President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday purporting to place new federal controls on voting by mail in states such as California, repeating his long-held but unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots are a source of widespread fraud in U.S. Elections.
The move, announced on March 31, 2026, sets the stage for an immediate legal battle over who holds the authority to administer federal elections. California leaders vowed to fight the order in court, describing it as an infringement on the state’s constitutional right to manage its own voting processes and an “illegal power grab” ahead of midterm elections where Republicans are poised to suffer substantial losses.
At the heart of the dispute is a directive that fundamentally alters how mail ballots are processed through the federal mail system. The order requires the United States Postal Service to take control of mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes. These identifiers are intended to allow the federal government to ensure that ballots go out only to eligible voters and that only eligible voters return them.
Under the new rules, states must submit to the USPS process if they plan to use the federal mail system for sending or receiving ballots. They are also required to submit lists of eligible voters to the USPS in advance of such ballots passing through the mail system. The order mandates that the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Social Security Administration compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State.
Trump framed the order as a solution to “massive cheating” in U.S. Elections, though he did not back up the claim with evidence. “The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what’s going on,” Trump said. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whose agency is required to be involved in coordinating the new measures, stood alongside the President and said, “He’s going to make sure that mail-in ballots are safe, secure and accurate.”
California officials blasted the President for attacking and undermining election integrity rather than shoring it up. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called the order a “dangerous and unprecedented escalation” in ongoing attacks on elections. “The power to regulate elections belongs to the States and to Congress — he has no role to play,” Bonta said. “We blocked his previous Executive Order on elections in court, and we are prepared to stop him again.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom posted a video of Trump announcing the order to X with a brief caption: “We’re challenging it. See you in court.” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) echoed the sentiment, calling the actions a “clear and present threat to our democracy.” Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, stated, “Instead of focusing on lowering the cost of energy, groceries, and health care, Donald Trump is desperately attempting to take over and rig our elections and avoid accountability in November.”
The stakes are particularly high in California, where a vast majority of voters rely on mail ballots. In the state’s 2025 special election on Proposition 50, nearly 89% of votes were cast by mail, according to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office. That amounted to nearly 10.3 million out of about 11.6 million votes cast. Weber has warned that attacks on mail-in voting risk undermining a system the state has spent years building around universal mail voting.
Legal experts suggest the order may face significant hurdles in court. Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, noted that an earlier executive order purporting to place new federal controls on elections was blocked in court, and “this one is likely to fare no better.”
“To put this in plain terms: the order would use the USPS, which is not under the direct control of the President, to interfere with a state’s lawful transmission of ballots,” Hasen wrote. “If the state does not comply with these rules, federal law would purport to interfere with a state’s conduct of its own elections. The President does not have the authority to do this.”
The executive order arrives amidst broader judicial scrutiny of mail voting deadlines. Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case in which the Republican Party challenged a Mississippi law that allows ballots to be accepted and counted if they arrive up to five days after election day. During those arguments, the court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires ballots to be received by election day in order to be counted as legal.
Questions About the Executive Order
What specific federal agencies are involved in enforcing the new voter lists?
The order requires the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Social Security Administration to compile and transmit lists of confirmed citizens to state election officials. These lists are drawn from federal citizenship, naturalization, and Social Security records.
How might this affect California’s upcoming midterm elections?
California leaders argue the order amounts to an “illegal power grab” ahead of midterm elections where Trump’s party is poised to suffer substantial losses. With nearly 89% of votes cast by mail in the 2025 special election, any disruption to the mail ballot system could significantly impact voter participation and ballot counting processes in the state.
What is the legal basis for challenging the order?
California officials contend the order infringes on the state’s constitutional right to administer elections as it sees fit. Legal experts like Rick Hasen argue the President lacks the authority to use the USPS to interfere with a state’s lawful transmission of ballots, noting that previous similar orders were blocked in court.
As voter trust in U.S. Elections continues to face pressure from years of contested integrity claims, the outcome of this legal confrontation could define the administrative landscape for federal elections for years to come.
