The U.S. Postal Service has taken a formal step toward putting into practice an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that limits the way ballots can be mailed. On May 29, 2026 the agency published a proposal that would require states to provide lists of voters when they mail absentee ballots, a move that would alter how mailed voting is handled in federal elections.
This development follows the March 31 directive from the White House asking the postmaster general to create a regulation that would restrict states from sending ballots through the mail unless recipients are listed in files supplied to the Postal Service. The proposal keeps some of the order’s goals while adjusting others, prompting both legal challenges and political criticism.
What the proposed rule requires
The Postal Service proposal outlines a new system of uniform standards for the transmission of absentee ballots. Under the plan, states would need to provide the Postal Service with lists of voters who are entitled to receive ballots by mail before ballots are dispatched. The agency says this step will help it “facilitate the faithful execution of federal law.”
The rule would also create new data reporting standards about ballots sent and returned through the mail. Those reporting requirements, the Postal Service notes, could produce information that “would be available for use by law enforcement,” potentially aiding investigations into irregularities.
Notable exemptions and limits
Although the proposal implements the core directive in the executive order, it does not adopt every element verbatim. Notably, the rule excludes certain groups from the new requirement: ballots for overseas and military voters would be exempt. Those voters are already protected by the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which imposes deadlines and procedures for states to follow.
Another significant carve-out concerns primary elections. The Postal Service explains that primaries, which often operate under party-driven nomination procedures, raise different considerations than general federal contests and therefore do not trigger the same list-submission requirement under the proposal.
State control and implementation details
The agency stresses that states retain authority over who is eligible to vote by mail and can update the information they provide. The proposed rule focuses on the mechanics of mailing and tracking ballots rather than altering state determinations about eligibility.
However, by making the reception of mailed ballots contingent on lists supplied to a federal agency, critics argue the rule encroaches on the constitutional role states have in administering elections. Supporters say it closes gaps related to rare instances of ineligible voting.
Politics, litigation and the road ahead
The executive order itself has spawned multiple lawsuits: at least five legal challenges were filed contesting the White House directive. Observers of the Postal Service have cautioned that the administration’s attempt to assert authority over the agency could undermine its long-standing operational independence.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously declined to block the order, citing that the federal government had not yet taken extensive steps to implement it. With the Postal Service’s May 29, 2026 proposal, that calculus is changing. The agency indicated it plans to formally publish the proposed rule on June 2, opening a comment period and beginning the formal rulemaking process.
Upcoming court dates and reactions
Legal battles continue: another federal judge in Massachusetts is scheduled to hold a hearing on June 2 in a separate challenge brought by Democratic state attorneys general. Critics describe the order and ensuing rulemaking as a federal overreach; organizations and state officials warn the policy could sow confusion ahead of upcoming elections.
Advocates of the executive order and the Postal Service proposal highlight concerns about noncitizen voting—an occurrence experts say is exceedingly rare—as justification for new safeguards. President Trump has argued the measure will strengthen election integrity, but opponents maintain that the Constitution assigns states the primary responsibility for the conduct of elections and that unilateral federal action undermines that structure.
What to watch next
Key milestones include the formal publication of the proposed rule on June 2 and the associated public comment period, along with the scheduled court hearings challenging the executive order. Stakeholders from state election offices, civil rights groups, and election law experts will likely file comments or amicus briefs as the controversy unfolds.
The proposed regulation marks a turning point: a presidential directive is moving from proclamation into a practical mechanism administered by a federal agency, and the balance between federal oversight and state election autonomy will be tested in the months ahead.
