In the past year, the Trump Administration has attempted to shape the midterm elections through various initiatives. Many of these efforts have sought to drastically alter the election system to give the Republican Party an advantage. The court systems have a struck down these illegal efforts. Legal challenges against these blatant election law violations, even within the current conservative Supreme Court, have been successful. Yet, ven when courts block these initiatives, the fear and confusion they create persist.
The Trump Administration's Executive Order 14399, issued on March 31, 2026, aimed to change how mail-in voting would be administered. It directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create a list of eligible voters for each state using federal databases. It also directs federal prosecutors within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prioritize cases in which election officials provide ballots to ineligible voters. Additionally, the order requires the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to create a list of mail-in voters and deliver ballots only to those on the approved list.
This Executive Order was unprecedented in many ways. It sought to weaponize the Postal Service and revamp the entire mail-in voting system just months before the midterm elections. On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court placed a preliminary injunction on USPS, preventing it from restricting delivery of mail-in ballots or from requiring states to upload personal information about voters to create the approved lists.
Yet, the Executive Order still fulfilled its intended purpose, despite the injunction. Weaponizing USPS was a blatant violation of election laws, and creating these expansive databases just months before Election Day, requiring coordination across local, state, and federal government, was always unrealistic. However, the order has already confused and disenfranchised mail-in voters, who tend to favor the Democratic Party. It has also cultivated fear, as the potential consequences of voting while the federal government deems you ineligible could outweigh the incentive to vote.
The same holds true for the potential presence of federal agents at polling places. When former White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked in February whether President Trump plans on sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to polling sites, she refused to rule it out. That same week, advisor Steve Bannon suggested that the Administration was planning to do so, stating, “You’re damn right we’re gonna have ICE surround the polls come November, on a podcast.
This past Wednesday, October 28, 2026, the DOJ stated that agents from the FBI or ICE would not serve as election monitors. This does not rule out non-federal poll monitors. Election law explicitly prohibits deploying armed federal agents at polling places, and the Administration officials suggesting federal interference know this. The Administration also lacks the capacity to deploy federal agents at every polling location. Even though any court would likely strike down this flagrant violation of the law, the possibility is enough to instill fear.
The Trump Administration’s aggressive campaign to crack down on illegal voting and limit mail-in voting is enough to intimidate Americans, both with and without legal status. These actions have allowed illegal initiatives to serve their purpose, even after courts struck them down. Protecting voters therefore requires not only successful legal challenges, but also clear, accessible information on election procedures and updates. A firm response to intimidation is necessary to assure eligible voters they can vote safely. The rule of law must protect voters not only on paper, but in practice.
Jaylen Peng is a staff writer for On The Record from Princeton, NJ, and a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences studying government.