On August 18, 2025, President Donald Trump once again thrust the nation’s election systems and federal authority into the spotlight, pledging sweeping changes to how Americans vote and how the nation’s capital is governed. In a series of statements and executive actions, Trump called for the elimination of mail-in ballots and voting machines, the deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., and the installation of loyalists in key federal positions—moves that have sparked intense debate over the scope of presidential power and the future of American democracy.
Trump’s vow to “help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections” by eradicating mail voting and voting machines is the latest escalation in his years-long campaign against the legitimacy of American elections. According to the Associated Press, Trump’s Monday social media post repeated debunked conspiracy theories and claimed, “THE MAIL-IN BALLOT HOAX, USING VOTING MACHINES THAT ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER, MUST END, NOW!!!” He asserted that the U.S. is the only country to use mail voting—a statement easily disproven, as Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom all employ mail ballots.
Mail voting, far from being a fringe practice, is used by about one-third of American voters and remains popular across partisan lines. In fact, as The New York Times reports, Republicans made significant gains in mail voting during the 2024 election, despite Trump’s ongoing attacks on the method. States like Arizona, Florida, and Utah—each with strong Republican leanings—continue to rely heavily on mail ballots. Military personnel stationed overseas also depend on this system to cast their votes, making any effort to eliminate it particularly contentious within Trump’s own party.
Trump’s crusade against voting machines is similarly fraught. He has argued, without evidence, that they are more expensive than “Watermark Paper,” a system favored by some conspiracy theorists. Yet, as the AP notes, most U.S. voters already use paper ballots, which provide an auditable record and are widely regarded as a safeguard for election security. The claim that voting machines are uniquely vulnerable or costly does not hold up to scrutiny, especially given the logistical challenges of hand-counting millions of ballots in a nation with over 10,000 election jurisdictions.
Perhaps most striking is Trump’s assertion that states are “merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” and must follow the president’s directives. Legal experts, including Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA, firmly reject this characterization. “The president has very limited to zero authority over things related to the conduct of elections,” Hasen told the AP. The U.S. Constitution delegates the “time, place and manner” of elections to the states, with Congress holding the sole power to “make” or “alter” federal election rules. The president is not mentioned in this process at all.
Indeed, Trump’s earlier executive order—requiring documented proof-of-citizenship for voter registration and mandating that all ballots be received (not just postmarked) by Election Day—has already faced stiff resistance. Washington and Oregon filed lawsuits challenging the order, seeking judicial affirmation that their postmark deadlines do not conflict with federal law. Courts have moved swiftly to block parts of Trump’s order, affirming that only Congress can set federal election rules.
Despite these legal hurdles, Trump’s rhetoric and actions signal a determined effort to reshape American elections and governance. His Monday statement, according to The New York Times, is part of a broader campaign to pressure Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps and to direct the Justice Department to investigate Democratic fundraising platforms. Critics argue that these moves are designed to “stack the cards” in the GOP’s favor ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Trump’s efforts extend beyond elections. On the same day, the Pentagon announced the early retirement of Gen. David Allvin, the Air Force chief of staff, just two years into a four-year term. Allvin, appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., is the latest in a string of high-ranking officials to retire or be dismissed since Trump’s return to office, including many women and people of color. “The Air Force is fortunate to have leaders like Gen. Dave Allvin,” said Troy Meink, Secretary of the Air Force, in a statement. Allvin himself thanked Trump and his subordinates for their “faith in me to lead our service.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration announced that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey would become a co-deputy director of the FBI, joining Dan Bongino in overseeing daily operations. This dual appointment has raised eyebrows among FBI agents, many of whom are unfamiliar with the concept of co-deputy directors. Bailey, a staunch Trump ally, is expected to leave his current post, with Catherine Hanaway likely to succeed him.
Perhaps most visibly, Trump has orchestrated a show of force in Washington, D.C., requesting and receiving the deployment of National Guard troops from Mississippi, Louisiana, Ohio, West Virginia, and South Carolina. In total, about 1,000 troops from these states are joining 800 already deployed from the D.C. National Guard. “Americans deserve a safe capital city that we can all be proud of,” said Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves, despite crime in Washington having reached a 30-year low, as The New York Times reports. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry echoed this sentiment, stating his support for the mission to “return safety and sanity to Washington.”
The deployment has not been universally welcomed. Many D.C. residents have expressed anger and resignation, questioning the necessity and motives behind the influx of troops. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, bluntly stated, “The facts on the ground don’t support this,” pointing to the disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and the city’s reality. Some residents see the move as an authoritarian display of power, while others blame local leadership for perceived failures in governance.
The use of federal forces has also affected the city’s most vulnerable. Homeless encampments have been cleared, sometimes without warning, leaving hundreds scrambling for shelter or forced to relocate. Advocates, like Amber W. Harding of the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, lament the lack of federal support: “Precisely zero resources—no money, no vacant federal buildings, no housing—have come from the federal government to support moving people inside.”
These moves are part of a broader pattern of executive actions by the Trump administration, including making English the official language for federal housing agency materials, a step that critics say could limit access to essential services for millions of non-English speakers.
Trump’s latest salvo in the battle over American democracy has drawn sharp criticism from election officials, legal scholars, and civil liberties groups. Jena Griswold, Colorado’s secretary of state, called the proposed executive order “part of an all-out power grab” and vowed to fight it in court. “He has no authority,” Griswold declared, underscoring the constitutional limits on presidential power.
As the nation barrels toward the 2026 midterms, the clash between Trump’s ambitions and the constraints of law and tradition has never been more stark. Whether these efforts will reshape the electoral landscape or be stymied by courts and state officials remains to be seen, but the stakes—for American democracy and the balance of power—could hardly be higher.