The Ballot Blockade and the Prosecution Threat: Trump’s Two-Pronged War on the American Vote
Under a proposed rule, the U.S. Postal Service would refuse to deliver mail ballots in states that decline to hand over voter data to the federal government. In parallel, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has warned election officials in all fifty states that they could be criminally prosecuted. With 148 days until Election Day, the strategy is unmistakable: not integrity, but intimidation.
The American right to vote is not being taken away all at once. It is being surrounded — one federal agency, one prosecutorial threat, one manufactured deadline at a time. In the past ten days, two developments have made the strategy plain. First, Postmaster General David Steiner confirmed under oath to the Senate Homeland Security Committee that, under a newly proposed rule tied to President Trump’s March executive order, the U.S. Postal Service would withhold mail ballots from states that refuse to hand over lists of absentee voters to the federal government. Second, on July 7, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon — head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — sent letters to election officials in all fifty states warning that they could be criminally prosecuted if noncitizens remain on voter rolls or cast ballots.
Taken separately, either action would be an alarming federal intrusion into a domain the Constitution reserves to the states. Taken together, they form what can only be described as a coordinated pressure campaign: an executive branch that could not obtain state voter data through the courts is now attempting to coerce it through the mail carrier and the prosecutor’s threat.
This is happening while the administration’s underlying claim — that noncitizen voting is a widespread problem that requires emergency federal intervention — has been debunked by every serious study of the question for two decades. The Justice Department has now lost eleven consecutive federal court cases and its first appeal in its effort to force states to turn over unredacted voter files. The evidence for the crisis does not exist. The response to it is being built anyway.
I. The Postal Service as Ballot Gatekeeper
On June 24, 2026, Postmaster General David Steiner sat before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and answered a direct question from Senator Gary Peters of Michigan: if a state refuses to turn over its absentee voter list, will the Postal Service still deliver its ballots? “Under our proposed regulation, no,” Steiner replied.
The rule, published in the Federal Register in June, would require state election officials to send USPS a manifest of every voter requesting a mail-in ballot at least 30 days before ballots are sent under state law. It flows directly from Trump’s March 2026 executive order, which — as The American Prospect documented — instructs USPS to halt election mail unless states first hand over voter lists. About thirty percent of American ballots are now cast by mail. The Postal Service would become a federal choke point.
“The U.S. Postal Service is now part of this bigger story of this president desperate to federalize our elections. He has tried every which way to say that if he and his party don’t win in these November elections, they were rigged.”
— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Senate Homeland Security Committee, June 24, 2026
The proposal has drawn sharp condemnation from the very people who would have to enforce it. Brian Renfroe, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, told CNN that “if a state does not comply with it, if they don’t provide the information or the right format, then the Postal Service is going to simply refuse all of those ballots or whatever election mail it is, and that is very, very concerning.” Anton Hajjar, former Vice Chair of the USPS Board of Governors, put it more plainly: “If proper postage is paid on a mail piece, the USPS should deliver it.”
Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire has demanded Steiner withdraw the rule immediately, calling it “blatantly illegal” and designed to reduce democratic participation. In a striking rebuke, Senator Slotkin told the Postmaster General on the record: “Please push back on being a pawn in this authoritarian playbook. The Postal Service is one of the most important institutions in our country. Don’t taint it with the obsession of this one man.”
II. The Prosecution Letters
Two weeks after Steiner’s testimony, on July 7, the Justice Department escalated further. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon signed and dispatched identically worded letters to the chief election officials in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The letters gave states five days to respond. Their central threat was unmistakable.
“Any election officer, including the chief election officer of the state, who knowingly retains noncitizens on the state’s SVRL or facilitates noncitizens in receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability,” Dhillon wrote. The letters frame ordinary voter list maintenance — a duty every state already performs — as a potential federal crime.
Fifty states, five days, one prosecutor’s warning
Dhillon’s July 7 letter demanded each state explain within five days how it will maintain “clean voter lists.” Officials who “knowingly” retain noncitizens on the rolls “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” illegal voting. Read Votebeat’s reporting →
0 for 11 in federal court
The DOJ has been dismissed in eleven straight district court cases seeking unredacted voter rolls, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed one such loss last month — the first federal appellate ruling on the demands. CBS News →
“Vanishingly rare” — every serious study
The Brennan Center’s twenty-year database of research finds noncitizen voting occurs at rates so small they cannot be meaningfully measured, most alleged cases being administrative errors. Brennan Center →
The pushback was swift, bipartisan, and unusually blunt. Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson — a Republican — called the letters “truly bizarre behavior” from an agency “supposed to be protecting civil rights.” Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said his office would “continue following Arizona law — not directions that come from political rhetoric or intimidation.” A spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson noted, with quiet exasperation, that the DOJ was already fully aware of Michigan’s procedures for verifying voter citizenship — the department was demanding again what it had already been shown.
UCLA election law professor Richard Hasen was direct: “This is in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to push the myth of mass noncitizen voting and to threaten and intimidate state and local election officials.” David Becker of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research went further, telling Michigan Advance what any honest observer already understood: “If you really thought they committed a crime, you wouldn’t be sending them a letter. You’d be bringing criminal indictments.”
III. A Manufactured Crisis
The premise on which this entire architecture rests — that a wave of noncitizen voting is subverting American democracy — is not merely unproven. It has been repeatedly, systematically disproven by the country’s most authoritative election-integrity researchers.
The Brennan Center for Justice, which has tracked voter fraud allegations for two decades, concludes that noncitizen voting is “vanishingly rare”. Rutgers political scientist Lorraine C. Minnite examined a decade of complaints to California and Oregon election officials and found a total of 33 alleged incidents statewide, of which only four resulted in convictions. Even the Heritage Foundation’s own database — cited by the Trump administration itself — contains only 41 cases of noncitizen voting across all fifty states going back to the Truman era, against a backdrop of more than three billion votes cast in federal elections alone.
Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center, testified before Congress that the claim of mass noncitizen voting is “false. A lie. An urban myth.” Noncitizen voting is already a federal crime and a state crime everywhere. Every state already has verification systems in place. The problem the administration claims to be solving is a problem it has not shown to exist.
What has existed, and what is documented on the public record, is the opposite: an unbroken decade of Trump-driven claims of massive election fraud that have collapsed under every investigation. The 2016 “millions of illegal votes.” The 2020 “stolen election.” The current “millions of noncitizens on the rolls.” Each cycle produces new demands, new emergency measures, new letters — and no evidence.
IV. The Chilling Effect on 2026
What the administration cannot achieve in court, it is attempting to achieve through fear. And fear, unlike litigation, does not need to win on the merits. It only needs to work on the calendar.
Trump signs a sweeping executive order directing federal agencies to federalize aspects of election administration the Constitution reserves to states, including instructions to USPS to halt mail ballots unless states hand over voter lists.
Federal courts dismiss the DOJ’s voter-roll suits in eight successive rulings. The Sixth Circuit becomes the first federal appellate court to affirm a dismissal, siding with Michigan.
Postmaster General David Steiner tells the Senate that under the proposed rule, USPS will not deliver mail ballots in states that refuse to submit voter manifests.
A federal court in Massachusetts strikes down key components of Trump’s election executive order, ruling they would harm states’ ability to conduct elections.
Harmeet Dhillon signs and dispatches letters to all 50 states and D.C., warning election officials of criminal prosecution and demanding a five-day response.
Election Day. 148 days from today.
Get Involved Today
Contribute to our mission and turn your concerns into action.
Every hour a state election office spends drafting a response to Dhillon’s five-day ultimatum is an hour not spent preparing for the midterms. Every hour spent litigating the USPS rule is an hour not spent training poll workers, testing equipment, or educating voters. This is what election administrators mean when they describe the strategy as “exhausting.” The exhaustion is the point.
The proposed USPS rule would be, as former USPS official Anton Hajjar warned, an unprecedented federal insertion into ballot delivery — turning mail carriers into ad hoc voter-eligibility screeners. The DOJ letters, meanwhile, take direct aim at the individuals whose signatures certify the vote. A secretary of state who fears indictment is a secretary of state who thinks twice before rejecting a federal data demand of dubious legality. That is the chilling effect the letters are designed to produce.
“It’s not a threat to the public servants who run elections, but it is exhausting. If you really thought they committed a crime, you wouldn’t be sending them a letter. You’d be bringing criminal indictments.”
— David Becker, Center for Election Innovation and Research
Some red states are already cooperating voluntarily. Blue states are being sued. In the middle, election administrators are being told that resistance to a federal demand courts have ruled unlawful could nonetheless land them in criminal jeopardy. This is not the architecture of election integrity. It is the architecture of a two-tiered franchise.
“Unable to Discharge the Powers and Duties of His Office”
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, is the constitutional mechanism for transferring executive power when a president cannot fulfill the office. Section 4 — never invoked in American history — provides that the Vice President, together with a majority of the Cabinet or “such other body as Congress may by law provide,” may declare the President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” The Vice President then becomes Acting President. If the President contests the finding, both chambers of Congress must resolve the question within twenty-one days, with a two-thirds majority in each chamber required to keep the President from resuming his powers.
Here is the fact that the political discourse consistently obscures: the Amendment nowhere defines the words “unable” or “inability.” This omission was not an oversight. It was a deliberate choice by the drafters.
The Framers’ Intent
Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana, the Amendment’s principal Senate sponsor, and John D. Feerick, its principal drafter, worked together to keep the standard intentionally broad. Feerick wrote in a 1995 Wake Forest Law Review article that “no set of definitions could possibly deal with every contingency,” and told Congress during debate that inability “is more than a medical question.” Yale Law School’s Rule of Law Clinic, working with Feerick himself, concluded that the framers “expressly disclaimed any intent to define ‘inability'” and “purposefully set forth a flexible standard intentionally designed to apply to a wide variety of unforeseen emergencies.”
Feerick himself has said Section 4 applies when a president is “unable or unwilling to make any rational decision, including particularly the decision to stand aside.” The formulation Bayh ultimately adopted came from Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: inability encompasses “physical or mental inability to make or communicate his decision regarding his capacity and physical or mental inability to exercise the powers and duties of his office.”
The Calls Already Made
These are not fringe calls. In April 2026, after President Trump threatened to end an “entire civilization” if Iran did not meet his ultimatum, more than seventy lawmakers, according to NBC News, publicly called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ro Khanna, Rep. Melanie Stansbury, Sen. Ed Markey, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland introduced legislation to establish an independent Commission on Presidential Capacity — the “other body” the Amendment itself contemplates — backed by fifty co-sponsors. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker called Trump “a deranged mad man threatening to wipe out an entire country,” saying it was “past time” the Amendment be invoked. Even former Trump allies — including former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, commentators Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, and former Trump White House Counsel Ty Cobb — publicly called for his removal.
The Constitutional Argument as Applied
The narrower questions of ballistic threats and diplomatic outbursts will be adjudicated by history. But the electoral gambit examined in this editorial supplies an argument of its own, and on drier constitutional ground. A president is “unable” to discharge his duties in the Amendment’s sense when he cannot faithfully execute the office he holds. The Take Care Clause of Article II requires the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. When federal courts have ruled eleven consecutive times that a specific federal demand is unlawful, and the President’s Justice Department responds not by revising its position but by threatening prosecutors’ warrants against the state officials who prevailed in court, that is not the faithful execution of law. It is its inversion.
When the same administration deploys the Postal Service — an independent agency with a two-hundred-year-old duty of neutrality — as an enforcement lever to override state election authority the Constitution expressly reserves to the states, the argument that the President is unable to discharge his duty to preserve the constitutional structure is not rhetorical. It is descriptive.
The Practical Barriers, Honestly Named
The practical path is narrow and honesty requires saying so. Section 4 requires Vice President JD Vance and a majority of the fifteen-member Cabinet to jointly declare the President unable — and Vance and this Cabinet will not do so. Even if they did, Trump could reclaim his powers and force a congressional vote requiring two-thirds of both chambers, a threshold impossibility in a Republican-controlled Congress. Raskin’s commission bill has essentially no path through this Congress and would face a presidential veto if it did.
None of that dissolves the constitutional argument — it only names the political blockage. The purpose of Section 4 was never to make removal easy. Its purpose was to guarantee that the machinery existed, so that the country would never again face what it faced with a stroke-stricken Woodrow Wilson or a mortally ill Franklin Roosevelt: an executive branch quietly conducted around a president no longer capable of conducting it. Feerick and Bayh built the flexibility in on purpose. That the current Cabinet lacks the will to use it does not repeal the standard. It merely defers the reckoning to the voters, to the courts, and to the historical record.
V. What This Says About the Presidency
Strip away the noise, the executive orders, the letters, the rules published in the Federal Register, and the essential picture is remarkably simple. An American president has spent the first eighteen months of his second term losing every serious lawsuit he has filed on voter rolls, losing court battles over his mail-ballot order, and losing the argument on the merits of the underlying fraud claim. His response is not to accept those losses. It is to route around them — through a proposed postal rule, through prosecutorial threats to state officials, through pressure on institutions the country has always assumed would remain above the partisan fray.
These are not the priorities of a president focused on the country’s actual problems. They are the priorities of an administration focused on the outcome of a single upcoming election it fears it may lose. The federal deportment budget is finite. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division was created to defend voting rights, not to menace the officials who administer them. The Postal Service was created to deliver the mail, not to inspect the ballots inside it. That both institutions are now being turned against their statutory missions in the service of a partisan objective is a fact of consequence — regardless of what one thinks about mail voting, about voter ID, or about immigration.
The most striking single detail may be the smallest. Dhillon’s letters were sent by email, to generic public inboxes on state-agency websites — the kind of address a member of the public would use to file a complaint. Some states, according to Votebeat’s reporting, did not initially realize they had received a threat of federal prosecution at all. That is not the conduct of a Justice Department building a case. That is the conduct of a Justice Department building a headline.
Editorial Conclusion
A functional democracy does not weaponize its mail carrier against its own voters. A functional presidency does not use its prosecutors to punish the state officials who won in court. A functional Justice Department does not send five-day ultimatums to all fifty states over a phantom crisis the evidence does not support.
The 25th Amendment was written to be flexible because its framers understood that the ways a presidency can fail cannot all be anticipated. What is failing now is not the President’s health. It is the President’s fidelity to the office — and the office was designed with a mechanism, however narrow, for exactly that failure.
The 2026 election must be defended in every state house, every court, every editorial page, every polling place. The rest is a matter for the voters, the Congress that survives them, and the constitutional record they leave behind.
Sources & References
- PBS NewsHour — Under proposed rule, USPS won’t deliver mail ballots to states that don’t provide voter rolls, postmaster general says
- ABC News — Postal Service says it will not deliver ballots if states refuse to turn over voter lists under Trump proposal
- CNN — Postal Service won’t deliver mail ballots for states that don’t hand over voter lists, under plan for Trump directive
- Democracy Docket — Postmaster general says USPS won’t deliver mail ballots if states don’t give Trump admin voter rolls
- CBS News — DOJ threatens criminal action against states that allow noncitizens to vote
- NBC News — DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote
- Votebeat — Trump administration threatens state election officials with criminal charges over noncitizen voters
- Democracy Docket — Trump DOJ threatens election officials with criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting
- Bridge Michigan — DOJ to Jocelyn Benson: Officials could be prosecuted over noncitizen voters
- The American Prospect — Trump Goes Postal: USPS, Mail Ballots, and Voter Rolls
- MS NOW / Maddow Blog — USPS eyes new rule that would block ballots in states that balk at Trump’s demands
- TIME — Postal Service Plans Not to Deliver Mail Ballots to States Unless They Hand Over Voter Data
- Straight Arrow News — DOJ warns election officials of possible criminal charges over voter rolls
- Michigan Advance — DOJ warns election officials they could be criminally charged over noncitizen voters
- Brennan Center for Justice — Noncitizen Voting is Vanishingly Rare
- Brennan Center for Justice — 10 Voter Fraud Lies Debunked
- TIME — What to Know About the 25th Amendment as Lawmakers Call for Trump’s Removal
- The American Prospect — Who Wrote the 25th Amendment?
- Yale Law School — Rule of Law Clinic Releases “Reader’s Guide” for the 25th Amendment
- Deseret News — Democrats want a medical check on Trump’s fitness for office
Related News
