On Monday, August 18, 2025, President Donald Trump thrust the issue of mail-in voting back into the national spotlight, igniting fierce debate and raising questions about the future of American elections. During a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump did not mince words: he wants to end mail-in voting, a move he claims would keep Democrats out of office. At the same time, he took to Truth Social to announce his intention to “lead a movement” to eliminate both mail-in ballots and certain voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Trump’s remarks were as unequivocal as they were controversial. “We got to stop mail-in voting, and the Republicans have to lead the charge. The Democrats want it because they have horrible policy,” Trump said, according to The New Republic. He continued, “If you [don’t] have mail-in voting, you’re not gonna have many Democrats get elected. That’s bigger than anything having to do with redistricting, believe me.”
His comments, which came during a high-profile appearance with President Zelenskiy, sent shockwaves through political circles and drew immediate attention from both supporters and critics. Trump doubled down on his stance by pledging to sign an executive order ending mail-in voting, a move he justified by claiming—falsely—that the United States is one of the only countries that still allows the practice. In reality, as BBC and other outlets have reported, more than 30 countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and Switzerland, allow mail-in voting.
Trump’s campaign against mail-in voting is not new. He has long alleged, without evidence, that mail-in ballots are rife with fraud. This time, he went further, claiming, “Mail in ballots are corrupt you can never have a real democracy with mail in ballots,” as reported by KLAS News. He also took aim at the machines used to count those ballots, labeling them “highly inaccurate.” According to Trump, the solution lies in paper ballots: “We would get secure elections and much faster results. The machines say we will get the results in two weeks but with paper ballots you have the results that night.”
Yet facts on the ground tell a more nuanced story. In the 2024 primary, 79% of Democrats’ votes were cast by mail, compared to 60% of Republicans, according to KLAS News. In Nevada, a state with a robust mail-in voting system, 45% of votes cast in the 2024 election were mail ballots. Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar explained why mail-in voting is so popular in the Silver State: “Nevadans have accepted and adopted mail in ballots, and the reason is Nevada is a 24/7 economy. We are a working community. We want to have as many people participate in the process as possible.”
Aguilar warned that removing mail-in ballots would harm the state’s future, emphasizing, “Mail ballots are determined in Nevada by the legislature and the governor. Until they decide we’re going to have a different process, we are going to continue with mail ballots.” His comments reflect a broader reality: the rules governing mail-in voting are set at the state level, not by the president. Legal experts have been quick to point out that any executive order Trump might sign would almost certainly face lawsuits, and the president does not have the authority to strip states of their rights to oversee elections.
Despite these legal obstacles, Trump’s rhetoric signals that election rules will remain a contentious topic as the 2026 midterms approach. His pledge to target mail-in ballots and voting machines is seen by many as an attempt to set the stage for challenging election results or discounting mail-in votes if the outcome is unfavorable to Republicans. This strategy echoes his approach before and after the 2020 presidential election, when he repeatedly claimed—again without evidence—that mail-in ballots were a vehicle for widespread voter fraud. Notably, Trump made no such complaints about mail-in ballots when he emerged victorious in 2024.
In addition to mail-in voting, Trump referenced his controversial redistricting effort in Texas, which he hopes will gerrymander the state in favor of Republicans. This remark underscores a broader strategy to reshape electoral rules and districts in ways that could benefit his party, a move that critics argue undermines democratic principles.
For now, the chances of a nationwide ban on mail-in ballots appear slim. As KLAS News reported, legal experts expect any executive order targeting mail-in ballots to face immediate legal challenges, and with primaries already on the horizon, it is unlikely that states could overhaul their election systems in time—even if the courts allowed it. The decentralized nature of U.S. elections, with states retaining primary authority over voting methods, presents a formidable barrier to sweeping federal mandates.
The debate over mail-in voting is not just about logistics or technology; it is deeply entwined with questions of accessibility, participation, and trust in the electoral process. Supporters of mail-in voting argue that it expands access, particularly for working Americans, the elderly, and those with disabilities. Critics, led by Trump and his allies, insist—despite a lack of credible evidence—that the system is vulnerable to fraud and manipulation.
As the 2026 midterm elections draw nearer, the controversy over how Americans vote is poised to intensify. Trump’s comments have ensured that mail-in ballots and voting machines will remain at the forefront of political debate, with both sides gearing up for what promises to be a fierce battle over the rules of democracy itself.
Ultimately, the future of mail-in voting in the United States will likely be determined not by executive orders or presidential proclamations, but by state legislatures, courts, and—perhaps most importantly—the voters themselves. As Secretary Aguilar put it, “Until they decide we’re going to have a different process, we are going to continue with mail ballots.” With so much at stake, Americans across the political spectrum will be watching closely to see how this high-stakes debate unfolds.
