Trump’s Pledge to Ban Mail-In Ballots: A Push for Election Integrity or a Barrier to Voting Access?
On August 18, 2025, President Donald Trump announced his intention to sign an executive order to eliminate mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, a move he claims will restore "honesty and integrity" to American elections. Citing concerns about voter fraud and election security, Trump has long argued that mail-in voting, particularly its widespread use during the 2020 election, enabled systemic abuse that undermined electoral outcomes.
This proposed ban, if implemented, could fundamentally reshape how Americans vote, with significant implications for voter access, election integrity, and the political landscape. While the move has sparked fierce debate, this article explores the rationale behind the ban, its potential benefits, drawbacks, possible exceptions, and the claims of abuse tied to the 2020 election, leaning toward the argument that eliminating mail-in ballots could safeguard elections.
The Case for Banning Mail-In Ballots
Trump’s push to eliminate mail-in ballots stems from his belief that they are inherently vulnerable to fraud and manipulation. He has repeatedly claimed that mail-in voting was responsible for his 2020 election loss, asserting that it allowed for widespread irregularities. Supporters of the ban argue that mail-in ballots create opportunities for errors, delays, and intentional tampering due to the decentralized nature of their collection and processing.
For example, ballots sent through the mail can be lost, delayed, or mishandled, potentially leading to uncounted votes or disputes over postmarks and receipt deadlines. Additionally, the verification process for mail-in ballots, which often relies on signature matching or barcodes, can be inconsistent across states, raising concerns about chain-of-custody issues.
Proponents of the ban also point to the potential for ballots to be sent to outdated addresses or intercepted, creating risks of unauthorized voting. Trump has claimed that in states like California, “some people get five, six, seven ballots delivered to them,” a statement that, while exaggerated, highlights concerns about voter roll inaccuracies.
The 2020 election, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, saw a dramatic spike in mail-in voting, with about 43% of voters casting ballots by mail, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. This unprecedented volume strained election systems, leading to reports of delays and errors in some jurisdictions, which fueled skepticism about the process’s reliability.
By eliminating mail-in ballots, Trump and his supporters argue that elections would rely solely on in-person voting, which they view as more secure due to direct oversight at polling stations and the use of voter ID requirements. In-person voting, they claim, minimizes the risk of ballots being manipulated outside controlled environments and ensures that only eligible voters cast ballots.
Trump has also advocated for replacing electronic voting machines with watermarked paper ballots, arguing that this would further enhance transparency and reduce disputes over election results. The push for a ban aligns with broader efforts to tighten election security, including requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, as outlined in a March 2025 executive order.
The 2020 Election and Claims of Abuse
Trump’s focus on mail-in ballots is rooted in his persistent claims that they enabled widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election. He has argued that the expansion of mail-in voting, prompted by pandemic-related restrictions, created a “rigged” system that allowed Democrats to manipulate results. While courts, independent analysts, and state officials found no evidence of fraud significant enough to alter the 2020 election outcome, isolated incidents of errors or irregularities—such as late-arriving ballots or signature verification issues—were reported in some states. These incidents, though rare, have been amplified by Trump and his allies as evidence of systemic flaws.
For example, in Pennsylvania, disputes over ballots received after Election Day but postmarked earlier sparked legal battles, with critics arguing that lax deadlines undermined voter confidence. Similarly, in Georgia, concerns about chain-of-custody documentation for mail-in ballots raised questions about oversight.
Trump’s narrative has been bolstered by anecdotal reports and his recent claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin told him mail-in voting led to a “rigged” 2020 election, though such statements lack corroboration. While studies, such as those by the Brennan Center for Justice, found only negligible instances of fraud (e.g., 0.0001% of votes in a 2016 analysis), the perception of vulnerability persists among skeptics, driving calls for reform. A ban on mail-in ballots, supporters argue, would eliminate these risks and restore public trust in elections by ensuring a more controlled, transparent process.
Potential Exceptions to the Ban
While Trump’s rhetoric suggests a blanket ban on mail-in ballots, practical considerations may necessitate exceptions. Military members and their families stationed overseas, as well as U.S. citizens living abroad, rely heavily on absentee voting to participate in elections. In 2024, millions of such voters used mail-in ballots, and excluding them could disenfranchise a significant and politically active group, including many Republican-leaning military voters. Similarly, voters with disabilities, the elderly, or those in remote areas may face barriers to in-person voting, making some form of absentee voting necessary to ensure access.
Any executive order would likely need to carve out exceptions for these groups to avoid legal and political backlash. For instance, states like Michigan have constitutional provisions allowing military voters extra time to submit ballots, which could conflict with a federal ban. Trump’s March 2025 executive order, which attempted to restrict late-arriving ballots, faced legal challenges and was partially blocked, suggesting that exceptions for specific groups may be required to withstand court scrutiny. However, Trump has not clarified whether his proposed order would include such provisions, leaving uncertainty about how these voters would be accommodated.
Drawbacks and Opposition
Critics of the ban argue that it would severely restrict voter access, disproportionately affecting groups like the elderly, disabled, and those with limited mobility or transportation. Mail-in voting has been praised for expanding participation, particularly during the 2020 pandemic, when it enabled nearly half of voters to cast ballots safely. In 2024, about 30% of ballots were cast by mail, indicating its continued popularity.
Opponents, including the ACLU and Democracy Docket’s Marc Elias, contend that banning mail-in ballots would violate constitutional protections by impeding the right to vote. They argue that states, not the president, have the authority to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, rendering any executive order legally dubious and likely to face immediate court challenges.
Moreover, critics note that mail-in voting has robust safeguards, such as signature verification and barcode tracking, which make fraud exceedingly rare. Studies from the Brennan Center and others have consistently debunked claims of widespread abuse, and even Trump’s own campaign encouraged mail-in voting in 2024 to boost turnout. A ban could also strain election infrastructure, as polling stations may struggle to accommodate a surge in in-person voters, leading to long lines and potential disenfranchisement. Democrats, in particular, have relied on mail-in voting, with higher usage rates than Republicans, raising concerns that the ban could tilt electoral outcomes in favor of the GOP.
Legal and Practical Hurdles
The most significant obstacle to Trump’s proposed ban is its questionable legality. The Constitution explicitly grants states the authority to set the “times, places, and manner” of elections, with Congress, not the president, holding the power to override state laws. Legal experts, including Northeastern University’s Jeremy Paul and UCLA’s Richard Hasen, argue that Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally ban mail-in ballots, and any attempt to do so would likely be struck down in court. A federal judge already blocked parts of Trump’s March 2025 executive order on similar grounds, citing overreach. Additionally, implementing a ban before the 2026 midterms would require significant changes to state election systems, which could create logistical chaos and voter confusion.