Trump’s Executive Order Has Election Officials Terrified

American Thinker ^ | 24 Sep, 2026 | Jack Gleason

[MtnClimber]

If you read media headlines about the Supreme Court’s September 14, 2026, ruling on the Post Office’s handling of mail-in ballots, it’s easy to think the Supreme Court completely stopped Trump’s effort to secure our national elections.

Pundits, activists, and state officials claimed total victory. They pointed to federal district court injunctions issued by Judges Indira Talwani and Carl Nichols, arguing that because the Supreme Court didn’t lift those stays, Executive Order 14399 is permanently dismantled. They want you to believe federal oversight was turned back, leaving local election practices completely untouched for the midterm cycle.

Don’t buy it.

To understand why this mainstream narrative is wrong, let’s look beyond the media hype to legal history and statutory text.

On March 31, 2026, the administration issued EO 14399 to enforce citizenship verification and administrative integrity in federal elections. The U.S. Postal Service finalized regulations requiring uniform envelope designs, standardized Intelligent Mail barcodes, and mandatory state voter-list uploads to a centralized Federal Ballot Mail Portal. The order instructed USPS to hold or return ballot envelopes that lacked proper tracking or failed verification.

Using the Postal Service to stop mailing ballots to dead addresses, vacant lots, and unverified locations was a brilliant idea that eliminates potential fraud before it starts.

A coalition of Democrat attorneys general and election officials sued, arguing that Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states—not federal agencies—authority over election rules.

The timing was strategic. They didn’t act when the EO was signed on March 31 but waited until late summer, when Postal Service rules were finalized, and mail-in ballots were about to be printed. This let plaintiffs invoke the “Purcell principle,” a judicial rule against changing election procedures close to Voting Day.

---

TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: anchorbaby; electionfraud; foreignbornjudges; indiratalwani

[MtnClimber]

There are so many ways the democRATs can cheat.

[RandallFlagg]

There are so many ways the democRATs can WILL cheat.

Fixed.

[hal ogen]

DIMocRATs are the party of sociopaths and psychopaths. Nothing they do should surprise you.

[caddie]

The notion that the States alone can control elections is false.

The federal government controls elections by:

Having females vote.

Having 18-21 year old persons vote.

Having people who can't afford to pay income tax vote.

Having no discrimination based on race.

The Federal government has a right, based on the above, to restrict voting only to citizens. Of course they have the right to verify the identity of persons appearing to vote on election day by having them produce ID.

We have a problem with our compromised and Communist federal judges, up to and including the SCOTUS.

[Merrick]

Yeah - that is *SO* not the point of the article...

Buried beneath headlines about postal stays is the core enforcement framework established in Sections 1 and 3 of the order, which explicitly instructs the Department of Justice to prioritize direct criminal investigations and prosecutions of state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible individuals or violate election laws.

[oldtech]

It’s not hard to understand why we would want only U.S. citizens to vote. That certainly should be federally controlled & not leaving it up to states who decide who they want to vote or not vote....at least in federal elections. With state or local elections, it might be a little different, but it’s going to be hard for a person (or SOME Persons) to understand voting in a local election, but not voting in a federal election.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

I hope the President has GPS tracking and cameras installed in all Federal postal delivery trucks. Cameras in the Post Offices would be a good idea, too. If the goons want to quit, now is the time.

[know.your.why]

Believe it / See it.

[subterfuge]

Investigations and prosecutions after the fact will not remedy the situation. And the democrats don’t mind sacrificing the few who get caught.

[sgt_lau]

A terrified election official is what I voted for.

[Uncle Sham]

If changing the rules too close to an election is the reasoning, isn’t this exactly what the Supreme Court just did with this decision?

[wintertime]

p

[Tell It Right]

Thanks for posting!

[Carl Vehse]

"There are so many ways the democRATs can cheat give aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States."

There. Fixed it.

[goodnesswins]

So...no more hundreds of ballots to an abandoned house in Portland, Oregon? (Yeah, it happened.)