Former President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to influence voting regulations, particularly regarding mail-in ballots, suggest that the issue will remain a contentious focal point in U.S. elections beyond his tenure. Although Trump will not be on the ballot in the 2024 presidential election, legal decisions and regulatory moves tied to his administration’s policies indicate that debates over voter eligibility and mail-in voting restrictions are likely to persist through the 2026 midterms and into the 2028 presidential election.
In September, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulation to take effect that expands the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. This database, traditionally used to verify immigration status for benefit programs, was broadened under Trump’s administration in an effort to identify improperly registered voters, including noncitizens. The expansion incorporated Social Security records—a move unprecedented in election contexts and one criticized for potentially leading to the erroneous disenfranchisement of legitimate voters.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, issued by a 6-3 majority with Democratic-appointed justices dissenting, supported the regulation but imposed a significant restriction. The court’s decision upheld a 90-day “moratorium” before election changes may be implemented, which prohibits large-scale “bulk searches” of voter rolls ahead of the 2026 midterms. Nonetheless, the ruling opens the door for such expansive inquiries in subsequent elections, notably the 2028 cycle, raising concerns among voting rights advocates about future voter purges.
Similarly, the Court recently blocked a Trump-era rule that mandated states to submit lists of individuals who requested mail-in ballots to the U.S. Postal Service, while also setting new standards for the physical characteristics of mail-in ballots. The regulation faced legal challenges from approximately two dozen states, which argued the rule imposed undue burdens and was introduced too close to the upcoming elections.
Though the Court struck down the rule for 2026 in a terse unanimous opinion, it left open the possibility that a revised version could be implemented for the 2028 election. The decision was seen as a 7-2 rejection of the rule, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh voting against it based on timing concerns but expressing some support for its legality. Notably, the majority did not provide extensive reasoning on the merits of the rule itself, suggesting that minor adjustments could allow it to withstand future legal scrutiny.
Trump’s track record indicates a likelihood that he will continue to pursue regulations aimed at curtailing mail-in voting and reshaping voter eligibility rules. This pattern mirrors his approach in other policy areas like tariffs, where he has responded to unfavorable court rulings by issuing new regulations designed to achieve similar outcomes.
Additional legal challenges are ongoing. For example, earlier this year several local jurisdictions sued the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after it withheld counterterrorism funding to pressure changes in election administration procedures. A federal judge ruled against FEMA’s conditions, but that ruling is subject to appeal, potentially prolonging the dispute.
Taken together, these developments highlight a sustained and determined effort—originating under Trump’s administration and likely to persist through legal and political channels—to influence the administration and accessibility of voting in the United States. With upcoming elections on the horizon, courts and election officials will continue to grapple with these contentious issues.