted that while states have constitutional authority over elections, he characterized the proposed rule as a procedural precaution rather than an attempt at election administration. The Postal Service board of directors oversees Steiner's position and would be involved in implementing any new regulations.
What the Numbers Show
Eight states plus Washington, D.C., currently allow their entire elections to take place by mail, including California, Washington state, Utah, and Colorado. These jurisdictions could face significant disruption if USPS refuses to deliver ballots over data-sharing disputes.
The Postal Service has reported losses of $1.3 billion in its first quarter of fiscal 2026, raising questions about the agency's capacity to take on new election-related responsibilities amid existing financial strains.
Trump's executive order directs the Postal Service to issue a final rule by the end of July. The proposal underwent a 30-day public comment period that began earlier this month.
A federal judge last month initially cleared the way for part of Trump's order to proceed, but Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by former President Obama, ruled Thursday that provisions in the order unconstitutionally violate separation of powers. She sided with the coalition of almost two dozen states challenging the order seeking to create a federal voter roll and using USPS to determine ballot eligibility.
The Bottom Line
The legal battle over Trump's election executive order is far from resolved. While Judge Talwani's ruling blocked the Postal Service proposal, the administration has shown willingness to pursue multiple avenues in its effort to tighten voting requirements. Courts have delivered mixed rulings on different provisions of the March executive order.
Voting rights advocates warn that even if courts ultimately block the measures, the uncertainty itself creates problems for election administrators preparing for November. With 132 days until the general election, states need clear rules about how mail balloting will function.
What to watch: Whether the administration appeals Judge Talwani's ruling, what happens during the ongoing public comment period on the proposed rule, and whether additional lawsuits emerge as the July deadline for a final Postal Service rule approaches.